Pat Boner

Wadar is now released store.steampowered.com/app/3538370/Wa…

@nomak98799870 @SimplyKoharu @AbuShakShik @chrismramsey @MWFaithOfficial That's why it is best to be nice and point out the errors without attacking the person. Calling out a fallacy is good, though. If a person makes an error, it is best to explain where the argument fails. If it's ungrounded, mention it and ask for evidence for that conclusion.

@nomak98799870 @SimplyKoharu @AbuShakShik @chrismramsey @MWFaithOfficial It's one of the most common fallacies anywhere. Whilst online dawah groups are notorious for it, it's not right to blame Islam for laypeople doing it as a more common group is people inexperience with the topic at hand. Rudeness only makes it harder for people to admit when wrong

When Najashi, the Christian king, asked the Muslims what they believed about Jesus Christ PBUH.

@SimplyKoharu @nomak98799870 @AbuShakShik @chrismramsey @MWFaithOfficial There's no circular reasoning. The distinction about the same text around Muhammad's time is to not overscope. For example, just cause scripture around the time of Muhammad wasn't corrupted doesn't mean it can't be corrupted later (if one doesn't hold Muhaymin to mean guardian)

@nomak98799870 @AbuShakShik @patrickbutsmart @chrismramsey @MWFaithOfficial Also "same text Muhammad had" is irrelevant cause the question is whether all manuscripts/doctrines perfectly preserved the original revelations. Stop using circular reasoning

@SimplyKoharu @nomak98799870 @AbuShakShik @chrismramsey @MWFaithOfficial No one is asking for exact phrases, but what is being looked for is something that actually says or shows the bible is claimed to be corrupted without the need of eisegesis. 5:13 distortion originally referred to in meaning same for 3:78 twisting. 2:79 is about uninspired books.

@nomak98799870 @AbuShakShik @patrickbutsmart @chrismramsey @MWFaithOfficial The Quran explicitly mentions distortion 5:13, 4:46, twisting scripture 3:78, concealment 5:15 and writing claims then calling them divine 2:79. Yall keep demanding the exact English phrase "the Bible was corrupted" but that's not how Quranic argumentation works

@nomak98799870 @AbuShakShik @SimplyKoharu @chrismramsey @MWFaithOfficial I'm going to mention this here since I can't directly to the comment by abushakshik because they blocked me but given the block after they responded, it seems clear they do not want their arguments be responded to. Am saying this to defend the fact that I'm no longer responding.

@AbuShakShik @patrickbutsmart @SimplyKoharu @chrismramsey @MWFaithOfficial Quran 21 48 and 2 53 calls the torah "Al furqan" the criterion LOL

@SimplyKoharu @chrismramsey @AbuShakShik @MWFaithOfficial So you agree since if we keep in mind that distortions historically did not refer to physical corruption but corruption of the meaning. I.e. what people thought it meant. Then, for the actual meaning to be distinguished, the text would need to not be meaningfully corrupt.

@patrickbutsmart @chrismramsey @AbuShakShik @MWFaithOfficial As for "muhaymin" a criterion or guardian makes perfect sense if the Quran is distinguishing preserved truth from later additions or distortions. It's not "guarding corruption" it's judging previous claims against revelation.

@SimplyKoharu @chrismramsey @AbuShakShik @MWFaithOfficial Ok, formulate the argument and show where it is more than just hiding the truth but instead corrupting the book based on the text of the Quran. Keep in mind 5:47 tells christians to judge by what has been revealed in the gospels. With nothing about what they have being corrupt.

@patrickbutsmart @chrismramsey @AbuShakShik @MWFaithOfficial And 5:13 says they "distort words from their places" and forget/conceal parts of revelation. That’s more than just hiding truth.

@SimplyKoharu @chrismramsey @AbuShakShik @MWFaithOfficial Other religious texts don't claim to be clear in all things, so it isn't a problem, but even for them, if it takes 400 years before the basic understanding of a verse is understood, it's guidance isn't clear. Especially given that it's not a theologically deep verse.

@patrickbutsmart @chrismramsey @AbuShakShik @MWFaithOfficial You're conflating "clear" with "no scholarly disagreement ever", by that logic every religion's scripture is unclear because debates existed. The Quran being clear means its guidance is understandable, not that no interpretation develops over time.

@SimplyKoharu @chrismramsey @AbuShakShik @MWFaithOfficial As for muhaymin claim. If someone was to guard over the Quran and protect it, that wouldn't mean it's not preserved, yet they would be a guardian of it. In contrast, if it wasn't preserved, then guarding the corrupted book would achieve nothing but make the book stay corrupted.

@patrickbutsmart @chrismramsey @AbuShakShik @MWFaithOfficial 5:13 literally says they "distort words from their places" not just hide truth and 2:79 condemns fabricated scripture claimed as divine, and 5:48 calling the Quran a “muhaymin” (guardian) makes no sense if previous texts were perfectly preserved

@AbuShakShik @SimplyKoharu @chrismramsey @MWFaithOfficial Yes, it's on about neglecting the teachings. I don't know how you are eisegesising this into thinking it's about written corruption, but it's just not there. If you're going to quote quranic verses, give the logic you're using to think it means physical corruption of the book.

@patrickbutsmart @SimplyKoharu @chrismramsey @MWFaithOfficial Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:14 “And from those who say, ‘We are Christians,’ We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of what they were reminded of…”

@AbuShakShik @SimplyKoharu @chrismramsey @MWFaithOfficial Conceal as in hide, as I said, it is about hiding the truth. This was the standard Islamic interpretation for 400 years. The Quran also warns against believing only in parts of what has been revealed (2:85). So, at the time of the Quran, the bible couldn't have been corrupted.

@patrickbutsmart @SimplyKoharu @chrismramsey @MWFaithOfficial Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:15 “O People of the Scripture, Our Messenger has come to you making clear much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture…”

@AbuShakShik @SimplyKoharu @chrismramsey @MWFaithOfficial So that corroborates the idea that 5:13 is about the jews hiding the truth. Notice it says twist their tongues with the scripture, not that they corrupt scripture. To claim that it means the scriptures were corrupted would be to say the clear book wasn't clear for 400 years.

@patrickbutsmart @SimplyKoharu @chrismramsey @MWFaithOfficial And indeed, there is among them a group who twist their tongues with the Scripture so that you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, ‘This is from Allah,’ but it is not from Allah. And they speak untruth about Allah while they know.

@SimplyKoharu @chrismramsey @AbuShakShik @MWFaithOfficial That doesn't refute what i said about 5:13. 2:85 l warns against believing in parts of what has been revealed. Under ur claim, why did it take 400 years for the clear book to have people understand what it meant? If we agree with you, then the quran lies when it says it's clear.

@SimplyKoharu @chrismramsey @AbuShakShik @MWFaithOfficial 5:13 is about people (the jews) hiding the truth. 5:48 is literally affirming it, and 2:79 is about people writing stuff and claiming its divine. The idea that the quran claims the bible is corrupted wasn't serious til Ibn Hazm. Given 16:89, taking 400 years makes it implausible

@chrismramsey @AbuShakShik @MWFaithOfficial 2:79 «Woe to those who write the Book with their own hands then say 'this is from God'...» 5:13 «They distort words from their proper places...» 5:48 «And We have revealed to you the Book in truth, confirming what was before it and as a criterion over it...» Your AI failed you.

@awwright @IBF2002 @PopePiusIXStan Depends on who you are talking to. If I'm talking to another Christian on general stuff, I likely wouldn't because we understand Lord to mean the same thing. Likewise, if I'm talking to a fellow Catholic, I may say the church rather than the Catholic church. Because we agree.

I haven't heard that full name before but sure, it's not a unique problem. By way of another analogy; we don't use the Lord's given name often for the same reason, it would imply there's other "gods" when there's just the one. (Also partly because we only have the consonants for it and it makes for awkward English). The single word "Lord" suffices for the same reason the single word "Church" ought to suffice.

The Catholic Church’s official name is the Catholic Church. The Roman or Latin Church is the largest of the 24 Catholic Churches, and its head is the universal head of the church. Since most Catholics are Roman Catholic, most people just say Roman Catholic Church. But to be Catholic does not necessarily mean one is Roman or Latin.

@awwright @IBF2002 @PopePiusIXStan I do want to point out that this heretical claim is a separate argument than the original points. Orthodox full name is orthodox catholic church because they believe in themselves to be the one true church. Even if catholics disagree with the claim, there's no name problem.

Unfortunately I'm not sure how many other ways to explain it; but Orthodox and many other denominations also profess faith in a Catholic Church and we should be united. Imagine if United Parcel Service split up into the "Original UPS" and the "United UPS" which would sometimes delivering packages for other UPSes e.g. "Mississippi UPS" and other times servicing the same neighborhoods, and other times denying their existence altogether, all while saying "we're a single UPS" That's the same problem.

@awwright @IBF2002 @PopePiusIXStan I'm not claiming it was a proper noun but rather that it was a functional qualifier (to distinguish against gnotisicism to my understanding). I don't follow how using catholic to distinguish from others is against accepted norms, standards, or dogma but is also a separate issue.

@patrickbutsmart @IBF2002 @PopePiusIXStan For Ignatius to observe the church is catholic was correct. For successors to read that and choose that as a proper noun to distinguish from other types of "churches" like the Orthodox denomination is heretical. Catholic is a greek word, and the practice predates the observation.

@awwright @IBF2002 @PopePiusIXStan It "spanning all the way back to the Ark of the covenant" isn't relevant to whether the church used the qualifier "catholic". I have limited character use, and "rites" is a shorter and more accurate term. Also, for the last part, I don't know what you are trying to say or argue.

You're welcome. Why would you dismiss the Old Testament, that's literally where the tradition comes from. There is no catholic body without Moses; Jesus is the new "King" and the Church is the new "Temple." That's Acts for you. I'm not talking about rites, I never even used that word. I'm talking about the denominations, also I'm suggesting don't qualify the word "Church" in your proper nouns.

@awwright @IBF2002 @PopePiusIXStan Thanks for the history lesson, but the Old Testament isn't relevant in this topic. If Catholic is by the adjectival, use 24 rites being universal under 1 makes sense. So, you conceeded your original comment. Catholic became a functionally qualifier in against heresy book 3 chpt 4

@patrickbutsmart @IBF2002 @PopePiusIXStan The dictionary definition of "catholic" is "regarding the whole" or perhaps "universal." The catholic nature of the church spans all the way back to the Ark of the Covenant. As for Ignatius' letter to the Smyrnaeans, he used the word καθολικὴ as an adjective, not a proper noun.

@awwright @IBF2002 @PopePiusIXStan Your claim was about the early church not using "catholic" and you have to actually formulate the argument. For example, to formulate an argument that they did would be "wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."(smyrnaeans chapter 8)

@patrickbutsmart @IBF2002 @PopePiusIXStan Uh, (1) Judges (2) Acts (3) the definition of the word "catholic"