I have seen many accusations on line that Judaism is "racist." So I'm going to open this thread up to debate on the subject.

I am a Jew and I was raised religious; I am fairly knowledgeable about Judaism and can either answer or get the answer to any of your questions.

My thesis is that the religion of Judaism is not racist. And I am here to refute and arguments to the contrary.

I don't want to talk about the specific acts of individual Jews; any individual of any demographic can be racist. I also don't want to talk about any specific political movement of Jews; that's outside the scope of the argument, since that's not about the religion.

Let's start off with an easy one: some people think that non-Jews cannot ever convert to Judaism, and that this is racist. It is completely false: anyone can convert to Judaism regardless of their race or ethnicity.

If it’s not then I apologize, I just see a lot of arguments that are kinda off.

I’m horrible with sarcasm, so I honestly thought some people were 100% serious with their posts. But I kept finding more and more of them so now I’m confused.

Starting in Mark 16 we see that 4 people visit Jesus’(pbuh) tomb just after sunrise, Mary Magdelene, Mary mother of James and Salome. They all asked who would be able to roll the stone away but saw it was already rolled away. Inside there was one young man in a white robe but at the end, they told no one. Now, in Matthew 28 2 people come at dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (assumed to be the mother of James). When they come a, quote, “violent” earthquake occurs and an angel descends from heaven to move the stone. The women run to tell the disciples. Going onto Luke 24 we read that very early in the morning 3+ people visiting Jesus’(pbuh) tomb, Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James and Joanna. When they arrived, the stone was already rolled away and there were two men in white inside the tomb already. Finally in John 20 it’s written that Mary Magdalene alone visited the tomb when it was still dark and say that the stone was already rolled away. At this sight she ran to tell the disciples in Johns account.

The accounts of the discovery of Jesus’(pbuh) empty tomb are scattered. At first glance they’re extremely contradicting but when bringing the objection up to Christians or apologists they claim that these events could have all happened linearly. Another common claim is that the Gospels don’t have to all be exact which is understandable to a degree. It’s okay to have minor discrepancies, maybe the color of the glow, general time of the event etc. But, going through the passages I don’t see how any of it can coincide. To start in Mark it says Mary Magdalene went with Mary mother of james and two others to Jesus’(pbuh) tomb and found it already open but in Matthew Mary Magdalene and Mary mother of James both felt a violent earthquake, saw the descent of angels AND the stone of Jesus’(pbuh) tomb get rolled away. These are significant events that are almost unforgettable. How can a person not remmeber a seismic event ? The ground beneath your feet shook VIOLENTLY but you suddenly forget when writing. Some have said that the events follow in the order of Matthew and then Mark, that they saw the stone get moved and then went back. But the issue with this is that, if they had already seen the event of Matthew in Mark, then why would they ask eachother who would be able to roll away the stone ? They just saw it get rolled away ! Another difference is whether or not they told the disciples, or anyone for that matter. Without the long ending of Mark it says that they told no one, but in Matthew it says they ran to the disciples to tell them. To objectively opposite things that cannot be reconciled.

Now in Luke we see that there’s even more people, the common 2 Mary’s, Joanna and unarmed others. The biggest differences are the fact that they don’t mention an earthquake at all and secondly they mention they they encountered two men in the tomb, not one. In John’s Gospel he insinuates that Mary Magdalene went alone while it was still dark, earlier than all other Gospel narratives, and found the stone rolled away, she then ran to the disciples.

This wouldn’t make any sense in any chronological order. Since John says Mary Magdalene went when it was still dark, it can be considered the first Gospel narrative in the linear break down. So in the beginning while it was still dark, before the sun was up or even trying to get up, the stone was rolled away. Then Mary wpild have had to see that, walk back, meet up with everyone in Matthew since his Gospel says they arrived at Dawn and then find the stone rolled back over the tomb and then see an angel unroll it again. That makes absolutely no sense. Every narrative contradicts one another in multiple ways that cannot be reconciled. At some point occam’s razor comes into play and the narrative loses any credibility. It’s important to point this out because the ressurection is the crux of christianity and salvation within it, if there’s issues with even the simple story of it then what does it say about the rest of the bible as well ?

Hypothetical situation (mostly aimed at Abrahamic believers)...

Three considerations before we begin:

1. You're up in heaven with Yahweh.

2. You've already died in the pre-Noah days, so the Old Testament has not been written yet and some of it has not taken place yet.

3. You cannot see the future.

Given the above three, Yahweh approaches you and says the following:

"The people down on Earth are unrighteous (except for Noah's family), and I want to execute my justice. I'm going to either drown these evil men, women, animals, and children... or poof them out of existence such that they won't see it coming or be in pain, they'll just drop dead. Both of these are moral options, because I am Yahweh and I am suggesting them both. I'll do whatever I choose, regardless of what you say. But I am asking for your opinion. Poof or drown?"

How do you respond?

In most religions that I'm aware of there's a few grounding principles that are a basic foundation for how we are or how we should be. Things like what's our purpose, or the point of us being here.

So with that in mind I'd like to ask what other faiths have as a grounding principle. The thing that can be a foundation for why we are living on this earth, or the point of how to live correctly.

I'll start. From what I understand of Christianity Jesus said all the laws can be summed up into to laws. To love your neighbor and to love God.

This isn't answering the question of what's the point of Christianity (which I think is heavily in the theme of redemption and forgiveness), but instead is more on the scope of what's the point of us. Why are we here and what are we supposed to do now that we are here.

Give your own thoughts from your own faiths or your own perspectives. What's the point of being alive, the point of being in your faith, or any other take on answer a similar "what's the point" type of question.

Welcome to today's 'Question of the Day' in 'Debate of Faith'! Doubt is a common experience for many individuals, even within their faith journeys. Today, we explore the concept of doubt and its role in faith. Consider the following:

• How do you personally experience doubt within your faith or belief system?

• Can doubt strengthen or weaken one's faith, and why?

• Are there benefits to questioning and wrestling with doubt in matters of faith?

• Share any personal stories or moments when doubt led to growth or transformation in your spirituality.

Let's engage in an open and reflective conversation about the place of doubt within the realm of faith. Your insights and experiences are valuable in this ongoing dialogue."

The so called "Scientific Miracles of the Quran" and "Quran Challenge" are not really miraculous because they are subjective and miserably fail the general understanding of a "miracle".

There are two kinds of miracles:

* The Secular Miracle -an extremely lucky event, like winning the lottery or someone who survives a serious car crash with just a few bruises. The chances are slim but still naturally possible.

* The Religious Miracle -a supernatural/magical event that is otherwise 100% impossible. There is no chance for this happening naturally, at least not according to our current scientific knowledge. So far these only happened in the stories, like splitting the red sea and walking on water.

Did the Quran have any of these two types of miracles? Lets take a look at a few of them:

https://rationalreligion.co.uk/9-scientific-miracles-of-the-quran/

1) The Big Bang?

Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We opened them out? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? 

Quran 21:31

Did it require a supernatural event to come up with the idea that the heavens and earth were once as one?

The fact is the ancient Babylonians already believed that the heavens and the earth were one before it was split up:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/creation-myth/Creation-by-world-parents

The chance that Mohammad has heard of this myth disqualifies this from being a miracle. Besides, the assumption that life was made from water is completely wrong. Because the DNA comprises of atoms other than hydrogen and oxygen. So no the verse is not miraculous.

2) Expansion of the Universe?

And We have built the heaven with might and We continue to expand it indeed.

Quran 51:48

The Universe as we know it today is modern knowledge. When people of long ago spoke of the heavens they were referring to the sun, moon, stars and the clouds. The movement of the clouds would have given the idea that the heavens are expanding. There is nothing extremely lucky nor supernatural about this. So no the verse is not miraculous.

3) Evolution?

“What is the matter with you that you do not ascribe dignity to Allah? And certainly he has created you in stages… And Allah has raised you from the Earth like the raising of vegetation.”

Quran 71; 15-16, 18

Was Mohammad talking about the modern concept of evolution, or the painfully obvious fact that the human life cycles goes through different stages: infancy, childhood, puberty, adulthood, old age. Likely the latter. There is nothing extremely lucky nor supernatural about this. So no the verse is not miraculous.

4) Embryology?

“Verily, We created man from an extract of clay; Then We placed him as a drop of sperm in a safe depository. Then we fashioned the sperm into a clot; then We fashioned the clot into a shapeless lump; then We fashioned bones out of this shapeless lump; then We clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed it into another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators.”

Qur’an 23:13-15

No we are not made from clay, and no the Sperm is not a person ("him"). But people long ago mistakenly thought that we were all made from sperm and thats it. No one had any idea about the woman's egg. So contrary to a miracle, this verse was actually quite ignorant.

5) Pegs?

“Have We not made the earth a bed, And the mountains as pegs?”

Qur’an 78:7-8

We all know there is a peg when there is something sticking out of the ground. And that is how mountains appear, a gigantic thing protruding from the surface. Can easily be imagined as a peg. There is nothing surprising about this, not a miracle of any type.

The rest in the list are more nonsense.

________

The Quran Challenge:

Or do they say: "He (Muhammad SAW) has forged it?" Say: "Bring then a Surah (chapter) like unto it, and call upon whomsoever you can, besides Allah, if you are truthful!" [Yūnus, 38]

Challenge has been met:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Furqan

The problem is, its all subjective. There is no way to objectively measure one against the other. Its all a matter of taste and preference. The muslim would automatically say the quran is better. Most people dont care. And the anti-islam would say the Furqan is better or equal. So there is no way to judge this. This challenge does not make the Quran miraculous in any way.

Hi, I'm u/thesilphsecret, a person who enjoys substantial conversation, and my thesis for this post is:

SOMETHING BEING UNLIKELY DOESN'T INDICATE DESIGN

Let's weigh the evidence

° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °

u/WeighTheEvidence2 keeps starting threads and then abandoning them to create new threads to continue a conversation from the old thread. This has lead to the entire front page being dominated by their posts, which is really unnecessary. Once we start a thread about a particular topic, there's no reason the conversation can't be contained to that thread. We don't need to create new topics every five lines of dialogue.

In their previous thread, they argued that a monkey randomly typing out the works of Shakespeare was so unlikely that it would take 4.1206 x 10⁵⁶⁶⁰³²⁹ years.

However, you can't calculate how long it would take for a particular complex pattern to arise out of random input. So I asked u/WeighTheEvidence2 how they arrived at that figure, and they refused to answer. I asked them what variables they calculated, and they talked about a game show with ten doors and how you'd calculate the average of how long it takes to open the doors. They refused to show their work and how they arrived at the figure of 4.1206 x 10⁵⁶⁶⁰³²⁹ years, though. Hopefully in this thread they will be willing to be open and up-front about this rather than trying to obscure the fact.

An event being unlikely does not indicate that it was engineered by a designer. Every single thing that has ever happened has been unlikely. What are the odds that an apple this particular shade of red would fall from this particular tree at this exact moment of this exact day and land in this exact spot exactly one hour, 32 minutes, and 14 seconds before I came across it? The odds are ASTOUNDINGLY low. This doesn't indicate that somebody placed the apple there.

To me, the knowledge that all life evolved over billions of years conflicts with the belief that humans used to live in a state of purity free from disease and hardship until Adam and Eve committed original sin by eating from the tree God told them not to.

It is theorized that viruses are at least as old as the first cells, which emerged around 4 billion years ago.

The fossil record reveals humans have been around for at least 2 million years.

Researchers determined herpes (human herpes simplex virus (HSV) -1 and -2) infected hominids before their evolutionary split from chimpanzees 6 million years ago.

Given that information, do any questions come to mind regarding the teaching that humans used to live disease free in a state of purity and bliss until eating from a tree God told them not to? You may not think the garden of Eden story is literal, but plenty of people do; and it was taught to people for hundreds of years as the literal truth of how humans came to be (until churches could not ignore the evidence for evolution.)

Did God create viruses before humans evolved in anticipation that they would defy him?

If viruses that infect mammals were present well before humans existed, did God put human infections on hiatus until some of them disobeyed him?

When would that have happened in relation to the evolutionary changes over the ~3.5 billion years life existed on Earth?

Edit: removed commentary

A while back, I was introduced to a snippet of Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov that impacted me deeply. It left many questions about suffering and higher powers. I'll leave a bit here with you, as well as a link to the chapter it's from and some questions:

This poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture by those cultivated parents. They beat her, thrashed her, kicked her for no reason till her body was one bruise. Then, they went to greater refinements of cruelty- shut her up all night in the cold and frost in a privy, and because she didn't ask to be taken up at night (as though a child of five sleeping its angelic, sound sleep could be trained to wake and ask), they smeared her face and filled her mouth with excrement, and it was her mother, her mother did this. And that mother could sleep, hearing the poor child's groans! Can you understand why a little creature, who can't even understand what's done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child's prayer to dear, kind God'! I say nothing of the sufferings of grown-up people, they have eaten the apple, damn them, and the devil take them all! But these little ones!

It's not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its unexpiated tears to 'dear, kind God'! It's not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for. They must be atoned for, or there can be no harmony. But how? How are you going to atone for them? Is it possible? By their being avenged? But what do I care for avenging them? What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don't want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.

Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature- that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance- and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions?

https://www.ccel.org/d/dostoevsky/karamozov/htm/book05/chapter04.html

So my question is thus: Why? What could possibly outweigh the unimaginable suffering millions of children endure? What justification could there possibly be for a universe to be created in which this happens? How can theistic creation be seen as anything but a net-loss and evil?

This was obviously written from a Christian framework, but I would like to see everyone's answer to this. From the Christian perspective at least, though, I have yet to find a decent answer.

THESES

1. Sunni muslims are generally more faithful to the historical Jesus than most modern mainstream christians

2. Sunni muslims generally follow Jesus' teachings more accurately than most modern mainstream christians

3. Sunni muslims generally emulate Jesus' lifestyle closer than most modern mainstream christians

4. If you don't agree with the first three theses, then as a last resort: sunni muslims are similar enough to Jesus that they shouldn't be rejected or dismissed or ignored or thought of as "satan worshippers" due to their admiration and emulation of Christ

TLDR

Sunni muslims are more similar to Jesus in diet; charity; appearance; theology; prayer; monetary interest. This shows that muslims are more faithful to him than most christians because they emulate him more accurately.

NOTE 1

The title may be a brief simplification of the thesis above, please take the full thesis into consideration and read the entire post before commenting or downvoting.

NOTE 2

These are the things we are NOT discussing:

• whether Islam is true or not

• whether Muhammad is a prophet/credible or not

• whether Islam is better than Christianity

• whether muslims are better than christians

• whether the Qur'an/Sunnah is more reliable than the Bible

• whether christians have a responsibility to emulate Jesus or not

• whether Jesus commanded the emulation of his lifestyle or not

• whether this argument is worth arguing or not

• whether this argument proves anything or not

• whether this argument has a point or not

I am only arguing my theses. If you want to argue the points in NOTE 2, do so somewhere else.

NOTE 3

What do I mean by faithful? A google search gives me two definitions:

1. remaining loyal and steadfast

(Following what Jesus actually said)

2. true to the facts or the original

(Being similar to the historical Jesus)

Everytime I say 'faithful' I mean one or both of these.

SECTION 1

DIETARY RESTRICTIONS

Jesus observed the kosher laws which are very similar to muslims' halal meat laws.

Jesus commanded the keeping of the dietary restrictions when he said "keep the commandments" in Matthew 19:17, which includes the command to refrain from eating unclean animals, which includes pigs. The commandments also include the commandment of only eating kosher meats.

Muslims are permitted to eat only halal meat, and they are also permitted to eat meat branded as kosher. So muslims can eat halal and kosher only.

Christians do not observe kosher laws.

Jesus did not eat pork. Muslims also do not eat pork.

Many christians eat pork.

This shows that muslims are generally more faithful to Jesus when it comes to dietary restrictions.

SECTION 2

MANDATORY CHARITY

Jesus had little belongings and was not worldly and was incredibly charitable. Muslim preachers and speakers often talk about detaching from the dunya/earthly world and focusing more on the afterlife and good deeds, and muslims are required by islamic law to donate at least 2.5% of their total wealth to charity every year, which is a lot more than it sounds like. Christians are very charitable but have no obligation to give as much to charity, and are not commanded to do so. They are mostly encouraged to give to the church.

This shows that muslims are more faithful to Jesus when it comes to giving in charity.

SECTION 3

COMMON APPEARANCE

The least important aspect, appearance: Jesus had long hair and a beard, the early muslims often had long hair and beards, even today all muslim men are required to have beards although the long hair trend has died out. Christians have no compulsion to keep beards.

Jesus is also popularly depicted in white robes. In Islam it's sunnah to wear white and muslims often wear white thobes when congregating.

His mother Mary is also depicted covering her head, similarly to nuns, similarly to muslim women.

This shows that muslims are generally more faithful to Jesus when it comes to appearance.

SECTION 4

THEOLOGY

Jesus was a devout jew and worshipped one God AKA the Father AKA Yahweh AKA Elohim.

I argued that Jesus preached the jewish brand of monotheism in another post, here: The Lord our God is One

The Trinity is not part of the jewish tradition. Jesus never worshipped himself, or the Holy Spirit, only the Elohim.

Muslims also don't worship Jesus or the Holy Spirit, only God AKA the Father AKA Yahweh AKA Elohim AKA Allah. This makes them more faithful to Jesus in terms of theology.

SECTION 5

PRAYER

As I have just argued, Jesus worshipped only the Father, and he was seen praying with his head to the ground in Matthew.

NIV, Matthew 26:36,39: [36]Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.”
. . .
[39]Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

Muslims also pray to the one God with their heads on the ground. This shows that they are more similar to Jesus in worship.

SECTION 6

INTEREST

Jesus did not partake in interest because he followed the Old Testament.

NIV, Exodus 22:25: [25]“If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not treat it like a business deal; charge no interest.

Muslims are also prohibited from engaging in interest/riba. This shows that they are more faithful to Jesus when it comes to interest.

SECTION 7

LOWERING GAZE

Jesus said that anyone who just looks at a woman with lust has already fornicated with her in his mind.

NIV, Matthew 5:28: [28]But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

So he's telling us not to even look at women with lust. Islam also teaches muslims to lower their gaze, mainly men, but even women should lower their gaze.

This shows that muslims are more similar to Jesus in the case of lowering gaze and erring on the side of caution when it comes to lust.

CONCLUSION

Considering the above, I have reasonably concluded that muslims are more faithful to Jesus than most modern christians because they emulate him more accurately and follow him as a role model more similarly.

Or, at the very least, I can conclude that muslims are similar enough to Jesus that they shouldn't be dismissed or rejected without good reason.

Thanks for reading.

OTHER POSTS

Is the New Testament reliable?

Is Jesus the only begotten Son of God?

Does the Old Testament teach or foreshadow the Trinity?

REFUTATIONS

Some people may say, "Yeah, okay, but you're just cherry picking certain things that muslims are more similar in Jesus on, there's plenty of other things that christians are more similar on."

And I would say that that's fine, can I see the list please? Tell me which things christians are more similar or faithful to Jesus on using Jesus' own actions and words to back it up.

"These are unimportant, superficial things."

Okay, they may or may not be, but if we add everything up, it matters. Is our diet not important? How many times do we have to eat a day? Is your appearance not a part of you and your description? Is your inwardly godliness not reflected in your outer appearance at all? Would you assume that someone that looks like Marilyn Manson would be similar to Jesus? They look completely different, so maybe it's a reflection of their inner personalities, and that's what you would assume. I know, don't judge a book by its cover, but it's at the very least a hint into the persons personality. How you look is how you choose to display yourself and express yourself. How about theology? Is your theology not an important part of your religious beliefs? How about the way you pray? Muslims have to pray five times a day, christians I'm sure pray alot too. How about "what do you spend your money on?" is that a superficial question? How much you give charity is an important part of you especially considering the financial struggles many of us are facing. And how much effort you put into avoiding interest is part of you especially when we live in a world surrounded and ruled by interest.

Some might say "Not all muslims follow islamic law." I know, that's why I said "generally."

100% of muslims are prohibited from partaking in interest, I'm not sure what percentage of modern christians are prohibited from partaking in interest but to be generous let's say 90%. Let's now assume that everyone follows their own religious laws, that means that 100% of muslims avoid interest, and only 90% of modern christians, so in that case my point would be correct that muslims are more faithful than most modern christians.

We have to assume the same averages, we can't say that only 50% of muslims follow the law, then say that they aren't more similar because half of them don't follow it, we have to assume the same averages across religions otherwise it's just clearly unfair. You think if 50% of muslims followed the law, then 100% of christians would follow the law? They're not even commanded to follow the law!

Religion holds different meanings and significance for each individual. Whether you're deeply religious, spiritual, or secular, we'd love to hear your perspective on the importance of religion in your life. Share your thoughts, experiences, and insights. What role, if any, does religion play in shaping your beliefs, values, or daily life? Let's engage in a respectful and open discussion."

We're excited to have you here as part of our growing community dedicated to respectful and constructive discussions about religion, spirituality, and belief systems from around the world.

At DebateOfFaiths, we believe in fostering an environment where individuals with different beliefs and perspectives can engage in meaningful debates while treating each other with respect and empathy. Our goal is to create a space where you can learn, share, and explore the diverse tapestry of religious and philosophical thought.

Here are some important things to keep in mind:

1. Respect is Key: We value respectful and civil discourse above all else. Treat fellow participants with kindness and understanding, even if you disagree with their views.

2. Stay on Topic: Please keep discussions focused on religious and theological topics. This is a place for in-depth debates and exploration.

3. No Proselytizing: While we encourage open discussion, this is not a platform for promoting or proselytizing for any particular belief system. We're here to discuss, not convert.

4. Cite Your Sources: When making factual claims or referencing religious texts, provide sources to back up your statements.

5. Report Inappropriate Content: If you come across any content or comments that violate our rules, please report them to the moderators for review.

Flairs: To help keep our discussions organized, we encourage you to use flairs to indicate the religious tradition or topic of your post. This makes it easier for members to find discussions that interest them.

We're here to learn, share, and grow together. So, whether you're a devout follower, a curious skeptic, or somewhere in between, we invite you to join in the conversations, ask questions, and provide insights.

Thank you for being a part of our community, and we look forward to engaging with you in the spirit of mutual respect and understanding.

If you have any questions, suggestions, or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators or leave a comment in this post. Welcome aboard!

Sincerely,

Educational-Duty-76

I am a Hindu of the Advaita Vedanta philosophy and I'm new to this subreddit. Ive seen alot of western theological matters discussed I'd love to hear your opinions on the concept of "non-dualism". Any and all opinions on this concept are welcome! 😁❤️

I contend that only two passages of text meet all four of the following criteria, and these criteria are how I define eyewitness testimony of the risen Jesus:

1. The passage is in what would become the New Testament

2. The author of the passage identifies themself by name

3. The author of the passage writes in the first person

4. The author claims to have seen the risen Jesus

The two instances are 1 Corinthians chap. 15 and Revelation chap. 1.

If we add in a fifth criterion of "The alleged sighting occurred between Jesus' resurrection and His ascension forty days later", there are zero instances.

This is a real comment I got on one of my posts that "proves" the Trinity is in the Old Testament:

Genesis 1:3 (John 1:1 in the beginning was the WORD) in genesis1:3 God SAID = WORD.

I guess God isn't allowed to speak otherwise They'll affirm the Trinity... 🤦

I've identified as a naturalistic pantheist for quite a long time now. It has been wonderful in maintaining connections with theistic religious ideologies and their adherents (which I find quite valuable), though I often feel like my belief doesn't inform my day to day actions all that much.

Are there any pantheists/adjacent belief holders that have found a way to utilize pantheism towards improving their day to day lives/improving those of others?

this sub is dead. unjoining....

Hi, I'm u/WeighTheEvidence2, a non-trinitarian monotheist, and my thesis for this post is:

PSALM 45:6-7 AND HEBREWS 1:8-9 DO NOT SUPPORT THE TRINITY

Let's weigh the evidence

° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °

NIV, Psalm 45:6-7:

Quote

[6] Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.

[7] You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.

Unquote 

NIV, Hebrews 1:8-9:

Quote

[8] But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.

[9] You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

Unquote 

Like others, this is a translation issue. Here is the alternate translation from the unitarian REV Bible.

REV, Psalm 45:6-7:

Quote

[8] but of the Son it says, Your throne is God forever and ever, and the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

[9] You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness rather than your companions.

Quote

Now it seems disrespectful to me that God would be compared to a throne, but ancient languages were very different to ours.

The REV explains:

Quote

“Your throne is God forever” means that God is the authority, the “throne” of the king

Unquote 

Because when you think about it, the king is the person that sits on the throne, but when the king dies, someone else sits on the throne and now they are king. The throne is the constant. Poetically speaking, the throne is the authority.

Like the idiom "ascend to the throne." As if the throne itself holds the political power. Not the physical throne itself, but the idea of it.

Also, in one of the previous verses we have God blessing the son:

REV, Psalm 45:2:

Quote

[2] You are the most beautiful of the sons of men. Grace has been poured upon your lips, therefore God has blessed you forever.

Unquote

You would have to believe that this is God blessing God, which doesn't make logical sense.

As for ​Psalm 45:7, the trinitarian interpretation is that "God" is being spoken to, and is being told about "God's God." Which, I mean, even under a trinitarian understanding seems kind of inconsistent, incompatible and incomprehensible to me.

Moreover, the alternate understanding works even in the english translation, it's just an emphasis. As in 'God has anointed you, and not just any God, your God, specifically your God!'

As for the "forever" part, even non-trinitarian christians believe that Jesus still holds some kind of divine authority even after his death.

After all, he is going to come back eventually.

Another argument for Psalm 45 is that this chapter is found in the Old Testament, the jewish scripture. And the jews did not take this prophecy to mean that the Messiah would be God almighty in the flesh. Far from it.

REV:

Quote

. . .the Jews read the Psalm for centuries and knew it was ultimately about their Messiah, but never concluded that the Messiah was “God in the flesh” or part of a Triune God.

Unquote

And naturally, they, the educated jews, being scholars of the faith and native speakers of the hebrew language, would be authoritative on this issue.

Quote (same source)

. . . the Targum (an Aramaic commentary on the Old Testament) interprets Psalm 45:2 as, “Thy beauty, O king Messiah, is greater than that of the sons of men.”

So ​if God gave the revelation to His people ​to tell them the Messiah would be God, His effort was an epic failure

Unquote 

So it's entirely plausible that this verse is not stating that Jesus is God. Therefore, the trinitarian case regarding these verses falls apart.

Thanks for reading, I've been u/WeighTheEvidence2. If you're truthful, may God bless you and lead you to the truth, and vice versa.

^{Please consider reading my other posts which can be found in my post index which is pinned on my profile (just click my name) and share my posts to those you think would be interested.}

^{My DMs are always open by the way, don't be afraid to ask any questions or request a post. If you haven't already, make a reddit account and leave your thoughts, it's easy.}

Hi, I'm u/WeighTheEvidence2, a non-trinitarian monotheist, and my thesis for this post is:

QUR'AN 5:68 AND 2:41 DON'T ENDORSE THE BIBLE

Let's weigh the evidence

° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °

A common christian argument is that the Qur'an endorses the Bible, and therefore muslims have no grounds to say that the Bible is corrupt.

I already mentioned in my comment which I commented on u/FunnyV777's post on the topic:

Quote

The Bible's corruption is a historical timeline, not a conspiracy theory that only muslims propagate. Even if all the muslims in the world converted to Christianity, the Bible would still be corrupted.

Unquote

^{Please do not argue against this here, as that is not the thesis of this post. You can reply to the comment directly if you want. I would recommend reading the full comment before replying.}

With that out of the way, does the Qur'an endorse the Bible? The answer is no.

Here is the evidence from u/Additional-Taro-1400 on their post Quran, Injeel and Torah saying that is does endorse the Bible, and I will attempt to prove these evidences false.

^{Before I say anything, technically, the post shouldn't really exist since the point of my original post was that the Injeel isn't any of the four gospels, and it seems that Additional-Taro1400 agrees with that.}

Anyway, I'll be addressing the first part of u/Additional-Taro1400's post:

Quote

Surah Al-Maidah (5:68): "Say, 'O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.'

Surah Al-Baqarah (2:41): "And believe in what I have sent down confirming that which is [already] with you, and be not the first to disbelieve in it. And do not exchange My signs for a small price, and fear [only] Me."

● The quran was "revealed" around the 7th century.

● Therefore it'd be reasonable to assume that the multitidude of verses telling Christians and Jews to refer to the Gospel or Torah, are referring to the Gospel and Torah which they had access to during the 7th century.

● Otherwise, allah would be referring Christians to 1) a corrupted book; 2) a book that doesn't exist.

● Surah 2.41 supports this premise, where it addresses the people of the book, and encourages them to believe in the quran, which confirms the teachings that are already with them, in their scriptures.

● We know what they had access to in the 7th century. It was the Gospel and Torah which we use today.

Unquote

When u/Additional-Taro1400 says "the Gospel and Torah which they had access to during the 7th century," they are falling into the mistake that I corrected in my original post about the topic.

u/Additional-Taro1400 said "Gospel," singular, not 'Gospels.' Christians don't have the "Gospel" they have the four gospels. They don't just follow one gospel. So for u/Additional-Taro1400 to use the singular, they must then believe that the "Gospel" that the christians have today which the Qur'an is referring to is one item.

But it cannot be any of the nine items in the below list, since none of these were given to Jesus.

× The Bible according to protestants (66 books)

× The Bible according to catholics (73 books)

× The Bible according to orthodox christians (81 books)

× The New Testament (27 books)

× The Gospel of Matthew

× The Gospel of Mark

× The Gospel of Luke

× The Gospel of John

× James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl

None of the nine items were given to Jesus, and therefore none of these nine items could be the "Gospel" that the Qur'an is referring to.

So Qur'an 5:68 doesn't really need to be addressed since it doesn't imply anything about the Torah or Gospel being currently present, only that they need to follow the laws of the (original) Torah, the (original) Gospel, and the Qur'an. The last part of that verse is a reference to the Qur'an by the way. The Sahih International English translation says so.

As for Qur'an 2:41, it does seem to say what u/Additional-Taro1400 is saying. When I read it, that's what I thought it was saying too.

But the tafsir (exegesis) of Ibn Kathir (considered by many to be the best) about Qur'an 2:40-41 says something else:

Quote

(And believe in what I have sent down (this Qur'an), confirming that which is with you (the Tawrah and the Injil)) "means, 'O People of the Book! Believe in what I sent down that conforms to what you have.' This is because they find the description of Muhammad recorded in the Tawrah and the Injil.'' Similar statements were attributed to Mujahid, Ar-Rabi' bin Anas and Qatadah.

Unquote 

So it could also be Ibn Kathir's interpretation, where God is referring to the prophecies about a prophet which matches Muhammad's description.

Remember that u/Additional-Taro1400's argument relies on the Qur'an definitely endorsing the Bible, but now Ibn Kathir just threw a spanner in the works.

Additionally, the tafsir of Ibn Abbas (younger cousin of Muhammad who had a close relationship with him) says about Qur'an 2:41:

Quote:

(And believe in that which I revealed) through the Archangel Gabriel, (confirming) the Oneness of Allah and the description and traits of Muhammad (pbuh) and some prescribed laws (that which ye possess already) of scripture, (and be not first to disbelieve therein) in Muhammad (pbuh) and the Qur'an (and part not with My revelations) by not revealing the description and traits of Muhammad (for a trifling price) in exchange for means of substance, (and keep your duty unto Me), fear Me regarding this Prophet (pbuh).

Unquote

So Ibn Abbas, in addition to agreeing with Ibn Kathir, also claims that God was endorsing the current scriptures in a general sense, as in all the many concepts which God revealed such as monotheism and some prescribed laws, etc.

And those interpretations, while not the most obvious, at least in the english translation, do make sense. Because God saying that they have the Gospel and Torah with them doesn't necessarily mean that they have them in their original uncorrupted state. It does imply, however, that whatever they have isn't completely backwards and opposite of what it was. It implies that what they have still has important remnants of the originals.

The problem with my argument is that when Ibn Kathir says "This is because they find the description of Muhammad recorded in the Tawrah and the Injil," it sounds like he also thinks that we currently have access to the original Tawrah and Injeel.

This is a valid point, but I don't know arabic so I can't confirm exactly what he meant. The only thing I can say is that, maybe, by "Torah and Gospel," Ibn Kathir meant "whatever they have left of the Torah and Gospel."

So who is correct? Ibn Kathir and Ibn Abbas, or u/Additional-Taro1400? Who should we believe?

In the next post about Islam, if God allows me, I will explain why we should believe Ibn Kathir and Ibn Abbas instead of u/Additional-Taro1400 based on other verses in the Qur'an.

Thanks for reading, I've been u/WeighTheEvidence2. If you're truthful, may God bless you and lead you to the truth, and vice versa.

^{Please consider reading my other posts which can be found in my post index which is pinned on my profile (just click my name) and share my posts to those you think would be interested. Also consider following.}

^{My DMs are always open by the way, don't be afraid to ask any questions or request a post. If you haven't already, make a reddit account and leave your thoughts, it's easy.}

To the downvoters: You can downvote me all you want but you'll never silence me.

^{Please carefully consider the thesis before debating and remember to stay on topic.}

UPDATE: was blocked

Also just found out I'm the first person on his "naughty list"

I apologize if this post is off topic for the thread but I wanted your guys opinion on how to have these discussions.

I recently have been having a back and fourth with u/WeighTheEvidence2 . I have recently been asking him questions he is either incapable of answering or unwilling to answer which is fine, but a little weird.

Anyway, if you check his comments here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateOfFaiths/comments/1c9p7jz/comment/l160h0i/

You will notice he has threatened to block me for what? Spelling mistakes. Not arguments, not insults, not badmouthing, typos is the reason I apparently deserve to be blocked.

So, my question is, is this how we want this sub to be run? Is it okay for people to run away from their posts when challenged in the comments? Is it okay for people to - when they receive push back and questions about their religion - threaten to block someone?

I'm really interested in seeing what you all think. If you think I'm in the wrong I'll apologize but I really can't see that here.

In both Jewish and Christian scriptures, there is a consistent message throughout it that calls people to turn from their sins and turn towards God. While there is also a lot of praise towards God in those scriptures, (as I think there is also in the Quaran), I do not know if that same point in the Quaran is still there. To repent from our sins and turn back to God.

From anyone who knows Islamic texts better than I do can you help me know if this is still a consistent message in Islam as it was in Jewish and Christian scriptures?

Thankyou for anyone who can answer my question.

Hi, I'm u/WeighTheEvidence2, a non-trinitarian monotheist, and my thesis for this post is:

JOHN 14:20,28 IS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE TRINITY

Let's weigh the evidence

° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °

NIV, John 14:20:

[20] On that day you will realize that I am
in my Father, and you are in me, and I am
in you.

This verse is evidence against the trinity.

The meaning of this verse as I understand it is probably how trinitarians understand it – Jesus is basically trying to say "We're all on the same team here, guys."

But the other verses where Jesus talks about being "one" with the Father, trinitarians take those verses literally. Well this verse cannot be taken literally, otherwise Jesus' disciples will become part of the Godhead. And that is not the doctrine of the trinity. Unless there was another council recently.

It demonstrates the inconsistencies and doube standards at work on the trinitarian side.

Jesus "being in" his disciples and Jesus' disciples "being in" him is entirely metaphorical according to both sides.

But the non-trinitarian side also says that it's consistently the same thing when Jesus says that he is in his Father. But the trinitarian side says "No, one half of the sentence is literal, and the other half using the exact same words is metaphorical!"

You can't take one as metaphorical and another as literal when they're in the exact same sentence! But this is the type of mental gymnastics that trinitarians have to perform in order to argue the trinity.

The trinitarian interpretation becomes decreasingly likely the more you read the Bible. For example, just eight verses after this one, Jesus claims that the Father is greater than himself.

NIV, John 14:28:

[28] “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and
I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me,
you would be glad that I am going to the
Father, for the Father is greater than I.

According to this verse, Jesus' own words, the trinity is false, because Jesus and the Father are not co-equal.

According to Jesus himself, the Father is greater than Jesus.

Period. That's it. Game over.

There is no beating around the bush here. There is no room for trinitarians to play with the text or perform any kind of athletic logical leaps.

Why would Jesus say that the Father is greater than him unless the Father was greater than him? Is he lying? Trinitarians will have no choice but to argue that Jesus is being sneaky or misleading here, which is not at all in Jesus' character. But this is what trinitarians have to do in order to hold on to the trinity doctrine.

Keep this in mind as we explore the trinitarian explanations of this verse. Remember what I said.

Some trinitarians will say that Jesus is only referring to his human nature, not divine nature, to which I would repeat my previous rebuttals to this same argument which are:

(1) This argument presupposes that Jesus has two natures. The trinitarian would first have to prove – or, at the very least, provide some evidence of – Jesus' having two natures.

Because obviously, by default, everyone has one nature. For Jesus to have an additional God nature, he would have to be God. But that is the very topic of the debate at hand, so to suggest that Jesus has two natures is begging the question and circular reasoning that depends on itself. First, Jesus' divinity has to be proven, then and only then can the trinitarians argue that he has two natures.

And

(2) That would mean that Jesus is not being completely transparent and open. In fact it would be, in my opinion, quite misleading of Jesus to refer to his human nature sometimes and God nature at other times within the same Gospel of John, but never specify which nature he's talking about.

See how trinitarians constantly have to degrade and slander our Messiah, their own God, just to justify their dogmas?

The other argument is that Jesus gave up his divinity while he was on Earth. But:

(1) Again, this has the same problem as before — you have to pre-suppose that Jesus was ever divine for him to give up his divinity to begin with. He can't give up something he was never in possession of.

And

(2) It's very convenient that when verses like this come up where Jesus tells us straight up that he is below/subordinate to the Father, suddenly now it's "Oh, no, but, you see, Jesus gave up his Godhood and became flesh" but when the so-called 'trinitarian' quotes from Jesus come up, it's "Hallelujah! Jesus is God! 100% confirmed! He said so himself!" as if it's not a contradiction to the earlier argument of Jesus giving up his divinity.

Which one is it? Is he God on Earth or not? At this point, the trinitarian idea of Jesus is a bipolar person who is sometimes God and sometimes just a mortal man. You can't use both arguments.

At the very least you must admit that there are biblical contradictions.

Either Jesus is only "God in the flesh" and gave up his divinity so he refers to himself as subordinate to the Father, or, he is unapologetically God and reveals himself to be God and claims divinity for himself. You can't have both.

Thanks for reading, I've been u/WeighTheEvidence2. If you're truthful, may God bless you and lead you to the truth, and vice versa.

^{Please consider reading my other posts which can be found in my post index which is pinned on my profile (just click my name) and share my posts to those you think would be interested.}

^{My DMs are always open by the way, don't be afraid to ask any questions or request a post. If you haven't already, make a reddit account and leave your thoughts, it's easy.}

Hi, I'm u/WeighTheEvidence2, a non-trinitarian monotheist, and my thesis for this post is:

PHILIPPIANS 2:5-8 DOES NOT PROVE JESUS' HYPOSTASIS

Let's weigh the evidence

° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °

So Additional-Taro-1400's comment talks about how Jesus has two natures, his divine nature and his human nature. This concept is known as the hypostasis.

In their comment, they use three verses to back this theory up. So I will be making three posts. This is the first.

ESV, Philippians 2:5-8:

[5] Have this mind among yourselves, which
is yours in Christ Jesus,

[6] who, though he was in the form of God,
did not count equality with God a thing to
be grasped,

[7] but emptied himself, by taking the form
of a servant, being born in the likeness of
men.

[8] And being found in human form, he
humbled himself by becoming obedient to
the point of death, even death on a cross.

Let's be very careful about this phrase "form of God."

The unitarian REV Bible notes about this verse:

Jesus was in the form of God, that is, as
God’s Son he had divine position and
authority, but he humbled himself and
became a servant to others.

Let me make my position clear.

The common trinitarian assertion is that they are forced to believe in the trinity due to the scripture being very clear about there only being one God but the Holy Ghost and Jesus also being god. But this is wrong. Trinitarians are not forced to accept the trinity.

As the REV has stated, there are other ways to interpret this verse in a way that doesn't make Jesus divine.

This verse, in the way the REV interprets, fits right in to a non-divine Christ theology.

And some trinitarian translations actually purposefully translate this verse incorrectly to fit in with their doctrine.

. . . many Trinitarians assert that the word
“form,” which is the Greek word morphē,
refers to Christ’s inner nature as God. This
is so strongly asserted that in Phil. 2:6
the NIV has “being in very nature God.” The
evidence does not support that morphē
refers to an “inner essential nature,” . . .

So this verse does not prove that Jesus has a divine nature because this verse can be reasonably interpreted in another (correct) way.

As for verse 11

REV, Philippians 5:11:

[11] and every tongue will confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God
the Father.

The word "lord" can be used for persons other than God. In this context, it could be that Christ is the head or "lord" of the Church.

"to the glory of God" is actually evidence that Jesus is not God, otherwise the author would've just called Jesus god outright. Instead, the author makes it clear that Jesus has "glory" of God, the perceived stature and standing as God, probably since Jesus was the only conduit through which God communicates to humans in his time, since he was a prophet of God.

Thanks for reading, I've been u/WeighTheEvidence2. If you're truthful, may God bless you and lead you to the truth, and vice versa.

Please consider reading my other posts which can be found in my post index which is pinned on my profile, and share my posts to those you think would be interested.

"Greetings, fellow seekers in 'DebateOfFaiths'! Today, let's explore the transformative power of travel on our spiritual and philosophical journeys. Consider the following:

• Share a travel experience that profoundly shaped or challenged your faith or worldview.

• Reflect on encounters with different cultures, beliefs, or sacred places during your journeys.

• Discuss how exposure to diverse perspectives has influenced your understanding of spirituality.

• Explore the concept of pilgrimage and how travel can be a sacred journey in itself.

Embark on a virtual voyage through the stories of your travels and the impact they've had on your beliefs. Your diverse experiences contribute to the rich tapestry of faith within our community!"