× Register Login What's New! Contact us
Greatest Objections to Christianity?
Page 2 of 5 First 1 2 3 4 ... Last
Results 21 to 40 of 82
  1. #1
    Array randomcitizen1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    3
    Threads
    1
    Reputation
    7
    Rep Power
    0

    Greatest Objections to Christianity? (OP)


    What is/are your greatest objection(s) to Christianity and why?

    What school or branch of Islam do you consider yourself a part of?

    For the first question, relatively detailed responses are preferable to one-sentence replies.

    Thank you for your time.

  2. #21
    Futuwwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    1,240
    Threads
    10
    Reputation
    5709
    Rep Power
    50
    Likes (Given)
    27
    Likes (Received)
    582

    Re: Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    Report bad ads?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thekafir View Post
    Did you want examples or are you simply throwing stones at glass houses?

    1. Christianity is not single sourced.
    2. The Quran is a single sourced document.
    3. It is historically inaccurate.
    4. The Quran is scientifically incorrect.
    5. The Quran is internally contradictory.
    Which one would you like me to start with?
    Whichever floats your boat.

  3. Report bad ads?
  4. #22
    Futuwwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    1,240
    Threads
    10
    Reputation
    5709
    Rep Power
    50
    Likes (Given)
    27
    Likes (Received)
    582

    Re: Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thekafir View Post
    Do you understand the consequences of sin? The consequence of sin is death --- in hell --- God just simply can't forgive a sin without a payment just as a "just" judge cannot let a murderer free for not killing everyone else in the world... there has to be a payment for those sins...
    If God cannot do that, then he is not omnipotent. Neither can he be the prime mover / original cause of everything, nor the source of objective morality. Rather, there must be some cosmic force of justice that is above God, that even God is constrained by and, as a corollary, determines an objective morality independent of God. A cosmic force that, curiously enough, seems to have no other effect than constraining God. If you are a science teacher as you say, you should know what an ad hoc hypothesis is.

  5. #23
    Grandad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    191
    Threads
    1
    Reputation
    1314
    Rep Power
    11
    Likes (Given)
    313
    Likes (Received)
    223

    Re: Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    Hello ‘Thekafir’.

    Here is my understanding of the Christian doctrine of Redemption:

    Through revelation we know that when Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) created Adam and Eve they received, as part of their human nature, sanctifying grace; that which: ‘Gives us acceptance into the kinship of God.’ (Council of Trent: Enchiridion; article 796).

    The Bible teaches that Adam and Eve disobeyed the Exalted, and in so doing committed a personal sin. This sin, according to the Church, affected human nature itself, depriving it of its original and natural sanctifying grace. This deprivation of sanctifying grace is called ‘Original Sin’.

    It is important to realise that Original Sin is called ‘sin’ in an analogical, rather than literal sense. We are not born with sin in the normal sense of the word; rather, we are born without our original holiness; without sanctifying grace. In other words, we are born with a ‘fallen human nature’. The remedy, according to the Church, is baptism, which sanctifies our soul and in so doing ‘washes away original sin’ by restoring our souls to their original state.

    Adam’s sin separated man from union with Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla). We were no longer at one with Him, as He had created us to be. In order to satisfy His’ justice a pure and acceptable sacrifice had to be made; and this needed to be the Exalted himself. This is why He became incarnate - so that He might offer Himself, as a sacrifice in our place, and thus enable humankind to become re-united with Him.

    It is important to realise that redemption is not the same as salvation. One can be redeemed and not be saved. Christ's redemption opened the doors of our prison, but we must each make the decision to walk through that door. We do this only through baptism, and then by recognising and accepting what Christ has done for us – the greatest act of love known to man. If we do not accept the grace which flows from his sacrifice, we remain in our prison and we loose salvation.


    According to the Catholic Catechism the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’ is an essential truth of the faith (‘De fide’): ‘With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story's ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.’ (Part One; Section Two; Paragraph 7).

    This is a very interesting statement. What is being admitted here is that the Tanakh contains no reference whatsoever to the concept of ‘original sin’. Indeed, this concept is alien to Judaism to this very day.

    When a Catholic, I was only too aware that we: ‘….cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.’ (Catechism: Part One; Section Two; Paragraph 7). I accepted - without hesitation - that: ‘All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners….sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned." (Catechism: Part One; Section Two; Paragraph 7); and that the Church, following St Paul, has always taught that Adam: ‘Transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".’ (Part One; Section Two; Paragraph 7).

    When asked to explain how this ‘transmission’ of 'original sin' takes place I replied in the traditional manner: ‘It’s a mystery we cannot fully understand.’ I did acknowledge, however, the Church’s teaching that it is transmitted by the sexual act; that it to say, it is a sin: ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’ - a state and not an act.’ (Catechism: Part One; Section Two; Paragraph 7).

    Islam and Judaism teach that to sin is merely a part of life. None of us is perfect, and each of us has an inclination to sin. Both religions teach that no act is sinful unless the person knows it to be wrong, and has wilful intent. But the knowledge of good and evil did not come to Adam (or to Eve) until after the event. Only then did he realise his mistake. He was like a child who hears an obscene word for the very first time and - in all innocence - repeats it to his parents (usually in full voice, and in front of the neighbours). What parent would punish his child for such innocent behaviour - still less punish, many years later, his grandchildren for the origin ‘sin’ of their dad?

    Muslims do not believe that Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) behaved in this way; and neither do the Jews. Only the Christians believe this - and not all of them either (Unitarians, for example, do not).

    The Prophets of the Tanakh knew nothing of ‘original sin’; and so had nothing to say about it. The only biblical person cited by the Catholic Church in its attempt to justify its doctrine of original sin - and to support its doctrine of Redemption through Yeshua (radi Allahu ‘anhu) - is Paul.

    This man was not a prophet. He was not a disciple of Yeshua. He never knew him; never heard him preach or teach. Those who did hear him speak have nothing to say on the matter of ‘origin sin’. How can this be? The only answer that makes any sense is that Yeshua did not teach it. This is not surprising, since he was a Tanakh believing Jew; a rabbi no less.

    We must conclude that the concept of ‘original sin’ is an invention of Paul; a justification for the second of his inventions: the deification of a man.

    - - - Updated - - -

    According to the Church, Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent. In its Fifth Session, the Council of Trent issued the following decrees concerning this sin:

    ‘If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema: - whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.’

    ‘If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam, - which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, - is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema.’

    ‘If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting, - whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, - let him be anathema.’ (The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecumenical Council of Trent: Trans. J. Waterworth).

    It is perfectly clear from these decrees that the sin of Adam (‘original sin’) does not belong just to him, but is given to each and every one of us - adult and infant alike - to be our very own.

    As you know, the effect of original sin is said to be removed by baptism: ‘There is no other way to come to the aid (of little children) than the sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched from the power of the devil and adopted as children of God’ (Decree for the Jacobites at the Council of Florence: DS 1349); and again: ‘If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only razed, or not imputed; let him be anathema.’ (The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecumenical Council of Trent: Trans. J. Waterworth).

    Note that baptism is claimed to be the only means by with the unbaptised child can be: ‘snatched from the power of the devil.’

    The Church teaches that those who die in a state of ‘original sin’ are excluded from the Beatific Vision.

    This doctrine was declared by both the 2nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438-1445).

    The Catholic Encyclopaedia defines the Beatific Vision as: ‘The immediate knowledge of God which the angelic spirits and the souls of the just enjoy in Heaven. It is called "vision" to distinguish it from the mediate knowledge of God which the human mind may attain in the present life. And since in beholding God face to face the created intelligence finds perfect happiness, the vision is termed "beatific".’

    To keep it simple: Infants who die unbaptised do not enter Heaven.

    In 2007 - alarmed by the number of infants dying unbaptised (including those dying by abortion) the Church set up an International Theological Commission. This Commission published a study paper entitled: ‘The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised.’

    The conclusion of this study was that: ‘There are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable - to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.’

    The authors of the report state that: ‘When reflecting theologically on the salvation of infants who die without Baptism, the Church respects the hierarchy of truths.’

    Let me remind you of one particular ‘truth’: ‘Those who die in a state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision (De Fide).’

    No one appears to have any problem when this notion is applied to adults. They have a terrible problem (understandably so) when the same notion is applied to infants.

    If unbaptised babies don’t go to heaven, where else do they go?

    When I was a teenager - and a new Catholic - my fellow believers used to speak (quite often) about something they called ‘limbo’; the limbus infantium (or puerorum) - that boundary of Hell that is said to be the permanent status of the unbaptised who die in infancy, too young to have committed personal sins, but not having been freed of original sin. The Catholic Encyclopaedia has this to say about it:

    ‘The New Testament contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. But, by insisting on the absolute necessity of being "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of heaven, Christ clearly enough implies that men are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul’s teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Romans 5:12 sqq).

    ‘On the other hand, it is clear from Scripture and Catholic tradition that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision (John 9:4, Luke 12:40, 16:19 sqq; 2 Corinthians 5:10.). The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such person. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy, and will eternally enjoy, a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the "children's limbo."’

    ‘The death of an unbaptised infant presents Catholic theologians with a poignant problem. The dawn star of Christian culture had hardly risen when men first raised the question, and it has continued to echo through the centuries. There are reasons enough for the persistent reappearance of the difficulty. The fate of an unbaptised child is closely tied to several highly volatile questions: original sin, the necessity of baptism, the salvific will of God. Each of these issues is a vital nerve in the body of Catholic doctrine, and each can be studied with clinical precision in the person of an unbaptised child.’

    End of quote.

    There is a disconnect between the Magisterium of the Church and the views of many - perhaps most - Catholics, especially the laity. The Second Vatican Council was asked to rule on this matter - to overturn the official doctrines and canons of past Councils - but this was declined.

    I have searched in vain for an official declaration - approved by the Magisterium - saying that the various doctrines I have quoted need no longer be believed; that it is no longer a 'heresy' to speak against them; or a cause for excommunication (the censure for denying a 'de fide' doctrine). If any Christian (or Muslim) can find one, please let me have its source.

    Most of the world’s people die unbaptised. I accept without reservation that all who die - baptised or not - are subject to the love, mercy and compassion of the Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla). I also accept that His love; His mercy; and His compassion are without limit; given to all people - including Adam; thus ruling out any need for ‘redemption’, as taught by the Church.

    Islam teaches that it is not possible for a new-born baby to be anything other than sinless; that no child has inherited the sin of its parents: ‘Say: “Should I seek a Lord other than Allāh, when He is the Lord of all things?” Each soul is responsible for its own actions; no soul will bear the burden of another. You will all return to your Lord in the end, and He will tell you the truth about your differences.’ (Al-An‘am: 164).

    This verse finds its counterparts in the Bible: 'Parents may not be put to death for their children, nor children for parents, but each must be put to death for his own crime.’ (Deuteronomy 24:16); and again: 'Now, you say: "Why doesn't the son bear his father's guilt?" If the son has been law-abiding and upright, has kept all my laws and followed them, most certainly he will live. The one who has sinned is the one who must die; a son is not to bear his father's guilt, nor a father his son's guilt. The upright will be credited with his uprightness, and the wicked with his wickedness. If the wicked, however, renounces all the sins he has committed, respects my laws and is law-abiding and upright, he will most certainly live; he will not die. None of the crimes he committed will be remembered against him from then on; he will most certainly live because of his upright actions. Would I take pleasure in the death of the wicked - declares the Lord Yahweh - and not prefer to see him renounce his wickedness and live?’ (Ezekiel: 18: 19-23).

    The message conveyed by these verses is clear enough: Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla), who is Just, will never punish people for the sins of others.

    Some Christians argue that since the Exalted is infinite, our sins have an infinite effect. They would need to demonstrate how a finite act, carried out by a finite individual can have an infinite effect.

    You claim that the Exalted: ‘…just simply can't forgive a sin without a payment just as a "just" judge cannot let a murderer free for not killing everyone else in the world... there has to be a payment for those sins...’

    Not according to Islam. Several years ago I was visiting my Muslim family in Rabat (Morocco). I was not then a Muslim. One night, I was struck by a van being driven (without lights) through a pedestrian precinct. After hospital treatment I was driven back to my son’s home. Waiting outside were two detectives. The senior of these detectives approached me. His first words were: ‘Do you pardon him (the driver)?’ I said that I did; and apart from making a statement, that was the end of the matter.

    I found it very odd at the time. It was only later - after I had learned more of Islam - that I knew why I had been asked that question. In the Sharia - which all Muslim’s accept as the very Law of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) - mercy overcomes justice. If that driver had set out to murder me, and had been successful, then the question: ‘Do you pardon him?’ would have been asked of my wife. An affirmative answer would have ended the matter.

    According to the Bible, forgiveness is nothing less than the act of pardoning somebody for a mistake or wrongdoing. To pardon someone is to release them from actual punishment (as when a prisoner is pardoned and released from prison; or from facing punishment). In other words, the victim graciously absolves the offender, pronouncing him blameless for his past misdeeds and releases him from all obligations to provide restitution or to suffer any further punishment.

    In the Tanakh, the Hebrew word most often translated as ‘forgiveness’ is ‘nasa/nasah’. It means ‘to lift’, as in, ‘to lift someone’s punishment from off of him.’ Joseph’s brothers, for example, beg him to forgive them, and not to bear a ‘grudge against us and pay us back in full for all the wrong which we did.’ (Genesis 50:15-17).

    In the New Testament the Greek word most often translated as forgive is ‘aphiemi’; meaning ‘to send away’, as if ‘to send away someone’s punishment’.

    Biblical forgiveness is the release from punishment, or from the obligations of restitution.

    St Thomas Aquinas writes: ‘It was not necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. For God with His omnipotent power could have restored human nature in many other ways.’ (Summa Theologica: Part Three; L.1, C.3).

    - - - Updated - - -

    Concerning Adam:

    It is the position of the Muslims that where the Bible and the Qur’an agree; there is no problem. That where the Bible contradicts the Qur’an; then the Qur’an takes precedence. That where there is neither agreement nor disagreement; then the matter is open for discussion, and Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) knows best!

    The Bible and the Qur’an agree that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla), created both Adam and Eve; but they differ as to what happened next.

    In Genesis, as you know, the Exalted prohibits both Adam and Eve from eating the fruits of the forbidden tree. However, the snake seduces Eve, and persuades her to eat from it: 'Now, the snake was the most subtle of all the wild animals that Yahweh God had made. It asked the woman: “Did God really say you were not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?” The woman answered the snake: “We may eat the fruit of the trees in the garden. But of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, ‘You must not eat it, nor touch it, under pain of death.’” Then the snake said to the woman: “No! You will not die! God knows in fact that the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good from evil.”. The woman saw that the tree was good to eat and pleasing to the eye, and that it was enticing for the wisdom that it could give. So she took some of its fruit and ate it.’ (Genesis; 3: 1-6).

    We are then told that Eve, in turn, seduced Adam to eat with her; and that when Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla), rebuked Adam for what he did, he put all the blame on Eve: ‘(God asked): “Have you been eating from the tree I forbade you to eat?” The man replied: “It was the woman you put with me; she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”’ (Verses 11-12).

    Consequently, the Exalted said to Eve: ‘I shall give you intense pain in childbearing, you will give birth to your children in pain.’ (Verse 16).

    The Qur’an presents a different account: ‘But you, Adam, and your wife live in the Garden. Both of you eat whatever you like, but do not go near this tree or you will become wrongdoers. Satan whispered to them so as to expose their nakedness, which had been hidden from them. He said: “Your Lord only forbade you this tree to prevent you becoming angels or immortals,” and he swore to them: “I am giving you sincere advice” - he lured them with lies. Their nakedness became exposed to them when they had eaten from the tree: they began to put together leaves from the Garden to cover themselves. Their Lord called to them: “Did I not forbid you to approach that tree? Did I not warn you that Satan was your sworn enemy?” (Al-A‘raf: 19-23).

    You will see that the Qur’an - in contrast to the Bible - places equal blame on both Adam and Eve for their mistake. Nowhere in the Qur’an do we find even the slightest suggestion that Eve tempted Adam to eat from the tree; or even that she had eaten before him. In the Qur’an, Eve is not a temptress; not a seducer; and not a deceiver. Moreover, she is not told that she (and by implication, all women after her) would suffer intense pain in childbearing as a direct result of her actions.

    Adam and Eve committed a sin. That much is clear. It was not Adam alone. When challenged they replied: ‘Our Lord, we have wronged our souls: if You do not forgive us and have mercy, we shall be lost.’ (Al-A‘raf: 23).

    Muslims do not accept that ‘mankind suffers the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin’; and the reason they do not accept this is that the pair were forgiven.

    Islam places great emphasis on the nature of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla)’s forgiveness - not just for Adam and Eve - but for each of us. According to Islamic theology all will stand before Him on the Day of Judgment. Each of us will be given a record of our lives. Those whose book is placed in their right hand will be admitted to Paradise; and those whose book is placed in their left will not.

    It is a tradition that a record of good deeds is made straight away; but that a record of bad deeds is delayed for some hours, to allow for repentance. Even when a sin is recorded it can be erased by sincere and genuine repentance (tawbah). Not only does tawbah wipe out an evil deed, it transforms that deed into a good one: ‘Those who repent, believe, and do good deeds, Allāh will change the evil deeds of such people into good ones. He is most forgiving, most merciful’ (Al-Furqan: 70).

    Every day of their lives - many times a day - Muslims speak the words: ‘The Lord of Mercy’; ‘The Giver of Mercy’; ‘The Compassionate’; ‘The Merciful’. These are the Beloved‘s Names. We did not give them to Him, He chose them for Himself. Of all His Names these are His favorite. That is why we are asked to speak them so often - so that we do not forget Who it is that loves us; Who it is that binds us to Himself with ties of tenderness, mercy and forgiveness.

    As you know, the truth that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla), not only forgives sin, but wipes them out is proclaimed in the Bible also: ‘Yahweh is tenderness and pity, slow to anger and rich in faithful love; His indignation does not last for ever, nor His resentment remain for all time; He does not treat us as our sins deserve, nor repay us as befits our offences. As the height of Heaven above earth, so strong is His faithful love for those who fear Him. As the distance of east from west, so far from us does He put our faults. As tenderly as a father treats his children, so Yahweh treats those who fear Him; He knows of what we are made, He remembers that we are dust.’ (Psalm 103: 8-14).

    Christians and Muslims agree that the love, mercy and compassion of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla), is the greatest of things, without which none of us could stand, not even for the briefest of moments. A person could spend an eternity of lifetimes in contemplation of this truth and not touch the depth and breadth of it.

    According to the Muslims, Adam and Eve were not ‘thrown out of the Garden’ in punishment, as you suggest. The Qur'an has made it clear that God accepted their repentance and pardoned them. His command that they leave the Garden for Earth brought to fulfilment the purpose for which they were created in the first place.

    The Muslim is bound to accept that the Qur’anic account is the correct one. The Christian, of course, will disagree; and that does not present a problem. It does not present a problem because Islam accepts that where there is difference of option a person has the right to act upon his conscience - having looked at all the options, and having make an honest judgement.

    Muslims believe that Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) did indeed choose a different way of dealing with Adam – the way of forgiveness: ‘Then Adam received some words from his Lord and He accepted his repentance: He is the Ever Relenting, the Most Merciful.’ (Al-Baqara: 37).

    The sin of Adam was wiped out. This act of Mercy ruled out any need for universal redemption.

    - - - Updated - - -

    My understanding of the Trinity:

    There is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

    These three persons are one God not three gods, because there is one substance of the three, one essence, one nature, one Godhead, one immensity, one eternity.

    Within the Godhead the Father is entirely within the Son and entirely within the Holy Spirit. The Son is entirely within the Father and entirely within the Host Spirit. The Holy Spirit is entirely within the Father and entirely within the Son. In other words, the three Persons form a single unity, indivisible and permanent. They are not three persons standing side by side, so to speak; such that one could join with a human body, to the total exclusion of the others.

    The Second Person of the Trinity (the ‘Divine Logos) is united ‘hypostatically’ to Christ. This union took place at the moment of his conception. In the ‘hypostatic union’ each of Yeshua’s two natures (divine and human) continue untransformed, unimpaired and unmixed with the other; and this ‘union’ will never end.

    Yeshua is perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity; true God and true man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father, and in the last days the same born according to his humanity for us and our salvation from the virgin Mary.


    'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…… And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…..' (John 1: verses 1 and 14: KJV).

    The Church teaches that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) is 'absolutely immutable'; that in Him there can be no change whatsoever. Not to the slightest degree. This is because He is pure spirit, pure actuality, with no potential for change. Here lies the first of my problems with the doctrine of the Trinity:

    How can the 'Second Person of the Trinity' - pure spirit, pure actuality, with no potential for change (none whatsoever) - become flesh (which is forever subject to change) without violating the Exalted's immutability; without a change to His very nature?

    And here is the second:

    Thomas Aquinas writes: 'All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, "God can do all things," is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent.

    'Therefore, that which implies being and non-being at the same time is repugnant to the idea of an absolutely possible thing, within the scope of the divine omnipotence. For such cannot come under the divine omnipotence, not because of any defect in the power of God, but because it has not the nature of a feasible or possible thing. Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility.' (Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 25; Article 3).

    There are certain 'intrinsically impossible' things that even an omnipotent God cannot do.

    First, He cannot do anything that would contradict his nature. For example, He cannot sin, since to sin: ‘Is to fall short of a perfect action; hence to be able to sin is to be able to fall short in action, which is repugnant to omnipotence.' (Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 25; Article 3).

    Second, He cannot do anything that would be logically impossible. He cannot, for example, create a three-sided triangle; or a man who is, at the same time, a donkey; for in the statement that a man is a donkey 'the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject.' (Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 25; Article 3).

    C. S. Lewis writes: '(God’s) Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say "God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it," you have not succeeded in saying anything about God.

    'Meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words "God can."… It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.' (The Problem of Pain).

    Note the words: 'It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; NOT BECAUSE HIS POWER MEETS AN OBSTACLE, BUT BECAUSE NONSENSE REMAINS NONSENSE EVEN WHEN WE TALK IT ABOUT GOD.'

    I have said before: the Church teaches that Yeshua is 'wholly man and wholly God'; and claims that this condition is ongoing, and permanent.

    There is another way of expressing this teaching: Yeshua is both wholly man and wholly not-man (God, after all, is not a man); and he will always be both wholly man and wholly not-man.

    Look again at Aquinas' words: 'that which implies being and non-being at the same time is repugnant to the idea of an absolutely possible thing, within the scope of the divine omnipotence.'

    Expressed somewhat differently: That which is 'A' and 'not-A' at one and the same time is….. 'repugnant to the idea of an absolutely possible thing, within the scope of the divine omnipotence.'

    This is the law of non-contradiction.

    The Persian philosopher, Avicenna, said: 'Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.' (Metaphysics, I.8; commenting on Aristotle).

    If we define 'man' as a member of the species homo-sapiens, with various physical and mental limitations, then we distinguish 'man' from 'God'. If Yeshua is 'wholly man' then he cannot possibly be wholly not-man ('God') at one and the same time and in the same relationship to what defines a man. If we insist that he is indeed both 'man' and 'God' – and if we preserve the integrity of the definitions of these terms – then we make him a logical contradiction.

    The thing about logical contradictions is that they are never true. They are always false, because the real world never satisfies both a statement and its negation at the same time, simply by the meaning of negation.

    There are those who argue that 'logic' is entirely man-made; and that the 'laws of logic' do not apply to Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla).

    I would reply that these laws are necessary truths - that is to say, they are true not only in the world we know, but in every possible world. Indeed, they were true when there were no worlds; when nothing existed at all but Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) Himself.

    James N. Anderson and Greg Welty write: 'Just whose thoughts are the laws of logic? There are no more thoughts without minds than there is smoke without fire. Our first inclination might be to say that they must be our thoughts. After all, we’re the ones who think about the laws of logic and apply them to our other thoughts. But the fact that we have thoughts about the laws of logic no more entails that the laws of logic are just our thoughts than the fact that we have thoughts about the Eiffel Tower entails that the Eiffel Tower is merely a product of our minds.

    'In any case, the laws of logic couldn’t be our thoughts - or the thoughts of any other contingent being for that matter - for as we’ve seen, the laws of logic exist necessarily if they exist at all.

    'If the laws of logic are necessarily existent thoughts, they can only be the thoughts of a necessarily existent mind. It doesn't require much further thought to see whose mind this must be. A necessarily existent mind must be the mind of a necessarily existent person. And this, as Aquinas would say, everyone understands to be God.' ('The Lord of Non-Contradiction: An Argument for God from Logic').

    The laws of logic arise from the mind of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla), and are part of His very nature. And just as He cannot violate His own nature, neither can He violate His laws. That is why: 'It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.' (The Problem of Pain).
    Last edited by Grandad; 11-21-2017 at 06:00 AM.
    2 | Likes Bushwackk, Silas liked this post
    Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib‎)

  6. #24
    Bushwackk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    DAWAH DIGITAL HQ
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    7,356
    Threads
    129
    Reputation
    50330
    Rep Power
    79
    Likes (Given)
    8589
    Likes (Received)
    6173

    Re: Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thekafir View Post
    I am truly ignorant of the teachings... etc... of this man. I just did a google search and this is what came up. But his history is confusing... He was a Christian... um... scholar - studying Christianity at the "graduate" level... which caused him to revert to Islam... and then... when having to actually practice Islam.. he can't take the "pain" more or less of having to fast... which causes him to leave Islam... making him an apostate... then... now you are telling me that he has returned to the straight path and all is good.
    This raises several questions --- but won't bother asking as you seem to want to move to questioning Christianity without defending Islam (this is the "comparative religions thread? Yes? So what kinda exemption is Islam afforded when comparing? - just asking)...
    I've said this before and I'll say it again - if you wanna compare faiths, then be clear about that in the OP and title, you should have more integrity and not pull a bait n switch when your premise is on the back foot, savvy?
    Greatest Objections to Christianity?


  7. Report bad ads?
  8. #25
    Thekafir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Kafiristan
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    23
    Threads
    2
    Reputation
    -61
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Re: Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by air View Post
    So do you mean it's ok to be a sinner, since God already paid my sin? what about if by chance I encounter with some schene like a man rape a woman, should I let him doing it, since there's no consequences for the man or for me if we accept the death of Jesus Christ? will God still loving me not helping the woman but enjoying the rape scene?
    For me, I can't accept this, especially if the woman is my relative, I wan't the rapper and the one who doing nothing while actually they can to be punished, well of course there's always consequences that I might be the one who in hell, I don't want to be in hell, so that's why I'll try my best to become a best Muslim as I can, and avoid to do a sin.
    Since you said that your concept of God is loving us so much, then why you hate and insult (from what I read from your posts) our prophet Muhammad PBUH so much? where's your hatred is come from?
    Lets go back to what I write:
    1. Christianity is not single sourced.
    2. The Quran is a single sourced document.
    3. It is historically inaccurate.
    4. The Quran is scientifically incorrect.
    5. The Quran is internally contradictory.

    Now compare that to your reply --- which of those points did you answer?
    None...
    Why is it that Muslims have such a hard time staying focused on a given topic?
    I don't hate Muslims Sir.... I love them enough to engage them enough in spirit and truth even when they try to avoid that glaring reality...


    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Scimitar View Post
    I've said this before and I'll say it again - if you wanna compare faiths, then be clear about that in the OP and title, you should have more integrity and not pull a bait n switch when your premise is on the back foot, savvy?
    So if I start another thread, another OP, you'll engage in an honest discussion --- as long as it in in the appropriate... "OP" or thread?

    Why not here --- why not now? Just asking...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Grandad View Post
    Hello ‘Thekafir’.
    Sooooo... I read none of this...

    Honestly...

    Pick your best whatever this about and ask me to defend it.... I don't have the time you do... :-)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa View Post
    If God cannot do that, then he is not omnipotent.
    If God can not forgive sins with a payment... He is not omnipotent? All powerful???

    So if God forgives sins when He feels like it He is therefore omnipotent?

    Nope --- fail. He states that there is a penalty for sin.. which is death in hell... to change that is precociousness...

  9. #26
    air's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    35
    Threads
    1
    Reputation
    13
    Rep Power
    8
    Likes (Given)
    31
    Likes (Received)
    8

    Re: Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thekafir View Post
    Lets go back to what I write:
    1. Christianity is not single sourced.
    2. The Quran is a single sourced document.
    3. It is historically inaccurate.
    4. The Quran is scientifically incorrect.
    5. The Quran is internally contradictory.

    Now compare that to your reply --- which of those points did you answer?
    None...
    Why is it that Muslims have such a hard time staying focused on a given topic?
    I don't hate Muslims Sir.... I love them enough to engage them enough in spirit and truth even when they try to avoid that glaring reality...

    Why this have something to do with me? isn't this your reply to Futuwwa? if you don't know, there's ---- updated ---- line between your reply to Futuwwa and mine, that mean you reply him and mine in different post, and that's why I assume you ask him not me...

    Are you sure I'm not focused? you're not doing falsely aren't you?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Here look there's an update line above, it mean I post in different time....

  10. #27
    Grandad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    191
    Threads
    1
    Reputation
    1314
    Rep Power
    11
    Likes (Given)
    313
    Likes (Received)
    223

    Re: Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thekafir View Post
    Lets go back to what I write:
    1. Christianity is not single sourced.
    2. The Quran is a single sourced document.
    3. It is historically inaccurate.
    4. The Quran is scientifically incorrect.
    5. The Quran is internally contradictory.

    Now compare that to your reply --- which of those points did you answer?
    None...
    Why is it that Muslims have such a hard time staying focused on a given topic?
    I don't hate Muslims Sir.... I love them enough to engage them enough in spirit and truth even when they try to avoid that glaring reality...


    - - - Updated - - -


    So if I start another thread, another OP, you'll engage in an honest discussion --- as long as it in in the appropriate... "OP" or thread?

    Why not here --- why not now? Just asking...

    - - - Updated - - -


    Sooooo... I read none of this...

    Honestly...

    Pick your best whatever this about and ask me to defend it.... I don't have the time you do
    It isn't time you lack...it's the ability to refute my statements.

    You have found in this Muslim - and in others on this site - one who knows your religion at least as well as you do (and by the quality of your writing, better than you do); and their own religion far better than you do.

    You claim to be a teacher. Here is the motto of the Royal Air Force's Education Branch: 'He who would teach, first let him learn.' Come back when your knowledge is greater than it now is....or else have the humility to acknowledge than you are the pupil here.

    Have a nice day.
    1 | Likes air liked this post
    Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib‎)

  11. #28
    Futuwwa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    1,240
    Threads
    10
    Reputation
    5709
    Rep Power
    50
    Likes (Given)
    27
    Likes (Received)
    582

    Re: Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thekafir View Post
    If God can not forgive sins with a payment... He is not omnipotent? All powerful???

    So if God forgives sins when He feels like it He is therefore omnipotent?

    Nope --- fail. He states that there is a penalty for sin.. which is death in hell... to change that is precociousness...
    If God cannot forgive sins without payment, then he is not omnipotent. Correct. Omnipotent means having the power to do anything whatsoever. If there is even one thing God cannot do, then he isn't omnipotent. If he is omnipotent, he is able to send Jesus and Muhammed both to Hell, and admit Satan to Heaven. Should he choose to.

    You didn't even try to refute a word of what I said, nor demonstrate any kind of internal philosophical consistency in your position, you just replied with a just-so statement of dogma.

  12. #29
    anatolian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Turkey
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    1,609
    Threads
    40
    Reputation
    5397
    Rep Power
    70
    Likes (Given)
    299
    Likes (Received)
    924

    Re: Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    The second objection of Mine is Paul’s teachings. It seems the first Paul corrupted Christianity or we can say he started Christianity from the teachings of Jesus.
    Last edited by anatolian; 11-21-2017 at 10:00 AM.

  13. Report bad ads?
  14. #30
    syphax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    29
    Threads
    3
    Reputation
    27
    Rep Power
    7
    Likes (Given)
    51
    Likes (Received)
    22

    Re: Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    From what i know Christianity is based on the father - son relationship but if I have to put a comparison it's like a "mechanical engineer tray to have a son to the robot he made " it's the kind of scandal you see on the news .the act itself is immortal and do not feet to Allah (aza wa jal) like God had a son what next they go to the beach on vacation (astaghfir Allah) but plot twist Jesus and God the same person wow . breaking news the mechanical engineer had a son with his robot but it's turn out that they are the same person despite his son who is himself is a robot (logic)

    Other than that there is the original sin . so to the Christians I am guilty of it , a sin I didn't do even a baby cause a baby don't know Jesus so is guilty as long he don't recognise Jesus as his lord .in the same logic if my grandfather had committed a crime so me and my father also guilty ?

  15. #31
    randomcitizen1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    3
    Threads
    1
    Reputation
    7
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Re: Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    Thank you all for your meaningful responses. I appreciate you all sharing your knowledge and perspective on the matter.
    2 | Likes syphax, air liked this post

  16. #32
    Silas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Chicago USA
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Other
    Posts
    107
    Threads
    12
    Reputation
    635
    Rep Power
    10
    Likes (Given)
    127
    Likes (Received)
    96

    Re: Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    The trinity and the nature of Jesus are the things that Christians struggle most with (including myself)

    There was endless debate and controversy over these matters in the middle-ages, and they continue to this day

    My kids have been exposed to both Christianity and Islam, and have friends of both faiths (and Hinduism as well: I live in a very diverse area). The thing I struggle the most with is the idea that I am both qualified to, and expected to, recommend a path for the kids to take. I feel that ultimate truths, and religions, have to be freely chosen (no compulsion in religion).

    But I also think that the path to God is a struggle that requires great sacrifice and commitment: it is something that transforms a person. It is not something lightly undertaken, and I think that people should ask difficult questions concerning their faith. Paul Williams embraced Islam for perhaps dubious reasons: maybe he thought it was fashionable, or had some strange sense of pity towards people he thought were victims. Later, when the path became difficult, he abandoned the faith.

  17. #33
    Bushwackk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    DAWAH DIGITAL HQ
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    7,356
    Threads
    129
    Reputation
    50330
    Rep Power
    79
    Likes (Given)
    8589
    Likes (Received)
    6173

    Re: Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thekafir View Post
    So if I start another thread, another OP, you'll engage in an honest discussion --- as long as it in in the appropriate... "OP" or thread?
    If I have time, yes, why not? But you have to understand, I don't post here on this forum as much as I once used to. Responsibilities and fulfilling my obligations (work, family, worship) as well as Dawah work and filming/editing takes up a lot of time, which is why even this post is made at 11:30pm, before bed. Free time is a luxury I wish I had.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thekafir View Post
    Why not here --- why not now? Just asking...
    This thread would become messy, and meander away from the OP and go offtopic, of course... and besides - You - still have to watch the videos I put up and respond to those as well.

    Peace
    Last edited by Bushwackk; 11-21-2017 at 11:38 PM.
    Greatest Objections to Christianity?


  18. #34
    Thekafir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Kafiristan
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    23
    Threads
    2
    Reputation
    -61
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Re: Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grandad View Post
    It isn't time you lack...it's the ability to refute my statements.
    Yeah --- that has to be it... lol...

    You have found in this Muslim - and in others on this site - one who knows your religion at least as well as you do (and by the quality of your writing, better than you do); and their own religion far better than you do.
    I hear that alot... what you have found here --- in me --- one who knows your religion --- and one who doesn't bother much with the out of context commentary, oft employer obfuscation, and the never ending conflation of mine... as far as my writing goes... lol... I think faster then I write and don't proof read much... you need time to do that --- which goes back to my original point.

    You claim to be a teacher. Here is the motto of the Royal Air Force's Education Branch: 'He who would teach, first let him learn.' Come back when your knowledge is greater than it now is....or else have the humility to acknowledge than you are the pupil here.
    No --- I don't make that claim... I am... and proud of that fact. I spent a career in the United States Army and now, for the past ten years, have the ability to influence the learning of over 130 students a day for 180 days out of the year... I also have to grade papers - write lessons - develop power points - assignments - et. al.... ergo... T - I -M - E...

    Have a nice day.

  19. Report bad ads?
  20. #35
    Bushwackk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    DAWAH DIGITAL HQ
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    7,356
    Threads
    129
    Reputation
    50330
    Rep Power
    79
    Likes (Given)
    8589
    Likes (Received)
    6173

    Re: Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thekafir View Post
    I spent a career in the United States Army and now, for the past ten years, have the ability to influence the learning of over 130 students a day for 180 days out of the year... I also have to grade papers - write lessons - develop power points - assignments - et. al.... ergo... T - I -M - E...

    Have a nice day.
    The USA's standard of education is pathetically low, compared to even third world nations!
    Greatest Objections to Christianity?


  21. #36
    Thekafir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Kafiristan
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    23
    Threads
    2
    Reputation
    -61
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Re: Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa View Post
    If God cannot forgive sins without payment, then he is not omnipotent. Correct.
    No --- its a contradiction. You are saying that since God cannot contradict Himself - He is therefore not God. This is a silly argument.. akin to saying God cannot make a square circle...

    Omnipotent means having the power to do anything whatsoever.
    lol...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa View Post
    If God cannot forgive sins without payment, then he is not omnipotent. Correct.
    No --- its a contradiction. You are saying that since God cannot contradict Himself - He is therefore not God. This is a silly argument.. akin to saying God cannot make a square circle...

    Omnipotent means having the power to do anything whatsoever.
    lol...

    - - - Updated - - -

    whatever that last post was --- it was not meant to be two of the same thing --- sorry...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Scimitar View Post
    The USA's standard of education is pathetically low, compared to even third world nations!
    Ignorance of where those statistics comes from causes people to make statements like this... How many of the citizens of say --- Saudi Arabia are tested? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Nigeria? Egypt? Even Japan? If you don't know what goes on in the classroom its best not to comment on it... it only makes you look ignorant...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Scimitar View Post
    If I have time, yes, why not? But you have to understand, I don't post here on this forum as much as I once used to. Responsibilities and fulfilling my obligations (work, family, worship) as well as Dawah work and filming/editing takes up a lot of time, which is why even this post is made at 11:30pm, before bed. Free time is a luxury I wish I had.
    waaaat? we have something in common? Stop making sense...
    This thread would become messy, and meander away from the OP and go offtopic, of course..
    .
    I am new to this message board and will take you word for it... but have participated on many others and found that responses like this are deflections... sorry for the brutal honesty...
    and besides - You - still have to watch the videos I put up and respond to those as well.
    Time... and ... you still haven't --- at least from what I have had the time to read --- addressed his re-re-re-version to Islam because of his homosexuality... Romans 1:32 talks about that...

    Peace
    and blessings unto you...

  22. #37
    Bushwackk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    DAWAH DIGITAL HQ
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    7,356
    Threads
    129
    Reputation
    50330
    Rep Power
    79
    Likes (Given)
    8589
    Likes (Received)
    6173

    Re: Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thekafir View Post
    No --- its a contradiction. You are saying that since God cannot contradict Himself - He is therefore not God. This is a silly argument.. akin to saying God cannot make a square circle...
    You need to study philosophy, and leave your sophistry at the door, young man!

    God made the observable laws of physics in this universe which He doesn't contradict in plain view of His creation. This universe is built with "rules", physical rules/laws, which are barriers to HIM - if you cannot understand this then you need to retake Theology101.

    I am starting to suspect you are not a teacher now. You've made school boy errors in assuming nonsense narratives such as square circles and stones which are too heavy to lift et al - that line of enquiry just shows how unprepared you really are to debate theology. But what can I expect from one who believes this meme is the truth:

    1 | Likes syphax liked this post
    Greatest Objections to Christianity?


  23. #38
    Thekafir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Kafiristan
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    23
    Threads
    2
    Reputation
    -61
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Re: Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grandad View Post
    Hello ‘Thekafir’.
    Here is my understanding of the Christian doctrine of Redemption:
    My understanding of the Trinity:
    Pick your best objection on both of these... I don't have the time to address all of them...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Grandad View Post
    Hello ‘Thekafir’.
    Here is my understanding of the Christian doctrine of Redemption:
    My understanding of the Trinity:
    Pick your best objection on both of these... I don't have the time to address all of them...

  24. #39
    Bushwackk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    DAWAH DIGITAL HQ
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    7,356
    Threads
    129
    Reputation
    50330
    Rep Power
    79
    Likes (Given)
    8589
    Likes (Received)
    6173

    Re: Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thekafir View Post
    Pick your best objection on both of these... I don't have the time to address all of them...
    Why not be honest and say that you "don't have what it takes to address them all"
    Greatest Objections to Christianity?


  25. Report bad ads?
  26. #40
    Thekafir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Kafiristan
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Christianity
    Posts
    23
    Threads
    2
    Reputation
    -61
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Re: Greatest Objections to Christianity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scimitar View Post
    You need to study philosophy, and leave your sophistry at the door, young man!
    lol... Okay...

    God made the observable laws of physics in this universe which He doesn't contradict in plain view of His creation.
    Oh so God can not create ex nihilo? Contradicting the laws of the universe... perhaps you ought to revisit what your Quran has to say about this!!!

    his universe is built with "rules", physical rules/laws, which are barriers to HIM - if you cannot understand this then you need to retake Theology101.
    How bout basic physics Einstein. Energy is neither created or destroyed... lets go to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics... how did this happen without a contradiction of the physical rules/laws - barriers... lol... or however else you want to describe them...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Scimitar View Post
    You need to study philosophy, and leave your sophistry at the door, young man!
    lol... Okay...

    God made the observable laws of physics in this universe which He doesn't contradict in plain view of His creation.
    Oh so God can not create ex nihilo? Contradicting the laws of the universe... perhaps you ought to revisit what your Quran has to say about this!!!

    [quote[]his universe is built with "rules", physical rules/laws, which are barriers to HIM - if you cannot understand this then you need to retake Theology101.[/quote]

    How bout basic physics Einstein. Energy is neither created or destroyed... lets go to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics... how did this happen without a contradiction of the physical rules/laws - barriers... lol... or however else you want to describe them...
    Last edited by Thekafir; 11-22-2017 at 02:51 PM.

  27. Hide
Page 2 of 5 First 1 2 3 4 ... Last
Hey there! Greatest Objections to Christianity? Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Greatest Objections to Christianity?
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Salah Ad-Din: Of the Greatest Rulers of the Greatest Ummah!
    By seeker_of_ilm in forum Islamic Multimedia
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-26-2016, 01:31 AM
  2. Muslim cemetery plan objections
    By Uthman in forum World Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-22-2007, 01:46 PM
  3. Early Christianity + Paganism = Modern Christianity
    By QuranStudy in forum Comparative religion
    Replies: 137
    Last Post: 09-14-2006, 08:28 PM
  4. Virgin Mary and objections
    By jello in forum Comparative religion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-28-2006, 06:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
create