Is God imperfect or simply indifferent?

[Justin108]

Assuming for argument sake that Mark 16:16 and Revelations 21:8 are both true in suggesting that unbelievers are condemned

If God fails to convince each and every one of us that he exists, this either implies that
a) God was unable to convince us he exists (implying imperfection)
b) God did not care to try to convince all of us (implying apathy)

Is God imperfect? Or simply apathetic in our salvation?

[McCulloch]

Christians are not authorized in the bible to take a life under any circumstance.

JW

I'm not sure how this relates to the current debate.

Back on topic, if we are discussing the God described in the New Testament, then we have to rule out apathy.

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

[Talishi]

If God fails to convince each and every one of us that he exists, this either implies that
a) God was unable to convince us he exists (implying imperfection)
b) God did not care to try to convince all of us (implying apathy)

c) God deliberately does not want to convince some of us that he exists.

Romans 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

[Justin108]

imCo
Our GOD has a name and a title: HIS name is YHWH and HIS title is GOD. Allah is not GOD...he has usurped that title but knows better than to usurp the name. Do you have proof he did not?

Shifting the burden of proof

[JLB32168]

According to Islam, Christ is not Allah. Once again, you assume Christian doctrine to be accurate by default.

Yes – that’s why I’m a Christian.

You asked me why I rejected Islam as being God’s creation. I explained why – citing Scripture that precludes any addition to God’s revelation in Christ. The Koran says it is additional revelation. I reject that since it contradicts Christ’s words.

He said this according to Christian doctrine. Since we cannot know for a fact what Jesus said or did not say, you cannot claim for a fact that Jesus said this.

And had I claimed it was fact then your point would be relevant. You asked me why I rejected Islam so I told you.

Even if Jesus said this, you know as well as anyone how open to interpretation religious texts are.

I defer to the Church, which says she’s Christ’s head. She has said that the Koran is a heresy; therefore, I assume Christ has given his opinion on the subject.

If you wish to debate if the Church is informed by God then that’s a different question.

So no matter what, you will assume Christianity is correct in all instances and whoever disagrees with Christianity is automatically wrong?

Pretty much.

Would you be comfortable if I was open to slaying my enemies, driving them before me, and listening to their women and children wail?

It bothers you that Allah commands death to infidels, but find it perfectly acceptable that God commanded the death of unbelievers...?

Pretty much. Allah has said “pray for your enemies.� Islam says that Allah says to slay them. I’ve explained why I reject the Koran and don’t need to rehash it.

The process is quite logical and your facile dismissal “So it disagrees with your religion; ergo, it’s wrong� is a lazy misrepresentation of my argument. Oh well – former Christians seem to find this quite easy to do.

Then what's wrong with Allah killing sinners to show them how serious sin is?

Asked and answered.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 98 by alexxcJRO]


Moderator Comment

Mr. Alex!! I feel that you can make your point without using sarcastic remarks! Please just debate the topic.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Justin108]

According to Islam, Christ is not Allah. Once again, you assume Christian doctrine to be accurate by default.

Yes – that’s why I’m a Christian.

You're a Christian because Islam does not agree with Christianity...? Does this reasoning make sense to you?

You asked me why I rejected Islam as being God’s creation. I explained why – citing Scripture that precludes any addition to God’s revelation in Christ. The Koran says it is additional revelation. I reject that since it contradicts Christ’s words.

"I reject Islam because it disagrees with Christianity. If something disagrees with Christianity, it is wrong by default"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_tc2H6SbJY

And had I claimed it was fact then your point would be relevant. You asked me why I rejected Islam so I told you.

You reject Islam because it does not agree with something Jesus supposedly said, even if you have no reason to believe that Jesus actually said it.

I defer to the Church, which says she’s Christ’s head.

Why not defer to the Muslim Khalifas? What makes the "Church" more valid than the Khalifas? Let me guess... "because they aren't Christians and are therefore automatically wrong"

She has said that the Koran is a heresy; therefore, I assume Christ has given his opinion on the subject.

So the opinion of a group of men is enough to conclude that the Quran is heresy? What makes you think the Church has any actual connection to Christ? How do you know the Khalifas don't have actual connections to God?

If you wish to debate if the Church is informed by God then that’s a different question.

Well considering the fact that you use it as an argument to this debate, I see no reason not to support your argument in this debate.

So no matter what, you will assume Christianity is correct in all instances and whoever disagrees with Christianity is automatically wrong?

Pretty much.

Self-confessed confirmation bias

Would you be comfortable if I was open to slaying my enemies, driving them before me, and listening to their women and children wail?

Well if you worshiped Yahweh 2000 years ago, before Jesus made Judaism a bit more peaceful, you would probably have done exactly this if your God commanded it. You have demonstrated on numerous occasions that "what God says is moral is moral".

It bothers you that Allah commands death to infidels, but find it perfectly acceptable that God commanded the death of unbelievers...?

Pretty much.

Self-confessed double standard

Allah has said “pray for your enemies.� Islam says that Allah says to slay them.

"Islam is wrong because it disagrees with Christianity, which is obviously right"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_tc2H6SbJY

I’ve explained why I reject the Koran and don’t need to rehash it.

Yes, and your explanation is that "it disagrees with Christianity". That is no explanation. It is equally as valid as a Muslim who rejects Christianity because "it disagrees with Islam". Your "explanation" is nothing but a declaration of confirmation bias.

The process is quite logical

Assuming your religion is automatically right and any other religion automatically wrong is not "logical" especially since you cannot explain why your religion is in any way more valid than any other religion.

and your facile dismissal “So it disagrees with your religion; ergo, it’s wrong� is a lazy misrepresentation of my argument.

Feel free to correct me. What is an accurate representation of your argument?

"Then what's wrong with Allah killing sinners to show them how serious sin is?

Asked and answered.

Your answer is nothing but confirmation bias and appealing to a double standard.

"God killed sinners to show that sin is serious. Allah killed sinners for the exact same reason, but since I do not agree with Islam, Allah's excuse is invalid"

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 100 by JehovahsWitness]

"Outside of the specific wars that Joshua conducted to obtain control of the "Promised land" and those subsequently fought to defend those territories, the killing of unbelievers was not sanctioned unless the individual lived in the territory ("believer" or not) coming under the Mosaic Law code (the national law of the land). "

You said: " the killing of unbelievers was not sanctioned unless the individual lived in the territory ("believer" or not) coming under the Mosaic Law code (the national law of the land)."

Q: So its ok that they were intolerant with and murdered infidels(non-believers) in the ancient times in the state of Israel because was done under the national law of the land?

So did Hitler with the Jews.
Phase 1: Hitler becomes Chancelor of Germany
Phase 2: Hitler gets himself made into essentially a dictator
Phase 3: As dictator, he gets to make the laws (that lead to intolerance and murder)
Phase 4: Anyone who opposes him ends up dead

"Hitler announced the Nuremberg Laws in 1935. These laws stripped Jews of their civil rights as German citizens and separated them from Germans legally, socially, and politically. Jews were also defined as a separate race under "The Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor.""
http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/TIMELINE/nazifica.htm

Making laws that lead to intolerance and murder of non-believers, infidels in Israel in the ancient times is no different then what happened in Germany during 1930-1945 with the Jews.

Let's not forget about fanatic Christian activity, as Catholicism, in the Middle Ages with the Crusades. These wars were attempts by the Catholics, sanctioned by the Pope, to reclaim the Holy Land from the Muslims.

Charles Selengut, in his book Sacred Fury: Understanding Religious Violence, said:

"The Crusades were very much holy wars waged to maintain Christianity's theological and social control. On their way to conquering the Holy Land from the Muslims by force of arms, the crusaders destroyed dozens of Jewish communities and killed thousands because the Jews would not accept the Christian faith. Jews had to be killed in the religious campaign because their very existence challenged the sole truth espoused by the Christian Church."

Shafer adds that, "When the crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099, they killed Muslims, Jews, and native Christians indiscriminately".

Another prominent form of fanaticism came a few centuries later with the Spanish Inquisition. The Inquisition was the monarchy's way of making sure their people stayed within Catholic Christianity.

Selengut said, "The inquisitions were attempts at self-protection and targeted primarily "internal enemies" of the church". The driving force of the Inquisition was the Inquisitors, who were responsible for spreading the truth of Christianity.

Selengut continues, saying:
"The inquisitors generally saw themselves as educators helping people maintain correct beliefs by pointing out errors in knowledge and judgment... Punishment and death came only to those who refused to admit their errors ... during the Spanish Inquisitions of the fifteenth century, the clear distinction between confession and innocence and remaining in error became muddled.... The investigators had to invent all sorts of techniques, including torture, to ascertain whether ... new converts' beliefs were genuine."

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
Lucius Annaeus Seneca.

Such atrocities were made possible because of verses in the bible that promoted murdering of infidels(non-believers) like :

"6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods� (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. "(Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

Kill the Entire Town if Some Worship Another God
"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.�" (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)

Killing all inhabitants, all men and women, babies, children and animals in an entire town just because some were of other religion. Isn't this nice? Huh?

Deuteronomy 17
“2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.�

[JLB32168]

You're a Christian because Islam does not agree with Christianity...? Does this reasoning make sense to you?

That’s not my reasoning and I’ve explained it to you on multiple occasions.

• [p1] Christ said that whoever adds to the Church’s revelation, which reveals the will of the Allah, will in turn have the torments described in the Bible added to him/her since that is adding falsehood.
  
  [p2] The Koran adds to the Church’s revelation, changing some things to contradict at 180 degrees, some things that Christ explicitly said.
  
  [c] The Koran isn’t from God.

You are free to demonstrate how my logical process is illogical. Of course, I don’t think you can and that’s probably why you facilely dismiss it and instead misrepresent my reasoning. That’s called a straw-man argument – creating a weaker misrepresentation of the argument presented, rebutting that weaker fabrication, and then claiming victory as if you’ve rebutted the opponent’s argument. It used more often on this website than it isn’t used.

All of your subsequent arguments are founded in your illogical misrepresentation of my argument; therefore, they are tainted (read as illogical as your initial argument.) I read no further than “Does this reasoning make sense to you?� Fix your first argument and then I’ll addressing any argument built upon that.

[Justin108]

You're a Christian because Islam does not agree with Christianity...? Does this reasoning make sense to you?

That’s not my reasoning and I’ve explained it to you on multiple occasions.

• [p1] Christ said that...

Ok first you tell me that the fact that Islam disagrees with Christianity is not your reason for rejecting Islam.

Then in the very next sentence you tell me that "Islam is wrong because Christ said that...". Do you not see the overwhelming irony in this?

[p1]Christ said that whoever adds to the Church’s revelation, which reveals the will of the Allah, will in turn have the torments described in the Bible added to him/her since that is adding falsehood.

This premise is only true if you assume Christianity is true

[p2]The Koran adds to the Church’s revelation, changing some things to contradict at 180 degrees, some things that Christ explicitly said.

This premise is only true if you assume Christianity is true

[c]The Koran isn’t from God.

This conclusion is based on premises that rely on Christianity being true.

So in short... your conclusion rests on the presupposition that Christianity is true, hence my claim that you reject Islam solely because it disagrees with Christianity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_tc2H6SbJY

You are free to demonstrate how my logical process is illogical.

It's illogical because you begin with the assumption that Christianity is true.

If a Muslim were to investigate Christianity with the prior assumption that Islam was right, then he would obviously conclude that Christianity is wrong. If a Hindu investigated Christianity with the assumption that Hinduism is right, then he would obviously conclude that Christianity is wrong. Does this method make sense to you?

Of course, I don’t think you can and that’s probably why you facilely dismiss it and instead misrepresent my reasoning. That’s called a straw-man argument – creating a weaker misrepresentation

I don't think I can even if I tried

[JLB32168]

Ok first you tell me that the fact that Islam disagrees with Christianity is not your reason for rejecting Islam.

And I gave you a logical explanation for why and you misrepresented it. If you misunderstood because you felt I was unclear then it has been clarified in subsequent posts. Why are you rebutting an old argument that has since been expanded?

That leaves you open to charges of fabricating straw man arguments.

1) This premise is only true if you assume Christianity is true. [. . .].

2) This premise is only true if you assume Christianity is true. [. . .].

3) This premise is only true if you assume Christianity is true. [. . .].
[. . .].

So in short... your conclusion rests on the presupposition that Christianity is true, hence . . .

The truth of Christianity isn’t the question before us.

The question you asked was why I rejected Islam as being from God/Allah. I told you why; furthermore, my reasoning was logical. You misrepresented my reasoning and then mocked your misrepresentation as if it was what I presented; that is the quintessential example of straw man argumentation.