File: Yazd,_Templo_del_Fuego_(2000)_02_(cropped).jpg (289.3 KB)

289.3 KB JPG

>>18320954
>Jesus fucked his own mama
The entire Abrahamic Aryan cult is about inbreeding from prophet Adam and Eve to Ahmed and Fatima.

>>18320954
you don't know what Islam is. read the Quran and you'll know
https://quranenc.com/en/browse/english_saheeh

it was at that time a convenient solution for a short term problem. they didn't give a fuck about distant future generations.

>>18320954
Simple, Islam is a demonic, anti-human, genuinely evil ideology. Of course it promotes inbreeding, it promotes everything that leads to misery, ignorance, suffering, and death.

File: Screenshot 2025-12-21 at 18-27-27 Numbers 36 10-15 KJV - Even as the LORD commanded Moses so - Bible Gateway.png (30.4 KB)

30.4 KB PNG

>>18320954
Why do christcucks think they know better than their gods?

why meet across town when you can meet across the hall

>>18320954
Rural areas have small dating options. It's not a Islamic thing because this phenomena is global. It's why certain traits are common in many populations like specific diseases or condtions. People always dated or married people they know or closest to them and it' been this way for literal eons, our genetic history has proof of the multplie genetic bottlenecks.

>>18321852

I could never figure that one out. What was the point of that anti-incest list in Leviticus if Numbers ends like this?

>>18322072
I'm pretty sure people could go over to another village and search for a wife there?
It's probably not good that islam allows for one rich man to own mulitple wives. That's probably not good long term though.

>>18322357
>I'm pretty sure people could go over to another village and search for a wife there
Still a tiny as fuck population. You think villages were remotely close to urban cities?

>It's probably not good that islam allows for one rich man to own mulitple wives
>>That's probably not good long term though.
He's not obligated to have multiple wives lol. Also it's weird people always leave out kids produced out of wedlock or men having mistresses which is pretty much common everywhere.

>>18321852
Christianity knows that practices in the Old Testament aren't necessarily to always be done. On the other hand, Islam is stuck with a Medieval Arab, Muhammad, as its permanent perfect man.

Muhammad married his own first cousin,
Zaynab bint Jahsh. Which is also the answer OP >>18320954 as to why it encourages marrying your cousin. The perfect exemplar did it.

>>18322375
>Christianity knows that practices in the Old Testament aren't necessarily to always be done
That's a lame cop out

>>18322379
My man there are entire chapters of the New Testament dedicated to explaining in detail exactly that

>>18322375
>Christianity knows that practices in the Old Testament aren't necessarily to always be done.
Except Jesus told you multiple times to keep the law and even to listen to the Pharisee's teachings on top of it. What you're saying here is that Muslims are better than you. And anyway no matter what because God explicitly commanded it in your bible this means that it cannot be wrong in any sense of the word at any moment in time

>>18322365
I didn't tell you to go to an urban area, I told you to go to a neighbouring village. Which is doable and common in hisotory.

>>18322385
>Except Jesus told you multiple times to keep the law
*yawn* this, again? Riddle me this Muslim. We have writings of Jesus' disciples, and their disciples. All of those say that no, there's no need to follow the Old Testament law. Islam teaches that Jesus' disciples were faithful believers. So Jesus cannot have taught that they had to follow the Old Testament law.

>What you're saying here is that Muslims are better than you.
Genetically speaking anyone with cousins for parents is likely to be worse off than myself

>God explicitly commanded it in your bible this means that it cannot be wrong in any sense of the word at any moment in time
By this logic God wouldn't be mad if I were to attack and conquer Hebron!

File: Screenshot 2025-12-10 at 23-47-20 Acts 15 20 NIV - Instead we should write to them - Bible Gateway.png (16.1 KB)

16.1 KB PNG

>>18322393
>So Jesus cannot have taught that they had to follow the Old Testament law.
That's exactly what James and the other disciples believed about the Jewish followers of Jesus. In fact to harmonize between the "Judaizers" of the Jerusalem church and Paul the heretic they had to create "scripture" that would paint him in a good light. But even with their poor attempt they got it wrong because this guy preached that food sacrificed to idols is okay to eat and that Jews don't need to circumcise anymore.
>God doesn't know about Genetics
okay bro
>wouldn't be mad if I were to attack and conquer Hebron!
What does that have to do with anything? Nothing in the bible abolishes cousin marriage nor does it condemn God for commanding it, in fact Christians today in the middle east still practice it.

>>18322409
>That's exactly what James and the other disciples believed about the Jewish followers of Jesus.
That's not true at all. The Disciple John himself had a disciple called Polycarp. Polycarp fully endorses the writings of Ignatius, writing in his letter at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm:

"The Epistles of Ignatius written by him to us, and all the rest [of his Epistles] which we have by us, we have sent to you, as you requested. They are subjoined to this Epistle, and by them you may be greatly profited; for they treat of faith and patience, and all things that tend to edification in our Lord."

What does Ignatius say about this at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm? He says:

"Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace."

Our isnad goes Ignatius-->Polycarp-->John-->Jesus.

This shouldn't surprise you. It's not like Muhammad followed the Jewish law. Did he always stay at home on the sabbath? Take Passover?

>God doesn't know about Genetics
Well he does. Inbreeding is bad because of mutations. As time goes on, more and more mutations build up in our population, so we must choose partners less and less related to us. One day in the future, assuming genetic science doesn't give us a way to fix this, it will be best if we forbid marrying second cousins as well. Then still later third cousins, and so on.

>What does that have to do with anything?
You said if the Bible commands something it can never be wrong. Therefore it cannot be wrong for me to attack and conquer Hebron as God commanded this at one point in the Bible.

>Nothing in the bible abolishes cousin marriage
The church implemented this as a wise policy.

File: pngout-1765427138959.png (511.2 KB)

511.2 KB PNG

>>18322455
>That's not true at all.
How does that address anything I have posted? This isn't just me saying this, scholarship acknowledges that early Christianity was split between Paulians and actual followers of Jesus who learned from the disciples. These very problems are still found in the bible despite the fact that pretty much all of your texts in the NT come from that first community who tried really hard to present that they were all unified.
>the Jewish law.
"Honouring˺ the Sabbath was ordained only for those who disputed about Abraham.(Jews from Hadith https://sunnah.com/muslim/7/32 and Tafsir) And surely your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Judgment regarding their disputes." - Quran 16:124 Nobody said abrogation was never allowed, Jesus changed the laws of divorce in the bible. What he never did was cancel the old law.
>Well he does.
Not according to you no. And that's a very simplistic explanation that excludes the effects of genetic purging and the like.
>You said if the Bible commands something it can never be wrong.
So you're saying God commanded something that was wrong out of the Israelites? yes or no? or are you saying that somehow genetics magically changed after the new covenant
>The church implemented
"They have taken their rabbis and monks as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, as lords besides Allah, even though they were commanded to worship none but One God. There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him. Glorified is He above what they associate ˹with Him˺!" - Quran 9:31
"When ’Adi ibn Ḥâtim, a companion of the Prophet (ﷺ), heard this verse, he said, “But the Jews and Christians do not worship their rabbis and monks!” The Prophet (ﷺ) replied, “Do the rabbis and monks not forbid the permissible and permit the forbidden, and they obey them?” ’Adi answered, “Yes, they do.” The Prophet (ﷺ) concluded, “This is how they worship them.” Collected by At-Tirmiⱬi."

>>18322455
>The church implemented this as a wise policy.
No one adhered to it. You think people were like "ooohhh sorry we shared the same great grandfather, tough luck."?

>>18322381
So basically moderm western Christians play fast and loose with the bible?

>>18321832
Jesus fucked his own mother to be born

Its in their DNA. Sand people are just evolutionary inept. You have nothing but sand, heat and bitches for miles. The heat made them, angry, horny and retarded for generations.

>>18322520
>scholarship acknowledges
Relying on what modern liberal scholarship says would have you throw out the Koran. They adamantly deny the historical reality of the exodus too. If you're basing arguments on their ideas, you'll have to say the Koran is in error as well.

>Honouring˺ the Sabbath was ordained only for those who disputed about Abraham.(Jews from Hadith https://sunnah.com/muslim/7/32
In other words: no, Muhammad didn't keep the sabbath, so clearly he wasn't of the opinion that Jewish law still applied either. No Sabbath, no Passover, essentially nothing specific to Old Testament law did Muhammad do.

>Nobody said abrogation was never allowed
Right. Same here with the Old Testament law.

>What he never did was cancel the old law
This depends on what you mean by "cancel". But what's abundantly clear is it's not something we're supposed to do. Just like Muhammad didn't.

>or are you saying that somehow genetics magically changed after the new covenant
...the buildup of mutations is some sort of magic? This is a genetic inevitability. Genetic purging is essentially just another term for natural selection. Natural selection cannot remove all mutations since every human child has more mutations than their parents. The more closely related someone is to you, the more of those same mutations you share.

As mutations build up more and more, this is going to require seeking more and more distant relatives to breed with.

>No one adhered to it.
Where are you getting that? According tohttps://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/11/roman-catholic-church-ban-in-the-middle-ages-loosened-family-ties/ it had a strong impact

>>18322527
Not at all, Moses' law code was only ever intended for Israelites. Abraham was never under it and we are under Abraham's covenant, as the New Testament repeatedly explains.

>>18320954
It's a religion made up by a degenerate pedo rapist, what do you expect?

Islam has a bunch of weird shit that were simply Muhammed's personal preferences.

>>18322693
>by a degenerate pedo rapist
Enough about the teen diddling homosexual nailed kike

>>18321832
Rabbi Yeshua diddled teenagers at gethsemane and according judeochristian SCAThology fucked his own 12 years old mother to breed himself in a pedo rapist incestuous ritual

>>18321832
>demonic
Rabbi Paul enjoyed BDSM sessions with demons using barbed dildos according to the jewble

>>18322385
Rabbi Yeshua itself said it came not to abolish noahide laws but enforce it, is incredibly amusing how nailed kike worshippers go against the necrophilic death shabbos goy cult they claim to follow as a cope

>>18322714
Enjoy burning in hell for insulting Isa.

>>18322715
>>18322719
>>18322725
See>>18322966
They really got you seething huh

>>18322966
>coming from anon insulting Muhammad
Glass houses, etc

File: 1743996957422487.jpg (122.4 KB)

122.4 KB JPG

>>18321204
it allows cousing marriage lil bro, its over
>>18322072
>It's not a Islamic thing because this phenomena is global
lmao picrel

>>18322072
Agreed. Don't think other rural people would specifically fuck their cousins but I see what you mean. It's why certain areas look similar bc they are. They share alot of genetics with each other.

>>18322357
Well yes and no. Polygamy ensure the guys with better genetics. The stuff that helped make them so successful pass on more of their genes. But there's a limit to it the same way there's a limit to everything.

>>18320954
islam was created by aliens to keep earthlings in medieval age and degrade human material
its political and social system that is anti technology and scientific progress

>>18321832
This.

File: christians_have_no_laws.png (922.7 KB)

922.7 KB PNG

>>18322691
>would have you throw out
Absolutely not, modern secular scholarship constantly vindicates our tradition. For example nobody ever even brings up the multiple Quranic authors conspiracy theories anymore because of stylometric analysis, and also due to new evidence the prophet's historical existence cannot be denied any longer. Even though they tried really hard to push that narrative but this is all beside the point. What you just admitted to doing is denying all their findings and arguments simply because it goes against your dogma. You're clearly not an open minded person looking for the truth. Also the Quran does not suffer from the historical error of the Exodus since it plainly states "a small group" and not the nearly 1 million people (especially if we include women and children) the bible makes a case for
>still applied either
That's not how this works, your understanding is very simplistic. God makes it clear that each community has been given its own rules and they should still follow them, but once they accept the final prophet (and they should) then they are under the final covenant because "even if Mūsā (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was alive, he would have no choice but to follow me" as per hadith. Furthermore some aspects of the law were punishments only meant for them
>We forbade the Jews certain foods that had been lawful to them for their wrongdoing, and for hindering many from the Way of Allah - Quran 4:160
What Paul does instead is he abandons the entire law, even the parts that he and the disciples supposedly agreed gentiles and Jews must still keep. This is not like what Jesus did where he made minor adjustments and clarifications to the laws of Moses because of the authority God gave him. Paul wasn't even the only one doing this, at least he still wanted Christians to keep the moral aspects derived form the law. But those using his very reasoning went even further due to being consistent with this nonsense

File: fitness.png (46 KB)

46 KB PNG

>>18322691
>the buildup of mutations
Nope, what's magical is your assumption that somehow our biology has changed after Jesus came. What's true for us is also true for the people the biblical God commanded cousin marriage from. And if you want to make a case that your own God commanded from them immorality and suffering then be my guest bro.
>Natural selection cannot remove all mutations
>As mutations build up more and more, this is going to require seeking more and more distant relatives to breed with.
Who said all? And you're just wrong, persistent inbreeding can do this as well. Many species survive with very few members for very long periods of time and they are perfectly suited for their environments, how do you think this is possible? According to your logic this means only those that had high numbers at the start ever have a chance
>>No one adhered to it.
>Where are you getting that?
What are you even talking about? I am well aware of WEIRD. My whole point is that you have made your clergy into your deities since you believe they know better than your own creator.

>>18323110
Difference is that I'm not Muslim and thus worship neither Isa nor Muhammad.

>>18320954
It's just odd to me how Islam is civilizational poison in the same way that communism is.
With communism you know eating the rich, destroying traditional culture, turning society upside down, denying natural human tendency wont work and will obviously destroy a country.
But Islam doesnt have that. It doesnt tell you to stop the pursuit of wealth or burn the elite, it doesnt tell people to destroy their society and culture, it comes with no retarded economic model, it's hierarchical.
Yet, somehow Islam make countries poor and the people retarded while communism work somewhat OK for East European and East Asians.

>>18320954
Because it's a successful strategy.
Why do Jews do it? Because it's successfully

>>18323400
>Also the Quran does not suffer from the historical error of the Exodus since it plainly states "a small group"
The issue goes much deeper than that. The consensus of modern liberal scholars is that the Israelites had no origin in Egypt whatsoever and that the account is completely made up. For example https://lareviewofbooks.org/blog/essays/exodus-really-happened-according-new-theory-israel-knohl/ says "the near consensus among scholars that there is no evidence of an Israelite presence in ancient Egypt. This means there was no 400 years of slavery, no Passover, and no exodus to the Promised Land. There wasn’t even a Moses".

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/06/29/in-search-of-king-davids-lost-empire says "Following seventy years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archeologists have found out: The patriarchs’ acts are legendary, the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer the land."

The Koran affirms Pharaoh and his army drowning in the Red Sea, but the Prophet Bart Ehrman (PBUH), who Muslims cite more often than Bukhari, at https://ehrmanblog.org/is-the-exodus-a-myth/ says “But some of the other nations of the region would have been ecstatic to learn that Egypt could no longer field an army; surely they would make note of it for the public record and then swoop down to the south to take over that fertile land for themselves. But we have no such record of the event and no other nation came in to take advantage of the situation. The reason is obvious. Pharaoh and his entire army were not destroyed”.

https://bible.org/series/bible.org/book/%27?page=1484 talks about how “the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure”.

In short the consensus among liberal academics is that the exodus is completely false down to the details, and that Moses didn’t even exist. If you take modern liberal academics as reliable, then Islam is false.

>>18323400
>>18323834
>For example nobody ever even brings up the multiple Quranic authors conspiracy theories anymore because of stylometric analysis, and also due to new evidence the prophet's historical existence cannot be denied any longer.
And you can demonstrate that these were at one time the academic consensus?

>God makes it clear that each community has been given its own rules and they should still follow them
Obviously not since the Disciples, who were Jews (and according to you, Muslims) and their own disciples taught that the Jewish law isn’t something anyone has to follow. I quoted it for you directly.

>What Paul does instead

You’re stuck repeating some dawah talking point you've heard and not actually engaging with my words. What I’ve said doesn’t depend on Paul in the slightest. It comes from John’s disciple Polycarp. If Paul never existed, everything I have said would stand, completely unchanged.

>>18323412
>what's magical is your assumption that somehow our biology has changed after Jesus came

Well it has. Our biology has changed since Queen Victoria came. It changes every generation because mutations constantly build up in our genes.

>What's true for us is also true for the people the biblical God commanded cousin marriage from

That’s not even mathematically possible. Every generation has more mutations than the last. Look at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08922-2 for instance, which directly measured how much these accumulate by looking at four generations in a family. The summary of this study at https://newsroom.uw.edu/news-releases/4-generations-help-science-explore-genome-mutation-rate states “They now estimate about 98 to 206 de novo mutations per generation”.

So each generation there are about 150 new mutations. Generation after generation after generation. Our genes are gradually eroding this way. This is why we must seek more and more distant relatives.

>Many species survive with very few members for very long periods of time and they are perfectly suited for their environments

Can you give a specific instance that you believe serves as a counterexample?

>What are you even talking about? I am well aware of

Wow. You’re just outright lying now. You explicitly said “No one adhered to it. You think people were like ‘ooohhh sorry we shared the same great grandfather, tough luck.’?”. Now that you’re proven wrong you change the story to “My whole point is that you have made your clergy into your deities”, which has NOTHING to do with “No one adhered to it. You think people were like ‘ooohhh sorry we shared the same great grandfather, tough luck.’”.

We’ve clearly got some taqiyya here.

>>18323838
>You explicitly said “No one adhered to it.
I will address your other points later inshaallah but I most certainly did not. That was some other poster. if you're talking about >>18322523 this is not me and you didn't reply to him. Christians are so quick to accuse and make up shit without even trying to verify their facts.

File: exodus.jpg (299.2 KB)

299.2 KB JPG

>>18323834
Many of the things you have mentioned we don't even have to believe in the first place, so they are completely irrelevant. Christians for some reason have a hard time understanding the difference between an internal critique and an external one. Even as a believer in some aspects I don't have to grant you anything. My reasons for believing in Moses have absolutely nothing to do with your biblical account. Furthermore because history depends on probabilities, a theist who believes in prophets and miracles can still expect some things (such as a million people) to leave a trace and others (the existence of an ancient prophet) not so much. You can make a good argument from silence and a bad one that's inherently fallacious. For example the walking dead in Jerusalem would have certainly been so unusual that even the pagan Romans must have written about it. In fact Christian apologists frequently make a fuss about the "resurrection" of one man being supposedly recorded by third parties. So why don't we apply the same standard here too? But something like Jesus walking on the lake in front of the disciples? I don't expect anything to remain from that event. Anyway this entire thing is a tangential topic that I don't care to engage in any further. Absolutely nothing I could bring as evidence for or against any point will be considered. You mindlessly reject anything that comes from modern "liberal" academics. This is a classic example of a genetic fallacy and there's no way to engage on such topics with a person that's being unreasonable in this manner.

File: Screenshot 2026-01-07 at 10-47-30 More Proof Irenaeus Thought Jesus Lived to 50 Years Old – Orthodox Christian Theology.png (599.4 KB)

599.4 KB PNG

>>18323835
Did I ever claim there was consensus?
>who were Jews (and according to you, Muslims)
Only ethnically, the followers of the prophets and the prophets themselves were muslim by faith in our paradigm. They had a different sharia though.
>It comes from John’s disciple Polycarp. If Paul never existed, everything I have said would stand, completely unchanged.
The author of John (and all the gospels in your canon) was a Pauline Christian you have no idea what you're talking about. Anyway your tradition is obviously full of faults and you have no mechanism to correct that. For example Irenaeus who took from Polycarp believed the biblical Jesus lived until 50, which is in direct opposition to everything else we know about him from your own tradition.
>Well it has
Provide evidence that human genetics worked differently then vs now. And by your logic I could also use the same excuse.
>So each generation there are about 150 new mutations
I didn't ever deny that over time the gene pool becomes more diverse regularly. And If you're so worried about that as I have shown persistent inbreeding removes genes that are detrimental because of the increased selection pressure against abnormalities that reduce fitness. See for example the niche environment this species has adapted to endure and what threatens it
>Confined to a single deep limestone cave in Nevada's Mojave Desert
>food resources so scarce they are always on the edge of starvation, and with oxygen levels so low that most other fish would die immediately
>The pupfish, Cyprinodon diabolis, live in the smallest habitat of any known vertebrate.
>58% of the genomes of these eight individuals are identical, equivalent to four/five generations of siblings mating with one another
>Inbreeding has caused at least 15 gene deletions, and homogenized its genome
>such low genetic diversity could spell trouble as climate changes and human impacts become greater

>>18323924
>I most certainly did not.
Ah, my apologies, your reply made it sound as if it was your's. Hard to tell when everyone's got the same name.

>>18324104
>Many of the things you have mentioned we don't even have to believe in the first place
Absolutely incorrect. If Moses didn't exist, never led the Israelites on an exodus from Egypt, and Pharaoh didn't drown pursuing them, then the Koran which talks about all of these things is false.

The modern liberal academic consensus is that all of those things are false.

You agree with me about how wrong they are about Moses. You would agree with me about how wrong they are about Abraham, and Noah, and many others. Just as wrong as this group is about all of those, they are equally wrong about Jesus.

>Anyway this entire thing is a tangential topic
Your entire argument was citing modern liberal academics as evidence about Jesus and his disciples. This was your entire evidence for Jesus actually telling his followers to follow Old Testament law.

Of course, to you, liberal academics deserve a PBUH after their names whenever they're talking about something critical of Christianity that supports your position. But when they're equally critical about something that would undermine Islam? Well, then you "don't care to engage in any further".

>You mindlessly reject anything that comes from modern "liberal" academics.
Not so - for me, I don't rely on appeals to authority at all. It's about evidence. If you can bring forward evidence, that's what I want to hear. But if your argument is "liberal academics say...", then I can just as easily end that sentence with "...the Koran is wrong".

>>18324251
>Did I ever claim there was consensus?
Then you're not listing actual examples. You're just listing arguments someone, sometime, tried to make.

>They had a different sharia though.
And for the followers of Jesus, that wasn't the Old Testament law. The disciples of the Disciples demonstrate this without doubt.

>>18321832
Very based. Always keep this opinion, king.
Dont let libtards and browns convince you otherwise

>>18324251
>The author of John (and all the gospels in your canon) was a Pauline Christian you have no idea what you're talking about.
When did I cite the Gospel of John? I cited Ignatius' letters, affirmed by Polycarp, John's disciple. John himself could have written nothing and my point would be completely unchanged.

>Anyway your tradition is obviously full of faults
And your tradition had nothing that's da'if or mawdu?

>For example Irenaeus who took from Polycarp believed the biblical Jesus lived until 50
He does not say that he lived to 50. You can read his thoughts at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103222.htm. He says: "Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem...He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men...Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher".

So he's saying Jesus was over 40, not necessarily 50. Which actually isn't implausible at all. Taking the earliest estimated year of his birth at https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jesus of 6 BC, and him dying in 32 AD, that would be close to 40 years old. I don't see any reason to doubt Irenaeus here that Jesus was somewhat older than most generally think. I hear people confidently say he died at 33 years old as if it were settled fact, but he does indeed seem to have been closer to 40, fitting with Irenaeus' view.

>>18324251
>I didn't ever deny that over time the gene pool becomes more diverse regularly.
Random mutations aren't simply adding diversity. The vast, vast, vast majority of them erode and erase information in our genetic code. Most of this is only very slight: a single change here or there that our genes can still work despite. But as they accumulate, the harm becomes more and more apparent. This is why inbreeding is harmful.

>as I have shown persistent inbreeding removes genes that are detrimental because of the increased selection pressure against abnormalities that reduce fitness
"As I have shown"? Where did you show this?

You're making a strange backwards argument that disproves your own point. The most charitable interpretation I can make is "there's more pressure on larger mutations since there won't be a good copy of the gene available, so the most deleterious mutations can't rely on heterozygosity to get them through".

But this illustrates exactly my point. This is only happening because the good copy of the gene is gone, or disappearing from the population. Natural selection can only select against the worst instance of this. As inbreeding continues, this is happening to more and more genes every generation.

I truly don't see how the cavefish are supposed to serve as a counterexample. If we knew their mutation rate I could calculate how many generations they have until extinction for you.

File: split_church.png (417.7 KB)

417.7 KB PNG

>>18324769
>You agree with me about how wrong they are about Moses.
What? They are right about Moses from their paradigm. Just because I accept that their arguments logically follow doesn't mean I don't have separate reasons to believe in Moses.
>Just as wrong as this group is about all of those, they are equally wrong about Jesus.
We know a lot more about Jesus and the early Christians then those far older prophets and their communities. And because of that the historical idea we have of him is much better so you're just wrong.
>appeals to authority
You don't even know how to use that right stop embarrassing yourself. The reason I point to scholarly works is because they contain the arguments. But you just shut down any evidence that you don't like because it comes from "liberals". Close minded bible thumpers are nothing special so it's not even worth engaging with people like you.
>Then you're not listing actual examples.
So no, got it. Also you didn't ask for any. This is a thread about inbreeding and you challenged me on the fact that you think you know better than your gods about that.
>The disciples of the Disciples demonstrate this without doubt.
Nope! Publish a paper and demonstrate how your orthodoxy was the orthodoxy and then we can talk. This is such a nonsensical argument anyway because from the bible we can see very plainly that this was just not the case.
>>18324783
The author of John is John according to you people. The very person you cited in your "isnad" Can you seriously not see the conclusion from this fact?
>da'if or mawdu
The reason we know which is which, is precisely because we have a system that can categorize reports these ways. And if you think ours is faulty then I can appeal to modern "liberal" scholars and their methodologies (we also used them traditionally). You have nothing like that. The only thing that comes close is what these scholars are doing to your religion and you are blindly rejecting

File: Screenshot 2026-01-07 at 11-04-57 CHURCH FATHERS Against Heresies II.22 (St. Irenaeus).png (232.4 KB)

232.4 KB PNG

>>18324783
>He does not say that he lived to 50.
"but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher" ... " So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all" did you actually follow his argument after that? Irenaeus argued that people wouldn't say "not yet 50" to someone only 30, they would say "not yet 40." He inferred Jesus must have been in his late 40s at the very least. But he made it very clear that the beginning of the decline to old age was at 40-50 and that Jesus actually reached old age so he had to be above that.
>Random mutations aren't simply adding diversity
Who made this claim? It is a fact that random mutations are what enables organisms to evolve new traits nevertheless. The problem with inbreeding in small populations like that is mutational meltdown as the article I quoted says if you read a bit further.
>Where did you show this?
Are you tracking the conversation at all? How do you think that graphic was produced?
>your own point
I am convinced you don't even know what that is. Go ahead steel man my position. And again NONE of this proves your idea that inbreeding was good then when your God commanded it, but not good now. In fact I could argue we are in a better position now to practice it

>>18324809
>They are right about Moses from their paradigm.
...So you're admitting that their paradigm leads to the conclusion that Islam is false. Doesn't that tell you that their paradigm gets the historical facts dead wrong?

>We know a lot more about Jesus and the early Christians then those far older prophets and their communities.
You, yourself, must agree that they take the historical data about Moses and the exodus and get it dead wrong. That their conclusions (no Moses, no exodus, no dead Pharaoh) are the polar opposite of what happened in actual history.

But you think it does a 180 and suddenly they're completely trustworthy about fine-grained details of Jesus and the disciples because...what? What *specifically* makes it so different? What texts or sources of information will make their approach suddenly get it right when they've got it completely wrong elsewhere?

>The reason I point to scholarly works is because they contain the arguments
You didn't present an argument. You used their opinion *as* the argument. If there's an argument, tell it to me.

>So no
Then there's of no relevance. The question here is scholarly consensus, not someone at some point making an argument sometime.

>Nope!
Do you care to respond to my argument?

>Publish a paper and demonstrate how your orthodoxy was the orthodoxy and then we can talk
See? This is, ultimately, another appeal to authority. You are saying: "I will only consider your evidence if this group approves of it". The same group who you must admit are 100% dead wrong about Moses.

>>18324809

>because from the bible we can see very plainly
What you actually mean is "I want to repeat a dawah script, can we please go to familiar territory that I've heard Muslim apologists talk about so I can regurgitate some of that". Every weird group be it Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Black Hebrew Israelites - they all want to try to bring in strange views of the Bible.

And it always collapses when we bring in some extra information: the disciples of the Disciples.

>The author of John is John according to you people.
So you think Jesus' Disciple John was a Pauline Christian?

Muhammad taught that Jesus' Disciples were faithful true believers. This would mean that "Pauline" Christianity is the same as the Disciples' Christianity. Which would mean it is the true faith.

>The reason we know which is which, is precisely because we have a system that can categorize reports these ways.
So in other words, the presence of da'if and mawdu traditions in a body of tradition does not mean the body of tradition itself should be discounted - right?

So saying there are some of those in a body of tradition is not, by your own stance, a reason to discount it.

>You have nothing like that.
I have exactly that. Much better, in fact. Instead of being passed along orally for centuries, I have the written word of these people.

>>18324972
>But he made it very clear that the beginning of the decline to old age was at 40-50 and that Jesus actually reached old age so he had to be above that.
Look at the very parts of him that you quoted there. Irenaeus says that "He was above forty years old". He never says "he lived to 50". He says he was older than 40. Which really isn't unreasonable, 6 BC to 33 AD already gets you almost there.

I don't see any reason to doubt Irenaeus that Jesus was older than most picture. I see some say he died at thirty-three years old as if it were established fact, but the reality looks to be he was older than that.

>>18324972
>It is a fact that random mutations are what enables organisms to evolve new traits nevertheless.
This depends heavily on what you mean by "new traits". Random mutations can only erase the information in genetic code.

If you're an evolutionist and mean this as in bacteria eventually became human because of mutations, Muhammd himself disagrees with you. https://sunnah.com/muslim:2789 says "Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) took hold of my hands and said: 'Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, created the clay on Saturday and He created the mountains on Sunday and He created the trees on Monday and He created the things entailing labour on Tuesday and created light on Wednesday and He caused the animals to spread on Thursday and created Adam (peace be upon him) after 'Asr on Friday'".

> The problem with inbreeding in small populations like that is mutational meltdown
This happens to all populations eventually, regardless of size. Small populations just make it faster. Nothing, aside from possible future genetic science, can reverse the generation-by-generation buildup of mutations.

>How do you think that graphic was produced?
I don't look at any of your images. Using images to exceed the character limit is poor form.

>Go ahead steel man my position.
I did. Your position is that inbreeding can be helpful since it keeps harmful mutations from hiding behind heterozygosity, allowing natural selection to remove them.

>but not good now
True or false: more mutations have built up in our genome in the past 3000 years.

>>18323453
Neither do muslims. Still a sin to insult either of them.

>>18324987
>leads to the conclusion
Their paradigm blatantly assumes methodological naturalism like all secular fields. So yes it means no prophets and that invalidates all religions with prophets. However you must do things this way if you want a neutral point of view and not constantly appealing to miracles.
>when they've got it completely wrong elsewhere?
Are you saying there's no such thing as someone being generally right and only wrong on some things? You're batshit insane if you're trying to argue that. And you're asking me such a vague question. In regards to what? I believe in my discussions with you I gave you examples of texts that you don't consider canonical which I believe present a good idea of what the early church was like. In any case using your logic now we have to deny science because they also assume that God doesn't exist and intervene in the physical laws that are being studied.
>You didn't present an argument.
That's literally what you did wtf. Instead of asking me why I believe they have a point you started whining about liberals.
>The question here is scholarly consensus
Why? I never brought it up. Christians however still used their works to try and discredit the Quran and now they can't therefore we are vindicated.
>if this group approves of it
Who ever said that? You're adding so much shit to every single thing that I say straight from your ass. You're the one who cares about the scholarly consensus for no reason at all. By your own admission then unless you pass it by them your ideas are of "no relevance"

File: evolution.png (104.8 KB)

104.8 KB PNG

>>18324997
>the disciples of the Disciples.
In other words you want to beg the question, nice! You're assuming the point you're trying to prove.
>So you think Jesus' Disciple John was a Pauline Christian?
Absolutely not. You think that and I am holding you to that standard.
>does not mean the body of tradition itself should be discounted
Your tradition should be discounted because you have no means to determine what is true or not out of that corpus. Especially since you decided that you just want to blindly follow it without doing any sort of critical thinking because it comes from evil liberals
>I have the written word of these people
You don't want to play that game. Your bible is equivalent to weak and fabricated hadith.
>He never says "he lived to 50"
Above 40 includes 50 you know? And as usual you're ignoring the main points he was making there that means he must have in his late 40s at the very least for any of it to make sense. Nobody thinks a 40yo is an old man you're tweaking.

File: Screenshot 2026-02-02 at 09-29-25 Consequences of purging over 200 generations after the effective... Download Scientific Diagram.png (135.4 KB)

135.4 KB PNG

>>18325008
>Random mutations can only erase the information in genetic code.
Prove it.
>disagrees with you
Nope. Christians always do this shit. They see something and insert their interpretation and then assume I must challenge that instead of not even accepting it in the first place. Where in that hadith does it say that single celled organisms cannot become complex animals. At most it just says the day these things came into being.
>Nothing, aside from possible future genetic science, can reverse the generation-by-generation buildup of mutations.
And I want you to prove this as well. Deleterious mutations that build up over generations are often removed from a population's gene pool because individuals carrying them are less likely to survive and reproduce.
>I don't look at any of your images.
Not my problem. Stop complaining then, next time you do this I will ignore you
>Your position is that inbreeding can be helpful since it keeps harmful mutations from hiding behind heterozygosity, allowing natural selection to remove them.
You're talking about genetic purging, which was my initial main point. Not where the discussion was currently at. Thanks for proving you cannot track.
>True or false: more mutations have built up in our genome in the past 3000 years.
True. Does that make humanity more resilient to the downside of inbreeding I mentioned earlier True or False?

>>18325019
>>18325019
> So yes it means no prophets and that invalidates all religions with prophets.
They don't just reject Moses or the exodus because they don't believe in prophets or miracles. Moses isn't even seen as a normal leader leading a migration. They reject his entire existence, and the entire event, even a naturalistic version of it.

This is diametrically opposed to the Koran's version of history. So you must agree that their approach gets you results that are diametrically opposed to what actually happened in history. They are not reliable.

>Are you saying there's no such thing as someone being generally right
What are they "generally right" on with regards to Moses and the exodus? They have conclusions that are the polar opposite of reality. It is not possible to be more generally wrong than that.

>Instead of asking me why I believe they have a point
This was not a factor in your post at all. And still isn't: you still haven't made an argument. You cited people who you, yourself, believe get history completely and utterly wrong.

>Why? I never brought it up.
That is what "scholarship acknowledges" refers to.

>Christians however still used their works to try and discredit the Quran
Give me a specific, documented example of what you are talking about.

>Who ever said that?
You did. You said, outright, "publish a paper" "and then we can talk".

>>18325033
>You're assuming the point you're trying to prove.
How so?

>Absolutely not
Why are John's disciples saying the supposedly "Pauline" teaching that we don't need to follow the Old Testament law, then?

>you have no means to determine what is true or not out of that corpus
It's the same as every other historical source: provenance and corroboration. What's the provenance of a report, and what corroborates it? That's the principle behind all history.

>You don't want to play that game. Your bible
Once again: disciples of the disciples. I'm not even using the Bible at the moment.

>>18325033
>Above 40 includes 50 you know?
Anon if you start going back to your "inclusive 'or'" stuff I'm going to have to bring back your worst nightmare, Istinja Djinni. Are you going to behave or does he have to come scold you again?

No word games. Irenaeus does not say Jesus was 50.

>Nobody thinks a 40yo is an old man you're tweaking.
They weren't writing in English and saying "old man". And about 40 is what fell into this category. Look for example at https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Gellius/10*.html who writes "Tubero, in the first book of his History, has written that King Servius Tullius, when he divided the Roman people into those five classes of older and younger men for the purpose of making the enrolment, regarded as pueri, or 'boys,' those who were less than seventeen years old; then, from the seventeenth year, when they were thought to be fit for service, he enrolled them as soldiers, calling them up to the age of forty-six iuniores or 'younger men,' and beyond that age, seniores, or 'elders.'

>>18325044
>Prove it.
Out of the entire set of possible genetic sequences only a very, very small proportion have an actual function. Mutations which add randomness to the sequence must drive the sequence more and more into the functionless space occupied by fully random sequences.

> At most it just says the day these things came into being.
All in a single week, one after the other on each day. Not over hundreds of millions of years. Muhammad agrees with me here.

>Not my problem.
Nobody is going to do it if you're posting additional text to get around the character limit. If you want to bring forward a quote or text and have it be part of the main discussion, it should go in the body of your reply.

>You're talking about genetic purging, which was my initial main point. Not where the discussion was currently at.
Do you have some perceived advantage of inbreeding besides purging?

>True or False?
False. More mutations = more damage.

>>18322966
He's a larping jeet.

>>18320954
Muslims are just very stupid

>>18325078
>They don't just reject Moses or the exodus because they don't believe in prophets
Yes they do. There's practically zero evidence outside divine revelation from the prophets. And if that's rejected then there is no reason for anybody to say he exists at all. Show me reliable proof outside of that where it says there was a man called Moses who was a normal leader leading a migration.
>believe get history completely and utterly wrong
No I don't, this is literally a straw man. Do you deny that the Judaizers existed? Yes or No
>That is what
Nope, you can have minority respected positions within scholarship
>Give me a specific, documented example of what you are talking about
Gabriel Said Reynolds (the paid vatican shill who larps as an academic) in his book The Quran and the Bible says "Indeed, it seems to me that there is simply no compelling academic reason (theological reasons are of course another story) to refuse categorically the possibility that the Qurʾān has multiple authors and/or editors" which is blatantly false and I can show that.
>You said, outright, "publish a paper"
Which is not the same as what you said I did, thanks for proving me right.
>How so?
Man you're thick. If the whole point was me denying the teachings of your supposed "disciple of the disciples" as going back to Jesus why the fuck would I assume they were the ones in the right as opposed to other equally ancient followers of Jesus?
>that we don't need to follow
I don't think you realize what you're asking. A Pauline Christian is exactly someone who says that, why would they do otherwise?
>provenance and corroboration
Which are the very things that are being attacked.... circular reasoning too amazing.

>>18325084
Go ahead start larping as an atheist using arguments that demolish your own religion again lmao.
>They weren't writing in English and saying "old man"
Yeah no shit. At this point I can quote your bogeyman ehrman https://ehrmanblog.org/how-old-was-jesus-at-his-baptism-start-of-his-ministry-death/
>Irenaeus claims that in fact, he has learned this from reputable sources – the disciples of John the son of Zebedee have indicated that Jesus grew to be an old man. For Irenaeus (he says this explicitly) a person heads toward old age after 40, heading into 50. And that’s how old Jesus was when he was executed – near 50 – so that his ministry lasted many years, not just one (or less).
>Irenaeus points out that Jesus’ opponents would not have said “you’re not yet 50” if, in fact, he was just 30. They would have said something like “you’re not yet 35” or, at best “you’re not yet 40.” The fact they explicitly say “not yet 50” indicates that they must have known (either from the “public register,” he suggests or based on Jesus’ appearance) that he was in his late 40s. Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense.
>Wow. That would certainly change things. Suppose Irenaeus is right. (I can’t imagine he is, but just suppose…). That would mean that if Luke is accurate that Jesus was baptized around the age of 30, and if he was executed around 48 or 49, he would have been engaged in his ministry – well you do the math. That’s very different from what everyone thinks indeed! An 18-year ministry?!?
And he's actually being extremely charitable to your position by using the lower end here which would put him below 50 but nearly there. I don't believe that's justified since he defined the beginning of the decline into old age then, and not explicitly that this was old age.

File: pngout-1770038090403.png (129.5 KB)

129.5 KB PNG

>>18325084
You restating your position is not evidence. I want proof of your claims.
>All in a single week, one after the other on each day.
Nope! A day is not necessarily 24 hours within the Quran or the hadith. Nothing says it's explicitly sequential either in that report, but even if it were then the uniformity of these epochs is just another assumption. I simply reject everything you're adding into the text.
>it should go in the body of your reply
Don't care what you think should happen or not. I know you're not a person who cares about the truth. Even now I posted an image from a book demolishing your nonsense interpretation. If you don't like it then stop browsing image boards.
>Do you have some
Yes but you just proved you cannot track so there's no need to go into all that.
>False.
Well then you are just wrong. We are better defended against mutational meltdown given a much higher initial population and our more diverse gene pool compared to when your gods commanded cousin marriage from their people. Also
>More specifically, we show that historically large populations with high levels of genetic diversity also harbor elevated levels of recessive strongly deleterious mutations hidden in the heterozygous state. Thus, when these populations contract, inbreeding can expose these strongly deleterious mutations as homozygous and lead to severe inbreeding depression and rapid extinction. - https://academic.oup.com/evlett/article/5/1/33/6697634
I wonder what could have helped here... Oh no it couldn't be inbreeding when the population was strong, certainly not because you know better than your gods

>>18325241
>if that's rejected then there is no reason for anybody to say he exists at all
Look at the argument you're making. Their methodology makes them totally wrong about the history here. This makes it unreliable. It leads to incorrect conclusions. And just as incorrect as "there was no Moses, the Israelites never left Egypt", so too is "there was no unified orthodox Christian community".

>No I don't
Do you think they're correct that Moses didn't exist and that there was no exodus, or do you believe that in actual history the polar opposite was true?

>Do you deny that the Judaizers existed? Yes or No
Of course not. We see the disciples of the Disciples speak against them.

>Nope, you can have minority respected positions within scholarship
So then what you're saying you don't even claim to be the consensus, instead it's a minority position? If the very consensus is completely and utterly wrong about Jewish history then appealing to the authority of a minority position is utterly beyond any conceivable weight.

>Gabriel Said Reynolds (the paid vatican shill who larps as an academic)
In other words, it's just as I said: not respected mainstream positions. Certainly not the academic consensus. Just arguments someone has at some point made. "Someone once made a weak argument against my position" is not vindication.

Even then you haven't quoted this guy even making that argument! He just said there was no reason to categorically refuse the possibility, which is essentially the weakest positive you can possibly say about something.

>Which is not the same as what you said I did
It is. You said you would consider my words exclusively if they had the approval of a certain group of people.

That's strike two anon, more word games and Istinja Djinni will have to chastise you.

>>18325241
>If the whole point was me denying the teachings of your supposed "disciple of the disciples" as going back to Jesus
Our isnad is rock solid. They were taught by the Disciples who were taught by Jesus. You agree the Disciples were faithful believers. And all of their own disciples and their entire circle whose words we have in ink and whose names we know are all in absolute consensus on this matter.

>A Pauline Christian is exactly someone who says that
In that case all disciples of the Disciples are "Pauline" Christians, even those who are of Peter and John. Meaning Peter and John were "Pauline" Christians as well.

Meaning "Pauline" Christianity is just Christianity.

>Which are the very things that are being attacked
Do you deny that all of our writings from the disciples of the Disciples are in consensus on this issue?

We have none of them who say to follow the Old Testament law. They all say it doesn't bind believers.

>>18325249
>Yeah no shit.
Then...doesn't that undermine your own argument there? "Old man" is the closest English translation for the concept but, as translations must, it comes with connotations that aren't part of the original concept. Your counterargument there was based on said connotations.

...The only counterargument you quoted was "That’s very different from what everyone thinks indeed!" which is the weakest sort of argument. And it goes beyond what Irenaeus actually says. All Irenaeus definitively says is that Jesus' ministry was multi-year, which is true. He might've envisioned gaps between various events. He doesn't really go into specifics.

>>18325278
>You restating your position is not evidence.
The basic definitions of the terms we're using provided evidence for my position. In an ordered system where only a very small subset of combinations have function, then random changes to those combinations are going to push the system towards functionlessness. Isn't that so?

>A day is not necessarily 24 hours
He didn't say "day", he specifically listed the days: each day of the week, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. It's an even stronger literal days of creation that Genesis since there's no way to weasel out with this "well...what does 'day' mean?" matter. He even goes into the specific hours of the day that Adam was made, which makes no sense if it's not talking about days.

>Nothing says it's explicitly sequential either in that report
He lists out the days in sequence. You're on "inclusive 'or'" ice now anon. Any more of these word games and Istinja Djinni is coming.

>If you don't like it then stop browsing image boards
Image boards are for images, not adding extra text. If you wish to quote something do so in your post.

>Well then you are just wrong. We are better defended against mutational meltdown given a much higher initial population
Anon. When you ask a true or false question you are saying you want a quick, brief, yes or no. Asking "True or false?" and then responding to such a brief answer with "a-ha! But there's nuance!" is a "Do you still beat your wife?"-tier move.

>I wonder what could have helped here... Oh no it couldn't be inbreeding
It genuinely wouldn't be. Inbreeding just gives you fewer good copies of the genes to work with overall.

>>18322714
>>18322715
>>18322719
>>18322725
this brown nigga is always seething lmao
>n- no! but but your religion does it too!!

File: tradition_vindicated.png (609.2 KB)

609.2 KB PNG

>>18325526
>Look at the argument you're making.
Take that advice yourself. You are saying this methodology makes them "totally wrong". Which is absolutely not true many of the things which go against your faith but not mine for example I can and do accept as totally right because that's where the evidence leads to. Ancient prophets I do not expect to leave much evidence in the first place compared to a million people so the gaps in the historical knowledge they work with is justification for why they get a few things wrong here and there. You're essentially saying goodbye to all of history and science unless it comes from and conforms your specific denomination. Absolutely zero critical thinking. In your world you're right or else it's impossible lmao
>Of course not.
Well then that exactly amounts to "there was no unified orthodox Christian community". You had both Judaizers and your recent pagan gentile converts both preaching different gospel since the very beginning.
>beyond any conceivable weight
An appeal to popularity and authority all in one, nice!
>He just said there was no reason to categorically refuse the possibility
Yes and because we have much higher standards than you, leaving it open like that is considered an attack on our position. One that no longer works and therefore we are vindicated.
>You said
ctr+f shows that only your words show up there, have you missed your medication? also I told you already I want to see the cringe roleplay that invalidates even your weird branch of Christianity
>Our isnad is rock solid...
Beautiful story, I am sure it tickles you on the inside too. You're still begging the question and that's simply a reassertion of your position.
>In that case all
Nope! But notice how you always run from the questions asked. You can't even pull this shit off anymore you admitted Judaizers existed ahahah. Let me guess no true Christian?
>Do you deny
I deny you have any writings from " the disciples of the Disciples" in the first place

File: 1769982702497354.webm (3.7 MB)

3.7 MB WEBM

>>18325538
>doesn't that
Nope and you even misunderstood my arguments
>"That’s very different from what everyone thinks indeed!"
That's a derived implication from Irenaeus thinking Jesus reached that age
>He doesn't really go into specifics.
Because he had no clue. See what else your nightmare says in that blog post "My guess is that no one – Luke, John, Irenaeus, or any other surviving source – had any idea how old Jesus was. And someone who *may* have had an idea (e.g., Paul, who personally knew Jesus’ brother James), doesn’t say anything about it. How I wish we knew!" So in other words these people that supposedly are disciples of the disciples or even the supposed disciples themselves (the anonymous authors not the characters in those gospels) didn't even know for how long Jesus lived. Irenaeus himself is forced to make arguments instead of simply listing facts from his teachers.
>In an ordered system where only a very small subset of combinations have function, then random changes to those combinations are going to push the system towards functionlessness.
I see what this is, you're just trying to attack evolution and your entire argument rests on the assumption that each generation degrades therefore 6000yo Earth. I have no problem affirming that you can have spontaneous function emerge out of seemingly random changes because I believe in qadr and the absolute dominion of God over reality. That being said we can even apply these things to our technology and it works see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna

File: Screenshot 2026-02-03 at 11-57-34 Hadith on Signs Time passes quickly before the Hour.png (77.6 KB)

77.6 KB PNG

>>18325546
>ignores everything and forces his belief on me
Your interpretation is rejected. It could be the beginning of that epoch just so happened to be X day. Furthermore saying the words Sunday then Monday in a sentence does not mean there is no time gap between them. Looks like I will have to teach you English again soon. Also you're wrong, the hour could refer to a subsection of an epoch that does not consist of literal 24 hours. See this hadith for example where prayer times are estimated "O Messenger of Allah, on that day which is like a year, will the prayers of one day suffice us?' He said: 'Make an estimate of time (and then observe prayer).' " https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:4075
>Image boards are for images
Which can include text. You'll like reddit more
>When you ask a true or false question you are saying you want a quick, brief, yes or no.
"But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one." - Matthew 5:37 It's very simple you said that was False. Now you're backtracking because you know you cannot defend that without changing your answer. It's quite funny you're complaining about that when that's exactly what you were trying to pull off earlier. I only started doing it because of you "eye for an eye", remember?
>It genuinely wouldn't be
"However, purging ultimately reduces the number of lethal equivalents. See [67] for the analytical predictions of the inbreeding-purging model." - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534723001313 and because I know you will weasel your way out of this with Christian tongue twisting I also asked Gemini to interpret the section "selection during inbreeding due to inbreeding depression reduces current fitness but ultimately reduces the number of lethal equivalents through a process called purging. Purging leads to a momentary increase in the genetic load (in the fitness sense) but ultimately decreases harmful mutations in the gene pool"

>>18320964
Fpbp

>>18326689
>Take that advice yourself. You are saying this methodology makes them "totally wrong". Which is absolutely not true
How exactly can you be more wrong about a real person than saying he didn't exist, and more wrong about a real event than saying it didn't happen?

>many of the things which go against your faith but not mine for example
I appreciate your honesty but you must see that this isn't a rational standard. You should never check new information against "does this align with my existing beliefs?". To do so is to make confirmation bias an inherent part of your thinking. You should always be open to being wrong about anything. Because you always can be - it isn't impossible, indeed there isn't even an argument against, us or even you as an individual being in some sort of simulation and so *all* of our beliefs (absent those required to be true by the laws of logic themselves) are false.

>You're essentially saying goodbye to all of history and science unless it comes from and conforms your specific denomination.
I think you're misunderstanding my point. My point is that something is historically true - you agree - and their methodology leads them to the exact wrong conclusion.

We could do this with much more recent things that should have left much more evidence. How many non-Muslim historians do you think would agree that the moon inexplicably split in the early Medieval period? This would be something neither ancient nor obscure. So you would say their methodology is failing them on something huge and (compared to Moses) quite recent - wouldn't you?

>Well then that exactly amounts to "there was no unified orthodox Christian community"...You had both Judaizers
None of the disciples of the Disciples were Judaizers. I showed you John's explicitly denying that idea. The people advocating that were not in agreement with the Apostles, which is what I mean when I refer to orthodox Christianity.

>>18326689
>An appeal to popularity and authority all in one
I don't understand this in light of what I'm saying. It's the opposite of these. My point is that even if someone did value those types of arguments, you aren't even saying this idea has them.

>Yes and because we have much higher standards than you, leaving it open like that is considered an attack on our position. One that no longer works and therefore we are vindicated.
Frankly taking something so thin as vindication shows nothing but how little vindication there actually is to be found. A guy - not even a consensus, but one single guy who you said you don't even consider to be an academic - saying "well, this can't categorically be ruled out". I would genuinely struggle to think of a weaker form of "vindication" than this.

Especially when fundamental aspects of our world vindicate anyone who calls Islam false on a daily basis. It talks about an active world of Jinn who snatch children, water, and utensils, yet as our information gathering tools get better and better (better and more widespread evidence gathering tools and systems like formal theft investigations, universal cell phones, and so on) we see that this is completely false.

>>18326689
>ctr+f shows that only your words show up there
This was your third strike anon. This is obviously bad-faith word twisting - I clearly was saying "this is what your statement amounts to" rather than "you used the following words". It's more "inclusive 'or'" like that ridiculous line of argument you made: https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/17347236/#q17359574

Three strikes and your worst nightmare Istinja Djinni is back now! I warned you anon.

Since our last discussion, have you been able to find an instance of a Jinn snatching children, utensils, or water?

>>18327166
Subjective standard. It's more wrong to say the moon is made of cheese than to say you can't see it for whatever reason.
>You should always be open to being wrong about anything.
Says the guy who literally rejects everything that comes from evil liberals. At the very least I can take the good from what they produce.
>should have left much more evidence
Why? It was a miracle that came a direct challenge from a few individuals. Historians would be able to say that this is what the witnesses believed they saw because that's exactly what the historical sources available say.
>I showed you John's explicitly denying that idea.
Nah your whole point rests on the idea that the Pauline author of John is a disciple. It's also circular reasoning, the entire discussion is about who better followed Jesus and his disciples.
>It's the opposite of these
You're literally rejecting the ideas based on how popular they are and who accepts them. It's amazing how you have gotten actually worse with your fallacious reasoning despite all this time. You should have been studying but I guess you just enjoy getting belted

>>18327193
>your whole point rests on the idea that the Pauline author of John is a disciple
Do you see why Istinja Djinni has to come out with you? It's never good-faith discussion. I covered this already, why it wouldn't even matter if the disciple John had never written a word.

But you still say the same thing again, just like when you spent at least 20 posts trying to argue about an inclusive "or". It's never actual discussion with you.

You already used your three strikes and this would have been a fourth. Semantic Argument Muslim there's only one line of reasoning that you can stick to since there's very little room for twisting (even though you try): since our last discussion, have you been able to find an instance of a Jinn snatching children, utensils, or water?

>>18327170
>Frankly taking something so thin as vindication shows nothing but how little vindication there actually is to be found.
Yep because there never was much to attack in the first place. Unlike with Christianity where the core doctrines are literally illogical.
>you don't even consider to be an academic
So? You people consider him to be reliable enough he gets money from the Vatican to produce more shitty works. Never mind the fact that he is used all the time by missionaries like you. We're vindicated because even a fence sitting position like that is no longer tenable in the slightest. That's more than vindication, it's a victory and this is exactly why you are forced to cry about liberals instead of challenging their arguments. It's literally all you have left, Christianity has no academic legs to stand on.
>>18327175
Oh no the cringelord put on a persona that's even more cringe than usual. What shall we do? Do you want me to dig the archives and start asking you the same questions you refused to answer. I could do that for you easily. Anyway thanks for the concession. You're clearly buttmad that I won the thread topic

>>18327234
>Yep because there never was much to attack in the first place
I made such an attack immediately after this. Have you found any instances of Jinn stealing children, water, or utensils? Islam should be vindicated on this point very thoroughly now that we have universal camera coverage and dedicated missing persons and theft investigators who pursue all such cases.

>You're clearly buttmad that I won the thread topic
You won't even engage with the topics we get into. I said:
"When did I cite the Gospel of John? I cited Ignatius' letters, affirmed by Polycarp, John's disciple. John himself could have written nothing and my point would be completely unchanged."

But now you go right back to: "your whole point rests on the idea that the Pauline author of John". Twisting my words over and over again instead of engaging in good-faith discussion of the issues.

It's never good-faith discussion with you but backtracking and twisting. This is why the Jinn issue is the only real thing to talk about with you. It's something observable and objective in the present world. It doesn't depend on words, which you always twist (again: quadrupling down on inclusive "or") it's something we can actually see.

For someone who twists it's the perfect subject since there's nearly nothing to twist. So again I ask it anon: since we last spoke, have you vindicated Islam and found an example of a Jinn doing those things Muhammad said they do?

>>18327211
Believe me I know exactly why you have to crash out. It's a desperate move to save face. Now mind explaining how the locked up demons were tormenting Paul? Your source says the literal 1000 years is up so they aren't even locked up anymore, how come we don't see Christians exorcising people and performing other great magical feats. You'll have plenty of time to come up with a good response because I need to go out for a while. I expect a webm of you walking on water and teleporting mountains . While you're at it address this too https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/18030146/#18037890

>>18327299
Do you see? Still no engagement with my point. There's only an attempt to say it would make someone else wrong too.

>It's a desperate move to save face.
Is there some specific point you feel triumphant on? It feels like we can make no progress since it's just twist, twist, twist like this refusal to engage about John. The inclusive "or" incident is exactly how all discussions with you wind up.

>Now mind explaining how the locked up demons were tormenting Paul?
It happened after Paul was dead, they were not.

>Your source says the literal 1000 years is up
See? Twisting twisting twisting. That's not my position as already explained.

>While you're at it address this too https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/18030146/#18037890
What is there to address, exactly? I didn't write this, it isn't a quote of me.

>>18327299
>>18327337
And this again shows how bad-faith you are in every discussion.
After someone explains "oh I don't hold agree with everything the author says, I just cited him for that".
Good-faith normal response: "Oh I see. So looking at your position -"
Your bad-faith response: "No, you cited an article, you are OBLIGATED to agree with everything the author says. This IS your position."

Do you see the difference?

File: Screenshot 2026-02-04 at 12-54-38 The Way in which Jesus’ Resurrection Body Prior to His Ascension Might also be a Model of the Resurrection Bodies of the Saints according to Near-Death [...].png (634.5 KB)

634.5 KB PNG

>>18327279
>I made
Oh you mean your argument that destroys your own position and is inherently fallacious? If that's the game you want to play I can do the same. In fact I'll use the reasoning you recently employed as well. Unless this argument comes from the majority of orientalist scholars then your argument is "beyond any conceivable weight"
>You won't even engage
Is your context window that low?
>John himself could have written nothing and my point would be completely unchanged."
see >>18324809 Try to follow the responses given next time
>>18327337
No webm? Christianity deboonked.
>some specific point
If only you can read, I already mentioned specifically what I won just a couple of posts back. Obviously all my points still stand but they were all tangents you initiated and therefore irrelevant.
>after Paul was dead
Paul believed Jesus would return within his lifetime... Guess he wasn't directly receiving revelation from Jesus as he claims then since he got that wrong.
>my position
Your rebuttal was laughable and ad hoc. The guy you believed to be authoritative enough on interpreting scripture in other parts makes it is as clear as day that it's literal and that saying otherwise makes no sense.
>What is there to address, exactly?
Why is there no camera footage from specters that are either "heavenly beings ascending to earth" or "earthbound resurrection bodies" which were never locked up for 1000 years in the first place? He says specifically scientific equipment can be used. Remember you can't use "can appear indistinguishable" because you really have a problem with that and also them resurrecting and descending would still be caught on camera like the floating Rabbi you believe was seen walking on the clouds.
>>18327357
>you are OBLIGATED to agree with
You're complaining about this when you are the one imposing your own interpretation on me? You're such a hypocrite. At the very least I am referring to your source and his arguments rather than myself

File: Screenshot 2026-02-04 at 12-45-22 How the Resurrection Bodies of the Saints Perfectly Mirror Jesus’ Resurrection Body after His Ascension Into Heaven Fulfilling Philippians 3 20-21 and A[...].png (164.5 KB)

164.5 KB PNG

>>18327337
When you come back I need a recording of this "Earthbound resurrected bodies are also often reported making the sound of footsteps when passing by", they also can glow exactly like Jesus. Failure to provide this means Christianity is false according to your standard. And all of this has to be possible because your guy appeals to paranormal investigators and their equipment.
>In each instance in which Barry and Brad reported seeing “ghosts” they initially thought that they had seen real living people until these “people” suddenly disappeared.
>Of course, this is assuming that the person who has reported seeing such a specter is not taking hallucinogenic drugs, is not sleep deprived, is in good mental health and does not suffer from hallucinations as a consequence of severe vision loss.
Since I am going to assume you're not on drugs anymore. Show me someone vanish into thin air without using AI or other forms of video manipulation. They used photography so it must be possible that's what your fellow preterist who you pointed to and trust to interpret scripture and historical data affirms.