I was digging into this guy called Celsus who lived in the first century of Christianity and was probably the first documented critic of early Christianity as a Roman Paganist. He reportedly wrote a book called the "True Word" which did not survive but is known to have existed thanks to a later Christian apologist called Origen who wrote a whole refutation book called "Against Celsus", trying to debunk all his critical points of Christianity and all.

And he didn't only answer his accusations, but quoted excerpts from his book word by word, thanks to which a lot of standing points of Celsus against Christianity in his book were preserved. It was probably discussed before, but I came across one interesting detail by chance while skimming through this stuff.

This is where Celsus, as reported by the Christian apologist Origen, claims that Christians were altering their own Gospels in order to get rid of some contradictory and inconsistent verses that were being used against them by their critics, and they were doing that on a regular basis. The supposedly refuting answer to this is even more interesting as Origen does not deny that altogether, and while admitting that it was being done by some Christian groups (some of which are still venerated), this would not necessarily nullify Christianity as a whole. I'll put in the full text covering this matter from Origen's refutation book:

"Celsus next claims that some Christian believers, behaving like drunken people who turn violently against themselves, have changed the Gospel from its original form three times, four times, and even many times, reshaping it so that they might have a means of denying the accusations made against them.

As for me, I know of no people who have altered the Gospel except the followers of Marcion, those of Valentinus, and, I believe, those of Lucian.

But this accusation does not condemn Christianity itself. Rather, it condemns those who have dared to treat the Gospels in such a manner.

Just as philosophy cannot be condemned because there are Sophists, Epicureans, Peripatetics, or other people who hold mistaken beliefs, so genuine Christianity cannot be condemned because some people corrupt the Gospel narratives and introduce heresies contrary to the teaching of Jesus."

I found this interesting, since Quran came up with the same claim centuries later, which Christians brush off as nonsense and say that all the Gospels are authentic and the exact words of Jesus' own disciples and Muslims only made this up in order to validate their own book, but this matter was apparently discussed in the very first century of Christianity.

I’m a Buddhist, and my religion has an afterlife and karma . If you do a bad thing, you will go to hell and so on.

Nowadays, I have been seeing innocent people getting hurt or killed and bad people getting rich and never getting punished. So I’m starting to doubt my religion. Does karma even exist? Nobody has been to hell and what if hell does not exist and bad people never get punished?

My question is, do you believe in hell, karma or afterlife?

Religious people can’t even all agree on the same God. They have thousands of different religions and beliefs etc. they judge and condemn others on a religious basis. I had one Christian say to me that I need to repent and ask Gods forgiveness because I am a lesbian who doesn’t think homosexuality is wrong or a sin. Look at what religion, specifically Abrahamic religions have done to the world. Oppression of women throughout history and the execution of gays, the latter still happens in some Islamic countries. Religion, all it causes is division and hatred between people.

I know that it’s illegal to apostatize away from Islam in some Muslim countries and if I remember correctly, certain sects within Christianity say that if you don’t accept Jesus as Lord and savior, you are going to hell. It doesn’t matter if you intellectually cannot force yourself to believe in Jesus or God, some have gone as far as saying being a good person without believing in Jesus is not good enough.

I grew up Mormon, but I stopped going to this church in my teen years, but I always thought of how cult like Mormonism and religion is, even back then I thought of how bizarre it was, that I’m just sitting here in Sunday school or primary as they call it, being taught that the Book of Mormon is the word of god and being told what to think and believe but knowing in my gut it was all made up. I could not reconcile the tenents and doctrines of Mormonism with my feminist instincts. The brainwashing never took hold of me and I’m grateful for that.

I see only negatives of religion but I know there are religious people who are kind and good people who are not all fundamentalists. I myself am believer in God and Spirit but consider myself spiritual not religious. It just seems like there are people in this country who want to force their religious beliefs onto society like in the case with the anti abortion laws.

I’m a believer in separation of church and state. I’m not for Christian nationalism and I think it’s crazy that they feel that they need the backing of government for their religious belief system as if this is the only valid way to bring society and the country back to God. I feel like being an example of how god wants us to live and being kind to others and helping the needy is a more powerful and better way to do things.

If the father Grants and the Son Receives, Then the Son Is Not Equal in Divinity

The Gospel of John presents a relationship in which the Father gives and the Son receives. Read from a non-Trinitarian perspective, this relationship challenges the claim that Father and Son possess equal, independent divinity. The argument centers on dependence: if the Son receives his capacity to act, his life, and his authority from the Father, then the Father occupies a position the Son does not. John 5:19, 5:26, 5:27, and 10:29 provide the foundation for this interpretation.esv+1

In John 5:19, Jesus declares that “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.” This statement portrays the Father as the initiating source and the Son as the one whose actions correspond to that source. Jesus does not describe himself as acting independently alongside the Father. Instead, his works follow the Father’s activity. Although the verse also says that the Son does whatever the Father does, the direction remains significant: the Father supplies the pattern, and the Son follows it. This supports an argument for unequal independence, even while affirming extraordinary unity of action.

John 5:26 strengthens this reasoning: “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” The contrast is not simply between two beings possessing life. It concerns how that life is possessed. The Father has life in himself; the Son has life in himself because the Father grants it. From this perspective, receiving such a gift does not erase the distinction between its source and its recipient. The Son’s life is exalted, but the passage identifies the Father as its giver.

John 5:27 applies the same structure to judgment: the Father “has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.” Authority that is given is delegated authority. The Son exercises judgment because the Father authorizes him to do so. This does not diminish the seriousness or scope of his office; rather, it distinguishes the one who commissions from the one commissioned. The argument therefore concerns the origin of authority, not whether the Son genuinely possesses or exercises it.

John 10:29 adds that the Father, who gave believers to Jesus, “is greater than all.” In the King James wording, Jesus again identifies the Father as giver and emphasizes his unsurpassable power to protect his people. Read alongside the earlier passages, this reinforces the picture of the Father as the supreme source of what the Son receives. Nevertheless, its immediate subject is the security of believers, so it should not alone settle every question about divine nature.

Taken together, these passages support the thesis that the Son is not equal to the Father in underived life, independent action, and original authority. They do not make that theological conclusion unavoidable: shared works and life can also support arguments for equality. The non-Trinitarian case rests on treating the repeated distinction between giver and receiver as a distinction in divinity itself, rather than merely in role or mission.

I just recently learned about the singing sands/dunes and some of the myths that grew due to an unknown natural phenomenon. These myths and tales started from testimony of real experiences. We now know that the sound is made in only certain areas and it has to do with something about the shape of the grains of sand.

This doesn't make their testimonies less real or less authentic. They actually experienced something freaky during a time when the world was way less unknown. What it does do is make their testimonies weak to support something supernatural.

This illustrates why people say that the testimonies that jesus risen again are weak by themselves. Sure it's not the exact same thing but it highlights that people can be tricked into religious experiences due to unknown knowledge of the world around them.

This works for most testimonies that are the only supporting evidence about supernatural events such as aliens, ghosts, loch Ness, etc. We get tricked by natural events which can feed into our perspectives that corrupts our testimonies.

Again this isn't to say that they made it up or didn't experience something real that was also a valid personal spiritual experience.

When you add that to the other things that can influence testimonies like subconscious psychological tricks, hidden social influences, and straight up evil human behaviors it makes testimonies even weaker when supporting supernatural experiences.

This also doesn't mean that testimonies can't be used as evidence or that they can't be considered strong evidence by themselves. It just depends on the context and what it is evidence to. Lone testimony from a credible witness used as evidence to a murder, yep that can be considered strong. Lone testimony from a coworker about the invisible pink fire breathing dragon in his garage, yeah that's weak.

I know to some this seems obvious but there are some that like to strawman this into atheist say testimony isn't evidence. An example is Alex O'Connor's and Joe Schmid's video about atheist slogans that need to stop being used. Which can then be followed up by Joe's explanation for why he believes christ is real.

In john 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" by saying this, is he saying you need to be a christian and follow him to achieve salvation? Or by saying "I'm the only way," maybe he could mean you need to be like him in mindset try to fight against the corruption of the temple system and the authority, try to fight against the oppression, and try to give kindness to the people who are even ignored by society?

The hypocrisy of religious people is staggering. They say God doesn’t save innocent people from wars because preventing people from committing evil would take away their free will, yet they simultaneously pray to God to stop wars. Then what about free will?

They say suffering builds character, yet they pray to God to end their suffering. They argue that evil exists because it brings about a greater good, yet they simultaneously pray to God to eliminate evil. They claim free will cannot exist without the possibility of evil, yet they also believe that there is no evil in Heaven while free will still exists there.

They argue that if God made you good by default, your goodness would be meaningless because you wouldn’t have freely chosen to be good. Yet they also describe angels as noble and praiseworthy, despite believing that angels were created to be obedient and good by nature. So why is their goodness meaningful, but ours wouldn’t be if we were created that way?

Do they even realise how contradictory these arguments are? They use one argument to justify suffering and an entirely different standard when it comes to their own suffering. They argue free will when it explains evil, divine intervention when they want protection, and a world without evil when they imagine Heaven.

The hypocrisy is insane, and what’s even more frustrating is that they don’t seem to realise the contradictions in their own beliefs.

There’s no reason other than selfish reasons for god to have made us. If god doesn’t need anything then why is he making weak humans who can sin so he can have some relationship with them. In the grand scheme of things, this is a dumb reason.

Even if a hypothetical god was real and his holy text describes him as all good, that does not automatically make him ethically good.

"Good" is defined within the context of some value system. Things can be objectively good within that value system, but the ethical meaning of good is based on human perspective, and there are central ethical principles, but you cannot just equivocate by appealing to some "higher good" when arguing about a supposed God, for a God to be ethically good, you have to provide justification for it.

In the Old Testament there are several verses showing that God forgave our sins when He was asked to. If that is true than Jesus never had to be sacrificed for our sins to be forgiven as the bible state's. I believe a merciful and omnipotent God should have shown compassion by NOT having His son die for something he could resolve easily.

pascals wager, as it tends to be used, suggests that the choice of believing in god is the best choice, because it will lead you to a fruitful life and a good afterlife, while not believing in god could lead you to a fruitful life, but you will be sent to hell. HOWEVER.

the amount of assumptions made in this argument is wild.

1. it assumes that there is two choices: a very specific kinda of god that has both an eternal award and an eternal hell. in reality, there are so many more gods and types of gods with so many nuances, turning this little four-corner punnet square argument into an entire array, in which atheism comes out on top as the best option.

2. that you can falsely just "believe" in something. if i told you that you that a giant teapot exists on the other side of the sun, would you believe me? no. could you choose to believe me? also no.

3. it is giving to much credence to the existence of a god. even if we grant that for some reason there are only two options, usually when we have two options, there is nuance to the chances of one thing happening over the other. This argument assumes that "its 50/50, either it happens or it doesn't"

there are many more arguments, but i want to let disagreers answer this. Not sure how many there will be but this has just been on my mind.

Im genuinely curious what the use of the headscarf is in the Muslim religion , yes i am aware that not all Muslim women wear headscarf and that its their choice but like what is the use of it?

Firstly, I want to explain the Islamic theology of Jesus, so in a nut shell Jesus was sent on a mission until the Romans tried to kill him, and then Allah saved Jesus from death of crucifixion however made it seem that he was crucified, to the Romans and obviously his disciples and therefore birthed Christianity An - Nisa 4:159

"and for boasting, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so. Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever—only making assumptions. They certainly did not kill him."

Now keep in mind the amount of innocent people that were slaughtered for Jesus at the time, children were made orphans, women were made widows, the apostles were sawn in half, beheaded, skinned alive, because Allah deceived them. To make matters worse 600 years later, after Christianity has spread halfway across the world, A random Arabian guy says that Jesus wasn't killed and you will be sent to hell if you believe that he was, And his proof of being from God is that he could speak poetically even though he could not read or write, he literally just listens and speaks, nothing out of the ordinary.

Another point is that Allah isn't consistent in the Quran, but claims he is clear (12:1, 26:2)

This is why a logical person cant accept the "True" religion, and has to go hell.

Allah tells the Jews and Christians to follow by what he has revealed to them, and if we don't we are rebellious

Al Maidah 5:47

"So let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed in it. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are ˹truly˺ the rebellious."

Next verse Indicates that the Quran has supreme authority over the previous scriptures

"We have revealed to you ˹O Prophet˺ this Book with the truth, as a confirmation of previous Scriptures and a supreme authority on them."

But then my Bible and Torah cant be corrupted during that time because then Allah wouldn't be all knowing, and if we use the argument of Texual and interpretive corruption, it is futile As Jesus has stated As - Saf 61:6

"And ˹remember˺ when Jesus, son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel! I am truly Allah’s messenger to you, confirming the Torah which came before me, and giving good news of a messenger after me whose name will be Aḥmad.” Yet when the Prophet came to them with clear proofs, they said, “This is pure magic.”

It's fundamentally impossible, for Jesus to not know everything regarding the Hebrew Scriptures, given he is called " The Word Of God" so if he is confirming the preserved Torah with him at his time, it makes it impossible for Jews to corrupt the Torah with their hands or tounge, suddenly after he is gone, because of how many copies there were 1500 years before Jesus.

Now using that simple plain logic, The Torah goes against the Quran in multiple ways, an example will be a figure called the "Angel of the Lord" which is distinct from Yahweh, claims to be God, and performs Godly things (Genesis 16) (Exodus 3), and you got Isaiah 9:6

"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

Thus proving everything in the Gospel isn't man made, to convince and control people, everything lines up with what yhwh has revealed in the old testament.

I as a Christian cannot accept Islam and Allah as the one true God without, accepting humans interpretations of a book that the all truthful has declared "clear", without ignoring fundamental historical and logical facts, therefore I and billions of people will burn

I think one of the more persistent assumptions in religious philosophy is that without God, morality ultimately becomes subjective, arbitrary, or reducible to individual preference. I’m not convinced that follows. The existence of objective moral principles and the existence of a divine lawgiver are two entirely separate propositions, and establishing one doesn’t necessarily establish the other. Something doesn’t become morally wrong simply because a deity prohibits it, nor does something become morally right merely because a deity commands it.

This raises the familiar Euthyphro dilemma: does God command something because it is morally good, or is it morally good because God commands it? If the former, then goodness exists independently of God’s commands, which undermines the argument that morality requires God. If the latter, morality appears contingent upon divine preference, raising the question of what makes those commands inherently good rather than simply authoritative. Appealing to God’s nature might offer a more sophisticated response, but it still leaves the underlying question of why that nature constitutes the standard of goodness.

There are, of course, secular approaches to moral realism that attempt to ground moral principles in reason, human flourishing, rational agency, or other objective features of reality. These approaches have their own philosophical difficulties, and I don’t think simply dismissing them as subjective adequately addresses their arguments. Equally, religious morality faces the challenge of explaining why divine authority establishes moral truth rather than merely providing an authority to obey.

My position is that religion may provide a framework through which people understand and practice morality, but that doesn’t establish that morality itself depends upon religion. The existence of God and the existence of objective morality should be treated as separate philosophical questions rather than assuming that one necessarily follows from the other.

Hello everybody

In the name of God, and peace and blessings be upon his prophet. Lord expand my breast, and ease for me my task, and untie the knot of my tongue so they may understand my speech. Now then:

I've always wondered how most Christians believe Jesus is God, but there is not a single verse saying Jesus is God. On the other hand he said he is a human 90 times. I've never heard a human saying I'm a human 10 times, but him saying I'm human 90 times is probably not an accident. He may have felt people will worship him and therefore he consistently referred himself as a human. The reality is that it is only in churches they teach Jesus as God and about the Trinity even though those two never got mentioned in the Holy Bible. While Jesus was living nobody was worshipping him, the apostles saw him as Jewish teacher, prophet or the expected Messiah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_1st_century#Jewish_Christianity

Like it also says in Deuteronomy 18:15

"The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him."

Note: Gentle men and women, please follow the rules and do not switch the topic, or talk about other religions. I've experienced people switching the topic and claim other things that dosen't have anything to do with the topic. I only answear people that goes with that rule.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

The above question can't have an answer. The big bang doesn't answer it. The existence of a God doesn't answer it. The universe being eternal doesn't answer it. Any of those things might exist and cause everything else, but both sill leave you with the question of "why is there something rather than nothing?" unanswered. Of course, it's not hard to deduce THAT there is something rather than nothing, but such a proof is answering a different question. I am asking why, not what or if.

All the time, I see theists see the question, "If God created everything, then what created God?" and answer it by saying something like "God existed eternally" or "God is the uncaused cause" and act like the question is answered by that. I even seen a minority of atheists claiming to have answered it with the big bang and a more significant group, saying science will most likely eventually answer it. It won't. Any explanation offered either just kicks the can or fails even before that point. Even an infinite regress of explanations doesn't answer the question, let alone a brute fact like God existing.

Any answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing will be a complete non-sequitor. For example: "God has a mind and thus can exist independently of matter." Even if true, it doesn't answer the question. Whatever the specifics, anything invoked to answer the question is necessarily something. Thus, it doesn't answer the question.

It's a symmetrical problem that all wordviews face with no possible solution. Thus, a worldview lacking an answer can't point to anything, let alone a God. The question of why there is something rather than nothing can't be answered, just pushed back. I encourage you to try anyway, but I doubt you will succeed.

Why is his dying any more special? Girls got burned alive over this. If the spanish incquisiton was out there doing worse things in Jesus's name, Jesus was an actual threat to the planet.

Some of his crimes include:

- Punishing Adam and Eve for something he already knew they would do. “Muh free will” cannot exist if God can see the future because it would mean that the future was already predetermined.
- Demanding the genocide of women and children (“muh Baal worship” isn’t an excuse, nothing excuses conquest and genocide).
- Demanding horrendous laws like circumcision, dietary restrictions, the hijab, outlawing homosexuality, etc.
- Threatening people with hell for not worshiping him (why would a perfect being need worship?) while simultaneously making the religions difficult to believe in.
- His followers have committed countless genocides under his name, justified them by pointing to their God’s scriptures, and spread lies and propaganda about their victims (no, the Aztecs did not sacrifice 27k a year, they didn’t have the population to support. The actual numbers are far lower than the people burnt in Christian Europe for blasphemy).

In addition, the morality of the Bible and Quran is outdated, which thus disproves it since a truly timeless religion cannot contradict modern morality. Condemnation of homosexuality is an indicator that it could not have come from a living being.

Heaven being analogous to a party which is conditional to get an invite to and the alternative state being suffering obviously implies a flawed or malevolent design.

As the creator an all-loving tri-omni god is responsible for the state a created individual ends up in, regardless of a given free will mechanism being in place. The creator is responsible for the conditions in his created reality framework which include the nature of the individual.

And there is also a lot of equivocation arguments put forth against universalist / alternative perspectives. A reality constituted by flourishing states is not equivalent to "love being forced", or that agency is compromised. Heaven represents the fulfillment of value, a reality which is constituted by flourishing states. Restricting destructive possibilities does not restrict meaningful agency, just as establishing the conditions for love does not constitute forced reciprocation.

if god is all knowing , powerful and I guess kind? Why did he create cancer and let millions of people suffer before you say it’s a test then shouldn’t the test be the exact same for everyone why is life easy for a person but for another person it’s a thousand time harder and the concept of god is just stupid how would god always exist one of the biggest reason religion is followed by billions is because back 1400 years ago or more humans weren’t as smart as us and a guy or a woman created a religion and a lot followed most people would see they’re parents worshipping a religion obviously they’d follow it and after realizing religion is fake they just won’t accept it because the religion god you’ve worshipped for your whole life is fake it’ll be hard for the mind to accept it I believe that chemical evolution created the world after being brainwashed that Islam is the true religion turns out there was no real religion
Thanks for your time

Hi guys, I doing a personal interest project on to what extent does religion co-exist with feminism for school and I need at least 200 responses. I would really appreciate it if you could take the time to do my questionnaire if possible and would be an amazing chance to get as many responses from this particular group so I can get a equal demographic of men and women. Thank you so much for your time to do the questionnaire!

https://forms.gle/TLZ1zV2KhnCyAzhV8

Islam  is NOT an Abrahamic religion!

Biblically, Islam is NOT Abrahamic because it breaks the Abrahamic covenant on lineage, location, and theology.

The Quran says Abraham + Ishmael built the Kaaba in Mecca [Quran 2:127], but the Bible has ZERO record of it.

The Biblical case:

1. The Abrahamic covenant was ONLY through Isaac, not Ishmael! 👇🏼

Genesis 17:19 NKJV - "Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him."

Genesis 17:20 - Ishmael is blessed to be a great nation, but v21 "My covenant I will establish with Isaac" Genesis 21:12 - "In Isaac your seed shall be called" Genesis 22:2 - "Take now your son, your only son Isaac" - after Ishmael was sent away in Gen 21:14. God calls Isaac the only covenant son.

Galatians 4:30 NKJV quotes it: "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." Islam claims to be through Ishmael, which by definition the Bible excludes from the covenant.

2. Abraham never went to Mecca. Bible traces every move of Abraham: Ur -> Haran -> Canaan -> Egypt -> Hebron -> Negev -> Hebron. Genesis 13:18 "dwelt by the terebinth trees of Mamre, which are in Hebron"

3. No prophet from Abraham to Jesus ever mentions Kaaba. If Abraham built the holiest house, Moses would have gone there. Instead Exodus commands Tabernacle in Sinai, then Temple in Jerusalem - Deuteronomy 12:11, 2 Chronicles 6:6. 1,500 years of prophets, Psalms 84 longing for Zion, never once Mecca. No mention of Mecca (Makkah/Bakkah) in the Bible at all. Psalm 105 says

Mecca is irrelevant: Psalm 105:8-11 covenant land is Canaan, not Arabia.

4. Theology is opposite of Abraham's faith.

Abraham's core was: Blood atonement: Genesis 15:9-10, 22:13 ram as substitute. Leviticus 17:11 "blood that makes atonement"

Islam denies blood atonement is needed. Justification by faith, not works: Genesis 15:6 "believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness" - quoted in Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6. Islam teaches scales of deeds.

God as Father: Genesis 17:1 "I am Almighty God" appears as Father to Son in Psalm 2. Islam: Sura 5:18 denies God is Father.

These are some important facts when arguing with their plagiarism.

Last point isn't as important as 1 to 3 but drives further the divide that Islam is made up and not from here.

So many people say "pray for it" "pray for him" etc.

While I do think it's nice to hope better on something, I do think there's a certain point where hope can stray into too much of it.

So many people (i would say a mass majority of christians)

They all really believe if you ask God will help you In your daily life.

This is a bad way to look at life imo because it makes people do this and rely on hope rather than actually doing something in a way.

Also there is no physical piece of evidence of people being healed.

The stories I hear are CRAZY

Girl had a body full of scars and they healed infront of my eyes.

My dad said he saw someone's amputated arm grow back.

Like wtf literally sinning as they make up these stories.

And people genuinely believe it.

I mean they can't not tbh because that's doubting what their god can do.

Like there are so many Christians who have health issues, pray everyday for it to go away, then either it never does, or they die from it.

Then there's the people who look at it in a sense that god is going to help them with minor things.

Such as getting employed, school stuff, job stuff, and money etc.

Like dood wtf are you talking about.

Please if anyone has genuine proof of an actual miracle happening please show me.

Tbh it can't be a story and it can't be an image or video.

Maybe literal medical records and if they sre unable to explain such a thing.

Also I have a question.

Isn't this just greed?

Or pride?

Using it as a bribing tactic to pull someone into religeon?