>Islam is obviously false; all we have to do is look at it’s prophet. There’s no way Allah would allow his prophet to marry a 6 year old and own slaves
>Actually the you can’t judge God because he is the standard of morality and everything he says goes. Yes, even with him allowing slavery and the slaughter of children

Why does this happen?

>>17864294 (OP)
>Islam is obviously false
No Christian ever said that. Now, atheists claiming to be Christians on the other hand...

>>17864305
Ive seen multiple threads online where the argument was used to help muslims-turned-Christians retain their faith and quenching doubts

>>17864294 (OP)
Everyone does this. People are willing to go through whatever mental gymnastics necessary to defend their own religious beliefs, but then they will turn into a fedora-clad skeptic the moment they start criticizing other people's religions. Muslims are no more innocent. Just look at how they will cite the work of Bart Ehrman et al. when arguing against Christianity, but the moment people do the same thing with Islam, now all of a sudden they are super hostile towards the historical-critical method.
Human beings are just biased. If you want to be a truth-seeker, you have to avoid this. You need to force yourself to be just as skeptical of arguments against other people's beliefs as you would be of arguments against your own beliefs. And you can't just make a show of this. You need to really place yourself in the other person's shoes and think about how they would argue if their cherished beliefs are being threatened and they need to defend them at all costs. To do that, you really have to empathize with them on a deep level. This sort of empathy only really comes naturally to you if you have flip flopped between lots of different beliefs in your life. Even so, this is really hard for human beings in general, but it's really hard for religious people especially. Religions teach their followers to have a sense of loyalty and love toward their own beliefs and to see people who believe differently as epistemic adversaries, and both of these things are really just incompatible with seeking the truth.

>>17864294 (OP)
Because you idiots aren't supposed to be worshiping a cube and slaughtering those people for whom Jesus is the messiah. Muhammad would personally kick the shit out of you if he was alive today and knew how far off the path you abominations have fallen.

>>17864562
>Assuming i’m muslim for making this post
>Did not take the time to read the very specific argument I made
>Assumes I even like shitlam
Stupid nigger

>>17864562
Didn’t read the thread

>>17864294 (OP)
As a Christian I agree with Hitchens and what he has to say about Islam.
https://youtu.be/ZCHHfBeu0QE?si=Y-In3wuv2hecIHNk

>>17864294 (OP)
You muslims call Jesus the WORD of God yet you fail to understand what that implies.

>>17864294 (OP)
I’m Christian and don’t use this argument, if you care we can go over Islam and Christianity from another point. >>17864548
Many of them also love listening to Tovia Singer despite him viewing them as subhumans.

>>17864294 (OP)
>muslim doesn’t understand Christianity
That’s a Muslim concept you dolt.
Muslim morality says good is what god says is good.
Christianity has it the other way round.
God must be 100% good.
That’s why Christianity has apologia, Christians must explain the problem of evil
„How would a just god allow X“
Muslims don’t.
„God is all powerful and what he does is defined as good because he’s all powerful „ an argument from power.

It’s kind of one reason Christians are suspicious of Islam
It seems to be entirely an argument derived from a big stick

The christards really think OP is a muslim even though he posted a picture of mohammed

>>17865289
If God is all powerful and all good, he defined what is good or bad.
>>17865294
He looks like Imam Ali, he could be a shia.

The great juju up the mountain says everyone except me will burn in shit forever when you die.

>>17864294 (OP)
>>17864305
Upon close examination, literally every single aspect of islam reveals its falsehood.

>>17865294
Plenty of muslims ignore tons of islamic rules, retard.

>>17865592
>says the retard

Christian is a woke religion

>>17865289
>God must be 100% good.
then what is goodness according to your moral system? does this qualify?

>>17866165
In what sense?

>>17865289
how about this?
>>17866165
this, they invented communism, secularism and feminism amongst other things of that nature

>>17864294 (OP)
>[you should judge a prophet who's supposedly the paragon of morality]
>[you should not judge God whose reasoning you don't know]
These two contradict in your mind?

>>17866179
Feminism contradicts 1 Timothy 2:10-12 and Ephesians 5:22-23.
Communism contradicts the authority of God and sets an autocrat as the arbiter of morality.
Secularism is unrelated to Christianity.

>>17866183
Jesus is literally a prophet according to the bible so yes you can judge him

>>17864294 (OP)
Why should I believe that Mohammad is the true prophet of God that restored the message of God, when Joseph Smith claims that he was the true prophet of God and that he restored the message of God?

>>17866193
According to *crowds.

>>17866190
Except it doesn't because sexual differences do not actually exist Galatians 3:28 Commie ideology can easily allow for the existence of God. Secularism was birthed by christian thinkers who have been influenced by protestant principles. And in any case all of these ideologies were spawned in Christian societies
>>17866203
Crowds who have listened to Jesus preach and perform miracles and Jesus accepted as righteous praise. Words that according to Christians are inspired by the Holy Spirit anyway. But beside these crowds and disciples we also have https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%204%3A24%2C%20Matthew%2013%3A57&version=NIV He clearly saw himself as a prophet too

>>17866232
>Jesus accepted as righteous praise
>"YOU, LORD, have called forth YOUR praise"
So they called him Lord and he agreed?

>>17866234
Yes, the tile is not exclusive to God in the bible. Actually the bible even seems to separate the Father from being the lord in the same sense Jesus is
>But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. - 1 Corinthians 8:6

>>17866253
It's a quote from Psalm 8 which literally begins "Oh YHWH, our Lord..." You said Jesus accepted Lord's praise that's quoted from Psalm 8. Meaning that he is the Lord YHWH.
You have completely played yourself with this.

>>17866272
Yes and? Do you not know what divine agency is? Prophets represent God himself Exodus 7 has this kind of language all over the place. In any case Jesus has been demonstrated to be a prophet and as such you can criticize his actions according to your logic

>>17866286
Elohim isn't reserved to God alone. "O YHWH" is reserved to God alone. But if you're so certain then I only ask for one proof: say Christ is God.

>>17866298
That kind of language has been abrogated due to idolatrous association, see for example this verse where the same thing happened with the actual God. However if you say you will take it as proof then I will say that Jesus is god in the biblical sense and not the modern day English term you're equivocating with it. You have to read your theology from the text and not into it. Go ask any Rabbi if they believe these humans being called as such are literally God himself. Of course not, and that's because they know the language and how it works. Now as for

>>17866335
it accidentally cut out, continuing. Now as for the main issue, Jesus can be criticized because he's a prophet as I have demonstrated. So you are doing what OP is saying

>>17866335
>>17866347

>"god" instead of "God"
Oof, missed it by this much. Try again?

>Go ask any Rabbi if they believe these humans being called as such are literally God himself
They aren't. That was my point. Elohim isn't exclusive to God. YHWH is exclusive to God.
And you said Christ accepted praise that Psalm 8 addressed to YHWH.

Which logically means you think Christ is God. Not a god. But the God YHWH.

>>17866351
>actually thinks there's a lowercase variant of the same word in the original language
You're doing exactly what I said! You're imposing onto the text your christian baggage. And we already went over this, that's nothing but an example of divine agency. Anyway here I'll try again to satisfy your silly arbitrary requirement. Jesus is God in the exact same sense the authors of the text I am referencing believed about other human figures that were also called Gods. Jesus specifically denied being called the actual God btw

>>17866232
>Galatians 3:28
If you see by context it is referring to us in the eyes of God. He will not judge you differently based on your gender or race. Sin is for both. Throughout the entire Bible there is a distinct role for each gender. Ergo, the Bible teaches gender roles, directly contradicting modern feminism.
>Christian thinkers who have been influenced by PROTESTANT principles
Unrelated to Christianity itself, they did this in spite of Christianity not because of it.
>commie ideology
It is explicitly anti-clerical. Besides, sharing with your community is not the same as a dictatorship owning everything and distributing as it wishes.

>>17866372
>English has to behave like the original language down to capitalization
Deflecting hard, buddy.

You implied Jesus is the YHWH via Psalm 8. And now you're bleeding out your nails trying to claw towards "b-but elohim has some flexibility...." lol. Good for elohim. We're talking about YHWH. Say Jesus is God.

>>17866390
You're the one complaining about capitalization and you're also being dishonest. I literally said the exact sequence of words in the same capitalization you are demanding and now you're pretending it just didn't happen. Straw man, I absolutely did not imply that Jesus is literally YHWH, he's an agent of YHWH because he's a prophet. Speaking about deflection, let's get back to the original point you made here >>17866183
Prophets can be judged, you conceded he was a prophet after failing to cope with "i-it's just the crowd!" It's a pathetic attempt.

>>17866381
>the Bible teaches gender roles, directly contradicting modern feminism
Yes but the point is christian feminists can use the same argument to say that it doesn't matter. It's just the spirit of the commandment that matters in the eyes of God. And because everyone is equal then even the men too are subject to the same standards. But the bigger issue is that feminism was invented by Christians who were extremely religious
>Unrelated to Christianity itself, they did this in spite of Christianity not because of it.
They are a christian group who claim their teachings are biblical. What makes you right and not them according to your theology?
>It is explicitly anti-clerical. Besides, sharing with your community is not the same as a dictatorship owning everything and distributing as it wishes.
In practice it was because they wanted power to be concentrated within the party and not a parallel government (the Church). However on paper there's nothing that they teach which demands a dictator

>>17866390
I took another look at the chapter I pointed out to you and it seems that according to your logic Aaron is YHWH. The same Lord is a translation of YHWH https://biblehub.com/exodus/7-17.htm#lexicon

>>17866452
>the point is christian feminists can use the same argument to say that it doesn't matter.
>The problem with your beliefs is that bad-faith actors can intentionally misinterpret and misrepresent them in service of their own goals
>FTFY

>>17866518
That's an odd thing to say when you accept the same type of reasoning from another bad faith actor that was intentionally misinterpreting and misrepresenting actual Christian beliefs in the service of his own goals

>>17866434
Hahah you're pretty good at deflecting but sadly you played yourself too hard.
Psalm 8 says YHWH receives praise from the mouth of children. You said Jesus is receives this praise. Ergo, Jesus is YHWH.

>b-but... elohim has flexibility
We're not talking about elohim. It says YWHW.
>b-but.... the crowds said...
Good for them.
>but... but.... I said a sequence of words.
Cool. Now say "Christ is God."

>>17866496
It's your logic that Jesus receives praise that's for YHWH. See >>17866232

>>17866539
>Tell me that you're a bad-faith actor and a low-effort troll without saying that you're a bad-faith actor and a low-effort troll

>>17866564
>Jesus is receives this praise. Ergo, Jesus is YHWH
Doesn't follow. As an agent he can accept and redirect it whomever he is representing.
>We're not talking about elohim. It says YWHW.
I showed you where YHWH has the exact same flexibility with your retarded logic. YHWH is Aaron according to you lmao
>Good for them.
I showed you Jesus saying it too in the link I provided earlier. He's using the word "προφήτης (prophētēs)" and this is used for other prophets too https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_4396.htm
>Cool. Now say "Christ is God."
Are you saying Jesus is not Christ? I already mentioned that here >>17866372 for Jesus
>>17866588
The only difference is you accept one and not the other. You cannot refute me which is why you resort to ad hominem. Man Christians are so easy

>>17866604
Afraid huh? I will bite to calm you down.

>As an agent he can accept and redirect
Yeah this is called idolatry and it's a big no-no.
>YHWH has teh exact same flexibility
Not in the slightest. Aaron is quoting YHWH and then saying he (Aaron) will lift a staff. Nowhere does Aaron "accept" anything for YHWH and if you worshipped Aaron here to "redirect it" to YWHW you would be stoned.
>Crowds said "prophētēs"
Good for them.
>> say "Christ is God."
>But I said "Christ is God [with a bunch of disclaimers]"
Nice! Say "Christ is God."
>Paul says the Law OF COMMANDMENTS is abolished and another (fulfilled) takes its placed
>This totally contradicts Christ who said he will fulfill the Law
Brother you almost had me believing you know what you're talking about when you started deflecting to Elohim, which is actually a controversial piece of Biblical jargon but now it is so clear you're just using stock arguments that you don't understand in the slightest lmaooo

Show me where someone explicitly takes YHWH's praise or admit Jesus is YWHW.

>>17866623
>Jesus was an idolater because he redirects the praise to the one he is acting on behalf of.
Nope! He does it even here Mark 10:18
>Aaron is quoting YHWH
bwahaha, YHWH literally says I will do it in the first person, then orders Moses to tell Aaron the commandment, then Aaron actually does it. Aaron is telling Moses to give him a message from YHWH that he already knows? The christian brain is more of a mystery than the trinity it seems
>still insisting on crowds
I said Jesus you liar. But no of course you know better than him, his disciples and the people that saw him right?
>with a bunch of disclaimers
Yep! Because you have exposed your dishonesty I know exactly how you will twist the words and so they will never go away. Thanks for exposing your deception,
>useless posturing to get away from listening to a man that Goes against his deity
even James disagrees with you

>>17866452
>can use the same argument
It is false because it would put them in direct disagreement with the Bible. Men and women are equal in front of God in nature, not in authority.
>feminists invented by Christians
It is an oxymoron, no Christian can be a feminist. They can claim to be Christian but they severely misunderstand Christianity.
>makes you right and not them
The authority of the Catholic church which opposed secularism in the Fourth Lateran Council and in Pope Pius IX’s encyclical, “Syllabus of Errors”. They must actually prove they are Christian.
>nothing that they teach demands a dictator
If theoretically everyone was in favor it wouldn’t need a dicatorship. But it eventually needs it to make progress, if they get disrupted by elections every few years they cannot progress.
Don’t communists oppose liberal democracy either way because it is controlled by interest groups?
Maybe it can work in an illiberal democracy.
Besides, apostles sharing between them and the laity is not the same as a government taking it by force.

>>17866604
>>17866539
These are terrible readings of St. Paul.
Your first objection has no meaning.
>Ephesians 2:8-9
Did you bother reading verse 10?
>John 3:5
Being born of God or being adopted by God? Do these contradict each other or does any nullify the other?
>Romans 4
St. Paul writes in Titus 3:5 that we are saved through sanctification, an infusion of righteousness. Romans 4 refers to the initial phase of justification, you have to believe at first, you have no works to offer. He also criticizes works that attempt to put God in debt, not good works.
>Galatians 3:12
He is referring to the works of the ceremonial law, not the moral law.
>Romans 7
Did you read verse 12 and 13?
>John 14
It does not contradict Romans 5. If God did not love you when you were a sinner he would not send his only son to be tortured and crucified for you. Jesus says he came for the sinners.
>Romans 10
Confession with your mouth and believing is not easy.
>Matthew 5
Jesus is refering to the moral law remaining, in verse 17 he refers specifically to the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law.
>till all be fulfilled
St. Paul freely switches between the Moral and Ceremonial law when he uses the term “law”. The law passing is the ceremonial one not the moral law.
>verse 19
By the law St. Paul is referring to the ceremonial one.

>>17866661
(I’m not the same anon you replied to)
>Mark 10:18
Jesus was testing him. Jesus himself called himself the good shepherd.
I saw you were talking about agency earlier.
God’s name is in the angel of the Lord (Exodus 23:21-24), there is glory ascribed to God’s name (1 Chronicles 16:29, Psalm 96:8, Psalm 29:2). By sharing his name with the angel, he is sharing his name’s glory with him, but he gives his glory to no other (Isaiah 42:8). The angel also is not a creature, as Moses saw no *form* from the bush at Horeb (Deuteronomy 4:15), angel in this context is a title and not a creature. The angel is also referred to as God’s presence (Exodus 33:2, 14). Therefore, the angel is not a mere agent but God himself.

>>17865289
>Muslim morality says good is what god says is good
This is largely true of mainstream Sunni but not Shia theology. Ironically not true of Salafis either

>>17864294 (OP)
Did the world really need a final prophet to tell us to drink camel piss, make it legal to beat our wives, establish slavery as a universal legal institution and practice, and legalize having sex with prepubescent children?
Was all of this garbage really necessary?
REALLY
REALLY
REALLY
ABSOLUTELY
VITAL
AND
NECESSARY?
Would the world be worse if no one ever engaged in any of those actions/activities, let alone codified them into law for all humanity?

>>17867771
>It is false because it would put them in direct disagreement with the Bible.
That's just a matter of interpretation and so it's you vs them. There are Christian feminist women who still think their husbands are the man of the household for example
>no Christian can be a feminist
No true Scotsman? The fact is people who claimed to be Christian invented feminism. And you're saying it's false because someone (You) who claims to be Christian as well says they were wrong.
>They must actually prove they are Christian.
The same applies to you. Your Church being granted ultimate authority is just a dogmatic belief and not something that has been demonstrated.
>If theoretically everyone was in favor it wouldn’t need a dicatorship
Well yes that's precisely what I mean. However the reason they often fell into dictatorships is because people don't want to just give up their resources to the state. It's just a practical tool they employed to get to their ideal state which does not require dictatorships in and of itself
>>17867829
>Jesus was testing him.
St Justin Martyr thinks God was simply referring to the Father alone like I am saying. I am not implying that Jesus is sharing anything of the sort here, that would be literal shirk and is thus the worst form of blasphemy.
>The angel also is not a creature, as Moses saw no *form* from the bush at Horeb (Deuteronomy 4:15)
That doesn't follow, we believe God was not literally in the bush (he doesn't get contained by creation), he can simply project his speech however he sees fit. That being said I still don't see how this refutes the concept of divine agency for Moses and Aaron. It's just another instance where God can represent himself but it doesn't mean he cannot have others represent him ever, even as God or to do the actions of YHWH specifically. I will reply to the rest when I get back inshaallah