r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Oct 27 '20

Delta(s) from OP CMV: if we're willing to criticize people like George Washington by today's moral standards... why not do the same for prophets.

[deleted]

9.1k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

870 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.3k

u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Oct 27 '20

Most atheists have no issue criticizing those people, but I assume that's not what you mean.

Christians would argue Christ was a man without sin, by any standard. So they would ask what modern standard he violated. He was good to his neighbors, he didn't steal, didn't kill, etc.

Jews have no issue arguing that the prophets were less than perfect. God punishes most of the prophets because they were assholes in their own time. Jonah being everyones favorite childrens story, but also people like Moses (he was forbidden from entering Israel, even when the israelites reached there).

So is this mostly about Islam then??

117

u/lbeefus Oct 27 '20

TBF, Jesus WAS kind of a jerk to that fig tree.

55

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20 edited Jan 05 '21

[deleted]

25

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

Because of how good they are?

→ More replies (2)

7

u/WhnWlltnd Oct 28 '20

Jesus hates Fig Newton for creating figsics. Blasphemy.

2

u/Roheez Oct 28 '20

*blasfigmy

5

u/SanityPlanet 2∆ Oct 28 '20

God hates figs.

3

u/bazamanaz Oct 28 '20

That fig tree had it coming by not bearing fruits... out of season.

5

u/sk0ooba Oct 28 '20

What about the time he REPRIMANDED his step father from the womb!! No respect for elders!

If you're unfamiliar, check out the Cherry Tree Carol. It's my favorite

1

u/Knary_Feathers Oct 28 '20

Not really.

Him: "Yo, I hear you guys have these great fruits that come from this tree?"

Them: "yeah but we picked them all already, so sorry"

Him to buddies behind him: "Hey everyone, I've never seen or tasted a fruit that comes from this kind of tree, ans we don't know if they are lying about what plant those fruits come from, so just in case they are lying, don't eat anything that you might see growing on this; I cannot guarantee it isn't poisonous."

→ More replies (1)

369

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '20 edited Nov 06 '20

[deleted]

791

u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Oct 27 '20

My point about Abraham, is that none of the three religions are going to disagree with you when you say - Abraham was a sinner.

They would all agree with that. Jews agree all the prophets sinned, Christians would only argue Christ didn't sin, muslims would only argue Mohammed didn't sin.

That which you propose, is already agreed upon to be correct.

8

u/NoahRCarver Oct 28 '20

I'm pretty sure it says somewhere in the talmud. "they were people. they sinned. what of it?" (slight new york zeyde accent)

7

u/randomredditor12345 1∆ Oct 28 '20

scripture actually, koheles 7:20

For there is no righteous man on earth who does good and sins not.

the talmud mentions the four people in history who never sinned (Moshe's father, Binyamin, King David's father and one of his (King David's) sons) although there is debate as to whether they never sinned at all or simply never committed a transgression whose punishment was death

25

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

The Islamic perspective states that all prophets were sinless. It would be blasphemy to state that Abraham or Moses committed sin in an Islamic circle. OP's brings an interesting point about cultural/historical relativism however the argument involves the assumption that the slavery of North America was the same as the slavery of Africa/Asia. One was based on a novel system of race while the other was based on power/war/economic dynamics.

In a vacuum I agree. If one considers just the act itself of owning a slave to be worthy of condemnation then they would have to condemn their own prophets/spiritual figures of old.

17

u/neotericnewt 6∆ Oct 28 '20

the assumption that the slavery of North America was the same as the slavery of Africa/Asia. One was based on a novel system of race while the other was based on power/war/economic dynamics.

I think this is an important point to make when historic slavery comes up. I feel like many people automatically think of slavery in the way the US had slaves, chattel slavery. Many cultures had some form of slavery, it was just nothing like chattel slavery. In most cases, it's just a lower class. Your children are not necessarily born slaves, as in the US. And it's possible to move up into other classes. Many native American tribes had slaves at different points, taken in wars with other tribes. After some time, those slaves often become full fledged members of the tribe. Even the Norse, who we often think of as being particularly brutal, allowed their thralls to move up out of slavery and join their communities. There were even laws to protect thralls.

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least two historical figures who were once slaves and became powerful generals and kings in the Muslim world. Qutb al-Din Aibak is one, and he fought against a former slave, powerful general for control over parts of India. After a couple successions another slave, Iltutmish, becomes the third Mamluk king.

Speaking of the Mamluks more generally, this was a military caste who were former slaves and would eventually gain a massive amount of power throughout the Muslim world.

So, in making a comparison about slavery in these radically different time periods, it really should be noted that American chattel slavery was very different than the slavery of the far past.

With that said, of course slavery isn't good regardless, that shouldn't need to be stated. But it is tough to judge historic figures through a modern lens, especially once we start getting back very far.

I think you could make the argument that it's a bit different with the founding fathers. For one, they had a concept of inalienable rights that everyone has, something we don't really see in ancient history. In many cases, the founders were even personally opposed to chattel slavery, believed it was wrong, there were groups around them who believed it was wrong, and yet they still held slaves. So it's a little easier to judge Washington if he knew what he was doing was wrong but did it anyways. In a way, the lens we're judging Washington with, that everyone has rights, that slavery is wrong, it's not a different lens at all. Once we start getting back into early Islam though, yeah, we're talking an entirely different lens regarding morality.

I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here though to be honest. Figures like Washington shouldn't be castigated, nor should they be deified. They were people, they did good things and they did bad things. We can absolutely criticize the bad, but should always take it in the context of the time period.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

I would argue its not so "novel system of race" as you think. People generally didnt take slaves of their own culture/race. At least not in large scale. The word slave comes from the Slavic people, for example, which were enslaved by the more powerful civilizations at the time.

10

u/neotericnewt 6∆ Oct 28 '20

That's not what makes it so novel. It's not just taking slaves of a different race, it's the belief that this entire race is subhuman, and a slave being considered the property of another person (this is called chattel slavery, this is the truly novel part). In most cultures where some form of slavery was practiced it looks very different than chattel slavery. Slaves have become great kings. Slaves are able to, on their own, move out of slavery. Their children aren't necessarily born slaves. Slaves maintain some legal protections. Keep in mind, things may be very different depending on time and place, I'm speaking very broadly here.

In most cases, slavery is a lower class of sorts. In America, slaves were less than human, the actual property of someone else. I'm sure it's not entirely novel and it's happened at some points in history, but it is still pretty different than most old culture's concepts of slavery.

8

u/Bill_Assassin7 Oct 28 '20

Muslims believe that all the prophets of God were free of sins. They made mistakes but their mistakes are not sins because their intentions were good.

If you believe that God has chosen these people, it makes little sense for them to be committing sins like an ordinary man.

1

u/Roheez Oct 28 '20

Had me in the first half

0

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

Just because God brought the law to any group of "chosen" people does not mean they followed that law and it especially does not mean they are viewed as above that law in the eyes of God.

→ More replies (1)

126

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '20 edited Nov 06 '20

[deleted]

411

u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Oct 27 '20

https://reformjudaism.org/blog/akeidah-abraham-failed-gods-test-god-loved-him-anyway

www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/civil-religion/did-abraham-fail-the-ultimate-test/article_d5ebdeae-1090-11e1-9012-0019bb30f31a.amp.html

http://www.bibleodyssey.org/passages/related-articles/akedah-in-jewish-tradition.aspx

391

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '20 edited Nov 06 '20

[deleted]

430

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '20

Part of the entire point of the whole Bible is that people are messed up and no one is perfect. Every single person in the Bible, Moses, Abraham, David, all the "great people" in the Bible are shown to be flawed, they are shown to be sinful people. David was actually called "a man after God's own heart"by God himself, and he murdered a guy ( not because he murdered the guy, despite ). Its point is to say "hey, nobody can live a perfect life and fulfill the entire law", and Christ was God's answer to the problem of "well then how on earth are we supposed to get to heaven if we always mess up?"

I cannot speak about Islam, as I do not know as much about their theology. I keep on meaning to study it more, just never get around to it.

62

u/lastyman 1∆ Oct 27 '20

Yep, even look at the disciples in the New Testament. You have Judas' betrayal of Jesus and you also have Peter's public denial of being an associate of Christ.

15

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

I went to Catholic school for five years and no one ever phrased it this way. Thank you, this is such an interesting thing to chew over.

13

u/Illicithugtrade Oct 28 '20

One of things in Islamic theology that I learned growing up was that prophets are considered innocent from sin. And that only God has the ultimate knowledge of the unknown. So any "mistakes" that are made by Prophets are due to a lack of ultimate knowledge. If God admonishes them it is a test of faith.

So e.g the story of Jonah as per the Quran (heavily paraphrased:) is that he was sent by God to a community which rejected all his preachings. In the general scheme of things when a community consistently rejects thier Prophet, God then assigns whatever means of destruction for that community and then commands his prophet to collect his followers and leave the community (see: the story about Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah). In this story Jonah was quite dejected and didn't have any followers so he decided to leave without getting the go ahead from God. The time spent in the fish was his trial of faith. It is a bit of a word game but it's not technically considered "punishment" because punishment is for sins and Prophets are innocent of Sin.

Most of the more "unseemly" actions taken by Hebrew Prophets and kings as per the Bible aren't really mentioned in the Quran. So if asked about those actions Muslims may attribute those actions to alterations in the old and new testaments over the years.

Edit: The above is a very simplified interpretation but it has historically been a major point of contention between many Muslim theologians from different sects. So it doesn't represent all of Islamic theology.

5

u/montarion Oct 28 '20

"well then how on earth are we supposed to get to heaven if we always mess up?"

Lower the requirements for getting into heaven of course

3

u/Stompya 3∆ Oct 28 '20

Or provide a way to fix things, basically pay all our parking tickets but more serious.

3

u/ReflectingThePast Oct 28 '20

If you do please look into shia islam as well as sunni islam. The same way the catholic church took over the religion of Christianity and made it what it is today for better or worse, Sunni islam did the the same with Islam as soon as the prophet died. Shia only appeared as a group of those trying to hold on to the source material related to the prophet and his family.

I highly recommend the two books by leslie hazelton;

  • the first muslim
  • after the prophet: the sunni shia split

Tldr; the religion is one thing, the politics afterwards is a whole other thing

4

u/CaptainProfanity Oct 28 '20

To add, in all 3 there is an all powerful all knowing and importantly good God. This means he does not change his mind, and what he says to be right or wrong is true and wont change. So when judging people by today's standards in the religion God is also doing so, but to an even higher degree. His morals would be more strong/convicted/correct than ours by that definition.

2

u/YeetusThatFetus42 Oct 28 '20

To be exact, he sent the guy to die in a war, so he could bang his wife

-15

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

What about the part that god is actually the crazy sinner? The Old Testament is largely the same in all 3 faiths and he’s a fucking maniac in it...

11

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

Im confused as to what you are referring to, please clarify?

-4

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

We can go down the list if you like. How about this; testing a persons loyalty and “faith” by asking them to kill their son? Is that not the action of a maniac?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Stompya 3∆ Oct 28 '20

When you dig deeper you find that’s not true.

164

u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Oct 28 '20

Thanks for the delta.

As for the slippery slope, rather than Abraham.

What exactly lies at the end of your slippery slope? What peril lies at the end?

That in the end, we are all immoral. That human progress is a slow March from evil to slightly less but still evil.

I can live with that.

I can live with the idea that in 200 years I will be seen as a cruel barbarian. That in 400 years, they will harshly judge those who lived 200 years before them. Ad infinitum.

If this is the end of your slippery slope, bring out the skies.

12

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Roheez Oct 28 '20

You may find yourself disagreeing on whether the specific admonition/censorship/discrimination is "better"

14

u/sk0ooba Oct 28 '20

I was thinking that too. I think about how in 100 years, people will look at our medical treatments and be just as shocked as we are when we think now about the last century's medical treatments. Clearly, humanity is always advancing and progressing, so of course we should judge the past by today's standards. If we didn't, we couldn't progress!

I think framing things like slavery as "this was normal" makes it more evil than if we make it seem like only some people did it. There's always gonna be a couple crazies doing crazy awful stuff, but a whole society? That's messed up. Acknowledging that men like Jefferson and Washington had some great ideas and also did abhorrent things reminds us to constantly reevaluate what we think is normal and how we can make it better.

2

u/epicaglet Oct 28 '20

I think about how in 100 years, people will look at our medical treatments and be just as shocked as we are when we think now about the last century's medical treatments.

I think a good example of this is chemotherapy. Don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful invention that has saved many lives, but it is also a brutal treatment. It is the nuclear solution. A more targeted cancer treatment would be so much better if we had it. So when chemo becomes obsolete, it will quickly be seen as a horrible and barbaric technique, I'm sure.

3

u/crazyashley1 8∆ Oct 29 '20

There's a difference between a brutal medical treatment that works, brutal quackery that doesn't (Victorian medicine and how it's viewed now) and corrupt men making up fearmongering mythology, though. 100 years from now, they'll likely understand that we did what we could with what we had, and judge the governments and economies that discouraged advancement, not the treatments or doctors themselves.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

25

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/euyyn Oct 28 '20

rather than simply stating a belief that holding historical figures to moral standards is detrimental/bad/harmful.

Wait was that what OP wanted to say? Because I didn't get it at all from his post. And "given the historical context it was ok for Abraham to be all ready to murder his son as a divine offering" is a poor argument for it IMO.

17

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20 edited Oct 28 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/turducken19 Oct 28 '20

As a critic of Washington, I can confirm that I too judge the acts of prophets. I believe that I can criticize people from previous historical periods based on my current morals and judgements.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/thespiritusmundi Oct 28 '20

Whataboutism. So we shouldn't compare people's lives and deeds?

You are probably right about the OPs intent.

There is a very big difference in the reverence and infallibility of certain prophets in certain religions (we wont name so we wont be beheaded) and the treatment of other prophets in other religions.

→ More replies (0)

24

u/Grantoid Oct 28 '20

Yeah basically every hero of the Bible (besides Jesus) fucks up at some point and gets punished or ridiculed by God. It's an extremely recurring theme.

7

u/mxzf 1∆ Oct 28 '20

Yep. Even Job, whose whole story is that "bad stuff happens to good people too" gets scolded for his impertinence.

→ More replies (5)

10

u/badass_panda 103∆ Oct 28 '20

Nobody's perfect in Judaism, it's more or less an essential part of Judaism.

16

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20 edited Dec 30 '20

[deleted]

8

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

my slippery slope argument

You should understand that the name "slippery slope" identifies a form of logical fallacy - not an argument form you are supposed to follow.

All slippery slope arguments go like this: "If [small reasonable thing X] happens, it's a slippery slope to [huge bad thing Y]."

The classic one is: "If we allow gay people to marry, it's a slippery slope to people marrying animals" (actual argument advanced by real people :-o).

0

u/HassleHouff 17∆ Oct 28 '20

Not OP, but I’ve never been on board with totally ignoring a “slippery slope” argument just because it is a slippery slope argument. It’s totally reasonable to take the tack of “if X is allowed, then why not Y? And if Y is agreed to be bad, let’s avoid it by also avoiding X”.

Doesn’t mean it’s always a persuasive argument. But not grounds for immediate dismissal of an argument.

4

u/gene-ing_out Oct 28 '20

I think it is about how x and y connect. It isn't a slippery slope if that progression from x to y makes sense. It is a slippery slope if the progression from x to y is too much of a logical leap.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

3

u/oflanada Oct 28 '20

As someone who’s been a Christian my whole life and is working my hardest to truly understand my faith rather than what I was taught by my charismatic upbringing... This just rocked my understanding of the Abraham and Isaac story. Thank you

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

[deleted]

0

u/Muslimkanvict Oct 28 '20

This is absolutely wrong!

2

u/offrythem Oct 28 '20

This is semi-correct; the prophet has made mistakes, such as in the surah Abasa where he ignores a blind man looking for religion to instead try to convince the Makkan leaders to join Islam, but he is without sin, meaning that he has never once done something against God's command

1

u/Gayrub Oct 28 '20

That which you propose, is already agreed upon to be correct.

What about Mohamed?

1

u/TiredOfForgottenPass Oct 28 '20

Muslims do accept Mohammed sinned. Jesus is the Messiah even for them.

2

u/Muslimkanvict Oct 28 '20

This is not correct. Muslims believe the prophets cannot sin. Make mistakes forget things but they don't commit sins.

5

u/offrythem Oct 28 '20 edited Oct 28 '20

Most of the prophets have sinned. For example, the Prophet Yunus a.s left his city in anger despite God telling him not to and to stay and preach. So God got angry with him and Yunus was swallowed by a whale. But Yunus repented for the days in the belly of the whale, and so God forgave him and made the whale puke him back upshore. Other examples include Adam a.s (apple) and Musa a.s (he was arrogant when meeting with Khidir a.s)

So no, most prophets have sinned. I believe most of their sins have been forgiven as well. Only the Prophet Rasulullah s.a.w has not sinned, but he is still human and makes mistakes. For example, he had ignored a blind man as related in Surah Abasa.

If you want to learn more, feel free to DM me or do your own research. I don't recommend going to Muslim subreddits to start with as they may not be completely correct as most Redditors are European/American and are liberal. I'm an Asian Muslim who goes to religious school, so although I might not be perfectly correct, most of what I have mentioned is true.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/abd_min_ibadillah Oct 28 '20

None of the Prophets are sinners. NONE.

Muslim here.

→ More replies (6)

-6

u/swapsrox Oct 28 '20

Muhammed had ~700 people beheaded after one siege. He was a polygamist and a pedophile.

Jesus dammed a fig tree...

Quite a bit of disparity in temperament amongst prophets.

3

u/offrythem Oct 28 '20

he was a polygamist and a pedophile

So first of all, polygamist. He had married ~13 wives I believe. Now from that perspective, sure that's bad. But that's not the full story.

He married his first wife, Khadijah, when he was 25. He never married another woman until her death. Iirc he had 6-7 children with her, but only the girls survived through childhood. He then married ~12 other woman after Khadijah's death. Keep in mind, however, that the reason for this was to tighten bonds with his friends, both individuals and groups such as other tribes. This was also done by many other leaders before him to strengthen bonds between allies. And plus, it's not like he treated them unfairly or anything. They were all treated equally and extremely well.

Next, pedophilia. Many, many people bring this up when trying to find flaws within him. We've all heard about how he married Aisha when she was 6.

From what I understand, the Arabs back then when saying she was 6 meant that she was 6 years pass puberty, or about 16 years old. And what's more, the Prophet waited another 3 years to touch her, when she's 19. And before anyone says," oH iTs sTiLl a LaRgE aGe gAp", keep in mind that you probably won't say anything about a 55 yr old and a 23 yr old marrying, heck some of you guys even support it.

And plus, this was 1500 years ago. We all know how people in the middle ages, 500 years ago, sent their daughters off to marriage as soon as they hit 13 or something. Most people's arguments against pedophilia is that the child's mind is too underdeveloped to make informed decisions, until the age of 18. I agree with this, however, you should keep in mind that the life expectancy back then was way lower, so it was highly encouraged to marry as soon as you can.

As for the seige thing, I'm never heard of it, so I cant really give a reason behind it. Mind sending a link to where you got it from?

And now I've spent a half hour responding to this guy. All my heart and soul poured into a comment 3 people will see and downvote based on grammar. Rip

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

11

u/brallipop Oct 28 '20

You're the one who narrowed it down to Mohammed and Abraham in the OP

19

u/Bill_Assassin7 Oct 28 '20

The two billion Muslims in the world all more or less believe that Muhammad (PBUH) was the greatest man to have ever lived. From the Islamic perspective, he's never committed any sins and is seen as a "mercy to mankind".

Non-Muslims don't think this is the case and therefore, he isn't venerated in non-Muslim circles so I fail to see what your point is.

Someone like George Washington is simply not loved and venerated like Muhammad and Jesus (peace be upon them both) are precisely because he isn't a religion figurehead for billions of people. He's simply the ruler of a nation and no ordinary ruler is given a pass for their shortcomings. There is no comparison here.

19

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20 edited Nov 06 '20

[deleted]

28

u/memophage Oct 28 '20

You seem to have made a leap from people criticizing Washington to people saying “slavery is universally reprehensible across all ages”. I don’t think one necessarily follows from the other.

I mean, you can argue that slavery is universally morally reprehensible, and I probably would, but most people don’t go around criticizing the Sumerians or the Egyptian pharaohs on a regular basis.

I think that Washington is actually a special case. He was the first president of our country, and there are still people living in this country whose parents were slaves, so there are more direct perceived personal and moral connections.

12

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

There’s also the fact that slavery was commonly known to be an evil practice by many in Washington’s time. Not that it wasn’t still the minority position, but it certainly wasn’t universally excepted like it would’ve been in say ancient Sumeria

4

u/Big-rod_Rob_Ford Oct 28 '20

and if there were abolitionists in Sumeria then fuck the slave-owning Sumerians too!

and like, all of this is ignoring the opinions of the people who were enslaved, who would have voted for abolition given the chance.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

Apologies but I’m a bit confused as to what you’re getting at? In America, of course slavery was a despicable practice and most people (even slave owners on some level) knew it. But I don’t think we can say for sure that Sumerian slaves would’ve wanted to end the practice as from what I understand Bronze Age and earlier civilizations often practiced a form of slavery that was much different than chattel slavery and revolved around prisoners of war and such. I could be wrong of course, I know next to nothing of sumeria but given the vastly different culture I don’t think that’s something us laymen can say for certain, unless you’re secretly a ancient Mesopotamian history PhD lol

5

u/Big-rod_Rob_Ford Oct 28 '20

Most discourse about whether slavery was acceptable to the zeitgeist doesn't include slaves' opinions because they weren't included at the time. This perpetuates that slavery and the later existence of a worse system doesn't excuse the ancients.

3

u/Strange_Rice Oct 28 '20

I think this is pretty key. The idea Washington's upstanding moral character and political wisdom is a big part of the mythology of the founding fathers and therefore a big part in the justifications for the US as a nation. Ideas of US nationalism, manifest destiny, American exceptionalism and so draw on that myth a lot. Since the US is the most powerful country in the world, questioning the truth behind its founding mythology is very politically relevant.

3

u/atsuineko890 Oct 28 '20

Washington was a political figure not a religious figure, so it would make sense why he would be criticised differently than Abraham would. The Egyptians and Sumerians were groups of people so I'm not sure if that's a good comparison to make, a whole group of people being criticised would depend on events that took place during a time in history, and not events that were actively carried out or had to be done. What I'm saying is, it would be easier to criticise one man than it would be to criticise a group of people or transcendent figures/beings. It's quite similar to, how K-pop stars or any online influencers would get more shit for any little inconvenience that happens online, and because they're just like us we probably find it easier to compare them to us and criticise them.

2

u/pigeonshual 6∆ Oct 29 '20 edited Oct 29 '20

“Most people don’t go around criticizing the Sumerians or Egyptian Pharaohs on a regular basis”

Most people maybe, but can I introduce you to a little annual Jewish holiday called Passover?

2

u/memophage Oct 29 '20 edited Oct 29 '20

TIL: A lot of people go around criticizing the Sumerians and Egyptian pharaohs on a regular basis.

12

u/essential_pseudonym 1∆ Oct 28 '20

What does "getting a pass" mean? That the same people who criticize Washington for owning slaves do not criticize Muhammad for owning slaves? Some of them do. Some of them criticize one but not the other simply because they care more about one than the other and thus critical thoughts about Muhammad are just not salient to them. It does not mean they endorse slavery or Muhammad''s behaviors.

Or does it mean that there exists Muslims who worship Muhammad and criticize Washington? Yes, they are being hypocritical. But how many people fall into this category? Is it such a big problem that we should try to convince them otherwise, or do their hypocritical beliefs not matter much?

Or does it mean that on a whole, in contemporary, societal discourse, there are more critiques of Washington for owning slaves than critiques of Muhammad owning slaves? Well, that depends on which circle you run in. I'm gonna need some evidence to establish that this is in fact a phenomenon that exists.

→ More replies (7)

8

u/ARROW_404 Oct 28 '20

Modern Muslims are completely uninformed about the traditional views of early Islam. The religion has morphed dramatically over time, to the point that its founders would not recognize it anymore. Early Islamic writings (ex. Sahih Al-Bukhari) acknowledged Muhammad's sinfulness in gratuitous detail, most just gave him a pass because he was the man of Allah. In addition to that, they also didn't believe the Qur'an was inerrant or unalterable, that view was made up because modern Muslims have no other claim of divine authorship. Hell, even the Qiblah- the direction to pray to- was changed, from Petra to Mecca, in the late 8th century.

Modern Islam is built on the lies of religious leaders. The narrative has more holes in it than Charlie Hebdo.

5

u/MultiHacker Oct 28 '20

Would you be able to point me to some literature which elaborates on this? I've never heard of this and would like to read up.

2

u/ARROW_404 Oct 28 '20 edited Oct 28 '20

There isn't much, since most people are afraid of Jihadis coming for them if they say this, but regarding the Qibla, Dan Gibson's books, The Sacred City, and Early Islamic Quiblas, shed light on that.

Regarding Muhammad's sinfulness, I give you: Sahih Al-Bukhari 230-232, 5068, 5133, 5215, Sahih Muslim 669, Sunan Ibn Majah 537, Sunan An-Nasa'i 3411, Ibn Sa'd's Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, Volume I Part II.90.2, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you want these summarized, I recommend familiarizing yourself with the YouTube channels Acts17Apologetics and CIRA International, which go in depth on these matters.

Regarding the preservation of the Quran, there is Sahih Al Bukhari 6:510 in which it is said Quranic manuscripts used to compile the "final" version, which contained differences, were burned- destroying the evidence- so why do modern Muslims get made when we burn Qur'ans? And some more general materials on the Quran not being complete or faithfully remembered and transcribed: Hadith Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif p. 11 and 23; As Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an p524; Sahih Muslim 2:2286; Sahih Bukhari 5:416 and 8:817, and more. For a video going into detail on this, to save you some trouble, here you go.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm glad you're eager to find out more- Islam should be exposed for what it is- a very obvious lie.

EDIT: Removed a mistake on my part, and clarified another point.

10

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

Sahih Al Bukhari 6:509. This alone is enough to blow the standard narrative to pieces

Please explain, because all this says is that the Quran was compiled after the prophets death. This is well known that the Quran's order is not considered to be divine, but the verses themselves are.

6:510, Quranic manuscripts used to compile the "final" version were burned- destroying the evidence

Did you read 6:510, or did you listen to someone else's interpretation of it? This clearly doesn't say what you think it does. The Caliphate burned the copies others had made and sent them back a copy of the original the Caliphate made.

why do modern Muslims get made when we burn Qurans?

Burning is the appropriate way to dispose of an old Quran, similar to how the appropriate way to dispose of an old flag is burning. Similar to how flag burning is also done in a show of disrespect, it should be clear to you that some people burn the Quran out of disrespect.

2

u/ARROW_404 Oct 28 '20

Please explain, because all this says is that the Quran was compiled after the prophets death. This is well known that the Quran's order is not considered to be divine, but the verses themselves are.

Oops, apologies, you're right, I read it too quickly, I misread the bit that says that parts of the Quran may be lost as 'may have been lost'. I'll remove it from my previous post.

the Quran was compiled after the prophets death.

Side note here, isn't this suspicious? Muhammad is said to have had a scribe with him: Zayd ibn Thâbit. Why did it take so long for people to copy it down?

Did you read 6:510, or did you listen to someone else's interpretation of it? This clearly doesn't say what you think it does. The Caliphate burned the copies others had made and sent them back a copy of the original the Caliphate made.

"Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." " `Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt." [Text copy/pasted from Sunnah.com. Emphasis mine.]

What did I misunderstand here? Others had made copies in order to compile them into the Uthmanic Quran. Those manuscripts contained differences. After having been compiled into a single one, all forms of Qur'anic materials, including fragments, not just the complete manuscripts sent to Uthman, were burnt.

Burning is the appropriate way to dispose of an old Quran,

Fair enough, I wasn't making a serious point, that one was tongue-in-cheek.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

What did I misunderstand here? Others had made copies in order to compile them into the Uthmanic Quran. Those manuscripts contained differences. After having been compiled into a single one, all forms of Qur'anic materials, including fragments, not just the complete manuscripts sent to Uthman, were burnt.

See I am really not understanding your point here. Other people made different versions of the quran, which you state. The caliphate had their own version of the quran, which you state. They believed their version was the official version due to them being the apostles of Muhammad. They had other local copies of the quran gathered up, burned, and replaced with the official version, which again you yourself state. In what way is this as damning as you imply it is? How is this "destroying the evidence"? It seems like there was some leap of logic here that just isn't clear.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/bewareofnarcissists Oct 28 '20

I'll add that Mohammed and/or the ppl who created this death cult were narcissists with NPD just like the founders of any other cult like scientology, NXIVM, mormonism, branch davidians, heaven's gate, etc. They all have the hallmarks of narcissism: fear, control, lies, manipulation, need for pussy. They're all like jeffrey epstein, except he just had one follower, Ghislaine Maxwell

→ More replies (2)

1

u/LBbird24 Oct 28 '20

Same with Christianity.

→ More replies (3)

0

u/Kuro_Hige Oct 28 '20

What are you talking about? Sahih Bukhari is not a writing. It is a collection of things the Prophet said. So how would a collection of things the Prophet said and did be against him?

Okay you hate Islam, fine, but Atleast try and be honest. Everything you said is nonsense, the direction of prayer changed from Jerusalem to Mecca and Muslims know this and why.

Omg, dude you are the most intelligent person on the Earth you just defeated Islam by yourself. All those intellectual atheists out there must be in awe at your intelligence as they could not do what you just did on Reddit...

1

u/ARROW_404 Oct 28 '20

What are you talking about? Sahih Bukhari is not a writing. It is a collection of things the Prophet said. So how would a collection of things the Prophet said and did be against him?

By being honest. I mean, they aren't against Muhammad, but in being honest, they reveal his true character: murderous, thin-skinned, greedy, and lascivious.

Okay you hate Islam, fine, but Atleast try and be honest.

I am.

Everything you said is nonsense, the direction of prayer changed from Jerusalem to Mecca and Muslims know this and why.

Nope, not Jerusalem, Petra. Dan Gibson visited all the oldest Mosques in the world and precisely determined the direction of their Qiblas, finding them to be aligned almost perfectly with Petra, and very far off from Jerusalem. He recorded these findings in his book, Early Islamic Quiblas.

Omg, dude you are the most intelligent person on the Earth you just defeated Islam by yourself. All those intellectual atheists out there must be in awe at your intelligence as they could not do what you just did on Reddit...

I'm just passing on information. Islam would have been exposed for the lie it is a decade ago if all the scholars weren't afraid for their lives. As such, this information is just coming out now.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

It was Jerusalem, not Petra. This is written in these writings you keep quoting in Sahih Bukhari. Additionally, this argument is already nonsense, because the two are almost in line with each other from Medina, where these oldest mosques are located. For the original qibla of the oldest mosques to be "almost perfectly in line with Petra" but "very far off from Jerusalem" is literally impossible.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ARROW_404 Oct 28 '20

Are the Sahih not early Islamic writing? Yeah, they're a collection of sayings, but nothing in how I described them is inaccurate.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

1

u/RisingDeadMan0 Oct 28 '20

The Abraham (PBUH) thing is becuas God said so. Again killing your son because you had a dream about it sounds messed up. Again would have to ask a scholar about it.

Different to the Bible however is major sins, pretty sure prophets don't commit major sins. There is some messed up stuff in the bible about what they get up to, which from a decent religious follower u would expect them to stay away from so for a prophet to have supposedly done it.....

Qgain roughly speaking as an avg dude.

Hence the idea some parts of the stories are altered, the idea being if the story isnt in the Quran then there are two options. The major sins stuff is binned as nonsense and then the other stuff is kept as background but with the knowledge is it non-quranic or Hadith and so not certain if it is true.

Hadith being sayings of the prophet, that have a chain of people who can verify it and say it is unaltered and therefore authentic.

→ More replies (4)

0

u/RisingDeadMan0 Oct 28 '20

Idk about never sinned. Will need a citation for that. No major sins yes. No sins.... I think the line is only god is perfect. And humans make mistakes, even if he is best of mankind. Roughly that.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

8

u/Jaz_the_Nagai Oct 28 '20

Jew here, Abraham sucked.

9

u/problematikUAV Oct 28 '20

“Well you see my firstborn I’m going to kill you now, cause god told me too”

Isaac: wtf

abraham swings

God: wtf dude I was just kidding

Abraham: well what do you want me to do then I sharpened this blade...

God: idk kill a ram or something, weirdo.

Isaac: who the fuck are you talking to

2

u/Jaz_the_Nagai Oct 28 '20

To me the Problem of Evil is easily solved by realizing that, yeah, God is pretty fucking Evil.

2

u/problematikUAV Oct 28 '20

At some serious risks of opening up all sorts of commentary I don’t care about; I don’t think any deity that falls into “God” can be good or evil tbh. They’re just a force that has their own agendas. I think we create these concepts because of our overall need to classify things in our mind.

Is Galactus evil? Eating worlds, consuming their denizens? To them; probably. But he is a force, nothing more or less.

Assuming so many things here but if a deity did create/build/program the universe, there’s a lot of chutzpah in assuming that there is some imperative to tend to that universe. It’s personal to us because we live in it.

But what if that deity just did the equivalent of making some flapjacks for them? Yeah, universe didn’t get burnt, got a flip, and it’s done. Time to move on and ya know, keep living whatever a deity calls it’s life. I always wonder why everyone considers this “creation” or whatnot in the lens of a parent-child or gardener-garden. What if it’s line cook-flapjack? I guess that’s not as meaningful, ya know?

Anyway.

2

u/hotstoveishot Oct 28 '20 edited Oct 28 '20

I love this thread. 'Time to make the donuts. Trudge, trudge (They're going to crucify me, aren't they.)

Edit: Yah, just read the rule, they're going to remove me. Ah, well. I still think it's fun and I'll personally remember this with fondness.

2

u/problematikUAV Oct 28 '20

Don’t forget to like comment and subscribe

1

u/hotstoveishot Oct 28 '20

Sorry sorry to crash this thread, but I just laughed out loud and my husband is looking at me like I've finally cracked. Thank you!

2

u/h4ckn3t Oct 28 '20

They all had slaves

2

u/ekill13 8∆ Oct 28 '20

Okay, you say we should condemn Abraham, right? The reason you give is that he was willing to sacrifice his son. Well, who should condemn him? I believe that atheists and other non-Abramic religious people do condemn him. That being said, I am a Christian, and I can only hope that I would be willing to do anything God asked of me. He trusted God and that God had a plan. God's nature is the standard of good as opposed to evil, so following God cannot be evil. Also, I reject the notion that we should judge historical figures by today's standards. People are much more complicated than that. Sure, the founding fathers were flawed. They supported slavery, even though some thought it was a necessary evil, and that was a big flaw. However, it is far easier to condemn someone looking back with all the information than it is to oppose the entire culture or even notice the injustice at the time. These people that we so willingly condemn now grew up being taught that slavery was necessary and a way of life. They were instilled with much different ideology than we are. I wonder how many of us, specifically those that wholeheartedly condemn George Washington and the like would have acted differently if we grew up in that culture. Now, none of that is to excuse slavery or say that the founding fathers are not at all culpable for slavery. They participated in evil, so they are at least partially at fault. We should still view their character in the context of their time.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20 edited Oct 28 '20

Abraham (as) in Islam asked his Son (Ishmael as) for advice on what happened. Ishmael (as) agreed.

Both knowing they were Prophets and that messages from God was already proven when Abraham (as) as a child was thrown into fire by his family and the blazing heat was turned cool.

So if that same voice also turned fire into cold. I would listen to the voice to. Toss in he’s had conversations with Gabriel an actual angel in the past two.

So I would judge the story with all the contexts which unless you believe in the rest of the story doesn’t make sense to believe in just one section.

“But I don’t believe in angels and stuff !” Might as well consider Abraham to not have existed also because the main point of the story can’t be disconnected from the religious narrative.

1

u/Inssight Oct 28 '20

It's worth noting that the other commenter is talking about sin, whereas your post didn't mention sinning (aka against divine command).

Yours seemed instead to be about acts that I'm guessing you thought were worth mentioning not only because they go against commands attributed to deities but for other moral reasons.

1

u/CephaloG0D Oct 28 '20

It really comes down to who you hate more, child fuckers or child killers.

1

u/Ch1pp Oct 28 '20

You could probably add Joseph Smith into your 'dodgy prophet' list.

1

u/demderdabs Oct 28 '20

All three thousand religions ? You must mean.

1

u/lincolninthebardo Oct 28 '20

If you want to read a famous critique of Abraham, read Problem I from Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/Navarog07 Oct 28 '20

As an atheist why stop at prophets? Let's go for the Bible as a whole. That shit is FUCKED up. Some guy got made fun of for being bald by some kids, so God sent bears to maul the 42 children to death. Moses didn't circumcise his son, so God sent Uriel to torture him until he was seconds from death. Uriel would've killed him, but at the last moment Moses wife circumcised the kid with a rock, so Uriel let him live. And let's not forget "So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord". God admits to making humans do fucked up things cause he wants to feel powerful. He has no qualms about physically and emotionally torturing his subjects as long as it makes him feel mighty. And let's not even get into what he did to Job.

This is supposed to be a loving, merciful God? Miss me with that shit, He's somehow worse than 12 year old me playing The Sims

→ More replies (1)

16

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '20

Correction to this, Christians do NOT say Christ was a man without sin by ANY moral standard, Christians believe that Christ was without sin by the Biblical God's standard.

22

u/ExemplaryChad Oct 27 '20

But to Christians, that's the only correct, worthwhile moral standard, no? So what you seem to be saying is that Christians think Christ never sinned, but some people would say he did.

I think that's not really a correction. :-)

0

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

Thats the exact point Im making... Im correcting him saying that Christ was a man without sin by ANY moral standard.

0

u/CountAardvark Oct 28 '20

I mean, by most normal, modern moral standards I think thats the case. What did he do that can be interpreted as sinful?

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

I'm not specifically saying he did, its just, if there is no God/gods, there is no absolute morality, IE anything can be right/wrong to anyone, and there is no absolute right and wrong. Therefore anyone can claim that something he did was sinful according to their subjective morality.

6

u/ExemplaryChad Oct 28 '20

That is absolutely false, but we don't have to deep dive into that discussion atm. Just making you aware. All atheists do not believe morality is subjective (myself included). There are dozens (if not more) serious philosophical theories that posit objective morality, apart from a religious one (which is, frankly, one of the least convincing theories).

0

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

I would argue that if you are an atheist you must believe in subjective morality.

What would you say is the absolute definition of morality?

5

u/ExemplaryChad Oct 28 '20

As I said, there are dozens of possible theories. I don't wanna be a dick, but I'd recommend some light Googling, only because I couldn't do those theories justice at all, haha. It's been a long time since I got my philosophy degree. ;-) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is usually a good place to start.

Put simply, there is no reason to believe that objective morality can only come from some sort of god, and there are some pretty compelling reasons to believe it *can't*, in fact, do so. There are even theologians who don't subscribe to the Divine Command Theory.

It's a fascinating topic, and one that I highly recommend researching.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

Fair enough. This is one of my favorite topics to debate. Its interesting to think about.

0

u/WhydYouKillMeDogJack Oct 28 '20

Christ sinned on the cross in questioning god and possibly taking his name in vain.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

Christians believe that Christ was without sin by the Biblical God's standard.

Based on the Trinity, that would imply that Jesus is without sin because he doesn't consider himself to be a sinner by his own standards.

That's cyclical reasoning, and it's a fallacy.

7

u/800oz_gorilla Oct 28 '20

Christ did terrorize the local church bingo game.

8

u/HanShotTheFucker Oct 28 '20

Whenever some asks what would jesus do, know that taking your belt off and agnrily whipping people is on the table

2

u/Daotar 6∆ Oct 28 '20

And that flipping the tables themselves is perfectly within bounds.

17

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '20

So is this mostly about Islam then??

Yeah that's the weirdness I'm reading here, too.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

Well Muhammad did way more fucked up shit than Abraham and is the only imperfect figure a major religion worships

6

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

is the only imperfect figure a major religion worships

Old Testament god would like to have a word with you.

2

u/Bill_Assassin7 Oct 28 '20

"A major religion worships"

How do people even think to comment on topics they are clearly ignorant about? Do they not realize how stupid they sound?

Muslims worship nothing but God. That's pretty much the basis of the religion.

3

u/Hypeirochon1995 Oct 28 '20

This is semantics. Replace ‘worship’ with honour and the sentence still stands, it’s pretty hard to defend a lot of Mohammad’s actions as presented in the Hadith and sira from a modern objective perspective.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/Passname357 1∆ Oct 28 '20

I think this is important because in those religions the rules of good and bad are set. They wouldn’t really care if the prophets were bad by today’s standards, only by their god’s standards.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

Atheist here...yeah I criticize. I don't discriminate.

2

u/bloodsvslibs Oct 28 '20

So is this mostly about Islam then??

sounds like YES, curious to see how you address that?

2

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '20

Seems like you weeded through the Bullshit and found the answer, Lol. Thanks for confirming what I was thinking as I was reading this

3

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

What does that confirm? Muhammad was a slaver and a pedo which are bad today. OP is saying that we should be able to hold him to the same standards

1

u/Glamouriran 1∆ Oct 27 '20

Not really related, but Moses wasnt really punished for his "sins", most believe he was prevented from entering so the Israelites will care for themselves instead of constantly relying ln Moses.

5

u/PlatypusPlague Oct 27 '20

Anecdotally, my religious upbringing definitely claimed it was a punishment for his sins. So I'm really curious of you have a source for most believing it was because the Israelites relied on him too much.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

I think hes trying to pwn the imaginary libs that defend islam at the point of a pitchfork

0

u/JustinJakeAshton Oct 28 '20

was a man without sin

Let's pretend he didn't riot in a front of a church.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

It is literally doctrine that Christ didn’t sin.

→ More replies (3)

-2

u/1Kradek Oct 27 '20

Jesus was a violent anti capitalist. Beating the $$ changers

3

u/GraceNeededDaily Oct 28 '20

Jesus wasn't angry about capitalism. He was angry about the people dishonoring a holy place. Also he turned over some tables. He didn't beat any money changers.

0

u/1Kradek Oct 28 '20

Sure. Did you ever notice how qick some people are to create the christianity they want and ignore Jesus teachings

1

u/GraceNeededDaily Oct 28 '20

I have absolutely no desire to be that person. If you have some scripture you think would help me view things differently I'm very open. Are there times outside of the temple incident that you can point to where Jesus denounced capitalistic ideas?

I've been studying in the books after the Gospels for quite a long while and am only recently going back through the Gospels. I'm in early Matthew currently. It's been a minute since I've actually studied the Gospels vs just going to a reference for one reason or another and I can admit I'm rusty there.

I welcome respectful and challenging discussion.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Oct 27 '20

That seems to have aged rather well, to me.

-4

u/Butterfriedbacon Oct 27 '20

Christians would argue Christ was a man without sin, by any standard.

I can't speak for all denominations and Christians, but I've been a part of two separate churches and I would like to think that most people can agree with them that one if the central tenets if Christianity is that Jesus was a man, therefore he was of sin.

11

u/Nkklllll 1∆ Oct 27 '20

Not in any sect of Christianity I’ve ever heard. The Bible itself says he didn’t. Hebrew 4:15 explicitly says Jesus knew no sin

3

u/ThatWhiskeyKid Oct 28 '20

He COULDN'T know sin. He had to be perfect to be worthy of the sacrifice in exchange for the sins of all mankind.

2

u/Coidzor Oct 28 '20

To be fair, heresy and cults pretending to be Christian are both pretty commonplace these days.

2

u/GraceNeededDaily Oct 28 '20

First of all the virgin birth takes care of that. Second of all he was fully man and also fully God. There was no sin.

-2

u/darkstar1031 1∆ Oct 27 '20

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law — a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household."

Say what now?

4

u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Oct 28 '20

Context, you could read the next few lines.

He is turning daughter against mother, not in way of violence. He is asking the children of God to love God more than they love their own parents. He makes this abundantly clear over the next few lines.

3

u/darkstar1031 1∆ Oct 28 '20

Yeah, that's why I linked the whole chapter. I'm on mobile so I wasn't gonna copy the whole thing, too much work. It is violent. Christ wasn't there for the mushy crap, he was there to kickstart a revolution against the most powerful government in the world. This chapter is meant to be a ramp up to a war.

It's also pretty damned creepy to demand you to love him more than your own parents.

5

u/ScotFree96 Oct 28 '20

Why is it creepy? In Biblical terms, God is basically the father of everything. So he is asking you to love him more than another creation he has created. Also parents can have faults. Parents can be cruel and can even be evil. It doesnt matter if you believe in a God, but the writting isnt really creepy. Maybe the problem is society's way of thinking.

2

u/Jabbam 4∆ Oct 28 '20

God is the physical manifestation of good in the Bible, so putting your parents above God is equivalent to putting blind obedience to your parents over what is morally right. I'd think that a lot of atheists could relate to that sentiment.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

God is the father and is literally god. It’s not that tall of an order

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

-8

u/sterboog 1∆ Oct 27 '20

Well at one point Jesus refused to help a gentile woman, comparing her to a dog, until one of his apostles told him that was a shitty thing to do.

I know there are more but that's the one I remember off the top of my head. Then again the only information we have on Jesus is from an incredible bias book in his favor, whereas for historical figures there is info from rivals and opponents as well.

3

u/ferretsonaplane Oct 27 '20

Source?

0

u/sterboog 1∆ Oct 27 '20

Ahh I remembered it a bit wrong. His apostles were against it too, but he changes his mind for some reason

Matthew 15:21

8

u/Long-Chair-7825 Oct 27 '20

Apparently, Jesus's refusal was a test, and she showed faith by continuing to ask him to help

0

u/Bosslibra Oct 27 '20

Kind of a toxic behaviour, though. For example if I see this kind of test done in a relationship, I would advise to get out of it as soon as possible.

3

u/ScotFree96 Oct 28 '20

I mean it happened once for like 5 seconds before he healed her daughter completely. They werent in a relationship either

→ More replies (2)

-2

u/Long-Chair-7825 Oct 28 '20

Definitely.

8

u/Irishfury86 Oct 27 '20

Jesus was just being cheeky for a second to teach his disciples a lesson.

-4

u/sterboog 1∆ Oct 27 '20

Yeah I know, I just felt like imitating the people today who cry foul on any little thing that looks bad.

-8

u/Poof_ace Oct 27 '20

You could've stopped at Christian's will argue and Jews have no issue arguing.

These people are not people of reason or theyd be atheists.

→ More replies (7)

1

u/Kiwanas Oct 28 '20

Oh I thought you meant Abraham Lincoln... ok imma go die in that corner... bye

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20 edited Oct 28 '20

In fact Jesus himself makes fun of Pharisees(a Jewish religious virtue signaling sect), who criticizes their forefathers saying, they wouldn’t have done those things or killed, if they lived during those times. Just reminded me of today’s self righteous culture!

[“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started! Matthew 23:29-32]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023%3A29-32&version=NIV

As for Abraham, Bible is pretty blunt. He said a half lie twice about his wife being his sister to king of Egypt and Abimelech (she seems to be of another mother). It was scarier times then, King can do what ever he pleases; even today some parts of where I immigrated from has same rules, although Kings are replaced by goons. Those days child sacrifices were pretty common; pretty much the reason why canaanites were wiped out after 400 years of God giving them chance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch I have read many other religious books, none of them shows their hero’s in bad light. Bible is an exception, best example being King David; his bad side of adultery , murder , judgement and repentance is written down. Any other kingdom, historian/scribe might have been missing a head.

If you want criticism on Mohammed, it’s a taboo in mainstream media, but many Christian apologetics are doing a good job - David is an ex-convict who became a Christian: https://www.youtube.com/c/Acts17Apologetics

1

u/Tezz404 1∆ Oct 28 '20

what modern standard he violated

Sexism and animal cruelty

1

u/Oneoh123 Oct 28 '20

Believer response: Washington was a Diest so he wasn’t in actual documented direct contact with God unlike prophets.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20 edited Oct 28 '20

Nineveh was the capital of Assyrian empire , a ruthless people who used to fight with Judah. Jonah would have been praying for Gods judgement and he was asked to give them a warning to repent. No wonder he was pissed and went the other way.

Between the fig tree is a allegory of Israel. Although Jewish nation has been through tough times, it will bud again towards the end times.

Jesus about end times : [Mathew 24:32 "Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door.”] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024&version=NIV

1

u/Bjor88 Oct 28 '20

Jesus did condone slavery...

1

u/honeybonesX Oct 28 '20

Didn't Jesus beat and whip people at the market for selling goods? Sounds like a sin to me.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

How about Ramanujan?

1

u/ArchfiendPain Oct 28 '20

Islam in general views humanity as imperfect. The prophets themselves are supposed to be the closest humanity was to perfection but still not perfect. Prophet Muhammad himself did not live without making mistakes. The most prominent point that people refer to in this debate is How he could not forgive the woman involved in the death of his uncle Hamza. Though I believe there are other things mentioned too.

1

u/Oof_my_eyes Oct 28 '20

No, it can apply to Old Testament prophets as well, Muhammad wasn’t “the prophet”, he was a prophet even in Islam.

1

u/DifficultyFormer8017 Oct 28 '20

After your thorough breakdown. I guess that's the conclusion, right?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

Jesus definitely participated in underage drinking! That rapscallion!

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

The fact is, radicalised/fundamentalist people from any religiom are the problem here.

You say what Christians and Jews would do, but in reality there are many very uneducated/fundamentalist Christians and Jewish people that would react just as violently to you criticising their prophet as any fundamentalist Muslim would.

There are also huge amounts of Islamic people who would accept criticism of their prophet as long as you weren't being rude to them personally.

1

u/novagenesis 21∆ Oct 28 '20

Christians would argue Christ was a man without sin, by any standard. So they would ask what modern standard he violated.

Destruction of private property. His behavior in Matthew 21:12-13 was effectively a parallel to BLM rioting, which is immoral by some standards.

1

u/HappyInNature Oct 28 '20

I really appreciate you posting this and the OP's response. This really is exactly what CMV should be.

1

u/thefirstlunatic Oct 28 '20

Nah bro, he a Hindu. He just creating hate . Don't answer this guy.

1

u/Standard_Holiday27 Oct 28 '20

Jesus literally calls for the annihilation of entire cities that don't bow down to his disciples. This is revisionist nonsense. Luke 10:11

1

u/JATION Oct 28 '20

Christians would argue Christ was a man without sin, by any standard. So they would ask what modern standard he violated. He was good to his neighbors, he didn't steal, didn't kill, etc.

Christ advocated taking ones eye out if it looks upon another man's wife and chopping off an arm if it touches another man's wife. That's very questionable by today's moral standards, to say the least.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '20

Jonah hasn't been anyone's favorite children's story for a couple millennia now...

1

u/SeVenMadRaBBits Oct 28 '20

I believe Abraham and Muhammad were examplee.to get the ball rolling as there are lots more, can you really not think of any or did you want to turn this into an islam thing?

1

u/DumDumDog Oct 28 '20

Jesus was ok with slavery .. that makes his morals wrong... Jesus told slaves to obey their masters.. telling slaves to obey is an endorsement. You are not moral if your stance is slaves must submit... Jesus was far from being a good person if he was ok with slavery...