Why did early Christians not value their teacher's words enough to preserve them verbatim and untranslated?
Islam has done this perfectly with Qur'an so which allows for more objective interpretation. In Sharia court, matters of law are arguing using Arabic poetry either contemporary or prior to the Qur'an (poetry written after Muhammad died is inadmissible) in order to show definition of terms, idioms, cultural references, etc. In this way we have been able to preserve the same meaning of the text for so long. Also texts outside of it (hadiths) there are chains of transmission required to be valid. Why didn't Christian chronicles do this? For example why didn't the authors of Matthew and Luke say who told them their contradictory genealogies and who told those persons etc? It would have made things a lot better
That image is a good summary on why leftists should not be tolerated. However, I'm not sure what violent methods are available to us without becoming the same filth.
Elijah Cruz
Buzzword. Tradition is only a meaningful term in religion if it refers to oral doctrines.
Easton Wood
First of all, Islamic law is not interpreted in a single way, various sects have various rulings, and hadiths tend to also be unreliable. Secondly I think it was to do with the nature of both religions, Islam was from its inception a highly politicized religion, it had laws and guidelines engrained with it. Christianity however started more as a spiritual thing, it only became political once catholicism gained ground, so there was this "Christian law is whatever we need it to be" kind of opening for the Catholic church to thread over.
Daniel Howard
You are a savage and annoying Muslim that keeps spamming this board with your annoying parochial fanaticism. No one gives a shit that you're a Mudslime who cares about strict, immovable adherence to a barbaric religion. The fact is, most Christians were smart enough to extricate metaphysics from myth (e.g., Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine, etc.) Whenever Muslims attempted to do this, they were killed by faggots like you (e.g., Muʿtazila were one of the few rational Muslims that were slaughtered). No one gives a shit about your gay-ass shitty tradition and inability to accept nuance and a wider perspective. Westerners will always hate you and for good reason. Now fuck off.
Cooper Cruz
/thread
Colton Roberts
The words didn't matter to Jesus. The truth is in the stories. That's why he gave his followers the parables, and only the apostles got the philosophy. Philosophical musings have never convinced anyone of anything. Stories reveal to you what you already are. He had faith in the virtue of people, and he tried-- and succeeded, in a big way-- to show it to them.
Owen Lee
Social inertia is hard to overcome, double so when you’re trying to convince a bunch of religious zealots to calm the fuck down before the Romans bitch slap them again.
>a single shitty meme is the proof that an entire wing of politics can't be trusted
Nathaniel Gray
At this point, is there a single thing that redeems the left wing?
Colton Hill
Liberals are all about “love” and “against hate” but have no problem imposing force on objects that threaten their perceived worldview. They’re paradoxical and fundamentally sick. Sad!
>Liberals are all about “love” and “against hate” but have no problem imposing force on objects that threaten their perceived worldview Not to defend liberals, but are you implying they should tolerate someone they perceive as untolerant just because their ideology is about tolerance?
Brandon Flores
There are essentially four schools (madahib), they differ largely based on sources of law. Some consider local cultural norms (Urf) a basis for example. Their differences are not drastic.
Hadith don't tend to be unreliable. Sahih hadiths are mostly considered reliable although they can be invalidated based on issues with transmission or because they are irrational (Maturidi position). About 80% to 97% of Sahih hadiths are considered reliable depending on your school.
Islam actually was not political until Medina
David Bennett
Redeems them? From what?
Landon Bell
No, but it’s ironic that they must admit hate and violence is a necessary force. Ultimately things boil down to the fact that complete human freedom is a joke, and man is a beast that must be controlled.
Technically man is always controlled. We can have a discussion on behaviorism if you’d like.
Julian Mitchell
When in the history of either liberalism or socialism have either not been willing to use violence against a threatening political rival? I'm OP and the meme signified to me how stupid the right is to keep falling back on dialogue as they keep losing
Brandon Phillips
>Not to defend liberals
Why not? You're literally defending them in your post.
Are you just afraid that you'll be called a cuck for bringing your brain and critical thinking to this godforsaken place instead of mindlessly repeating the same talking points as everyone else?
Blake Hernandez
You’re the one who is being retarded and autistically extrapolating. I’m not saying they can’t be violent. It’s just IRONIC that they preach so much for “love” and “equality” yet can’t fathom the idea that others are allowed to hate, and that hate is a good thing.
>Love is fury >Creation is destruction >If someone hits you, you them hit back
>people who want a tolerant and open society should just sit by and watch while others directly counteract their efforts because doing anything else wouldn't be "tolerant"
Oliver Rodriguez
Are kuffar incapable of understanding virtue? You are just the bizarro version of leftists who say all you need is love. Both hate and love are good in certain contexts and bad in other contexts, neither is good for its own sake
Oh! You’re a sandnigger. That explains the retardation.
Adrian Jenkins
I'm actually a white convert
Ian Ramirez
You had plenty of religions to choose from, yet you went with the worst one. Also, plenty of non-Gulf Arabs are abandoning Islam in troves.
Jacob Diaz
And the reason for the left to claim the “moral high ground” and that by waging a war on those who are intolerant may take up the cause of “a war to all wars, a war to end hate”. Within this war you’d see that for the leftists, defeating your enemy and reducing him to his borders is simply not enough; they need to be completely and destroyed. A war against hate (morally in the eyes of leftists) would see the most heinous of all human crimes to have ever occurred.
>willingly converting to a religion that’s some purpose is used to keep the muslim animals from destroying their own civilization You’re really just a retard if you willingly converted. Doubly so the fact that you need to be religious in the first place
Jason Price
I chose the true one, sorry it disagrees with your sensibilities or rather lack thereof
I see you have read Carl Schmitt
Robert Adams
If you want a Yea Forums religion, pick Judaism. If you want to be edgy, pick Islam.
As far as I know, tradition only mentions Jesus writing once, in the sand. According to tradition, he wrote the sins of some men who wanted to stone a woman for sins she had committed. When they saw what he wrote, they decided not to do it.
When he comes back, everything becomes permanent. Until then, it's all sand.
Liam Collins
Dilate
Nicholas Scott
The Qur'an's version of events is actually much less edgy than the Tanakh's
Angel Smith
>I chose the true one If you did, you’d be a calvinist. >I see you have read Carl Schmitt Indeed
Matthew Thompson
You think a savage Bedouin from the desert had a special revelation compared to pretty much every other enlightened sage or prophet? You are a fucking idiot. >If you want a Yea Forums religion, pick Judaism. Idiot.
Julian Cox
Calvin wasn't a prophet afaik
Matthew Robinson
Revelation is not achieved through study and according to Muhammad (peace be upon him), a shepherd is the occupation of most prophets
Adrian Carter
The one on the right looks cute for a Brit.
Jaxon Bell
Plenty of more sane people have claimed revelations beyond that Bedouin savage. You only chose to follow the Bedouin savage due to this false belief that Muslims have an orderly society. You want a sense of brotherhood, not Truth.
Jordan Bennett
>Islam has done this perfectly with Qur'an lol
Connor Allen
Sane people like Abraham the Nomad or Elijah the Hermit or Joshua the Warlord?
Grayson Wilson
In Islam, Muhammad is the most important. In Christianity, Jesus is the most important. And there are plenty of other religions we can list. Granted, Muhammad was a scumbag compared to the vast majority of other prophets or enlightened men.
Cooper Brooks
We shall not make excuses for the terror.
Xavier Hill
He is most important by virtue of him being the last and bringing an untampered revelation, although each prophet is otherwise equal as per the Qur'an
Muhammad was hardly a "scumbag" by Old Testament standards, he was exemplary
Brandon Long
Plenty of other prophets claimed or implied to have the last revelation or the most accurate one. Nothing makes Muhammad special, dumb faggot.
David Carter
>Plenty of other prophets claimed or implied to have the last revelation Before him? Who?
Matthew Barnes
Zarathustra Mani Mazdak
Nathan Nguyen
Where?
James Foster
Mani claimed to have the final revelation that synthesized many Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Gnostic Christian, and etc. ideas during 2nd century CE. Mazdak claimed to be a Saoshaynt and refined Mani's views 5th century CE. Zarathustra claimed to have uncovered a fundamental distinction between asha (truth, order, righteousness) and druj (lie, disorder, malice) during 1000-1500 BCE in Greater Khorasan. Gathas is considered his fundamental text.
Jack Morris
Where
Jaxon Turner
Mani claimed to give final revelation in Cologne Mani Codex. Zarathustra claims to have uncovered a definitive distinction between asha and druj in Gathas without reference to Abrahamic myths. We only have accounts from others about Mazdak though. Everything of his has been lost.
