"Fight the people of the book until they pay Jizya or become Muslims.."

whose worse, westerner's or chinks

I mean that's fair. You can't study the Torah in any language that's not Hebrew. If the Qur'an was written in a similar style, it stands to reason that you will always end up with a bad translation.

mostly meming but it's used as a deflection
>"kill adulterers"
>na m8 you need arabic for authenticity
>so interpret the meaning for me
>you just don't get it dude

peace=/=pacifism

Chinks, they want to ruin the Islamic Turkestani society for their fascist one culture project.

Atleast the West are more multicultural

Why? Is justice's goal not to bring eternal peace? If you have a religion that seeks to shim into all aspects of society, it should be the duty of that religion to ensure that it meters out justice as little as possible. Justice, properly applied, quells the wickedness in man before it even arises. If this religion is entirely about justice, then it is constantly having to deal justice. The only scenario in which justice must be dealt is when satan has given rise to unjust behavior. By having to constantly deal justice, the religion is ineffectual at its one focus. It has failed to tame satan in the heart of man.

The only alternative, is that the religion itself gives rise to wicked behavior, so that it may perpetuate it's cycle of justice. It grows the fruit of evil so that it may destroy the harvest.

No matter what way you cut it, this approach paints an unfavorable light towards whatever philosophical teachimgs the Qur'an has to offer. They are either ineffectual, or they self-sustain by sacrificing others. The latter isn't nessecarily bad, but only if the religion itself is aware of this and incorporates it into it's foundational philosophy.

Attached: 1560071897229.jpg (603x324, 105K)

Sure but it's also a legitimate argument. Augustine of Hippo could not read Hebrew and came up with the idea that God is all good an evil is a mystery.

The Torah is explicitly clear that God is dualistically benevolent and malevolent. Yet the backbone of almost all Christian philosophy is based on the musings of a perverted milquetoast philosopher who constantly struggled to mental gymnastics his assertion that God can do no evil.

It's not a legitimate argument. Just be terrible if that's what the book says, or dump it. Nothing worse than a hypocrite.

Except that it isnt and you are a retard. God is not only good but goodness itself.
Evil and malevolence doesnt exist ontologically, but rather is a deficiency of Good and depends on a spiritual state of a created being.
>inb4, waaaah, my toe got hurt, god bad!
St. Basil of Caesarea has differentiated between 3 kinds of """evil""":
1)What we perceive as evil, but is actually either neutral natural events (thunder and such) or its because we misuse it (aka certain substances, poisons, chemical elements, etc)
2)What we perceive as evil, but it has pedagogical functions (and yes, that includes even such sufferings that may lead to bodily death, as humans are immortal by soul) or to prevent spreading of actual evil (Sodom and such).
3)Actual Evil, that is vices and sins (Wrath, Cruelty, Hatred, Gluttony, Lust, etc.) which depends on spiritual state of a created being and his inclinations.

In Arabic "peace" سلام salaam and "Islam" إسلام have the same root س ل م generally meaning "being healthy, sound or whole" but they are not related. إسلام is a an adverbial noun of the verb أسلم meaning "to subjugate oneself, to surrender, to submit". Islam literally means "submission".

>all this cope to defend a literal psychopath
dayum son

No, it's still disengenuous, sorry. I can't speak to the Qur'an, but I can say that you can't study Kabbalah in a translation for a reason.

>Is justice's goal not to bring eternal peace?
No, it's to be just. It's about conduct not production of numbers tagged 'good'.

Isaiah 45:7
יוצר אור ובורא חשך עשה שלום ובורא רע אני יהוה עשה כל־אלה׃ ס
>חשך
>רע
Not up for debate, not up for retcon. Sorry your church is fucking retarded and can't even read the god damn source text.

Attached: 1565925030151.gif (216x200, 40K)

What a terrible conception of justice. Only ever reacting to evil, never seeking to quell it. As if to say "it is fine to be unjust, so long as we may use you as a vent for malevolence."

>Only ever reacting to evil, never seeking to quell it.
Not at all. Just that the fruits of your actions are not the same as the essence and internal impact/generation of your actions. Focusing on the fruits especially in a broad and universalist quantitative kind of way has little to do with justice.

Good discussion, actually.

Nonsense, that is proactive justice. By creating an environment in which evil is retroactively undone, you are performing justice by righting unjust actions before they even happen.

Strictly speaking, this is a purer form of justice. As justice seeks to balance the scales, preventing the scales from ever going out of balance, never needing direct intervention, one performs the most sophisticated justices there is. Anything less is to wallow in the mud like insects.

A society has achieved holiness when there is no need to banish weapons; for the people in that society never so much as cause accident to one another. All things in perfect harmony. Judicial entropy.

>Ie ebin isaiah maymay again
Its talking about actual physical disturbances, not an ontological evil, therefore, redirect to St. Basil again my mentally deficient friend
Also, at this point, even Biblehub comments would be an improvement for your theological knowledge

>actual physical disturbances
Physical as in, state within first two paragraphs of my post

1v1 danceoff lmao

No, that's an absolutely retarded interpretation. Nobody in their right mind would believe חשך or רע are referring to "physical disturbances". That's working backwards, reaching for a meaning that isn't at all supported by the text. Do you read hebrew at all? If the Torah wanted to refer to "physical disaster" it would have used אסון not רע, and the idea that חשך isn't a plain text allegory for a broader idea kf שטן is one that can only arise from ignorance and a lack of study.

This isn't even a "maybe". This is simply not supported by the verse at all. It's a question of linguistics, the interpretatiom that you and so many Christian pholosophers reach for stems from a Google-translate tier grasp of Hebrew.

You don't understand anything about what you're trying to argue, and you're relying on garbage bin philosophers who suffered from the same issue to back your point up. Since before Joshua was born, it has been understood that this verse describes that all in creation, all things that stem from the duality of good and evil, are created by the god of the mountain. This meaning has been passed down in oral tradition for thousands of years. There is no argument to be had, you are arguing for an invented meaning that was created to perpetuate a new agenda of the Christian churches that actively disregarded source texts and cultural context.

This isn't even worth my shitposting time. I'm off.

Attached: 3df.jpg (680x744, 64K)

If we should read the Torah in Hebrew and the Quran in Arabic, then shouln't we read the Gospels in Greek?

We should bomb you into you convert to Christianity

Ra' has many meanings, that could include evil, but also suffering or strife or trouble. Considering the context of the verse (that is, being contrasted with "peace"), it's more likely that it's one of the latter ones. If they wanted to say that God creates evil, they would have said "God creates good, God creates evil".

Well don't go crying next time jews decide to carpet bomb your cunt.

Yes, if one was to criticize direct meaning.

Sure, but as it's also being compared to חשך, it's pretty obviously addressing both sides of a good and evil dichotomy. There's not even a distinction made in the Torah that אסון is metaphysically distinct from evil. It might not be satan, but satan is a smaller scope of חשך and we're making a direct comparison against חשך.

Chaos is consistently shown in association with evil, and in some cases is a direct adversary (such as the Leviathan). The Torah is weird and can ve enigmatic in meaning sometimes, but the idea that Isaiah 45:7 isn't talking about good and evil relies on patterns that you just don't see anywhere else.

islam is a such a gay religion lmao

...in that sentence its literally the opposite of shalom you bloody moron

Retarded jew doesn't even understand the OT, color me surprised

No, I talked to the Jews, including lecturers in my university and was talking with them about this subject, about which they had same interpretation, as we Christians do.
He isnt a Jew, he's just a pretentious faggot who just copy-pastes everything he finds on google. If he was a Jew, at least he would differentiate between Torah and Tanakh (Actual OT), part of which is Torah.

>It's the opposite of shalom!
>wh- no don't pay attention to the first root of the sentence. That's literally irrelevant to understanding the context here!
I'm done giving you effort posts

Attached: 315.jpg (600x900, 121K)

>MUH FIRST SENTANCE!!!
It was to stand against Mazdaic doctrine that Light and Darkness were associated with different beginnings. Same with "peace and calmaties" and again, none of it talks about ontological, actual Evil.
>effort posts
Copying sentences from rationalwiki isnt really something anyone would call an "effort" post, my debilitated friend

Mahomet only cared about being peaceful until he realized no one wanted to join his fanfic cult, so he became a bandit and began advocating for random violence to coerce others into submitting to his god Satan.

>None of it talks about ontological, actual evil
So do you have a source that in this instance hošek does not refer to evil? Or are you going to keep crying about copy-paste bullshit?

If you actually knew what the fuck you were talking about, you would have called me out above. יוצר does not have anything to do with yetzer hara. If you knew that you would have instantly fucking called me on that, but you demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge on the subject by opting for some retarded "muh copy paste" retort.

Well done for proving what I've been saying you absolute imbecile.

>So do you have a source that in this instance hošek does not refer to evil?
First of all, its Hoshekh, not Hoshek, just a minor nuisance.
Second of all, it literally means darkness and is used numerous times as such in the Bible, yes, such as, for example
>יָשֶׁת חֹשֶׁךְ, סִתְרוֹ סְבִיבוֹתָיו סֻכָּתוֹ;חֶשְׁכַת-מַיִם, עָבֵי שְׁחָקִים (Psalms 1:11)
>גַּם־חֹשֶׁךְ֘ לֹֽא־יַחְשִׁ֪יךְ מִ֫מֶּ֥ךָּ וְלַיְלָה כַּיּ֣וֹם יָאִ֑יר כַּֽ֜חֲשֵׁיכָ֗ה כָּֽאוֹרָֽה (Psalms 139:12)
>וַתִּקְרְבוּן וַתַּעַמְדוּן, תַּחַת הָהָר; וְהָהָר בֹּעֵר בָּאֵשׁ, עַד-לֵב הַשָּׁמַיִם--חֹשֶׁךְ, עָנָן וַעֲרָפֶל. (Deut 4:11)
As for the rest of your pretentious faggy complaints, you can write all of them on a big paper, make it into a scroll and... well, you can guess the general direction of the destination of it.

NB: I've said numerous times that there are numerous commentaries that it doesn't mean evil in that instance and includes even such general websources such as biblehub, not to mention actual patristic works and works. But again, you simply ignored them