How good is good enough to get to Heaven?

[Sha'irullah]

9. God applies Christ's perfect record to our account when we are born again. He applies our sinful account to Christ and his wrath was poured out for it and on it in full.

Yeshua is our whipping boy essentially. God requires a whipping boy to be placed on our record. Yahweh must love torturing his son yet you have issues with Muhammad somehow.
God an all powerful being is so ritual and requires all of this nonsense to seemingly care about us? WHY must he care about us? He could create us and make us perfect and sinless yet he creates us with sinful natures and rebellious ones at that and requires our belief in his errant Bible for us to achieve salvation. Why is god this complex and convoluted? Why do you require an unhistorical, mythological, and violent book to be taken so literally? I love the Tawrat or Tanakh to be more specific, I love the Hindu scriptures and I love the Qur'an but the Gospels and the new Testament together are beyond ridiculous. I give equivalence of the Injil to Homer's The Iliad, they are both mythological in nature and have the same sort of stories. I believe The Iliad is more of a holy book than the New Testament.
God had a son? Hindu gods have sons and actually participate in sex. I do not mean to disgrace the Dharmic adherents but the Gospel fits in well. It has stories of hell and vengeance, love, mercy, and death all in 4 books. Read a little further and we get prophetic statement about the end times also. The Bible is a book of myths and it is a book of good myths and I actually and honestly love them as I do the Qur'an. The difference is the Qur'an is actually more informative than the Bible.
And despite its mythology, it makes more sense and is surprisingly less violent than the Covenant of Old.

10. I am now legally perfect and able to coexist with a perfect God. His wrath was perfectly satisfied so his absolute justice was served in the way he demanded it to be.

Coexist yet you are still imperfect. How does Jesus dying for your sins make you perfect? Why does god need retribution? Why does god require for you to be "symbolically" free of sin? God is a literal being you say yet when you speak of salvation you describe it as a law book. God does not need to abide by laws, he is god. God is all powerful, Yahweh is not all powerful, he is not omnipotent.
Judges 1:19, god could not even help his own people.

"Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."-
You claim Jesus is god yet this happens. You claim the trinity is divine unity so I should judge all 3 equally.

Hebrews 5:8 Jesus forgets so does god then.

Genesis 6:5-6 God REGRETS creating man. He has made error then.


In Islam God hand waves sin away and his justice is never served in full. In Islam I can earn what every prophet that could actually demonstrate his prophet hood declared was impossible. If you remember nothing else I have ever said please remember this. Christianity alone demands and offers to every believer at the introduction to faith absolute proof of all of this in the form of a spiritual experience with him directly that literally accomplishes what I have described and leaves no doubt. No other religion in human history offers that. No false religion should survive the cradle that demanded and offered that but could not deliver it. That is the very very last thing you would ever do if inventing a lie is offer proof to everyone upfront. Islam doesn't nor any of the other false theologies in history, and you will not know the mistake until it is too late to adjust your thinking.

A god who cannot even preserve his book and makes mistakes is claiming for us to believe in him.
You are aware these "false theologies" like Sanatana Dharma predate Christian by a good 7,000 years last I recall. Why was Yahweh absent then ?

I will burn in hell despite the fact that it is not existent in the Tanakh and was introduced in the Bible later on. It also comes from Gehinnom which if you don't know its original meaning I suggest you study it and you derive a pagan concept such as Hades and Tartarus. This does not sound suspicious to you?
I do not need to give specifics here, I am not that strong of a debater.

No, universalism is an official but false doctrine that Christ saved everyone whether they agree or not. It is universal in that it is available to all but not in that sense I mentioned. I was countering the doctrine by that name not the word.

You must have been confused then. I was referring to the eligibility of salvation meaning ANYBODY can be saved, as long as they accept Jesus Christ. I was not stating that everybody goes to heaven, quite the opposite.

Both those are absolutely wrong. What are you? One minute it's yeah Islam, the next boo Islam, in another it's Christianity, at another it's secular humanism. I must know so I can find common ground to debate on.

I have never been associated with Christianity or any other religion on my duration on this forum. You just assumed I was a Muslim for some reason.
I am not a Muslim nor am I a humanist. I despise humanism yet alone secular humanism, a lot. I have actually stated my religious affiliation multiple times very clearly.

Since I can't even begin to guess what Islamiyyah is as I have never heard of it and do not have time to check into it at the moment let's just say at this time I disagree with your take on justification in Islam.

Islamiyyah means within Islam. I do not justify Islam as I am not affiliated with it. I also have studied it and the Qur'an in canonical form so I am significantly more knowledgeable about it then you considering the fact I have practiced it in my past for quite some time. It left a big size hilal on my heart though .

You are right. I assumed any concept you said is the only logical concept if you believe in Hell was also one you agreed with. I then thought I might be wrong at first in this post and then you seem to swing me the other way. Maybe you should give me the basics of what you actually do believe as this has been very confusing and would have been for Newton.

You believe that I am a Muslim which seems to be the issue. I am a deist so do not like dogma of any kind. I am INSPIRED by the Qur'an and have been an ex-Muslim and failed Hindu in the past. My theological inspiration is without a doubt Qur'anic which is rather obvious because I have very Islamiyyah traits about me. I am probably the only Muslim on this forum who has any understanding of Arabic whatsoever and has understood the first 18 Surah in Arabic from Al Fatiha to al-Khaf.
I do not believe in hell just the laws of reason and science. I have been battling you about hell mocking its existence yet you for some reason believe I accept its existence somehow as you are under the constant impression I adhere to Islam. I can assure you that I am not Muslim and have walked away from it a long while ago. I love the title Muslim and I enjoy Islam and I often use the status in a harmless mocking fashion because of its etymology. I believe god to be all knowing and all logical and I submit and surrender only to such so by all means I am a mus'lima al-l'haqi, a submitter to the truth. But I do not identify with Islamic creed or dogma of any kind.

I hope you can salvage some coherence from this road trip because you sound liek an intelligent (even if a little sensitive) debater.

I am far from sensitive. I have no motivation to implore my sensitivity to be involved in these discussions. I'm distant if anything but the issue is that you continuously look at me as if I am of a religion of some kind.

 

[1robin]

I am referring to the concept as well. I thought you were referring to the symbol . I a, not basing this assumption from pure logic of god but of pure logic on what is "just and fair".

Well the context we are discussing has God in it. The notions of fair or just to a fallible and finite mind are in many cases not consistent with God's. I find the Biblical salvation model far more sophisticated, explanatory, comprehensive, of the type that a God would invent, and infinitely more consistent with a unfathomable love no other method has. I find the scales model to be of the type a finite man's mind would invent and to resemble the way humans do things, not God. It also causes grave injustice and nonsense when applied.

The Qur'an sways and differs very often. But it makes numerous exceptions for whom Allah(swt) allows into heaven.

The Qurans claims about who gets into heaven are ambiguous and erratic. It seems the only sure way to get into heaven is to die as a martyr. Even Muhammad said he did not know if he would make it. Any prophet that can't know he is going to heaven is disqualified to tell anyone else how. It also is a system that gives NO assurance of your status. This means you may guess wrong but will not have any way to know until too late (not a Godlike system). It also means you should never be bold in teaching others without even knowing if you got it right. (The editorial you)

I am hoping your argument is not based purely from dogma.

My argument is made from scriptures found in the most studied and cherished book in human history.

Agreed. That is why I do not believe in the concept of heaven. If god ever thought about mankind he would only regard us as dirt or slaves. God is beyond perfect and perfection cannot be obtained by mankind so I do not believe in salvation of any kind. The only salvation we have is to accept that god is not concerned with us enough to even allow us in his presence yet alone have a religion erected for our benefit.

A truly loving God could love even dirt and change into into something worthy of inclusion in heaven. You are describing deism (which has it's own laundry list of drastic problems and inconsistencies). I do not subscribe.

I do not believe god is loving. He is logical although I would assume him to have emotion but I would not assume god to consistently act upon it like us mortals. I do not believe god interferes with mankind's lives and is above this universe, the dimensions within it, and all other planes of existence known and unknown to mankind. The immensity of this world is far too large for god to consider us special. We are just grains of salt in the ever expanding cosmos.

This is the very dogma you were afraid I would use. There is no evidence in your statements but simply preference. We have a Bible and this issue would probably be better settled in a debate about the reliability or truth of the Bible. If you are a deist then commenting on heaven is no really in your field of endeavor.

WELL AGREED.

Ok

I do not pray(supplicate), participate in ceremonies, perform incantations (although reciting Qur'an counts to some degree), or anything else although I do worship god only because he is worthy of it and I expect nothing in return. God would not answer my prayers simply because I believe that a spiritual being would not worry about the physical. If god did then why would he help a "saved man" on earth if he dies and goes to heaven anyways?

What is the point in worshiping a God who does not care? Who gains? That is one of the most incoherent acts I can possibly think of. You have dogmatically stated what you think many times but you have as of yet never posted a reason that what you think is true.

Again, I do not believe god would care about us mortals and our issues on this small little planet. You are vain and conceited to think god an all-powerful being would be so interested in us. Do you know how worthless we are compared to vast expanding universe?

This is one of the most bizarre claims I have ever heard. There is absolutely nothing vain about believing there is a God and I have failed him utterly. There exists no greater crime or indictment even theoretically possible. The very first thing a person must do to become a Christian is to admit that he has rebelled and hated the very embodiment of love. Name anything more humiliating. There is nothing vain in thinking God created us for a purpose. I did not say that there must be a God because we are so important. I said there is a God and therefore we are important but undeserving. You got some wires body crossed here.

Did you know that Proxima Centauri, the closest star to earth takes 4.3 years for its light to reach us? One of the furthest stars known as S Andromeda takes 2.6 million years to reach us. Do you really believe we are that important? Do you truly believe that we are so important that the universe is designed to support our insignificant existence?

Importance is not a distance factor. What in the world does the proximity of random celestial bodies have to do with God's love for us? Do you love a child less when he is in a stadium than when he is in your home? Is the argument that God does not love me because things are big make any sense on any level?
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

This is entirely pagan of influence with no further explanation. God does not work in symbolism if you believe he exist.

That is why he sent an actual being to save us and not a picture of him.

Why is Yahweh so petty and insecure that he needs to send his son to die for us?

Only a committed critic could change “God so loved the world that he gave his only son” into pettiness and insecurity. This is at the core of what is wrong with so many accusations against the Bible. Your are using a broken, faulty, and very finite mind to rewrite the words and entire contexts of a perfect one. This is an ant telling Newton his fundamental definition of a limit is wrong. The one place by which you are even aware of this concept records that God (the being most capable of knowing) did this for the sake of love and as a demonstration of his character. You for whatever reason simply do like this concept and so you repackage it in a way that bears no resemblance to the context the actual events come with nor any reality at all. They are merely packaging the only use of which is to allow dismissal. Not one word you wrote can be applied to the concept in the context it comes with. One of the many ingenious reason God chose this act is that it is the greatest conceivable act of love possible. For the son of God to die to save those that nailed him to the cross has no parallel even possible. There is no better demonstration of love available even in the theoretical. We give medals, awards, commendations, and build museums to the pitiful substitute examples of this done by men. It is only the rabid critique that can turn around and condemn the same act in God. This is not reason or logic it is preference at any and all costs.

Is he full of guilt perhaps?

Speculation devoid of evidence of any kind is the realm of critiques not theologians.

He had to sacrifice his own son as a sign of pity yet still cast us off into the hellfire because he is pity. Yahweh sounds mighty confused if you ask me.

No he did not have to. He could have been as cold, unloving, and distant as the God you describe and let the chaos and injustice of man destroy mankind. The Bible (the place where you get the story from) says he chose to as an act of absolute love.

Do you claim that Jesus is god incarnate or the son of god by the way?

I lean toward a Trinity concept. However I determined long ago it simply does not matter for salvation. I must do the exact same thing if the trinity is true as if it is not to get to heaven. It is a secondary issue.

It does not matter regardless since however you look at it the Injil declares polytheism and justifies it by claiming monotheism without rationality or justification.

When someone actually produces an injil then I will evaluate its claims. Currently it is a word only.

Jesus is a lamb, meaning he is meant to be slaughtered.

That is a title describing a role not essence. He is also the lion of Judah and the King of the universe.

I could not agree anymore with a man who could not run or have the common sense to avoid troubling the Pharisees and then get himself crucified.

That is a preference not an argument.

I doubt the authenticity of the crucifixion which is obvious and I out rightfully deny Jesus was god in the flesh or god's son. This is not a Hellenic mythology, well it is because it is a Greek story hence the Septuagint. Jesus is tempted by Satan, prays to his father, forgets that trees do not bloom in the season, he weeps, becomes crucified, blinds a man (while ironically curing other blind men), and he kills his own friend as well as a child.

Then you deny what most NT scholars agree on from both sides. Almost all NT scholars agree on three points. Jesus appeared on the scene with a unparalleled sense of divine authority, he was crucified by Rome in Jerusalem, the tomb was found empty on Sunday after Passover. If you believe otherwise you did not get it from history. The last list of misunderstood issues would have to be dealt with one at a time. Pick your best and we can discuss it if you wish.

This does not sound like a god, it sounds like a mythological entity and fits perfectly with the Olympians and Zeus's numerous demigod sons.

No it does not. Parallelism is about the worst explanation for the Bible possible. 1st century Israel had long ago learned to stop "whoring" after other God's. At this time they ruthlessly fought any outside theological influence even hinted at. Even Jews who got a few scripture wrong were banished like the Essenes. In fact most migrated to Arabia and their heretical texts wound up I the Quran. I have defended the Bible against quite a few of these parallel claims and they are all ridiculous and do not survive the slightest challenge. Pick your favorite and I will demonstrate.

We entered heaven beforehand apparently. Jesus did not appear at the beginning of mankind and considering Noah's drunkenness and ironic simultaneous holiness I am surprised. He was more than impure yet I am sure you will tell me he is in heaven. Yahweh changed his mind? Again. Yahweh changes his mind often it appears as I see it all throughout the Bible.

I do not get the first two sentences. Jesus did however exist at the beginning. Biblical holiness is a legal issue that comes from faith not perfect behavior. I did not get the last few statements either. I was expecting much more than a preference driven dogmatic position which uses obfuscation to justify itself. Maybe it is still coming.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Important questions are highlighted in red so you can answer my primary questions and excuse my cynical sarcasm but its my only way of expression

Well the context we are discussing has God in it. The notions of fair or just to a fallible and finite mind are in many cases not consistent with God's. I find the Biblical salvation model far more sophisticated, explanatory, comprehensive, of the type that a God would invent, and infinitely more consistent with a unfathomable love no other method has. I find the scales model to be of the type a finite man's mind would invent and to resemble the way humans do things, not God. It also causes grave injustice and nonsense when applied.

You must really have no mind beyond the Bible. Being judged equally on your deeds whether the acknowledgement of a god is selfish vanity on God's part and far from fair. I would not even consider this debatable.

The Qurans claims about who gets into heaven are ambiguous and erratic. It seems the only sure way to get into heaven is to die as a martyr. Even Muhammad said he did not know if he would make it. Any prophet that can't know he is going to heaven is disqualified to tell anyone else how. It also is a system that gives NO assurance of your status. This means you may guess wrong but will not have any way to know until too late (not a Godlike system). It also means you should never be bold in teaching others without even knowing if you got it right. (The editorial you)

Muhammad never stated himself that he did not know whether he would achieve jannah. Please provide proper ayah in the Qur'an to testify this. Keep in mind that his name is not mentioned in the Qur'an a significant amount of times. I know for a fact Muhammad would never claim such.

A truly loving God could love even dirt and change into into something worthy of inclusion in heaven. You are describing deism (which has it's own laundry list of drastic problems and inconsistencies). I do not subscribe.

Deism has no inconsistencies because no form of deism is the same. Using logic is not inconsistent it is superior. As deists we do not know everything about god, we do not believe in prophecies. We believe that a god of some kind exists and that is it.
So please state to me how deism is "inconsistent" with itself if it has no laws except a few.

This is the very dogma you were afraid I would use. There is no evidence in your statements but simply preference. We have a Bible and this issue would probably be better settled in a debate about the reliability or truth of the Bible. If you are a deist then commenting on heaven is no really in your field of endeavor.

The fact you believe I am afraid of your dogma is quite an understatement, you should be afraid of rationality. Dogma is the words of another man, they have no meaning if they do not apply to a certain person and I am such a certain person. The fact that the Bible ha sno truth is obvious along with the fact that is is a corrupted copy of the tanakh is obvious. In the age of enlightenment not even Christians themselves subscribe to the views placed by the Bible. It is irrelevant in this day and age.
My preference stems from personal understanding of god and not dogma which is obvious despite any Islamic influence I may have. I do not even accept the notion that god cares so much about us he gives us a paradise to abide in, the most logical answer I have ever concluded is that...
A. He would be cast our consciousness in another universe to be reincarnated.
B. He casts us all into Hell or an empty void of some sorts.
C. He enslaves us like serfs so we can attend to him for eternity like lowly varlets.

That is my personal opinion although the third one is more of a joke, although still VERY plausible.

What is the point in worshiping a God who does not care? Who gains? That is one of the most incoherent acts I can possibly think of. You have dogmatically stated what you think many times but you have as of yet never posted a reason that what you think is true.

I never said he does not care, I said he has no reason to intervene. Worship is the act of selflessly adoring a higher being, that is it. I am the only person who achieves anything from it which is spiritual peace. I cannot describe it but if you ever believed that god is not a Cosmic Sky Daddy who answers the prayer of his demented excuse for "children " you would understand. Even in my theistic days I never asked god for anything because I found it useless of him to answer the prayers of a "saved" man. He is god not Santa Claus.

This is one of the most bizarre claims I have ever heard. There is absolutely nothing vain about believing there is a God and I have failed him utterly. There exists no greater crime or indictment even theoretically possible. The very first thing a person must do to become a Christian is to admit that he has rebelled and hated the very embodiment of love. Name anything more humiliating.

You believe god finds you so important that you have failed himt obeginw ith. You just rectified the basis of my argument. You believe god EXPECTS something from us. HE IS GOD! he expects nothing from you! When I was a Muslim years ago I was always told that one could never expect to offer Allah anything in return but your submission because there is literally nothing we can give him since it belongs to him. No wonder I choose Islam over Christianity since I did not like such vain selfish thinking. It entirely ruins the purpose of having a god.
The verse you see as my signature is from the Qur'an. it is one of the few ayah I can recite form memory that is beyond al-Khaf. It reads..
"Wama khalaqtu al-jinnah wal-Insa illa liya'abudni"
"Ma uridoo min'hum min riz'kwin wama uridoo an-yut'a'imuni"
"In'na Al'laha huwa al-razak'hoo dhoo al-qu'wati al-mateen"

Meaning...
"I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship me."
"I do not want from them any possession, nor do I want they feed me."
"Indeed, it is Allah who is the Giver/Provider(never clear on that word), the possessor of power and strength."

It is special because it affirms my idea of god. You concept of god is weak and full of fallibility while mines it not. How can god expect anything of his weakest most rebellious creation to ever understand him? How can you "fail god"? Obviously I cannot my fail my god since he is beyond comprehension and no book can understand him only rational thought, and even that comes short.

There is nothing vain in thinking God created us for a purpose. I did not say that there must be a God because we are so important. I said there is a God and therefore we are important but undeserving. You got some wires body crossed here.

God created a speck of dust for a purpose? Yes that is very logical. We cannot even help ourselves from creating so much death that we could destroy our planet 10 times over. I am confident that if we had any purpose it would be to annihilate ourselves and take everyone other creature along with us.
Why is it that a scientifically proven worthless creation is so important to the universe? If we died this instant not a single star in the vast heavens above would shed a tear. You believe god created us for a purpose yet we are so unpurposeful physically so you must believe that we have purpose spiritually. Does god need company? Is he lonely perhaps? Maybe I understand your logic.
You believe god must create a system of jurisprudence to judge mankind to be symbolically fit to live with him forever in eternity because he is an old man with a white beard who is very lonely.
We can only have a spiritual significance if god created us for purpose since we contribute nothing to this world which is rather obvious.

We are biologically inferior as mere water Fleas have 8,000 more genes than we do and other varying life is beyond more complex than mankind can ever be. Being the most "smartest" is no achievement considering the fact that numerous creatures have outlived us even during our evolutionary period and one of which is sharks which have evolved practically none and have never require any major biological change. A creature so perfectly evolved yet has barely evolved to begin with is more superior than us physically.
So ruling out any beneficial physical purpose we could have it must be spiritual.
So what is that spiritual significance we have for god to create us for a purpose?

Importance is not a distance factor. What in the world does the proximity of random celestial bodies have to do with God's love for us? Do you love a child less when he is in a stadium than when he is in your home? Is the argument that God does not love me because things are big make any sense on any level?
Continued below:

I am metaphorically and literally providing you an example of how insignificant we are compared to the entire cosmos. There is nothing special about us. You believe in such because of our biological instinct to survive which is understandable and very natural. But theoretically and scientifically speaking there is more life elsewhere in the galaxy then there is here and probably more advanced. So by comparing us to all known existence I can reinforce the fact we have no significance PHYSICALLY.

 

[Sha'irullah]

That is why he sent an actual being to save us and not a picture of him.

You have pictures of him all the time. Christianity is equally as idolatrous as Sanatana Dharma.

Only a committed critic could change “God so loved the world that he gave his only son” into pettiness and insecurity. This is at the core of what is wrong with so many accusations against the Bible. Your are using a broken, faulty, and very finite mind to rewrite the words and entire contexts of a perfect one. This is an ant telling Newton his fundamental definition of a limit is wrong. The one place by which you are even aware of this concept records that God (the being most capable of knowing) did this for the sake of love and as a demonstration of his character. You for whatever reason simply do like this concept and so you repackage it in a way that bears no resemblance to the context the actual events come with nor any reality at all. They are merely packaging the only use of which is to allow dismissal. Not one word you wrote can be applied to the concept in the context it comes with. One of the many ingenious reason God chose this act is that it is the greatest conceivable act of love possible. For the son of God to die to save those that nailed him to the cross has no parallel even possible. There is no better demonstration of love available even in the theoretical. We give medals, awards, commendations, and build museums to the pitiful substitute examples of this done by men. It is only the rabid critique that can turn around and condemn the same act in God. This is not reason or logic it is preference at any and all costs.

A god who created the universe and yet he is only love? He has to send his son down to earth instead of revealing himself to save us from hell which he created in the first place and will cast us in. Very logical :no:.
I do not repackage this concept of god and his love to the context of the events that happened by using the Bible. The Bible can say that humans fly or the moon revolves around the sun but it does not change anything. The Bible can say god sent his son to earth as a sign of love but it does not change the fact it is idiotic too many and unloving to create hell.
The greatest demonstration of love is not god sending his son, it is god sending himself and dying for us. If I wanted to save you from getting hit by bullets I will throw my wife, son or daughter to save you which obviously proves how much I love you. Does not say much for my character though considering I use my own family. You say Jesus is the son of god yet you pray to him and you also say Jesus is god incarnate yet Jesus can die meaning god can die meaning your god is not remotely powerful or praise worthy. Either way you look at it, it stands on a point of illogicality and displays your god as childish at least and legalistic at most. But if god is writing these laws why is he abiding by them? Why is he so restricted that he cannot save us all from hellfire?
This is not love, this is called a scam and control. The thought of god being such a petty coward that he cannot send himself to us as a sign of love to die or even if he sent his son would only make him a coward or an unpowerful being. It is a lose/lose situation here.
The fact that I can think and rationalize your scripture is aggravating to you and I can tell. I have nothing holding me back.

Speculation devoid of evidence of any kind is the realm of critiques not theologians.

The evidence is in the Bible.

No he did not have to. He could have been as cold, unloving, and distant as the God you describe and let the chaos and injustice of man destroy mankind. The Bible (the place where you get the story from) says he chose to as an act of absolute love.

I do not view my perception of god as unjust or unloving. I just do not think that a spiritual being would be overly concerned with a physical world designed for physical creatures. THIS IS OUR WORLD and it was meant for us and whatever is in it. I do not think that god would interfere in this world if it is truly meant for us and he would only be interested in the spirit since to most religious views and my ow the spirit is more powerful. It is just needless of god to interfere. It is not a matter of him being loving or just.

I lean toward a Trinity concept. However I determined long ago it simply does not matter for salvation. I must do the exact same thing if the trinity is true as if it is not to get to heaven. It is a secondary issue.

Then what does matter for salvation? You cannot ignore the trinity despite the fact I have ripped it apart and I am not the first nor am I the best.

When someone actually produces an injil then I will evaluate its claims. Currently it is a word only.

Injil is the Gospel, sorry about using that word. It is a habit, but the Gospil is Matthew Mark Luke and John if I recall properly.

That is a title describing a role not essence. He is also the lion of Judah and the King of the universe.

I am well of aware of the title. It is like how Christians claim Allah is a moon god when they don't understand simple Arabic to know that Allah is a title as well given to any god in Arabic.

That is a preference not an argument.

But it is a good one.

Then you deny what most NT scholars agree on from both sides. Almost all NT scholars agree on three points. Jesus appeared on the scene with a unparalleled sense of divine authority, he was crucified by Rome in Jerusalem, the tomb was found empty on Sunday after Passover. If you believe otherwise you did not get it from history. The last list of misunderstood issues would have to be dealt with one at a time. Pick your best and we can discuss it if you wish.

You are avoiding the topic. You are dodging because you have no argument. I do not care about Jesus's mythical reports from scholars since I would not accept them anyways.

If you believe otherwise you did not get it from history.

The Bible is not history so this yet again proves you are incapable of thinking without using a Bible and I am still sitting here arguing with you on my own will and mental power which god gave me. This goes to show how much harder it is for me to debate since I have to come up with an inspirational idea on my own accord. I do not have a mythical book to guide me.

No it does not. Parallelism is about the worst explanation for the Bible possible. 1st century Israel had long ago learned to stop "whoring" after other God's. At this time they ruthlessly fought any outside theological influence even hinted at. Even Jews who got a few scripture wrong were banished like the Essenes. In fact most migrated to Arabia and their heretical texts wound up I the Quran. I have defended the Bible against quite a few of these parallel claims and they are all ridiculous and do not survive the slightest challenge. Pick your favorite and I will demonstrate.

Perennialism is the proper word and it is viewed as the best. The Bible was in Greek because it was written by Greeks. The Taurah was in Hebrew since it was written by Hebrews. Qur'an was in Arabic because it was written down by Arabs (although spoken by a Bedu).
So many rejected books from the Bible and I have read most of them , I am quite proud of it obviously. Nobody knows what the Bible was since it is nothing more but a conglomeration of stories voted in by council. Does not sound Divinely Inspired at all. How on earth can it lead to salvation if it is put together in such a state?

I do not get the first two sentences. Jesus did however exist at the beginning. Biblical holiness is a legal issue that comes from faith not perfect behavior. I did not get the last few statements either. [/QUOTE]

Hell shan't exist nor did salvation. Noah was a drunkard according to the Bible or was just drunk during certain occasions last I recall. But regardless of this I am referring to the period before Christ where man lived in sin. What happened to them? Did god send them to hell since he did not have a salvation plan yet? Or did they go to heaven automatically despite the fact that you claim we must be pure to enter heaven.
I believe Yahweh ruined it for us since if he did let those who lived before Jesus enter heaven then obviously he was not so worried about sin and imperfection. So why require Jesus to be our saviour all of the sudden? God should not be changing his mind if he is the god you claim him to be.

I was expecting much more than a preference driven dogmatic position which uses obfuscation to justify itself. Maybe it is still coming.

Only confusion here is from you dodging questions. You cannot debate me because I have no dogma and I wondered why you never spent much time debating liberal theists or atheists yet felt free to debate me. You believed I was a Muslim this whole time and thought you could use dogma against dogma. You cannot think for yourself and cannot debate against a person who can. You treat religions like a legalistic law books and can only argue with them like a pair of lawyers using legalese

 

[1robin]

Yeshua is our whipping boy essentially. God requires a whipping boy to be placed on our record. Yahweh must love torturing his son yet you have issues with Muhammad somehow.

Yet again you simply re-label everything in any wrapper you need to invent or produce whatever effect is desired. God decided on this form of salvation. Because he is the only being in the equation which has anything to offer than can fix the situation. I can't earn my way to perfection. I am not perfect and now fit for heaven if my good deeds outweigh my bad. How in the Heck would that even work anyway? How many good X's equal how many bad Y's? How many good deeds fix murder? This is one weird discussion. You believe in something that you have no evidence for but you argue for a system you do not believe in and is logically absurd, yet you condemn the only system possible. I get confused where I fit in. What you consider up or not for debate is completely independent from what is debatable.

God an all-powerful being is so ritual

What does this even mean?

and requires all of this nonsense to seemingly care about us?

I do not think you have accurately understood a single Biblical concept so far. He cares about us without any of this. It is through that he chose to demonstrate it , among others.

WHY must he care about us?

I did not say he must I said he does.

He could create us and make us perfect and sinless yet he creates us with sinful natures and rebellious ones at that and requires our belief in his errant Bible for us to achieve salvation.

Strike 40 something. He created us perfect but with free will. We blew it, we chose rebellion and were abandoned to it except for his provision to undo what caused and only because of his suffering. No matter what you twist scripture into to fit your purpose, even that is better than a God who does not give a rip about us at any point. Unless God hated us then any form of a theistic God is better than the one you describe.

Why is god this complex and convoluted?

That does not apply. I can see by the fact you are asking way more questions than any sincere debater would that you are not all that interested in answers. Your questions are mostly a form of effrontery. No one would ask 10 questions in a single paragraph who wanted meaningful answers.

Why do you require an unhistorical, mythological, and violent book to be taken so literally?

I do not I suggest the most studied and cherished book in human history be taken seriously. Where your competing texts? Oh yeah your God does squat.

I love the Tawrat or Tanakh to be more specific, I love the Hindu scriptures and I love the Qur'an but the Gospels and the new Testament together are beyond ridiculous. I give equivalence of the Injil to Homer's The Iliad, they are both mythological in nature and have the same sort of stories. I believe The Iliad is more of a holy book than the New Testament.

This preference based truth determinations explain quite a lot. There is no Injil.

God had a son?

Yep

Hindu gods have sons and actually participate in sex. I do not mean to disgrace the Dharmic adherents but the Gospel fits in well. It has stories of hell and vengeance, love, mercy, and death all in 4 books. Read a little further and we get prophetic statement about the end times also. The Bible is a book of myths and it is a book of good myths and I actually and honestly love them as I do the Qur'an. The difference is the Qur'an is actually more informative than the Bible.
And despite its mythology, it makes more sense and is surprisingly less violent than the Covenant of Old.

Is that why there are 2 billion Christians and are in every nation on Earth and there are less than a billion and are mostly culturally isolated in a very dysfunctional area of the world. I guess it was Christianity’s inaccuracies and false claims that converted one of the world's greatest empires bent on Christianity’s destruction. No army, no force, no compulsion just an actual God that exists and can act and the Greatest empire on earth folded like a wet blanket. Has the Iliad done this? Have the Vedas? The Vedas could not even hold on to their own folks when even the very Barbaric Protégées missionaries came through India. Hindus ran into their arms.

Coexist yet you are still imperfect. How does Jesus dying for your sins make you perfect? Why does god need retribution? Why does god require for you to be "symbolically" free of sin? God is a literal being you say yet when you speak of salvation you describe it as a law book. God does not need to abide by laws, he is god. God is all powerful, Yahweh is not all powerful, he is not omnipotent.
Judges 1:19, god could not even help his own people.

I no longer will give answers to each question as you must not actually desire them anyway. I will instead give an answer to the average of your claims. We are not perfect on Earth but when we are resurrected we are made so in every sense. Have you read this Bible you hate so much? It says in many places that this corruptible must put on the incorruptible, that we are changed in the twinkling of an eye, that we are given robes of righteousness dipped symbolically in Christ's blood. In fact Christ was the first physical example of a resurrected body, his nature needed no change. He was the first fruits.

"Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."-
You claim Jesus is god yet this happens. You claim the trinity is divine unity so I should judge all 3 equally.

I did not. I said I leaned in the direction of the Trinity. What is it you want to debate you are all over the place and none of them valid. In the Trinity Jesus was in Divine essence but in a voluntary limited capacity. He was sent among many other things to be an example. If he never thirsted, never was unaware of anything, was never in pain, etc.. then what kind of example would that be? This gets very complex and when given complaints in the form of 50 questions nothing can be resolved not that that was ever your intent.
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Hebrews 5:8 Jesus forgets so does god then.

If you have a child you know that you must allow him at times to choose. If they choose wrong then you regret it. Same simple thing in the Bible. As always even your version is beter than a God who does not give a rip.

Genesis 6:5-6 God

REGRETS creating man. He has made error then.

Are we to debate every teaching in the Bible you have on some random complaint rolodex. A debate is supposed to have a subject, and it is not what you think is silly even when scholars of teh greatest merit have declared these same issue the most profound in human history. That by the way is true even if they are false. Lite somewhere, I am not going to defend 37 complex doctrines especially since I have to spend at least one post straightening out what you misunderstand about them.

A god who cannot even preserve his book and makes mistakes is claiming for us to believe in him.
You are aware these "false theologies" like Sanatana Dharma predate Christian by a good 7,000 years last I recall. Why was Yahweh absent then ?

God never promised to maintain a book but in comparison yours never bothered to write anything. This is a weird form of hypocrisy. God promised to give pure revelation no perpetuate a book. Do you think that he will send lightening to strike everyone who misses a comma? That being said the Bible is by far the most textually accurate work in ancient history of any kind. It's unimaginably rich textual tradition is light years greater than any other. However it is not perfect (between 95% and 99.5% scribal errors and 99% of those known something no other ancient theological text can even evaluate meaningfully). No error even the critics agree affects any essential doctrine. Christianity is not a new religion. It is a new covenant within a very old religion. Not that age (even made up) makes something right or wrong alone. I wish you would challenge me on textual accuracy.

I will burn in hell despite the fact that it is not existent in the Tanakh and was introduced in the Bible later on. It also comes from Gehinnom which if you don't know its original meaning I suggest you study it and you derive a pagan concept such as Hades and Tartarus. This does not sound suspicious to you?
I do not need to give specifics here, I am not that strong of a debater.

It most certainly does not come from the trash deposit outside Jerusalem. Maybe you should read up a bit. The valley where trash is burned was used as a metaphor for the torment that being spiritually absent from God would be like. The concept is throughout the Bible, but it uses different words because the Bible is not all written in the same language. Read up on Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek if needed. Of course theology has similar aspects they are dealing with the same exact issues.

You must have been confused then. I was referring to the eligibility of salvation meaning ANYBODY can be saved, as long as they accept Jesus Christ. I was not stating that everybody goes to heaven, quite the opposite.

Then I agree and it is a welcome relief. Universalism is a term for a little believed doctrine that Christ saved everyone the instant he died. You must be careful with terminology.

I have never been associated with Christianity or any other religion on my duration on this forum. You just assumed I was a Muslim for some reason.
I am not a Muslim nor am I a humanist. I despise humanism yet alone secular humanism, a lot. I have actually stated my religious affiliation multiple times very clearly.

I know and have said so and admitted I did assume it at first but it is very understandable from your post.

Islamiyyah means within Islam. I do not justify Islam as I am not affiliated with it. I also have studied it and the Qur'an in canonical form so I am significantly more knowledgeable about it then you considering the fact I have practiced it in my past for quite some time. It left a big size hilal on my heart though .

Are you saying you were a Islamiyyah Muslim but no longer are? You are hard to figure.

You believe that I am a Muslim which seems to be the issue. I am a deist so do not like dogma of any kind. I am INSPIRED by the Qur'an and have been an ex-Muslim and failed Hindu in the past. My theological inspiration is without a doubt Qur'anic which is rather obvious because I have very Islamiyyah traits about me. I am probably the only Muslim on this forum who has any understanding of Arabic whatsoever and has understood the first 18 Surah in Arabic from Al Fatiha to al-Khaf.

Ignore my previous statement, I did not see this. Believed you were a Muslim. I have talked to a few that spoke Arabic.

I do not believe in hell just the laws of reason and science.

Then there went any foundation for actual morality, meaning, purpose, or destination. You lose a lot when science is the arbiter of all truth for you.

I have been battling you about hell mocking its existence yet you for some reason believe I accept its existence somehow as you are under the constant impression I adhere to Islam.

Anyone reading the statement where I got this would have done so.

I can assure you that I am not Muslim and have walked away from it a long while ago. I love the title Muslim and I enjoy Islam and I often use the status in a harmless mocking fashion because of its etymology. I believe god to be all knowing and all logical and I submit and surrender only to such so by all means I am a mus'lima al-l'haqi, a submitter to the truth. But I do not identify with Islamic creed or dogma of any kind.

Yet you do not understand the confusion.

I am far from sensitive. I have no motivation to implore my sensitivity to be involved in these discussions. I'm distant if anything but the issue is that you continuously look at me as if I am of a religion of some kind.

I now know you have none but the emotion in your posts belies a enmity toward Christianity that is almost a theology itself. If you have noticed after several thousand posts I have become a little jaded as well and once preference instead of evidence is noticed to be the motivation I get a little sarcastic as you have admitted for yourself. I mean little by it and have nothing against you but do find the rabid complaint questions and the misapprehensions about Christianity you have a little frustrating. A thousand pardons.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Yet again you simply re-label everything in any wrapper you need to invent or produce whatever effect is desired. God decided on this form of salvation. Because he is the only being in the equation which has anything to offer than can fix the situation. I can't earn my way to perfection.

I am not relabelling anything, you are simply not use to a person who holds varying views instead of subscribing them all to a dogma. My thinking is no different than an atheist honestly hence my fondness towards them.
As for sin and murder, I already stated that I do not accept the concept of sin whatsoever. I was purely putting forth a more fixed solution to salvation issue.

I am not perfect and now fit for heaven if my good deeds outweigh my bad. How in the Heck would that even work anyway? ? This is one weird discussion. You believe in something that you have no evidence for but you argue for a system you do not believe in and is logically absurd, yet you condemn the only system possible. I get confused where I fit in. What you consider up or not for debate is completely independent from what is debatable.

Please explain this...

How many good X's equal how many bad Y's? How many good deeds fix murder

How does accepting the murder of jesus fix one's own act of murder? See how irrational this claim is.

I am arguing about something that I do not believe in? Then why are you asking me about something I do not believe in? I am a deist so I theorize and I came up with a simplistic notion of a fair system. Not perfect but better then salvation as it is highly illogical.
Salvation is the only system possible? Says you and many others just like you. Most do not believe in salvation and this is from Christians I may add. "Christian" is a title and holds little meaning now.

What does this even mean?
I meant "ritualist" in that statement. meaning god requires rituals to appease him.

I do not think you have accurately understood a single Biblical concept so far. He cares about us without any of this. It is through that he chose to demonstrate it , among others.

I understand the Bible well, you think I was raised atheist all my life?
God requires heaven and hell and salvation to care about us? Throughs unbelievers into hell for this? This salvation you speak of is a gimmick.

I did not say he must I said he does.

I do not play word games or take part in absolutive arguments. 'You are a Christian so I assume you must always be right'. You are only proving illogicality and tremendous self-harm in doing this.

Strike 40 something. He created us perfect but with free will. We blew it, we chose rebellion and were abandoned to it except for his provision to undo what caused and only because of his suffering. No matter what you twist scripture into to fit your purpose, even that is better than a God who does not give a rip about us at any point. Unless God hated us then any form of a theistic God is better than the one you describe.

We were created perfect yet somehow we had free will which makes everything perfect? That is an oxymoron. Now I am reduced to word games . Your god is so weak he cannot see the future. If he knows everyman's heart

Genesis :6:5: And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Gof apparently created something which he had no control over so again he is not powerful or the god you claim. He made a mistake and is at fault. He claims to know the hearts of man yet he knows fully well we will reject him and performs an act of "love" that will be rejected. Why do these actions in the first place?
Following verse to back these claims are...

Psalms "Ps:44:21: Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart."
Psalms :94:11: "The lord knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity"

That does not apply. I can see by the fact you are asking way more questions than any sincere debater would that you are not all that interested in answers. Your questions are mostly a form of effrontery. No one would ask 10 questions in a single paragraph who wanted meaningful answers.

You cannot answer the questions which is the issue. This is a form of debative style called questionative debate. Learn it in literature classes year ago, always comes handy and I perfected it by picking out every invalid error in a persons debate and exposing it and by using questions I can place a person in a trap. You do not wish to answer the question knowing you will be trapped. You are taking a rather immature approach and panning through questions which you think can be given witty responses.

Why is your all powerful deity so worried about legalistic condonations and actions which he created?

I know you cannot answer the questions because you have no valid response that will validated your insecure claims which emanate from condescending sermons.

I do not I suggest the most studied and cherished book in human history be taken seriously. Where your competing texts? Oh yeah your God does squat.

I am not competing texts because my only holy book is a research study and my only prophet is logic, the messenger of god is Neil Degrasse Tyson and my church is The International Organization for Scientific Research.
The Bible is one of the contributing factors to death and violence you know. it inspires all sorts of evil actions such as murdering of so called witches and military conquest.
It is YOUR most cherished book and if you cherish it so much you would be treating it like the Qur'an which is so cherished you would be beheaded for merely scratching a page from it.

This preference based truth determinations explain quite a lot. There is no Injil.

So you do not believe in the Gospels which are the Injil? How can you be a Christian then if you do not accept the Gospel?

Yep

But why are you declaring monotheism then?

Is that why there are 2 billion Christians and are in every nation on Earth and there are less than a billion and are mostly culturally isolated in a very dysfunctional area of the world. I guess it was Christianity’s inaccuracies and false claims that converted one of the world's greatest empires bent on Christianity’s destruction. No army, no force, no compulsion just an actual God that exists and can act and the Greatest empire on earth folded like a wet blanket. Has the Iliad done this? Have the Vedas? The Vedas could not even hold on to their own folks when even the very Barbaric Protégées missionaries came through India. Hindus ran into their arms.

Christianity was spread by force and subjugation and one of the first was Nero who influenced the empire at that time. No different than Islam although not as brutal. HIndus never did this and the fact they are around is a miracle considering their previous Islamic rulerships.
Any book in such ancient eras would spread especially if willingly while most eastern religions have found no reason to do so. COnversion is an Abrahamic concept and exist almost exclusively with in it.
I love how you distort history, quite admirable.

I no longer will give answers to each question as you must not actually desire them anyway. I will instead give an answer to the average of your claims. We are not perfect on Earth but when we are resurrected we are made so in every sense. Have you read this Bible you hate so much? It says in many places that this corruptible must put on the incorruptible, that we are changed in the twinkling of an eye, that we are given robes of righteousness dipped symbolically in Christ's blood. In fact Christ was the first physical example of a resurrected body, his nature needed no change. He was the first fruits.

But I do desire answers to them. I want your response and to see how illogical your claims can be. You do not want this since your must hold face and stay as strong as possible. I have met so many wonderful Christians and you are the only one I have known out of a handful to claim theological superiority to the fullest.
This may be a surprise to you but I own 3 Bible and 1 Catholic version. My very favorite is a red oak wood plated edition. I only read the Old Testament though and primarily stick my Qur'an if I read any such religious texts.
Also why do you think I 'hate' the Bible? If I find something absurd it does not mean I hate it, I just do not believe it has literal use. I for example enjoy the book of Revelations.

 

[Sha'irullah]

If you have a child you know that you must allow him at times to choose. If they choose wrong then you regret it. Same simple thing in the Bible. As always even your version is beter than a God who does not give a rip.

This is not my point. How can you claim that Jesus is god and obviously worship him if his power comes from god and he has free will of his own then you are declaring yourself a polytheist. Your Salvation relies on accepting another god.
This just pokes holes in the validity of Christian salvation

Are we to debate every teaching in the Bible you have on some random complaint rolodex. A debate is supposed to have a subject, and it is not what you think is silly even when scholars of teh greatest merit have declared these same issue the most profound in human history. That by the way is true even if they are false. Lite somewhere, I am not going to defend 37 complex doctrines especially since I have to spend at least one post straightening out what you misunderstand about them.

I have not misunderstood ANY of the doctrine because they are all contradictory and cannot be understood. I am simply chipping at the Bible's validity thus making my argument about how Salvation through Jesus can be valid ot any theological merit.

God never promised to maintain a book but in comparison yours never bothered to write anything. This is a weird form of hypocrisy. God promised to give pure revelation no perpetuate a book. Do you think that he will send lightening to strike everyone who misses a comma? That being said the Bible is by far the most textually accurate work in ancient history of any kind. It's unimaginably rich textual tradition is light years greater than any other. However it is not perfect (between 95% and 99.5% scribal errors and 99% of those known something no other ancient theological text can even evaluate meaningfully). No error even the critics agree affects any essential doctrine. Christianity is not a new religion. It is a new covenant within a very old religion. Not that age (even made up) makes something right or wrong alone. I wish you would challenge me on textual accuracy.

Deist reject dogma so why would we have a book? We would not be deist. Closest to a book we have is scientific literature of any kind. The Bible is by far VERY unhistorical and has been chipped away at for many years. You are denying absolutely denying anything evidential that does not support your book.
All I need is a Jew to debate you with on textual accuracy because your' old Testament is not even correctly translated. Declaring textual accuracy is really quite a leap considering the sheer amount of manuals that were used to compile it.

Are you saying you were a Islamiyyah Muslim but no longer are? You are hard to figure.

Ignore my previous statement, I did not see this. Believed you were a Muslim. I have talked to a few that spoke Arabic.

I was a Muslim 2 years ago almost. If we had this discussion 2 years ago it would be unbearable considering how devout I was.

Then there went any foundation for actual morality, meaning, purpose, or destination. You lose a lot when science is the arbiter of all truth for you.

Morality is subjective and does not come from religion entirely. Morals and religion go hand in hand and they can coexist or reject the other. The fact you believe morals come from god is surprisingly immature. The Bible has numerous cases of beating and stoning yet you do none of these things now and that is because of secular morals. Your only debate is that the NT abrogates the OT.

As for meaning, purpose and destination. They do not define living and living abundantly. I can find my own meaning and pleasure out of life.
You lose a lot when the Bible or any other book, even if it is science dictates your life.
I dictate my life and science is what I use to validate the theoretical nature of god. That is TRUE SCIENTOLOGY.

Yet you do not understand the confusion.

Only you were confused, so far everyone else is not. That only says a lot about yourself actually since you seem to have a desire to be a crusader and prove your own religion's superiority and infallibility to the adherents of "false ones" to only end up being proven wrong yourself. You cannot defend your religion by believing it is infallible and ignoring factual comments that could or often do harm it.

I now know you have none but the emotion in your posts belies a enmity toward Christianity that is almost a theology itself. If you have noticed after several thousand posts I have become a little jaded as well and once preference instead of evidence is noticed to be the motivation I get a little sarcastic as you have admitted for yourself. I mean little by it and have nothing against you but do find the rabid complaint questions and the misapprehensions about Christianity you have a little frustrating. A thousand pardons. [/QUOTE]

Well has it not occurred to you that I treat all religions the same? I attack the absurdities and support the illogicalities of that religion. You are a Christian and I support little of it not out of bias but because of the fact I find the entire New Testament which is the foundation of your religion as faulty and having little merit since it is only about salvation. It consist of Epistles which have no use to me and 4 narrations of a man named Jesus who I believe to be contradictory in numerous ways. I can salvage things out of many religions and theologies but Christianity is not one of them.I have tried a few weeks ago with no avail.
You believe I am hard on Christianity then you should see how I am with Muslims, but the issue is that I can often side with Muslims on many varying issues from politics, law, morality and theology.
I give both evidence and preference but you will see preference since that is the core of deism along with evidence but that only applies to my theology.
You are obviously not used to arguing with a person who has no scripture and I have taken note of this all throughout your postings. Arguing with me is not different than arguing with an atheist. The only issue is that rational secular thought provides reason for me to believe there is a god instead of rejecting it.
My usage of questions is again central to how I debate and primarily used for you since I am not familiar with certain stances you have although I can tell it is extremely orthodox. Regardless of that my usage of questions is debating itself because I do not provide the answers you do. Your answer have often been filling in for my voice such as your comments about morality and Biblical history. What I find funny is that you are unaware of the impression you give and how absurd a lot of your statement come across as and this alone provides me with little reason to explain myself if all you do provide my main message which is "your thinking is absurd and illogical".
I cannot clarify my message anymore than by some of the answers you have already given to me without my usage of questions.

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm just curious what everyone believes on the subject and by what rationale they defend their view. I realize this is a diverse board but I think we can all agree that we are all sinners to varying degrees. If Heaven is real then God must have some standard of imperfection that one must meet if they are to reach the pearly gates or else we are all destined to burn. What is that standard?

Huge assumptions that ignore eastern views entirely ... so
- there is no heaven/hell
- no sin either
- everyone attains moksha,(closest thing to your haven, in Hinduism) guaranteed
- the reason people sin is called anava, otherwise known as ignorance, even more commonly as plain stupidity

 

[Sha'irullah]

Huge assumptions that ignore eastern views entirely ... so
- there is no heaven/hell
- no sin either
- everyone attains moksha,(closest thing to your haven, in Hinduism) guaranteed
- the reason people sin is called anava, otherwise known as ignorance, even more commonly as plain stupidity

Al-hamdu'lillah brother! Finally someone who understands a true god. Not vindictive or judgemental but pure and just. Although I do not believe in a constant interfering god as far as mankind goes I believe that if he exist he would not create a hell and would not be so bizarre as to use exclusive salvation.

 

[1robin]

You have pictures of him all the time. Christianity is equally as idolatrous as Sanatana Dharma.

I do not have a picture of him anywhere. Not in my Bible, not on my wall, not at my desk, nowhere. Christianity is anti-idolatry. You are confusing what a Catholic or an old Lady in Queens does with what the Bible teaches.

A god who created the universe and yet he is only love? He has to send his son down to earth instead of revealing himself to save us from hell which he created in the first place and will cast us in. Very logical .

This is a incorrect and broken record. God did not have to do anything, ever. He chose to. As I explained he did so among other reasons but primarily because it was an actual expression of love that no man could deny. A God who would suffer and die for the people who nailed him to the cross is a unique and undeniable act of pure love. Unlike empty words like Islam offers, the confused and self-contradictory mess that Hinduism does, or the pointless and impotent silence you God does, my God demonstrated his love in an actual act. Apparently many of us are so warped and confused we call a demonstration of love beyond anything in history wrong. NO wonder God will eventually separate the ones this irrational from the rest.

I do not repackage this concept of god and his love to the context of the events that happened by using the Bible. The Bible can say that humans fly or the moon revolves around the sun but it does not change anything. The Bible can say god sent his son to earth as a sign of love but it does not change the fact it is idiotic too many and unloving to create hell.

What do you think Hell is? Hell is not fire and brimstone. That was a metaphor used to describe the undesirability of separation from God. God gives you exactly what you chose. Eternity with him, or separation from him and IMO eventual total destruction. He gave you a soul that you did not earn for a purpose. The purpose was to discover and love him as he loved you. You chose instead to rebel and call the good bad and vice versa. You would be miserable with him and do not desire it and so he grants that wish and takes back the soul you misused. That is absolute and perfect justice regardless of what you warp it into using color commentary without any justification.

The greatest demonstration of love is not god sending his son, it is god sending himself and dying for us.

The Trinity makes that very thing true. However you request makes no sense to begin with.

If I wanted to save you from getting hit by bullets I will throw my wife, son or daughter to save you which obviously proves how much I love you.

Neither did God. Jesus chose to do this and his sacrifice received it's just reward. Eternal honor. You do not hate Christianity, I would hate the religion you invented, you hate a concept you call Christianity but is composed of distortions, ignorance, and warped color commentary designed for effect. I do not remember a single doctrine that you understand correctly.

Does not say much for my character though considering I use my own family. You say Jesus is the son of god yet you pray to him and you also say Jesus is god incarnate yet Jesus can die meaning god can die meaning your god is not remotely powerful or praise worthy. Either way you look at it, it stands on a point of illogicality and displays your god as childish at least and legalistic at most. But if god is writing these laws why is he abiding by them? Why is he so restricted that he cannot save us all from hellfire?

3 points to contend and 4 questions to answer per paragraph is too much to offer significant explanation. These are more like complaints put in question form. Jesus' soul never died. Jesus did not free us from physical death but the second death (spiritual). His soul was separated from the father so ours never has to be. His body was never divine and his soul was never mortal. Yes your misunderstandings of scripture are illogical and that is probably why you constructed them. The actual doctrines are not. God nor Jesus ever ceased to exist. He abided by them as an example for us. He is restricted by purpose. Our temporal blissfulness was never God's goal in this life. It was also his goal to allow freewill (love can only exist if freely given). Freewill means we can chose to do as you are doing. It was never his intention to force people who resent him to exist with him forever. There for they will not. They will cease to exist all together. Perfect justice.

This is not love, this is called a scam and control. The thought of god being such a petty coward that he cannot send himself to us as a sign of love to die or even if he sent his son would only make him a coward or an unpowerful being. It is a lose/lose situation here.

You have invented some God out of thin air and distorted and warped his words to the point very little in your claims has anything to do with my actual God. This says far more about you and justifies what God has said he will do about it than it does about Christianity. This is some of the least technical most distorted argumentation far closer to a rant than a debate that most I have seen for any issue of any kind. This is pure color commentary invented for convenience sake.

The fact that I can think and rationalize your scripture is aggravating to you and I can tell. I have nothing holding me back.

No you don't, no facts, no logic, no reason, no exegesis, no scholarship, no evidence, nothing is holding you back from claiming what you want things to mean so they will justify what you prefer. I am not arguing against doctrine or Hermeneutics but against preference.

The evidence is in the Bible.

Almost nothing you have said is in the Bible and most of it is directly contradicted by the Bible.

I do not view my perception of god as unjust or unloving. I just do not think that a spiritual being would be overly concerned with a physical world designed for physical creatures.

What you think or wish has nothing to do with what is true.
The circus continues below:

 

[1robin]

THIS IS OUR WORLD and it was meant for us and whatever is in it.

THis is not consistent with deism.

I do not think that god would interfere in this world if it is truly meant for us and he would only be interested in the spirit since to most religious views and my own the spirit is more powerful. It is just needless of god to interfere. It is not a matter of him being loving or just.

Deisms God does not care about anything about us.

Then what does matter for salvation? You cannot ignore the trinity despite the fact I have ripped it apart and I am not the first nor am I the best.

Nor coherent or modest it seems. What matters for salvation is faith in teh historical act of Christ on the cross and what it means. If I have to spell out concepts so 101 basic I am not sure you are up to this.

Injil is the Gospel, sorry about using that word. It is a habit, but the Gospel is Matthew Mark Luke and John if I recall properly.

The Injil is the Arabic word for Christ's teachings. It is composed of an invisible book that only contains teachings of Christ that are confirmed in the Quran or at least not opposed to it. It has never been seen, there is no evidence it ever existed, it is wishful thinking. If you simply mean the Gospels that we have that is not what I understand it to mean but I have no problem with the word.

I am well of aware of the title. It is like how Christians claim Allah is a moon god when they don't understand simple Arabic to know that Allah is a title as well given to any god in Arabic.

There is vast evidence to support that but I do not use it. There is far better and far more damning evidence against Islam. I know what Allah means.

But it is a good one.

Maybe to you and for now. It very well might be the worst mistake possible if I and my 2 billion brothers and sisters are right. It however has little merit in a debate either way.

You are avoiding the topic. You are dodging because you have no argument. I do not care about Jesus's mythical reports from scholars since I would not accept them anyways.

And here we have the core of what is driving your claims. You like X and even if evidence, scholarship, doctrine, history, and reason say X is absolutely wrong you do not care. I rest my case. NEXT.... The majority of NT historians including all the greats like NT Wright (on both sides) agree that the core claims about Jesus in the Bible are reliable historical events, and you say you don't care because it is inconvenient.

The Bible is not history so this yet again proves you are incapable of thinking without using a Bible and I am still sitting here arguing with you on my own will and mental power which god gave me. This goes to show how much harder it is for me to debate since I have to come up with an inspirational idea on my own accord. I do not have a mythical book to guide me.

The Bible is more historically accurate and contains more historical facts (25,000 corroborated facts alone) than any book of any kind in ancient history and most modern books. It has proven it scholarly critics (not to mention it's amateurs in forums) wrong time and time again. Books written to do away with it are trampled in histories dust. It is used as a primary source in even secular archeology. Critics as you are have throughout history pronounces the near death of Christianity time and time again (Voltaire). They are all dead and the Christianity keeps getting out of the grave they put it in stronger than it ever was. The historical accuracy of the Bible is an absolute wonder. I wish you would pick one of the 2000 rolodex of complaint you have made and we could resolve it. This would be a good one.

Perennialism is the proper word and it is viewed as the best. The Bible was in Greek because it was written by Greeks. The Taurah was in Hebrew since it was written by Hebrews. Qur'an was in Arabic because it was written down by Arabs (although spoken by a Bedu).

Call it by whatever name you wish it clears up your contention easily enough.

So many rejected books from the Bible and I have read most of them , I am quite proud of it obviously. Nobody knows what the Bible was since it is nothing more but a conglomeration of stories voted in by council. Does not sound Divinely Inspired at all. How on earth can it lead to salvation if it is put together in such a state?

Because the philosophy behind the cannon was minimalistic. They wanted only actual facts. This lead to apostolic as the condition. If you name the work I will tell you what makes it obviously heretical. The Bible is founded on absolutely valid information. As I said pick any one of these things and we can get into it. This drive by false accusation stuff is meaningless.

Hell shan't exist nor did salvation. Noah was a drunkard according to the Bible or was just drunk during certain occasions last I recall. But regardless of this I am referring to the period before Christ where man lived in sin. What happened to them? Did god send them to hell since he did not have a salvation plan yet? Or did they go to heaven automatically despite the fact that you claim we must be pure to enter heaven.

Oh, I see why I didn't get it. Faith in a future messiah is the exact same as faith in a past messiah. There are other issues but that is the core. BTW 98% of humanity is post Christ.

I believe Yahweh ruined it for us since if he did let those who lived before Jesus enter heaven then obviously he was not so worried about sin and imperfection. So why require Jesus to be our saviour all of the sudden? God should not be changing his mind if he is the god you claim him to be.

He didn't. The blood of animals pushed sin forward in OT times. It never fixed it. The true blood of Christ finally dealt with it. It was faith in a future messiah that saved the OT people.

Only confusion here is from you dodging questions. You cannot debate me because I have no dogma and I wondered why you never spent much time debating liberal theists or atheists yet felt free to debate me. You believed I was a Muslim this whole time and thought you could use dogma against dogma. You cannot think for yourself and cannot debate against a person who can. You treat religions like a legalistic law books and can only argue with them like a pair of lawyers using legalese

If there is any lack of debate it is because your claims are not about Christianity or the Bible. They are constructed out of thin air and ignorance and assigned the label of Christianity and then condemned. If you call confusion produced by your incoherence dodging I do not care. Again pick your best single claim and I will resolve it. Staccato complaints about a version of doctrines you do not understand and do not exist is pointless.

 

[Man of Faith]

I suspect that if you asked everyone if they are a good person, then most would say yes, even murderers and Hitler. Unless there is a benchmark to compare onself too, then we all think we are good enough to get to Heaven.

 

[1robin]

I suspect that if you asked everyone if they are a good person, then most would say yes, even murderers and Hitler. Unless there is a benchmark to compare onself too, then we all think we are good enough to get to Heaven.

You are right but "good' is not the standard to get into heaven given in the Bible. Perfection is. God will not dwell eternally with imperfection.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I do not have a picture of him anywhere. Not in my Bible, not on my wall, not at my desk, nowhere. Christianity is anti-idolatry. You are confusing what a Catholic or an old Lady in Queens does with what the Bible teaches.

Well that only applies for you but I have known churches to have statues of jesus all the time. But they do not pray to it like Catholics but regardless they still have an image of him. I do understand your disliking towards idolatry though. I share the same view.

This is a incorrect and broken record. God did not have to do anything, ever. He chose to. As I explained he did so among other reasons but primarily because it was an actual expression of love that no man could deny. A God who would suffer and die for the people who nailed him to the cross is a unique and undeniable act of pure love. Unlike empty words like Islam offers, the confused and self-contradictory mess that Hinduism does, or the pointless and impotent silence you God does, my God demonstrated his love in an actual act. Apparently many of us are so warped and confused we call a demonstration of love beyond anything in history wrong. NO wonder God will eventually separate the ones this irrational from the rest.

Well then I would prefer it if god did nothing . That has been one of my biggest points about salvation. Why can't he chuck us off to another universe. That would be so much more simpler than the convoluted mess we have now. Accepting a human god as savior and god had a son and all of this gibberish (no offense). It is far too complex and impractical for those who just want a simple life.

What do you think Hell is? Hell is not fire and brimstone. That was a metaphor used to describe the undesirability of separation from God. God gives you exactly what you chose. Eternity with him, or separation from him and IMO eventual total destruction. He gave you a soul that you did not earn for a purpose. The purpose was to discover and love him as he loved you. You chose instead to rebel and call the good bad and vice versa. You would be miserable with him and do not desire it and so he grants that wish and takes back the soul you misused. That is absolute and perfect justice regardless of what you warp it into using color commentary without any justification.

Could god have not seen that we would misuse the soul? So why exactly were we created in the first place?
For every answer I am receiving I keep getting major holes and errors. Your logic is solely dependent on a certain set of circumstances which are not required to exist considering your god is so powerful.
Also it is quite weird to believe one can be eradicated since eradicating consciousness is quite a major action. What is it like to unexist? You believe in the afterlife and human spirit so this is extremely hard to debate with considering your religion.

The Trinity makes that very thing true. However you request makes no sense to begin with.

But god/Jesus make errors and mistakes as I have proven earlier. I did this with your infallible Bible.
You are saying god the almighty PRETENDED TO BE HUMAN like it was a joke to save mankind and play with our lives?
You are aware of how ludicrous this sounds especially since you believe in the Trinity. Isa says all power he has comes from his father yet you worship the lesser and since there is a lesser to begin with that makes it a plurality. Meanings the entire old Testament you have is disavowed and making Jesus not the Messiah of the Jews.

Neither did God. Jesus chose to do this and his sacrifice received it's just reward. Eternal honor. You do not hate Christianity, I would hate the religion you invented, you hate a concept you call Christianity but is composed of distortions, ignorance, and warped color commentary designed for effect. I do not remember a single doctrine that you understand correctly.

Your first sentence implies that Jesus was a separate being since he choose to die and God sent him. Again proving the errancy in scripture thus tearing down your concept of salvation.
I have never stated doctrine, nor have I stated what Christianity is. I have simply given you my viewpoint of Christianity.

3 points to contend and 4 questions to answer per paragraph is too much to offer significant explanation. These are more like complaints put in question form. Jesus' soul never died. Jesus did not free us from physical death but the second death (spiritual). His soul was separated from the father so ours never has to be. His body was never divine and his soul was never mortal. Yes your misunderstandings of scripture are illogical and that is probably why you constructed them. The actual doctrines are not. God nor Jesus ever ceased to exist. He abided by them as an example for us. He is restricted by purpose. Our temporal blissfulness was never God's goal in this life. It was also his goal to allow freewill (love can only exist if freely given). Freewill means we can chose to do as you are doing. It was never his intention to force people who resent him to exist with him forever. There for they will not. They will cease to exist all together. Perfect justice.

My understanding of scripture is illogical despite I have no bias or blind dogma. You have provided a fallacy in thinking, more than enough for me to end debate since it would be useless.
I am not misunderstanding any scripture because I fully know what it is trying to say. But I am providing you what it says without abiding by its statements. The Bible declares god did something out of love so you believe it to be love even if it involved killing a baby. That is how you are thinking, your method of interpretation is Biblical making you a true Christian no doubt but it does not mean it is logical since logic comes from human reasoning and not dogma.
You thus cannot declare yourself to be using reason since your reasoning is ENTIRELY Biblical. It comes from a book and not yourself. My reason is not illogical since I am abiding by my own intuition and reasoning skills without bias or dogma.

You have invented some God out of thin air and distorted and warped his words to the point very little in your claims has anything to do with my actual God. This says far more about you and justifies what God has said he will do about it than it does about Christianity. This is some of the least technical most distorted argumentation far closer to a rant than a debate that most I have seen for any issue of any kind. This is pure color commentary invented for convenience sake.

I have given you a person opinion based off MYSELF(and numerous others) about your god. I am not recreating a god or distorting it, just proving you with my interpretation which is Biblically wrong obviously but for you you take it as unreasonable since I do not agree with your religion. Meaning you take debate in absolute which would make our discussion not a debate since the winner is already decided.
Obviously you have never won a debate, ever. Not providing answers from a book is not how you do it I will add.

No you don't, no facts, no logic, no reason, no exegesis, no scholarship, no evidence, nothing is holding you back from claiming what you want things to mean so they will justify what you prefer. I am not arguing against doctrine or Hermeneutics but against preference.

I never said I declare superiority on the meaning of your scriptures. I can read anything and extract a meaning but it does not make the meaning I extract definitive of the book.
My interpretation of your Bible does not mean how I view it is the only way to view it. I read many holy books like this. My interpretation about your god and Jesus only says how I feel about it, it does not say what your scriptures actually do wish to imply.
Your Bible mentions slavery yet I am sure you will disagree with the morality of slavery.
So you have a disagreement with your own book or another interpretation like I do. Just because I use logical reasoning does not mean another person doing the exact same will come to the same conclusion I have.
It is childish to expect one's own view to be the only right one

[/B] Almost nothing you have said is in the Bible and most of it is directly contradicted by the Bible.

I have given you scripture which you deny which again makes this argument long over before it starts if you reject your own "logic".

What you think or wish has nothing to do with what is true.

Then please explain why you are doing the same.
You think the Bible is true yet I am somehow at logical fallacy because I do not think the same thing.

 

[1robin]

you are simply not use to a person who holds varying views instead of subscribing them all to a dogma.

What are you talking about? I spend many hours every weak debating or watching debates. Almost me entire time spent on Christianity is within a hostile environment. I am more than used to what you are doing and there is nothing new about it beyond what terms you use to mischaracterize scripture.

As for sin and murder, I already stated that I do not accept the concept of sin whatsoever. I was purely putting forth a more fixed solution to salvation issue.

You were putting forth a system that is impossibly flawed and faulty at every turn. It is also completely inconsistent with benevolence.

Please explain this...
How does accepting the murder of Jesus fix one's own act of murder? See how irrational this claim is.

Because God declared it to be so. Do you think God is bound by some preexistent rules that govern him and that you know about and he doesn't. His nature determines what is right, wrong, just, sufficient, and acceptable. He could have made eating a moon pie sufficient. I would not have understood it but it would have been absolutely just. The anger he had towards all the rebellion and sin we commit was poured out on the only being capable of bearing it instead of us. Substitutionary atonement was declared just by God because he alone could make it so absolutely and objectively. If you got to heaven and said God you are unjust by what standard could the issue be adjudicated. He invented your system of justice (even if you distorted it later) and he created the concept of justice to begin with. To demonstrate can you prove without God that killing every life form in existence is actually wrong?

I am arguing about something that I do not believe in?

Don't get it. However you are typing so much I do not have much time to invest in the effort.

Salvation is the only system possible? Says you and many others just like you. Most do not believe in salvation and this is from Christians I may add. "Christian" is a title and holds little meaning now.

I do not care about titles; I do not care about Church practices, nor about what this person says. I defend the Bible and God not a Church. Of course God is not a proven fact, I thought we both understood that going in. I am arguing that is salvation exists then what is it. Every single person has an almost instinctive belief that wrong and right are objective values and actions have consequences beyond life. Some may say differently but follow them around and their actions will always betray them.

What does this even mean?
I meant "ritualist" in that statement. meaning god requires rituals to appease him.

I am not arguing about what pleases him though there are few rituals in the NT. I am talking about what saves the soul.

I understand the Bible well, you think I was raised atheist all my life?

With respect I see no evidence of it. You seem to be familiar with the common aspects of core doctrine but are unaware of all the context that surrounds them because you place aspect of core doctrine in completely opposite contexts than they came in. Christ says he chose to do what he did, you say that God was scared (that is almost so silly it's funny). God says he did this because he loved us and yet you say he is a monster. What you say and clear doctrine never jive.

God requires heaven and hell and salvation to care about us?

Here is another one. These are primary concepts yet you are claiming they are dependent and derivative.

Through unbelievers into hell for this?

This beauty is neither grammatically nor coherent.

This salvation you speak of is a gimmick.

No the salvation you invent and claim I believe in is. The one I actually believed in was no Gimmick for the ones who created it. I will use this to show that appaling absurdity and inaccuracy in your claims. Gimmick implies contrived for gain. The men who wrote the documents that salvation is founded within never received anything worldly to even remotely compensate for the misery and toil they spent in the service of this gimmick. It is of little to gain to invent a lie that first condemned themselves and recorded their own failing of a Character to which there is not even a theoretical worse crime than betrayal of God unto death. If that was not enough gain they then perpetuated what they knew was a lie in order to profit by being thrown in jail, shipwrecked, threaten with death and even a few were killed. If that was not enough then the always hospitable to Christian Paul completely abandoned the entire world view on the road to Damascus and showed a changed man. He did this because he had it so bad before as an official of Jerusalem and student of the law but now he could be lowered in a basket to run for his life, be thrown in jail, beaten, and disappear in obscurity. Of course it's a gimmick look what they gained. This is so absurd it that it ruins credibility you might have had on less crystal clear issues. This and the rest is pure theatrics motivated by desire in spite of evidence. I can make this case a whole lot more obvious and extensive if you compound the error by trying to salvage this mess. Continued below:

 

[1robin]

I do not play word games or take part in absolute arguments. 'You are a Christian so I assume you must always be right'. You are only proving illogicality and tremendous self-harm in doing this.

What?

We were created perfect yet somehow we had free will which makes everything perfect? That is an oxymoron. Now I am reduced to word games . Your god is so weak he cannot see the future. If he knows everyman's heart

No, I said love is not love unless freely given. I did not say freewill is necessary for perfection. It may be I don't know but I never said so. Freewill is perfect for God's purpose however and free will is not free unless it can be used to reject its creator. I never said he did not know the future. However two finite idiots sitting around debating what knowing the future would mean is worse than a waste of time. It is counterproductive and possibly harmful. I keep being reminded that every false claim against my God is far worse for yours. Even if me God knew that some would reject and suffer for it but many others would have eternal life with him then yours doesn't give a crap either way and everyone's futile pointless life is snuffed out and the whole pointless circus rolls on to create more pointless suffering. Suffering exists in all world views in only mine does it have a sufficient explanation, a purpose, and an eventual rectification. Yet it is this concept you condemn and the most futile concept theoretically imaginable claimed to be better. This stuff never ceases to appall.

Gof apparently created something which he had no control over so again he is not powerful or the god you claim

First of all I am not a follower of Gof.
God however could at any time smash us all into vapor. If he chooses not to act that does not imply that he can't. This is basic logic and philosophy 101 mistakes. I may allow my dog to bark does that mean I could not stop him from doing so. This is getting so bad it is not even a challenge and barely justifiable.

He made a mistake and is at fault. He claims to know the hearts of man yet he knows fully well we will reject him and performs an act of "love" that will be rejected.

Psalms "Ps:44:21: Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart."
Psalms :94:11: "The lord knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity"

This is the first claim you have made that is not so wrong I did not even have to slow down my typing to answer. I actually like a challenge and for the first time so far you have given one that might require a minute or two. I will look into this as it has been a while.
I will stop here as I am out of time and try and pick it back up with this one soon. BTW would I have pointed all this out if I was in anyway avoiding your "devastating" claims. Trust me if you have made any claim beyond that last one that was in anyway a challenge I did not see it. This has been so easy it has become monotonous. It is the mark of insecurity when someone claims false victories. It is what Islam does in every war they lose to Israel which is every one. I keep forgetting to say that two of the greatest experts in human history (many say the greatest) in evidence and testimony (Simon Greenleaf, and Lord Lyndhurst) both said that the gospels meet every single historical and legal standard of modern law and they ought to know. Until you found a Harvard law, write the text used to determine what is and is not evidence and reliable, or occupy every single high court post in the British empire then why would you think you are right or at least think anyone else would, about the historicity of the Gospels? If Newton and Einstein said my physics was wrong I would ask for the eranser not for someone to believe me against them. Of cousre I have no desperate desire for my math to be correct for ideological reasons. Have a good one and watch out for them gimmicks.

 

[Sha'irullah]

THis is not consistent with deism.

You do not know deism well.

Deisms God does not care about anything about us.

That is modern Deism and Deism has no doctrine. You saw me mention doctrine earlier so you look at a few articles to debate with me according to doctrine. VERY foolish attempt.
One of the creators of Deism believe god answers prayers. Edward Herbert was his name and he was a fervent deist and prayed, a lot. He accepted Divine inspiration like myself although rejected prophecy.
Deism comes from Deus (Latin). It only implies the belief in a deity and the rest is left to the individual but the primary factor for it is that most reject religion because of its stupendous claims which defy logic. I believe in the plausibility of jinn and yet I am still a deist.
I believe god creates because of his infinitive essence and he will create for eternity.
I believe worship is essential to the human essence because we are worshipful beings and god intended us to be that way so we should worship and adore something (doesn't have to be god). What you subtly worship, adore and submit to whether it be a religion, science, or another person(which is bad) immediately becomes god. Much like Ba'al it just implies that something is master over you but minus the negative connotations.
I am a deist meaning I can pick my master, my master is intelligence and with it comes reason, logic and individual experience. Being the slave to reason my duty is to sit back and learn.

The Injil is the Arabic word for Christ's teachings. It is composed of an invisible book that only contains teachings of Christ that are confirmed in the Quran or at least not opposed to it. It has never been seen, there is no evidence it ever existed, it is wishful thinking. If you simply mean the Gospels that we have that is not what I understand it to mean but I have no problem with the word.

I was a Muslim and studied Islam, that is not the Injil. The Injil differs from scholarly opinion but at the core it means the Gospels (the book you have in your Bible) but there was an islamic attack on Christianity claiming Jesus may have "written the true gospel down" which is what you are referring to.
It is a hoax I can assure you and not a very well known one at that. Obviously such a thing would have been shot down before flight.

There is vast evidence to support that but I do not use it. There is far better and far more damning evidence against Islam. I know what Allah means.

Do you speak Arabic? No. Do not debate a person who has studied it and can implement it.
Your attitude to this is proof of your own ignorance about matters. Allah is a genderless god, that is it. What you call Hubal is Al-Ilah which implies gender. They roughly mean the same thing but the alif was altered orally (take note of the hamza ء used to say ilah now). So obviously you know nothing. Attack Islam does not mean much as well although I do feel a need to stick up for Muslims
Please give me this evidence in another thread if you like but take note that any person who ACTUALLY knows Arabic and KNOWS the Qur'an will rip your argument apart.


And here we have the core of what is driving your claims. You like X and even if evidence, scholarship, doctrine, history, and reason say X is absolutely wrong you do not care. I rest my case. NEXT.... The majority of NT historians including all the greats like NT Wright (on both sides) agree that the core claims about Jesus in the Bible are reliable historical events, and you say you don't care because it is inconvenient. [/QUOTE]

You have no understanding of what I am saying I assume. If a Christian scholar says something it does not mean anything. A christian will say what a Christian should say as is expected of their religion.
When I was a Muslim there were scholars trying to say how Islam was historically accurate and scientifically proven in numerous ways. Their scholars will give a lot of biased evidenced supporting Islam and it will look very convincing. They even tried confirming the moon wa split by using a photo of the Rima Ariadaeus.
A Christian scholar means absolutely nothing to me.

Call it by whatever name you wish it clears up your contention easily enough.

Denying how the Bible copied local tradition and myths only backs up my beliefs.

Oh, I see why I didn't get it. Faith in a future messiah is the exact same as faith in a past messiah. There are other issues but that is the core. BTW 98% of humanity is post Christ.

If 98% of humanity is post Jesus I am assuming you believe humanity has lived for over 200,000 years because of current calendar. I am just hoping you aren't a believer in the 6,000 year old theory.
How can past faith in a future Messiah help if nobody else heard of this messiah? Hope in a Messiah did not occur in 200,000 years. So only jews are saved? Judaism did not exist then and the only old religion before that is Hinduism. I told you, the Bible is not a history book.

He didn't. The blood of animals pushed sin forward in OT times. It never fixed it. The true blood of Christ finally dealt with it. It was faith in a future messiah that saved the OT people.

Again, a very small portion of people believe din a Messiah, the rest had no concept or even heard of it. This proves Perennialism with your own words or state to me where other "false religions" believe in a Messiah and how can a false religion match up with your own without being false.

If there is any lack of debate it is because your claims are not about Christianity or the Bible. They are constructed out of thin air and ignorance and assigned the label of Christianity and then condemned. If you call confusion produced by your incoherence dodging I do not care. Again pick your best single claim and I will resolve it. Staccato complaints about a version of doctrines you do not understand and do not exist is pointless. [/QUOTE]

I do not label my claims as Christian because I am not a Christian. If I believe Jesus was just a man then I am not Christian. What makes you think I am vain enough to consider my views the only correct ones yet alone "Christian". That makes no sense.
We are not the same religion, and I do not even have a religion to begin with. My views are from me, not out of the air or from a book. I cannot be any more clear. You are just faking insult to back out .
I understand your doctrine well, I just do not believe it. If I say this part of it is false then I am obviously not labelling or disguising it as Christian.

 

[Sha'irullah]

What are you talking about? I spend many hours every weak debating or watching debates. Almost me entire time spent on Christianity is within a hostile environment. I am more than used to what you are doing and there is nothing new about it beyond what terms you use to mischaracterize scripture.

You can debate people of dogma but not those who don't have it is what I am saying. Very different case even for me. Very hard for me to debate atheists as oppose to Christians, Hindus, Muslims or Jews.

You were putting forth a system that is impossibly flawed and faulty at every turn. It is also completely inconsistent with benevolence.

it is not flawed, you just do not like it. What makes you think benevolence has anything to do with it? If god was intervened in our lives he would truly be malevolent considering what happens to us.

Because God declared it to be so. Do you think God is bound by some preexistent rules that govern him and that you know about and he doesn't. His nature determines what is right, wrong, just, sufficient, and acceptable. He could have made eating a moon pie sufficient. I would not have understood it but it would have been absolutely just. The anger he had towards all the rebellion and sin we commit was poured out on the only being capable of bearing it instead of us. Substitutionary atonement was declared just by God because he alone could make it so absolutely and objectively. If you got to heaven and said God you are unjust by what standard could the issue be adjudicated. He invented your system of justice (even if you distorted it later) and he created the concept of justice to begin with. To demonstrate can you prove without God that killing every life form in existence is actually wrong?

If god declared it to be so then he created the rules despite there no need for it. If he could have made the moon edible (which would be nice if it was cheese which I think is a bummer considering my fondness for it) then couldn't he have not set up such a system as Salvation?

With respect I see no evidence of it. You seem to be familiar with the common aspects of core doctrine but are unaware of all the context that surrounds them because you place aspect of core doctrine in completely opposite contexts than they came in. Christ says he chose to do what he did, you say that God was scared (that is almost so silly it's funny). God says he did this because he loved us and yet you say he is a monster. What you say and clear doctrine never jive.

I once believed the same as you did but I obviously do not now. I know everything about the core doctrine and the little. I do not accept it or its Christian meaning.
Muslims will tell you the Qur'an's meaning is truth yet you will say otherwise, this is no different. The fact that I have read the Bible and do not accept its common interpretation angers you some weird way. You are like a Muslim believing that if you read the sacred scripture you will be enlightened and somehow become an adherent to the faith. I read the Bible a lot, and no matter what the Bible calls love I view it as sadism. You can punch a person multiple times in the face and say "i love you, see how I am doing this, this is a sign I am loving you". It means nothing if the effect is outside of our social acceptance. If punching others in the face was a greeting of some sort then it would be acceptable but in the Bible it says god sent his son to die and we view that as cowardice in this day and age. How can god create a book that does not change yet have subjective thoughts interfere with its message.

This beauty is neither grammatically nor coherent.[/FONT]
The beauty is that I am typing this message with no letters on my keyboard, quite impressive for a person who has failed all typing classes.

No the salvation you invent and claim I believe in is.

I said the salvation you believe in is a gimmick because that is how I view it. You believe in this loving god and what not and I understand yet if you are not indoctrinated into it then you are not going to be so accepting of it unless you can compartmentalize aspects about it and I can do this with every religion which is why I love them all so much but I will not treat them as fact.
The argument is why I BELIEVE the Christian salvation is illogical and a myth. It is up to you to defend the faith because whatever I believe is only a viewpoint and not altogether a fact. I am not Richard Dawkins thankfully