Tanakh Enjoyer

My political views in 2024 be like:

@SYED_A_L_I Dude my grandmother’s family is of the Chisti Sufi order. My parents always told me we had no Shia ancestors. Perhaps not…

Sufi Shaykh Abd al-Raḥmān Chishtī (d. 1653) and his account of the birth of Imām Mahdī in Mirʾāt al-Asrār :

@HamzaAbuIsa @InspiringPhilos @Acts17David @SamShamoun @Jay_49erTikTok @GodLogic_GL @needGod_net @Fearless__Truth But the Son is not material qua ousia he’s only material qua hypostasis.

@EdgeOfInfinty @InspiringPhilos @Acts17David @SamShamoun @Jay_49erTikTok @GodLogic_GL @needGod_net @Fearless__Truth U've missed the point. The sharing of a single indivisible ousia must obtain in spite of the incarnation. What ∴ constitutes the Son qua ousia must be in virtue of the ousia, not the incarnation. So understood, the Father being immaterial necessitates divisibility in said ousia.

The Disembodied Dilemma: If the disembodied immaterial Father interpenetrates the embodied material Son; either: 1) the Father is embodied, but shares the same indivisible essence (ousia) as the Son, or 2) does not; thus has a separate essence to the Son. Pick your poison!

@HamzaAbuIsa @InspiringPhilos @Acts17David @SamShamoun @Jay_49erTikTok @GodLogic_GL @needGod_net @Fearless__Truth Im not a Christian myself, Muslim but we really shouldn't give such easily refutable arguments.

@HamzaAbuIsa @InspiringPhilos @Acts17David @SamShamoun @Jay_49erTikTok @GodLogic_GL @needGod_net @Fearless__Truth Category error. The issue is the divine ousia itself isn't incarnated into the flesh, rather the Son is embodied qua his unique hypostasis rather than qua ousia. Therefore, per Trinitarian theology the Father shares the same ousia as the son without being embodied because

@Abdullahi1334 Yes? You didn’t know?

@EdgeOfInfinty You're Shi'i?

Narrators of the virtues of the first three “caliphs” if they were honest:

@Plumbbob1716016 @InspiringPhilos How exactly is this shirk

@InspiringPhilos did Abdul bring up 9:31 This is worst bcz Allah himself commits SHIRK

You made this WORSE

@SiriusXSimurgh Ibn Arabi is speaking through this man

Cope tbh Without all the Shia ahadith, there would be no Sufi narrations left All of which have been verified by the heart I verify Shia narrations with my heart

@trasselvardias Slander against Socrates is punishable by death

Socrates

@Cross_Roads1968 @Archetypical20 @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani @rabbriansamuel Clearly it was ambigious to even israelites considering how many instances of polygamy there are.

@Archetypical20 @EdgeOfInfinty @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani @rabbriansamuel Is it ambiguous by your standards? Or the standards of Israelites in 1400 bce?

First: the Quran never says it’s confirming the Jewish and Christian canons that exist in the 7th century. It only claims to confirm what prior prophets actually taught including the gospel message Jesus actually taught. Jewish and Christian scriptural canons are not coextensive with what the prophets actually taught; they at best contain some extant prophetic teaching in meaning plus layers of post prophetic edits, redaction and interpretations. Second: the Jewish and Christian scriptures in their present form must be interpreted to arrive at Christian doctrines; they can also be interpreted in agreement with the Quran. So even if one grants the Quran confirming them, the dilemma argument requires the Quran to agree to Christian exegesis of the Bible - which the Quran definitely does not confirm and outright rejects.

@Cross_Roads1968 @Archetypical20 @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani Well, there's a principle in Law that if something is not explicitly prohibited it is by definition allowed.

@Archetypical20 @EdgeOfInfinty @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani If my son asks me if he can get a cookie when he goes to the kitchen and I say yes thats not a license to grab a cookie every time he goes to the kitchen Him rationalizing it and running to the kitchen every 5 minutes to grab a cookie is going to cause a number of issues

@Cross_Roads1968 @Archetypical20 @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani Why was Peter, a jew eating unclean meat then according to Acts 10?

@Archetypical20 @EdgeOfInfinty @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani No it didn't abrogate the law It defined which laws applied to which people groups

@Cross_Roads1968 @Archetypical20 @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani

@EdgeOfInfinty @Archetypical20 @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani And youre now proving you dont read You google We're done Im not having my time wasted

@Cross_Roads1968 @Archetypical20 @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani >gives the most immature, childish and inaccurate analogy

@EdgeOfInfinty @Archetypical20 @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani Wrong again One man one woman doesn't mean one man one woman up to 4 times If I tell my son he can go get 1 cookie I dont mean he can do that every time he passes through the kitchen lol I expected a more mature rebuttal Have a nice day

@Cross_Roads1968 @Archetypical20 @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani Saying that we took a 90 degree turn when you lot came with the Trinity, substitutionary atonement of men and antinomianism none of which is within the Old Testament is crazy work

@Archetypical20 @EdgeOfInfinty @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani Thats kind of a problem though Because we have again 4000 years of seamless revelation then in 600 ad it all takes a 90⁰ turn?

@Archetypical20 @Cross_Roads1968 @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani But from the Torah itself. There is clearly no prohibition

@Archetypical20 @Cross_Roads1968 @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani To be fair with the Christian. There is a verse in the New Testament from the Gospel of Matthew where Jesus says that whoever divorces his wife and marries another one has committed adultery, which would seem to imply that having more than one wife in your life is adulterous

@Cross_Roads1968 @Archetypical20 @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani You’re the one who’s eisegeting a prohibition that came from Roman and Greek customs onto an otherwise ambiguous torahic text. Fact is there is no clear explicit prohibition and hence no contradiction. I’m just reading the text plainly as it is you’re the one whose adding things

@EdgeOfInfinty @Archetypical20 @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani Compartmentalizing the covenant of marriage to rationalize the text to fit your narrative is not an honest examination of the of the biblical narrative Your superimposing your personal ideals and desires on the text

@Cross_Roads1968 @Archetypical20 @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani Defining one marriage as between one man and one woman doesn’t exclude the existence of other marriages. This is an argument from silence. Unless there’s a clear prohibition there’s no clear contradiction

@EdgeOfInfinty @Archetypical20 @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani Lol one man/one woman is not one man / multiple women The language is explicit

@Cross_Roads1968 @Archetypical20 @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani If Peter is told to observe the food customs of the people he’s with and those food customs contradict the levitical law then the levitical law has been abrogated. Even Paul said so

@EdgeOfInfinty @Archetypical20 @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani He is told to observe the food customs of the people hes with Lets be contextual honest here And no tgey didn't enforce the food laws on gentiles

@Cross_Roads1968 @Archetypical20 @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani Where in the Torah does it prohibit polygamy? Marriage is defined as one man and one woman Muslims agree with that. But a man can have MULTIPLE marriages. I don’t see how that contradicts

@EdgeOfInfinty @Archetypical20 @sajjadkaswani @KhalilAndani Polygamy actually is God was clear One man one woman Solomon violated it Problematic