CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
If not in word, in belief. But what makes them different from Christianity, at least in THAT category? A true Christian doesn't "submit to the will of God"??
Problem is, the "Will of God" was conceived of, and written by, MAN! (And a huge % of it [if not all] stolen from even more ancient religions with DIFFERENT "gods". RELIGION actually means "submission to the will of men who would control the masses" for their own control and enrichment.
According to the meaning of the word "islam" you could say this is correct, except that words don't have sects, religions do. According to the traditions of the religion "Islam" this is a wildly inaccurate position.
If indeed that is the definition then anything falling within that definition would be part of it.
But like I've said on the past on this site, argument by definition is the weakest form of argument. Most people won't agree on the correct definition, and even if they do there are endless spins people can put on it based on context, scenario, and ramifications of being strict with it
So, because the term "Islam" refers to a particular concept, any application of a remotely similar concept in any religion makes said religion a sect of Islam, regardless of the fact that Islam encompasses more concepts and ideals than simply that conferred by its name?
This reasoning follows along the lines of the fallacy of composition/division: just because two religions hold a particular parallel doesn't mean they're equivalent.
I am only claiming that they are identical in this fundamental sense...They all agree that there is a God, and people should submit to his will. In this respect All theisms are Islamic
Monotheistic religions do share the belief in a single God, but to call all non-Islamic theistic religions Islamic in a particular regard implies Islam to be the basis of that belief, when it is most certainly not.
One could, with equal rationality, claim that all monotheistic religions are a subset of Judaism or Christianity, when each of the three hold radically different beliefs.
to call all non-Islamic theistic religions Islamic in a particular regard implies Islam to be the basis of that belief, when it is most certainly not.
I know what you mean. Here in the west when we speak of Islam it's generally understood that this refers only to those who view Mohammed as a prophet. We usually dont use the term in its literal sense which simply means submission to the will of god.
However if we did we would see Islam as encompassing all varieties of theism. All theists are united in agreement that people ought to submit to the will of god (be islamic), The various sects (Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc) are based on disagreement concerning how the will of god is made known.
These factions dont like being lumped together, and if I can lump them together (with sound logic they cant intelligently refute) and make them feel uncomfortable I get a kick out of it.
One could, with equal rationality, claim that all monotheistic religions are a subset of Judaism or Christianity,
I dont think so
In order for one group to be a subset of another they cant have qualities that would disqualify them from the broader category. For example Judaism cannot be a subset of Christian beliefs because recognizing Jesus as the messiah is a fundamental christian belief that jews reject. Christianity or Judaism can't be subsets of the muslim faitb because to be rightly classified as muslim one must recognize Mohammed as a prophet.
"I know what you mean. Here in the west when we speak of Islam it's generally understood that this refers only to those who view Mohammed as a prophet. We usually dont use the term in its literal sense which simply means submission to the will of god."
I, and likely everyone else in the West, have neither seen nor used the term literally. There's simply no reason to; it serves no exclusive purpose, and is inextricably tied up with the Islamic faith.
"These factions dont like being lumped together, and if I can lump them together (with sound logic they cant intelligently refute) and make them feel uncomfortable I get a kick out of it."
Said logic being...?
"In order for one group to be a subset of another they cant have qualities that would disqualify them from the broader category. For example Judaism cannot be a subset of Christian beliefs because recognizing Jesus as the messiah is a fundamental christian belief that jews reject. Christianity or Judaism can be subsets of the muslim faitb because to be rightly classified as muslim one must recognize Mohammed as a prophet."
My point exactly, excepting that Islam and Judaism/Christianity are also inherently incompatible: in the case of the former, Judaic and Islamic law are inherently incompatible with one another, and in the latter, the two religions hold contradictory stances on the divine nature of Jesus of Nazareth. In other words, you're correct, except for the fact that the foundations of each of the three religions are fundamentally contradictory with one another.
There's simply no reason to; it serves no exclusive purpose, and is inextricably tied up with the Islamic faith.
Even if that were true, it's ok to play with ideas. For example:
Suppose you believed that a religion called Islam was poised to become so pervasive that it would become by far the most popular religion on earth and you could influence the development of this religious sect so as to encourage this group's rejection of doctrine you consider harmful and acceptance of doctrine that you consider helpful or at least benign. Would you think it better for this group to be unified by a statement like "Resistance to tyranny is obedience to god" or "Mohammed is the most reliable authoriy on what gods will is" ?
Said logic being...?
If Islam is taken for its literal meaning then all monotheistic sects are, or at least claim to aim to be Islamic.
My point exactly,
I could have sworn you were trying to say that logic like I present in this debate could be used "just as rationally" to argue that any of the various abrahamic faiths are subsets of any anoher...
he foundations of each of the three religions are fundamentally contradictory with one anothe
I think the attempt to clearly discern what gods will is and obey it is foundational to all three. The beliefs that divide the three are not as basic IMO
"Even if that were true, it's ok to play with ideas."
There's a difference between "playing with ideas" and claiming said ideas to be fact.
"If Islam is taken for its literal meaning then all monotheistic sects are, or at least claim to aim to be Islamic."
Which, to reiterate, isn't the case.
"I could have sworn you were trying to say that logic like I present in this debate could be used "just as rationally" to argue that any of the various abrahamic faiths are subsets of any anoher..."
I have, and am. If you'll remember, I rejected the validity of your original statement, and have therefore rejected statements I claimed to be equally rational to it.
"I think the attempt to clearly discern what gods will is and obey it is foundational to all three. The beliefs that divide the three are not as basic IMO"
Law is the fundamental basis of Judaism, and the divine nature of Jesus is the fundamental basis of Christianity. How, exactly, are these "not as basic" as an abstract concept applied to each via implication and conjecture?
There's a difference between "playing with ideas" and claiming said ideas to be fact.
What (if anything) have I presented as fact? I made a supposition qualified with a big leading IF
Which, to reiterate, isn't the case.
So then you deny that the monotheistic religions all advocate submitting to the will of god?
I have, and am. If you'll remember, I rejected the validity of your original statement, and have therefore rejected statements I claimed to be equally rational to it
I am sitting here unaware of why you reject the notion that: IF Islam is taken literally (To mean submission to the will of god) that all montheistic faiths would be (in this respect) at least attempting to be Islamic. There is a difference between showing why an argument is invalid, and dismissing an argument. Not saying you owe me the prior, but clearly you have only done the latter
Law is the fundamental basis of Judaism,
granted for the sake of argument...its supposedly god sourced law which Jews hold that we ought to submit to
the divine nature of Jesus is the fundamental basis of Christianity.
Chrstianity didnt abandon the fundamentals it inherited from judaism and replace them with different ones. Christians still regard god as someone we ought to obey, Jesus being considered god doesnt change the primary monotheistic obligation (to submit to the will of god)
How, exactly, are these "not as basic" as an abstract concept applied to each via implication and conjecture?
Notwithstanding that obedience (submission to the will of) to god is a very explicit requirement of all these sects. In order for it to matter at all tbat "Jesus is god" god must FIRST be understood as someone who we should always obey.
"What (if anything) have I presented as fact? I made a supposition qualified with a big leading IF"
Fair enough. I suppose I was being presumptuous.
"So then you deny that the monotheistic religions all advocate submitting to the will of god?"
My statement was in reference to your point about "Islam" being taken literally, which, as previously stated, has never been shown to be the case in any meaningful context.
"I am sitting here unaware of why you reject the notion that: IF Islam is taken literally (To mean submission to the will of god) that all montheistic faiths would be (in this respect) at least attempting to be Islamic."
First of all, your original claim was, and I quote, "If Islam means 'submission to the will of god'... then anyone whose religion teaches that people ought to submit to the will of god is part of an Islamic sect." That statement is not only ambiguous (taken at face value, it appears to equate the Arab term "islam" with the religion of the same name, thus being a fallacious abuse of the equivocal term), but implies all Monotheistic religions follow the teachings of Islam, a blatant falsehood.
"There is a difference between showing why an argument is invalid, and dismissing an argument. Not saying you owe me the prior, but clearly you have only done the latter"
Having read through my previous posts again, I've failed to find any baseless dismissal of your arguments on my part. If you could provide a specific example or examples, that'd be most helpful.
"granted for the sake of argument...its supposedly god sourced law which Jews hold that we ought to submit to"
True, but that bears no relevance to this discussion: as I pointed out in my first post, parallels between concepts do not equate to equality. My point there was that Judaic and Islamic law are fundamentally contradictory, meaning that the former is fundamentally incapable of being a sect of the latter, which was your original claim.
"Chrstianity didnt abandon the fundamentals it inherited from judaism and replace them with different ones. Christians still regard god as someone we ought to obey, Jesus being considered god doesnt change the primary monotheistic obligation (to submit to the will of god)"
As above.
"Notwithstanding that obedience (submission to the will of) to god is a very explicit requirement of all these sects. In order for it to matter at all tbat "Jesus is god" god must FIRST be understood as someone who we should always obey."
My statement was in reference to your point about "Islam" being taken literally, which, as previously stated, has never been shown to be the case in any meaningful context.
To the contrary, Muslims view Islam literally and they see it as inclusive of Judaic and Christian traditions in so far as they hold to the uncorrupted teachings of these recognized prophets. Muslims dont think Islam began with the arrival of their prophet, and they dont see Judaism or Christianity as stemming from recognition of Mohammed as a prophet. in the west we tend to view Islam as only referring to those who accept Mohammed as a prophet. But this is not how tbose of the Muslim faith understand Islam. Were Christians and Jews to understand and accept the term's literal meaning they would consider themselves Islamic.
First of all, your original claim was, and I quote, "If Islam means 'submission to the will of god'... then anyone whose religion teaches that people ought to submit to the will of god is part of an Islamic sect." That statement is not only ambiguous (taken at face value, it appears to equate the Arab term "islam" with the religion of the same name, thus being a fallacious abuse of the equivocal term), but implies all Monotheistic religions follow the teachings of Islam, a blatant falsehood.
I took care not to equivocate on the meaning. My attempted clarifications were made on the assumption that perhaps I didnt try hard enough. If the meaning of Islam is established (for the sake of argument) as "submission to gods will" and you can't see that on this view, all the monotheistic faiths would accordingly view themselves as Islamic, I am going to blame your inability, or stubborn refusal, to even entertain the idea.
Having read through my previous posts again, I've failed to find any baseless dismissal of your arguments on my part. If you could provide a specific example or examples, that'd be most helpful.
You couldnt get past thinking of Islam as "The religion started by Mohammed" and you mistakenly thought I was trying to assert that merely using the word islam in its literal sense makes Jdaism and Christianity subcategories of the Muslim faith. Then you brought up their apparent "fundamental incompatibility" with each other as an argument against what I never even tried to assert.
True, but that bears no relevance to this discussion: as I pointed out in my first post, parallels between concepts do not equate to equality.
The only fundamental (and IMO relevant) equality between these faiths is that they all believe that that god is due obedience.. They may have incompatibilities but this utterly fundamental belief isnt one of them.
My point there was that Judaic and Islamic law are fundamentally contradictory, meaning that the former is fundamentally incapable of being a sect of the latter, which was your original claim.
Rathef this is what you misunderstood my claim to be. In any case the incompatibilities between these faiths are concerning issues of disagreement as to how gods will is revealed not on the basic idea that gods will ought to be submitted to
"To the contrary, Muslims view Islam literally and they see it as inclusive of Judaic and Christian traditions in so far as they hold to the uncorrupted teachings of these recognized prophets."
How, exactly, is contradicting the two on their fundamental premises "inclusive of [their] traditions"?
"But this is not how tbose of the Muslim faith understand Islam."
Your basis for this claim being...? Last I checked, in the Middle East, Islam is far more than a simple term; it's a patriarchal, barbaric religion (one fundamentally linked to government). In other words, it encompasses much more than simply "submission to the will of God".
"I took care not to equivocate on the meaning."
Such as? The first thing you did was define the term "Islam" in a non-doctrinal context, then used that definition to fabricate a claim regarding the Islamic religion.
"If the meaning of Islam is established (for the sake of argument) as "submission to gods will" and you can't see that on this view, all the monotheistic faiths would accordingly view themselves as Islamic, I am going to blame your inability, or stubborn refusal, to even entertain the idea."
As I've pointed out previously (perhaps not explicitly enough), the term "islam" and the religion of Islam are two wholly separate concepts; the former is abstract, and generally applicable to religion, while the latter is fundamentally tied to a particular set of beliefs, many of which are contradictory to other religions. As such, the latter can never only refer to the former, therefore the hypothetical question presented is unsound. Depending on your first use of the term "Islam", the hypothetical either has a false premise or a premise unrelated to the conclusion, in both cases denying its soundness.
"and you mistakenly thought I was trying to assert that merely using the word islam in its literal sense makes Jdaism and Christianity subcategories of the Muslim faith."
That is what you explicitly stated, no?
"Then you brought up their apparent "fundamental incompatibility" with each other as an argument against what I never even tried to assert."
Other than in your post before this one (and the one before), where you explicitly argued to the contrary?
"The only fundamental (and IMO relevant) equality between these faiths is that they all believe that that god is due obedience.. They may have incompatibilities but this utterly fundamental belief isnt one of them."
I agree. That's the only major parallel (as far as I can remember) between the three. I never argued otherwise. But that fact in of itself doesn't equate Judaism and Christianity to Islam, now, does it?
"Rathef this is what you misunderstood my claim to be."
I fail to recall you having explicitly modified your original claim, much less clarified exactly what you mean by it.
"In any case the incompatibilities between these faiths are concerning issues of disagreement as to how gods will is revealed not on the basic idea that gods will ought to be submitted to"
Arguable, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument.
Ironically, this statement (which provides no basis for discrimination between the three) lends credence to my point regarding the rationality of claiming any of the two to be a sect of the third.
False. It means submission to their god who is actually Satan. Islam is the beast system of the Biblical book of Revelation, not only because of what they do, which fits and matches perfectly, but because they claim that they are. They literally are looking to joint the antichrist (Mahdi) and oppose the King of Kings, destroying and killing every Christian on the planet that will not submit to Islam.
I've done many debates with Muslims. They literally are looking for the Antichrist, and will follow him as "god" all the way to the death in the end. And they believe the end is now.
An Islamic Imom tells us about the Beast of the Earth that they are looking for-
Look, if you are saying that Muslims dont worship the true god (like you claim your religion does) then your position (if it is to be coherent) should be that they are not really Islamic (sumbitting to the will of god)
A simple question: In your view, is it Muslims or Christians that truly are Islamic (submissive to gods will) ?
Oh they are Islamic, but being Islamic means you do not submit to God's will, per Biblical definition, and they claim parts of the Bible as true, and those parts contradict their practices. It's simple deductive reasoning. They are the Beast system of the Biblical book of Revelation, according to themselves. The Beast system in the Bible follow the Antichrist. If most Muslims would debate, the religion would die, but alas, they are told not to in their eschatology, so it's hard to find many to debate, and it's impossible to kill the religion with logic and common sense because they refuse to be exposed to it.
I don't hate anyone. I oppose evil worldviews like Communism, Nazism, and Islamism. It's common sense to oppose fascist group think. You are making an emotional appeal rather than an intellectual appeal. I'm like Spock. I have no need for emotional outbursts in debates. It's simply... illogical.
Oh, I can tell you all about Islam. I sum it up in this one site unless you want a 4 hour debate. I started debating Muslims on the internet before 9/11.
No need. I already understand that you don't think followers of Mohammed are truly Islamic, because you hold that they're submissive to Satan rather than god.
If you read the Quran's attributes of Allah, they are the attributes given to Satan in the Bible. If you read the Islamic attributions of the Mahdi, they match the Antichrist in the Bible, so with deductive reasoning alone, we can say either Muhammad stole parts of other religions and is a fraud, he was spiritually influenced by Satan, or both.
I shouldn't be saying anything based off of your terms because my terms say something else, thus I go by my terms which do not match your terms. If you haven't mastered the English language, perhaps I can find you a link? Here, now you can never say that I didn't give you anything.
Islam is the mixture of pieces of many different religions all rolled up into one under the bs guise of monotheism. Islam stems from Hinduism at its foundation, stole Heaven and Hell, Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham, etc from Judaism, and stole the Antichrist story from Christianity and flipped it backwards, making the antichrist the hero. They also stole the Isaac Ishmael story from the Jews, and reversed Ishmael to being the anointed one over Isaac, because Isaac was the father of the Jews and Ishmael was the father of the Arabs.
The point is that all theistic religions claim to submit to gods will and if Islam literally means "submission to the will of god", then what we have are various ostensibly Islamic sects that make up all the theistic religious sects.
"She often stands on the motionless body of the god Siva, who is lying on his back. Despite these features, Hindus worship Kali as a beneficent mother."
Demonstrably false. Shiva worshippers tend to reject the will of Kali Maa. Are you retarded?
this was what you said,
and "She often stands on the motionless body of the god Siva, who is lying on his back. Despite these features, Hindus worship Kali as a beneficent mother."
- encyclopedia of world religions.
this is what i said, they worship her, whether she's peaceful or not. And that's the point here.
In the hadith (Sahih-Al-Bukhari Bk 73; Num 224) Mohammed said, “The most awful name in Allah’s sight on the Day of Resurrection, will be (that of) a man calling himself Malik Al-Amlak (the King of kings).”
So you think Mohammed has corrupted Islam. However since you agree that submission to the will of god is the best way to live, I think I am correct to think of your religion as Islamic.
If you hold that we ought to submit to gods will then you are Islamic. If you think muslims submit to Satan's will rather than God's then you should be opposed to Muslims calling themselves Islamic.
Not if you define "God" as something different from Islam. And our definition of "God" predates Islam, so our definition stands. Islam stole the term. By your logic, Atheists could redefine the word "God", say they submit to its will, and come to the same conclusion about Atheists.
OBVIOUSLY if you dont accept that Islam means "submission to the will of god" then you wont reach the logical conclusion I put forward...duh
lets try this again....IF you understood Islam to truly mean "submission to the will of god, THEN would you agree that all theistic religions present themselves as true Islam.
good lord for someone who fancies themselves logical you seem to be struggling with the basics
lets try this again....IF you understood Islam to truly mean "submission to the will of god, THEN would you agree that all theistic religions present themselves as true Islam
I don't accept your original premise, thus it would be illogical for me to reach your desired conclusion.
good lord for someone who fancies themselves logical you seem to be struggling with the basics
It's not my fault if you can't keep up. I must accept your original definition, which never happened, to reach the conclusion proposed. Your logic has tanked.
Muhammed took a Hindu Shiv temple that he conquered as his own in Mecca, turned it into the Kaaba, took parts of Christianity and Judaism, twisted the religions, added tints of Hinduism, and created the most monstrous religion in the history of modern man. They didn't get the Dajal, the Mahdi, and Shiva's Crescent from out of nowhere. He was a psychopath, a child molester, and a war monger. In the Quran he openly claimed that he got his "revelation" from a demon. His words. His wet nurse claimed he was demon possessed. Those aren't guesses. That's what it says in the Quran.
if YOUR religious sect is truly submissive to gods will and Muslim sects are not, then your sect is representative of true Islam, and Muslims are impostors.
Muslims are imposters, and there is no true Islam. The entire thing is a myth, unless you are claiming Allah to be real or the Devil himself. If either, a myth, or he's the devil, then there is no true Islam to adhere to in the first place.
If you really believe "there is no true Islam" (In other words no group can rightly call themselves Islamic) then everything you have to say about Islam is total hogwash..
If you really believe "there is no true Islam" (In other words no group can rightly call themselves Islamic) then everything you have to say about Islam is total hogwash
There is a true Islam. ISIS is doing exactly what Muhammad commanded. But Islam isn't submission to God. It is submission to Satan, therefore you do error in your logic. I'll simplify.
My point simplified is, "There is no true Islam". Muhammad didn't hop from mosque to mosque on a steed named Baraq, then ascend to Heaven, talk to Allah face to face, and write the Quran while being illiterate. He designed the myth as a political system used to conquer the known world. The Chinese to the East and the European Crusaders to the West were all that stopped him. Of course at that time their opposition was willing to use ruthless force to oppose Islamists. Nowadays, they look set up to use liberalism to conquer the West from the inside under the disguise of being oppressed or refugees/asylum seekers, just as Muhammad taught them to do in the Quran per stealth jihad, taqiyya and muruna.
if Islam means submission to the will of god, I dont think Muslims are Islamic
It's meaningless white noise to me. The word "Islam" doesn't define anything to a non Muslim. Consider it a new buzzword created in the 600 AD, Arabian desert. Secondly, I don't speak Arabic, so it's not a word I use because I speak English. Third, you admit that you are a Muslim. Why? Just cause. Go ahead. Convert here in front of us for our amusement. Otherwise, you can't back your own claim or meet the demands of the thread. Admit you are a clown or I will torture you with words in English.
Obviously, like most homosexual arguments, the deceptive statement of this debate seeks to slander Christianity. The religion of Islam, like all religions, is about what a person is supposed to do in order to have the best chance of not ending up in eternal condemnation of fire. All religions are the same. Atheism is another religion in which the non-believer in his mind is exonerated in death so their religion excuses anything and everything they ever do whether good or evil, making their own mind to be the god of their imaginations, imagining that they get out of reality in death and are not held accountable for their time. This debate is just typical nonsense of homosexual minds which want to deny the truth of God thinking they get themselves out of condemnation by saying God is not there.
Christianity is not a religion. Catholicism is a religion like Islam which teaches what a person can or should do in order to avoid damnation in fire.
True Christianity is all about what God, Jesus Christ, did for us to save us from the fire of Hell. The Bible is the word of God, and submission to God in the Bible is never forced.
Homosexuality seems to be on your mind alot. Constant reference to homosexuality..especially during conversations wholly unrelated to sexuality..isnt going to convince anyone that you are straight.
just sayin
Now according to you all other faiths besides Christianity ARE religions because their focus is how member behavior can help attain desireable future (heaven) and avoid undesireable future (hell), where Christianity's focus is on how Jesus' behavior gaurantees members (true christians) a desireable future (heaven)? And this makes the Christian Faith NOT a religion?
I Want to scrutinize your position
You say..."submission to god in the bible is never forced"
Trashing God seems to be on your mind, trashing the Bible and trashing Christians seems to be on your mind. Why is that? Is it because you are a pervert and love your sin?
Tell us the truth now, what kind of pervert are you?
Meh Gods can be great and awesome or they can be pretty shitty. I would prefer that they be of such a nature that they inspire us to treat each other lovingly rather than to adopt all these constantly rebranded violent ideologies. If your God is the God of love, I have nothing negative to say about your god. I do identify as atheist. In some cases even as anti-theist. But as I like to say "If God is love, Im not atheist". I certainly am not a typical atheist.. I don't doubt or deny the existence of gods, or even a "most powerful" One God. I think gods are misunderstood.
I accept the atheist label because I have never met anyone who I think or believe should be worshipped. Theism in my view is the result of becoming aquanted with someone you regard as infallible and perfect. I have never met someone like this, but if I ever do I would then stop identifying as atheist
trashing the Bible
To the contrary I support people keeping collections of sacred scriptures. I just think they should take a more active role in what scriptures are canonized
trashing Christians
No way! I grew up around people who identified as Christians. I was heavily influenced (I think generally for the better) by them.
Tell us the truth now, what kind of pervert are you?
I favor women who make sex feel naughty, but too naughty and it grosses me out and becomes a turn-off. HTH
You're a dirty pervert, if ever woman who ever knew you gets AIDS and many sexually transmitted diseases (which you probably carry at least two of statistically if you are an experienced pervert like you say you want to be).....
if your daughter, mother, and sister get AIDS, and your heart is torn watching them suffer, you deserve the emotional turmoil the same as you deserve to suffering of STD's because you boast of being a pervert, you promote sin which defiles the soul and dirties the body, you're a sicko you pervert and if you came anywhere near a woman in my family it might be the last time you ever approach a woman.
This is the foundation of why people do not want to believe in God, why people reject the Savior....because they love the pleasures of their lusts more than they love life and they take it with them into Hell where it belongs.
This sounds serious! I wonder do you think Matthew 5:29-30 has good advice to help me to stop being so lustful?
If it is as you say: "This is the foundation of why people do not want to believe in God, why people reject the Savior....because they love the pleasures of their lusts more than they love life and they take it with them into Hell where it belongs."
Cutting my unit (The Shlong) off is what can finally free me from the constant temptation of all these lusty ladies? I mean it's really bad! I have tried to not get aroused but if a pretty lady even touches my Shlong, it's like I lose control. Now I have to be honest, LITRALLY EVERY TIME I had been thinking about Jesus and I was grabbed in a lustful manner by a woman, I totally stopped thinking of him. So it is seeming like what you say is true. Man! Chop it off though? I don't know if I can go througb with this....
I wonder if you will ever concede that you do not deserve to live and have no right to exist outside of Hell. I wonder if you will ever desire to obey God. I wonder how you got to think you are smarter than God. I wonder what makes you think you are smart at all.
You're a pervert...I don't read your stuff any more beyond maybe the first three words which provides plenty of opening for response which of course you will argue against because you are in favor of your own death.
Jesus Christ is a person, God who came down from Heaven in human form as the Son of God. Believing in Him is not a religion, it is believing in reality, believing in facts, knowing the truth of History and accepting reality as it is.
We all are dying for one reason, it is because we are imperfect, we are flawed, and that flaw is our sins and death is in our genes because of it. That is reality. Dying people need to be saved. That is reality. Only God has the power to give life. That is reality. Only God has the power to save your life and keep you safe forever. That is reality.
Jesus proved He is God by the miracles He performed and by His bodily resurrection. It is because of the eyewitnesses of these events and their records preserved for future generations.......because they believed and obeyed the One they knew died for them and lives now with power to forgive and to save sinners......it is because there is no other explanation for life, death, pain, suffering, reality..........it is because you can know the truth. The truth is not a religion, it is reality and if you believe it you will know it is true, when you know it is true you know you can always stand on it..........
And don't go off into your mindless modern college brainwashed philosophy of "that's circular reasoning". The reasoning is linear, a progression of deductive logic with a clear beginning and a clear conclusion. Those facts are
1) We are dying
2) Dying people need to be saved
3) Dying people cannot save themselves
4) You cannot be saved if God does not save you, science and philosophy of man cannot save you....even if you think science can enable people to indefinitely postpone death, the universe still will completely disintegrate one day and nothing can stop that event.
5) God cannot justify allowing you to live except that He died for you. You cannot live except by your living being justified by God. You cannot justify yourself or you would not have to die.
Submission to the will of God is never forced. Muslims try to force you to submit to Allah, Allah is not God no matter what Muslims say. God is Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ is God, God is God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit. God gives you the choice of defying Him, you defy God and you die, that's the way it is, that is reality.
In Hell, if you will not repent of your sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you will remain in defiance of God by your own choice. God will not force you to submit to His will. Even in Hell's fire, when sinners against their will bow their knees and say Jesus is Lord when they hear His name, in their hearts they will remain defiant, yet the entire space they occupy which is their body will give God the honor He created them for, showing He is good in that He gave them everything they have and He deserves to be honored as their Creator and He will be honored by them.
Figure it out in this world and repent of your sin and get saved, or experience it in the fire of Hell and never figure it out, always be in confusion forever tormented in the fire. You are making your choice, God will never force you to submit to His will.
Granted. But it is reasonable to view "belief in him" as a definitive component of the Christian religion.
it is believing in reality, believing in facts, knowing the truth of History and accepting reality as it is.
If these are facts, they are facts that I have yet to be convinced of.. And you suppose I am lying about that right?
We all are dying for one reason, it is because we are imperfect, we are flawed,
I'll accept that for the sake of argument
and that flaw is our sins and death is in our genes because of it. That is reality
I can accept that we'd be better of if we devoted our attention and effort toward the greatest good we can conceive of. That's somewhat similar to your view
Dying people need to be saved. That is reality. Only God has the power to give life. That is reality. Only God has the power to save your life and keep you safe forever. That is reality.
Well I hope your god saves all the people who need to be saved. If your god has the power to, I hope he gets busy changing human nature so its less self destructive.
Jesus proved He is God by the miracles He performed and by His bodily resurrection.
If I had been around at that time, (and he truly did whats been reported) he would have had me at curing serious diseases with laying on of hands or saying "be clean" :)
..it is because there is no other explanation for life, death, pain, suffering, reality
There are other explanations. You just don't find them to be as convincing. What bothers me is it seems that you think all who claim not to be convinced or that they find other explanations more convincing, do so out of dishonesty
.And don't go off into your mindless modern college brainwashed philosophy of "that's circular reasoning". The reasoning is linear, a progression of deductive logic with a clear beginning and a clear conclusion. Those facts are
1) We are dying
2) Dying people need to be saved
3) Dying people cannot save themselves
4) You cannot be saved if God does not save you, science and philosophy of man cannot save you....even if you think science can enable people to indefinitely postpone death, the universe still will completely disintegrate one day and nothing can stop that event.
5) God cannot justify allowing you to live except that He died for you. You cannot live except by your living being justified by God. You cannot justify yourself or you would not have to die.
Im not going to berate you for accepting that line of thinking. I just tend to believe that if an almigty being is interested in saving anyone, they will be saved. Otherwise its up to us to make the best of our situation
Submission to the will of God is never forced. Muslims try to force you to submit to Allah, Allah is not God no matter what Muslims say. God is Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ is God, God is God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit. God gives you the choice of defying Him, you defy God and you die, that's the way it is, that is reality.
So you think Christianity represents true (unforced) submission to the will of the one true god, (True Islam) and Muslims are lying and trying to trick or force people in to being submissive to a false god..gotcba
Thougb I disagree with a number of the conclusions you come to, at least I dont assume you are lying and trying to deceive me :)
You can't refute truth..............not one point of my 5 point linear reasoning, Your whole "submission to the will of God" insinuation is nothing but a red herring trying to avoid the facts of reality in hope of exonerating yourself in death; to feel like you justify your lusts.
Jesus proved He is God by the miracles He performed and by His bodily resurrection.
If I had been around at that time, (and he truly did whats been reported) he would have had me at curing serious diseases with laying on of hands or saying "be clean" :)
Most people refused to believe what Jesus Christ said about Himself even when they saw the miracles. Most people turned and walked away from Him, and you would have been as you are now, one of those people.
There is no excuse for not believing that God loves you and died for you to save you from your sins, to save you from death, to save you from what you deserve which is dying as you are now dying eternally in the fire of Hell. You are only one heartbeat away from what you ultimately deserve, you are getting what you deserve now which is dying.
Deny it until you are blue in the face, make these silly arguments trying to prove there is no truth in reality, and see if your desire keeps you out of Hell, you are free to go your own way and enjoy it all you can.
Again, you are confusing religion with reality. Religion is what you do to convince yourself that you will not suffer eternal damnation in Hell's fire. Reality is that only God can get you out of dying. You either believe it or you don't.
Denying that you are convinced of facts does not exempt you from reality. You are dying, dying people need to be saved, you cannot save yourself, only God can save you, and the only way He can save you is that He paid your price in death to buy you back from what you are legally held by....death.
You can devote your time and attention to whatever you think is "greater good" until you are blue in the face. That is what religion is....thinking you can earn or have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell. Atheism makes the same false promise in its religion of non-belief.
What is your problem that you cannot spell God's name correctly? You see, when you say you would believe Jesus is you were there when He raised the dead and healed the sick, but I know you are lying because you are willfully denying that God is God and you show it by refusing to spell His name correctly.
Denial won't get you out of reality, you are in condemnation of death for your sins, and you need to be saved or you will end up where sin must be confined in the ever-consuming fire of Hell.
God cannot save you when you are in defiance against Him, in rebellion against Him. Few will be saved, you are one of the many who think they are as good or better than God and you are making a fatal mistake which is going to land you in Hell if you keep on with it.
Sure there are other explanations for reality which have been concocted.....if you can't won't concede that the truth is true you have no way of knowing even your own words are true. You're only fooling yourself.
The root of your "debating" is to justify your lust. To say this debate you created has nothing to do with sexuality is a lie. You are trying to justify your lusts, you walk according to your lusts and you talk according to your lusts.
Ok , I admit it, I debate religion in hopes that beautiful women will approach me in droves begging me to impregnate them. And I would have got away with it too if you werent chosen by god to shame me so effectively...lol
You're fooling yourself, trying to justify yourself......and that is the essence of religion including the religion of atheism, and all religions will lead their followers to Hell.
Jesus Christ is God the Savior who can and will save you from Hell. That is a fact of reality, you don't have to believe it, you can find out for yourself if Hell is real. How long do you think it will be before you find out?
