Prove Islam To Me. I'll Be As Open Minded As Possible

[4head]

Not Fawad khan though
View attachment 69469

He will be yours.

 

[A_A]

He looks Afghan so he will probably be sent to heaven.


But that nigga aint gonna go for a lamagoodle Xalimoid like u. That nigga want his 72 blue eyed aryan virgins.

That nigga didnt suicide bomb himself just to get some ashy Xalimoid in the after life.

That’s not true!

 

[Kudhufo Kadhaqaq]

That’s not true!

No ajanabi can love u like a Geeljire can.

 

[A_A]

He will be yours.

All y’all are hating, inshallah Fawad Khan will be mine!
Ok no more derailing the thread.

 

[4head]

I'm the most romantic Geeljire that you can find on Earth. I can drink milk from the Geel. I can drive, i have the most optimal genetics. I'm also intelligent, with an IQ of 70 (above average back home). But more importantly,
I'm your favorite humorist on this Forum.

@A_A

 

[A_A]

I'm the most romantic Geeljire that you can find on Earth. I can drink milk from the Geel. I can drive, i have the most optimal genetics. I'm also intelligent, with an IQ of 70 (above average back home). But more importantly,
I'm your favorite humorist on this Forum.

@A_A

Pls stop bringing that picture up.

 

[Kudhufo Kadhaqaq]

Pls stop bringing that picture up.

I swear I get nauseous everytime I see a pic of that nigga

 

[4head]

Pls stop bringing that picture up.

It is time for me to go, i have something to do in my free-time in Jail

 

[YourBroMoe]

You have very limited options in the afterlife there is no death and the only other space available besides hell is heaven. That is how the afterlife is designed which makes giving a term punishment for a Kaffir in the hell very problematic.


Ending the suffering for Fircoon or Abu Lahab in hell for example and giving them a term limit, would mean getting them out and putting them in heaven since there is no other space available.

The justice of Allah has to overrule his mercy in keeping the kufar in hell since getting them to get out and admitting them into heven would be seen as favartisim and not justice .

Can't God just erase them from existence? I thought only Muslims go to heaven.

 

[Kingjames]

God sounds like that person that helps you with something and then holds it over your head eternally. The pure ego to demand that we bow down to him five times a day and worship him without any worldly incentive. Why create beings so you just can play judge, jury and executioner? God sounds bored honestly

 

[Kaiser]

Hey guys, Ramadan is around the corner, and I'm a very family oriented individual. For the sake of festivities, I'm down to give Islam another go, as during Ramadan, I take it seriously, because it's BS if you don't.

I may have rebuttals if you decide to participate. That's how discussions go.

Hope to keep shit civil.

Warya, we don't need to prove shit to you. What you need is a dhaqan celis ASAP.

 

[Ahmed321]

Hey guys, Ramadan is around the corner, and I'm a very family oriented individual. For the sake of festivities, I'm down to give Islam another go, as during Ramadan, I take it seriously, because it's BS if you don't.

I may have rebuttals if you decide to participate. That's how discussions go.

Hope to keep shit civil.

Don't worry about it buddy most of the Somalis mans are not Muslim they just claim to be Muslim to look good but their are not have you seen the state in Somalia? I don't blame you if their chase you away lool

 

[AIOPZ]

Oof...This thread has turned to literal trash, lololol.

 

[Aladdin]

Think of religion as insurance policy, you better of believing it. It 50/50 chance you might be saved just believing it. It won't hurt you believing it

 

[Geeljire Sandheer]

Think of religion as insurance policy, you better of believing it. It 50/50 chance you might be saved just believing it. It won't hurt you believing it

Not even 50/50 1/3000 religions chance weeye

 

[AussieHustler]

Think of religion as insurance policy, you better of believing it. It 50/50 chance you might be saved just believing it. It won't hurt you believing it

@Aladdin

It is called Pascal's wager.

Pascal's wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662).[1] It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

 

[Poets]

Hell.

We human beings live for a finite period of time. And yet, some of us will go to Hell forever.
Also Hell is described as worse than anything mankind can imagine. So I assume that the acts of evil a man can do on Earth will not compare to the pain felt in Hell.

Now God is described as the Most Merciful and the Utterly Just. This would imply to any sane man that this means God is perfectly fair when performing a judgement on man.

If a man has lived for a finite period of time, and has performed evil deeds that won't compare to the pain of Hell, then can one explain in a simply way how God can justify the punishment of Hell? Especially when someone will go there forever, with the punishment exceeding the crime.

@Zucchini I tagged you cause you both asked the same question.

The highlighted parts are the crux of the matter: is the punishment of Hell justified by the evil one has done?

My answer: absolutely yes! In the first bolded part you make an assumption I see as incorrect, which is to assume that no evil can compare to the pain in Hell. On what basis are you making this claim, is it a subjective opinion or do you believe it to be objective (ie no matter how much us religious people say it is fair, it cannot be fair. Just as no matter how much some may deny 1+1=2, it is true regardless)?

The problem of yours is a morals problem, meaning that if you believe your opinion that the acts of evil are not comparable to Hell is an objective opinion, then morals are outside ourselves since they are not dependent on ones personal feelings. If they would be dependent, then the existence of people believing Hell to be fair to wrongdoers prove that this is not an opinion which is objectively true.

If you, however, believe it to be an subjective opinion of yours, then we cannot have a fruitful discussion because I, likewise subjectively, believe it to be fair. With neither of us appealing to objectivety, there will be no ultimate truth we will reach. But if we both assume that there are some morals truths (irrespective of if the question of Hell is one of them or not), then we'll have to ask ourselves: how do we explain them? And when we answer that question, I believe your original question will be answered as well.

To sum up: your claim that Hell is not justifiable morally is either objective or subjective. If it is subjective then what makes your opinion more true than mine (which is the opposite of yours)? If it is objective, then how do we explain that some morals are objective?

 

[Ken Kaneki]

The highlighted parts are the crux of the matter: is the punishment of Hell justified by the evil one has done?

My answer: absolutely yes! In the first bolded part you make an assumption I see as incorrect, which is to assume that no evil can compare to the pain in Hell. On what basis are you making this claim, is it a subjective opinion or do you believe it to be objective (ie no matter how much us religious people say it is fair, it cannot be fair. Just as no matter how much some may deny 1+1=2, it is true regardless)?

The problem of yours is a morals problem, meaning that if you believe your opinion that the acts of evil are not comparable to Hell is an objective opinion, then morals are outside ourselves since they are not dependent on ones personal feelings. If they would be dependent, then the existence of people believing Hell to be fair to wrongdoers prove that this is not an opinion which is objectively true.

If you, however, believe it to be an subjective opinion of yours, then we cannot have a fruitful discussion because I, likewise subjectively, believe it to be fair. With neither of us appealing to objectivety, there will be no ultimate truth we will reach. But if we both assume that there are some morals truths (irrespective of if the question of Hell is one of them or not), then we'll have to ask ourselves: how do we explain them? And when we answer that question, I believe your original question will be answered as well.

To sum up: your claim that Hell is not justifiable morally is either objective or subjective. If it is subjective then what makes your opinion more true than mine (which is the opposite of yours)? If it is objective, then how do we explain that some morals are objective?

God is all knowing and knows where you will go when he creates you. Therefore, it may seem unfair to some.

 

[YourBroMoe]

The highlighted parts are the crux of the matter: is the punishment of Hell justified by the evil one has done?

My answer: absolutely yes! In the first bolded part you make an assumption I see as incorrect, which is to assume that no evil can compare to the pain in Hell. On what basis are you making this claim, is it a subjective opinion or do you believe it to be objective (ie no matter how much us religious people say it is fair, it cannot be fair. Just as no matter how much some may deny 1+1=2, it is true regardless)?

The problem of yours is a morals problem, meaning that if you believe your opinion that the acts of evil are not comparable to Hell is an objective opinion, then morals are outside ourselves since they are not dependent on ones personal feelings. If they would be dependent, then the existence of people believing Hell to be fair to wrongdoers prove that this is not an opinion which is objectively true.

If you, however, believe it to be an subjective opinion of yours, then we cannot have a fruitful discussion because I, likewise subjectively, believe it to be fair. With neither of us appealing to objectivety, there will be no ultimate truth we will reach. But if we both assume that there are some morals truths (irrespective of if the question of Hell is one of them or not), then we'll have to ask ourselves: how do we explain them? And when we answer that question, I believe your original question will be answered as well.

To sum up: your claim that Hell is not justifiable morally is either objective or subjective. If it is subjective then what makes your opinion more true than mine (which is the opposite of yours)? If it is objective, then how do we explain that some morals are objective?

Does this include pious Buddhist monks, who by definition, will be among the losers in the day of judgement?

Although, I must admit, through this dialogue, I've come to a more complete understanding of Hell. My opinion is no longer as closed minded.

I want to make this clear. Do you truly believe anyone deserves eternal damnation? Eternal suffering? With no end? Does this sound like a just act?

 

[AIOPZ]

Does this include pious Buddhist monks, who by definition, will be among the losers in the day of judgement?

Although, I must admit, through this dialogue, I've come to a more complete understanding of Hell. My opinion is no longer as closed minded.

I want to make this clear. Do you truly believe anyone deserves eternal damnation? Eternal suffering? With no end? Does this sound like a just act?

Our Lord (Glory be Exalted to Him, the Creator) has already outlined what is to be just and unjust in His world; we are simply His abiding servants following His will in hopes of entering the better part of the Hereafter.