Christians face an atheist and say "Sure we believe in Noah we aren't saying it happened exactly the way the Bible says i mean some of it could be allegorical yes i'll concede that" "you see we don't know do we? what we'll concede is that it's unlikely to be how the Bible said it is but we don't believe everything the Bible says to be literal"
There's some uncertainty there. Not absolute assurance and confidence of holding truth.
Muslims don't give the atheist an inch. The Muslim faces the atheist and says "Yes Muhammad split the moon, yes Yunus was inside the whale of course we believe in miracles, is there a problem?"
The Muslim gives the atheist nothing and asserts all his religious beliefs as absolute certain truth and leaves it open to the atheist to challenge him so he can refute him. Christians seem willing to toss out half the Old Testament if the atheist says "ha that's just a bunch of fairytales bro" the Christian feels the need to compromise and placate the atheist in some way. The Muslim says "Yes we believe Jesus turned clay into pigeons and here's why we are upon truth".
The absolute uncompromising belief and certainty of truth that the Muslim holds doesn't seem to exist in the Christian.
You are liars and you practice taqqyia and tawryya. You are allowed to lie so this is all you do. You lie amongst yourselves, you lie the world you lie to convert and you lie to keep the crowd of dumb animals you corralled in your shit religion.
Kys Muhammad bin Chaim.
>You are liars and you practice taqqyia
*Shias 🙂
Christians also have a religious practice where they lie to protect their beliefs. It's called "Bakiyya" look it up. Oh, can't find anything? It's because all the Christian websites are practicing Bakiyya
Rent free.
spotted the assblasted pajeet. pretty responsive today eh?
You’ll also find people unwilling to concede Queen Elizabeth II isn’t a lizard
Yeah but they are not positing that as the ONLY truth and the only true belief the way Muslims do. Muslims don't just say "you be on your way and i'll be on mine" and leave it alone, they want to actively deconstruct the other guys beliefs and worldview and understand why he doesn't want to follow Islam and take Islam as his truth whereas the conspiracy lizard guy will say something like "whatever dude you can't wake everyone up, only some can be adequately redpilled, watch the matrix, most are asleep, most are sheep" and then they give up and kind of just go on their way after ranting. The Muslim has a handful books in front of him which he claims are the proofs and he's inviting everyone and anyone to tell him otherwise.
Think about it. Have you ever seen the Queen and a lizard in the same room?
Most of them are basically atheists who say they’re Christian
Because most muslims are moronic inbreeds
Bring up the fact that Muhammad raped a 9 year old and see how Muslims shy away from that fact with a hundred cope outs.
that only works with western muslims, middle eastern muslims will just cope with it by appealing to muh 'it was or normal', muh 'out of context', muh 'shia fabrication' (or all of the above) or pretend they're fine with it.
>it was or normal for the time
This is such a moronic cope, gods law and the actions and sayings of his prophets should be immortal and timeless. You're just admitting they were in the wrong and god fricked up choosing this man as their prophet, so why should I follow this clearly fallible and bad person?
The point is that given life expediencies, and the lack of formal education, people married young. So what?
Great, then since things have changed, we can all continue moving society forward and leave Muhammad and his medieval morality, as well as his religion, in the past.
Child marriage isn't immoral
Reminder that there are NO theological arguments against child marriage. It's not sinful.
Muhammad is supposed to be the perfect example of human behavior for all of mankind at all times and ages. If they say "it was okay at the time" then they're admitting that his morality and ethics can become outdated and ought to be abandoned as we move further away from his historical context.
We follow the prophet in matters of character and religion, but society differs time to time. There is no need to wear ancient clothes and ride camels to the mosque like they did during the prophet's time when we have cars and other modern conveniences.
>We follow the prophet in matters of character
Like being okay with raping little kids? Says alot about his pedophile character.
>and religion
Like sanctioning marrying little kids?
>There is no need to wear ancient clothes and ride camels to the mosque like they did during the prophet's time.
If someone wanted to do those things in imitation of Muhammad, could you say they were wrong? How would that be different if someone wanted to marry and rape a 9 year old, and cited him as an example?
If your most beloved prophet could do it, why can't his followers?
Marriage is allowed as long as both people have reached puberty and the parents consent.
Yeah, that's why Islam is so shit.
Puberty is not a indicator for mental maturity, if anything when you reach puberty that's when you're barely starting to gain mental maturity, it certainly isn't a point in which you can know what marriage entails.
And as for the parents they can frick right off, why on earth should parents have ANY say about whom you marry and when?
Aisha loved him and his enemy during his time didn't see anything wrong with it
The response is simple. Do you believe that a nine year old was the same in 7th century Arabia in terms of maturity as a nine year old today? Any sincere person would accept the age of consent changed with time. Wasn't the legal age of consent in somewhere like Italy as low as 12 years old until a few years ago? All of a sudden you are only 3 years off the big bogey man of 9.
>Do you believe that a nine year old was the same in 7th century Arabia in terms of maturity as a nine year old today?
Yes.
>Do you believe that a nine year old was the same in 7th century Arabia in terms of maturity as a nine year old today?
Yep, pretty much. What, you think that 9 year old girls in the 7th century were of a different species or something?
>Any sincere person would accept the age of consent changed with time.
Right, and if Muhammad were to try to pull that shit nowadays he'd be arrested.
>Wasn't the legal age of consent in somewhere like Italy as low as 12 years old until a few years ago?
And so what? Those laws are wrong just like Muhammad was wrong. You really think this was some kind of a gotcha or something? You think that any modern person would agree with those laws if they were presented to them?
Not really
Islam was crated off violence, expanded through violence, and breeds violence. Lots of suburban and urban muslims to try and appease to western taste's by doing everything they can to call their religion one of peace. It is not a peaceful religion, and I respect those muslims that just admit it
>the autistic paki is at it again
yawn
>Christians seem willing to toss out half the Old Testament
yes
>not tossing out the ENTIRE Old Testament
>Paul Williams
Muslims are pathetic.
These have got to be some of the most embarrassing attempts at rebuttal I've seen in a while holy shit. Not even Christcuck apologetics are this bad and that's saying something.
>no answer
Just my opinion, but...
A lot of it has to do with the underlying philosophies of the individual religions; what is and isn't deemed important; and how each follower falls in relation to the overall religion.
So, for israelites, it is the Law; which is a form of binding contract; where God agrees to do X, in exchange for the followers doing Y. The problem happens because it often demands action and not intent.
For the Christian, it is about the individual role. So action X may or may not be a sin, it all depends on your intentions when taking the act; and your personal moral code in relation to your doing X.
Islam is based on the concept of submission to God. As such, it puts a higher priority on strictly following the rules.
This last part also works in the Catholic Church in a different way; for example (in my opinion) with Transubstantiation
> Jesus said this is my body
> submission means taking that as fact
> faith means believing it, even against all evidence.
Forgot the main point. To answer your question...
Because to a christian, the right of others to make their own decision in regards to their faith is more important than forcing them to submit to theirs (or anyone else's) opinion.
Jesus never said Transubstantiation.
Which is not a faith. A faith is something like this is my body, take and eat. Jesus even explained to them he isn’t meaning to give his leg to you as a fried chicken leg.
evangelicals hold the old testament to be absolutely true and will lie through their teeth to support that worldview
>we look bestest since we behead our infidels with curved swords and moon the camera when we worship
Islam automatically loses because they don’t preach forgiveness and grace as their primary message of God. It is easy to look good when you are being an angry man that doesn’t give a shit about what the women say. Which is why their women will never say anything. Locked in such a environmental factor, do you think their women will ever evolve past their spiritually dark traits like a golden retriever while wearing all those black burqas under there? I guess if you wear all that black covering then at least you won’t get wet when it rains. Just sounds like you don’t like the rain. Like Ranni from Elden Ring. It’s even worse what it does to the men, I assume. Which is the point.
then I must be a Muslim because I treat atheists like pondscum.
did pic related actually happen irl? holy shit
This is because Protestants turned into secular humanists and liberals about 150-200 years ago and in doing so packed up the ethics of the New Testament and brought it with them. This means that today these people claim the heritage of "what is good in Christianity" while throwing away the scraps i.e. the actual theology, leaving fundamentalists to pick them up. So fundamentalists find themselves between hammer and anvil; at once fighting with the weapons that cultured and moral Christian progressives threw away and finding themselves with no moral justification for doing so as their enemies claim for themselves the ethical and moral principles that would have otherwise justified irrational fundamentalism on utilitarian grounds.
This is why Christians are demoralized, they sense that in a way they have been surpassed by secular humanism
'hol up, homie. i ain't reading walls of text.
redditors should be hanged
Both entries CONFIRM that Muhammad was a pedophile, so what was the point of them.
You should stay in your teenager Reddit ecochambers.
>Christians try to convince people they aren't delusional
>We make no such effort. It doesn't matter if our beliefs are nonsensical, we insist upon their truth.
>This makes us better somehow.
Reminder that all of this concerned with Muhammad(peace be upon him) marrying a 9 year old girl, are perfectly ok, with living in a society where they dump their aging parents in a retirement homes, and only visit them once per month at best, giving their parents to be taken care by total strangers. That is absolutely disgusting.
Do not cave in to their satanic bullshit. There is absolutely nothign wrong in what Muhammad did, they were married, it's perfectly natural and ok. It woudl only be wrong, if they weren't married beforehand.
Me as a muslim, i'm happy with only one wife, it is my choice. I've always been a monogamous person.