darth wrote:(Quoting 5.12 & 3.78)
Thus the "transgressions" are not related to "breaking of the covenant" as you claim.
Prove it. It states otherwise... In 5.12 we read: ''and believe in My messengers and support them
That's the Covenant: Believe in My messengers, support the Covenant/scriptures they brought. See?
darth wrote:Cultures and customs are the result of ideas/propositions/beliefs each of which can be separately examined to determine their validity. It seems very difficult for you to understand that I am not examining the behavior at all, but the thoughts/ideas behind it. The "presentism" excuse does not apply.
Wrong. Ideas and concepts are the result of cultures, customs and behavior. Not your other way around...
Ideas are, by definition, ABSTRACT concepts, images. Concepts reflect its environment, like that of a flat earth.
They aren't shaping cultures but a result from them, which in turn is completely sociological, thus behavioral.
You're into philosophy and metaphysics, not into the societal worlds.
To state that an idea creates things (propositions, thoughts) is entering into God's attribute, like ''Be and it is''!
You're into Plato and prescience, absolutism escaping Presentism by definition. Thus you're indulging into Eternalism!
darth wrote:Customs that exist inspite of the people of the culture knowing that custom as wrong is not a fit case for your "presentism" nonsense.
It's fallacious to state that they knew better. You're still well into... Presentism!
The Talion law in Bedouins' customs.
http://ilsjil.webege.com/ojs/index.php? ... h%5B%5D=11
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The nomads, Hebrews or Bedouins, only acknowledged the Talion Law as their law (Ex.21.24 +). So the Torah only recognized the freeing
of a slave to escape the same Talion Law: ''And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let
him go free for his eye's sake'' (21.26). We're far from the Koranic injunctions to treat slaves just as well as weak persons.
And it's not white washing the Koran to recognize what's plainly there!
5.45: And We prescribed for them therein: The life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear,
and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation. --But whoso forgoeth it (in the way of charity) it shall be expiation for him.
darth wrote:People of the 7th century thought earth was flat. This idea is plain wrong and can be proven..... People of the 7th century thought it was okay to have sex with underage girls. This idea is plain wrong and can be proven medically today. Simply because they did not have the medical knowledge does not mean it was okay (it simply means that they were wrong)
and so on... (In other words your presentism rubbish is only applicable in recording of history).
"Social darwinism" was not a thought/idea/proposition?
Answered right above under 'Cultures and Customs'. SD was a rewording of the tribal -survival for the fittest-. So racism itself is tribal.
Was the old medical knowledge wrong? Only by our standards. Twist it as much as you want,
the moment you're into condemning without consideration for the context is... Presentism.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The application of contemporary perspectives in explaining past events rather than placing these events in their historical context.
darth wrote:Actually the quran you are defending is a figment of your imagination.
I guess that's your Sunnite's eluding. Your way of saying ''I don't know'' to:
1. What is the Koranic 'Din'?
2. What is the Koranic al-Islam?
3. What is the Koranic 'Shariah'
4. Who is a Koranic 'Muslim'?
How could be Jesus' disciples Muslims (5.111)? Do you think they knew the Shahada?
darth wrote:Your contention that GR was only an intra tribal thing is utter gibberish.
You got me wrong: Either the Golden Rule is universal or it is not the GR. It's not navel-gazing. Get it?
--Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of
thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Clearly 'neighbor' refers solely to 'thy people', excluding anyone else.
Jesus rightfully corrected this absurd so-called GR...
5.43: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy....
Luke 6.31-32: And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if
ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
darth wrote:1) You have not shown us why ideas cannot be tested with logic, facts and science. You have not shown me how "presentism" can be applied to the evaluation of any idea
2) You have not shown us how attacks on people of the book that lived in the past on matters unconnected with this so called "covenant" shows "continuity". You have not shown us how the breaking of "covenants" in the quran is an example of this "continuity"
3) You claim that mo's actions can be judged as "wrong" only if the contemporaries of mo thought it wrong. But then quran gives us evidence of this in the case of mo's hots for zaid's wife. That verse shows beyond a reasonable doubt the mo would have been considered a womanizer and the quran allows him to be one.
4) You have managed to help Sky prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the quran could be as much of hearsay as the hadith. It seems to all boil down to which set of 7th century pirates would you believe. I am now completely convinced that many of the verses could have been made up by guys other than mo.
1) Testing past concepts with present value or 'science' is Presentism. See definition...
2) Continuity is keeping the Covenant (5.45-48), even Muhammad is asked to judge through it.
3) Indeed the Koran doesn't portray him as a role model, except in ''looking forward unto God''.
4) Your conspiration theory isn't holding any water in face of the hundred of testimonies we have.
You failed to bring -one single testimony- to support your wild and erratic assertion...
In short, you're seeing -everything- through the wrong side of your binoculars.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.