Questions on Christianity

[FrisianDude]

But does that mean they are more likely to be the true faith, or not? Is that evidence for, or against the validity of Islam?

Neither. Actually, it isn't even evidence. I merely wanted to point out that Christianity has had a longer while to lose some of the repressiveness.

 

[pentagathus]

Creationists, I'd wager. And well, the Islam was founded in around 680 A.D. if I recall correctly, so their religion is around 1320 years old. When Christianity was 1320 years old, around, let's say 1430 A.D. for ease it was quite a spot more repressive than it is now. Maybe that's what one ought to compare it to?

Yes but right now Islam is more repressive than Christianity.

But does that mean they are more likely to be the true faith, or not? Is that evidence for, or against the validity of Islam?

No but wouldn't you rather beleive in the more free alternative?

 

[pesja]

Ah, I was aiming it at Pentagathus. But you marked out my point, neither is evicende. If you wan't validity you can't pick religions after how nice it is. You have to look at the facts. Frankly there are none, for either side. Some pickle, uh?

@Pentagathus (again) As stated, this was a question about which religion is the right one. Why go around believing in a religion that isn't true, just because it's nice? Can't you just write down you own guidelines and follow them? Couldn't get nicer than that?

 

[FrisianDude]

Yes but right now Islam is more repressive than Christianity.

Then Christianity at the moment, sure. That could be.

 

[Almalexia]

Yes but right now Islam is more repressive than Christianity.

Then Christianity at the moment, sure. That could be.

Well, depends on where you look at Islam. For example if you wen't to see, say... Afghanistan, or Pakistan, is certaintly would be more repressive. On the other hand if you were to go to Turkey, or France, or the USA, it would be more free. Of course, they might be a bit more suspicious than the Christians right now, as, at least around here, it isn't uncommon for a mosque to be vandalized and its residents harassed.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

I'm going to make a stab at this:

Ask them if it's particularly self centric of themselves to think that an all powerful being would want to lavish its attention on earth humans, if yes, try to go for answers that don't involve holy texts, as those have a tendency to go in circles.

God was lonely and he wanted to create something he could love.

God gets lonely?

I would also like to know, how a reasonable religious person would tackle the problem the question of our place in the existence of the universe. It doesn't really seem to me that an all powerful would intentionally bring humans into the fold in such relatively frail bodies relative to a universe where even putting a naked human in a mildly harsh place would render such a being incapable of living very long let alone other planets and in space.

We have the capacity to clothes ourselves and build shelter.... I'm not really sure the point your trying to make

The point being is that we know for a fact that if we put a humam being, or any other organic being of earthly origins anywhere else in the universe that it will almost instantaneously or quickly die because of the environment. Is it not more reasonable to say that it would be more probable for life to have been an accident in a universe designed to be devoid of it?

Perhaps if one of their driving factors into believing in the Christian sacred texts is for the metaphorical meanings, would they seeing an act of reading other sacred texts an offence to their beliefs? If they assume the compilers of the Bible were doing it in genuine belief that they are doing a good thing, then it has to be also assumed that the other prophets and compilers/writers of the sacred texts belonging to other religions would be also be doing it because they also believe that they are genuinely doing good/God's work.
It's not an invitation or converting effort, but if they are into religion for spiritual purposes only, perhaps they could broaden the horizon and get accounts of God from different sources and perspectives?

There is tons of...selective evidence on why the bible is right, its also a test of faith.

Is faith to religion or to the finding of the nature of God? Besides, I'm pretty sure there's quite a lot an educated Muslim can come up with to show the Qu'ran to be true just as well as the Bible, or any other religious person and their religion.

Also, the problem of evil is always a good conversational topic, though people who are either incredibly devout or not up to the task of explaining or thinking about the subject would get a little flustered in my experience. Changing the subject with a sex joke is a good way to diverge of that beaten path is it's not going well.

Without evil their could be no free will.

Are you saying that an all powerful being can't create a world in which it is impossible to have choice without evil?

 

[macethump]

Are you saying that an all powerful being can't create a world in which it is impossible to have choice without evil?

Frankly, yes.  Making a choice requires at least two different things to choose among.  Only one "choice" sounds more like Soviet Russia.  In this case, the choices appear to be opposites and diametrically opposed.  Real choices require real consequences.

 

[pentagathus]

Ah, I was aiming it at Pentagathus. But you marked out my point, neither is evicende. If you wan't validity you can't pick religions after how nice it is. You have to look at the facts. Frankly there are none, for either side. Some pickle, uh?

@Pentagathus (again) As stated, this was a question about which religion is the right one. Why go around believing in a religion that isn't true, just because it's nice? Can't you just write down you own guidelines and follow them? Couldn't get nicer than that?

That would require reasoning when choosing a religion and if that was the case no one would be religious. Either you were brought up with your religion and so choose that one or you choose the one you want to believe in (in most cases that might be an unconscious decision.)

 

[pesja]

And that was my whole point by telling him to ask them why their not muslims.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Are you saying that an all powerful being can't create a world in which it is impossible to have choice without evil?

Frankly, yes.  Making a choice requires at least two different things to choose among.  Only one "choice" sounds more like Soviet Russia.  In this case, the choices appear to be opposites and diametrically opposed.  Real choices require real consequences.

But by saying that you've implied that whatever the all powerful being is isn't all powerful, as it can't defy logical bounderies and make it so that choice doesn't necessarily require evil.

 

[pentagathus]

And that was my whole point by telling him to ask them why their not muslims.

And they will say that it's becuase they don't believe in Islam becuase it's false. There isn't much point in asking them.

 

[Kleidophoros]

Yes but right now Islam is more repressive than Christianity.

Then Christianity at the moment, sure. That could be.

Well, depends on where you look at Islam. For example if you wen't to see, say... Afghanistan, or Pakistan, is certaintly would be more repressive. On the other hand if you were to go to Turkey, or France, or the USA, it would be more free. Of course, they might be a bit more suspicious than the Christians right now, as, at least around here, it isn't uncommon for a mosque to be vandalized and its residents harassed.

You are all wrong. Whatever those dickheads do in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iran/France/Turkey, those dickheads/their actions do not represent Islam. Islam is not more repressive at X country, its not possible. Whats more repressive is the goverments.
Fiqh and the sharia is the issue here. Those douchebags can twist it as they see fit.

 

[captain lust]

is anyone going to answer all these questions?

I have some:

God wtf?

Thou shalt not kill. however, I will happily kill all the first born egyptian children. Isn't that a tad hypocrtical?

Why are there so many catholic paedophiles?

Also why are there christian gays? Christianity is explicitly anti-gay.

I will find the references if I have to.

 

[pesja]

And that was my whole point by telling him to ask them why their not muslims.

And they will say that it's becuase they don't believe in Islam becuase it's false. There isn't much point in asking them.

You could ask why it's false, and what gives christianity more validity. It's one of those traps you never really will get a good answer from, but hopefully it will make them think about it.

 

[macethump]

That would require reasoning when choosing a religion and if that was the case no one would be religious. Either you were brought up with your religion and so choose that one or you choose the one you want to believe in (in most cases that might be an unconscious decision.)

I resent that you assume religious people have abandoned reason.  That depends on their initial assumptions.  Given the tenuous scientific evidence backing most early universe assumptions, they need not be outlandish or extreme.  But they can lead logically to God's existence (vs. the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who has no written testament or recognizable impact on history or people's lives).

Manly's Maxim: Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.

 

[Almalexia]

Yes but right now Islam is more repressive than Christianity.

Then Christianity at the moment, sure. That could be.

Well, depends on where you look at Islam. For example if you wen't to see, say... Afghanistan, or Pakistan, is certaintly would be more repressive. On the other hand if you were to go to Turkey, or France, or the USA, it would be more free. Of course, they might be a bit more suspicious than the Christians right now, as, at least around here, it isn't uncommon for a mosque to be vandalized and its residents harassed.

You are all wrong. Whatever those dickheads do in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iran/France/Turkey, those dickheads/their actions do not represent Islam. Islam is not more repressive at X country, its not possible. Whats more repressive is the goverments.
Fiqh and the sharia is the issue here. Those douchebags can twist it as they see fit.

Where did I say they represent Islam. And really, you just said that Islamic law is more repressive in those regions. 

 

[macethump]

Are you saying that an all powerful being can't create a world in which it is impossible to have choice without evil?

Frankly, yes.  Making a choice requires at least two different things to choose among.  Only one "choice" sounds more like Soviet Russia.  In this case, the choices appear to be opposites and diametrically opposed.  Real choices require real consequences.

But by saying that you've implied that whatever the all powerful being is isn't all powerful, as it can't defy logical bounderies and make it so that choice doesn't necessarily require evil.

That's your assumption, based on a false premise.  God doesn't think like you or me, and if He really is all-powerful, what makes any of us think we can understand His mind?  You don't teach calculus to a toddler - they are not physically/mentally ready to understand it.  Personally, I believe that we were suddenly able to understand God's mind our heads would explode!

 

[Almalexia]

The Fundamentalist issue with evolution makes perfect sense within the context of their theology. If evolution is a fact, only three conclusions can be drawn about the nature of God:

1. He doesn't exist.
2. He is imperfect (in that He set a process in motion the outcome of which He did not anticipate, or only envisioned in general terms).
3. He is a Prime Mover who set up the initial conditions of the universe in such a way that humans would inevitably evolve.


No. 1 is obviously unacceptable. No. 2 undermines the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent God. No. 3 denies the existence of free will, and therefore contradicts the whole personal choice/accept Jesus into your heart basis to Fundamentalist theology.

The Catholic response seems to be "The Church says evolution is OK, so evolution is OK. Take it on faith, don't think about it too much and don't worry about it." The Catholics don't have ther same problem with predestination that Protestants do.

Personally, I opt for No. 2.

Yanked this from a certain fellow from Fark.

OP, if you ever need arguments against religion, stroll on over to here: http://www.fark.com/

They are bigots, trolls, and atheists to the last, but damnit, the make me proud. As there is about a religious thread... daily, you should find some good ones. Look out though: there is a higher density of trolls, and clever ones at that, than any other site in the interwebs.

 

[Kleidophoros]

Where did I say they represent Islam?

Here

Well, depends on where you look at Islam. For example if you wen't to see, say... Afghanistan, or Pakistan, is certaintly would be more repressive. On the other hand if you were to go to Turkey, or France, or the USA, it would be more free.

It depends on which goverments you look.

And really, you just said that Islamic law is more repressive in those regions. 

No i said

Islam is not more repressive at X country, its not possible. Whats more repressive is the goverments.  Fiqh and the sharia is the issue here. Those douchebags can twist it as they see fit.

 

[Almalexia]

Really, thats like saying Protestantism and Orthodoxy aren't part of Christianity. As much as the Catholics would like to deny it, they're there, and have a sizable amount of followers as well.