Xenophanes on polytheism and “immoral” gods

“Gods in Greek mythology were like humans. They exhibited immorality in acts such as stealing, deception, and adultery. These gods were distinguished from humans only for their immortality. Xenophanes criticized that these misconducts were blameworthy even among humans and should not be ascribable to the divine. He found the origin of these misconceptions of gods in human anthropocentric projections of human images to the divine.”

Source: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Xenophanes

The Greek philosopher Xenophanes was a critic of Greek polytheism.  He derided the idea of gods with human limitations.  Given that Christianity’s concept of “God” maintains that the Almighty came to earth in the form of Jesus, we need to consider this belief vis a vis Greek paganism.  The Greeks believed that their gods manifested themselves in human or animal form.  The Christians also believe that their god manifested as a man.  Even the holy spirit manifested as a “dove” (Matthew 3:16).  As Xenophanes observed, the Greeks also ascribed “immoral” behaviors, such as stealing, deception or adultery, to their gods.  As it turns out, as a man, the Christian god also committed immoral acts.  In the thread “Was Jesus Sinless?”, we showed examples of the sins committed by the Biblical Jesus during his ministry.  These include destroying other people’s property (as in when Jesus allowed demons to possess some pigs without asking for the owner’s permission) or telling flat-out lies (as in when Jesus told his family that he would not go to the Festival of Tabernacles, but then went anyway later on).  These kinds of acts, as Xenophanes would maintain, cannot be ascribed to the divine.  They are human acts, and are considered immoral even for humans.  So how could the Almighty God commit such acts?  It seems that Christian theology is not much different than Greek paganism, or any other form of paganism.
        

 

148 thoughts on “Xenophanes on polytheism and “immoral” gods

  1. stewjo004

    Another fascinating point about Xenophanes are these quotes of his:

    “The Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black, While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair. Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw, And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.”(DK 16 and 15)

    “Men always makes gods in their own image.”

    So he is basically saying that whenever people create idols they turn themselves into gods. Let’s first look at Buddha in China he looks like a Chinese man:

    In Bangladesh he looks like a Bangladeshi man:

    However, he was a man who is of Indian descent but somehow became Far East Asian. Let’s now look at Christianity Isa(as) was a dark-skinned Jew in the middle of Philistine who first becomes:

    Egyptian:

    Then European:

    Of course Black Jesus:

    And we can’t forget about Chinese Jesus:

    And now we see that when anthropomorphism is used for God it is the stepping block to humans elevating themselves to gods.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Oh brother, with every comment, Cerbie is exposing himself as a troll with only cut and paste knowledge. The claim that Muhammad (pbuh) was a “white” man was also posited by other idiotic Christians, like Jack Chick. It is frankly embarrassing that Christians are so desperate to stop Islam, that they have concocted these laughable polemics! I dealt with this asinine claim in one of my articles. Get educated Cerbie! The holy spirit has hoodwinked you!

        “As for the ahadith that Chick referred to prove that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a white man, he is simply misinterpreting the meaning. This tends to happen when Christian apologists blindly parrot each other in repeating nonsensical polemics without bothering to do the research. In the hadith, the phrase translated as “this white man” uses the word “الأبْيَضُ” (“abyad”).[38] According to Lane’s “Arabic-English Lexicon”, “abyad” can mean “white” or “having whiteness”.[39] However, it also states:

        “[a]pplied to a man…it was sometimes used to signify white in complexion…””

        So when applied to an Arab man like Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), it was actually signifying his white complexion. This is demonstrated in other ahadith which described him as having a “white complexion”:

        “Abu Juhaifa reported: I saw Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) that he had white complexion and had some white hair, and Hasan b. ‘Ali resembled him.”

        Not only did he have a “white complexion”, but the complexion was also described as “slightly reddish”.[41] He was described as “neither absolutely white nor deep brown”.[42] So, the conclusion is that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not literally a white man, and no serious scholar has ever described him as such. For example, Watt described him simply as having a “fair” complexion.”

        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/18/islam-jack-chick-and-the-battle-for-souls-camels-in-the-tent/

        Like

      2. Descriptions of Jesus in the Bible:

        Revelation 1:15 ESV
        His feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters.

        Revelation 1:13-14 ESV /
        And in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire…

        Hmm, apparently Jesus is also an old man with white hair! Oh those silly Christian pagans with their aging god!

        Like

      3. Precisely – an Arab prophet with a reddish-white complexion!

        Your idiotic statement would be like saying that a Middle Easterner like Jesus (pbuh) was also “white”! Getting desperate, are we Cerbie? Why does your god have white hair like an old man?

        Like

  2. quote :
    as God is of the highest description, the highest thing we can describe or speak of must therefore be God.
    I was having a discussion with some Christians and atheists and a few others about God. And when the Christians tried to tell me about Jesus and how he was god, i tried to explain to them about how i can very easily think of a character who i can describe as being greater than Jesus, his tale far grander than that of Jesus and his domain far greater than that of Jesus and that, in fact, Jesus is too human centric to be the omnipotent God as clearly in the universe we live humans seem insignificant.

    Like

  3. The application of human limitations to God is, of course, not only found in Christianity but Judaism as well. The book of Daniel describes God as an old man, a trait that is directly borrowed from pagan mythology. It’s no wonder he needed to come down to see the Tower of Babel!

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Yep, in Daniel 7. It describes “God” with white hair sitting on a throne with wheels. This is a copy of El in Canaanite myth. El was an aged deity sitting on a throne. Not only that, but when Daniel describes the “son of man” approaching the throne, it is recalling the Canaanite myth about Baal receiving power and authority from El, after Baal defeated Yam, the seagod.

        Like

  4. Joel

    ” It seems that Christian theology is not much different than Greek paganism, or any other form of paganism.”

    LOL! Christians are monotheists, which does not correlate with paganism. Your polemics are dumb.

    The problem for muslims is that islam resembles ancestor worship and worship of the dead – both islam and ancestor worship believe that the deceased can intercede with the gods (mohammed intercedes like deceased ancestors intercede for pagans), like muslims pagan ancestor worshipers see the deceased as righteous guides for this life, muslims show veneration for graves of mohammed and his companions.

    The problem is that mohammed was a sinner and muslims are commanded by satan/allah to follow his example in ALL things. Thus, muslims venerate a sinful ancestor – no true god would command his followers to venerate a sinner in all their actions.

    There’s also an interesting correlation between vikings reaching valhalla by dyng in battle and reaching heaven by engaging in islam’s jihad.

    Like

    1. stewjo004

      @ Joel

      Hey, Joel again several points:

      1. Xenophanes’s point
      I think you misunderstood what Xenophanes is saying. His point is reffering to people trying to make God a human and attributing poor moral character to Him like in the Bible when it says God makes mistakes or fears mankind:
      The Lord REGRETTED that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was DEEPLY TROUBLED. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I REGRET that I have made them.” (Genesis 6 6:7)

      But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” (Genesis 11: 5-7)

      2. Christians are monotheist
      Ehhh.. that’s a strong word and debatable.

      3. Ancestor worship is forbidden in Islam
      Actually, it’s so forbidden it nullifies someones, Islam (i.e they are not Muslim). Interestingly this concept actually came over from Christians and Jews venerating their saints. But anyway, your, example is flawed because
      A. We don’t pray to them or ask for guidance like ancestor worship does.
      B. Prophets and the righteous are supposed to be examples (hence why the Scripture tells their story). Humans learn mostly by watching others experience. Hence, things such as reading, talking to others or googling things now.

      4. The Prophet(saw) did not sin
      The only thing he had were slight errors that God corrected because he was held to a high standard and his situations wouldn’t even be mentioned if it were u. For example, when Muslims were being tortured and oppressed he was trying to preach the Word to a leader so that if he became Muslim the torture and oppression would cease. The man simply wanted to debate for the sake of debating but the Prophet(saw) was trying his best. A blind old man came up and started screaming for him to teach him something. Keep in mind the man:
      A. Interrupted
      B. Could’ve learned anytime while access to this leader was exclusive

      The Prophet(saw) had a slight wrinkle on his forehead show out of irritation at the situation and ALL of Sura Abasa came down for him to be corrected. Yeah, he wasn’t drinking and shaking it in the club. He was literally trying to preach to a leader stop people from being tortured.

      5. Entering Valhalla is not like being a Shaheed.
      Most people are ignorant of Viking belief. To reach Valhalla did not require to die in battle (ironically enough this myth was created by Christian missionaries lying on said Vikings). Odin was supposed to have feared Ragnarok and so he would choose capable Vikings to prepare for it. (Hence the drinking and fighting all day) Viking beliefs are to sum it up a variation of Hindu beliefs (again a lotta people don’t know they’re interrelated hence the Indo-Aryan connection)

      6. Jesus worshipped “Satan”?
      You probably missed my post on this but Jesus(as) worshipped Allah I’ll just repost to catch you up:
      As a final note because it a major pet peeve of mine when Christians say “The True God YHWH” 2 points to make:
      1. Jesus never uses YHWH in the entire NT
      2. Jesus calls God either Abba, Elah or Elaha

      According to Bible study tools, Allah is used 95 times in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament:
      https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/elahh-aramaic.html

      Here’s another pronunciation tab from Strong’s Dictionary:
      https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h426

      And oh my goodness what is this? This is an article that the word Jesus uses in Aramaic (contrary to popular belief this is his native tongue not English) for God what does it say:
      “There are two words for God in Aramaic El and alaha (Syriac) or Elahi (Biblical Aramaic).The word is almost identical to the Arabic ‘alah’.”
      http://learnaramaic.blogspot.com/2012/06/god-in-aramaic.html#.WzCz16dKjrc

      Liked by 1 person

      1. HAHAHA, nice job brother in refuting Coco!

        Coco, wake up and listen to Stew. You have been bamboozled! You worship a composite pagan god. You can claim to be a “monotheist” all you want, but it won’t change the fact that your concept of God has its origins in pagan mythology!

        Like

      2. Paulus

        “Ancestor worship is forbidden in Islam
        Actually, it’s so forbidden it nullifies someones, Islam (i.e they are not Muslim).”

        You need to travel a bit. Go to Indonesia and you will find that probably 90% of the muslims in that nation practice some form of anscetor worship. I personally visited several shrines of deceased “Islamic gurus” whom the people brought offerings and prayed to.

        In reality, Islam is only a facade in those nations, so I’m glad you’ve just condemned them to hell for shirk.

        Like

      3. LOL, awww…look at Cerbie try to rescue Coco! So adorable. Have you guys ever seen those shows on TV “Unlikely Animal Friends”? A dog and a monkey…now that’s an unlikely animal couple!

        As for Indonesians allegedly practicing ancestor worship, since I doubt that you have met all ~300 million Indonesian Muslims, I frankly doubt your…cough…”estimate”. I don’t doubt that there is a syncretism with local folk beliefs, but that happens everywhere and with every religion. For example, in Mexico, even though the majority of people are Catholics, there is large scale syncretism with the older folk religions, something that the Catholic Church obviously discourages.

        Like

      4. Paulus

        Dean of the postgraduate faculty at the State Institute for Islamic Studies (IAIN) in Yogyakarta.
        “I believe that there is no such thing as a pure Islam. No matter who reads the Koran, their background and their culture will influence their interpretation of it. I was born Javanese – that is, Hinduism and Buddhism and other traditions have influenced me, although I was raised as a Santri. I see syncretism as something positive, as long as we deal with it rationally.”

        Imagine that, an Islamic professor encouraging shirk!!

        “Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), which is the largest Muslim organization in the world with some 40 million members…NU adherents are usually from rural areas, where many forms of syncretism are still found – from animism to black magic.”

        40 million members committing shirk!! GASP…

        Look buddy, I know you taqiyyah westerners like to parade Indonesia as a great example of tolerance, which it is, but only because the *cough* muslims there, aren’t actually Muslims (according to imam Stew). But we know consistency in muhammadans is as likely as muhammad Being attracted to adults…

        Like

      5. LOL, so 40 million out of somewhere like 300 million somehow means 90%? Look buddy, I know you trinitarians are mathematically challenged, but you have still yet to prove that 90% of Indonesians practice syncretist religions. As I said, I don’t doubt that many Muslims all across the world have fused local beliefs with Islam. The same is true of Christianity and every other religion. But how does that change the fact that you worship a pagan god with human limitations? GASP! Red herrings will not save you!

        Like

      6. Examples of syncretism among Christians:

        “Today, all over Mexico, traditional healers call upon the Catholic saints whilst conducting rituals based on ancient beliefs in the curative powers of the earth and the reasons for sickness. Whilst being bathed in plants, flowers and herbs and having eggs passed over you, you will be undoubtedly be watched over by numerous depictions of Catholic saints cluttering the walls of the healer’s room. A syncretism and irony that does not seem to cause any concern” (https://mexicoretold.com/2011/03/29/syncretism-of-belief-in-day-to-day-life/).

        According to a 2009 poll, the Pew Forum found that many Christians in America had syncretic beliefs:

        “22% of Christians say they believe in reincarnation — that people will be reborn in this world again and again. And similar numbers (25% of the public overall, 23% of Christians) believe in astrology. Nearly three-in-ten Americans say they have felt in touch with someone who has already died, almost one-in-five say they have seen or been in the presence of ghosts, and 15% have consulted a fortuneteller or a psychic” (http://www.pewforum.org/2009/12/09/many-americans-mix-multiple-faiths/).

        Like

      7. Paulus

        “The Prophet(saw) did not sin
        The only thing he had were slight errors“

        😂😂😂😂 except this AGAIN contradicts your own scriptures

        “Narrated ‘Aisha:
        The Prophet used to say, “O Allah! I seek refuge with You from laziness and geriatric old age, from all kinds of sins and from being in debt; from the affliction of the Fire and from the punishment of the Fire and from the evil of the affliction of wealth; and I seek refuge with You from the affliction of poverty, and I seek refuge with You from the affliction of Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal. O Allah! Wash away my sins with the water of snow and hail, and cleanse my heart from all the sins as a white garment is cleansed from the filth, and let there be a long distance between me and my sins, as You made East and West far from each other.”

        Like

      8. LOL, making a fool of yourself again with your Google searches?

        As Sheik Ibn Taymiyyah explained:

        “The view that the Prophets were protected from major sins (kabaa’ir) but not from minor sins (saghaa’ir) is the view of the majority of the scholars of Islam and all the sects… It is also the view of the majority of the scholars of tafseer and hadeeth, and of the fuqahaa’. Nothing was reported from any of the Salaf, Imaams, Sahaabah, Taabi’een or the successive generation that does not agree with this view.”

        Note that it says “minor sins”. This would be like making mistakes as in the case brother Stew mentioned with the blind man. It is not like your sinful savior, who destroyed other people’s property and lied through his teeth, and thus left his followers in theirs sins and on the one-way trip to hell! 😂😂😂😂

        Like

      9. Paulus

        If one commits minor sins, it logically follows that such a person is not sinless.

        Besides, you just contradicted Stew. He said muhammad “did not sin”. You agree with everyone else in the world that he did.

        Funny that you think “not asking permission” is a major sin but marrying a six year old or murdering a critic is a minor sin 😂😂😂

        Talk about debauchary!!

        Like

      10. Lol, you truly are a shameless moron aren’t you? Stew said that the Prophet could make mistakes, didn’t he? Seriously Cerbie, is there even an ounce of reason left in your corrupted mind?

        And leave it to a diseased crosstian to excuse his debauchery (and also misspelling debauchery) of sinking to such a low as to bring someone’s infant daughter into a discussion, as well as excusing the sins of his savior! In your religion, a sin is a sin, right? It doesn’t matter how big or small. So a murderer is no worse than a saint. Yep, talk about debauchery…of Christianity!

        Like

      11. Paulus

        Oh Britney, what shall we ever do with you? You see, the problem is that muhammad didn’t make the distinction you are making, nor did God. Notice that Muhammad asked for forgiveness “from all kinds of sins”, to quote him directly. This major/minor division is just another, albeit poor, attempt to reconcile contradictions in your Hadith and Koran.

        And when we look at the sunnah, it’s very clear that this supposed sinless man was anything but.

        Now, do explain how not asking permission is sinful but Muhammad’s actions aren’t. Don’t run and hide little infidel.

        Like

      12. HAHAHAHA, hey Cerbie, thanks for showing your radical nature you hell-bound kafir crusader! 😉

        Hmmm, let’s see what the hadith you previously quoted actually says:

        “O Allah! I seek REFUGE with You from laziness and geriatric old age, from all kinds of sins and from being in debt; from the affliction of the Fire and from the punishment of the Fire and from the evil of the affliction of wealth; and I seek refuge with You from the affliction of poverty, and I seek refuge with You from the affliction of Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal. O Allah! Wash away my sins with the water of snow and hail, and cleanse my heart from all the sins as a white garment is cleansed from the filth, and let there be a long distance between me and my sins, as You made East and West far from each other.”

        So, we see you lying for your sinful savior again. The prophet prayed for “refuge” from committing “all kinds of sins”. That does not mean he had committed such sins! This was a prayer for protection and one done out of humbleness. In contrast, your sinful savior willingly destroyed someone’s property and willingly lied to his family. Why does your god break his own laws and act like a sinful human? Don’t run and hide little crusader kafir.

        Like

      13. Paulus

        “Wash away my sins “- Muhammad (from the Hadith under discussion)

        “That does not mean he had committed such sins!“- britney cry baby

        Me thinks you doth protest too much and contradict thy prophet AGAIN!!!

        😂😂😂

        Like

      14. Bwahaha, still lying for your sinful savior? Cerbie cry baby, the hadith says that the Prophet prayed for refuge from all kinds of sins. You claimed that it meant that it means that he committed both minor and major sins. Now that you have been embarrassed again, you try to move the goalpost as usual. Poor Cerbie, so much like thy sinful savior! Lol!

        Like


    2. LOL! Christians are monotheists, which does not correlate with paganism. Your polemics are dumb.”

      your god is 3 beings, each being does its own actions, each being communicates with the other beings. you worship 3 gods. this is not one person controlling 2 bodies doing exactly the same thing, this is three individual things doing their own stuff.

      you are a pagan polytheist . you just paying lip service to the word “one” when in reality “one ” is just ABSTRACT term in your pagan religion.

      “The problem for muslims is that islam resembles ancestor worship and worship of the dead – both islam and ancestor worship believe that the deceased can intercede with the gods (mohammed intercedes like deceased ancestors intercede for pagans),”

      in your religion one person who is fully god intercedes with another person who is also fully god. in your prayers you have a pagan “man-god” as your intermediary . in islamic religion , when one prays, THERE IS NO INTERMEDIARY.


      like muslims pagan ancestor worshipers see the deceased as righteous guides for this life, muslims show veneration for graves of mohammed and his companions.”

      Muhammad warned people not to venerate his grave.


      The problem is that mohammed was a sinner ”

      from a biblical standard Muhammad CANNOT be a sinner.


      and muslims are commanded by satan/allah to follow his example in ALL things.”

      in no way is FOLLOWING A PERSON THE SAME AS USING THE PERSON IN PRAYER AND PRAYING THROUGH HIM TO SPEAK TO GOD.


      Thus, muslims venerate a sinful ancestor – no true god would command his followers to venerate a sinner in all their actions.”

      you have not even LISTED one sin .

      torah tells u to follow priests and judges (sinners )
      torah tells you to follow sinners like moses

      god chose moses (sinner ) and was chosen by people


      There’s also an interesting correlation between vikings reaching valhalla by dyng in battle and reaching heaven by engaging in islam’s jihad.”

      idiot . you are from dcci, right?

      Like

    3. IDIOT!! Muhammad (pbuh) will be given the right to intercede by Allah’s permission. Moreover, we do not pray to Muhammad (pbuh) to intercede for us. Nice try with the deflection, but you crashed and burned as usual.

      Now, try to be a man for once (instead of a monkey) and deal with the issue. Your concept of “God” applies human limitations to the Almighty. He is an old man with bad eyesight. Why would you worship such a made-up deity?

      Like

    4. Joel

      stew

      You guys are awesome…..the quran is full of anthropomorphic descriptions of false god allah. His face, he loves, or abhors, he has hands (at least two right hands, similar to multi-armed Shiva, LOL!!), the list goes on. What exactly is your point? Are you just trying to shoot yourself ion the foot?

      Christians are monotheists – not debatable at all.

      Ancestor worship is forbidden in Islam

      Islam is the veneration of a dead 7th century nomad who thought that camel’s urine was good meds. Islam is the practice of the following…..

      the deceased can intercede with the gods (mohammed intercedes like deceased ancestors intercede for pagans), like muslims pagan ancestor worshipers see the deceased as righteous guides for this life, muslims show veneration for graves of mohammed and his companions.

      You haven’t addressed this at all.

      Mohammed sinned….

      So be patient, [O Muhammad]. Indeed, the promise of Allah is truth. And ask forgiveness for your sin and exalt [ Allah ] with praise of your Lord in the evening and the morning.

      https://quran.com/40/55

      Indeed, We have given you, [O Muhammad], a clear conquest. That Allah may forgive for you what preceded of your sin and what will follow and complete His favor upon you and guide you to a straight path.

      https://legacy.quran.com/48/1-2

      You are contradicting the word of your god. Does allah lie?

      Plus, mohammed admitted his sinfulness…

      O my Lord! Forgive my sins and my ignorance and my exceeding the limits of righteousness in all my deeds and what you know better than I. O Allah. Forgive my mistakes, those done intentionally or out of my ignorance or without or with seriousness, and I confess that all such mistakes are done by me. O Allah! Forgive my sins of the past and of the future with I did openly or secretly. You are the One Who makes the things go before and You are the One Who delays them, and You are the Omnipotent.”

      Bukhari 8:407

      Entering Valhalla is not like being a Shaheed.

      Yes it is. Pagans who die in combat enter the halls of Valhalla, just like muslims engaging in jihad.

      Jesus worshipped “Satan”?
      You probably missed my post on this but Jesus(as) worshipped Allah I’ll just repost to catch you up:

      Oh please stop. Allah is satanic – the proof is that mohammed thought he had been accosted by a demon in the cave. Yahweh meets his prophets in person, allah sends a demonic entity and hides himself. Why would the true god hide himself?

      Plus allah is similar to “Alat” and pretty close to al-uzza – pagan gods that mohammed commanded his followers to bow down to and worship. So your point has backfired pretty seriously.

      Like

      1. Again with the deflections? We have already heard the same appeal to anthropomorphism from your fellow hell-buddy Cerbie. But anthropomorphism does not explain why your Bible says that your god has regrets, white hair and bad eyesight. Deal with the issue you silly pagan and stop dancing like a monkey.

        Like

      2. Joel

        q and bs

        But anthropomorphism does not explain why your Bible says that your god has regrets, white hair and bad eyesight.

        LOL!! Yes it does – you guys are just too brainwashed by the cult of mohammed that you can’t accept it. That’s what happens when you worship your sinful ancestors.

        So again, please explain why the true god would command his followers to follow the example i all things of a sinful human being? Any day now would be good. Only satan would do such a thing.

        Like

      3. LOL!!! No it does not – you and Cerbie are just too brainwashed by the cult of crosstianity that you can’t accept it. That’s what happens when you worship your aged Canaanite mangod.

        So again, please explain how anthropomorphism explains why your god has regrets. Having regrets means your god was not in control, as Stew said. You idiots have yet to explain why it does. Only Satan would do such a thing as to apply human limitations to the Almighty.

        Like

      4. stewjo004

        @ Joel

        Oh… I didn’t see this post first off don’t speak on Arabic if you don’t know it:
        Allat and Allah have different trilateral root letters. You use these in Arabic to see if words are related:
        Allat- Alif, Lam, Ta Marbuta
        Allah- Alif, Lam, Ha
        It is IMPOSSIBLE for these words to be related. It would be like someone saying “range” and “orange” is related in English.
        As for the rest, given what you’re saying you clearly didn’t read my post so I won’t repeat myself.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. “Allat and Allah have different trilateral root letters. You use these in Arabic to see if words are related:
        Allat- Alif, Lam, Ta Marbuta
        Allah- Alif, Lam, Ha”

        i don’t think that in the arabic language there is never a time FEMININE form which ends with ta marbuta can produce a masculine noun.

        these missionaries are nut bags.

        Like

      6. Joel

        stew

        Oh… I didn’t see this post first off don’t speak on Arabic if you don’t know it:

        Here we go.

        This is a poor attempt at deflection – too transparent. Sadly, alat is believed to be the feminine form of “allah” – that’s awkward. And al-uzzah left her private parts on the corner of the kaaba for pilgrims to kiss on the hajj. It is also interesting to note that pagan arabs circumambulated the kaaba praying to these three gods.

        As for the rest, given what you’re saying you clearly didn’t read my post so I won’t repeat myself.

        Don’t run away. Please try to answer.

        Why would a good god command people to venerate and follow the example – in all things – of a man who sinned? What was mohammed’s sins, and how do you know you haven’t committed them? What kind of god commands sin?

        Like

  5. stewjo004

    @ Paulus

    Assuming your estimates are true and everything you said was true. For the common people if they are shown the evidence and they persist they are kuffar. As for the gentleman, you quoted assuming you didn’t lie or half quote him and he said it in that context he too is a kaffir. All these people would be violating shirk al ibadah and I or no scholar of repute would have no issue calling them kuffar.

    Next, you for some reason keep confusing humbleness with sin. Muhammad(saw) is teaching and encouraging the people to pray and ask for forgiveness:
    Ibn Umar narrated: I heard Allah’s Messenger saying, “O people ask Allah for forgiveness verily I ask Him for forgiveness hundred times a day.” (Musnad Ahmad Hadith 17173)

    Further proof can be shown because Abu Hureira the sahaba who mentioned the prophet asking for forgiveness became Muslim 20 years into the Prophethood and Surah Furqan where the Prophet was told by God he has been forgiven for any past or present mistakes he may have made was already revealed so this is more proof.

    Another example, using the Bible, is Jesus(as) is supposed to have been baptized by John(as). What was John(as) baptizing for? The Bible says:
    “And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Luke 3:3)

    In the famous Lord’s prayer Jesus(as) is alleged to have said either:

    And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us. And do not bring us to the time of trial.” (Luke 11:4)

    or

    “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” (Matthew 6:12)

    opheilēma the word used for debts according to Strong’s Dictionary means:

    that which is owed
    that which is justly or legally due, a debt
    metaph. offence, SIN

    Thayer’s Greek Lexicon says that in Matt the context is SIN:
    b. in imitation of the Chaldean חוב or חובָא (which denotes both debt and sin), metaphorically, offence, sin (see ὀφειλέτης, b.); hence, ἀφιέναι τίνι τά ὀφειλετα αὐτοῦ, to remit the penalty of one’s sins, to forgive them, (Chaldean חובִין שְׁבַק), Matthew 6:12. (Cf. Winer’s Grammar, 30, 32, 33.)
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g3783#si_2

    Even the Living translation of the Bible translated as:
    and forgive us our sins, as we have forgiven those who sin against us.
    http://biblehub.com/matthew/6-12.htm

    Which is why you sometimes have “forgive us of our trespass”.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. stewjo004

    Also, you still haven’t explained why your concept of God regrets His mistakes, is scared of His creation or lost a fight (after cheating) and getting robbed by Jacob(as).

    Liked by 1 person

  7. stewjo004

    This comes from lack of understanding of when we say “minor sins” we’re referring to mistakes from a reasoned opinion. To quote Shakh Minnajid(rh)who is quoting Ibn Taymiyyah(rh)

    Firstly: the use of the word “sin” in the question is a grave mistake, because sin (khatee’ah, pl. khataayaa) is impossible in the case of the Messengers. It is more correct to say mistakes, because a mistake may be made unintentionally, which is not the case with sins.

    Secondly: with regard to sins, the Messengers, including Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), never committed any sin intentionally as an act of disobedience towards Allaah after receiving their Mission (risaalah). This is according to the consensus of the Muslims. They were protected from major sins (kabaa’ir) but not from minor sins (saghaa’ir).

    So again like the blind man story, this was a mistake on the Prophet’s(saw) part to become slightly annoyed with the blind man and still talk to the chief. There was no willful disobedience of God hence it is not sinning.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Paulus

      “There was no willful disobedience of God hence it is not sinning.“

      Except, again, we have evidence from the Hadith to the contrary.

      “Narrated Abu Musa: The Prophet used to invoke Allah with the following invocation:

      “”O my Lord! Forgive my sins and my ignorance and my exceeding the limits of righteousness in all my deeds and what you know better than I. O Allah. Forgive my sins, those done intentionally or out of my ignorance…”

      Notice that last phrase, intentionally or out of ignorance. Muhammad confessed to committing intentional sins.

      Face it, Your prophet was a sinner. Later Muslims, like yourself, have venerated him toward aimlessness.

      Like

      1. Paulus

        This is confirmed in another Hadith which states,

        Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari: The Prophet used to invoke Allah, saying, “O Allah! Forgive my sins and my ignorance and my exceeding the limit (boundaries) of righteousness in my deeds; and forgive whatever You know better than I. O Allah! Forgive the wrong I have done jokingly or seriously, and forgive my accidental and intentional sins, all that is present in me.”

        Like

  8. stewjo004

    @ Paulus

    Again nothing to do with the blog post and you’re trying to create tangents from the contention about your concept of God which shows the weakness of your argument. You’ve literally are just shotgun blasting anything at this point. You know it’s bad that God is accused of getting beat up and all the other things the Bible says. Be a man of Truth, if you can defend the point against the Bible do so if not just follow the Truth wherever it may be.

    Next, as for what you posted, you’re just copying and pasting from Answering Islam’s article WAS MUHAMMAD A SINNER by Silas and since he fails to quote a reference and I did a brief search but couldn’t find it other than the article in question I’ll respond once a reference can be provided.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. ” you’re just copying and pasting from Answering Islam’s article WAS MUHAMMAD A SINNER by Silas”

      LOL, well that’s all Cerbie can do! The idiot has no knowledge so he has to parrot other idiots who are just as clueless! 😂😂😂

      Like

      1. stewjo004

        @ Paulus

        Jesus(as) when he came back from Jerusalem he was riding a purple elephant and shooting laser beams out of his eyes.
        Okay, where’s that?
        It’s right there in John.

        See how that doesn’t help with a reference? What he quoted as “Bukhari” was like 08.335 or something like that. Bukhari book 8 doesn’t even start at 335 so I need a proper reference:
        https://sunnah.com/bukhari/8

        Like

  9. stewjo004

    @ Joel

    Anthropomorphism does not explain the Bible’s concept of God having regrets or losing fights etc.

    I need you to really think about what you’re saying. If just for the sake of discussion we go the route that it’s anthropomorphizing, okay the word “regret” itself is born from making mistakes (hence why you have a regret because if you were to it redo over again you would do something different). Saying that God regretted doing something implies that He is not in control. It is an attribute of weakness.

    Saying that God said: “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.” implies that we can overthrow God if we were united.

    Saying that Jacob was defeating God in a wrestling match and then God cheated and dislocated his hip and then Jacob held onto Him and wouldn’t let go until God blessed him is blasphemy of the highest order.

    Even if we anthropomorphize ALL this it is still implying that there is a weakness which is what everyone is getting at.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Paulus

      Nonsense.

      When Allah is described as angry or earth full, due you consider this a weakness like when you lose your temper?

      When Allah is described as jealous, do you consider this a weakness like you have?

      Just use common sense and consistency for once will you…

      Like

      1. “5The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.”

        human beings trouble your pagan god just like a normal human is troubled by something which troubles him. the coupling of regret and troubling is interesting it show these defects were part of yhwh even before creation existed.

        one can easily describe thunder and lightning as “angry”
        but one can never describe non-human , non-animal things as regretting or troubled.

        if you can show otherwise , then prove it.

        Like

      2. stewjo004

        Why do you guys keep talking about Islam Islam? Defend YOUR beliefs, YOUR theology. You say God regrets, explain how one regrets without making a mistake? Or fears His creation uniting together or getting beat up by Jacob(as) Saying: “Well Allah has Hands, gets jealous, angry, etc,” is not answering about Christianity’s beliefs. We do not believe in anthropomorphism nor do we interpret these things as such so all these questions you guys keep asking don’t apply to us. The purpose of this post is attributing weakness to God. Answer directly about CHRISTIANITY, you and Joel are talking about random tangents as opposed to the question asked. You guys believe in anthropomorphism so defend it then.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Joel

      stew

      Saying that God regretted doing something implies that He is not in control. It is an attribute of weakness.

      This is just dumb. The quran and muslims describe allah as having the very qualities of creatures distinguished only by his immortality – allah’s “oneness” is one such quality. Allah’s oneness is like the oneness of every creature except allah is – supposedly – eternal. Exactly what xenophanes was describing. LOL!!

      That aside, saying god regretted something in no way implies weakness of being out of control – your reasoning is suspect here. All it means is he regretted something. It isn’t hard.

      I notice how you have avoided the problems I raised with venerating a human being who – in his own words – was a sinner. No true god – i.e. no GOOD God -would command people to follow the example (in all things) of a man who sinned. What was mohammed’s sins? How do you know that the examples set out in bukhari aren’t sinful? Since mohammed sinned, and muslims are commanded to follow his example in all things, Allah/Alat/Al-Uzzah are basically commanding muslims to be sinful. The god of islam is thus satan.

      The very act of venerating an ancestor is paganism – would the god of Abraham command paganism?

      Like

      1. Paulus

        Stew denies anthropomorphic language in the Koran, but all that leaves him is a description of Allah that is meaningless. After all, of Allah’s oneness has no correlation to anything we consider as “one”, then who is to say Allah is not twenty?

        They get so desperate to attack Christian faith that they make their own religion basically defunct.

        Like

      2. “This is just dumb. The quran and muslims describe allah as having the very qualities of creatures distinguished only by his immortality – allah’s “oneness” is one such quality. Allah’s oneness is like the oneness of every creature except allah is – supposedly – eternal. Exactly what xenophanes was describing. LOL!!”

        Atlaspartridge, you seeing this lol ?

        i am one person, when i die, i will be one person, how is the fathers one person different than my one person ?

        “That aside, saying god regretted something in no way implies weakness of being out of control – your reasoning is suspect here. All it means is he regretted something. It isn’t hard.”

        yhwh regretted his mistake of making man. he did not know that man would go out of his control and he regretted making them.
        he was TROUBLED. you only are troubled if something has become UNCONTROLLABLE.

        Like

      3. Joel

        Paulus

        After all, of Allah’s oneness has no correlation to anything we consider as “one”, then who is to say Allah is not twenty?

        Exactly. Allah’s “oneness” is meaningless which is why muslims avoid talking about tawheed – it doesn’t make sense.

        Like

      4. “Why would a good god command people to venerate and follow the example – in all things – of a man who sinned?”

        bring examples of sins filthy kafir. i can ask, why would a good god speak highly of moses and solomon and say that they should be obeyed and listened to (this is what oral torah says, this is what ot says, this is what the jews say, and they were SAYING this in the time of jesus. even jesus told the jews to follow pharisees because they sit on moses seat )? why would a good god reveal himself and chat to a sinner like moses when he was “holy” ? why do SINNERS like moses get to receive DIRECT conversation with “good god” when “good god” would know they would do disgusting crimes, like idolatry plus other things?

        Like

      5. “Exactly. Allah’s “oneness” is meaningless which is why muslims avoid talking about tawheed – it doesn’t make sense.”

        your pagan compounded gods “oneness” is like parts glued together. this pagan composite things which consists of unitarian beings has meaningless “oneness”

        each person in the trinity is a being on its own ,

        “father is god”

        the “is god” clearly implies is BEING . the person which is one is existing as BEING .. father is either part being in his person or he is full being, but whatever the case father is BEING..

        son is being

        and ghost is being

        Like

      6. Joel

        toni

        bring examples of sins filthy kafir.

        I can’t. But that’s the point – no one knows what mohammed did that your “god” considered sinful, yet you are commanded you blindly follow ad venerate this man. Allah states in the quran that mohammed sinned, and then goes on to command muslims to follow his example in ALL things.

        You are commanded to sin. Allah is not god, therefore, and is probably satan since satan is the one who wants man to be sinful.

        Like

      7. “The very act of venerating an ancestor is paganism – would the god of Abraham command paganism?”

        your pagan catholic brethren disagree HAHAHAHAHAH

        QUOTE :

        Sometimes Fundamentalists object to asking our fellow Christians in heaven to pray for us by declaring that God has forbidden contact with the dead in passages such as Deuteronomy 18:10–11. In fact, he has not, because he at times has given it—for example, when he had Moses and Elijah appear with Christ to the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3). What God has forbidden is necromantic practice of conjuring up spirits. “There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. . . . For these nations, which you are about to dispossess, give heed to soothsayers and to diviners; but as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you so to do. The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren—him you shall heed” (Deut. 18:10–15).

        God thus indicates that one is not to conjure the dead for purposes of gaining information; one is to look to God’s prophets instead. Thus one is not to hold a seance. But anyone with an ounce of common sense can discern the vast qualitative difference between holding a seance to have the dead speak through you and a son humbly saying at his mother’s grave, “Mom, please pray to Jesus for me; I’m having a real problem right now.” The difference between the two is the difference between night and day. One is an occult practice bent on getting secret information; the other is a humble request for a loved one to pray to God on one’s behalf.

        Like

      8. Joel

        toni

        Where does Our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ command us to pray for intercession from our ancestors? Muslims venerate mohammed like the pagans venerate the deceased.

        Plus, why does your “god” command you to sin?

        Like


      9. Where does Our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ command us to pray for intercession from our ancestors? Muslims venerate mohammed like the pagans venerate the deceased.”

        your sinful pagan god jesus was alright with saint worship.

        quote :

        One charge made against it is that the saints in heaven cannot even hear our prayers, making it useless to ask for their intercession. However, this is not true. As Scripture indicates, those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of “golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.

        Some might try to argue that in this passage the prayers being offered were not addressed to the saints in heaven, but directly to God. Yet this argument would only strengthen the fact that those in heaven can hear our prayers, for then the saints would be aware of our prayers even when they are not directed to them!

        In any event, it is clear from Revelation 5:8 that the saints in heaven do actively intercede for us. We are explicitly told by John that the incense they offer to God are the prayers of the saints. Prayers are not physical things and cannot be physically offered to God. Thus the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God mentally. In other words, they are interceding.

        https://www.catholic.com/tract/praying-to-the-saints

        “Plus, why does your “god” command you to sin?”

        where?

        Like

      10. “Muslims venerate mohammed like the pagans venerate the deceased.”

        why would a pagan “man-god” munching kafir tell me about veneration ?
        the catholics have proof from the bible to pray to DEAD saints and seek god through them,
        jesus had absolutely NO PROBLEM with CONSULTING the dead.
        paul himself had no problem with consulting the dead

        Like

  10. Joel

    Okay. Looks like all the muslims have run away from the question.

    So I’ll ask it again:
    Why would a GOOD god command people to venerate and follow the example in all things of a man who had sinned? Which of his actions were sinful and how do you obey your god if you choose not to commit the sins the prophet committed? Do you sin because your god commanded it, in which case you just be condemned, or do you disobey your “god” in which case you will be condemned.

    That’s what is known as a satanic double whammy of hellfire. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t – literally. Face it guys, whatever entity you worship, it is not God.

    Like

    1. toni

      bring examples of sins filthy kafir.

      I can’t. But that’s the point – no one knows what mohammed did that your “god” considered sinful, yet you are commanded you blindly follow ad venerate this man. Allah states in the quran that mohammed sinned, and then goes on to command muslims to follow his example in ALL things.”

      we have your records you filthy kafir,

      https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/11/18/isa-al-masih-a-quranic-disposition/#comment-31665

      why should muslims ADDRESS the same thing again and again ?

      are you naturally born a retard ?

      Like

    2. stewjo004

      It’s got nothing to do with “running away” I answered this already and you didn’t read it: For example,
      Joel: When Vikings die they go to Valhalla.
      Me: Actually, that’s not Viking belief. Vikings believed…

      Next post:
      Joel: Just like Vikings go to Valhalla!
      Me: …(sigh)… please read the above.

      You can see why I wouldn’t feel like repeating myself again to someone who didn’t read the first time. Just look above when you first said your points and you’ll find my reply. A simple “ctrl F and type Allaha” and your good to go.

      And again this has nothing to do with the Bible’s concept of God regretting, getting robbed etc..

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Joel

        stew

        You haven’t answered anything. PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

        No GOOD and TRUE god would command people to follow the example of a man in ALL things who was a sinner. Allah says that mohammed sinned and needed forgiveness, mohammed himself said that he had sinned with intention and exceeded the limits, yet allah wants you guys to view everything he did as exemplary.

        Which of his actions were sinful? If you refuse to follow allah’s command to follow mohammed’s actions since they were sinful, then you disobey allah’s command. If you do the same sinful things that mohammed did, then you have sinned and disobeyed allah. So allah has commanded muslims to sin regardless of their choices. Such a command cannot come from god but from satan.

        Like

      2. Coco,

        You haven’t asnwered anything. PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION!!! Why does your god have human limitations, white hair and bad eyesight?

        Muhammad (pbuh) made mistakes (which would be immediately corrected by God) like any man, but he did not deliberately disobey God like most men. Also, in matters of religion, he was incapable of making mistakes such as teaching the wrong doctrine etc. The same applies to all the prophets.

        In contrast, no GOOD and TRUE God would apply human traits like white hair to Himself. Such a description cannot come from God but from Satan. Moreover, no GOOD and TRUE God would come down as a man and live a SINFUL life and then pretend like he was a SINLESS sacrifice for mankind. Such a concept of God cannot come from God but from Satan.

        Like

  11. if a crosstian protestant talks about veneration, saint worship , consulting the dead, just go to the catholic forums or go to biblical academic and ask the catholic scholars their. crosstians protestants get smashed on this issue. trust me, there is lot saint veneration, spirit calling, in both nt and ot. this is not denied by catholics.

    Like

  12. QUOTE :
    I can’t. But that’s the point – no one knows what mohammed did that your “god” considered sinful, yet you are commanded you blindly follow ad venerate this ma

    response :

    According to Christians, Jesus is the perfect sacrificial lamb because he was sinless and pure, but is he?

    Baptism is for the repentance of sin:

    Luke 3: 3- Then John went from place to place on both sides of the Jordan River, preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven.
    Jesus was baptized:

    Luke 3:21- Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heavens were opened.

    So, why would Jesus be baptized if he was sinless when we know that the purpose of baptism is for repentance and forgiveness?

    Jesus wasn’t even pure in the biblical sense:

    Job 25:4- How then can man be in the right before God? How can he who is born of woman be pure?

    Jesus was a man born of a woman:

    Galatians 4:4- But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law.

    Furthermore, the Bible teaches us not to put our trust in man for he does not provide us with salvation:

    Psalms 108:12- Oh grant us help against the foe, for vain is the salvation of man!

    According to Gill’s Exposition of the entire Bible:
    “…it is a vain thing to expect help and salvation from men, for indeed there is none in them; only in the Lord God is the salvation of his people, both temporal and spiritual.”

    Acts 2:22 tells us that Jesus was a man:

    “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God…”

    However, in accordance to Psalms 108:12, by being a man Jesus is not qualified as a savior let alone as the ultimate savior for all of humanity! For those who try to resolve this by saying that Jesus was not just any man, he was a “God-man” (fully man and fully God at the same time), we say:

    If you want to say that Jesus was fully man fully God, it means that he still has a human nature. A human nature that was just as ordinary as anyone else’s; it got tempted (Mt.4:1-10), it grew in knowledge (Luke 2:52), it got circumcised (Luke 2:21)

    … With that being said, the human/man part of God was impure and incompetent to be a savior in light of Job 25:4 and Psalms 108:12 . So, can Jesus be capable and not capable of saving at the same time?!

    So far, we’ve seen how Jesus was not the perfect sacrifice nor did he have the criteria to be. Moreover, Jesus did not want to die for peoples’ sins:

    Mark 14:36 – ”Abba, Father,” he cried out, “everything is possible for you. Please take this cup of suffering away from me. Yet I want your will to be done, not mine.”

    To clarify the ingredients of the cup of suffering are: “the present season and time of distress, and horror; all his (Jesus’) future sufferings and death, which were at hand; together with the bearing the sins of his people, the enduring the curse of the law, and the wrath of God…” (Gill’s Exposition of the entire bible).

    Thus, Jesus (God) did not want to die for his people . Ironically, Jesus had a different will than God’s. Notice how supposedly the same person has two different wills… One God with two different wills?

    ///////////////////

    since we have biblical evidence that jesus was BORN a sinner, was cleansed because of his sins, was having ALL different sinful thoughts…..we can ask the question, were you in the room when jesus was alone suffering from sinful thoughts?

    do we have more than 10 years of his BIOGRAPHY ?

    the born in sin authors of the nt lied to you, they lied about “sinless” state of jesus , even mark did not consider jesus sinless

    “why do you CALL me good?”

    you are DYING in your sins joel.

    Like

  13. stewjo004

    Alright, we’re back on the topic of discussion. You haven’t explained what the regret is if it’s not an attribute of weakness. What did He regret then Joel when He made humans?

    Next, I have answered every point you said and responded to Paulus. You didn’t read my post simply ctrl F alah is all you need to do. Heck underneath the post you just made is a portion of an answer to Paulus.

    Next, you said Allat is believed to be the feminine of Allah. Believed by who? Why is no one quoting references today? You:

    1. Can’t feminize the word, Allah. As Tony said a feminine noun can’t become masculine when a ta mabuta is behind it.
    2. They are different trilateral root letters. These letters determine things definition and if they are related. For example, Jeem usually takes on the meaning of something hidden, Jannah, Jahannam, Jinn etc. The best way I can try to bring an example in English is like the word “geology”. In latin, Geo=Earth, ology= study. So, the study of the earth. ; geo- “earth”, -metron “measurement” so the earth’s measurement. Allah and Allah have different root letters so they are not and cannot be related to one another.
    3. Al Uzza was not a private part? To the best of my knowledge the idols Naila and Assaf are the ones you’re referring to.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Paulus

      “There was always bound to be conflict in covenantal history between God and human beings, but this does not mean there is conflict within God’s inner being (see Horton, The Christian Faith, 240-241). As God’s ways appear to us, there will be change and variation, but as God is in his character and essence there can be no variation of shadow due to change (James 1:17; cf. Mal.3:6; Heb. 13:8; 2 Tim. 2:13).“

      Or, to simplify, anthropomorphism

      Like

      1. 5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created—people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord.

        2 be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent, of one’s own DOINGS, absolute Exodus 13:17 (E), Psalm 106:45; Jeremiah 20:16; Joel 2:14; Zechariah 8:14; “” שׁקּר 1 Samuel 15:29 (twice in verse); מאס Job 42:6; שׁוב Jeremiah 4:28; Jeremiah 31:19; Jonah 3:9; חוּס Ezekiel 24:14; ׳לא נ, “” נשׂבע Psalm 110:4; c.עַל Amos 7:3,6; Jeremiah 8:6; Jeremiah 18:10; עלהֿרעה for ill done to others Exodus 32:12,14 (J), Jeremiah 18:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 3:10; Jonah 4:2; אלהֿרעה 2 Samuel 24:16 = 1 Chronicles 21:15 (על), Jeremiah 26:8,13,19; Jeremiah 42:10; כְּי Genesis 6:6,7 (J), 1 Samuel 15:11,35.

        gods actions made god repent. this is too clear and no spin can save this text.
        humankind is what god made ,” was sorry that he had MADE humankind …..”

        feeling sadness, sympathy, or disappointment, especially because something unpleasant has happened or been done

        this is connected to gods making human kind. god was sorry he made humankind on earth.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. “2 be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent, of one’s own DOINGS, absolute Exodus 13:17 (E), Psalm 106:45; Jeremiah 20:16; Joel 2:14; Zechariah 8:14; “” שׁקּר 1 Samuel 15:29 (twice in verse); מאס Job 42:6; שׁוב Jeremiah 4:28; Jeremiah 31:19; Jonah 3:9; חוּס Ezekiel 24:14; ׳לא נ, “” נשׂבע Psalm 110:4; c.עַל Amos 7:3,6; Jeremiah 8:6; Jeremiah 18:10; עלהֿרעה for ill done to others Exodus 32:12,14 (J), Jeremiah 18:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 3:10; Jonah 4:2; אלהֿרעה 2 Samuel 24:16 = 1 Chronicles 21:15 (על), Jeremiah 26:8,13,19; Jeremiah 42:10; כְּי Genesis 6:6,7 (J), 1 Samuel 15:11,35.”

        Well there you go! The “inspired’ Bible uses a word which implies that God realized he made a mistake! AstagfirAllah! The blasphemies Christians apply to the Almighty! So, the embarrassed Christians want us to now think that the Bible used a word which meant one thing, but it actually meant something else. So what is it? What does it mean that God had a “regret”?

        Like

      3. ” but as God is in his character and essence there can be no variation of shadow due to change”

        yhwh repents in his character and essence , there are 100 % variations . genesis says that yhwh regretted from his own doings. if he had NOT done it, there would be no regret. god in genesis is like a man, he even gets tired. he speaks so much “let there be…” he needs to take a breather.

        Like

      4. LOL, and this proves what? It would be natural for Christians to want to deny that God does not change. But fine, we have given you the benefit of the doubt. Now, what we are asking is for you to explain what your Bible means when it says that God “regretted” creating mankind or that he “came down” to see the Tower of Babel. What does it mean when it says that God has white hair? Doe he really have white hair or does it mean something else? Queue Jeopardy theme…

        Like

    2. Joel

      stew

      Don;t play games. You have been owned – you have been trapped in your own semantics. Allah is similar to al-at and al-uzza whom pagans worshiped by praying to them whilst circling the kaaba.

      Like

      1. so then by the same logic “eloah” in the bible is eloha.

        yhwh is the pagan bit*ch goddess eloaHA……

        and hokhmah is his female consort in the form of sophia .

        Like

      2. hey joel, yhwh says that the blood of animals is powerful enough to atone for sins, does that mean that yhwh was in the form of “holy blood” which existed in those thousands of animals ?

        there is NO text which says HUMAN BLOOD atones, there are texts which says animal BLOOD atones, this makes me think that yhwh was BLOOD. no wonder blood appeases him, because yhwh IS blood.

        why would yhwh replace his “holy blood” in ANIMALS with a pagan human sacrificial ritual when his “holy blood” was CONTAINED in animals ?

        Like

      3. LOL, little Coco is still pretending like he has made a valid point! You have been desperately trying to change the subject of this thread and have utterly failed to explain why your god has human limitations, and is really no different than pagan deities. Despite your red herrings, brothew Stew still refuted your asinine claim. Face it Coco. Parroting other clueless crosstians will not help your cause. They will mislead you to hell. And your sinful savior mangod cannot help you.

        Liked by 1 person

  14. stewjo004

    @ Paulus
    First off that quote had nothing to do with anthropomorphism.

    Second, that quote didn’t answer anything all it basically said was “Yeah God’s ways look like they’re changing to us but His essence will always be the same.”

    Okay cool, that has nothing to do with God having regrets or repenting to the Children of Israel. How can a being who Knows All things regret anything? And how can a being that is not questioned repent? Who did He repent to?

    Like

    1. Paulus

      Nothing to do with it? Except is directly from a article on the topic lol…

      And of course it answers the question, you will just never admit it.

      Like

      1. So why don’t you explain what your Bible meant when it said that God “regretted” creating mankind? Why do you keep dancing around this question? Hmm, I have a theory as to why…LOL!

        Like

      2. god regretted for what he did. its like i create a robot and then it starts malfunctioning and killing people (robocop 1) , then i regretted making it. bible god = human being.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. stewjo004

        @ Paulus
        Yes it can be the OVERALL article is how you believe God is like a human but THAT SPECIFIC part is not about automorphism it’s about God’s nature.

        As QB said what does this prove? No one is denying God changes what the question is how does God “regret” anything if He is All-Knowing? How does He lose a fight to a prophet and the get robbed for a blessing? Let’s break down a chapter that most Muslims would have an issue with let’s read:

        22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two female servants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”
        But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”
        27 The man asked him, “What is your name?”
        “Jacob,” he answered.
        28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel,[a] because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”
        29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.”
        But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there.
        30 So Jacob called the place Peniel,[b] saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”
        31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel,[c] and he was limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon.

        https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+32%3A22-32&version=NIV

        1. Proof that polgyny is allowed.
        that night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two female servants

        2. A violent encounter
        Joel earlier had a problem with Gabriel squeezing Muhammad(saw) but in this episode God (or Gabriel) attacks Jacob(as) before he recieves revelation with no announcement.

        3. God was losing or in a stalemate with the Prophet Jacob(as) and thus cheated so (and we seek refuge from such blasphemy) Jacob is either equal or more powerful than God in this life.
        When the man saw that he COULD NOT overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man.

        4. Jacob proceeds to rob God for His Blessing (thus showing my earlier contention he was stronger and forced God to cheat)

        Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.” But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”

        5. Jacob saw God
        30 So Jacob called the place Peniel,[b] saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”
        What?

        6. Proof of the extremes of the Jews and how they do innovations in God’s religion
        Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon.

        God did not make this forbidden and so they have made forbidden what God has made permissable.

        So please Paulus I want a breakdown on how the Bible’s concept of God regrets, is troubled and loses fights. I’m putting the ball entirely in your court please directly answer this.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. So the question for the crosstians is how does anthropromorphism explain the wrestling match between Jacob and God, and God’s apparent inability to overpower Jacob? Queue Jeopardy theme yet again…

        Like

      5. Paulus

        “Proof that polgyny is allowed.“

        😂😂😂 oh dear, you’re clearly not aware of description vs prescription in the Old Testament . Nor are you aware apparently of what’s jesus, the imitator of the new covenant, has to say on the topic.

        You are very ignorant of Christian thought and practice. It shows all the time

        Like

      6. 😂😂😂

        Oh dear, Cerbie appeals to yet more made-up crosstian nonsense to explain the contradictions in his Bible!

        Crosstians are an inventive people. They made up so many concepts when faced with Biblical contradictions.

        Like

    2. Paulus

      “how does God “regret” anything if He is All-Knowing? “

      “Some have argued that since God “repents” of things he has done, therefore he could not have foreseen what was coming. Else why would he repent or regret, if he knew in advance the consequence of his decision…However, this is not a compelling argument against God’s foreknowledge. First of all, the argument assumes that God could not, or would not, lament over a state of affairs he himself chose to bring about. That’s not true to human experience; and more importantly, God’s heart is capable of complex combinations of emotions infinitely more remarkable that ours.“

      See the point? The premise in your question is illogical. Or will you continue to say that an answer has not been given? 😂😂

      Like

      1. noun
        noun: lament; plural noun: laments

        1.
        a passionate expression of grief or sorrow.
        “his mother’s night-long laments for his father”
        synonyms: wail, wailing, lamentation, moan, moaning, weeping, crying, sob, sobbing, keening; More
        jeremiad;
        complaint
        “the widow’s laments”
        a song, piece of music, or poem expressing sorrow.
        synonyms: dirge, requiem, elegy, threnody, monody; keen
        “a lament for the dead”
        an expression of regret or disappointment; a complaint.
        “there were constant laments about the conditions of employment”

        verb
        verb: lament; 3rd person present: laments; past tense: lamented; past participle: lamented; gerund or present participle: lamenting

        1.
        mourn (a person’s loss or death).
        “he was lamenting the death of his infant daughter”
        synonyms: mourn, grieve, sorrow, wail, weep, cry, sob, keen, beat one’s breast
        “the mourners lamented”
        antonyms: celebrate, rejoice
        express one’s deep grief about.
        express regret or disappointment over something considered unsatisfactory, unreasonable, or unfair.
        “she lamented the lack of shops in the town”

        So we see you see lying again for your sinful savior. A lament in the context you are suggesting is like a complaint. But let’s look at what the Bible says about God:

        “The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.”

        So, it would be like saying that God “complained” about creating human beings. That makes it even worse! Is your god complaining to himself and questioning why he made humans? Your lie has backfired, as usual. 😂😂😂

        Notice also that one of the definitions of the verb “lament” is to “express regret or disappointment over something considered unsatisfactory, unreasonable, or unfair.” So again, in the context of Genesis 6:6, it would be like saying that God “lamented” for creating humans because they were unsatisfactory. But that also makes things worse for your god. It would mean that he did not expect humans to be so unsatisfactory! 😂😂😂

        Like

      2. Paulus

        Wow, you kicked into all sorts of damage control on that blatant error you made 😂😂😂

        You said regretting and lamenting weren’t the same thing. Clearly they are. Yet I’m the liar? 😂🤣

        Like

      3. Lol, are you seriously that dense? You are talking about different contexts you idiot! And look at that! No actual response at the beating you just took! Just a typical troll-like comment. You must be getting tired of being crushed all the time. 😉

        Like

      4. Paulus

        The context is the citation. You rejected the citation on the grounds that it’s use of “lament” was apparently contradictory to “regret. Here is the citation.

        “lament over a state of affair“

        It’s use is a verb. Your “complaint” definition is a noun. So actually, you have the “wrong context”. Lamenting (verb) over a state of affair is the same as “lamenting over something” or “something unsatisfactory” to use your definition.

        Your pride is getting in the way of simply admitting your error. But if you admit this error then your argument is lost, so I get your stubborn muhammadan approach

        Like

      5. 😂😂 Except that it’s not a “lament over a state of affair”. It’s a “lament” for creating mankind in the first place! You see? Context? You keep making things worse for your god! As Tony showed in his comment, the Hebrew word refers to repenting of one’s own doings:

        ““to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent, of one’s own DOINGS, absolute Exodus 13:17 (E), Psalm 106:45; Jeremiah 20:16; Joel 2:14; Zechariah 8:14; “” שׁקּר 1 Samuel 15:29 (twice in verse); מאס Job 42:6; שׁוב Jeremiah 4:28; Jeremiah 31:19; Jonah 3:9; חוּס Ezekiel 24:14; ׳לא נ, “” נשׂבע Psalm 110:4; c.עַל Amos 7:3,6; Jeremiah 8:6; Jeremiah 18:10; עלהֿרעה for ill done to others Exodus 32:12,14 (J), Jeremiah 18:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 3:10; Jonah 4:2; אלהֿרעה 2 Samuel 24:16 = 1 Chronicles 21:15 (על), Jeremiah 26:8,13,19; Jeremiah 42:10; כְּי Genesis 6:6,7 (J), 1 Samuel 15:11,35.””

        So, you have not rescued your god by appealing to anthropomorphism. You just changed one word (regret) to another (lament). If the text had stated that your god was lamenting or regretting the actions of mankind, then you might have had a valid point. But the text does not say that. It says that your god “regretted” or “lamented” even creating mankind in the first place. You see Cerbie? The problem still remains.

        Your pride is getting in the way of simply admitting your error. But if you admit this error then your argument is lost, so I get your stubborn crosstian approach. 😉

        Like

      6. I just read this story and saw the parallel to this conversation: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/man-who-called-police-black-woman-north-carolina-pool-no-n889371

        So, a white man called the police when a black woman tried to use a community pool with her child. The man evidently feels sorry for what he did and said that he expresses his “sincere regret for the actions that I took that day.”

        So, notice how he says that he “regrets” HIS actions. He may feel “lament” over the incident or “disappointment”, but the main “regret” is that he DID what he did that day in the first place. This is like Cerbie’s god. He “regretted” what he DID, which was to create mankind in the first place. The text does not say anything about God merely regretting or lamenting over mankind’s wickedness. It says that he, like the white man in the article, regretted his actions. Ergo, to apply such a description to God is blasphemy and can only be the work of heretics (and Satan).

        Like

      7. ” First of all, the argument assumes that God could not, or would not, lament over a state of affairs he himself chose to bring about. ”

        Definition of regret
        1 : sorrow aroused by circumstances beyond one’s control or power to repair

        kafir filth bag, do you not see? god LOST control. if he knew he would always be in CONTROL , he would never regret . there would be no REASON for the EXPERIENCE of regret to take over his feelings. if you have POWER AND CONTROL OVER EVERYTHING, THEN YOU WOULD never need to experience REGRET , KAAAAFIR! IF YOU ALWAYS KNEW you had power and control, regret can never take over you, it is IMPOSSIBLE.

        “That’s not true to human experience; and more importantly, God’s heart is capable of complex combinations of emotions infinitely more remarkable that ours.“

        so maybe he experiences grief, sorrow, pain, mood swings ?

        Like

      8. “express regret or disappointment about something.“ definition of lament

        are you born christian retard? it is TO EXPRESS REGRET OVER WHAT ONE HAS DONE I.E god REGRETTING WHAT he DONE……

        Like

  15. “Allah says that mohammed sinned and needed forgiveness, mohammed himself said that he had sinned with intention and exceeded the limits, yet allah wants you guys to view everything he did as exemplary.”

    Liked by 1 person

      1. stewjo004

        I will give the like because of the pun good sir.

        Also, I think it’s been pretty established that Joel is just being argumentative for
        One person to answer and tell you to ctrl F, alah
        And a second person to post a video

        to still say crickets shows why I didn’t waste time typing again.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Joel

        stew

        You’re running away. “Al” means “the”, “el” means “god” – in arabic “Illah” means “god” . “Al-Lat” is probably a conraction of “al-Illahat”, meaning “the goddess” – or, the consort of allah, which is itself a contraction of “al-illah”. “Al-Uza” means “the strong one” whose qualities were probably incorporated into allah’s names to assuage early pagan converts to islam. So, yeah, you’re not fooling anyone – allah, al-lat and al-uzza are similar – more similar that “allah” is to “El”.

        Now, back to the real issue: why did allah/satan command muslims to sin deamanding that they find exemplary ALL actions of the sinful prophet? Why would he command muslims to imitate these sins?

        Of course, you have avoided – or simply been unable – to see the ramifications of allah’s command. Commanding people to sin means that allah is an evil “god” who wants muslims to do evil in the belief that they are doing “good”.

        So, please answer the question: why does allah command people to follow the examples of a sinner? What were mohammed’s sins? And how do you know which actions of his were sinful and requiring allah’s forgiveness? How do you know that you are not sinning when imitating mohammed’s behaviours?

        PLEASE ANSWER.

        Like

      3. “You’re running away. “Al” means “the”, “el” means “god” – in arabic “Illah” means “god” . “Al-Lat” is probably a conraction of “al-Illahat”, meaning “the goddess” – or, the consort of allah, which is itself a contraction of “al-illah”. “Al-Uza” means “the strong one” whose qualities were probably incorporated into allah’s names to assuage early pagan converts to islam. So, yeah, you’re not fooling anyone – allah, al-lat and al-uzza are similar – more similar that “allah” is to “El”.”

        There goes Coco again, with his pathetic attempt at appearing like an objective researcher. So Coco, are you ready for your daily dose of humiliation? You were really itching for it. So here we go:

        You claimed, without providing any source, that “Al-Lat” is a contraction of “Al-Illahat”. Well, let’s see what the experts say, shall we? John F. Healey writes in his book “The Religion of the Nabateans: A Conspectus”:

        “The etymology of the name in the Arabian context is discussed fully by Fahd, who inclines to the view that the name is based on a genuine Arabic common noun derived from the root LTT. It certainly is treated as such in later Arabic tradition. Thus the name is in Arabic Al-Lat (with the final /t/ one of the root letters rather than a feminine ending).” (pp. 112-113)

        Healey also quotes Krone, who used information from the Greek historian Herodotus and suggested that the name was derived from “hal-ilat”, to “hallat” and then finally to “allat”.

        So, you see, it has nothing to do with “Allah”, you moron. Do some better research next time. But at least you got your daily dose of humiliation. Feel better? 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      4. LOL, does Coco think that every time he makes a comment, someone has to respond immediately, and if not it means they have no response? We have lives outside of debating with losers and pseudoscholars, Coco. You will just have to wait to get your daily dose of humiliation. 😉

        Liked by 2 people

      5. illahun correspond with hebrew eloah

        These are both cognates

        Now is the kafir ready to accept eloaHA . ..eloaha will be feminine form of eloah/ilah

        laaatun- ilaahun -laaatu ilaahu

        When filthy kafir speak,he should do some BASIC research before he get humiliated

        Like

  16. “So, the embarrassed Christians want us to now think that the Bible used a word which meant one thing, but it actually meant something else. So what is it? What does it mean that God had a “regret”?”

    this religion has one million dollar apologetic industry and it still can’t fix its pagan god. the truth cannot be covered with money, yhwh feels sorry like humans do.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Paulus

    “So the question for the crosstians is how does anthropromorphism explain the wrestling match between Jacob and God“

    So, Britney, are you satisfied that the “regret” theme has been satisfactorily addressed? Happy to proceed onto this next red herring if you admit it…

    Like

  18. stewjo004

    First off, did you just call the Prophet Jacob(as) an adulterer or fornicator? (Authobillah) He took multiple wives and God did not criticize it, therefore, it’s permissible.

    As for your regret quote absolutely not satisfied. I just asked about the biblical concept of God getting beat up thinking it might be easier to explain. Saying God could not regret or God forbid repent over something He brought about is:

    1. Illogical. To repent is to admit you were wrong in the situation hence we “repent” to God when we sin. To regret is to become distressed at a missed opportunity. To say someone repented or that they regretted their actions is literally the antithesis to being The Most Wise or All-Knowing.
    2. Not supported by the text.

    I’m sorry Paulus I just find the concept that God is in control of all things at all times a more compelling concept then one that regrets what He created and lose fights to it. Do you understand where I’m coming from?

    Like

    1. Paulus

      It’s not illogical at at. In the context the repent or regret means to express disappointment, which is completely compatible with God’s being and character.

      Consider an example.

      You plan to punish your child for wrongdoing but your child threatens to run away. You punish your child anyway. You child then runs away. You may feel “regret” for your discipline, in a sense of disappointment about the outcome. However, your discipline was still the right thing to do and you are not “surprised” by the outcome.

      Anyway, I won’t bother commenting any further on this because regardless of what a Christian says you will still reject a-priori and/or suggest your question isn’t answered. You aren’t looking for a genuine discussion or answer.

      Like

      1. LOL, that’s because you have yet to provide a genuine “answer”! You have been trolling for the past week or so with useless and irrelevant arguments, and now you expect to be taken seriously? 😂😂😂

        Your “example” fails because in Genesis, God was expressing “regret/disappointment” for having even CREATED humans in the first place. Sure, you can say that he was “disappointed” at the wickedness of humanity, but the text goes further and says that his “disappointment” was so great that he even considered whether he should have made humans. You’ve made it worse yet again! That’s three strikes. You’re out!

        Like

      2. stewjo004

        @ Paulus

        I understand man, God who is Almighty and powerful repenting and regretting is a pretty hard position to defend.

        Now for everybody else there was an entire matter that we didn’t touch on with this repent thing. It’s actually contradictory to the Bible itself:

        God is not a man, that he should lie, Neither the son of man, that he should repent: Hath he said, and will he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and will he not make it good? (Numbers 23:19)

        Well what a strange verse. This verse now gives arise to a contradiction to the Bible (See how it makes both things impossible to exist at the same time and same context?) So what happened why is the verse in Genesis such blasphemy and this verse in Numbers is more akin to Tawheed? I was planning to do an article on this but it all comes down to “the Documentary Hypothesis” (aka JEDP theory). I’ll spare everyone the details but essentially J.E.D.P. are a designation used by scholars to identify the sources that was used to compile the first five books of the Old Testament. There is a difference of opinion whether these sources were written or oral traditions, and whether each source ris independent strand or a if they come from an older source.
        https://www.google.com/search?q=documentary+hypothesis+chart&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS716US716&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4p6GNw4ncAhWi24MKHVkyB7oQ_AUICigB&biw=1536&bih=798#imgrc=a5E4xk6dDP4QNM:

        The Jews divided into two rival kingdoms after the death of Suleiman(as) The “J” source generally attributes human attributes to God (walking in the garden, repenting, regretting etc i.e all that anthropomorphism) While in “E” God is more akin to the Islamic concept (being all knowing, transcendent etc.) This also explains why you will see redundancy in the the Bible story and it will literally tell the exact same story over again in the same setting because of the “stitching” used in these stories.

        Further reading for those interested:
        Jewish Study Bible

        If you want to see examples:

        http://www.livius.org/articles/misc/great-flood/flood1-t-bible_2/

        Click to access gqhc_flood.pdf

        http://pathstoknowledge.com/1552/the-flood-stories-according-to-j-and-p/

        https://henryneufeld.com/the-two-flood-stories/

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Paulus

        And your comment is exactly why it is futile talking with you. You assume your (illogical) idea into one text as a predicate to create a contradiction with another.

        Ironically, you seem unaware that in the book of Samuel the same “contradiction” appears within a few verses of each other. So either the author was a complete dunce, or, and read this carefully, your (illogical) assumption isn’t correct. But clearly the text in Samuel hasn’t made its way into the Muslim polemics classs you’ve been studying 😂😂

        You ask for an answer. Get given several which refute you, then simply ignore the responses and move on. Sigh, I guess we just need to go back to using your own argument to falsify Islam, and see whether you apply the same standards to your own faith

        But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?” (19:67, Yusuf Ali)

        Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood,” (96:2).

        Oh look at that, a contradiction. But where is Stew to give “context” to each and harmonise, and would he allow Christians the same?

        Like

      4. “Ironically, you seem unaware that in the book of Samuel the same “contradiction” appears within a few verses of each other. So either the author was a complete dunce, or, and read this carefully, your (illogical) assumption isn’t correct. But clearly the text in Samuel hasn’t made its way into the Muslim polemics classs you’ve been studying 😂😂”

        You forgot the 3rd possibility, which is that there were different stories which were later combined into one book! Of course, it’s entirely possible that the author was a dunce as well! I mean these guys weren’t exactly the sharpest tools in the shed, if you know what I mean. 😂😂

        Like

      5. Paulus

        Stew, you are a bit behind. That theory isn’t very strong in Old Testament studies these days. Much like the source hypothesis of the nt that have been largely abandoned

        Like

      6. Oh dear, oh dear. Cerbie is now averaging like two or three lies for his sinful savior per day! Of course, anyone who knows Cerbie long enough will know to take everything he says with a grain of salt.

        When Cerbie says that the source hypothesis has been “abandoned”, this is a blatant lie. The only ones who deny it are conservative Christians, but then they never accepted it! The majority of non-biased scholars still accept the hypothesis that the Pentateuch was written by multiple sources. The original theory posited by the likes of Julius Wellhausen has certainly been modified by modern scholars, but the main point remains the same. Here is a good article on the history of the theory:

        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2014/01/the-death-of-the-documentary-hypothesis/

        Like

    2. Paulus

      And just as a final thought, your own argument would falsify Islam because if Allah gets “angry” at his creatures disobedience, then by your logic it would demand that Allah did not know his creatures would disobey.

      Like

      1. LOL, pathetic! First of all, Allah’s “anger” is different from that of humans. Second, it does not imply that Allah (swt) did not know that a human would do something wicked ahead of time. But for your concept of “God” to “regret” that he had created mankind in the first place is to imply that he was unaware of HOW wicked they would get. Your god wasn’t simply “angry” or “disappointed” at the wickedness of humans, he was SO disappointed that he wondered if it was better not to have created them in the first place. That implies a lack of knowledge about HOW wicked humans would get.

        Like

      2. Paulus

        That is beside the point. By admitting that’s allah gets angry, I can use the same argument to question the forknowledge of your god. Which is why it is such a poor argument to begin with.

        But I am interested, what is Allah’s anger, if it has no correlation to humanity? This will be fun.

        Like

      3. Lol, except that you can’t. And even if you could, that still wouldn’t explain why your god second-guessed himself for creating humans!

        Now, now…don’t try to change the subject again. Why does your god have regrets? Why does he second guess himself? Why does he have white hair? Why does he lose wrestling matches? Still waiting for a coherent answer. So, will we get an actual answer or more bluster? This should be fun. Ah, who am I kidding? It’s been fun and it keeps getting better!

        Like

      4. Cerbie’s “logic”…cough…strikes again!

        Allah expresses His anger to let us know when we do something wrong. It has nothing to do with foreknowledge. In contrast, your god regretted creating man. He was not regretting their actions (or “lamenting”). He was regretting HIS decision to create them in the first place. Get it, Cerbie?

        Like

  19. Paulus

    “He took multiple wives and God did not criticize it, therefore, it’s permissible.“

    That’s ridiculous logic. If you look at porn and God does not criticise it, Does it make it permissible?

    Like

    1. 😂😂😂

      Idiot, if you look at a naked woman who is not your wife, is that allowed by the Bible? Yes or no?

      If Jacob was breaking God’s law, why didn’t God criticize him? What was he expecting Jacob to do? Realize by himself that God does not approve of such behavior?

      Like

    1. stewjo004

      I’m sorry for some reason my computer acted strangely. But like I was saying I have no problem the argument that some unknown writer had no idea what he was talking about. But I can be wrong so please reconcile:

      And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. (Exodus 32:14 )

      God is not a man, that he should lie, Neither the son of man, that he should repent: Hath he said, and will he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and will he not make it good? (Numbers 23:19)

      Like

      1. stewjo004

        @ Paulus

        Also, could you reconcile Numbers 23:19 with all the references to Jesus(as) being the son of man?

        Like

    2. Paulus

      “When, therefore, it is said a little further on that “the Lord repented of the evil,” it is tantamount to saying, that He was appeased; not because He retracts in Himself what He has once decreed, but because He does not execute the sentence He had pronounced.“

      Numbers simply means that’s God doesn’t change his counsel or plans like humans.

      “son of man” in that context is just a euphemism for human. This is different to the messianic figure on other works, even though it’s the same phrase.

      Like

      1. stewjo004

        @ Paulus
        Looking at the context again in Numbers, I agree with you that “son of man” in Numbers is probably a reference to humanity in general but in regards to “repented of the evil” and Numbers ehh.. not so much. The issue is let’s say I accepted the language as implying what you said it’s still like their implying there was a wrongdoing on God’s part. Maybe it’s a language thing but I don’t know that’s still odd to me, there’s a difference between Him changing His Decree and “repenting of the evil”. I don’t know but “repenting of the evil” just sounds like:
        1. He repented to the Children of Israel
        2. He was going to do “evil” in destroying a disobedient people when He was in the right on the subject.

        Again it could be wording but this is how it sounds.

        But, this does open another question I have for you. Okay, let’s say we accept this as the meaning then why would you have an issue with God forgiving sin as He wishes then? In this case, He forgave sin even though they worthy of punishment and God holds off His punishment. Why can’t God do that on the Day of Judgment then?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Paulus

        Stew

        You just need to keep reading the text and you would find your answer

        “The next day Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.”

        31 So Moses went back to the Lord and said, “Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. 32 But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.”

        33 The Lord replied to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. 34 Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin.”

        35 And the Lord struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made.”

        Like

  20. notice how retarded paulus is, he assumed that the same AUTHOR cannot make MISTAKES , he reads that ILLOGICAL assumption into the text, the SAME author can make contradictions in his writing, the bible proves this.

    2 be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent, of one’s own DOINGS, absolute Exodus 13:17 (E), Psalm 106:45; Jeremiah 20:16; Joel 2:14; Zechariah 8:14; “” שׁקּר 1 Samuel 15:29 (twice in verse); מאס Job 42:6; שׁוב Jeremiah 4:28; Jeremiah 31:19; Jonah 3:9; חוּס Ezekiel 24:14; ׳לא נ, “” נשׂבע Psalm 110:4; c.עַל Amos 7:3,6; Jeremiah 8:6; Jeremiah 18:10; עלהֿרעה for ill done to others Exodus 32:12,14 (J), Jeremiah 18:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 3:10; Jonah 4:2; אלהֿרעה 2 Samuel 24:16 = 1 Chronicles 21:15 (על), Jeremiah 26:8,13,19; Jeremiah 42:10; כְּי Genesis 6:6,7 (J), 1 Samuel 15:11,35.

    notice carefully “ONE’S OWN DOINGS….”

    : feeling sorrow, regret, or penitence

    OVER? OVER ONE’S OWN DOINGS

    QUOTE :
    The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

    it was a MISTAKE. had god not done it, he would not have REGRETTED. humans beings have gone OUT OF control and god is regretting making them.

    “Numbers simply means that’s God doesn’t change his counsel or plans like humans.”

    quote :

    The distinction He is making between humanity and Himself tells reveals why one can invest Him with perfect trust and why that could never be achieved by a human being.
    The question is why should God compare Himself to humanity at all. He could have just said that he does not lie and that He does not change His mind. But He does not leave it at that. He contrasts Himself to human beings, which appears completely superfluous.
    The answer is that if someone tells you that you can trust them, that does not prove anything. A liar does not announce himself up front to be a liar. He will tell you that you can believe him. So, if God says that you can believe Him, you will still wonder if it is true. How can one testify to his own honesty? The mind can conceive of the possibility that God might not be trustworthy, and if He is not, His claim does not mean anything.
    God establishes that He is trustworthy by appealing to knowledge of His perfection. Here I do not mean moral perfection, but His completeness. God is without need; He is whole. He contrasts Himself to humanity, because human beings are not complete. They have needs. And so, a human being might lie to secure a loan that he might not otherwise receive or a job or even a date. Similarly, a man may change his mind when he discovers that a situation did not go according to his projections. He may withhold the payment he promised once he receives what he wanted. This is not so for God. God has no needs. Lying could never secure a good for Himself; He is perfect. He does not change His mind. He knows the future and He never has reason to regret the good He promised. He does not feel the cost to Himself, because there is none; He is perfect. He has no competing interest. He cannot elevate His needs above that of another being, because He has no needs; He is perfect.
    This being the case, no human being can make a claim to divinity. A human being is not perfect. He relies upon air to breath, water to drink, and food to eat. He needs protection against the elements. He may be injured. He may receive benefit. His interests may compete with that of others around him. He is limited. He is imperfect.
    No matter how great a human being may appear to be, he cannot be God. The differences between humanity and Hashem are so great that one must not imagine any similarity between them. God uses their differences to argue that His promises are inviolable. That argument hinges upon the chasm that exists between Man and the Almighty. That “God is not a man… nor a son of man” is essential to establishing one’s faith in the Creator. Rather than being taken out of context, its context firmly establishes why one must never worship a man as God. The contrast between the two is too great.

    /////////

    this supports what i am saying, when god says he is not a man, he is saying he is in control of the situation , he knows and he does not make mistakes like man does.

    Like

  21. Gen 1:31, And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

    this same omniscient god said that the man he made was “very good”

    no regrets in creating man.

    Gen 6:6, And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

    god created a creature which he INITIALLY thought was good, then later on after testing man, god realised that his deed of creating man was NOT good. god regretting creating man like a human who would regret creating a robot which later on malfunctions.

    yhwh is 100 % human lile /

    Like

  22. ” First of all, the argument assumes that God could not, or would not, lament over a state of affairs he himself chose to bring about. That’s not true to human experience; and more importantly, God’s heart is capable of complex combinations of emotions infinitely more remarkable that ours.”

    if god is “perfect” in everything he does it makes no sense to say he regretted his decision , his decisions are suppose to be “perfect”

    Gen 6:6 – And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

    god created human being who he initially thought was “very good” he had no regrets, then after testing human beings, he regretted making human being. this means that god thought that his making of human being was regretful action which GRIEVED him at his heart. god is not perfect being . a perfect being has no NEED TO regret over ANYTHING he brings about, because anything he does (action) is “perfect”

    god is REGRETTING OVER his ACTION of MAKING……

    god is NOT perfect .

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s