Islam Debate Thread

[Egyptian]

Alright , since It's not good to argue in members photos thread (about Islam), here is a thread.

@Rethel @Dick @anymember wanna join.

[Graywolf]

Here is my message to all non-semitics whom are descendants of pagans( Asatru, Suomenuskoe, Taltoism, Slavic Paganism etc.) which they didnt kill nor opressed anyone to convert to their religion. We ve bled each other so much because of splits between Jewish Mythology. Break the chains of your opressors' religion and honour your ancestors by preserving their cultural and religious customs. We live in Age of Knowledge and we all know how rotten Middle eastern religions are. I realized some customs are not related with islam (arabic influenced jewish mythology) in my grandparents' attitude after research I saw these were remains of Tengriism. After dumping all bs systematically being inserted my brain, I found my roots and moral in Tengri .I always disgusted from bending over someone or some creature or a power. then I heard spiritual leader of Altais Akay Kine: We aren't servants of God , what kind of parents wants his chlild bending over someone like slaves, We, Turks are children of God scattered on Earth. As an Atheist I dedicated myself to preserve Mighty Tengri's customs and transfer them to my descendants (idk if I ll have). Old Gods Protect Us!

[Egyptian]

Here is my message to all non-semitics whom are descendants of pagans( Asatru, Suomenuskoe, Taltoism, Slavic Paganism etc.) which they didnt kill nor opressed anyone to convert to their religion. We ve bled each other so much because of splits between Jewish Mythology. Break the chains of your opressors' religion and honour your ancestors by preserving their cultural and religious customs. We live in Age of Knowledge and we all know how rotten Middle eastern religions are. I realized some customs are not related with islam (arabic influenced jewish mythology) in my grandparents' attitude after research I saw these were remains of Tengriism. After dumping all bs systematically being inserted my brain, I found my roots and moral in Tengri .I always disgusted from bending over someone or some creature or a power. then I heard spiritual leader of Altais Akay Kine: We aren't servants of God , what kind of parents wants his chlild bending over someone like slaves, We, Turks are children of God scattered on Earth. As an Atheist I dedicated myself to preserve Mighty Tengri's customs and transfer them to my descendants (idk if I ll have). Old Gods Protect Us!

Turks are children of god? hmm I heard that before .. ya , Christians and Jews say that also.

[Graywolf]

Christians say beacuse of Pagan effect and Catholicism bears heavy pagan influences. I told I am atheist before I guess and is it your only point from this long text? And if Muslims want to see themselves as slaves of non-existent god am OK with that.

[Graywolf]

And about Islam I reject ridiculous claims of Mohammad suchs as: Moishe splitted the Red Sea, he splitted moon in half, he's been travelled by god to Gods place(?) And Jerusalem at one night and especially he receives something from God or Teufel or he sees Angel's. I refuse to believe these tales which are u are out of religion if u reject if someone accepts these with his conscience (?) I only laugh my arse off.

[Linebacker]

since It's not good to argue in members photos thread

As someone who has been here since 2014 I disagree.

The members photos thread has always been the best place to argue.

[Egyptian]

And about Islam I reject ridiculous claims of Mohammad suchs as: Moishe splitted the Red Sea, he splitted moon in half, he's been travelled by god to Gods place(?) And Jerusalem at one night and especially he receives something from God or Teufel or he sees Angel's. I refuse to believe these tales which are u are out of religion if u reject if someone accepts these with his conscience (?) I only laugh my arse off.

Ok , point of view .. let me ask you something , let's say you live in Roman empire era or maybe before it and someone told you , hey mate one day we gonna travel from Egypt to Roma in 2 hours , not months anymore , what are you going to tell him? of course you are crazy , maybe if we use magic only.

nowadays you can take a plane and head to any place on earth in few hours .

maybe you don't accept the idea of travelling to Al-Quds or Jerusalem in one night but then again you have to reject the idea of a plane , correct? that's fair enough.

and about the Red Sea , yes it's true and happened , I'm muslim and I believe in it.. there is also historical evidence

first : Merenptah Stele .. it proves the existance of israeli people (sons of Jacob or Yakub).

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/xj4B5xPMgbQ/maxresdefault.jpg

Merenptah is believed to the pharaoh of Moses .. they even discovered salt in his body (probably from drowining in sea)

https://www5.0zz0.com/2021/01/28/20/218713206.jpg

[Egyptian]

As someone who has been here since 2014 I disagree.

The members photos thread has always been the best place to argue.

True :lol:

[itilvolga]

Christians say beacuse of Pagan effect and Catholicism bears heavy pagan influences. I told I am atheist before I guess and is it your only point from this long text? And if Muslims want to see themselves as slaves of non-existent god am OK with that.


And about Islam I reject ridiculous claims of Mohammad suchs as: Moishe splitted the Red Sea, he splitted moon in half, he's been travelled by god to Gods place(?) And Jerusalem at one night and especially he receives something from God or Teufel or he sees Angel's. I refuse to believe these tales which are u are out of religion if u reject if someone accepts these with his conscience (?) I only laugh my arse off.

May I ask you why do you use a Pan-Islamist pasha's portrait as avatar if you harshly criticize Islam? I am asking just out of curiosity.

[Graywolf]

He wouldn't be Pan-Islamists if he lived today. He wasnt just pan-Islamist also he was Turanist btw . Pan-Islamism was the best doctrine at the time to use against British and espescially if your father in law was Caliph. He died in the sake of libeeration of Turks. He finished the tyrrany of Abdulhamid II and brought liberty to empire. Modernised the army brought Prussian model. He was as romantic to die in a far away geography for the sake of his race and he was the Commander in Chief of the army which 2 of my grandparents martyred and 3 of them became veteran. These are some reasons. And becoming muslim or pan-islamist doesnt lower his value on my eyes. I hope It will satisfy your curiosity.

[Rethel]

sorry , we don't worship a man like you do.

1. You worship the most obviously false "prophet" ever, and most disgusting one. You worship also a pice of paper. And a piece of stone. And many other things.
2. Which man do I worship? :confused:


Ceterum censeo Meccam delendam esse.

[Graywolf]

Ok , point of view .. let me ask you something , let's say you live in Roman empire era or maybe before it and someone told you , hey mate one day we gonna travel from Egypt to Roma in 2 hours , not months anymore , what are you going to tell him? of course you are crazy , maybe if we use magic only.

nowadays you can take a plane and head to any place on earth in few hours .

maybe you don't accept the idea of travelling to Al-Quds or Jerusalem in one night but then again you have to reject the idea of a plane , correct? that's fair enough.

and about the Red Sea , yes it's true and happened , I'm muslim and I believe in it.. there is also historical evidence

first : Merenptah Stele .. it proves the existance of israeli people (sons of Jacob or Yakub).

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/xj4B5xPMgbQ/maxresdefault.jpg

Merenptah is believed to the pharaoh of Moses .. they even discovered salt in his body (probably from drowining in sea)

https://www5.0zz0.com/2021/01/28/20/218713206.jpg

If someone would tell me we will make wooden or metal gadgets filled with fuel and fly like birds I would say may be. But if someone would say I flew last night above Jerusalem and saw god or I splitted moon in half I would laugh like I said. Dude these pharoahs are embalmed, we conservate meat like this even today isnt it logical? And if something like these kinda catastrophic why didnt wrote them in records while recording so much shit? There is no proof about splitting of red sea either. As we know today atmosphere has no 7 levels nor there are no waters not blending each other. quran is full of mistakes and neo-scholars try to justify these mistakes with jazz. Islam itself made up by mohammad and systemized by scholars like imam-el azam, imam malek etc. The islam of mohammed is vahhabism adopted by saudis others are made up by scholars.

[Egyptian]

1. You worship the most obviously false "prophet" ever, and most disgusting one. You worship also a pice of paper. And a piece of stone. And many other things.
2. Which man do I worship? :confused:

First of All we don't worship any prophet including (Muhammed PBUH) . I don't even know how did you come up with this.

what piece of paper?
piece of stone? you mean Kaaba? no , we don 't worship it either .. blood of a muslim is more important than Kaaba ..Kaaba is a place where we do pilgrimage and Umrah.

2- Yes , you worship a man called Jesus. He is a prophet and yet early christians turned him into some kind of god, there is even debate between christians themselves if he is a god or son of god or normal man , Jehovah's Witnesses and before them Arianism said he wan't a god , just a normal man , a prophet.

[Rethel]

Islam Christianity and judaism all of them originated in same Region you can find common things among Islam Christianity and judaism so if Islam is pagan then same goes for Christianity

This is a very ignorant broken logic.
Christianity isn't the same as Judaism and Islam, so, one doesn't define another.

Christianity is the true Israelite religion, a fullfilment of it.
Judaism is a reaction on that, a rejection of Jesus plus pharisaic apostasies and myths plus ocultistic kaballah.
Islam it is a reaction on Christian domination, so it is some judaism mixed with arabic paganism plus some weird gnostic parachristian stuff.


Christianity is based on the Bible.

Judaism is based on the Talmud etc.
Islam is based on Koran, Sira and Hadiths.

Judeo-Islam has almost nothing to do with Christianity.

Ceterum censeo Meccam delendam esse.

[Egyptian]

If someone would tell me we will make wooden or metal gadgets filled with fuel and fly like birds I would say may be. But if someone would say I flew last night above Jerusalem and saw god or I splitted moon in half I would laugh like I said. Dude these pharoahs are embalmed, we conservate meat like this even today isnt it logical? And if something like these kinda catastrophic why didnt wrote them in records while recording so much shit? There is no proof about splitting of red sea either. As we know today atmosphere has no 7 levels nor there are no waters not blending each other. quran is full of mistakes and neo-scholars try to justify these mistakes with jazz. Islam itself made up by mohammad and systemized by scholars like imam-el azam, imam malek etc. The islam of mohammed is vahhabism adopted by saudis others are made up by scholars.

How about , small metal figure can destroy countries? Am talking about the nuclear bomb. would you believe it if you were a person from the past?

by the way , Muhammed PBUH didn't split the moon , where was that mentioned? he splited the moon?

you say Islam and Quran made up by Muhammed PBUH .. how is it even possible and he was illiterate person? he couldn't write nor read.

[Altaylı]

This is a very ignorant broken logic.
Christianity isn't the same as Judaism and Islam, so, one doesn't define another.

Christianity is the true Israelite religion, a fullfilment of it.
Judaism is a reaction on that, a rejection of Jesus plus pharisaic apostasies and myths plus ocultistic kaballah.
Islam it is a reaction on Christian domination, so it is some judaism mixed with arabic paganism plus some weird gnostic parachristian stuff.

I cant see ignorant thing here There are common things in among these religions
Your argument is very shitty even you dont have source to be taken seriously

[Rethel]

it's not islamic it's probably turk or indian ..

Say yet chinese.
The point was, mahometans belive in it and use it.
It is even called hand of fatima - hand of the daughter of Mahomet.

Ceterum censeo Meccam delendam esse.

[Egyptian]

Say yet chinese.
The point was, mahometans belive in it and use it.
It is even called hand of fatima - hand of the daughter of Mahomet.

Hand of Mariam not Faitma..

it's jewish symbol , later by ignorant muslims used it as symbol to protect from envy and so on.

[Rethel]

especially demolishing these satanic figures of egypt.


So, start with Mecca and Kaaba.

[Egyptian]

So, start with Mecca and Kaaba.

It's not Satanic nor we worship Kaaba , again it's a place of pilgrimage

[Graywolf]

How you describe genies dude? :D
And as a muslim most probablt u believe keramehs of evliyah's ( miracles of scholar-saints) why they stopped doing them after invention of camera? :D:D:D
And why your god lets Israel kill your brothers? Why doesnt he punish them?
How come a virgin gives birth a baby? IVF?

[Mejgusu]

Islam is a part of my culture, but not the only or a dominant element. Also i dont feel anything for every other Muslim, cultural, historical and ethnical commonalities are more important for me. Just an example: Am i sad about Uyghurs(or other non-Turkics like masacre of Bosniaks)? Yes. Do I care about Palestinians? No.

[Rethel]

First of All we don't worship any prophet including (Muhammed PBUH)

Yes, you do. You are even killing people for painting him. This is worshiping.
Duh! You have to even confess Mahomet (let he burn in hell)* in shahada equaly with allah (whatever it means).
Duh2! You are gloryfying him every time when you say his name, saying some spell.

*I will write it evey single time, if you will not stop write this spell right after his name.


I don't even know how did you come up with this.

You don't know shahada? :shocked:


what piece of paper?

You belive that koran is eternal, whay makes him equal to God.
You treat it in some way which is similar to worshipping it.


piece of stone? you mean Kaaba? no , we don 't worship it either

Not at all. making a pilgrimage to this, circulating amoing it, kissing it, hoping that it will destroy your sins, and praying to it five times a day... especially if the same did arab pagans before Mahomet (let he burn in hell), and it was an "idol" of Allat or whomever, is not worshipping? Are you kidding me?


2- Yes , you worship a man called Jesus.

And how I worship him?


Jehovah's Witnesses and before them Arianism said he wan't a god , just a normal man , a prophet.

And here you are wrong.

Ceterum censeo Meccam delendam esse.

[Rethel]

I cant see ignorant thing here There are common things in among these religions

A car has wheels.
A bicycle has wheels.
Roller skates have wheels.

Conclusion?
They are the same.

This is your way of thinking.

[Rethel]

Hand of Mariam not Faitma..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamsa

The hamsa (Arabic: خمسة‎ khamsah) is a palm-shaped amulet (...)
The Hamsa is also variously known as the Hand of Fatima after the daughter of the [false] prophet Muhammad,


muslims used it as symbol to protect from envy and so on.

I am happy that you finally agreed on this.

Ceterum censeo Meccam esse delendam.

[itilvolga]

He wouldn't be Pan-Islamists if he lived today. He wasnt just pan-Islamist also he was Turanist btw . Pan-Islamism was the best doctrine at the time to use against British and espescially if your father in law was Caliph. He died in the sake of libeeration of Turks. He finished the tyrrany of Abdulhamid II and brought liberty to empire. Modernised the army brought Prussian model. He was as romantic to die in a far away geography for the sake of his race and he was the Commander in Chief of the army which 2 of my grandparents martyred and 3 of them became veteran. These are some reasons. And becoming muslim or pan-islamist doesnt lower his value on my eyes. I hope It will satisfy your curiosity.

On the contrary, Pan-Islamism was the most unsuccessful doctrine during 20th century, even though Brits were the enemy or your father-in-law was the Caliph. He wasn't a Turanist, he used the term "Turan" only to describe Central Asia, or the East of Iran, not to describe his ideology in his letters for an instance but mentioned uniting all Muslims under the same state several times. The Committee of Union and Progress had predominantly Pan-Turkist pashas but Enver wasn't one of them. He wasn't against, but it doesn't change his ideas. Otherwise you are right, he embraced Pan-Islamism more and more with the ultimate goal of moving against imperialist Brits. Thanks for replying. I thought you were confused when I saw that you considered yourself as atheist but made a speech of tengrism, and harshly criticized Islam while having Enver Pasha's portrait in your avatar. I still do though, but it doesn't matter.

[Rethel]

It's not Satanic nor we worship Kaaba , again it's a place of pilgrimage

An idol worshipped by pagan Arabs is not satanic... interesting... and kissing, pilgriming to it, bowing down towards it and praying five times a day is not worship... interesting also... just typical mahometan denial of reality...

BUT, if it is not satanic, go there and be repeating through megaphone circling around it:

"Jehovah is the only true God, Yahweh alone".
"The Bible it the true word of God".
"Yesua was teaching the truth".

I wonder, how many times you'll be able to do it... :laugh:

Ceterum censeo Meccam delendam esse.

[Graywolf]

He couldnt embrace Pan-Turkism openly while he was the de-facto head of a multiracial Empire. (He had Christian Gagauz Turk ancestry i remind you btw.) Pan- Islamism was including %99 of Turks at the time so there wasnt a meaning of embracing Pan-Turkism at the time. You can read his letter to his uncle for liberating Baku. He congrulates his uncle for liberating a 'small port city of Mighty Turan Empire'. Which he named Pan-Islamic empire as Turan. This also gives us clues. And about being Atheist while embracing Tengri. I dont believe in any god but I am not a godless man without any morals or customs.I dont want to be classified with hippies and commies either. My purpose is believing in the truth (atheism) while preserving my culture and identity. God is in our minds. May TENGRI protect TURK and glorify them.

[itilvolga]

He couldnt embrace Pan-Turkism openly while he was head of a multiracial Empire. And Pan- Islamism was including %99 of Turks at the time so there wasnt a meaning of embracing Pan-Turkism at the time. You can read his letter to his uncle for liberating Baku. He congrulates his uncle for liberating a 'small port city of Mighty Turan Empire'. Which he named Pan-Islamic empire as Turan. This also gives us clues. And about being Atheist while embracing Tengri. I dont believe in any god but I am not a godless man without any morals or customs.I dont want to be classified with hippies and commies either. My purpose is believing in the truth (atheism) while preserving my culture and identity. God is in our minds. May TENGRI protect TURK and glorify them.

Bla bla bla for Enver, I like him and already know his ideas and role in the history. We just approach him differently.
But the thing that I don't get is, how do you say "May Tengri protect Turks and glorify them" and consider yourself an atheist at the same time. You give possibility to Tengri protecting ang glorifying Turks but also don't believe in God or a higher power or in a spiritual force of any kind since that's the description of being an atheist. Isn't it contradictory? I hope I don't create a negative atmosphere though, I am not an Islamist but a believer who criticize her own beliefs regularly due to being against to dogmaticalness and my purpose isn't judging you.

[Graywolf]

Bla bla bla for Enver, I like him and already know his ideas and role in the history. We just approach him differently.
But the thing that I don't get is, how do you say "May Tengri protect Turks and glorify them" and consider yourself an atheist at the same time. You give possibility to Tengri protecting ang glorifying Turks but also don't believe in God or a higher power or in a spiritual force of any kind since that's the description of being an atheist. Isn't it contradictory? I hope I don't create a negative atmosphere though, I am not an Islamist but a believer who criticize her own beliefs regularly due to being against to dogmaticalness and my purpose isn't judging you.

I noticed your concern to not offend me and you are curious i see. Im telling you again and I am surprised that we couldnt communicated yet. I am Atheist. Aint no GOD. My define of god is an Idea created by people carrying same blood to live together, to die for each, preserve their identity and culture. I want to make this commonsense continue. And there is no solid God to glorify nor to protect us except us (believers of Tengri ideology). I define myself as an Atheist adopted Tengriism Customs. I DONT BELIEVE ANY KIND OF CREATOR OR PROTECTOR OR A POWER.

[Rethel]

But Islam isn’t satanic.

No? So, what is?

[Östsvensk]

The Islamic scholar Dr. Yasir Qadi says that Dawah is not done via the intellect.


https://youtu.be/stb9BX0wGrI

[Rethel]

The Islamic scholar Dr. Yasir Qadi

The gravedigger of mahometanism, who unltimately buried Islam totaly in last year, nailing
the last nail to the Islam's coffin, and then had übermeltdown through whole Internet? :picard2:

[Östsvensk]

The guy, who unltimately buried Islam totaly in last year, nailing the last nail
to the Islam's coffin, and then had übermeltdown through whole Internet? :picard2:

Yes, precisely Dr. Holes in the Narrative. I don't know if he said this recently or if it's older.

[Egyptian]

Yes, you do. You are even killing people for painting him. This is worshiping.
Duh! You have to even confess Mahomet (let he burn in hell)* in shahada equaly with allah (whatever it means).
Duh2! You are gloryfying him every time when you say his name, saying some spell.

*I will write it evey single time, if you will not stop write this spell right after his name.



You don't know shahada? :shocked:



You belive that koran is eternal, whay makes him equal to God.
You treat it in some way which is similar to worshipping it.



Not at all. making a pilgrimage to this, circulating amoing it, kissing it, hoping that it will destroy your sins, and praying to it five times a day... especially if the same did arab pagans before Mahomet (let he burn in hell), and it was an "idol" of Allat or whomever, is not worshipping? Are you kidding me?



And how I worship him?



And here you are wrong.

Ceterum censeo Meccam delendam esse.

PBUH is not a spell , It means Peace be upon him , we say it also after Mentioning jesus peace be upon him also.

Shahada = There is no god but Allah & Muhammed is his prophet .. where the Shahada mentioned that we worship Muhammed PBUH?.

Quran is same like original bible and original Torah = all are from 1 source , this source is Allah , who is eternal , only him is eternal no one else.

-Kaaba , we don't do pilgrimage to it as house of god not as a creature of its own , we don't hope that it will destroy our sins , we hope Allah remove our sins , no one else.

-You worship Jesus , you believe he is a god and son of a god , while the fact he is a human , a prophet , was born like all humans and can die like all humans.

-am not wrong , read about Arianism.

[Egyptian]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamsa

The hamsa (Arabic: خمسة‎ khamsah) is a palm-shaped amulet (...)
The Hamsa is also variously known as the Hand of Fatima after the daughter of the [false] prophet Muhammad,



I am happy that you finally agreed on this.

Ceterum censeo Meccam esse delendam.

It is also identified as the Hand of Miriam, Aaron and Moses’s sister,

https://www.doublebone.com/what-does-the-hamsa-symbol-mean/

jewish tradition , later some ignorant muslims used it also.

[Egyptian]

An idol worshipped by pagan Arabs is not satanic... interesting... and kissing, pilgriming to it, bowing down towards it and praying five times a day is not worship... interesting also... just typical mahometan denial of reality...

BUT, if it is not satanic, go there and be repeating through megaphone circling around it:

"Jehovah is the only true God, Yahweh alone".
"The Bible it the true word of God".
"Yesua was teaching the truth".

I wonder, how many times you'll be able to do it... :laugh:

Ceterum censeo Meccam delendam esse.

You're funny ..

do you worship the church ? then why going every sunday there and praying to it ? why do you kneel before a statue of a man ?

Kaaba is a place , house of God , do we worship it? no , never , not now and not later.

[Randommembr]

Are Zoroastrians people of the book?

[Rethel]

PBUH is not a spell , It means Peace be upon him

Shouldn't be. So it is a spell, the more, that it is conjuring the reality, as he is burning in hell (if hell is not a metaphore).


Shahada = There is no god but Allah & Muhammed is his prophet .. where the Shahada mentioned that we worship Muhammed PBUH?

You must confess him to be a muslim, and without the second part you can't be consider as believer. Duh! You confess him equally to God. This is worshipping. Worshipping a man, equally to God. Btw, you are killing people for only critisizing this freak or for painting a cartoon of him, so, what it is if not a worship? You are even booming yourself in the air for him.


Quran is same like original bible and original Torah = all are from 1 source , this source is Allah , who is eternal , only him is eternal no one else.

You said something but without any point.
You (pl) equalize koran with God, as you (pl) belive, that this broken book is eternal, like God.
And you (pl) treat this book like it would be a subject of worship and cult.


-Kaaba , we don't do pilgrimage to it as house of god not as a creature of its own , we don't hope that it will destroy our sins , we hope Allah remove our sins , no one else.

Either thou are lying as usuall, either have no idea what you belive in.


-You worship Jesus , you believe he is a god and son of a god

Nope.


while the fact

When a muslim says about facts, then everybody knows, that it should be the opposite.


-am not wrong , read about Arianism.

Yes, thou are wrong, in this what thou wrote about both, JWs and Arians.

Ceterum censeo Meccam esse delendam.

[Egyptian]

Are Zoroastrians people of the book?

Jews, Christians , Sabians are people of the book.

[Ryujin]

He wouldn't be Pan-Islamists if he lived today. He wasnt just pan-Islamist also he was Turanist btw . Pan-Islamism was the best doctrine at the time to use against British and espescially if your father in law was Caliph. He died in the sake of libeeration of Turks. He finished the tyrrany of Abdulhamid II and brought liberty to empire. Modernised the army brought Prussian model. He was as romantic to die in a far away geography for the sake of his race and he was the Commander in Chief of the army which 2 of my grandparents martyred and 3 of them became veteran. These are some reasons. And becoming muslim or pan-islamist doesnt lower his value on my eyes. I hope It will satisfy your curiosity.

Enver Pasha might have been a pan-Islamist for romantic ideals, but Young Turks were supported by non-Muslims because they overthrew the tyrant Abdulhamid. I respect Enver Pasha for overthrowing the zealot and introducing modern reforms. Abdulhamid banned theatre, football in the country and Young Turks introduced the ideals of the French Revolution.

I have respect for Enver Pasha, so did Ataturk even if they were ideologically different. At the end of the day, I'd prefer a Enver Pasha over a zealot ottoman sultan. Long live the Army of Action!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIRUC8p0t7M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEeGMsYmET4

"Gölgesinden bile korkup bağıran bir ödlek,
33 yıl bizi korkuttu 'Şeriat!' diyerek" - Mehmet Akif Ersoy

[Rethel]

It is also identified as the Hand of Miriam, Aaron and Moses’s sister,

jewish tradition , later some ignorant muslims used it also.

Who cares, how you name it. The fact remains, that muslims belive in that and use it, and this was the point.


then why going every sunday there and praying to it?

When and were?

And you again are fraudulencing.
Christans in the church do not bow to the church, the same, as muslims in mosque do
not bow to the mosque in which they are bowing down towards Kaaba before black stone.


why do you kneel before a statue of a man ?

When and where?

I see, you are not only a liar, but also a sorcerer with glass sphere, knowing better than me, what I am doing...

Ceterum censeo Meccam delendam esse.

[Randommembr]

Jews, Christians , Sabians are people of the book.

Who are Sabians? Do they still exist?

I'm Zoroastrian. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyER_vJUdts
Please watch the whole thing. He makes a great point in the end.


Indeed, those who have believed and those who were Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians [almost certainly Zoroastrians]and those who associated with Allah - Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness. (22:17)

Many scholars argue that Zoroastrians are Ahle Kitab. There are just so many similarities.

"Shi'ism which is the state religion in Iran today, many scholars would tell you, has more in common with Zoroastrianism than it has with any other Muslim society." - Abbas Milani

According to the Islamic republic of Iran, Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians are people of the book.

Just curious to see your view.

[Egyptian]

Who cares, how you name it. The fact remains, that muslims belive in that and use it, and this was the point.



When and were?

And you again are fraudulencing.
Christans in the church do not bow to the church, the same, as muslims in mosque do
not bow to the mosque in which they are bowing down towards Kaaba before black stone.



When and where?

I see, you are not only a liar, but also a sorcerer with glass sphere, knowing better than me, what I am doing...

Ceterum censeo Meccam delendam esse.

Yes you bow to statues and buildings

https://previews.123rf.com/images/tecnico123/tecnico1231706/tecnico123170600017/81901443-a-man-praying-in-front-of-the-madonna-s-statue-at-medjogorje.jpg

https://completechristianity.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/procession-edited.jpg?w=640

[Rethel]

Yes you bow to statues and buildings

No, I do not.
You are a lair, proved again.

[Egyptian]

Who are Sabians? Do they still exist?

I'm Zoroastrian. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyER_vJUdts
Please watch the whole thing. He makes a great point in the end.


Indeed, those who have believed and those who were Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians [almost certainly Zoroastrians]and those who associated with Allah - Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness. (22:17)

Many scholars argue that Zoroastrians are Ahle Kitab. There are just so many similarities.

"Shi'ism which is the state religion in Iran today, many scholars would tell you, has more in common with Zoroastrianism than it has with any other Muslim society." - Abbas Milani

According to the Islamic republic of Iran, Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians are people of the book.

Just curious to see your view.

The Sabians (/ˈseɪbiənz/; Arabic: الصابئة‎ al-Ṣābiʼah or الصابئون‎ al-Ṣābiʼūn) of Middle Eastern tradition were a religious group mentioned three times in the Quran as a People of the Book, along with the Jews and the Christians.[1] In the hadith, they were described simply as converts to Islam.[2] Their identity has been called an "unsolved Quranic issue".[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabians#:~:text=The%20Sabians%20(%2F%CB%88se%C9%AA ,simply%20as%20converts%20to%20Islam.


The known people of the book are those 3 I mentioned above , Zoro however is mentioned in Quran.

و المجوس المعروف أنهم المؤمنون بزرتشت و كتابهم المقدس «أوستا» غير أن تاريخ حياته و زمان ظهوره مبهم جدا كالمنقطع خبره و قد افتقدوا الكتاب باستيلاء إسكندر على إيران ثم جددت كتابته في زمن ملوك ساسان فأشكل بذلك الحصول على حاق مذهبهم و المسلم أنهم يثبتون لتدبير العالم مبدأين مبدأ الخير و مبدأ الشر يزدان و أهريمن أو النور و الظلمة - و يقدسون الملائكة و يتقربون إليهم من غير أن يتخذوا لهم أصناما كالوثنية، و يقدسون البسائط العنصرية و خاصة النار و كانت لهم بيوت نيران بإيران و الصين و الهند و غيرها و ينهون الجميع إلى «أهورامزدا» موجد الكل.

Magi or Magose or believers of Zoro and their holy book (Osta) , they lost their book when Alexander the great took over Iran , then the book was renewed in the Era of Sassanids Kings , they believe in 2 (good and bad) ( yazdan and Aherman) or (light and Darkness) , they praise Angels but they don't build statues for them . they praise also fire.

This Verse speaks about all kind of people who in day of Judgement, Allah will show them who is the right and who is the wrong of them.

for example , : those who have believed : are the Muslims and believers of Allah before Islam and Quran like Moses and who followed him or Jesus and who followed him and Jacob and who followed him etc.

those who were Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians : I guess it's obvious , and most likely those who worship Allah but went in wrong turn (or their religion changed) , for example christians were worshipping Allah or god but some of them changed their religion to worship jesus and his mom , Jews worshipped Allah till one of them built a golden calf and they worshipped it , Sabians also used to Worship Allah along with magians etc and their religion was changed.

and those who associated with Allah : every other religion that worship something else than Allah ( like buddhism or hinduism) ( no mention of Allah , just other things to worship).

but the known fact that people of book are jews, christians, sabians .. and could be magians also , am not sure to be honest i will ask some scholar and tell you.

[Randommembr]

The Sabians (/ˈseɪbiənz/; Arabic: الصابئة‎ al-Ṣābiʼah or الصابئون‎ al-Ṣābiʼūn) of Middle Eastern tradition were a religious group mentioned three times in the Quran as a People of the Book, along with the Jews and the Christians.[1] In the hadith, they were described simply as converts to Islam.[2] Their identity has been called an "unsolved Quranic issue".[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabians#:~:text=The%20Sabians%20(%2F%CB%88se%C9%AA ,simply%20as%20converts%20to%20Islam.


The known people of the book are those 3 I mentioned above , Zoro however is mentioned in Quran.

و المجوس المعروف أنهم المؤمنون بزرتشت و كتابهم المقدس «أوستا» غير أن تاريخ حياته و زمان ظهوره مبهم جدا كالمنقطع خبره و قد افتقدوا الكتاب باستيلاء إسكندر على إيران ثم جددت كتابته في زمن ملوك ساسان فأشكل بذلك الحصول على حاق مذهبهم و المسلم أنهم يثبتون لتدبير العالم مبدأين مبدأ الخير و مبدأ الشر يزدان و أهريمن أو النور و الظلمة - و يقدسون الملائكة و يتقربون إليهم من غير أن يتخذوا لهم أصناما كالوثنية، و يقدسون البسائط العنصرية و خاصة النار و كانت لهم بيوت نيران بإيران و الصين و الهند و غيرها و ينهون الجميع إلى «أهورامزدا» موجد الكل.

Magi or Magose or believers of Zoro and their holy book (Osta) , they lost their book when Alexander the great took over Iran , then the book was renewed in the Era of Sassanids Kings , they believe in 2 (good and bad) ( yazdan and Aherman) or (light and Darkness) , they praise Angels but they don't build statues for them . they praise also fire.

This Verse speaks about all kind of people who in day of Judgement, Allah will show them who is the right and who is the wrong of them.

for example , : those who have believed : are the Muslims and believers of Allah before Islam and Quran like Moses and who followed him or Jesus and who followed him and Jacob and who followed him etc.

those who were Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians : I guess it's obvious , and most likely those who worship Allah but went in wrong turn (or their religion changed) , for example christians were worshipping Allah or god but some of them changed their religion to worship jesus and his mom , Jews worshipped Allah till one of them built a golden calf and they worshipped it , Sabians also used to Worship Allah along with magians etc and their religion was changed.

and those who associated with Allah : every other religion that worship something else than Allah ( like buddhism or hinduism) ( no mention of Allah , just other things to worship).

but the known fact that people of book are jews, christians, sabians .. and could be magians also , am not sure to be honest i will ask some scholar and tell you.

Interesting. Are you qualified to comment on Zoroastrianism or do you not know much.

[Rethel]

و المجوس المعروف أنهم المؤمنون بزرتشت و كتابهم المقدس «أوستا» غير أن تاريخ حياته و زمان ظهوره مبهم جدا كالمنقطع خبره و قد افتقدوا الكتاب باستيلاء إسكندر على إيران ثم جددت كتابته في زمن ملوك ساسان فأشكل بذلك الحصول على حاق مذهبهم و المسلم أنهم يثبتون لتدبير العالم مبدأين مبدأ الخير و مبدأ الشر يزدان و أهريمن أو النور و الظلمة - و يقدسون الملائكة و يتقربون إليهم من غير أن يتخذوا لهم أصناما كالوثنية، و يقدسون البسائط العنصرية و خاصة النار و كانت لهم بيوت نيران بإيران و الصين و الهند و غيرها و ينهون الجميع إلى «أهورامزدا» موجد الكل.


And again more spells in some magical language which noone knows, neither cares about.

Can't you people speak in english when you talk in english like normal people?
Don't you people know, that half of what you are bubbling is not understandable,
becasue noone knows this magical tounge of Mahomet (let he burn in hell!)

[Egyptian]

And again more spells in some magical language which noone knows, neither cares about.

Can't you people speak in english when you talk in english like normal people?
Don't you people know, that half of what you are bubbling is not understandable,
becasue noone knows this magical tounge of Mahomet (let he burn in hell!)

what spell :lol: it's the arabic translation of zoro people and their describition , i wrote the english version underneath it.

[Egyptian]

Interesting. Are you qualified to comment on Zoroastrianism or do you not know much.

No, am not qualified to speak about zoro , unfortunately my studies about them is not that much but i will ask for you about them and if they are people of the book.

[Rethel]

what spell :lol: it's the arabic translation of zoro people and their describition , i wrote the english version underneath it.

Why are you writing in language, which noone understand, neither is talking in it with you?

Why, when a muslim is opening his mouth, half of what he is saying is in this barbarian language, which listener do not understand?

Why you muslims, have to constantly be using the same frazes over and over again, mostly in arabic, when you are speaking in another language?

There are two explanations: either muslims more retarded than people think, either mahometans have to use this frazes, i.e. these are spellings.

Tertium non datur. The meaning of it is not important.

Ceterum censeo Meccam delendam esse.

[Egyptian]

Why are you writing in language, which noone understand, neither is talking in it with you?

Why, when a muslim is opening his mouth, half of what he is saying is in this barbarian language, which listener do not understand?

Why you muslims, have to constantly be using the same frazes over and over again, mostly in arabic, when you are speaking in another language?

There are two explanations: either muslims more retarded than people think, either mahometans have to use this frazes, i.e. these are spellings.

Tertium non datur. The meaning of it is not important.

Ceterum censeo Meccam delendam esse.

Dude you have serious issues , why being so angry on the internet :lol: calm down , your words can't frighten me or make me afraid .. all u need to do is to calm and let's have a good conversation , alright?

[Skjaldemjøden]

“Honor your ancestors” except for the past 50 generations or so. Y'know, the ones you actually know anything about.

[Egyptian]

“Honor your ancestors” except for the past 50 generations or so. Y'know, the ones you actually know anything about.

explain.

[Egyptian]

“Honor your ancestors” except for the past 50 generations or so. Y'know, the ones you actually know anything about.

explain.

[Rethel]

Dude you have serious issues

Yes, I have issues with pathological liars and those, who pretend to know more about me, than I myslef.

[Lorca]

Christians say beacuse of Pagan effect and Catholicism bears heavy pagan influences. I told I am atheist before I guess and is it your only point from this long text? And if Muslims want to see themselves as slaves of non-existent god am OK with that.

The pagan influence on Christianity is greatly overstated. The overwhelming majority of Christian practices can be directly traced back to Judaism.

[Rethel]

The pagan influence on Christianity is greatly overstated.

Yep.


The overwhelming majority of Christian practices can be directly traced back to Judaism.

Christianity emerged in 29/33 C.E., and become dominant after 311/13 C.E.

Judaism emerged finally around 500 C.E., pre-judaism started in 90 C.E., pharisaic predecessor earlier, never was dominant.

Since the beginning the second group hated the first one since the first day.
christians banned any judaizers, even those, who didn't contradict christain belives.

So, how christianity could take anything from judaism? :confused:

[Randommembr]

The pagan influence on Christianity is greatly overstated. The overwhelming majority of Christian practices can be directly traced back to Judaism.

Surely you know the massive influence of Zoroastrianism on all the Abrahamic faiths, right? Judaism wasn't practiced the way it is today at all. However, I don't think Zoroastrianism is consider pagan.

[Randommembr]

Yep.



Christianity emerged in 33 C.E., and become dominant after 313 C.E.

Judaism emerged finally around 500 C.E., pre-judaism started in 90 C.E., pharisaic predecessor earlier, never was dominant.

Since the beginning the second group hated the first one since the first day.
christians banned any judaizers, even those, who didn't contradict christain belives.

So, how christianity could take anything from judaism? :confused:

OH. MY. GOD. Do you seriously believe Christianity has no Judaic influence? They took nothing from Judaism?

[Altaylı]

OH. MY. GOD. Do you seriously believe Christianity has no Judaic influence? They took nothing from Judaism?
Definitely there are common things between judaism and Christianity
Lol Rethel doesnt know anything about his religion.

[Rethel]

OH. MY. GOD. Do you seriously believe Christianity has no Judaic influence? They took nothing from Judaism?

For example what?
How could be something taken from them if judaism emerged 500 years later than Christianity?
Pharisees did hate us, becasue one of the main Jesus' teachings was, that they are children of
he Devil and Jesus spoke against almost everything what they did create and then belive in it.
Prejudaists hated us, because they hated Jesus, and when they finally emerged, were a small
sect, which was living in ghettos, and which had been from time to time kicked from our land.

So, how and why did we took something from judiasm?

If you would say, that it happen in the last 50-100 years, then I would agree, because many
different christian group took a lot of stuff from judaism, but it did not happend earlier.

[Randommembr]

For example what?
How could be something taken from them if judaism emerged 500 years later than Christianity?
Pharisees did hate us, becasue one of the main Jesus' teachings was, that they are children of
he Devil and Jesus spoke against almost everything what they did create and then belive in it.
Prejudaists hated us, because they hated Jesus, and when they finally emerged, were a small
sect, which was living in ghettos, and which had been from time to time kicked from our land.

So, how and why did we took something from Judiasm?

In last 50-100 years I agree, that many differen Christian group took many stuff from judaism, but not earlier.

Judaism emerged 500 years after Christianity? nooooo. I doubt you even know the basics of Christianity. Learn up on Christian history.

[Rethel]

Judaism emerged 500 years after Christianity?

Yep. Judaism emerged when Talmud was written and accepted, and it didn't happen before 500 CE.

[Graywolf]

Yep. Judaism emerged when Talmud was written and accepted, and it didn't happen before 500 CE.
Dude it is not important when Judaism emerged, what Jesus, Jews and Mohamad tells is exactly same: Jewish Mythology emerged in thousands of years ago. They all believe Abrahm's teachings and his sons were prophet. Now you're doing is clashing Jew gods.

[Rethel]

what Jesus, Jews and Mohamad tells is exactly same:

Absolutly not. These are totaly different religions, which teach
totaly different, often directly opposite and contraticing things.

It starts with the God, holy place and holy book.

Christians belive in Jehovah/Yahweh with the Heaven's Jerusalem as the holy place and the Bible as the holy book.
Mahometans believe in Allah previously known as Hubal (Baal) and Dushara with Petra and Mecca as holy places with Koran, Sira and Hadiths as holy books.
Jews belive in Hashem, Shekhinah, Nahash and Hamalka with star of Remfan with Ukraine and Aelia as holy places, and the Talmud, Tosefta, Zohar etc biblioteques as holy books.

Further is only more and more differences.

[Mortimer]

I disagree with Rethel, to call Islam as Satanic. I dont consider Judaism, Islam or even Buddhism as Satanic. It is clear what Satanic is, and there is really the Church of Satan out there. Islam is not Satanic. And in Islam Satan has the role of the adversary just like in Christianity. There are some cults though who worship the devil though, openly and outright. Islam is not Satanic. I think that Mohammed, was someone who should have brought the Gospel to the Arabs, just like Saint Patrick brought the Gospel to the Irish. But he was a bit mislead, and wanted to reconcile Jews and Christians, and got upset neither wanted to follow him. So he created a own version of Judaism and Christianity. Thats how I learned it in school. For example Muhammed saw that Jews and Christians fast, and he said Muslims should fast too but because it is easier, they should eat at night when no one sees what they do.

[Altaylı]

I disagree with Rethel, to call Islam as Satanic. I dont consider Judaism, Islam or even Buddhism as Satanic. It is clear what Satanic is, and there is really the Church of Satan out there. Islam is not Satanic. And in Islam Satan has the role of the adversary just like in Christianity. There are some cults though who worship the devil though, openly and outright. Islam is not Satanic. I think that Mohammed, was someone who should have brought the Gospel to the Arabs, just like Saint Patrick brought the Gospel to the Irish. But he was a bit mislead, and wanted to reconcile Jews and Christians, and got upset neither wanted to follow him. So he created a own version of Judaism and Christianity. Thats how I learned it in school. For example Muhammed saw that Jews and Christians fast, and he said Muslims should fast too but because it is easier, they should eat at night when no one sees what they do.

According to Islam Muhammad is just a messenger of God. Muhammad didn't create Kuran and Islam but God created Islam and Kuran. Mohammed just informed people about Islam.

[Skjaldemjøden]

explain.

My bad, I should have added a quote. I was referring to Graywolf's comment on the first page:


Break the chains of your opressors' religion and honour your ancestors by preserving their cultural and religious customs.

It's a common sentiment here, particularly among pagans, and I find it ridiculous.

[Longbowman]

Islam is retarded, but so are Christianity, Judaism and paganism. However, these are not the topics of discussion, so I will stick to Islam:

Do Muslims believe that non-Muslims are going to Hell for not believing in Islam, regardless of their strength of character? Y/N*

If N, what's the point of being a Muslim?**

If Y, then your God is closer to Satan (or Shaytan, whatever) as a concept.

First of all, we must ask ourselves, why did God suddenly decide to burn all non-believers forever in 600AD (or 50AD if you're a Christian)? This concept does not exist in Judaism, which is retarded for separate reasons. Was he not jealous before that? Why did he start being jealous?

Second, we must ask ourselves, how is this fair? It is easy for you to accept the Quran because you were born a Sunni. But it is much harder for a Sentinel Islander to accept the Quran, as he has never heard of it. It is also much harder for me to accept it, because I come from a non-Muslim background. Does God hate children born to non-Muslims?***

Third, we must ask ourselves: why does God care? God is supposedly an ethereal, all-powerful, omniscient being. Why would he burn someone in Jannah for all eternity just because he was, let's say, a Daoist or an agnostic? Many very fine people adhere to non-monotheistic religions.****

None of this adds up or makes sense, and the only 'evidence' is an internally contradictory text that Muslims claim is a self-contained corpus of truth and perfect book. It has no external corroboration and the much more likely 'solution' to the question of 'did Muhammad really get visions from God?' is 'no, he was a liar, or mad, or both' rather than jumping through hoops to try to make it all fit.

*it is extremely clear from the Quran the answer is 'yes,' but some 'moderate' or 'liberal' Muslims deny this.

**Some liberal people will say 'oh, it grants me inner peace' or whatever. In that case, it is no better than Buddhism, yoga, or Minecraft, depending on the person. Islam as a proselytising one-true-path religion, which is how it (and Christianity) have acted for 1,400+ years, does not make sense.

***Many Muslims (and Christians) also try to hedge bets by saying 'oh, God can be merciful, you never know, maybe he will spare the heathen children from eternity in fire' but that just brings us back to question 1: do you believe in a God that would burn a child for such a thing or not? If yes, gross, if no, thanks, but I'll just be a good person and dismiss your religion

****Many Muslims (and Jews, and Christians) also try to argue everyone is a monoethist, deep down, even Pagans, so they can go to heaven but this is a) wrong (and in clear contradiction to the Quran, Torah and Bible!) and b) a cop-out, because there are also very fine atheists in the world. The reality is Islam and Christianity, in their mainstream forms, would condemn an atheist philanthropist who gave his kidney to a stranger to eternal hellfire, but spare a repentant murderer who raped 700 children. It's a ludicrous moral standard to have suddenly sprung up in the 1st millennium

[Randommembr]

Islam is retarded, but so are Christianity, Judaism and paganism. However, these are not the topics of discussion, so I will stick to Islam:

Do Muslims believe that non-Muslims are going to Hell for not believing in Islam, regardless of their strength of character? Y/N*

If N, what's the point of being a Muslim?**

If Y, then your God is closer to Satan (or Shaytan, whatever) as a concept.

First of all, we must ask ourselves, why did God suddenly decide to burn all non-believers forever in 600AD (or 50AD if you're a Christian)? This concept does not exist in Judaism, which is retarded for separate reasons. Was he not jealous before that? Why did he start being jealous?

Second, we must ask ourselves, how is this fair? It is easy for you to accept the Quran because you were born a Sunni. But it is much harder for a Sentinel Islander to accept the Quran, as he has never heard of it. It is also much harder for me to accept it, because I come from a non-Muslim background. Does God hate children born to non-Muslims?***

Third, we must ask ourselves: why does God care? God is supposedly an ethereal, all-powerful, omniscient being. Why would he burn someone in Jannah for all eternity just because he was, let's say, a Daoist or an agnostic? Many very fine people adhere to non-monotheistic religions.****

None of this adds up or makes sense, and the only 'evidence' is an internally contradictory text that Muslims claim is a self-contained corpus of truth and perfect book. It has no external corroboration and the much more likely 'solution' to the question of 'did Muhammad really get visions from God?' is 'no, he was a liar, or mad, or both' rather than jumping through hoops to try to make it all fit.

*it is extremely clear from the Quran the answer is 'yes,' but some 'moderate' or 'liberal' Muslims deny this.

**Some liberal people will say 'oh, it grants me inner peace' or whatever. In that case, it is no better than Buddhism, yoga, or Minecraft, depending on the person. Islam as a proselytising one-true-path religion, which is how it (and Christianity) have acted for 1,400+ years, does not make sense.

***Many Muslims (and Christians) also try to hedge bets by saying 'oh, God can be merciful, you never know, maybe he will spare the heathen children from eternity in fire' but that just brings us back to question 1: do you believe in a God that would burn a child for such a thing or not? If yes, gross, if no, thanks, but I'll just be a good person and dismiss your religion

****Many Muslims (and Jews, and Christians) also try to argue everyone is a monoethist, deep down, even Pagans, so they can go to heaven but this is a) wrong (and in clear contradiction to the Quran, Torah and Bible!) and b) a cop-out, because there are also very fine atheists in the world. The reality is Islam and Christianity, in their mainstream forms, would condemn an atheist philanthropist who gave his kidney to a stranger to eternal hellfire, but spare a repentant murderer who raped 700 children. It's a ludicrous moral standard to have suddenly sprung up in the 1st millennium

Interesting. You list all the flaws I agree with.

I'm not even being biased, but the people of the book in the Koran are Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sabians and Zoroastrians and the only religion which makes sense to me is Zoroastrianism. I grew up in a not really practising household, and this was the truth I found. Not to mention it's influence is probably the greatest.

Everyone goes to heaven if you profess (teach) and practice the core tenets of Ahura Mazda. The core teachings (and only teachings) to do so are practicing "Good thoughts, good words and good deeds". A Zoroastrian who prays 100 times a day and is evil is looked down upon by God but a Muslim who never prays, never worships but has good thoughts, good words and good deeds is praised.

"One good deed is worth a thousand prayers" - Zoroaster.
We don't spend our entire day praying. We can, but we don't we don't have to spend our entire lives with strict rules and worship. There's a reason the Abrahamic faiths (especially Islam) are called the religions of submission.

Zoroastrian creation story is symbolic, and pretty much whatever is said in the Gathas is scientifically accurate.

Lastly, you asked why does God care? Because he is the creator. I think everyone logically agrees that there must be a creator.

Zoroastrianism perfectly combines monothesism, dualism and even pseudo-polytheism to create a "weak" monothestic religion that's remarkably coherent.

My last question is, if the Abrahamic God is all powerful and all caring, surely he'd end suffering because he can and because he cares...

In Zoroastrianism, it's the only thing that makes sense from all major 12 religion. God is LATENTLY and semi omnipotent. He requires the help of human beings and their good to bring about frashokereti (or judgment Day when all peace is restored and evil defeated). So if we are in danger, we find ways to escape it rather than pray to God and hope for the best like adherents of Abrahamic faiths would. We are far more in control of our lives than just relying on God.

Almost all scholars agree that the Al Sirat, Judgement Day etc concepts come from Zoroastrianism anyways.

Lastly, I only posted this, as there were posts about all religions and not such an influential one. I personally (unlike followers of the Abrahamic faith) most definitely do not believe that only my religion will go to heaven. That's ridiculous to even suggest.

Next up I'll post up Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.

[Longbowman]

Lastly, I only posted this, as there were posts about all religions and not such an influential one. I personally (unlike followers of the Abrahamic faith) most definitely do not believe that only my religion will go to heaven. That's ridiculous to even suggest.

Jews and Bahai'is also do not believe this, it is just a Christian/Muslim thing. The Druze also do not believe it as they believe in reincarnation in one's gender and religious group instead. Etc.

I don't think Zoroastrianism is true either, but this is not germane to this thread, which is about Islam; open another thread if you want to discuss it.

[Randommembr]

Jews and Bahai'is also do not believe this, it is just a Christian/Muslim thing. The Druze also do not believe it as they believe in reincarnation in one's gender and religious group instead. Etc.

I don't think Zoroastrianism is true either, but this is not germane to this thread, which is about Islam; open another thread if you want to discuss it.

Well, depends on the kind of Zoroastrianism obviously. Can you quote the verse in the Gathas or the younger Avesta you disagree with? Mind you, most Zoroastrians are starting to reject later laws and texts like the Vendidad etc. Those are more of a cultural relics. Whatever you disagree with, I'm sure comes from there.

Also, how can you ignore all the good things etc in Islam as well?

[Longbowman]

Well, depends on the kind of Zoroastrianism obviously. Can you quote the verse in the Gathas or the younger Avesta you disagree with? Mind you, most Zoroastrians are starting to reject later laws and texts like the Vendidad etc. Those are more of a cultural relics. Whatever you disagree with, I'm sure comes from there.

Not on this thread.


Also, how can you ignore all the good things etc in Islam as well?

? this is not a conversation of whether or not Islam is 'good' or 'bad.' Religions are usually both good and bad, sometimes even both good and bad for the same individual. My argument is more about how it isn't true.

[Randommembr]

Not on this thread.



? this is not a conversation of whether or not Islam is 'good' or 'bad.' Religions are usually both good and bad, sometimes even both good and bad for the same individual. My argument is more about how it isn't true.

Ok, then please PM me the flaws. Be honest have you even read the entire Gathas or a summary? We can have a friendly discussion if you want.

You can't know it's not true. Many Muslims and Christians genuinely believe that their path is the right path and all other paths lead to hell. Maybe God really is like that. I definitely don't think so, but there's no evidence to show that it is faulty. We don't know what the truth is. That's why I follow a religion that I feel logically makes sense for the reasons I listed before. Even if you don't believe it's the truth, it's encouraging good thoughts, good words and good deeds. It doesn't set up an "us vs them" scenario like Islam and Christianity does.

Why are you so bothered with the truth? It's impossible to know what's the truth and what is not is. You don't have any evidence to claim it's true or false. It's more about the practices it preaches.

One fact that we are almost certain is untrue is that Muslims claim Jesus wasn't crucified despite us having so much evidence. They claim Mohammed split the moon, but very few empires beyond the Arabs reported seeing this. All this you could point to as almost certainly being untrue.

But when their practices make it seem like you must follow their path, that's incorrect imo.

[Longbowman]

You can't know it's not true.

Yes I can. I am not interested in having a hippy-dippy new age pantheistic argument with you. The founders of all these religions were liars or madmen. The Joseph Smiths and L. Ron Hubbards of their times.

[Mr.Bean]

Islam and nazism have many parrelels

[Randommembr]

Yes I can. I am not interested in having a hippy-dippy new age pantheistic argument with you. The founders of all these religions were liars or madmen. The Joseph Smiths and L. Ron Hubbards of their times.

Ok. Where's your evidence then mate. Can you prove to me God isn't real. Can you prove to me what God really is? Have you even read parts of the Gathas, Koran, Bible etc. You also seem to think Zoroastrianism is like the Abrahamic religions, but it's closer to Vedic Hinduism than any other Abrahamic religion. Calling Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammed, Bahaiullah, Guruji's etc all liars is ridiculous. They wouldn't have gotten so many followers if people didn't believe in their messages. But you can ramble on without any proof. If you make such ridiculous claims, you've got to have the evidence to back it up or at least the knowledge of what you're talking about. You've got to except people will reply back looking for your backing to what you've said.

The fact that I'm willing to alter my view with a friendly discussion and you aren't shows your stubborn character.

[Randommembr]

Islam and nazism have many parrelels

Nazism and this sub have way more parallels. White supremacy, racial classifications etc.

[Avicenna]

Yes I can. I am not interested in having a hippy-dippy new age pantheistic argument with you. The founders of all these religions were liars or madmen. The Joseph Smiths and L. Ron Hubbards of their times.

Listen you keep barking like a madman on these threads but you declined by invitation to come on a live stream with a bunch of Muslims convincing us Muhammed pbuh was a "madman " or a "liar" . Present your case mate.

https://youtu.be/FuD1CwJ0Ip4

[Avicenna]

Islam and nazism have many parrelels

Present your case and tell us why we Muslims are wrong , PLEASE

https://youtu.be/FuD1CwJ0Ip4

[Avicenna]

If you want an islamic debate , these streams are made for people who want to challenge Islam , so come on and jump on if you wish

https://youtu.be/FuD1CwJ0Ip4

[Avicenna]

Ok, then please PM me the flaws. Be honest have you even read the entire Gathas or a summary? We can have a friendly discussion if you want.

You can't know it's not true. Many Muslims and Christians genuinely believe that their path is the right path and all other paths lead to hell. Maybe God really is like that. I definitely don't think so, but there's no evidence to show that it is faulty. We don't know what the truth is. That's why I follow a religion that I feel logically makes sense for the reasons I listed before. Even if you don't believe it's the truth, it's encouraging good thoughts, good words and good deeds. It doesn't set up an "us vs them" scenario like Islam and Christianity does.

Why are you so bothered with the truth? It's impossible to know what's the truth and what is not is. You don't have any evidence to claim it's true or false. It's more about the practices it preaches.

One fact that we are almost certain is untrue is that Muslims claim Jesus wasn't crucified despite us having so much evidence. They claim Mohammed split the moon, but very few empires beyond the Arabs reported seeing this. All this you could point to as almost certainly being untrue.

But when their practices make it seem like you must follow their path, that's incorrect imo.

Why are people so obsessed about the splitting of the moon? Didn't I show you multiple sources which testified that the splitting of the moon occured ? On that note , can you show me any historical event that numerous of people who we know by name , their parents , teachers , whether they were truthful or not etc testified occured ? Actually , can you apply the same standard with the miracles of Jesus or moses ?

[Insuperable]

First of all, we must ask ourselves, why did God suddenly decide to burn all non-believers forever in 600AD (or 50AD if you're a Christian)? This concept does not exist in Judaism, which is retarded for separate reasons. Was he not jealous before that? Why did he start being jealous?

I'll leave Shitslam out, but regarding Christianity there were many similar discussions. And if I am not mistaken they included you. Obviously you either had no desire to understand, probably just scrolled down. Why waste any more time?

[Randommembr]

Why are people so obsessed about the splitting of the moon? Didn't I show you multiple sources which testified that the splitting of the moon occured ? On that note , can you show me any historical event that numerous of people who we know by name , their parents , teachers , whether they were truthful or not etc testified occured ? Actually , can you apply the same standard with the miracles of Jesus or moses ?

Yes, the only thing we are historically pretty much certain about by now is that Jesus was born, and Jesus was crucified. No other miracle can historically be proven. It may have happened, it may not. All this BS that Muhammed was made up or Jesus didn't exist is all bogus that no logical scholar would agree to.

No, you actually told me that many people had not seen the splitting of the moon. When Sheikh said that and I asked you, you said it confused you as well.

Not interested in getting into another debate. Why can't we discuss the good things like I said in Islam instead. Why can't we educate others about different religions? Like I said, I was going to post about Buddhism and Jainism and Hinduism next. Hinduism is so influential, it's almost insane that so few people talk about it.

[Randommembr]

I'll leave Shitslam out, but regarding Christianity there were many similar discussions. And if I am not mistaken they included you. Obviously you either had no desire to understand, probably just scrolled down. Why waste any more time?

Shitslam? Why can't you be respectful man?

[Longbowman]

Ok. Where's your evidence then mate. Can you prove to me God isn't real. Can you prove to me what God really is? Have you even read parts of the Gathas, Koran, Bible etc. You also seem to think Zoroastrianism is like the Abrahamic religions, but it's closer to Vedic Hinduism than any other Abrahamic religion. Calling Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammed, Bahaiullah, Guruji's etc all liars is ridiculous. They wouldn't have gotten so many followers if people didn't believe in their messages. But you can ramble on without any proof. If you make such ridiculous claims, you've got to have the evidence to back it up or at least the knowledge of what you're talking about. You've got to except people will reply back looking for your backing to what you've said.

The fact that I'm willing to alter my view with a friendly discussion and you aren't shows your stubborn character.

No offence but you and I aren't intellectual peers. I'm not close-minded, it's just you're not capable of changing my mind. Just because someone has a lot of followers doesn't mean they weren't liars. That's why I mentioned Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard. Do you think they weren't liars? I'd be very interested to see a non-Mormon or Scientologist defend that.

It is difficult to prove a negative but it's even more difficult (in this case) to prove a positive. Is your argument for all these religions, none of which you even believe in, 'they're popular?' Utterly ridiculous.

[Avicenna]

Yes, the only thing we are historically pretty much certain about by now is that Jesus was born, and Jesus was crucified. No other miracle can historically be proven. It may have happened, it may not. All this BS that Muhammed was made up or Jesus didn't exist is all bogus that no logical scholar would agree to.

No, you actually told me that many people had not seen the splitting of the moon. When Sheikh said that and I asked you, you said it confused you as well.

Not interested in getting into another debate. Why can't we discuss the good things like I said in Islam instead. Why can't we educate others about different religions? Like I said, I was going to post about Buddhism and Jainism and Hinduism next. Hinduism is so influential, it's almost insane that so few people talk about it.

What? Bro I sent you multiple youtube streams on the historicity of the crucifixion . Did you not watch it ? Also I said it confused me regarding the manuscripts where other people outside of Arabia witnessed the event , no where did I mention it was false . Also the multiple narrations of the splitting of the moon is there and you can see it.

[Longbowman]

I'll leave Shitslam out, but regarding Christianity there were many similar discussions. And if I am not mistaken they included you. Obviously you either had no desire to understand, probably just scrolled down. Why waste any more time?

what the fuck are you talking about

[Avicenna]

Shitslam? Why can't you be respectful man?

https://youtu.be/FuD1CwJ0Ip4

Dare him to come on and give Muslims a run for their money . Why don't they come on? I don't get it ?

[Longbowman]

If you want an islamic debate , these streams are made for people who want to challenge Islam , so come on and jump on if you wish

https://youtu.be/FuD1CwJ0Ip4

Why don't you summarise their views for me, in your own words? I'm a little too busy to watch an hour-plus YouTube show. That's just a virtual gish-gallop.

[Insuperable]

what the fuck are you talking about

Precisely.

[Longbowman]

Precisely.

Feel free to link me to any post in this 9 page thread I've skipped over. This thread is supposed to be about Islam, anyway.

[Longbowman]

Lol that link Avicenna is posting is a panel of Muslims asking questions from Christians (and I have never been a Christian) but on a first-come first-served basis. I can't have a debate with them because the channel is clogged AND I'm not a Christian so I cannot in all honesty do what the guests are doing - debating from a NT perspective.

If Avicenna can't debate himself, what's the point?

[Avicenna]

Why don't you summarise their views for me, in your own words? I'm a little too busy to watch an hour-plus YouTube show. That's just a virtual gish-gallop.

It's a live stream .

[Insuperable]

Feel free to link me to any post in this 9 page thread I've skipped over. This thread is supposed to be about Islam, anyway.

It is not here obviously, but in other threads you did and didn't participated over time.

[Randommembr]

No offence but you and I aren't intellectual peers. I'm not close-minded, it's just you're not capable of changing my mind. Just because someone has a lot of followers doesn't mean they weren't liars. That's why I mentioned Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard. Do you think they weren't liars? I'd be very interested to see a non-Mormon or Scientologist defend that.

It is difficult to prove a negative but it's even more difficult (in this case) to prove a positive. Is your argument for all these religions, none of which you even believe in, 'they're popular?' Utterly ridiculous.

No, that's not the reason obviously, but again, where's your proof. The Muslim view of what God is maybe be wrong. Your view of God may also be wrong. It's literally impossible to even prove if God exists

You haven't even read most religious documents yet you claim to know for a fact everything is false. You are very close minded and rude. Avicenna asked what you disagree with in Islam. I asked you what you disagree with from Zoroaster's message, yet you don't reply. You still haven't even read parts of the Gathas, you don't probably know the language and the distinction, but still you are making claims. If you do, please be prepared to back it up.

That's why I'm asking you friendly way, what is it that you disagree with in Zoroaster's message? Why can't you just admit that you don't know much about it? Why can't you ask me, so I'll teach you about it. Why can't you ever join the Muslim stream like Avicenna asked you? So close minded man.

[Avicenna]

Lol that link Avicenna is posting is a panel of Muslims asking questions from Christians (and I have never been a Christian) but on a first-come first-served basis. I can't have a debate with them because the channel is clogged AND I'm not a Christian so I cannot in all honesty do what the guests are doing - debating from a NT perspective.

If Avicenna can't debate himself, what's the point?

Why would I debate on a forum full of islamphobes with empty claims and revert to insults ? Also the stream also is a stream for atheists . Actually , on Friday I'll pm you the link for the stream SPECIFICALLY made for islamphobes . Your claims will get batted out the park . Also why would I debate when we have more knowledgeable Muslims who can batter your claims to the ground ? Are you afraid ?

[Longbowman]

It's a live stream .

See above.


It is not here obviously, but in other threads you did and didn't participated over time.

Link one. I respond to essentially every thread I'm namechecked in. I've had pointless debates with imbeciles from all faiths on this site, including many Christians, particularly that moron, Rethel. Alternatively, create a new thread, list your ridiculous beliefs, and I'll take them down.

[Longbowman]

Why would I debate on a forum full of islamphobes with empty claims and revert to insults ? Also the stream also is a stream for atheists . Actually , on Friday I'll pm you the link for the stream SPECIFICALLY made for islamphobes . Your claims will get batted out the park . Also why would I debate when we have more knowledgeable Muslims who can batter your claims to the ground ? Are you afraid ?

Are you afraid? You are literally incapable of responding to me. I'll happily debate you anytime, anyplace. Right here. Right now.

[Longbowman]

No, that's not the reason obviously, but again, where's your proof. The Muslim view of what God is maybe be wrong. Your view of God may also be wrong. It's literally impossible to even prove if God exists

You haven't even read most religious documents yet you claim to know for a fact everything is false. You are very close minded and rude. Avicenna asked what you disagree with in Islam. I asked you what you disagree with from Zoroaster's message, yet you don't reply. You still haven't even read parts of the Gathas, you don't probably know the language and the distinction, but still you are making claims. If you do, please be prepared to back it up.

That's why I'm asking you friendly way, what is it that you disagree with in Zoroaster's message? Why can't you just admit that you don't know much about it? Why can't you ask me, so I'll teach you about it. Why can't you ever join the Muslim stream like Avicenna asked you? So close minded man.

'Why don't you just join a panel of people discussing Christianity and Islam? Huh? Huh? Close minded. Huh!'

If you want to discuss Zoroastrianism, a faith you yourself have shown remarkably little comprehension of in previous threads, start a new one and link me to it. I'll respond. I've said this three times.

If you want to defend the legitimacy of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion, feel free to do so. You have offered no argument beyond 'hur dur millions of people follow them so they must be true even though they directly contradict each other.'

I've read the Quran, NT, Tanakh and others, several times.

Avicenna asked me nothing.

[Insuperable]

See above.



Link one. I respond to essentially every thread I'm namechecked in. I've had pointless debates with imbeciles from all faiths on this site, including many Christians, particularly that moron, Rethel. Alternatively, create a new thread, list your ridiculous beliefs, and I'll take them down.

I don't know where to start, there are several. I also forgot titles. Discussions were about hell, the Judgment day and similar. And I more and more dislike being a parrot.

[Longbowman]

Btw for the third time, the panel is full, I can't join. But I don't know whether or not they'd be willing to field my questions. I won't pretend to be a Christian.

[Longbowman]

I don't know where to start, there are several. I also forgot titles. Discussions were about hell, the Judgment day and similar. And I more and more dislike being a parrot.

OK, so if you're unwilling to make an argument or link me to one, why don't you leave me alone? I'm more than willing to repeat arguments I've listed 100 times before. Anytime, anyplace, except on a thread that isn't related to the argument.

[Insuperable]

https://youtu.be/FuD1CwJ0Ip4

Dare him to come on and give Muslims a run for their money . Why don't they come on? I don't get it ?

Come here and read this. Evey single Muslime argument debated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiIslam
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Main_Page

[Randommembr]

What? Bro I sent you multiple youtube streams on the historicity of the crucifixion . Did you not watch it ? Also I said it confused me regarding the manuscripts where other people outside of Arabia witnessed the event , no where did I mention it was false . Also the multiple narrations of the splitting of the moon is there and you can see it.

No. I don't remember any such video. There will be constant debate anyways. I've put my views on why I believe in Zoroastrianism rather than the Judeo-Christian-Muslim faiths and that is my opinion.

Btw, the majority scholarly opinion is yes, Jesus Christ himself was on the cross. Total up all the scholars and see for yourself. Now they'll be scholars who say he wasn't and they'll be scholars who say he didn't even exist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Of course we don't know so not saying you're wrong, just saying what I believe in.

My thoughts are on the previous pages anyways.

I personally honestly can't be bothered anymore. Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism share more in common with my beliefs anyways.

You've already seen I don't like debating much but rather learning about religious faiths far more. The same way Shabir Ally (perhaps the most famous scholar for the new wave of Muslim) is. Shabirs views on Zoroaster, Buddha etc are truly fascinating and he's a Muslim so you can't complain about bias.

[Insuperable]

OK, so if you're unwilling to make an argument or link me to one, why don't you leave me alone? I'm more than willing to repeat arguments I've listed 100 times before. Anytime, anyplace, except on a thread that isn't related to the argument.

Like I implied, what for? Just a waste of time. So you leave us alone aka spare us of comments.

[Avicenna]

Are you afraid? You are literally incapable of responding to me. I'll happily debate you anytime, anyplace. Right here. Right now.

Unlike most people on here I actually have a life . If you want to debate a Muslim I'll link you a steam on Friday . Other than I'm not interested . Your insincerity and disingenuinitey has been shown to me many times before.

[Longbowman]

The livestream is still full, I've tried 5 or 6 times now. The conversation is the 4 Muslim panellists, who seem very nice and well-spoken, discussing Christianity with this one Christian streamer. If I get in I will of course identify myself as a non-Christian but it will be out of left-field; Avicenna is wrong/lying, the description makes it clear this is for Christians asking Muslims.

[Randommembr]

'Why don't you just join a panel of people discussing Christianity and Islam? Huh? Huh? Close minded. Huh!'

If you want to discuss Zoroastrianism, a faith you yourself have shown remarkably little comprehension of in previous threads, start a new one and link me to it. I'll respond. I've said this three times.

If you want to defend the legitimacy of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion, feel free to do so. You have offered no argument beyond 'hur dur millions of people follow them so they must be true even though they directly contradict each other.'

I've read the Quran, NT, Tanakh and others, several times.

Avicenna asked me nothing.

What remarkable little comprehension are you talking about? At best I've discussed the history of the faith and you weren't willing to read my sources calling them biased.

I'm not talking about the history, I'm talking about the faith itself. I've never spoken about the faith on this sub before.

Please tell me what I've comprehend wrongly? A man who hasn't even read the Gathas will tell me that my comprehension of the text is wrong. Hilarious!

The fact that you haven't even READ the texts and still chose to comment yet still call me unknowlwdgeable is insane. Please, tell me what you disagree with. Why don't you PM me so we can discuss it?

Ok I'm making a "religions of India" thread right now. Don't forget to comment :)

[Avicenna]

Are you afraid? You are literally incapable of responding to me. I'll happily debate you anytime, anyplace. Right here. Right now.

Unlike most people on here I actually have a life . If you want to debate a Muslim I'll link you a steam on Friday . Other than I'm not interested . Your insincerity and disingenuinitey has been shown to me many times before.

[Longbowman]

Unlike most people on here I actually have a life . If you want to debate a Muslim I'll link you a steam on Friday . Other than I'm not interested . Your insincerity and disingenuinitey has been shown to me many times before.

https://i.imgur.com/dlvJNgm.png

Yeah, I'm sure you're super busy on evenings in England during Covid, you shit talking retard.

I'm busy Fridays but I'm backstage at this debate, let's see if they take my question.

[Longbowman]

Like I implied, what for? Just a waste of time. So you leave us alone aka spare us of comments.

You started this worthless back-and-forth, not me. You jumped in to tell me about fictional threads that I ignored after being name-checked. If you have nothing else to say, shut up.

[Longbowman]

They have kicked me out of the waiting room 3 times. I don't think it is specifically because of me, but they are not honouring the first-come-first-served. I will try one more time, but then, I am logging off for good. The 'debate' is sterile and boring for anyone who does not accept the NT.

[Randommembr]

You started this worthless back-and-forth, not me.

Please, last thing. You said I have remarkably little knowledge on Zoroastrianism despite me never commenting on the faith before on this sub(so how can you make dsuch a comment?). You also haven't even read the Bundahisn, Arda Viraf, Vendidad, Gathas or other cultural and religious Zoroastrian texts. How is that not close minded and rude? I have made a thread regarding Indian religions under the religions and spirituality thread. Go ahead and comment on it now. You called all my sources wrong before too. It'll be interesting to hear the views of someone who hasn't even read parts of the scripture.

[Longbowman]

Please, last thing. You said I have remarkably little knowledge on Zoroastrianism despite me never commenting on the faith before on this sub. You also haven't even read the Bundahisn, Arda Viraf, Vendidad, Gathas or other cultural and religious Zoroastrian texts. How is that not close minded and rude? I have made a thread regarding Indian religions under the religions and spirituality thread. Go ahead and comment on it now. You called all my sources wrong before too. It'll be interesting to hear the views of someone who hasn't even read parts of the scripture.

You brought it up in this thread repeatedly! How short is your memory? 20 minutes?

[Randommembr]

You brought it up in this thread repeatedly! How short is your memory? 20 minutes?

Yes, only the basics man. Nothing related to the scripture, no scriptural quotes anything. The only thing I said was about Frashokereti. Go ahead, comment in my thread about how low my IQ is about a book you haven't even partly read. You haven't been able to muster up ONE arguement and I doubt you could when you haven't read the basics.

It's all well and good making the hurtful claims you do. You've gotta be able to back them up as well.

[Longbowman]

Yes, only the basics man.

So you admit having brought it up, even though literally no one had mentioned it, then randomly lying about not having brought it up. Cool.

[Randommembr]

So you admit having brought it up, even though literally no one had mentioned it, then randomly lying about not having brought it up. Cool.

Come on now. You know I didn't mean it that way. I apologise for the misunderstanding. Are you even going to bring up a valid arguement or not? I made an entire thread as you said you would.

I'm sorry for being rude before.

[Longbowman]

Come on now. You know I didn't mean it that way. I apologise for the misunderstanding. Are you even going to bring up a valid arguement or not? I made an entire thread as you said you would.

I'm sorry for being rude before.

You just said 'debate Zoroastrianism,' it would be helpful if you put forward an argument to debate.

[Dušan]

Alright , since It's not good to argue in members photos thread (about Islam), here is a thread.

@Rethel @Dick @anymember wanna join.

Islam made history of Balkans tragic. I wish it was some exotic religion like Hinduism and Budism, far far away from Balkans.

Nothing to debate, I dont care about its doctrine, just stay away from my country. Thank you.

[Avicenna]

They have kicked me out of the waiting room 3 times. I don't think it is specifically because of me, but they are not honouring the first-come-first-served. I will try one more time, but then, I am logging off for good. The 'debate' is sterile and boring for anyone who does not accept the NT.
The Friday one is really good since there are heavy weights in that stream . Yeah you need to keep waiting since ALOT of people want to get on. Most of them are , as you guessed it , Christians . Shame you can't make it on the friday one .

[Avicenna]

Come here and read this. Evey single Muslime argument debated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiIslam
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Main_Page

They have all been refuted lol chedk answering Christianity . Join the stream on Friday and present your claims

[Avicenna]

The livestream is still full, I've tried 5 or 6 times now. The conversation is the 4 Muslim panellists, who seem very nice and well-spoken, discussing Christianity with this one Christian streamer. If I get in I will of course identify myself as a non-Christian but it will be out of left-field; Avicenna is wrong/lying, the description makes it clear this is for Christians asking Muslims.

Listen man, it's called an open forum, if it's specifically made for Christians then my bad , but I promise you the stream on Friday called "the arena" on hamzas den ( white English revert guy ) takes on all sorts of claims from all backgrounds. If you can jump on , if not , I can send you streams and you can watch it in your own time .

[Longbowman]

The Friday one is really good since there are heavy weights in that stream . Yeah you need to keep waiting since ALOT of people want to get on. Most of them are , as you guessed it , Christians . Shame you can't make it on the friday one .

Friday night is, for Jews, usually quite a busy night, and I normally see my family and girlfriend, but if I can try to join I'll try to join.

I managed to join three times but was kicked out each time - not personally, they kicked everyone out to let in a specific person, so it wasn't first-come first-served. But tbh even if I had got on it would have been a departure from the conversation, it was very NT-heavy.

[Avicenna]

Friday night is, for Jews, usually quite a busy night, and I normally see my family and girlfriend, but if I can try to join I'll try to join.

I managed to join three times but was kicked out each time - not personally, they kicked everyone out to let in a specific person, so it wasn't first-come first-served. But tbh even if I had got on it would have been a departure from the conversation, it was very NT-heavy.

Alright man no worries, I sent you a pm regarding a past stream from a week ago, most of the arguments people come up with are usually repetitive and recycled so I figured your arguments are probably addressed in one way or another . Check it out . I'll keep an eye out for streams during the week .

[Egyptian]

Islam is retarded, but so are Christianity, Judaism and paganism. However, these are not the topics of discussion, so I will stick to Islam:

Do Muslims believe that non-Muslims are going to Hell for not believing in Islam, regardless of their strength of character? Y/N*

If N, what's the point of being a Muslim?**

If Y, then your God is closer to Satan (or Shaytan, whatever) as a concept.

First of all, we must ask ourselves, why did God suddenly decide to burn all non-believers forever in 600AD (or 50AD if you're a Christian)? This concept does not exist in Judaism, which is retarded for separate reasons. Was he not jealous before that? Why did he start being jealous?

Second, we must ask ourselves, how is this fair? It is easy for you to accept the Quran because you were born a Sunni. But it is much harder for a Sentinel Islander to accept the Quran, as he has never heard of it. It is also much harder for me to accept it, because I come from a non-Muslim background. Does God hate children born to non-Muslims?***

Third, we must ask ourselves: why does God care? God is supposedly an ethereal, all-powerful, omniscient being. Why would he burn someone in Jannah for all eternity just because he was, let's say, a Daoist or an agnostic? Many very fine people adhere to non-monotheistic religions.****

None of this adds up or makes sense, and the only 'evidence' is an internally contradictory text that Muslims claim is a self-contained corpus of truth and perfect book. It has no external corroboration and the much more likely 'solution' to the question of 'did Muhammad really get visions from God?' is 'no, he was a liar, or mad, or both' rather than jumping through hoops to try to make it all fit.

*it is extremely clear from the Quran the answer is 'yes,' but some 'moderate' or 'liberal' Muslims deny this.

**Some liberal people will say 'oh, it grants me inner peace' or whatever. In that case, it is no better than Buddhism, yoga, or Minecraft, depending on the person. Islam as a proselytising one-true-path religion, which is how it (and Christianity) have acted for 1,400+ years, does not make sense.

***Many Muslims (and Christians) also try to hedge bets by saying 'oh, God can be merciful, you never know, maybe he will spare the heathen children from eternity in fire' but that just brings us back to question 1: do you believe in a God that would burn a child for such a thing or not? If yes, gross, if no, thanks, but I'll just be a good person and dismiss your religion

****Many Muslims (and Jews, and Christians) also try to argue everyone is a monoethist, deep down, even Pagans, so they can go to heaven but this is a) wrong (and in clear contradiction to the Quran, Torah and Bible!) and b) a cop-out, because there are also very fine atheists in the world. The reality is Islam and Christianity, in their mainstream forms, would condemn an atheist philanthropist who gave his kidney to a stranger to eternal hellfire, but spare a repentant murderer who raped 700 children. It's a ludicrous moral standard to have suddenly sprung up in the 1st millennium

Do Muslims believe that non-Muslims are going to Hell for not believing in Islam, regardless of their strength of character? Y/N*

No , In day of judgement there are 3 kind of (kafirs) or who didn't (believe) .. the first kind who didn't hear about Islam in his entire life , like for example the tribes of amazons or anyone , those people will be tested in this day and they can get to paradise no problem

second kind , are those who heard about islam but falsely , like for example he heard about islam but all he heard was lies so he thought islam was a bad religion , he will also be tested and he can get in paradise.

third kind of kafirs : are those who heard about islam and they knew islam was the truth etc etc etc and they remained kafirs , those we believe will go to hell.

Was he not jealous before that? Why did he start being jealous?

Jealous of what exactly? of us? of his creatures that he created?

Does God hate children born to non-Muslims?***

No, All adolscent kids that died before reaching the age of being a man enough will go to paradise , that's what we believe.

[Egyptian]

Islam made history of Balkans tragic. I wish it was some exotic religion like Hinduism and Budism, far far away from Balkans.

Nothing to debate, I dont care about its doctrine, just stay away from my country. Thank you.

what country?

[Autrigón]

"Islam" and "debate" in the same sentence? Where is the candid camera?

[Graywolf]

Islam made history of Balkans tragic. I wish it was some exotic religion like Hinduism and Budism, far far away from Balkans.

Nothing to debate, I dont care about its doctrine, just stay away from my country. Thank you.

And Orthodox's didnt kill nor rape anybody.
I dont give a blind fuck about Islam but this is ridiculous.

[Insuperable]

You started this worthless back-and-forth, not me. You jumped in to tell me about fictional threads that I ignored after being name-checked. If you have nothing else to say, shut up.

Name-checked using search engine? Hahahahaha. Is this your first time on TA?

I'll however perhaps get back at this when I feel like it, but we both know no answer is going to be satisfying. You'll always end up asking nobody can give answer, like why would omnipotent being create life in the first place etc.

[Insuperable]

They have all been refuted lol chedk answering Christianity . Join the stream on Friday and present your claims

None of that has been refuted. The only way Muslimes try to refute that is by lowering the level of morality. I.e. had a right to cut heads off because they killed prophet's camel or something.

I checked several times. A very laughable site ran by low IQ Muslimes.

[Avicenna]

None of that has been refuted. The only way Muslimes try to refute that is by lowering the level of morality. I.e. had a right to cut heads off because they killed prophet's camel or something.

I checked several times. A very laughable site ran by low IQ Muslimes.

What are you on about ? The claims have been refuted using primary source material , I suggest you get off the anti islamic sites such as wikiislam or answering Islam lmao.

[Egyptian]

And Orthodox's didnt kill nor rape anybody.
I dont give a blind fuck about Islam but this is ridiculous.

He speaks about serbia? no one here cares about serbia.

[Egyptian]

None of that has been refuted. The only way Muslimes try to refute that is by lowering the level of morality. I.e. had a right to cut heads off because they killed prophet's camel or something.

I checked several times. A very laughable site ran by low IQ Muslimes.

If you have any questions , then shot it and I will answer you .. fair enough ?

[Longbowman]

Name-checked using search engine? Hahahahaha. Is this your first time on TA?

I'll however perhaps get back at this when I feel like it, but we both know no answer is going to be satisfying. You'll always end up asking nobody can give answer, like why would omnipotent being create life in the first place etc.

'Ha ha I would engage in this debate but you'll only ask a question that I can't answer ha ha I don't want to lose ha ha.'

[Longbowman]

Do Muslims believe that non-Muslims are going to Hell for not believing in Islam, regardless of their strength of character? Y/N*

No , In day of judgement there are 3 kind of (kafirs) or who didn't (believe) .. the first kind who didn't hear about Islam in his entire life , like for example the tribes of amazons or anyone , those people will be tested in this day and they can get to paradise no problem

second kind , are those who heard about islam but falsely , like for example he heard about islam but all he heard was lies so he thought islam was a bad religion , he will also be tested and he can get in paradise.

third kind of kafirs : are those who heard about islam and they knew islam was the truth etc etc etc and they remained kafirs , those we believe will go to hell.

Was he not jealous before that? Why did he start being jealous?

Jealous of what exactly? of us? of his creatures that he created?

Does God hate children born to non-Muslims?***

No, All adolscent kids that died before reaching the age of being a man enough will go to paradise , that's what we believe.

1) This is NOT what most Islamic scholars believe and the Quran is pretty clear about that;
2) If you do believe it, why should I bother converting? Please answer the full question. Why try to convert me at all? Let me enjoy my ignorance. What is the benefit of Islam to me?

The reality is that 0 people reject Islam, God, whatever else for fun. No one sees the truth of God, Christianity, Jesus, the Buddha, and ignores it. The concept is purely invalid. Arguing that 'well I would have accepted this argument, he didn't, therefore off to Hell he goes' is piteous.

Literally zero people 'know' that rejecting Islam would result in eternal hellfire and still reject Islam. If I 'knew' that saying the shahada and meaning it would save me from that I would simply convert on the spot, so would anyone. You are similar to Avicenna in this regard, which is that you simply don't understand the 'kaffir' mindset, or the atheist mindset (he argues that an atheist is disrespecting God, but the reality is the atheist means no disrespect, as he is earnest in his lack of belief).

No logical consistency.

[Mr.Bean]

Both are supremacist ideologies. Islam is not racially based but it is still supremacist. Both are Expansionist and blame Jews for all their problem.

[Egyptian]

1) This is NOT what most Islamic scholars believe and the Quran is pretty clear about that;
2) If you do believe it, why should I bother converting? Please answer the full question. Why try to convert me at all? Let me enjoy my ignorance. What is the benefit of Islam to me?

The reality is that 0 people reject Islam, God, whatever else for fun. No one sees the truth of God, Christianity, Jesus, the Buddha, and ignores it. The concept is purely invalid. Arguing that 'well I would have accepted this argument, he didn't, therefore off to Hell he goes' is piteous.

Literally zero people 'know' that rejecting Islam would result in eternal hellfire and still reject Islam. If I 'knew' that saying the shahada and meaning it would save me from that I would simply convert on the spot, so would anyone. You are similar to Avicenna in this regard, which is that you simply don't understand the 'kaffir' mindset, or the atheist mindset (he argues that an atheist is disrespecting God, but the reality is the atheist means no disrespect, as he is earnest in his lack of belief).

No logical consistency.

1-Yes, these are what islamic scholars believe.
and Quran talked about it when he mentioned people of the book and believers of Allah but from different faiths.

2- I won't gain money nor fame by converting anyone , I do believe I've to deliver the message of Islam because all muslims will be asked if they delivered the message or no.

I've no problem of you remaining Jew or Christian or Atheist or any faith you like , am just delivering the message and that's it .. it's your choice to accept or refuse.

[Avicenna]

1) This is NOT what most Islamic scholars believe and the Quran is pretty clear about that;
2) If you do believe it, why should I bother converting? Please answer the full question. Why try to convert me at all? Let me enjoy my ignorance. What is the benefit of Islam to me?

The reality is that 0 people reject Islam, God, whatever else for fun. No one sees the truth of God, Christianity, Jesus, the Buddha, and ignores it. The concept is purely invalid. Arguing that 'well I would have accepted this argument, he didn't, therefore off to Hell he goes' is piteous.

Literally zero people 'know' that rejecting Islam would result in eternal hellfire and still reject Islam. If I 'knew' that saying the shahada and meaning it would save me from that I would simply convert on the spot, so would anyone. You are similar to Avicenna in this regard, which is that you simply don't understand the 'kaffir' mindset, or the atheist mindset (he argues that an atheist is disrespecting God, but the reality is the atheist means no disrespect, as he is earnest in his lack of belief).

No logical consistency.

I think you misunderstood the concept of true belief . Allah mentions those who say they believe on the outside but are the exact opposite on the inside as hyprocrites . It doesn't work like that . Saying your shahadah but not believing in it is merely lying to yourself. You keep mentionng scholars when I explicitly provided you primary and secondary source materials backing what I said . Why can't you accept that? Can you provide me these scholars who claimed that even those who didn't hear the message of Islam will go to hell for eternity? And if so , on what grounds do they support their claim with? Also the parable I mentioned with the "disrespect" was just an example however your argument is based on a illogical fallacy . The atheist might feel it's not disrespect but who cares what he thinks ? The criteria is set by the creator , not by the layman. That's if we are assuming God exists . Likewise , the atheist will say he's a "good " person, but what criteria is he measuring himself up against to determine he's good? If the creator exists then by all means whatever he standardizes as good or bad should be taken as the criterion .

[Randommembr]

1) This is NOT what most Islamic scholars believe and the Quran is pretty clear about that;
2) If you do believe it, why should I bother converting? Please answer the full question. Why try to convert me at all? Let me enjoy my ignorance. What is the benefit of Islam to me?

The reality is that 0 people reject Islam, God, whatever else for fun. No one sees the truth of God, Christianity, Jesus, the Buddha, and ignores it. The concept is purely invalid. Arguing that 'well I would have accepted this argument, he didn't, therefore off to Hell he goes' is piteous.

Literally zero people 'know' that rejecting Islam would result in eternal hellfire and still reject Islam. If I 'knew' that saying the shahada and meaning it would save me from that I would simply convert on the spot, so would anyone. You are similar to Avicenna in this regard, which is that you simply don't understand the 'kaffir' mindset, or the atheist mindset (he argues that an atheist is disrespecting God, but the reality is the atheist means no disrespect, as he is earnest in his lack of belief).

No logical consistency.

You are right. This is EXACTLY what I've been trying say.

We don't know what the truth is. Maybe my conceptualization of God is false. Maybe there is no God. Maybe God really is how Muhammed claimed he was. We really don't know. All these debates are stupid without complete proof and they go on and on. You'll call Avicenna low IQ for "not being able to see the truth" and Avicenna will try to spread the "truth of Islam" to you. Both of you firmly believe the other person is completely deluded yet you have no proof to back up your claims because you don't even have proof God exists let alone how he thinks.
Why can't you all just accept that people will have different opinions rather than be so hostile and think your so much more intelligent than someone else with another opinion?

I do agree with you. I disagree with the fact that you HAVE to follow a certain ideology to go to heaven but if someone believes that God thinks that way, who am I to say anything? Their opinion isn't gonna change anyways.

That's why, the most important thing is practicing Good Thoughts, Good Words and Good Deeds imo. Being a good person regardless of your religion will be helpful. That's the only truth.

Arguing about religion and politics usually do nothing but cause unnecessary fights.

[Avicenna]

You are right. This is EXACTLY what I've been trying say.

We don't know what the truth is. Maybe my conceptualization of God is false. Maybe there is no God. Maybe God really is how Muhammed claimed he was. We really don't know. All these debates are stupid without complete proof and they go on and on. You'll call Avicenna low IQ for "not being able to see the truth" and Avicenna will try to spread the "truth of Islam" to you. Both of you firmly believe the other person is completely deluded yet you have no proof to back up your claims because you don't even have proof God exists let alone how he thinks.
Why can't you all just accept that people will have different opinions rather than be so hostile and think your so much more intelligent than someone else with another opinion?

I do agree with you. I disagree with the fact that you HAVE to follow a certain ideology to go to heaven but if someone believes that God thinks that way, who am I to say anything? Their opinion isn't gonna change anyways.

That's why, the most important thing is practicing Good Thoughts, Good Words and Good Deeds imo. Being a good person regardless of your religion will be helpful. That's the only truth.

Arguing about religion and politics usually do nothing but cause unnecessary fights.

Azzbuzz why are you bringing me into this comment regarding being hostile etc? Can you point out anywhere in this thread where I've insulted anyone who disagreed with me ? Infact I can show you quite the opposite of that where some members have thrown insults . Also, are you saying a belief cannot be true with emperical evidence ? Are you sure ? Is that you claim? Just stick to one question and not write a paragraph so we can do this quickly . Thanks .

[Laly]

First of all, we must ask ourselves, why did God suddenly decide to burn all non-believers forever in 600AD (or 50AD if you're a Christian)? This concept does not exist in Judaism, which is retarded for separate reasons. Was he not jealous before that? Why did he start being jealous?





You can't know it's not true. Many Muslims and Christians genuinely believe that their path is the right path and all other paths lead to hell. .

It’s false to say that in a Christian point of view, those who aren’t Christian here below finish in hell.

In fact, Jesus preaches the good news even to the dead.

It’s from the Gospels: Jn 5, 25: “Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.”

And the Tradition (Church Fathers, including Hilary of Poitiers or Clement of Alexandria) repeated it.

It was always particularly important in Orthodox Christianity, with a plethora of representations of the Anastasis, when Jesus descends into the limbo to bring to good people to heaven. But it’s also important in Western Christianity:

Psalter de Cotton, XIth c.:

https://i.imgur.com/3MPh8XS.jpg

Duccio di Buoninsegna, XIIIth c.:

https://studiomatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/duccio_maesta_limbo_grt-768x703.jpg

Hours of the Duke of Berry, XIVth c., where the Sheol is represented by the mouth of the Leviathan :

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Harrowhell.jpg

Representation of the XVIth c.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Harrowing_of_hell_Christ_leads_Adam_by_the_hand._O n_scroll_in_border%2C_the_motto_%27Entre_tenir_Die u_le_viuelle%27_%28f._125%29_Cropped.jpg/640px-Harrowing_of_hell_Christ_leads_Adam_by_the_hand._O n_scroll_in_border%2C_the_motto_%27Entre_tenir_Die u_le_viuelle%27_%28f._125%29_Cropped.jpg

And this is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church actually says:

https://i.imgur.com/8N94coY.png

But knowing Jesus here-below gives you an unrivalled joy and hope, a particular state of mind, which the non-believers unfortunately lack.

[Avicenna]

You are right. This is EXACTLY what I've been trying say.

We don't know what the truth is. Maybe my conceptualization of God is false. Maybe there is no God. Maybe God really is how Muhammed claimed he was. We really don't know. All these debates are stupid without complete proof and they go on and on. You'll call Avicenna low IQ for "not being able to see the truth" and Avicenna will try to spread the "truth of Islam" to you. Both of you firmly believe the other person is completely deluded yet you have no proof to back up your claims because you don't even have proof God exists let alone how he thinks.
Why can't you all just accept that people will have different opinions rather than be so hostile and think your so much more intelligent than someone else with another opinion?

I do agree with you. I disagree with the fact that you HAVE to follow a certain ideology to go to heaven but if someone believes that God thinks that way, who am I to say anything? Their opinion isn't gonna change anyways.

That's why, the most important thing is practicing Good Thoughts, Good Words and Good Deeds imo. Being a good person regardless of your religion will be helpful. That's the only truth.

Arguing about religion and politics usually do nothing but cause unnecessary fights.

Azzbuzz why are you bringing me into this comment regarding being hostile etc? Can you point out anywhere in this thread where I've insulted anyone who disagreed with me ? Infact I can show you quite the opposite of that where some members have thrown insults . Also, are you saying a belief cannot be true without emperical evidence ? Are you sure ? Is that you claim? Just stick to one question and not write a paragraph so we can do this quickly . Thanks .

[Laly]

Yep. Judaism emerged when Talmud was written and accepted, and it didn't happen before 500 CE.

I would say that Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, which appeared at the same time, are both equally legitimate in their filiation from ancient sectarian Judaism.

[Randommembr]

Azzbuzz why are you bringing me into this comment regarding being hostile etc? Can you point out anywhere in this thread where I've insulted anyone who disagreed with me ? Infact I can show you quite the opposite of that where some members have thrown insults . Also, are you saying a belief cannot be true without emperical evidence ? Are you sure ? Is that you claim? Just stick to one question and not write a paragraph so we can do this quickly . Thanks .

I meant longbowman. sorry.

[Longbowman]

I think you misunderstood the concept of true belief . Allah mentions those who say they believe on the outside but are the exact opposite on the inside as hyprocrites . It doesn't work like that . Saying your shahadah but not believing in it is merely lying to yourself. You keep mentionng scholars when I explicitly provided you primary and secondary source materials backing what I said . Why can't you accept that? Can you provide me these scholars who claimed that even those who didn't hear the message of Islam will go to hell for eternity? And if so , on what grounds do they support their claim with? Also the parable I mentioned with the "disrespect" was just an example however your argument is based on a illogical fallacy . The atheist might feel it's not disrespect but who cares what he thinks ? The criteria is set by the creator , not by the layman. That's if we are assuming God exists . Likewise , the atheist will say he's a "good " person, but what criteria is he measuring himself up against to determine he's good? If the creator exists then by all means whatever he standardizes as good or bad should be taken as the criterion .

If you choose to define good and bad by 'whatever the Quran/Bible/Guru Granth Sahib says, no matter how wildly inconsistent said standard is' then sure, if you choose to approach it logically, then no. If you believe in an anthropomorphic, capricious, jealous and petty god then yes, if you believe in a merciful god, then no


1-Yes, these are what islamic scholars believe.
and Quran talked about it when he mentioned people of the book and believers of Allah but from different faiths.

2- I won't gain money nor fame by converting anyone , I do believe I've to deliver the message of Islam because all muslims will be asked if they delivered the message or no.

I've no problem of you remaining Jew or Christian or Atheist or any faith you like , am just delivering the message and that's it .. it's your choice to accept or refuse.

1) That is not correct, and really, it's embarrassing that you're pretending it is. I cannot even find an online source that supports what you just said.

https://loveinshallah.com/hell-in-islam/
http://www.quranreading.com/blog/concept-of-heaven-and-hell-according-to-islam/

2) That is not what I asked, re-read and try again, I am not asking what the benefit is to you, the proselytor, but to be, the proselytised.

[Sebastianus Rex]

Apostasy in Islamic countries is rampant, especially in Iran.

[Randommembr]

Apostasy in Islamic countries is rampant, especially in Iran.

Converting to Zoroastrianism in Iran is more about Persian pride than actually believing in the religion. Though most actual do believe in it. It's the fastest growing religion among Iraqi Kurds and Iranians. That being said, apostasy is rampant in Europe and Asia too.

https://theconversation.com/irans-secular-shift-new-survey-reveals-huge-changes-in-religious-beliefs-145253

[Longbowman]

It’s false to say that in a Christian point of view, those who aren’t Christian here below finish in hell.

And this is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church actually says:

https://i.imgur.com/8N94coY.png

But knowing Jesus here-below gives you an unrivalled joy and hope, a particular state of mind, which the non-believers unfortunately lack.

This is either ignorant or dishonest. Here's what the catechism actually says on hell:


1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."610 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.611 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.612 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"613 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"614

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."615 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P2O.HTM

And this is post-1965. Most denominations of Christianity hold to the same.

[Randommembr]

If you choose to define good and bad by 'whatever the Quran/Bible/Guru Granth Sahib says, no matter how wildly inconsistent said standard is' then sure, if you choose to approach it logically, then no. If you believe in an anthropomorphic, capricious, jealous and petty god then yes, if you believe in a merciful god, then no



1) That is not correct, and really, it's embarrassing that you're pretending it is. I cannot even find an online source that supports what you just said.

https://loveinshallah.com/hell-in-islam/
http://www.quranreading.com/blog/concept-of-heaven-and-hell-according-to-islam/

2) That is not what I asked, re-read and try again, I am not asking what the benefit is to you, the proselytor, but to be, the proselytised.

What are your views on God, and why are you so certain that he is the way you think he is?

[Randommembr]

This is either ignorant or dishonest. Here's what the catechism actually says on hell:



http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P2O.HTM

And this is post-1965. Most denominations of Christianity hold to the same.

If you continue to label everyone as ignorant or clueless, and if you think everyone is not as intelligent as you, you won't have a fruitful debate ever. Christianity just like Islam has many views. Different denominations or sects sometimes teach very differing things.

[Longbowman]

What are your views on God, and why are you so certain that he is the way you think he is?

I have no clear answer to give you, I only know what he is not. I am merely, in this thread, taking apart the concept of a god who is defined as all-merciful but will literally burn you forever for thought crime. As most people will tell you, only one of you can be right.

If you believe in a cruel God, that can be consistent. However, this is not what muslims or christians say they believe. Their depictions are extremely inconsistent and the logic behind the actions of their god extremely flakey. Same for the Jewish god, but he is cruel in a different way. People will run out of arguments to explain this and simply say 'oh, you can't understand God.' Oh, but you can? Ridiculous.

[Longbowman]

If you continue to label everyone as ignorant or clueless, and if you think everyone is not as intelligent as you, you won't have a fruitful debate ever. Christianity just like Islam has many views. Different denominations or sects sometimes teach very differing things.

OK. Next time I won't say it was incorrect, I'll just post the correction.

Of course a few Christian sects demure but she was arguing Catholicism said what she said it said. It does not.

BTW people, of course, most religious people are like Laly or Egyptian - nice, ignorant - they don't know what their religion actually says. Not everyone actually believes apostates are going to Hell. That doesn't mean it isn't a key belief of their religions that they belong to.

The Spanish, for example, saw it as their duty to convert Indians, because otherwise, they would go to Hell. The story of Hatuey always comes to mind - he was a great Taino cacique who led resistance on Cuba and Hispaniola against the Spanish, but was caught and sentenced to death. Before he was to be burnt, a priest approached him, and asked him if he wanted to convert. Hatuey responded:

'And if I convert, do I go to heaven?'

The priest nodded, and Hatuey continued:

'And the Spaniards, do they go to heaven?'

Again, the priest nodded, so Hatuey replied:

'Then I prefer hell.'

It's nice that these genuinely nice posters think what they think, but their beliefs are heterodox. Non-canonical. Not orthodox. Not official.

and, of course, if I'm going to heaven, same as you, even as a kaffir - why bother converting me? and your religions do demand conversion. Food for thought.

[Randommembr]

I have no clear answer to give you, I only know what he is not. I am merely, in this thread, taking apart the concept of a god who is defined as all-merciful but will literally burn you forever for thought crime. As most people will tell you, only one of you can be right.

If you believe in a cruel God, that can be consistent. However, this is not what muslims or christians say they believe. Their depictions are extremely inconsistent and the logic behind the actions of their god extremely flakey. Same for the Jewish god, but he is cruel in a different way. People will run out of arguments to explain this and simply say 'oh, you can't understand God.' Oh, but you can? Ridiculous.

Yup. This is exactly what I had told you before in this thread as well. The Zoroastrian God is all-loving but not all powerful currently (latently omnipotent until frahsokereti). However the Abrahamic God is all loving but also all powerful, so why doesn't he end suffering if he cares and if he can? You're right about that. But people have their different justifications and beliefs.

What do you think of the Jewish view on God? I know it's similar somewhat, but I'd like the opinion of an actual Jew.

[Longbowman]

Yup. This is exactly what I had told you before in this thread as well. The Zoroastrian God is all-loving but not all powerful currently (latently omnipotent until frahsokereti). However the Abrahamic God is all loving but also all powerful, so why doesn't he end suffering if he cares and if he can? You're right about that. But people have their different justifications and beliefs.

For sure, there are arguments as to why he permits suffering but they're weak, especially for those who believe in active miracles.

I would subsequently ask you who does have the power that Ahura Mazda doesn't, but yes, of course, religions are wrong for different reasons.

[Randommembr]

OK. Next time I won't say it was incorrect, I'll just post the correction.

Of course a few Christian sects demure but she was arguing Catholicism said what she said it said. It does not.

BTW people, of course, most religious people are like Laly or Egyptian - nice, ignorant - they don't know what their religion actually says. Not everyone actually believes apostates are going to Hell. That doesn't mean it isn't a key belief of their religions that they belong to.

The Spanish, for example, saw it as their duty to convert Indians, because otherwise, they would go to Hell. The story of Hatuey always comes to mind - he was a great Taino cacique who led resistance on Cuba and Hispaniola against the Spanish, but was caught and sentenced to death. Before he was to be burnt, a priest approached him, and asked him if he wanted to convert. Hatuey responded:

'And if I convert, do I go to heaven?'

The priest nodded, and Hatuey continued:

'And the Spaniards, do they go to heaven?'

Again, the priest nodded, so Hatuey replied:

'Then I prefer hell.'

It's nice that these genuinely nice posters think what they think, but their beliefs are heterodox. Non-canonical. Not orthodox. Not official.

and, of course, if I'm going to heaven, same as you, even as a kaffir - why bother converting me? and your religions do demand conversion. Food for thought.

Non-Orthodox can be reformist. That doesn't make it false. Different viewpoint that's all.

"your religions do demand conversion. Food for thought."
Don't bring me into this. Most Zoroastrians don't even allow conversions let alone force or demand it. It is a debatable matter in the religion.

[Sebastianus Rex]

Converting to Zoroastrianism in Iran is more about Persian pride than actually believing in the religion. Though most actual do believe in it. It's the fastest growing religion among Iraqi Kurds and Iranians. That being said, apostasy is rampant in Europe and Asia too.

https://theconversation.com/irans-secular-shift-new-survey-reveals-huge-changes-in-religious-beliefs-145253

Apostasy strictu sensu or switching religion is not rampant in Europe, secularism and atheism are. I am agnostic myself, I don't deny or refuse the existence of God (whatever the meaning of it, it can be the Universe) but also don't follow any religion, it's absurd to do so, there are around 70.000 documented religions/creeds.

[Insuperable]

What are you on about ? The claims have been refuted using primary source material , I suggest you get off the anti islamic sites such as wikiislam or answering Islam lmao.

I have told you how Muslimes refute most claims. Why don't you get off anti-Christian sites? Wikiislam on the other hand is what Muslimes should be reading.

[Longbowman]

Non-Orthodox can be reformist. That doesn't make it false. Different viewpoint that's all.

"your religions do demand conversion. Food for thought."
Don't bring me into this. Most Zoroastrians don't even allow conversions let alone force or demand it. It is a debatable matter in the religion.

It makes it non-Catholic, and brings up other questions, which I posed.

It was a plural you. You take pride in people converting to Zoroastrianism anyway, even though yes, most Zoroastrians (like Sikhs) reject conversion. It's not necessary if your religion doesn't have a 'love me or burn' element to it (same for Judaism).

[Avicenna]

If you choose to define good and bad by 'whatever the Quran/Bible/Guru Granth Sahib says, no matter how wildly inconsistent said standard is' then sure, if you choose to approach it logically, then no. If you believe in an anthropomorphic, capricious, jealous and petty god then yes, if you believe in a merciful god, then no



1) That is not correct, and really, it's embarrassing that you're pretending it is. I cannot even find an online source that supports what you just said.

https://loveinshallah.com/hell-in-islam/
http://www.quranreading.com/blog/concept-of-heaven-and-hell-according-to-islam/

2) That is not what I asked, re-read and try again, I am not asking what the benefit is to you, the proselytor, but to be, the proselytised.

I read the two sources you provided and none of them support what you claim longbowman . Infact it does the exact contrary .

[Aldaris]

It’s false to say that in a Christian point of view, those who aren’t Christian here below finish in hell.

There's no Christian point of view:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

While they all sort of converge when it comes to the basic message - embrace Christ or else, they differ more at interpreting what the consequences are. But the invariant is that pretty much all of them consider Christian universalims a heresy. Let me be generous though and forget about that. If we ditched those human churches and focus on the Bible solely, that makes for even a worse case.


Matthew 25:46 ESV
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.


2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 ESV
In flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,


Revelation 20:10 ESV
And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.


Revelation 14:11 ESV
And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”


2 Thessalonians 1:9 ESV
They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

And my favorite one:


Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Doesn't read like a candyland for the non-Christians. Neither it sounds like being shot in the face for simply being a human and ceasing to exist right away, which is appaling on its own, but the torture is apparently necessary. Sending people to a supermax for life for speeding seems kinda lenient in comparison.

[Avicenna]

I have told you how Muslimes refute most claims. Why don't you get off anti-Christian sites? Wikiislam on the other hand is what Muslimes should be reading.

Says the one who jumps on anti islamic sites . Answering Christianity is a response to answering Islam buddy . It's been refuted . Nice try though .

[Insuperable]

It’s false to say that in a Christian point of view, those who aren’t Christian here below finish in hell.

In fact, Jesus preaches the good news even to the dead.

It’s from the Gospels: Jn 5, 25: “Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.”

And the Tradition (Church Fathers, including Hilary of Poitiers or Clement of Alexandria) repeated it.

It was always particularly important in Orthodox Christianity, with a plethora of representations of the Anastasis, when Jesus descends into the limbo to bring to good people to heaven. But it’s also important in Western Christianity:

Psalter de Cotton, XIth c.:

https://i.imgur.com/3MPh8XS.jpg

Duccio di Buoninsegna, XIIIth c.:

https://studiomatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/duccio_maesta_limbo_grt-768x703.jpg

Hours of the Duke of Berry, XIVth c., where the Sheol is represented by the mouth of the Leviathan :

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Harrowhell.jpg

Representation of the XVIth c.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Harrowing_of_hell_Christ_leads_Adam_by_the_hand._O n_scroll_in_border%2C_the_motto_%27Entre_tenir_Die u_le_viuelle%27_%28f._125%29_Cropped.jpg/640px-Harrowing_of_hell_Christ_leads_Adam_by_the_hand._O n_scroll_in_border%2C_the_motto_%27Entre_tenir_Die u_le_viuelle%27_%28f._125%29_Cropped.jpg

And this is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church actually says:

https://i.imgur.com/8N94coY.png

But knowing Jesus here-below gives you an unrivalled joy and hope, a particular state of mind, which the non-believers unfortunately lack.

Based on Christian theology Jesus didn't decend into Hell, but Sheol (grave). Also, not everyone accepts this that Jesus went to preach the Gospel to the dead. But what almost everyone universally accepts is that according to the Christian theology, all the dead that have ever lived will be resurrected on the Judgment Day for the ultimate judgment.

[Insuperable]

Says the one who jumps on anti islamic sites . Answering Christianity is a response to answering Islam buddy . It's been refuted . Nice try though .

Nope, like I said. Your so called refutation are either retarded (every Muslime argument is on wikiislam) or completely circumvented the way I described, the Muslime style.

[Randommembr]

For sure, there are arguments as to why he permits suffering but they're weak, especially for those who believe in active miracles.

I would subsequently ask you who does have the power that Ahura Mazda doesn't, but yes, of course, religions are wrong for different reasons.

God in Zoroastrianism is deemed to be totally good and perfect. Hence that which is imperfect (evil) cannot emerge from God(DIRECTLY), for if it did, then God would no longer remain totally good and perfect. In Zoroastrianism therefore God cannot be held to be the bringer of imperfections such as misery, pain, suffering, poverty, disease or death. Humans themselves bring this upon themselves. Here lies the intellectual strength of Zarathushtra's teachings. . . . God is latently omnipotent. A temporarily non- omnipotent God should not be seen to be a weak or powerless Being, for in the Zoroastrian tradition God is recognised to be the strongest (Y. 28.9), the mightiest (Y. 45.6) and indeed invincible (Yt. 1.8) at the end of time. A distinction should be made, however, between a Being who is all-powerful at all times and a Being who is very powerful . . . , but yet not all-powerful to prevent the onslaught of evil, eventually culminating in death. . . . Man by recognising God to be temporarily non-omnipotent in no way implies that evil is equal to, and therefore as powerful as God. . . . However, the evil of Ahirman is very powerful. The will of Ahura Mazda continues to overwhelm the imperfections and inequalities in this world. The process of 'creative evolution' is an ongoing one. . . . Man in Zoroastrianism is the soldier who has been chosen to spearhead this evolution(to help God defeat evil), through the recognition of a strongly contrasted ethical dualism. . . . This ethical dualism in no way lessens the . . . greatness of God; nor does it preclude a monotheistic belief in one God whose eventual supremacy at the end of time is unquestionable in Zoroastrianism.

Basically, Mazda and Ahirman are almost equals(though God is still more powerful), through the kindness of human beings, we can help God defeat evil for good and bring about judgement day.

Mind you al-Sirat in Islam (Chinvat bridge), Judgement day were concepts original to this faith. Of course I don't give a shit if you think all this untrue(unlike the Christians who told the Natives they were going to hell), at least it gives me a motive to be a good human being and that's the message I spread. At least it allows me to eat what I want, live with so many freedoms that would be considered haram for no reason and be happy overall whilst making other's happy. You can do this without a religion, but I believe there HAS to be a creator and God because things can suddenly be created from nothing haha.

And before you say this is all irrelevant to Islam, here's one of the biggest Islamic scholars of today. Mr Shabbir Ally. The videos are only 5 minutes long combined. Give them a watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyER_vJUdts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e80KgROlKoY

[Longbowman]

I read the two sources you provided and none of them support what you claim longbowman . Infact it does the exact contrary .

?


Those who are wrongdoers and disbelievers will definitely go to Hell or Jahannam.


Holy Quran also mentions who will enter hell. For sure disbelievers in Lord and especially if they die in that state of, hypocrites, idolaters, the arrogant, those who treat religion as a pastime, have broken the treaty, made fun of Allah’s Messengers or on the reality of Day of Judgment. Also, murderers, ones misappropriating inheritance especially of orphans, slandering chaste women or claiming divinity for themselves on their own will reside in hell.


What is hell in Islam? Hell is the worst place on the Day of Judgment given to those who do not obey the teachings of Islam, and this is something that must be believed by Muslims. The inhabitants of hell are divided into two, some are eternal in it and some are impermanent because they will be expelled again after all their sins are burned in hell. The nature of hell is eternal and has no end, just as heaven is eternal.

It’s just that both had a beginning. People who do not believe in Allah and His Messenger, or unbelievers, will go to hell and be eternal in it. Meanwhile, people who believe in Allah and His Messenger, if there are immoral acts that are done, then he will be put in hell for a while (for example 1000 years) and when his sins have been paid, then he is removed from hell and entered into heaven.

[Randommembr]

Double.

[Laly]

This is either ignorant or dishonest. Here's what the catechism actually says on hell:



http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P2O.HTM

And this is post-1965. Most denominations of Christianity hold to the same.

Nothing is false or dishonest in what I said. And I see no contradiction with what you quoted from the Catechism.

As you quoted, “we cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him”, but if it does not happen here below, it could happen in the hereafter, when people meet the glorious God. But if they hate him after they see him, if they don’t love him by their own free choice, they finish in hell. The same way, if you stop hating your brother (to pick the ex. from the catechism), once touched by God’s grace, in the hereafter, if you become full of love, then you are saved.

“To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him”-> You can repent in the hereafter not to remain separated from God.

“Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost” -> I never denied in a Christian point of view, there is hell forever for a part of us. But this quote doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible to refuse definitely or to accept Jesus in the hereafter. “The end of their lives” can be the moment when they are offered to meet Jesus in the hereafter but decide to exclude themselves definitely from God’s love, so they decide to die, not to live.

Hell, “the eternal fire” is a place, it doesn’t mean that all people in hell are to be eternally there, because God’s good news also reaches hell. By the way, there’s also the notion of purgatory too.

And the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium goes in the same sense as what I say:

Ch. 16: “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.”

[Insuperable]

There's no Christian point of view:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

While they all sort of converge when it comes to the basic message - embrace Christ or else, they differ more at interpreting what the consequences are. But the invariant is that pretty much all of them considering Christian universalims a heresy. Let me be generous though and forget that. If we ditched those human churches and focus on the Bible solely, that makes for even a worse case.

My post on this page:
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?322548-Do-you-believe-in-hell-Christians/page4


and my favorite one:

Check the translation closest to the Greek sources
https://www.google.com/amp/s/leewoof.org/2017/12/08/does-john-318-mean-that-all-non-christians-go-to-hell/amp/

Also, is not the candyland for Christians either. It is written that narrow is the gate.

[Laly]

Based on Christian theology Jesus didn't decend into Hell, but Sheol (grave). Also, not everyone accepts this that Jesus went to preach the Gospel to the dead. But what almost everyone universally accepts is that according to the Christian theology, all the dead that have ever lived will be resurrected on the Judgment Day for the ultimate judgment.

Sheol is a word that is difficult to translate. Maybe "hell" is not the best translation, quid of afterlife, limbo? Anyway, I believe "hell" can be used as a translation, and it is used in the English version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the segment which I quoted. https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1R.HTM

What is important to me is that the Anastasis, where Jesus preaches to the dead, is the mainstream view of the Catholic Church and it's very important (even more) in the Orthodox Church.

[Vojnik]

Muhammad is the most obvious false prophet in history. You have to be blind not to see it.

[Laly]

There's no Christian point of view:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

While they all sort of converge when it comes to the basic message - embrace Christ or else, they differ more at interpreting what the consequences are. But the invariant is that pretty much all of them consider Christian universalims a heresy. Let me be generous though and forget about that. If we ditched those human churches and focus on the Bible solely, that makes for even a worse case.













And my favorite one:



Doesn't read like a candyland for the non-Christians. Neither it sounds like being shot in the face for simply being a human and ceasing to exist right away, which is appaling on its own, but the torture is apparently necessary. Sending people to a supermax for life for speeding seems kinda lenient in comparison.


“A Christian point of view” will always sound much better for me than “an Abrahamic point of view” or a “people of the book point of view”, lol.

Mt 25, 46: it’s a parable. Just saying.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9: they may know God and obey the Gospel in the hereafter.

The Apocalypse is a very particular literary genre.

By the way, I don’t deny some people will be in hell forever.

[Longbowman]

Nothing is false or dishonest in what I said. And I see no contradiction with what you quoted from the Catechism.

...

“Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost” -> I never denied in a Christian point of view, there is hell forever for a part of us. But this quote doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible to refuse definitely or to accept Jesus in the hereafter. “The end of their lives” can be the moment when they are offered to meet Jesus in the hereafter but decide to exclude themselves definitely from God’s love, so they decide to die, not to live.

Hell, “the eternal fire” is a place, it doesn’t mean that all people in hell are to be eternally there, because God’s good news also reaches hell. By the way, there’s also the notion of purgatory too.

And the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium goes in the same sense as what I say:

Ch. 16: “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.”

Mental gymnastics. Sure, we'll all convert as soon as we see the fire, so Christianity is a-OK. What's the point?

Excepting this pseudo-Mormon bit of silliness, it would be difficult for non-Christians to qualify as saved. As your Church specifically states:


1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM

And again this is post-Vatican II.

Weird that your Church burned tens of thousands of people for heresy and converted a continent by the sword if all Christianity gets you is a bit of inner peace. You're only fooling yourself.

[Radimir]

I'm pretty sure if Joseph Smith lived in the 7th century, he would be taken more seriously as a prophet like Muhammad. I think what makes these religions more believable is the passage of time.

[Insuperable]

I have no clear answer to give you, I only know what he is not. I am merely, in this thread, taking apart the concept of a god who is defined as all-merciful but will literally burn you forever for thought crime. As most people will tell you, only one of you can be right.

Thought crime, such is the concept of Christian God. The ladder was raised so much high that it is unattainable to reach, but a man can still reach redemption by striving towards it. That is the concept of God that makes the most sense to me. Example:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e](AG) 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a](AB) and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry(AC) with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment

Based on the Christian theology all people are already sentenced to death because they know of sin and deeds based on their own will. As an atheist, agnostic or whatever you are that should be no problem for you either way.

It is written numerous times throughout the Bible that God wants everyone to be saved. Hence why Jesus himself was beaten and died on the cross. That is merciful to me. It is imo the most beautifully expressed in the Parable of the lost sheep:

Then Jesus told them this parable: (D) 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?(E) 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’(F) 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

Even though according to the Bible we all have 'fallen short of God's glory' we can be redeemed by the grace of the Lord through faith and repentance. Often this faith is equalized with 'deeds' because it is implied that only true Christians live by faith and that it is one and the same. It is also implied that only few will excel to that, not to mention atheists.


For sure, there are arguments as to why he permits suffering but they're weak, especially for those who believe in active miracles.

We have once talked about that. Do you remember why is that, from a Christian theology point of view?

[Laly]

Mental gymnastics. Sure, we'll all convert as soon as we see the fire, so Christianity is a-OK. What's the point?

Excepting this pseudo-Mormon bit of silliness, it would be difficult for non-Christians to qualify as saved. As your Church specifically states:



http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM

And again this is post-Vatican II.



I'm just saying that non-Christians will not necessarily end up in hell after they die.
Plus, why would they necessarily endure the chief punishment of hell or see it before they meet God?

And by the way, there's also this in the rubric concerning baptism: "Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity." http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM


Weird that your Church burned tens of thousands of people for heresy and converted a continent by the sword if all Christianity gets you is a bit of inner peace. You're only fooling yourself.

Excommunication is the most severe punishment the Church could pronounce, against schismatics or heretics, but even then, the Church couldn’t pronounce itself concerning the Salvation of the excommunicated people, the Church leaves them in God’s hands.

[Aldaris]

My post on this page:
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?322548-Do-you-believe-in-hell-Christians/page4

That moro stuff is hardly consistent, is it? What you've linked me is a bunch of quotes that may be interpreted as evidence for annihilationsm. You've mistaken me for someone who claimed that if christian hell exists, it's necessarily eternal. Never claimed this, pal. What I claim is that no non-christian avoids some form of that if christian paradigm is correct, regardless of what hell actually is.[/QUOTE]


Also, is not the candyland for Christians either. It is written that narrow is the gate.

Most of the protestants would tell you differently. Loki is going to tell you that the Pope (or the Vatican as a whole) is probably The Beast from The Revelation. And he is also going to tell you that accepting Christ is all that it takes for salvation, no matter what you do. Now, I would agree with that based on some Bible quotes. Some other ones outright refute it though. In other words - it's inconsistent. But heck, pal, even if you were completely right - I wouldn't be ok with a human slaughterhouse your annihilationist view implies. If the being touched my loved ones, I would do my best to gut it instead.

[Insuperable]

Mental gymnastics. Sure, we'll all convert as soon as we see the fire, so Christianity is a-OK. What's the point?

Repentance and good deeds should come from heart, not fear. I think.


31 “When the Son of Man comes(A) in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.(B) 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate(C) the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.(D) 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom(E) prepared for you since the creation of the world.(F) 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,(G) 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me,(H) I was sick and you looked after me,(I) I was in prison and you came to visit me.’(J)

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’(K)

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me,(L) you who are cursed, into the eternal fire(M) prepared for the devil and his angels.(N) 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’(O)

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life

[Insuperable]

That moro stuff is hardly consistent, is it? What you've linked me is a bunch of quotes that may be interpreted as evidence for annihilationsm. You've mistaken me for someone who claimed that if christian hell exists, it's necessarily eternal. Never claimed this, pal. What I claim is that no non-christian avoids some form of that if christian paradigm is correct, regardless of what hell actually is.

No, I didn't mistake you for that. I mistook you for someone who claimed that no non-Christian avoids hell AND also that it is eternal as evident by your quotes. That is what you wanted to show. And you also happened to pick the worst lines to support the former view.

[Aldaris]

“A Christian point of view” will always sound much better for me than “an Abrahamic point of view” or a “people of the book point of view”, lol.

lol, what's that you are trying to saying, hun? Go ask a Seven Day Adventist and a Coptic Egyptian about a nature of hell and you may aswell derive the two different religions altogether. Both are unmistakably christian though - so much for the christian point of view.


Mt 25, 46: it’s a parable. Just saying.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9: they may know God and obey the Gospel in the hereafter.

The Apocalypse is a very particular literary genre.

By the way, I don’t deny some people will be in hell forever.

Hun, this was by no means my complete list. Just something I sort of remember, since I know my Bible. I could've go on and on, but I have a job. Anyhow, yeah, Mt 25, 46 is indeed a parable. And if the whole Bible isn't, we can disregard it altogether, since we have the infamous first chapter of Genesis, of which we know one thing - either a parable or bullshit (not even bringing the Leviticus issue into this). Now, how we differentiate between the two?

[Longbowman]

Thought crime, such is the concept of Christian God. The ladder was raised so much high that it is unattainable to reach, but a man can still reach redemption by striving towards it. That is the concept of God that makes the most sense to me. Example:

Glad you admit I'm right in my appraisal of Christianity.


Based on the Christian theology all people are already sentenced to death because they know of sin and deeds based on their own will. As an atheist, agnostic or whatever you are that should be no problem for you either way.

Nope, I reject this concept. It is the action that merits castigation, not the desire. Indeed, it is commendable to repress a desire. If someone only desires the right, is he really so meritorious of praise? This belief is antithetical to Jewish thinking, which, obviously, informs my thinking. Being aware of wrongdoing is not wrongdoing.

However, let's ignore this and move on.


It is written numerous times throughout the Bible that God wants everyone to be saved. Hence why Jesus himself was beaten and died on the cross. That is merciful to me. It is imo the most beautifully expressed in the Parable of the lost sheep:

This would indeed be 'merciful' if it were not God himself threatening to burn us to begin with, and if we had merited the burning.

It would also be 'merciful' if it was offered, equally and evenly, to all mankind - it is not. People born into Christian families are unfairly favoured. People born into secular or non-Christian or even uncontacted families are not. And that's just one difference.


Even though according to the Bible we all have 'fallen short of God's glory' we can be redeemed by the grace of the Lord through faith and repentance. Often this faith is equalized with 'deeds' because it is implied that only true Christians live by faith and that it is one and the same. It is also implied that only few will excel to that, not to mention atheists.

I could better accept a 'deeds only' redemption. We all know many Christians are foul people and many non-Christians are angels. I reject the idea that the angels will burn by the hand of a 'merciful' god.


We have once talked about that. Do you remember why is that, from a Christian theology point of view?

Please, I have to go through this with Jews, too, this one is not just for Christians or Muslims.

[Longbowman]

I'm just saying that non-Christians will not necessarily end up in hell after they die.

I know and I agree, but your Church doesn't, or at least, it 'knows of no way other than Catholicism to avoid it.' Their words, not mine.


Plus, why would they necessarily endure the chief punishment of hell or see it before they meet God?

Then, clearly, Hell is devoid of inhabitants, and there is no point to Christianity or any religion, really.


And by the way, there's also this in the rubric concerning baptism: "Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity." http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM

Idem.

[Longbowman]

Repentance and good deeds should come from heart, not fear. I think.

How unfortunate for me and the rest of us, I doubt we will love God because of fire.

[Aldaris]

No, I didn't mistake you for that. I mistook you for someone who claimed that no non-Christian avoids hell AND also that it is eternal as evident by your quotes. That is what you wanted to show. And you also happened to pick the worst lines to support the former view.

Either you indeed mistook me or we have a case dishonesty case, man. So I'm gonna repeat myself - according to christian theology, in-fucking-deed no non-Christian avoids hell. Now, whether the nature of the said hell is eternal or not is very much up to interpretation. But that very implication works either way. Furthemore, either way, hell is not gonna be pleasant for the non-Christians involved. I disagree with that sort of 'justice'.

Clearer now, pal?

[Insuperable]

Nope, I reject this concept. It is the action that merits castigation, not the desire. Indeed, it is commendable to repress a desire. If someone only desires the right, is he really so meritorious of praise? This belief is antithetical to Jewish thinking, which, obviously, informs my thinking. Being aware of wrongdoing is not wrongdoing.

However, let's ignore this and move on.

How about we don't ignore. I don't reject, but reject your view. Now what? What if someone is a coward to kill a man or rape a girl? Is it okay if he didn't do that, no action was taken after all?


This would indeed be 'merciful' if it were not God himself threatening to burn us to begin with, and if we had merited the burning.

You view your goodness or someone' elses from your earthly perspective. Even though most who know me will say I am a good person, I don't think I am. Far from it. You probably think you are some good lad who deserves heaven or something because of your Jewish influenced life. You been a good boy.:patpat:


It would also be 'merciful' if it was offered, equally and evenly, to all mankind - it is not. People born into Christian families are unfairly favoured. People born into secular or non-Christian or even uncontacted families are not. And that's just one difference.


could better accept a 'deeds only' redemption. We all know many Christians are foul people and many non-Christians are angels. I reject the idea that the angels will burn by the hand of a 'merciful' god.

As you could have read by now, it is ambigous what is it, do all atheists go to hell or not etc, but I doubt that would make any difference in your case, because there is still muh threating with burn. Like I said, no explanation can be satisfying.


Please, I have to go through this with Jews, too, this one is not just for Christians or Muslims.

It is explained in the Parable of Weeds. The most important line is line 29. In a nutshell Jesus came as a sower to plant seeds in the heart of men and Second Coming is a time for harvest.
Also, based on a Christian theology this life is nothing to what awaits, and Jesus also suffered and died for us.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13:24-30&version=NIV&interface=amp

[Insuperable]

Either you indeed mistook me or we have a case dishonesty case, man. So I'm gonna repeat myself - according to christian theology, in-fucking-deed no non-Christian avoids hell. Now, whether the nature of the said hell is eternal or not is very much up to interpretation. But that very implication works either way. Furthemore, either way, hell is not gonna be pleasant for the non-Christians involved. I disagree with that sort of 'justice'.

Clearer now, pal?

I still stand that you also went to show how it is also about the eternal suffering. Cry me the longest river.

[Longbowman]

How about we don't ignore. I don't reject, but reject your view. Now what? What if someone is a coward to kill a man or rape a girl? Is it okay if he didn't do that, no action was taken after all?

If he planned to do it, but did not do it out of fear, he might be judged. If he wanted to do it, but controlled himself, he is commendable.


You view your goodness or someone' elses from your earthly perspective.

Whereas you speak for God, hm.


Even though most who know me will say I am a good person, I don't think I am. Far from it. You probably think you are some good lad who deserves heaven or something because of your Jewish influenced life. You been a good boy.:patpat:

If you believe the Shulkhan Orekh, I am destined to eternity in Gehinnom.


As you could have read by now, it is ambigous what is it, do all atheists go to hell or not etc, but I doubt that would make any difference in your case, because there is still muh threating with burn. Like I said, no explanation can be satisfying.

Yes, correct, you [plural] are incapable of answering the question.


It is explained in the Parable of Weeds. The most important line is line 29. In a nutshell Jesus came as a sower to plant seeds in the heart of men and Second Coming is a time for harvest.
Also, based on a Christian theology this life is nothing to what awaits, and Jesus also suffered and died for us.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.biblegateway.com/passage/%3fsearch=Matthew%2b13:24-30&version=NIV&interface=amp

Yes, I can imagine 70 years dicking around is nothing compared to literal infinity being tortured. Mercy!

[Randommembr]

Can't you guys except different opinions and beliefs?

[Longbowman]

Can't you guys except different opinions and beliefs?

Of course, my gf, best friend, etc, are Catholic, my parents and their family are now Masorti, my dad's family is Ultra-Orthodox and Hassidic, x, y, z. I accept all of them. But, if asked, no, of course I don't believe they're correct. Being tolerant doesn't mean I have to accept the validity of your dumbass beliefs.

[Randommembr]

It makes it non-Catholic, and brings up other questions, which I posed.

It was a plural you. You take pride in people converting to Zoroastrianism anyway, even though yes, most Zoroastrians (like Sikhs) reject conversion. It's not necessary if your religion doesn't have a 'love me or burn' element to it (same for Judaism).

No I don't take pride. I take pride if people start practicing good thoughts good words and good deeds. I like when people accept other peoples religions without being hostile.

[Randommembr]

Of course, my gf, best friend, etc, are Catholic, my parents and their family are now Masorti, my dad's family is Ultra-Orthodox and Hassidic, x, y, z. I accept all of them. But, if asked, no, of course I don't believe they're correct. Being tolerant doesn't mean I have to accept the validity of your dumbass beliefs.

Did you mean your as in plural? Because I gave a justification for why I believe in what I do in previous threads and it's logical according to many people who've studied the faith like Haug, Boyce etc. If there's something you disagree with, you haven't addressed it.

Also, calling someone's who believes in something as a "dumbass" and "retarded"(like you did before), is going to do nothing but cause more fights and debates and hatred. You should know this. You could raise your points in a nicer way because a lot of Muslims and Christians are getting triggered.

[Longbowman]

Did you mean your as in plural? Because I gave a justification for why I believe in what I do in previous threads and it's logical according to many people who've studied the faith like Haug, Boyce etc. If there's something you disagree with, you haven't addressed it.

Also, calling someone's who believes in something as a "dumbass" and "retarded"(like you did before), is going to do nothing but cause more fights and debates and hatred. You should know this. You could raise your points in a nicer way because a lot of Muslims and Christians are getting triggered.

Yes, obviously, you plural, or 'one.'

I don't call people dumbasses or retarded to their faces, this is an internet argument, and in this case, the dumbass is hypothetical, so who's getting offended?

If your religion makes life easier for you and distracts you from mortality that's great.

[Insuperable]

If he planned to do it, but did not do it out of fear, he might be judged. If he wanted to do it, but controlled himself, he is commendable.

Okay, sounds fair and good for ripping points I guess, but as you know according to the Christianity that is still a sin. This concept goes all the way to the Genesis where I think the consequence of sin was masterfully described.

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked;(J) so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.(K)
Opened under quotation marks as you know.


Whereas you speak for God, hm.

Picked that up from you.


Yes, correct, you [plural] are incapable of answering the question.

Thanks for confirming.:thumb001:

But why would an omnipotent being have a desire to create life in the first place? :laugh:


Yes, I can imagine 70 years dicking around is nothing compared to literal infinity being tortured. Mercy!

Reminds me of my first post in this thread.

[Randommembr]

Okay, sounds fair and good for ripping points I guess, but as you know according to the Christianity that is still a sin. This concept goes all the way to the Genesis where I think the consequence of sin was masterfully described.

Opened under quotation marks as you know.



Picked that up from you.



Thanks for confirming.:thumb001:

But why would an omnipotent being have a desire to create life in the first place? :laugh:



Reminds me of my first post in this thread.

Why would an omnipotent being not create life? Why would you live by yourself and not create the universe when you literally have the power to do so lmao.

[Insuperable]

Why would an omnipotent being not create life? Why would you live by yourself and not create the universe when you literally have the power to do so lmao.

It was sarcasm. It is stupid to ask why and why wouldn't.

[Longbowman]

Okay, sounds fair and good for ripping points I guess,

Glad you agree.


but as you know according to the Christianity that is still a sin.

I know, that's one of the reasons I dismiss Christianity.


This concept goes all the way to the Genesis where I think the consequence of sin was masterfully described.

But actual physical disobedience - not thoughtcrime. Eve was allowed to desire the fruit, not to eat it. She succumbed to temptation. How do you think the story would have gone if she had been tempted, but not eaten the fruit?


Picked that up from you.

:lol:

All Christians (and Muslims, etc) claim to speak for God. I am merely ridiculing the poisition.


Thanks for confirming.:thumb001:

But why would an omnipotent being have a desire to create life in the first place? :laugh:

Clearly to burn them for the crime of being born, unless they loved him the right way.

[Aldaris]

I still stand that you also went to show how it is also about the eternal suffering. Cry me the longest river.

Stand all you want, but when you're wrong, you're simply that - wrong, pal.


Now, whether the nature of the said hell is eternal or not is very much up to interpretation

That kind of settles it.

On a further note, I'm not sick enough to be inventing such the concepts, so don't ask me. You are the ones tiptoeing around that, not us - we are just reacting to the obvious reality that humans generally don't deserve that.

[Insuperable]

Glad you agree.

I know, that's one of the reasons I dismiss Christianity.

It happens to be one of the many reasons I accept Christianity.


But actual physical disobedience - not thoughtcrime. Eve was allowed to desire the fruit, not to eat it. She succumbed to temptation. How do you think the story would have gone if she had been tempted, but not eaten the fruit?

The point is sin expanded throughout humanity. People feel shame (or don't) and done sick sfuff, hence why it was described they had to dress up. Hence why I guess many of our temptations are already sinful by nature. In most cases if we desire to do something bad is bad already by the definition we desire it, action or not.


I am merely ridiculing the poisition.

Okay.:laugh:


Clearly to burn them for the crime of being born, unless they loved him the right way.

Thanks for confirming my previous words.


Anyway, enough for tonight.

[Rethel]

I would say that Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, which appeared at the same time, are both equally legitimate in their filiation from ancient sectarian Judaism.

In some way yes, but judiasm had two stages after that, pre-Talmudic (90-~500) and Talmudic (after ~500).
Judaism which we know today, didn't exist until Talmud wasn't written - as he is a base of that religion.

Judaism emerged as a reaction on Jesus - it is religion based on rejection of him, totaly different as Israelitic religion, different in almost evry single aspect including the divine beling which is belived in, whole system of worship aso.

Only Christianity is true continuation of the religion of Israel. There are some problems created by tradition, but in the core, it is much more israelitic religion than judaism.

People usually think, that Jews are some kind of Israelites who just did not follow Jewsus and belive Old testament only, what is not true. This can be said about Karaites, but not about regular jews. And even Karaites do not belive as it is written, as they do not follow the law of Moses.

[Longbowman]

It happens to be one of the many reasons I accept Christianity.

That's nice, can you defend it?


The point is sin expanded throughout humanity. People feel shame (or don't) and done sick sfuff, hence why it was described they had to dress up. Hence why I guess many of our temptations are already sinful by nature. In most cases if we desire to do something bad is bad already by the definition we desire it, action or not.

This concept is not really in the Torah, wouldn't hold up in a human court, and makes little sense. Additionally, Christians believe people are born with sin, meaning that, in fact, Christians believe in inherited culpability, quite apart from the concept of thoughtcrime, unless you believe a baby has the mens rea (a newborn, to boot). Even if you accept that a thought can be a crime, that's several steps from believing that you must love Jesus to be absolved from it. It is multilayered nonsense, and deliberately esoteric multilayered nonsense at that. Dressing up a crap idea in ritual, aesthetic and text doesn't make it any less crap. You know what they say about polishing turds.

The desire to do something is not sinful, only the action is. This is clear from the Torah, which castigates those who "stray after thoughts of the heart and sights of the eyes" but not those who have thoughts but do not stray. However, it is arguable that the Torah advises a person not to covet that which does not belong to him, but this is not an 'actionable offence' by itself. Achan is eventually punished for 'coveting' in Joshua but he has physically stolen items. Achan's punishment was execution, not the 'loss of his eternal soul' or whatever (although ofc he was punished for stealing, not just wanting to steal). 'Do not covet' refers specifically to property (including human property) and there is no other law that castigates thoughtcrime unless you qualify idolatry as thoughtcrime, which personally, I would, but I doubt the authors of the Torah saw it that way.

Either way this is a paganistic loan in Christianity with little to no basis in Judaism. Extremely strange.

[Randommembr]

That's nice, can you defend it?



This concept is not really in the Torah, wouldn't hold up in a human court, and makes little sense. Additionally, Christians believe people are born with sin, meaning that, in fact, Christians believe in inherited culpability, quite apart from the concept of thoughtcrime, unless you believe a baby has the mens rea (a newborn, to boot). Even if you accept that a thought can be a crime, that's several steps from believing that you must love Jesus to be absolved from it. It is multilayered nonsense, and deliberately esoteric multilayered nonsense at that. Dressing up a crap idea in ritual, aesthetic and text doesn't make it any less crap. You know what they say about polishing turds.

The desire to do something is not sinful, only the action is. This is clear from the Torah, which castigates those who "stray after thoughts of the heart and sights of the eyes" but not those who have thoughts but do not stray. However, it is arguable that the Torah advises a person not to covet that which does not belong to him, but this is not an 'actionable offence' by itself. Achan is eventually punished for 'coveting' in Joshua but he has physically stolen items. Achan's punishment was execution, not the 'loss of his eternal soul' or whatever (although ofc he was punished for stealing, not just wanting to steal). 'Do not covet' refers specifically to property (including human property) and there is no other law that castigates thoughtcrime unless you qualify idolatry as thoughtcrime, which personally, I would, but I doubt the authors of the Torah saw it that way.

Either way this is a paganistic loan in Christianity with little to no basis in Judaism. Extremely strange.

I don't agree with the Judaic view that having sinful thoughts isn't wrong. Have a clear mind and good thoughts is very important.

[Laly]

lol, what's that you are trying to saying, hun? Go ask a Seven Day Adventist and a Coptic Egyptian about a nature of hell and you may aswell derive the two different religions altogether. Both are unmistakably christian though - so much for the christian point of view.

Lol anyway, I was just responding in the negative to your buddy, who pretends things concerning “Christians” and “Christianity”, so please keep what you tell me for him.



Hun, this was by no means my complete list. Just something I sort of remember, since I know my Bible. I could've go on and on, but I have a job. Anyhow, yeah, Mt 25, 46 is indeed a parable. And if the whole Bible isn't, we can disregard it altogether, since we have the infamous first chapter of Genesis, of which we know one thing - either a parable or bullshit (not even bringing the Leviticus issue into this). Now, how we differentiate between the two?

I’m afraid I don’t understand very well what you mean, especially about the Genesis and the Leviticus.

I’m just saying that transcending the letter is very important in Christianity. There is the primacy of the “spirit” over the “letter”. Paul says in the New Testament that “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6). And the allegory, the metaphor, the parable, have a very important role and are not to be taken really literally. In fact, in the New Testament, Jesus teaches using stylistic devices commonly used in Jewish midrash, like the parable, the allegory.

[Laly]

I know and I agree, but your Church doesn't, or at least, it 'knows of no way other than Catholicism to avoid it.' Their words, not mine.

It’s false to say that for the Catholic Church, the doors of salvation are closed for those who aren’t Catholic, who aren’t Christian here below, and enough evidence of that was provided, but here is some more.

This is what Lumen Gentium says concerning non-Catholic Christians:

“The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.”

Here, concerning non-Christians, from a publication on Salvation by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus:

“For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. […]
With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God ” which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church ” comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it in ways known to himself.”

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html





Then, clearly, Hell is devoid of inhabitants

"Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tm 2, 4)




and there is no point to Christianity or any religion, really.

I have already answered to that in my first post in this thread. I would add that following the Church here below would be the best preparation in the hereafter.

Anyway, Dominus Iesus says this concerning that question:

"Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God's salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_fr.html

[Longbowman]

It’s false to say that for the Catholic Church, the doors of salvation are closed for those who aren’t Catholic, who aren’t Christian here below, and enough evidence of that was provided, but here is some more.

This is what Lumen Gentium says concerning non-Catholic Christians:

“The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.”

Here, concerning non-Christians, from a publication on Salvation by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus:

“For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. […]
With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God ” which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church ” comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it in ways known to himself.”

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html






"Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tm 2, 4)





I have already answered to that in my first post in this thread. I would add that following the Church here below would be the best preparation in the hereafter.

Anyway, Dominus Iesus says this concerning that question:

"Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God's salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_fr.html

Cherrypicking.

Catechism is confused and inconsistent, like all religions, especially since Vatican II, but at one point it specifies that the Church knows of no other way [than baptism] for salvation, although it hopes for the sake of those unbaptised children that the Lord might have mercy, which is a problem I elucidated upon in my first post (ie, you still either believe or don't believe in a cruel god, and if he is not cruel, then your religion is pointless). Here:


1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Also:


977 Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved."519 Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that "we too might walk in newness of life."520

Here we see the Church, post-Vatican, graciously ceding that the ignorant may be afforded salvation - but atheists of Catholic background? Tsk tsk. You're going to burn:


1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Finally, here we have the absolutely lulzworthy and famous Catholic (and generally Christian) believe that unbaptised children may well go to purgatory - but the Church sends thoughts and prayers that God might show mercy:

[QUOTE]1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.[QUOTE]

From a non Islamo-Christian perspective: top. Fucking. Kek.

For 1,500 years the Church put a lot of people to the sword, or to the torch, for denying this, in order that others might be scared into adopting Catholicism in order to save their souls.

If Catholicism evolves into the pantheism you're pretending it always has been and already is, like Unitarianism is, great, you won't need to pretend anyone needs to convert.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't think you're going to hell or jannah either way.

Sources:

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2E.HTM

[Laly]

Cherrypicking.

Catechism is confused and inconsistent, like all religions, especially since Vatican II, but at one point it specifies that the Church knows of no other way [than baptism] for salvation, although it hopes for the sake of those unbaptised children that the Lord might have mercy, which is a problem I elucidated upon in my first post (ie, you still either believe or don't believe in a cruel god, and if he is not cruel, then your religion is pointless). Here:



Also:



Here we see the Church, post-Vatican, graciously ceding that the ignorant may be afforded salvation - but atheists of Catholic background? Tsk tsk. You're going to burn:



Finally, here we have the absolutely lulzworthy and famous Catholic (and generally Christian) believe that unbaptised children may well go to purgatory - but the Church sends thoughts and prayers that God might show mercy:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

From a non Islamo-Christian perspective: top. Fucking. Kek.

You are peremptory concerning that question, the Church isn’t, and leaves a possibility for unbelievers to be saved, and I’ve brought enough evidence of that.

You said for the Catholic Church, baptism is the condition, but you also say that the Catholic Church 'knows of no way other than Catholicism to avoid it [hell]', while through baptism, “they [non-Catholic Christians] are united with Christ, etc.” (just read my previous response to you, which you obviously haven’t read) and it contradicts your peremptory statement.

If the Church does not know of a way as decisive as baptism here below for Salvation, it doesn’t mean the Church believes there is no other way. And you quoted yourself (I did before) the part concerning non-Christians, which leaves a possibility for them to be saved.

You see contradictions, I see complexity, nuance.



For 1,500 years the Church put a lot of people to the sword, or to the torch, for denying this, in order that others might be scared into adopting Catholicism in order to save their souls.

If Catholicism evolves into the pantheism you're pretending it always has been and already is, like Unitarianism is, great, you won't need to pretend anyone needs to convert.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't think you're going to hell or jannah either way.

Sources:

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2E.HTM

As I said in an earlier post, the Church never decided on the fate of disbelievers in the hereafter.

[Aldaris]

I’m afraid I don’t understand very well what you mean, especially about the Genesis and the Leviticus.

If you'd take Genesis literally you've already disproved it, unless you wanna ditch away every other scientific field. Doing just that would mean no evolution, around 6000 year old universe, two original humans created from scratch or a worldwide flood covering Mount Everest. We know for a fact this didn't happen. Now sure, the Bible isn't to be read as a scientific textbook, but they you run into the issue of which crazy story should be taken literally - with every one of them it's going get harder and harder and the Bible is littered with them. Furthemore, the narrative of the most them is quite obviously meant as a historical event, not some parable. This point holds even more when you get to the historicity and you leave magic out of the picture. Just a couple of examples - did the Exodus as described in there happen? No. Did the conquest of Canaan happen? No. You would think that more than a half million Jews travelling a distance which would a granny cover in a few months tops for 40 years would leave some archeological evidence. Yet we have nothing. As for Leviticus, that's more about moral issues like condoning slavery rather than inconsistencies. Could make another paragraph just about that.


I’m just saying that transcending the letter is very important in Christianity. There is the primacy of the “spirit” over the “letter”. Paul says in the New Testament that “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6). And the allegory, the metaphor, the parable, have a very important role and are not to be taken really literally. In fact, in the New Testament, Jesus teaches using stylistic devices commonly used in Jewish midrash, like the parable, the allegory.

Tackled that above. Yeah, you don't read the Bible literally, but the issue remains - how do you determine what's basically a Red Riding Hood snuck in there to convey some abstract message and what's to be taken as an actual fact? Because the authors themselves don't make it clear - that's why you have American creationists like Kent Hovind who ditch the theory of evolution, aswell as whole bunch of other factual stuff in order to make peace with the literal interpretation of the Bible on one hand and Catholics who accept it on the other. And yet, Catholic canon still accepts disproven narratives like the supposedly historical examples I've refenced. Thing is, in order to make the Bible credible you have to reinterpret it to such a degree that basically nothing of the original text remains as it is. And then, with little to no scriptural support, how do you know you've done it in the way God intended? The reasoning shoots itself in the foot at that point.

[Longbowman]

You are peremptory concerning that question, the Church isn’t, and leaves a possibility for unbelievers to be saved, and I’ve brought enough evidence of that.

You said for the Catholic Church, baptism is the condition, but you also say that the Catholic Church 'knows of no way other than Catholicism to avoid it [hell]', while through baptism, “they [non-Catholic Christians] are united with Christ, etc.” (just read my previous response to you, which you obviously haven’t read) and it contradicts your peremptory statement.

If the Church does not know of a way as decisive as baptism here below for Salvation, it doesn’t mean the Church believes there is no other way. And you quoted yourself (I did before) the part concerning non-Christians, which leaves a possibility for them to be saved.

You see contradictions, I see complexity, nuance.

As I said in an earlier post, the Church never decided on the fate of disbelievers in the hereafter.

OK. I will cede the Church nowadays doesn't necessarily believe other [trinitarian] Christians are going to Hell.

The Church does not know of any other way - it


hopes

there is one (or are some), but still spreads itself, formerly by the sword, and across 6 continents, to baptise people just in case. It took a lot of taxes too, genocide ain't cheap.

I have no doubt that many of the people at the helm since Vatican II have realised the error of their ways but there is limited credibility to this approach.

For the fourth time: either you believe in the possibility that your God could unironically condemn an unbaptised child to hell or purgatory forever, or you don't. For Catholics, historically, as today, it has been the former. If it has become the latter, great - now, as a group, fuck off and stop proseltysing, if anyone can accede to heaven without eating magic biscuits and getting touched up by priests.

Remember, 99% of non-Muslims or Christians have a one-word answer for 'would God condemn an unbaptised/kaffir 10 year old to hell?' and that answer is 'no.' If your answer is 'yes,' 'maybe,' 'I don't know' or 'I hope not' you should reevaluate your religion.

[Laly]

OK. I will cede the Church nowadays doesn't necessarily believe other [trinitarian] Christians are going to Hell.

The Church does not know of any other way - it



there is one (or are some), but still spreads itself, formerly by the sword, and across 6 continents, to baptise people just in case. It took a lot of taxes too, genocide ain't cheap.

I have no doubt that many of the people at the helm since Vatican II have realised the error of their ways but there is limited credibility to this approach.

For the fourth time: either you believe in the possibility that your God would unironically condemn an unbaptised child to hell or purgatory forever, or you don't. For Catholics, historically, as today,, it has been the former. If it has become the latter, great - now, as a group, fuck off and stop proseltysing, if anyone can accede to heaven without eating magic biscuits and getting touched up by priests.

Maybe you should stick to things you actually know something about... But you seem so full of yourself. You are of such bad faith (not to make a word game).


Longbowman Here we see the Church, post-Vatican, graciously ceding that the ignorant may be afforded salvation - but atheists of Catholic background? Tsk tsk. You're going to burn

It doesn't mean that... I am supposed to speak English better than you? "Ignorant" doesn't necessarily means not knowing about something, you can choose to ignore something, you can ignore an advice... and the original Latin word used also has the double sense.

And the purgatory is not forever, contrarily to what you say. See the Catechism:

"III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/FRA0013/_P2I.HTM

[Longbowman]

Maybe you should stick to things you actually know something about... But you seem so full of yourself. You are of such bad faith (not to make a word game).

Everyone knows what the Church is about. There are plenty of Christians on this thread who have admitted to it, who are proud of it. I have read your catechism.


It doesn't mean that... I am supposed to speak English better than you? "Ignorant" doesn't necessarily means not knowing about something, you can choose to ignore something, you can ignore an advice... and the original Latin word used also has the double sense.

? I am using the exact word used in the text, why are you assuming I'm using it differently to them?


And the purgatory is not forever, contrarily to what you say. See the Catechism:

"III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/FRA0013/_P2I.HTM

Purgatory and hell are not the same thing.

Of course, and I enumerated them separately. However, the (or at the very very least some) non-believers are at least possibly going to hell (for the crime of disbelief), see:

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM


1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.612 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"613 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"614

As humans are born with sin, according to the Church, and non-Catholics do not undergo confession, it is directly inferrable this part refers to 'all of us:'


1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."615 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

At the very very least, a Christian who renounces the faith is set to burn forever:


1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."616

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."617

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;618 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance":619


(45) Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 45. The necessary and absolute singularity of Christ in human history is well expressed by St. Irenaeus in contemplating the preeminence of Jesus as firstborn Son: “In the heavens, as firstborn of the Father's counsel, the perfect Word governs and legislates all things; on the earth, as firstborn of the Virgin, a man just and holy, reverencing God and pleasing to God, good and perfect in every way, he saves from hell all those who follow him since he is the firstborn from the dead and Author of the life of Godâ€Â� (Demonstratio apostolica, 39: SC 406, 138).

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM

[Randommembr]

"Islam" debate thread...

[Rethel]

"Islam" debate thread...

Actually, there is nothing to debate.

If this, what islam claims about it's own history and origin is true - then it is a false satanic religion.
If this, what islam claims about it's own history and origin is true not - then it is a flase satanic religion also.

So, there really is nothing to debate. Eventually only to expose.

Ceterum censeo Meccam esse delendam.

[Laly]

Everyone knows what the Church is about. There are plenty of Christians on this thread who have admitted to it, who are proud of it. I have read your catechism.



? I am using the exact word used in the text, why are you assuming I'm using it differently to them?



Of course, and I enumerated them separately. However, the (or at the very very least some) non-believers are at least possibly going to hell (for the crime of disbelief), see:

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM



As humans are born with sin, according to the Church, and non-Catholics do not undergo confession, it is directly inferrable this part refers to 'all of us:'



At the very very least, a Christian who renounces the faith is set to burn forever:





https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM


Longbowman Everyone knows what the Church is about. There are plenty of Christians on this thread who have admitted to it, who are proud of it. I have read your catechism.

I’m not interested in your feelings concerning the Church. I’m just fed up with your factual nonsense. And after my first post in this thread, after which you would have had better stopped, you even referred to me with the words “ignorant” and “dishonest”. And you, what are you, then, lol??

You said there would be the purgatory forever for certain people. Your words: “either you believe in the possibility that your God could unironically condemn an unbaptised child to hell or purgatory forever, or you don't. For Catholics, historically, as today, it has been the former.”

None of what you quoted implies that one can’t die in as state of mortal sin, go to hell and then be saved.

You assumed “ignore” was used as “not knowing about”, because you implied that ignorant people (those not knowing the good news) could be saved, in opposition to ex-Christians, saying the latter would be forever in hell. But they could also be called “ignorant” (ignoring knowingly, choosing to ignore). Your words: “ignorant may be afforded salvation - but atheists of Catholic background? Tsk tsk. You're going to burn. […] a Christian who renounces the faith is set to burn forever.”

“he saves from hell those who follow him”: it can very well concern those who are in hell but finally decide to follow him.

You extrapolate so that the texts would fit your preconceived idea. You can’t conclude from them that when someone dies in a state of mortal sin and that they go to hell, it’s necessarily forever, contrary to what you say. For that, one must persist until the end, even after death, after seeing God in hell, until the moment of the Last Judgement, “the end”.

We have quoted from the Bible concerning the Descent of Christ:

Jn 5, 25: “Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.” (I had already posted this one and paintings depicting the episode).

1 P 3, 19: “he [Jesus] went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits – to those who were disobedient […]”.

Here below are some important doctrinal writings.

- The Firmiter, Creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215:

“Christ will come at the end of the ages to judge the living and the dead and to render to each, both damned and elect, according to their works. All of these will rise with their own bodies which they now possess in order to receive according to their works, whether good or bad. The evil will receive perpetual punishment with the devil, the good eternal glory with Christ.” [DS 801]

- The Benedictus Deus of Benedict XII, January of 1336:

“Furthermore we define that, according to the general plan of God, the souls of those dying in actual mortal sin descend to hell soon after death. There they are afflicted with the pains of hell, but nonetheless on the day of judgment all men will appear with their bodies before the tribunal of Christ to render an account of their own deeds so that each one may receive according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10).” [DS 1002]

- The Creed of Paul VI, June 30, 1968:

“He ascended into heaven, whence He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, each receiving according to his own merits. Those who have responded to the Love and Mercy of God will go to eternal life; those who have rejected that Love and Mercy to the end will go to the fire which will have no end."”

The Swiss theologian Urs von Balthasar, one of the most prominent Catholic theologians of the XXth century, addressed the question of hell, which was quite neglected until then. He says Christ descended to hell to preach to those there, so that they may be saved.

[Longbowman]

Again, [some] Christians have effectively seen this issue, had problems with it, written it away, so that de-facto there is no Hell, good. It begs the question 'what's the point?' and certainly doesn't negate the catechism I pointed out. It's just an inconsistency. But it's good you believe that.

[Laly]

If you'd take Genesis literally you've already disproved it, unless you wanna ditch away every other scientific field. Doing just that would mean no evolution, around 6000 year old universe, two original humans created from scratch or a worldwide flood covering Mount Everest. We know for a fact this didn't happen. Now sure, the Bible isn't to be read as a scientific textbook, but they you run into the issue of which crazy story should be taken literally - with every one of them it's going get harder and harder and the Bible is littered with them. Furthemore, the narrative of the most them is quite obviously meant as a historical event, not some parable. This point holds even more when you get to the historicity and you leave magic out of the picture. Just a couple of examples - did the Exodus as described in there happen? No. Did the conquest of Canaan happen? No. You would think that more than a half million Jews travelling a distance which would a granny cover in a few months tops for 40 years would leave some archeological evidence. Yet we have nothing. As for Leviticus, that's more about moral issues like condoning slavery rather than inconsistencies. Could make another paragraph just about that.



Tackled that above. Yeah, you don't read the Bible literally, but the issue remains - how do you determine what's basically a Red Riding Hood snuck in there to convey some abstract message and what's to be taken as an actual fact? Because the authors themselves don't make it clear - that's why you have American creationists like Kent Hovind who ditch the theory of evolution, aswell as whole bunch of other factual stuff in order to make peace with the literal interpretation of the Bible on one hand and Catholics who accept it on the other. And yet, Catholic canon still accepts disproven narratives like the supposedly historical examples I've refenced. Thing is, in order to make the Bible credible you have to reinterpret it to such a degree that basically nothing of the original text remains as it is. And then, with little to no scriptural support, how do you know you've done it in the way God intended? The reasoning shoots itself in the foot at that point.

I think what you say is very interesting and opens many perspectives. Of course, the historicity of the Biblical texts must be studied, they must be confronted with the advances of the archaeological discoveries and reason must guide us. But the value of the Biblical texts isn’t only related to the historical context where they appeared, but also greatly to the reactions and decisions they arouse for the reader, to the symbolism.

In the beginning of the Christian era, Christian theologians didn’t really know what to do with the Old Testament. There was a real debate on that, but finally it was integrated in the Christian canon. Facing the problem of the literal interpretation of the Old Testament, already at that time then, Origen said that what is “not worthy of God” in the Old Testament (horrors, divine wrath, for example), must be interpreted not literally but spiritually. For him, it was necessary to understand the Mosaic Law as symbols and allegories.

Origen developped the concept of the four senses of Scriptures, saying :«Littera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia". (The letter speaks of deeds; allegory about the faith; The moral about our actions; anagogy about our destiny).

As for Augustine, he considered the Old Testament as a path to Jesus Christ. He said that transcending the literal sense makes the letter itself credible and that the unity of the Old and the New Testaments is fulfilled through the spirit.

Actually, the intimacy with God humans acquired throughout history let them perceive how he is really, through the person of Jesus (as “Dei Verbum” or “Verbum Domini” state). Before, during the time of the Old Testament, God was deformed, misrepresented in human spirits.

As for the Genesis in particular, ancient Sumerian and Babylonian texts from the Middle East were used and assimilated by the inspired authors of the Genesis, but to make something new and original, with a singular intellectual personality. In fact, ancient elements may be integrated into new original conceptions. For ex., the Genesis of the Bible is the only one known from the Ancient Middle East which evokes the particular creation of the woman! It could mean that she is not inferior, because she is taken out of the man: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh she shall be called ‘woman,’for she was taken out of man.”

[Teutone]

What makes Islam interesting and impressive, is the fact the quran was exclusively written by mohammed. A book of that complexity, that leaves the greatest mind studiying it, that covers so many aspects in life and inspires billions of people, cannot be written by a regular person.

And western arrogance, I used to be guilty of myself, that tries to insult or downplay mohammed, is not aware of this.

The hadiths in addition to that add alot of depth on islam.

[Rethel]

What makes Islam interesting and impressive...


...is the fact, that it is the most obviously false religion ever.


is the fact the quran was exclusively written by mohammed.

It's a lie. Even mahometans do not belive in this :picard2:


A book of that complexity,

The Ring of the Nibelungs is more complex than this...


that leaves the greatest mind studiying it,

Where average IQ is below 85...


that covers so many aspects in life

Koran covers nothing. There is even no basic islamic teachings! What are you talking about?


and inspires billions of people, cannot be written by a regular person.

Wasn't. It was started by Abdulmalik and then was written by many authors until Xth century and many times corrected until... 1985...


And western arrogance, I used to be guilty of myself, that tries to insult or downplay mohammed, is not aware of this.

And mahometans are not aware, that all what they claim is false, almost all, let say 90%.
Especially after one of the leading muslims of the internet totaly disproved Koran in last year...


The hadiths in addition to that add alot of depth on islam.

Do you also think, they were written by Mahomet?

There existed at least 2,000,000 Hadiths. It was enaugh to describe every hour of his life.
249 hadiths per day during his "preaching" and 88 per day, as long as he lived.

Al-Bukhari examined only 600,000 of them, which he collected in Turkmenistan, Egypt, Iraq
aso - thousands of miles away from each other and hundreds of years after Mahomet lived.
Then he chose ~7600 just because he want to, and threw out the rest.

He lived 250 years after Mahomet.

Most of these 7600 hadiths proof, that Mahomet was disgusting and the most false prophet ever.
And this is the official version in which Muslims believe!

So, do you really think, they are reliable?

Ceterum censeo Meccam esse delendam.

[Teutone]

Rethel I wish you had that passion fighting the real destructive force on this planet, secularism/ western liberalism.

[Suinthila]

What to debate?