How do we approach a new proposition?

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
Og3
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:32 am

SEG wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:54 pm
Og3 wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 6:56 pm
So is Nabeel saying he has seen the inconsistency of his own Islamic background and now believes that the *only* consistent interpretation of the materials leads to an ISIS like Islam?
Yes, that is precisely what he is saying.
Please explain how ISIS would let him join them? Also explain how Paul could survive a stoning then 5 lashings of 39. Both miracles perhaps?
He did not say that he would be allowed to join ISIS. He said that such a radical, violent interpretation of the Quran is the only possible outlook, and that he would have felt that he should join ISIS if he wished to live as the Quran dictates. He says this about how he read the Quran after having determined to judge the Quran ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD with the Bible.

He did NOT join ISIS; He did not try.

See, SEG, this is why I jump onto you about honest citations. When you go off half-cocked like this because someone else has gone off half-cocked, it's got to be a bit embarrassing for you, isn't it?

As for Paul -- these things did not happen all at once. These happened over a course of years. If he were given 5x39=195 lashings all at once, the last 120 strokes would likely have been applied to a dead man. But for a single event, the mortality rate was about 12.5%. So given that they did not all happen at once, his chances of surviving 5 separate events spaced over time would be .875^5, or 51.29% -- meaning that of 10,000 given the 39 five times over a course of several years, 5129 would have survived with varying degrees of impairment.

That's just the statistics of it; One might further argue that the 87.5% of those who survived a single such event were made of sterner stuff, and thus would have been more likely to survive it a second time; etc., and the 12.5% who typically died were the weaker folks. One might also argue that "that which does not kill me makes me stronger," as Nietzsche put it, thus the risk of death by shock would decrease since the prisoner knew he had survived this previously. And so forth. But 51.29% is sufficient.

Stoning? There are two possible answers, one being that he was thought dead (stunned); while sore he would still have been able to walk especially with help. The other is that he was dead, and God raised him, but the text does not say this. Luke only describes what he saw, namely, that Paul got back up and walked back into town. Presumably with help. Keep in mind that Paul was in good physical condition, since he and Barnabas were in the middle of a walk by foot from the middle east across Turkey, Macedonia, and Greece.

Now if you're going to argue that miracles don't happen because miracles don't happen, you are welcome to run round that circle to your heart's desire.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1765
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:51 am

SEG wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:54 pm
Please explain how ISIS would let him join them? Also explain how Paul could survive a stoning then 5 lashings of 39. Both miracles perhaps?
Og3 wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:32 am
He did not say that he would be allowed to join ISIS.
...and I never said that that he did say that! I said, "Please explain how ISIS would let him join them?" That's a very reasonable question as he said in the video, "If I still believed and I wanted to be faithful to Mohammed, I would have a hard time not going to Syria right now. To fight for ISIS." How in the hell would ISIS allow him to fight for them if they knew he was an Ahmadi? He would know for sure that ISIS would not allow him to fight for them unless he deceived them. In either event, he is a big fat LIAR.
He said that such a radical, violent interpretation of the Quran is the only possible outlook, and that he would have felt that he should join ISIS if he wished to live as the Quran dictates. He says this about how he read the Quran after having determined to judge the Quran ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD with the Bible.
Yeah, where did he say that?
He did NOT join ISIS; He did not try.

See, SEG, this is why I jump onto you about honest citations. When you go off half-cocked like this because someone else has gone off half-cocked, it's got to be a bit embarrassing for you, isn't it?
Check your own backyard first OG, I never said that he joined ISIS or tried to, you need to look at what I actually wrote. It's not that hard mate, look up at the text that I actually wrote! Your own citations about what I said are dishonest. Look again at what your lying pal wrote:
If I still believed and I wanted to be faithful to Mohammed, I would have a hard time not going to Syria right now. To fight for ISIS. It seems like what they are doing is what Islam commands.
How could he possibly fight for ISIS? He couldn't and he knows he couldn't. Check the video if you don't believe me, it's at about the 30-36 second mark and repeated a couple of times so that it's hard to miss.
As for Paul -- these things did not happen all at once. These happened over a course of years.
Now you are making things up again. How would you know that it happened over a course of years and not months? Or weeks? How would something like that even heal properly with the massive risks of infection after being stripped to the bone? Even today with expert and advanced medical care it is far fetched that someone would survive a stoning, then a 39 lash flogging, let alone getting flogged another four times x 39 lashes!
If he were given 5x39=195 lashings all at once, the last 120 strokes would likely have been applied to a dead man. But for a single event, the mortality rate was about 12.5%.
Hold yer horses, Cowboy! Where the damnation did ya get that statistic from?
So given that they did not all happen at once, his chances of surviving 5 separate events spaced over time would be .875^5, or 51.29% -- meaning that of 10,000 given the 39 five times over a course of several years, 5129 would have survived with varying degrees of impairment.

That's just the statistics of it; One might further argue that the 87.5% of those who survived a single such event were made of sterner stuff, and thus would have been more likely to survive it a second time; etc., and the 12.5% who typically died were the weaker folks. One might also argue that "that which does not kill me makes me stronger," as Nietzsche put it, thus the risk of death by shock would decrease since the prisoner knew he had survived this previously. And so forth. But 51.29% is sufficient.
That sounds very scientific, but also very improbable. Where are you getting that statistic from? If the lashings were the same as what was portrayed in the Passion of the Christ, you would get nerve damage, multiple infections, severe blood loss and organ damage. Not many would survive anything near that. Especially after a stoning! Has anyone on the historical record survived a stoning? I don't think there are any reliable historical records on what was actually used, so it is probably moot.
Stoning? There are two possible answers, one being that he was thought dead (stunned); while sore he would still have been able to walk especially with help. The other is that he was dead, and God raised him, but the text does not say this. Luke only describes what he saw, namely, that Paul got back up and walked back into town. Presumably with help. Keep in mind that Paul was in good physical condition, since he and Barnabas were in the middle of a walk by foot from the middle east across Turkey, Macedonia, and Greece.
How about a third option? It was made up to make him look good and the 5 x lashings also made up to make him tougher than Christ.
Now if you're going to argue that miracles don't happen because miracles don't happen, you are welcome to run round that circle to your heart's desire.
OG, here's a news flash - miracles have never been proven to happen.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1765
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:18 am

Here's some more proof that Nabeel tells porkies: Is There Proof Outside of the Bible that Jesus Existed?
"There is plenty of evidence outside of the new testament"
He then produces Pliney The Elder (It was Pliny The Younger actually) writing a letter to the Emperor Tragen about how to deal with Christians. In the process of writing this letter he says Jesus is worshipped as a god very early on. He wasn't.
Then he says,
"We see it in the Talmud which was a Jewish source" - bullshit, nothing is about Jesus Christ (maybe 100 years earlier than Jesus another person named Jesus is mentioned)
and mentions "Mara bar Serapion" - He didn't mention Jesus either and the writing had no Christian themes except for an unidentified "King of The Jews"
The biggest porky was: "All of them say that Jesus was killed by crucifixion." - None of them mentioned Jesus by name and most didn't mention any crucifixion.

Finally he asserts "You've got a lot of this stuff everywhere" - you haven't actually.

All you have in the entire first century beyond the NT was one mention of Jesus at the very end of the century decades after his death by Josephus, which most scholars (even Christian scholars) admit was forged. So yeah, the guy's a chronic liar.

Oh, and his method for weighing up the evidence was hopelessly flawed. He started off with the presuppositions that gods existed, the Biblical Jesus existed and not one of the thousands of religions come close to Christianity in terms of historical evidence and veracity - without looking at the vast majority of them.

This is like a Christian apologist from the Westboro Baptist Church or the Church of Latter Day Saints examining whether Islam is more historically reliable than Christianity. He finds some major flaws like the short ending of Mark. He then flats with some educated Muslims and declares inside a mosque full of believers that he was in error all the time about being a true Christian, quoting some impressive "facts" about the Quran and declaring Islam wins hands down.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:50 pm

"We see it in the Talmud which was a Jewish source" - bullshit, nothing is about Jesus Christ (maybe 100 years earlier than Jesus!)
and mentions "Mara bar Serapion" - He didn't mention Jesus either and the writing had no Christian themes except for an unidentified "King of The Jews"
Off the top of my head...

Actually, the Babylonian Talmud tells rabbis to pray that they never have a disciple like Jesus, "who burns his bread in public" (a metaphorical reference to speaking blasphemy).

Mara ben-Serapion identifies three cases in which mobs murdered someone and were consequently punished by Divine retribution. Speaking here as a Syriac non-Jewish non-Christian, he says in pertinent part:
For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death, seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour the whole[19] of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them? For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into every land.

Nay, Socrates did “not” die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King, because of the new laws which he enacted.
Jewish wise king, at a time when their kingdom was taken away... Brought to desolation and expelled from their kingdom... are driven away into every land... Wise king ... new laws that he enacted.

There are two possible ways to read this passage. One of them is to be very precise, and to say that the passage could mean anyone, not merely Jesus.

I recall a song by the Country Music legend, George Jones, called "Her name is..." (Many songs written by Jones late in his life featured an unnamed female, generally conceded to be his former wife, singer Tammy Wynnette). Introducing the song, Jones would sometimes say, "Many people think this song is about my ex-wife. Well... I don't hear her name in it."

You could take that approach here. But if you do, you are not considering history. Kings of Judea/Judah who ruled just before the Babylonian Captivity or the Jewish-Roman Wars (excluding Israel, because at the time of the Assyrian Captivity, they would have been called Israelites or Hebrews. "Jew" derives from Judah, the last tribe standing after the Assyrian Captivity). So who else could it be? Candidates are: Jehoakim, Herod Agrippa I, and Jesus.

Jehoakim: Country destroyed during/after his reign? YES, Babylonian Captivity of ~500 BC/BCE
... Diaspora? YES, PARTIAL, but only for ~70 years
... Killed by Jews? NO. Babylonians.
... "Wise King"? Do not make me laugh. Absolute idiot.
... Enacted new laws? Nope.

Herod Agrippa: Country destroyed? YES, Jewish Wars of 62-70 AD, culminating in the destruction of the temple.
... Diaspora? YES, ABSOLUTE, 70 AD onwards, permanent
... Killed by Jews: NO. lived and ruled to 44 AD with limited powers.
... "Wise King"? Possibly, but no recorded wisdom is found. Mostly just partied.
... Enacted new laws? Nope. Under Roman rule, had almost no legislative power.

Jesus, INRI: Country destroyed after? YES, Jewish Wars of 62-70 AD, culminating in the destruction of the temple.
... Diaspora? YES, ABSOLUTE, 70 AD onwards, permanent
... Killed by Jews: YES.
... "Wise King"? YES. His wisdom is recited by his followers to this day.
... Enacted new laws? YES, as a Syriac non-Jew non-Christian would understand it.

REASONABLE INFERENCE: Mara Ben-Serapion was referring to Jesus of Nazareth as the Jewish Wise King.
OTHER POSSIBLE READINGS: Um, none.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:55 pm

We could here get into a source war, but since I'm currently reconstructing an intellectual undertaking from more than thirty years ago, I'll pass for now.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1765
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:31 pm

Og3 wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:50 pm
REASONABLE INFERENCE: Mara Ben-Serapion was referring to Jesus of Nazareth as the Jewish Wise King.
OTHER POSSIBLE READINGS: Um, none.
That's a very low probability because "king of the Jews" was not a Christian title during the time period the letter was written. Also why not call him Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ? The ONLY source that calls him his supposed name was the NT. Even the OT is silent on this! It's wishful thinking OG.

From Wiki:
Historical analysis
The letter has been claimed to include no Christian themes and a number of leading scholars such as Sebastian Brock consider Mara a pagan.[2][4][6][7] A small number of scholars suggest that Mara may have been a monotheist.[3]

The non-Christian origin of the letter is supported by the observation that "king of the Jews" was not a Christian title during the time period the letter was written.[4][5] The statement in the letter that the wise king lives on because of the "new law" he laid down is also seen as an indication of its non-Christian origin, for it ignores the Christian belief that Jesus continues to live through his resurrection.[4][5] Another viewpoint is that he could be referring to the resurrection recorded in Jesus's teachings which say he lived on, thus establishing his "new law" (possibly paralleling the "New Covenant").

This means that it is impossible to infer if Mara believed the resurrection happened or not, and leaves it up to speculation whether he was a Christian or a non-Christian who agreed with Christians as regarding Jesus as a "wise king" according to the Gospels. Given that the gospel portraits of Jesus' crucifixion place much of the blame for the execution of Jesus on the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate (with the Jewish mob merely acting as agitators), some Gospels do agree with the Jews being to blame.[4] And referring to "king of the Jews" rather than the Savior or Son of God indicates that the impressions of Bar-Serapion were not formed by Christian sources, although Jewish Christians did call him the king of the Jews.[4]
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1765
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:37 pm

Og3 wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:50 pm
Actually, the Babylonian Talmud tells rabbis to pray that they never have a disciple like Jesus, "who burns his bread in public" (a metaphorical reference to speaking blasphemy).
Citation please?

I got this from Wiki, Jesus is indeed in the Talmud , but not YOUR Jesus.
There are several passages in the Talmud which are believed by some scholars to be references to Jesus. The name used in the Talmud is "Yeshu", the Aramaic vocalization (though not spelling) of the Hebrew name Yeshua.[1][2]

The identification of Yeshu as Jesus is problematic. For example, the Talmud mentions Yeshu ben Pandera/ben Stada's stepfather, Pappos ben Yehuda, speaking with Rabbi Akiva,[3] who was executed at the culmination of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE.[4][5] Furthermore, Yeshu the Pharisee student is described as being a student of the second-century BCE nasi Joshua ben Perachiah, as well as being among the exiled Pharisees returning to Israel following their persecution[6][7] by John Hyrcanus,[8] an event which occurred in 74 BC. Additionally, Yeshu the sorcerer was executed by the royal government which lost legal authority in 63 BC. These events would place the lifetime of either Yeshu decades before or after the birth and death of Jesus.[9][10] Still, there are numerous other passages pertaining to an individual named "Yeshu" that either don't provide a specific time period or else specify a time where it is reasonable to assume mentioning of Jesus would even be possible (take for example a notable passage, Gittin 57a mentioning the nobleman Onkelos conjuring the tormented spirit of "Yeshu" – Onkelos lived more than a century after Jesus, thus making it possible the Yeshu mentioned could indeed be Jesus, though the likelihood of this is still questionable) still opening the possibility that whichever Yeshu mentioned might be Jesus.

The first Christian censorship of the Talmud happened in the year 521.[11] However, far better documented censorship began during the disputations of the Middle Ages. Catholic authorities[who?] accused the Talmud of containing blasphemous references to Jesus and his mother, Mary. Jewish apologists during the disputations said there were no references to Jesus in the Talmud. They asserted that Joshua was a common Jewish name, along with its derivations, and that the citations referred to individuals other than Jesus. The disputations led to many of the references being removed (censored) from subsequent editions of the Talmud.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1765
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:43 pm

SEG wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:18 am
Here's some more proof that Nabeel tells porkies: Is There Proof Outside of the Bible that Jesus Existed?
"There is plenty of evidence outside of the new testament"
He then produces Pliney The Elder (It was Pliny The Younger actually) writing a letter to the Emperor Tragen about how to deal with Christians. In the process of writing this letter he says Jesus is worshipped as a god very early on. He wasn't.
Then he says,
"We see it in the Talmud which was a Jewish source" - bullshit, nothing is about Jesus Christ (maybe 100 years earlier than Jesus another person named Jesus is mentioned)
and mentions "Mara bar Serapion" - He didn't mention Jesus either and the writing had no Christian themes except for an unidentified "King of The Jews"
The biggest porky was: "All of them say that Jesus was killed by crucifixion." - None of them mentioned Jesus by name and most didn't mention any crucifixion.

Finally he asserts "You've got a lot of this stuff everywhere" - you haven't actually.

All you have in the entire first century beyond the NT was one mention of Jesus at the very end of the century decades after his death by Josephus, which most scholars (even Christian scholars) admit was forged. So yeah, the guy's a chronic liar.

Oh, and his method for weighing up the evidence was hopelessly flawed. He started off with the presuppositions that gods existed, the Biblical Jesus existed and not one of the thousands of religions come close to Christianity in terms of historical evidence and veracity - without looking at the vast majority of them.

This is like a Christian apologist from the Westboro Baptist Church or the Church of Latter Day Saints examining whether Islam is more historically reliable than Christianity. He finds some major flaws like the short ending of Mark. He then flats with some educated Muslims and declares inside a mosque full of believers that he was in error all the time about being a true Christian, quoting some impressive "facts" about the Quran and declaring Islam wins hands down.
More Lies -Nabeel Qureshi the pathological liar
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:40 pm

The video doesn't play on this device, and anyway, look at the name of the uploader, "Kafirtee Kuffr" -- what are the odds that's a neutral third party?

If you search Youtube for any name and liar I'm sure you'll come up with videos. Everyone has enemies, including "apostate" former muslims.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1765
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Thu Apr 18, 2019 12:11 am

Og3 wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:40 pm
The video doesn't play on this device, and anyway, look at the name of the uploader, "Kafirtee Kuffr" -- what are the odds that's a neutral third party?

If you search Youtube for any name and liar I'm sure you'll come up with videos. Everyone has enemies, including "apostate" former muslims.
He got caught out in a lie where he said that he attended an event at a place in Chicago and there were no problems. It was on video from an eyewitness that saw them being kicked out and arguing with security. So yeah it was a problem and he lied. But that is cool, we all lie every now and again. It's part of being human. Btw, I borrowed a CS Lewis book on Mere Christianity et al at my local library.

The funny thing was that it was missing when I went there. I left the library cursing myself for wasting my time when, as I was going down the stairs, this old lady tripped as she was going up. I instinctively reached out and saved her from hitting the deck, and guess what popped out of her hand bag?

THE CS LEWIS BOOK! She said, "God Bless you my son! I was on my way to return this incredible book. Please read it, it changed my whole perspective. I've been an atheist all my life, and this has given me enormousness comfort in my latter years. I'm sure that you will get a lot out of it."

How about that? What are the odds?

Here's proof OG.
CS Lewis The Complete CS Lewis Signature Classics.jpg
CS Lewis The Complete CS Lewis Signature Classics.jpg (147.41 KiB) Viewed 180 times
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Post Reply