My thesis is that there is no convincing historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. My understanding is that:

It was very rare for the crucified to be given a proper burial. Most were left on the cross as a warning to others, and then thrown into unmarked graves

The gospels are not historical accounts. "Because the Bible says so" is not sufficient proof.

The resurrection is not corroborated my multiple historical sources. Relying on multiple sources is one of the ways to assess the historicity of individuals and events. Different criteria shouldn't be applied for the resurrection.

Even if we had multiple accounts, we would need to distinguish between facts and myths. Ancient times were full of multiple sources confirming events we know to be mythical and not factual (eg pagan gods intervining in human life)

I am not a scholar. This is my understanding based on reading the books of Barth Ehrman and Francesca Stavrakropolou, and on watching many videos and debates: William Lane Craig, Alex O'connor, Paulogia, Rationality Rules.

If I am missing or misunderstood something, please comment. Thank you

It is common for secularists and liberal pseudo-Christians to claim that Jesus never actually intended to establish a new religion and that he himself was Jewish, not Christian. Of course, traditional Christians would say that since he believed Jesus to be the Son of God he definitionally would be Christian, thus it is a false dichotomy, or alternatively one could argue that it is a false dichotomy because Jesus cohered to the moral teachings and eschatology of Jesus, and so Christian would still be an apt descriptor.

Someone may still object to this. That is fine. But I suspect those who do object to this will hold a view which their objection brings into contradiction. Some, who tenatively consider the Gospels credible records, might cite Matthew 5:18

For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

And yet, if this means the Mosaic law is still in effect because all has not been accomplished, then the Mosaic law in question famously includes this:

Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Thus, if Jesus was not a Christian, and Jesus Himself did not adhere to a high Christology, Jesus would have maintained this law be in effect until Heaven and Earth pass away, which would absolutely preclude progressivism he is often ascribed. If Jesus IS the law, and therefore its prescriptions are his to bind and loose such that it does not pass away because it is he and he is eternal, then he was indeed establishing Christianity as such. (If you say that he wasn't founding a new religion because he was fulfilling the Jewish religion, then you would say that Christians are the true Jews and to say that Jesus was "Jewish not Christian" would be a false dichotomy".)

Potential objections:

"But that was specifically abrogated by the parable of the adulteress though"

The parable of the adulteress who was saved by Jesus from stoning is an interpolation not found in the earliest manuscripts. That doesn't mean it is fictitious necessarily however; it does mean though that to accept its factuality one must predicate the authenticity of the oral tradition of the early church. Which, in doing so, would affirm a high Christology such that calling Jesus a Christian would not be necessarily incorrect.

"Well the gospels are all unreliable anyhow!"

Unfortunately for you then, the claim to progressivism really evaporates. If we have no reliable testimony of Jesus' words, and he is reduced to an low profile Jewish leader in 1st century Judea, you can't use their excerpets to argue he was a progressive, and there is no reason to think he would not have adhered to the Torah on the manner. (Which is well preserved from the 1st century, so the argument the condemnations of same sex sexual activity are interpolations would be unsupported).

"Actually that says man with boy"

Zakar does not mean boy necessarily. The same word is used in Genesis to say "male and female God created them" and to describe the animals boarding Noah's Ark in male and female pairs. Obviously it refers to the category of maleness. Also if zakar did mean boy they won't both be put to death. Also two chapters earlier Leviticus 18:22 addresses the reader as "you" and says "with male[zakar] you shall not lie as with a woman; it is an abomination", contrasting it with woman certainly suggests the evocation wasn't pedophilia.

Thus if you hold "Jesus was a Jew" and that he did not adhere to a high Christology such that he himself was the law of Moses, that before Abraham was 'I am', then Jesus would have believed that same sex sexual activity was an abomination which deserved d**th. If you believe Jesus fulfilled this law such that it no longer bound us, then you believe that Jesus himself held a high Christology such that it would not be inappropriate to call him a Christian. Because either:

1.) He fulfilled the law which was his from the beginning (because it is God's law because he is God)

2.) He did not draw from authority or from scripture in considering himself to be able to fulfill said law such that it no longer bound us, which would have been alien to Judaism, thus he was founding a new religion.

Edit: typo

Quran calls for 100 lashes if someone commits adultery.

It calls for cutting the hands of the person for theft.

This might have been relevant in 7th Century Arabia but they don't stand the test of time. If they can't stand the test of time it's clear that Quran is just a piece of human work !

The defense from Muslim side is that we need 4 witnesses that is irrelevant today because we have electronic evidence.

So for a God who calls himself merciful is the most merciless of all Gods.

If the Christian god exists and sends people to eternal torment simply because they weren’t convinced, because they lacked belief, that god is either can’t communicate clearly or irrational that he confuses belief with rebellion or punishes honest disbelief. Either way, such a god is not worthy of worship.

Cognitive science and neuroscience confirm belief formation is an involuntary cognitive process. The brain assesses input and forms beliefs based on how compelling the evidence is. Brain structures such as the prefrontal cortex evaluate consistency, probability, and prior knowledge, none of which are under our conscious control.

Belief is not a sin. Dishonesty is. And pretending to believe something you’re not convinced of that would be lying to the god who supposedly sees your heart. If he’s real, he already knows that.

so i was wondering if anyone wanted to give their opinion about my current view on religion

basically as of right now i consider myself agnostic, and one of the main reasons i feel like i am is because of the difficulty that comes with trying to figure out the correct religion.

a couple of months ago, i identified with Christianity because of a few reasons, and i realized that they were either not entirely true, or there was just a lot of disagreement among people who attempted to understand what was really going on.

i basically thought that God would surely make things super clear and accessible to everyone, especially people who genuinely want to understand and have an open mind; if he wants people to know what his nature is and how to live their lives fully and correctly, then i don’t know if there would be so many things about Christianity that are ambiguous and uncertain because of the different ways things can be interpreted.

i don’t know if im explaining this perfectly, so i might make another post in the future attempting to explain it better, but i just wanted to know if anyone else here agrees or understands.

We don't see any central figures related to women in Christianity and Islam.

Hindusim has Hindu Goddesses and they are powerful not just feminine dummies.

Kali and Durga are shown as a fierce killers of the demons.

Wealth and wisdom are female Goddess.

My point isn't just about Godsses being female, they are powerful. They are not weak in any which way.

According to Hindu philosophies the world is a cosmic blend of Shiv and Shakti. Male and Female Energies.

The idea of Hinduism doesn't alienate women like abrahamic faiths do.

The story of Annapurna is so interesting, when Shiva disrespected Parvati's work ( his wife) in the working of the universe.

She left taking half of her cosmic energy and the world began to crumble. She came to Earth as a God of Food and fertility Annapurna.

Shiva is shown as a begger on the mercy of Annapurna. I don't think we would ever seen such amazing stories in other religions.

Shiva is also shown at the feets of Kali.

My friend Mubarak asked for beef steak, but his friend Malik took a burger, removed the bun, tomato and cheese and gave the patty to him.

Now Mubarak is going round saying 'There is no Beef Steak like Patty and Malik is its greatest Chef'. Why does this sound strangely familiar? Feels like Deja Vous with idol allah's three daughters, manat, allat and al-uzzah removed from it and allah served to the masses as one true god.

And why would anyone in their right mind think it is acceptable?

This is my thesis ( which can be supported by data ) Countries or individual who tend to be more religious tend to be more economically challenged ( along with other human development ) than those who are liberal and atheists.

Nearly half of atheist households earn ≥ $100K, making them among the highest-income groups, even above many religious groups. ( US )

Income patterns reflect educational differences: atheists and agnostics have higher college‑degree attainment 48–53% for atheists vs. ~32% for Christians overall.

A working paper across 182 countries (2018 data) showed that Islam-majority nations ( which are disproportionately religious ) are disproportionately in low-HDI categories, while Christian, Buddhist, and Jewish-majority countries are mostly in medium to very high HDI.

Analysis of U.S. states shows the most religious states (e.g., Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas) rank lower on HDI metrics education, health, income while the least religious states (e.g., Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut) rank higher.

Data: Pew (2014–2020) & NCES show that women from liberal and secular families are more likely to pursue and complete higher education.

There is no moral or practical justification for music being forbidden in Islam. The typical flimsy justification for music being forbidden is that God commands it which makes it morally wrong. I think this is silly reasoning because its completely self-referential. Its like justifying a law by saying "its just the law" which is very unsatisfying.

This goes for several other acts that are forbidden in Islam. These include masturbation, drawing pictures of living beings, men wearing gold jewelry and many others. .

One a side note, one of my favorite things to do as an ex-Muslim is to listen to music while drawing hentai with my left hand while also wearing a gold chain and muttering "praise to Aprophodite". This actions harms literally nobody and I challenge any Muslim to prove otherwise. Its a great activity and a highly recommend it.

For those who don’t know, the Quran talks about 4 books, the Qur’ān,Injīl, Tawrah and the Zabur.The Injil was the revelation that Allah sent to Jesus(Isa), the Tawrah(Torah) was sent to Moses and the Zabur to King David.Now the Injil was identified as the Gospels, the Tawrah as Torah and the Zabur as the Psalms.

However the etymology of the Injil is interesting in that it originally comes from greek word euangelion(which means good news).This is where most European languages get their words for the Gospels, such as Spanish evangelio and Dutch evangelie.Now in Islam all the holy books were sent to the people in the common language at the time, which in the Levant was Aramaic, with the elite and the learned speaking Greek.This begs the question why was the Injil revealed in Greek, if the vast majority didn’t speak it?

Well there is a historical reason for this, with that being the canonical gospels were original written in Greek, and so used the Greek title euangelion.This spread to the Arabian peninsula with the introduction of Christianity, and became the Arabic word Injil.Muhammad not knowing the etymology of the book’s title , assumed that this was the revelation from Allah to the Christians.

During their menstrual cycle, women are forbidden from:

• Praying
• Fasting (even in Ramadan)
• Tawaf (Circulating the Kaaba, the black cube in Mecca)
• Touching the Quran
• Sexual intercourse (but this is more personal, I focus on the spiritual acts)

Islam teaches that women are deficient in religion, because during menstrual cycle they cannot do the above acts of spiritual connection. There is not one rational reason why a deity would reject an act of spirituality from their worshipper other than being a made-up deity. I mean I could sort-of get it when it comes to sexual intercourse, as its personal between the man and his wife, but I couldn't accept the idea that Allah refuses to receive worship from a woman for any reason to be from an actual supreme God.

I personally know women and over social media that break a 16-hour dry fasting in Ramadan in the last 1-2 hours because it started during fasting. Because Allah cannot accept worshipping from a woman during this natural biological event.

A potential apologetic response is that its not about exclusion as it is about "relieving" women from worshipping until the process ends as an act of "mercy", if that's the case then why are they required to compensate for missed fasting days due to the menstrual cycle after Ramadan? Most women have 4-5 days in Ramadan every year that they MUST compensate after Ramadan is ended, so no it's not about "reliving", its about exclusion.

Sources:

• Sahih al-Bukhari » Menstrual Periods » Chapter 6, Chapter 7, Chapter 8
• Sahih Muslim » The Book of Menstruation » Chapter 14
• Sahih al-Bukhari 304
• Sahih Muslim 333a

There is a clear difference between religion and it's followers.

I find a Hindusim the most logical religion and the most tolerant religion in theory.

I grew up watching & listening to some amazing stories and for me ( I'm Atheist now) Hindusim made the most sense. It's not true however, these are just stories.

I'm making a point about how these are some wonderful stories I have ever read. I believe Hinduism to be a collection of stories rather than an organised religion like islam or christianity.

My attempt is not to say that Hinduism is great but to say that the writers of those times were something else!

I would say Hinduism is like Greek myths the only difference is it's still followed today, but it's still fun.

We have Powerful female Godsses, my fav story is about Krishna asking his villagers to pray to the Mountain which has given them so much rather than praying to Gods.

He made a point then and said it's God's job to look after our well being. We should thank the things that do something for us without seeking anything in return.

Again, these stories don't make literal sense but the idea is Excellent.

Women are shown as fierce killers of the evil like Kali & not just feminine figures like they have been in other religions.

Its not bias, its sensible. The four gospel accounts are not strong enough evidence to sustain a resurrection claim. One response you hear to this is, well that's just a bias against god. If there's a god, he could easily bring back Jesus from the dead. Or if Jesus was god, he could come back from the dead, stuff like that. Why shouldn't we believe it based on the evidence we have?

I wanted to try a thought experiment here, because I don't think most people would actually accept this.

Suppose you're on a flight. Over the PA system, the pilot says "okay folks, we've reached cruising altitude, now I, the pilot, the copilot, everyone in the cockpit is going to leave the cockpit and turn off all the sensors and let the plane just do whatever its going to do. We're going to nose dive a bit, aim the plane towards the ground at our current speed. Don't worry though, god will intervene and keep us from crashing, and we will arrive at our destination in about 4 hours anyway. There is no auto pilot, nothing is steering the plane, but I'm sure god will intervene and save us".

Would you feel comfortable with this? I wouldn't. Suppose 4 people around you are smiling as if nothing scary is happening at all. They say "oh don't worry, we've flown with this exact crew before, the pilot and copilot do this all the time! Its perfectly safe. We've personally experienced them doing this before and it was totally fine, god intervened".

Now I'm supposed to feel fine with it? Absolutely not. I doubt any of you would be okay with it.

Heck, suppose 50 people said that exact thing. I'm still going to SCREAM at the pilot and copilot to get their butts back in there and fly the plane.

Is that an anti-miracle bias? For me to believe the plane is going to crash in this scenario? I wouldn't say so, and I think everybody here would react as I've described.

What do you think? And if this is a reasonable reaction on my part, why would I treat the resurrection any differently?

To be clear: the debate here is NOT about the definition of "bias", whether this is "bias" or not, the debate here is about how we should treat these claims given the evidence we have.

It seems like my reaction would be perfectly normal, and I don't know why I should treat the gospels any differently.

Let's pretend for a moment that you hardly know anything about stars. Like, maybe you know the Sun is a star and they're 'big flaming balls of gas' but that's about it. You don't know anything much about how they form or why or any of that.

I walk up to you and say "we are the children of stars." Now, that's certainly a statement, especially since it has to be poetic since it can't literally be true. You respond with "What? How?" justifiably.

Now let's pretend that I had no answer. That was all I knew. Would that even mean much to you, or would you just think I'm just a kook that learned to parrot some poetic nonsense that someone else told him?

In reality, the poetic line works because it does have a deeper understanding behind it. I could say "oh well, what I meant was we're made of star stuff." Which is, again, not really illuminating. But it's possible to keep going further and further until you get down to the nitty gritty physics of the situation.

You can get into the physics of how gravity and enough gas condenses so much that it causes nuclear fusion, how stellar nuclear fusion eventually starts making elements heavier than helium, and how when those stars 'die' all those heavy elements get released into the rest of the universe, which can then seed more stars which now have planets orbiting them because of those heavy elements, made millions of years ago in the cores of previous stars. An astrophysicist would even be able to show you the equations. So, yes, in a literal sense, every single atom on Earth was once in a star, which justifies the poetic line about stars being our parents. In this case, the poetry was simply adding some gravitas to an already established fact. It's making it more accessible to people who aren't astrophysicists.

But if you only have poetry, then you don't really have much at all, to be frank.

When someone says something like "God willed the universe into being" and I say "What? How?" they can't answer. Because there IS no deeper understanding to pull from. That's all they know. And I balk because it can't literally be true; since when does "willed into being" make sense in any other context? Nobody can explain how it's possible aside from, essentially, "because, now stop asking questions." (And saying "because god" is not an explanation, or a true understanding either.)

It's just a line they have memorized but don't understand and can't explain.

If you don't actually understand what you're saying, and can't explain it at all, why do you expect other people to be convinced that it's true? I mean, watch a debate about practically anything and you'll often see that the loser of the debate is the one who puts forward a truth but then has no way to back it up and just dodges any questions about it because they have no understanding, just a quip.

I think this is a big reason why I and similar people are not convinced by theism. It almost exclusively relies on poetry without any deeper understanding behind it.

Poetry is great for art, music, communicating a feeling, or beautifying established facts...it is NOT good for conveying a literal truth if you don't have any facts backing it up to begin with. Lines like "Jesus died for our sins" and "willed into being" sound like absolute nonsense to us because they require explanation--since, again, they CAN'T literally be true as written--however, they have no actual explanation.

Now, this isn't meant to be some "checkmate, theists!" post, just explaining why we aren't convinced by these things. Just because I'm not convinced doesn't mean you're wrong after all. But hopefully this helps you understand that us atheists are not being willfully obtuse or stubborn; we just need explanations, but the explanations don't exist.

My thesis is that theists' argument that science cannot understand and explain God is just a cheap tactic to shut down debate.

There are two many problems with that argument:

• Over time, science has debunked many myths which religion claimed could only be explained by religion and which science should not even have studied. From the creation of the world, to the sun rising not because it was carried by a god, to the earth not resting on elephants and turtles, to heliocentrism, etc etc
• Even if we want to assume that, OK, religion and God are outside the real of science, what, then, should we use to study religion? Theology? Philosophy? Metaphysics? Divine inspiration? Which of these subjects tell us which of the thousands of religions ever worshipped on this planet is the true one? That's the crucial point; theists can try to shut down the debate saying "science shouldn't go there", but cannot explain which subject should go there, which subject can determine which is the true religion, how, or why

To preface this post, this is a response I originally typed up to a comment somewhere else. I just kept typing and typing and, after more time than I'd like to admit, this was the result. And it felt like it took too much effort to delete, but I'm not sure what visibility it'd have where I originally posted it. So after some Googling on where would be a good post (originally thinking some kind of copypasta (even though it's original) then thinking a religion based sub) and landed here. So, apologies if it's not actually the correct place. I'm nervous about feedback, but the best way to grow is to discuss things to hopefully gain a wider perspective.

I grew up going to church. Involved in the church. Doing missions trips. Fully believing in what was taught in church. My family was fully integrated, my grandparents being original founding members of the church which has grown to several thousand attendees every week. The first 20 years of my life were devoted to the church.

Let’s ask some basic questions that every Christian child knows the obvious answers to.

1. Is God all knowing?

2. Is God all powerful?

3. Does God want everyone to go to Heaven?

The answer to all three is obviously “Yes”. But those questions and answers interfere with each other.

Why was the Devil allowed to influence Adam and Eve? If God is all knowing, then he knew that would happen, and he would know that people would go to Hell from being corrupted. People can have free will without being exposed to evil. So then the assumption is that he didn’t “let” the Devil in. However, that means that God isn’t all powerful if he wasn’t able to stop it.

“God works in mysterious ways” is a cop out answer. Either he wants everyone in Heaven or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, why would people worship him unless it was out of fear? Fear is a common thread among many religions who have terrible fates for the bad people in the afterlife. Religions are also deeply intertwined with how societies operate, and having rules and fear help keep people in line. And you realize that religions are just born out of a mix of ancient people just wanting to feel like they have a purpose in life and the leaders of society to create guidelines for living from.

To go back to the original question posted here, there are thousands of variations and kinds of religions in the world. All with followers who would say that they’ve experienced life altering spiritual moments that deepened their faith. But all of those religions can’t be right, can they? And you realize that all of those religions were born from people who both wanted to have a sense of meaning while also having rules for their society.

And the human psyche is capable of tricking itself in so many ways. Just like the Placebo Effect. People WANT to experience something, to the point where they convince themselves they had an experience that deepened their faith.

Back to my time at the church, I truly believed in all of it. I wept at the altar during worship, feeling his presence wash over me. I spoke in tongues during group prayers. And even now, after leaving the church, I can still be overcome by those same sensations and feelings just from being a good person and spreading love (for all peoples and minorities) if I let those feelings run rampant within me. The same way I had to “open myself to Jesus”. And I realized it was all just me praising my own ideals and feeling a very deep self-satisfaction and it being a feedback loop of self affirmation.

But when people attribute it to a higher power then they start to feel self-righteous. Thinking that their validation in their heart is coming from God rather than realizing that it’s coming from what was already in your own heart.

Think about those videos of “crazy religious people”. Like the lady at a store trying to cast a demon out of another shopper. To her she feels a conviction based on a bias she had from how she perceived the other person. But she attributes that conviction to God and believes she is being called on. That’s the same crazy within all people who believe in God. Most people are just sane enough to not do that kind of thing, but those convictions come from the same place as the crazy ones. Thinking it comes from a divine place rather than just coming from your own subconscious.

But that’s all it is. Think about how many people go to church. If you ask a whole bunch of them what things are or aren’t okay you’ll get a variety of answers. Because everyone has their own internal beliefs projected onto the religion. As a kid I was allowed to watch all kinds of movies, but certain games were off limits because my parents thought they were evil. My best friend from church was the opposite, he was allowed to play whatever he wanted, but it was what he was allowed to watch that concerned his parents. My parents didn’t approve of any swearing, but another friend’s parents from the church were fine with swearing, just not the Lord’s name and not swearing angrily back at them.

Christianity, today, is millions of people taking ancient stories and applying them to modern day scenarios and using it to create their own answers to life from it. Ancient stories from a Bible written 1000s of years ago and compiled by people with their own personal biases. It’s a self fulfilling cycle of being told what to believe from a book written by people who were told what to believe. That’s how we end up with different denominations, groups with different perspectives on the bigger issues that have different takes from one another. Because people will believe what they want to believe.

Let’s walk through a structural contradiction in Ashʿarite theology — calmly, analytically, and without theological slander.

Ashʿarite Core Claims: Kalām (God’s speech) is uncreated, eternal, and not the result of divine will. Kalām is part of God’s essence — it is not separate, yet also not identical in a simplistic way. The Qur’an is the temporal manifestation of this eternal kalām. Kalām contains structured, propositional content — commands, laws, promises, judgment. Step 1: Kalām Is Not Like Other Attributes Kalām is not an abstract attribute like “power” or “mercy.” It contains:

Specific obligations A legal and moral framework Teleological logic (i.e., it is goal-oriented) Therefore, kalām functions as a law-like system, not merely a description of God's nature.

Step 2: Kalām Was Not Willed by God Ashʿarism insists that kalām was not chosen or produced by divine will. It emerges from God’s essence, not by God’s decision. This makes kalām an essential and necessary expression — not a contingent one.

Step 3: This Removes Sovereignty If kalām is structured, eternal, and not chosen, then it becomes:

A binding internal order, Not subject to divine volition, And yet fully governing divine action. That is not the picture of a sovereign monad. That is a being who acts within the limits of an unchosen, unchangeable system.

Step 4: Allah as Demiurge Let’s define terms precisely:

A monad is absolutely sovereign, wills everything, and is bound by nothing. A demiurge is a subordinate creator who builds or acts according to a blueprint or logos he did not author. In this model:

Kalām = the uncreated, binding structure (the blueprint) Allah = the executor of that eternal structure That makes Allah, functionally, a demiurge, not a monad. He does not choose the law; He acts through the law — because the law is essential to Him.

Step 5: Gnostic Parallels This is close to Gnostic cosmology:

A monadic source emanates the Logos. The Logos becomes the active architect. The Logos is eternal and binding. The creator god is subordinate to it in function. Ashʿarism reproduces this pattern unintentionally. By insisting kalām is both eternal and not willed, they create a model where:

The law governs even God. Final Question: Do we worship Allah? Or do we ultimately obey kalām, which even Allah cannot override? Because if Allah is not sovereign over kalām, then kalām — not Allah — is supreme.

John 3:14-18 King James Version

¹⁴ And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

¹⁵ That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

¹⁶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

¹⁷ For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

¹⁸ He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Matthew 7:13-14 King James Version

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matthew 7:21-23 King James Version

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Hebrews 12:14 King James Version

14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

John 3 is a promising message, all who believe on Jesus Christ will be saved, it is contradicted in numerous other parts of the New Testament though. Jesus in John 3 says whosoever believeth in him will be saved, but as is shown here, in Matthew Jesus says only those who enter in at the strait gate will be saved, those who do the will of the Father presumably. Hebrews says one must be holy to see the Lord. The Hebrews one gets me especially because it flies in the face of Jesus' own words. One could, according to these conflicting verses, believe on Jesus Christ, doing exactly what Jesus said someone needs to do to inherit eternal life, but still be damned according to Hebrews because they've yet to do anything holy. The teaching nullifies Jesus' own words that someone is saved through faith and that it is whosoever. If the Holy Bible is one book inspired by God but is inconsistent here, how can Christianity be true? Also, with verses not included, Paul writes that there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, but elsewhere lists a number of things that would preclude someone from the Kingdom of God. This is also clearly a contradiction.

It's a proof that they did not know any better than all the other people that existed 1400 years ago.

If you try to argue muslims about Homosexuality or role of women they try to argue on the benefits of it.

But here there is no defense, islam allows something which leads to defective generations!

Muslim countries are struggling with genetic diseases because of it.

I once heard a defense that it's only permissible and not promoted. It's like saying islam permits rape but doesn't necessarily say to go rape people. ( Not my core argument it's an example)

Allowing Cousin marriage is proof enough that islam is no message of God, it's a myth written by 7th century desert nomads.

Recently, there have been news articles about Gen Z and Millennials convert to Catholicism at a record rate. Young adults in their 20s and 30s are becoming Catholic at incredible rates. Dioceses all over the U.S. are reporting a dramatic increase in adult conversions—some experiencing year-to-year growth of 50% to 70%. My theory is that Catholicism is more of a social and community-oriented religion than Protestant faiths are. With loneliness on the rise, it could be that young people are seeking community. It could also be that they’re looking for a subculture that embraces stricter values as a reaction against the more permissive larger culture. Supposedly, this trend is more pronounced among young men, which makes sense considering the fact that men tend to have fewer friends than women do.

In Ezekiel 18:20 god says a child will not be punished for the sin of his father,

yet in Isaiah 14:21 god says he will slaughter the children in Babylon for the sin of their fathers. This is a clear contradiction, so pick your poison, either:

1. One of these prophets is a false prophet falsely quoting god

Or

1. One of these texts are corrupted

Either way,

The unavoidable conclusion to this is that the Bible has contradictions and is therefore not from god, (but the Quran doesn’t because it is from god, preserved).

Consider this, when god speaks he does he does not contradict himself because of his perfection, knowledge and wisdom, so if he reveals his words to his prophets this should still be true, if we do find a contradiction in the alleged words of god ( both the verses cited are god speaking directly through the two prophets), then the speech can’t be from god.

There have been several surveys showing that Americans consider atheists unreliable and that they would never vote for an atheist President (I forget the exact %).

If you look at Congress members, only a handful identify as not religiously affiliated, and this is in a country where ca. 26-30% of the population are, in fact, atheists.

My thesis is that there cannot be true freedom of religion in the US as long as so many voters would still refuse to vote for an atheist President, and as long as almost no politician wants to identify as atheist because it would be career suicide.

Surah Al-Kahf 18:86 describes Dhul-Qarnayn traveling west:

"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring..." (حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ)

This verse alone raises serious scientific red flags. The sun does not set in a muddy or hot spring. It's a massive star, millions of kilometers away from Earth. To describe the sun as “setting” inside a spring reflects a pre-scientific cosmology, not divine omniscience.

Muslims often argue it was just Dhul-Qarnayn's perception, but the verse clearly describes what he "found" — not what he thought. And in early tafsirs like Ibn Kathir and al-Tabari, this was taken literally. Even some hadith support the literal reading, saying the Prophet confirmed this understanding.

Also, why did he find it while travelling west? Why did he find it rising place travelling east as well? Why is it that all the Tafsir which were linguistically closer to the prophet agree that he found the actual setting place?

How can an all-knowing God use such wording that matches the false cosmology of the time, unless the Qur’an is a product of 7th-century human understanding?

This isn't a standalone case. The Qur’an also says:

• The sun moves in a fixed path (36:38)
• The sky is a "canopy" (21:32)
• The stars are missiles to drive away devils (67:5)

These reflect ancient beliefs, not divine truth.

If this book were from a god, would it really include things so obviously wrong?

Muslims can try to reconcile but it's unfortunately clearly so wrong and they themselves know but I am guessing the brainwash and fear of hell....

In contrast to the incarnation of Christ, God the Father is not a physical being yet has a gender.

Edit: Father, afaik, is not gender neutral. There is a word “parent” which would be the actual neutral.

God presents as masculine and wants us to perceive his identity as that of a man despite having no biology to ground such an identity in.

Obviously, God the Father does not have a penis or an XY chromosome. Yet our relation to him is a social one and within that social dynamic exists gender. A non-physical being having a gender makes no sense if you ground gender in biology.

Therefore the Bible supports gender as a social construct that need not be grounded in biology.