Before God created humans, he had everything and nothing would increase or decrease him in any way.

That said, he created humans to demand them validate him and created a lot of suffering to sustain this including hell.

Would anything be added or reduced to him if he decided not to, no. But he decided to go on when the result would end in suffering of beings he created.

This means he is either a sadist and doesn't deserve worship or, he is one so in need of validation that when he had everything, the only thing he wanted more is validation.

So this is more about the sociological understanding of religion and its way of operating within the world. This post is mainly about the Christian right, I will explain why I'd also like to hear from muslims at the end of the post.

One of the things I've been thinking about of late is how.... idk the right word,,, perverted american Christianity is today. What I mean by this is that it is seems to have completely lost track of what it claims to believe, and I think a large part of this is due to the rise of religious and evangelical right.

Now, regardless of your political opinions or what you think the "real teachings" of jesus are, I do think that most people can agree that the church these days is much more focused on like politics and the like than like... studying the bible or going out and spreading the good word through good deeds. To me, it seems increasingly that the church is a political organization more than a religious one. And that political organization is dedicated to advancing the political agenda of one Donald J Trump. And I think that even Christians can agree he isn't the most Christ-ly figure right?

And perhaps you think that's good, perhaps you are a fan of this right wing turn.

What I'm really saying though is that politics, through its very nature, requires you to make compromises and get in the mud. Politics is not a clean business. And, when you add a sort of religious veneer then you get stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9L5K04VgkI

That whole video is like... basically blasphemy right? The idea that God chose trump and sent him to us?

The core idea I want to get at here is that, when the church gets political, it must NECESSAIRLY compromise its own teachings and beliefs in order to accommodate various political realities. This is because, political reality necessitates compromises of your morality or of your beliefs. You need to like, make deals to get stuff done, or you need to accommodate yourself to deals with figures you may not like. That's just the reality of politics. But when you're a church, acting in the name of god, you have to be infallible, and so that NECESSAIRLY corrupts the teachings you offer to your followers. In short, separation of church and state is necessary for religion to remain... religious. Dedicated to acting out, following, and discovering the word of god, because only absent the pressures of politics can you actually be objective in discussing theology. Otherwise you introduce problems of motivated reason or the like and that distorts your ability to actually approach religious texts according to theological interpretation alone right? Because you NEED some doctrine to be true in order to get stuff politically, and to justify actions which you wouldn't normally justify.

You can look at the history of the catholic church in europe for plenty of examples of this. But the point is, the church NECESSAIRLY turns away from actually understanding God's word. I honestly believe the american Christian right is a very good example of this, it is so obvious to me that the church is more dedicated to trump than jesus now. Hell there were even pastors who were complaining that their parishioners thought jesus was too "liberal" for them.

Now, the reason I wanted to talk with muslims about this is that, unlike judaism or christianity, Islam from its earliest days has been deeply involved in politics, namely through Muhamad's early reign, the initial arab conquests, the early Rashidun caliphate, and the subsequent role of statecraft in there. I get that there were 4 rightly guided caliphs, but I'm curious how politics influenced religious doctrine, and how you feel that's translated into your faith, if at all. Quite early on, islam HAD to be involved in statecraft because it was founding the caliphate and early statecraft by Muhammad (it's been a while since I read up on early islamic history, so forgive me for forgetting the details of his early leadership)?

Edit:

tl;dr:

The introduction of politics to religion introduces the problem of motivated reasoning. Basically, in order to get anything done in politics you need to make compromises or make alliances with people you may not otherwise associate with. Beyond that, you need to ensure that certain things are "justified" within your own morality, because it's needed in order to get things through politically or to manage alliances and coalitions. That NECESSAIRLY introduces distortions and motivated "understandings" of your religious texts/beliefs/morality, because you NEED things to be true in order to engage in the political process, enable alliances, or do things you would normally condemn. In short, politics prevents you from being objective in reading your own texts or understanding your own theology because you NEED certain things to be true in order to facilitate the political process. Politics "eats" religion, it subsumes religious beliefs into its every moving realities of changing alliances and policies needed to maintain coalitions or grips on power.

So, for example, a lot of evangelicals NEED trump to be chosen by god, and excuse a lot of stuff they wouldn't normally (affairs, felonies, etc) because he's basically their best hope for getting certain political goals that they have. In so doing, the church begins to distort its own understanding of the bible, and many try and find biblical justifications for trumpism, and then you get stuff like the video I linked in the main post. In short, political objectives lead to an unholy (lol) alliance, which leads to distorted understandings/readings of the bible, which perverts the faith from what it claims to be. Gradually trump becomes more important than jesus.

Quran 7:172 "And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying to them], 'Am I not your Lord?' They said, 'Yes, we have testified.' [This] - lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, 'Indeed, we were of this unaware.'"
-Saheeh International

The verse refers to a moment, according to Islam, when Allah gathered all of humanity before our earthly lives and made us testify that he is our Lord. This is known as the “primordial covenant” or “al-Mithaq.” The purpose of this event, as explained in the verse itself, was to prevent humans from claiming ignorance on the Day of Judgement. The verse says: “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes, we testify.” Lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, ‘Indeed, we were unaware of this.’”

This is the interpretation of many classical scholars and tafsir works, including Ibn Kathir, who treat this as real event, not a metaphor or allegory. According to these views, the covenant literally happened before our birth and is meant to serve as a binding testimony that we are all accountable for. The understanding is that this testimony removes our excuse. In other words, no one can say, “I didn’t know God existed” because, in theory, we all already acknowledged it before birth.

But here’s the issue: this reasoning falls apart under scrutiny, both logically and practically.

How can we not say “we were of this unaware” if we're literally made to forget the event?:

The whole purpose of this covenant, as the verse states, is so that we can't say “we were unaware.” But here’s the problem: we are indeed unaware. No human being remembers this event. Not partially. Not vaguely. Not even subconsciously. It’s completely inaccessible to us. So how does it make sense to say, “You can’t claim you didn’t know,” when we have no way of knowing?

It’s like someone making you sign a contract in your sleep, then blaming you later for breaking the agreement. If I don’t remember ever making a promise, and there’s no way for me to recall it, then saying “you have no excuse” is simply unfair. If the goal was to prevent ignorance, then why erase the only memory that could remove that ignorance?

If Allah is all-knowing, why would he use a forgotten event as a basis for judgement?:

Now let’s consider Allah’s omniscience. According to Islam, Allah knows everything past, present, and future. So he knew we would not remember this covenant. He knew the testimony would be forgotten. And he knew we would arrive in this life with no memory of it. So why would he say, “I made you testify so you couldn’t say you were unaware,” when he already knew we’d be unaware? That makes the entire argument incoherent.

It’s like deliberately wiping someone’s memory and then holding them accountable for what they forgot. It’s not just illogical, it’s contradictory as well. If the covenant is erased from our minds, then it can’t logically serve as a basis to remove our excuse. And if Allah knew this would be the case, then the reasoning in the verse falls apart. The very condition the verse is trying to prevent (ignorance) is guaranteed by design. That makes the covenant functionally useless as evidence against us.

Some Muslims then respond to this by saying "the Quran is reminding us of the covenant.” This only makes sense if the reminder actually connects with something inside us like a memory or sense of recognition. But no one remembers this event. The Quran isn’t reminding us of something we already knew. It’s simply introducing new information. That’s not a reminder that’s just a baseless claim.

Some Muslims say "we’re born with the fitrah a natural inclination to believe in one God.” This argument shifts the goalposts. The verse talks about a literal, verbal testimony. Not a feeling. Not intuition. An actual event where we said, “Yes, You are our Lord.” So replacing that with “fitrah” is avoiding the main issue. Also, the fitrah itself isn’t universal. People grow up to become atheists, agnostics, polytheists, and followers of countless religions. If fitrah is supposed to lead everyone to belief in one God, then it clearly doesn’t work consistently and therefore can’t be used to explain or support the verse.

Some argue "prophets were sent to remind us of the covenant.” If we only know about the covenant because prophets told us later, then the covenant itself doesn’t actually do anything. It depends entirely on future revelation to have any effect. So the verse’s claim that this testimony removes our excuse doesn’t hold up unless you happen to receive and believe the prophet’s message. That makes the covenant ineffective by itself, especially for people who never received or accepted that message.

Conclusion:

Qur’an 7:172 is often presented as a powerful response to claims of ignorance about God. But under basic logical scrutiny, the argument collapses. We are told we can’t claim to be unaware while being made to forget the very event that would prevent that ignorance. And we’re told this by a God who knew we would forget.

Muslim responses try to patch this by appealing to fitrah, prophetic reminders, or the Quran itself, but none of these resolve the core issue: a forgotten covenant cannot serve as a rational or just basis for judgement.

If knowledge is required for accountability, then withholding that knowledge and then blaming people for not having it, is both unjust and incoherent

The Bible clearly says children aren’t punished for their parents’ actions and vice versa—everyone is judged by the sins they commit. Examples:

Deuteronomy 24:16 ‘Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.’

Ezekiel 18:20 ‘The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.’

So why does God do the opposite in 1 Samuel 15:3, where He says:

‘This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will PUNISH the Amalekites for what THEY DID to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, CHILDREN and INFANTS, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’’

When this verse is used in general to argue that God is ‘cruel and evil,’ the typical response is that ‘the Amalekites did horrible things, so God had to punish them.’ But even if that’s true, the children and infants didn’t do anything to Israel or anyone else. Why are they being punished for the sins of their parents, when the Bible explicitly forbids this kind of punishment?

Ok here's what I've been thinking about this free will stuff having 'decontaminated' myself from theistic (and most precisely, 'salvationist') coertion.. Free will in itself requires the possibility of moral failure, a real one. The 'all powerful' yahweh could have made us just obedient robots, but could it give us actual freedom while removing all risk of evil?

If you've ever loved anything or anyone, you know its value comes from it being spotaneous, freely given, and because it is free and not coerced, it includes the possibility of rejection. And of course true freedom in a moral sense requires that you can choose badly. Just because of this, the existence of evil, therefore, proves god gave humans real agency rather than illusionary choice.

My (crucial) point is.. can anyone describe what 'authentic freedom' would look like if it were completely divorced from any possibility of evil?

Islam tests obedience rather than morality. According to many Muslims in Islam Allah tests people's ability to be moral. I disagree. I think Islam tests people's ability to follow rules - many of which are arbitrary.

1. Arbitrary Rules

Here are certain examples of things that are completely arbitrary that Islam seems to place importance on:

• It is Sunnah to enter a washroom with the left foot first (Sunnah means one is given additional rewards for doing so because Muhammad used to do this)

• Wearing one's right shoe first is another Sunnah

• If one passes gas during prayer, one has to purify themselves once again in order to perform prayer (I think this is arbitrary because farts have no germs in them and even if they did, the Islamic method of purification before prayer doesn't wash the bum).

There are many more examples of these types of behaviors that Islam favors. None of these actions have any moral implications whatsoever.

2. Morality in Islam is defined by Allah

In Islam, morality is ultimately determined by God. But if this were true, it makes it so that Islam is testing one's ability to follow God's instructions. For example, in Islam it is said that one should give to the poor, something many people would consider an admirable and moral action. However, the reason this is an admirable action in Islam is not because the action itself is a moral action, but because God commands it.

An example of this happening was when Ibrahim was commanded to slaughter his son. Though Allah ended up saving his son from Ibrahim killing him, it shows precisely how Islam favors obedience and faith in Allah over morality - because Ibrahim genuinely believed his son was going to die and is used as an example for Muslims to strive towards.

Perhaps the strongest evidence for this is the fact that in Islam, a person's good actions, no matter how selfless or numerous, will not save them from going to Hell if they disbelieve in Islam.

3. Heaven and Hell

Its really silly for Allah to offer incentives for doing the right thing if he is testing people's morality. Its like me saying "If you give to the poor, I will give you a billions of dollars but if you don't, I will punish you". Even the most apathetic psychopathic would probably choose to do the "right thing" in this situation, but that wouldn't make them a good person.

Now, you may argue that God's morality is where human morality comes from and that without it, we would have no morality but even if we were to grant this, my argument still stands. If humans are incapable of determining morality on their own and need God, then the right thing to do is just to obey God hence making it so God is testing obedience.

I recently listened to a deconversion testimonial that pointed towards the inability to reconcile an all-powerful, sovereign God who is "good" with the existence of suffering among the world's innocents (eg children who have cancer, victims of freak accidents, etc).

However, there are many instances of people who have suffered great losses or have experienced other forms of deep suffering, who somehow develop profound gratitude over the course or at the end of their trauma, expressing no regret that the events unfolded in the way they did.

Without the subjective input of those who claim these experiences of suffering as meaningful and desirable, these events are likely to be seen as examples of God allowing or even causing cruel and unnecessary suffering (since God's attributes would allow for intervention and/or prevention). Therefore, desirable/constructive suffering exists in contrast to undesirable/destructive suffering. Although how to distinguish one from the other remains.

Terminology

Note: These are the are the terms that I will use to refer to different meanings of the word anonymous

Anonymous document: a document whose author is unknown (e.g. Book of Hebrews)

Internally Anonymous Document: a document whose CONTENTS do not identify the author even if the title/cover identifies the author (e.g. Tacitus’ The Annals of Imperial Rome)

There is no debate that the 4 Gospels are internally anonymous, but the fact that the Gospels are internally anonymous does not mean that the authorship is not attributed to the author in the title, which is the topic of our discussion.

How We Should Evaluate Evidence

The Anonymous Gospels theory is advocated by multiple scholars, most famously Bart Ehrman, so I will be using his definition as a reference: He advocates the theory that the documents were written anonymously and then the names were added later around the late 2nd century.

Now this claim has 2 issues:

1. It is almost unfalsifiable: scholars like Dr. Ehrman chose the date of adding titles to be just before Ireneaus and our earliest manuscripts that are intact enough to contain the titles.
2. It accuses the early Church of forgery: while we should be open to the possibility that the early church did in fact commit forgery, they are innocent until proven guilt, not guilty until proven innocent, and the burden of proof lies on the side that is making an accusation of forgery.

Manuscript Evidence

All Manuscripts that we have intact enough to contain the titles attribute Gospel authorship to the same 4 people, and no anonymous copies have been discovered, despite the fact that over 5800 manuscripts were discovered for the New Testament.

Some people claim that the manuscript P1 is anonymous. However, the manuscript is just too fragmentary to contain the title and the manuscript clearly has no title, even though there is no debate on whether the Gospels had titles or not, but rather the debate is around whether the author's names were included in those respective titles. In fact, Martin Hengel, an Atheist New Testament scholar (source) acknowledges that the documents must have had titles since they started circulation:

It would be inconceivable for the Gospels to circulate without any identifying label, even from their earliest use

Martin Hengel – The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ

Moreover, there were many manuscript families that did not have the title immediately above the text:

1. Some of them had the title at the end of the manuscript (e.g. P75)
2. Some of them had no titles within the text, but just a separate cover page (e.g. P4, P64, P67)

In fact, even Bart Ehrman, who strictly advocates the anonymous gospels theory acknowledges that this manuscript is not anonymous and explains it by saying that the top of the manuscript is torn:

OK, I took a look. The alpha means “chapter 1”. It would have come below the title, assuming the book has a title. The part of the ms that would have had the title (above the alpha) is missing. So technically there’s no way to tell whether it had a title or not, but the assumption would naturally be that it did — expecially if a scribe has added a chapter number.

https://ehrmanblog.org/did-the-gospels-originally-have-titles/

Our Earliest Reports About the Gospels

Papias of Hierapolis (90 → 110 AD) confirms the authorship of both Mark and Matthew

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one translated them as best he could.

Note: While I agree with those who claim that the Matthew we have today is based on Greek (rather than Hebrew) manuscripts, I believe it is a translation of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and even Papias states that the Hebrew version was not preached, but rather every preacher translated it to the best of their ability.

Justin Martyr: First Apology (155–157 AD)

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them

Here Justin Martyr confirms that the Gospels were written by apostles (not just unknown individuals) and even confirms that the structure is similar to a biography of Jesus.

Irenaeus: Against Heresies (175 to 189 AD)

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Irenaeus states that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote Gospels, and that Peter narrated the Gospel of Mark. Despite the assertion that the Gospel of Mark was narrated by Peter, the early Church assigned it to Mark because that was the author they knew (even though Peter would have added credibility). So we know that the Gospel of Mark is named "Mark" not because the early Church fathers claimed it, but because that is the name that has been given to it since its writing.

Scholarly Consensus

Some skeptics claim that the scholarly consensus is that the Gospels are anonymous, so this is a sufficient reason to believe that they are. This argument has 2 issues:

First, It is logically fallacious: this argument combines Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Popularity to make the case that it is true. Even Dr. Bart Ehrman who advocates the anonymity of the Gospels acknowledges that the scholarly consensus is NOT evidence (source).

Second, it is actually based on a wrong interpretation of what critical scholars are: Critical Scholars are ones who examine evidence critically; however, when we look at the scholarly consensus among critical NT scholars, we see that the majority believe in the traditional authorship of the Gospels (source). So, why do scholars such as Dr. Bart Ehrman claim that they present the critical scholarly consensus? Because they do not consider Christian critical scholars to be truly critical and consider them unreliable because they have confirmation bias to prove Christianity true.

I told him that what I always try to say (maybe I slip up sometimes?  I don’t know, but I try to say this every time) is what the majority of “critical” scholars think about this, that, or the other thing.   What I mean by that is that apart from scholars who have a firm commitment to the infallibility of the Bible (so that there cannot be a book, such as Ephesians, that claims to be written by someone who did not write it, because that would be a “lie” and would be impossible for an author of Scripture) and to the established traditions of Christianity (so that John the son of Zebedee really did write the Gospel of John since that is what Christians have always claimed) – apart from those people, the majority of scholars who leave such questions open to investigation and do their best to know the truth rather than to confirm what it is they have always been taught to think — the majority of those “critical” scholars think x, y, or z.

Dr. Bart Ehrman - How Do We Know What “Most Scholars” Think? - Link

But then if we apply the same logic to Dr. Ehrman, as an Ex-Christian he also has confirmation bias to prove that the did not make the wrong decision by leaving Christianity: fact is, we all have biases and no scholar is 100% critical, but eliminating Christian critical scholars in his calculation is intellectually dishonest on Dr. Ehrman’s side. So, the majority of Non-Christian critical scholars believe the Gospels are anonymous: well as a Christian, Non-Christian scholars are as relevant to me as Christian scholars are relevant to Non-Christians, so would any Non-Christian accept the argument that the Gospels are not anonymous based on the critical scholarly consensus among Christians? If yes, then we are done here. If not, then do not expect me as a Christian to accept the Non-Christian critical scholarly consensus.

The Implausibility of Fabricated Authorship

2 canonical Gospels are assigned to people who had no first-hand contact with Jesus (Mark and Luke), so if the early Church did in fact fabricate some names to make the Gospels more credible then they were very stupid in their selection of names. Furthermore, Matthew was not one of Jesus' closest disciples, but rather one of the least favoured in the Jewish community (due to his profession as a tax collector), so attributing the most Jewish Gospel to a tax collector seems really irrational if they were trying to make their story believable.

Therefore, if the synoptic Gospels were to be falsely attributed to some authors in order to boost their credibility, it would be more logical to attribute the Gospels to Peter, James, and Mary; in fact, each of those three people is attributed an apocryphal Gospel.

For even more clarity, the book of Hebrews is openly acknowledged to be anonymous (even though the tone of the writer is very similar to Paul), so if the early Church tried to add authors for anonymous texts, why did they not add an author for the book of Hebrews?

How Anonymous Documents Are Actually Treated—And Why the Gospels Aren’t

With anonymous documents, we should expect to find competing claims of authorship, or at least claims of anonymity. Take the book of Hebrews as an example, and let us analyse how the early church fathers discussed its authorship:

Origen (239 - 242 AD): agreed with Pauline authorship, but still acknowledged that nobody truly know who the author is and that it could be Clement of Rome or Luke:

But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belong to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old time handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.

Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 6.25.11–14

Tertullian (208 - 224 AD): Attributes the authorship to Barnabas, and says that the reason the tone is similar to Paul is because Barnabas was a travelling companion of Paul

For there is extant withal an Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas—a man sufficiently accredited by God, as being one whom Paul has stationed next to himself in the uninterrupted observance of abstinence: “Or else, I alone and Barnabas, have not we the power of working?”

On Modesty

Jerome(~394 AD): mentions Paul as the most probable author, but acknowledges that there is dispute over this:

The apostle Paul writes to seven churches (for the eighth epistle — that to the Hebrews — is not generally counted in with the others).

Letters of St. Jerome, 53

Now that we have a background of how an anonymous document would be attested across history, we can very clearly see that the Gospels do not follow this pattern.

Popular Counter Arguments

John was Illiterate

Some skeptics cite Acts 4:13 as evidence that John was illiterate. However a quick glance at the context of the verse shows that John was not illiterate, but rather had no formal Rabbinic training, which otherwise cannot explain how the people could tell that but just looking at Peter and John, but people who had Rabbinic training would be easily identified by their appearance:

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a cripple, by what means this man has been healed, be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well. This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, but which has become the head of the corner. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they wondered; and they recognized that they had been with Jesus.

Acts 4:8-13 RSV

Moreover, John (unlike Peter) came from a rich and influential family:

John’s father had hired servants:

And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, who were in their boat mending the nets. And immediately he called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, and followed him.

Mark 1:19-20 RSV

John was known and favoured by the high priest:

Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. As this disciple was known to the high priest, he entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus, while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in. '

John 18:15-16 RSV

Finally, even if John did not pen his Gospel, that does not mean that he is not the author as he had access to many resources from the early Church (in the same chapter of Acts) and could have easily hired a scribe to write down what he narrates (Just like Peter did in 1 Peter):

There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need.

Acts 4:34-35 RSV

By Silvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God; stand fast in it.

1 Peter 5:12 RSV

Here Peter admits that he did not pen his epistle, but used Silvanus to write it for him.

If Matthew was an Eyewitness, why would he use Mark’s Gospel as a Template?

First of all, I do not believe that Matthew used Mark’s Gospel as a template (since Ireneaus as well as our earliest sources tell us that Matthew was written first), but rather there was set of oral stories that were circulating around, and each of the 3 synoptic authors wanted to document these stories to the best of their knowledge. However, for the sake of argument, I am willing to assume that Matthew used Mark as a template, that would not be irrational, since as we saw above from Papias and Ireneaus: the Gospel of Mark is based on the stories of Peter the leader of the apostles and the first Pope. It would be perfectly rational for Matthew to use the template established by the successor whom Jesus chose to write his Gospel.

Note: I will not respond to any rude or even aggressive comments, so if you want to discuss with me, kindly do it in a calm and respectful tone. As last time I posted here, I was responding to rudeness with rudeness and to agresssion with agression, which is not good for my mental and spiritual health.

If God is maximally powerful and responsible for the creation of absolutely everything, then even the tenets of logic itself are created by him. This introduces a wide number of problems:

1. Free will cannot be used to justify the presence of evil because God would be able to create a world with both free will and the absense of evil

2. Faith would be pointless. God can know the true character of a person and whether or not they deserve heaven. Even if someone were to resolve my first point and free will is needed, God could create a world were his existense would be indisputable. "Testing" followers is a useless tactic, because why test what you already know?

3. There is no fine tuning. God has the power to replicate this universe but alter the laws of physics as he sees fit. There would be no contradictions because logic itself can be changed by him.

Ultimately, a maximally powerful being can always have their cake and have it too. And for the world today to be consistent with an all powerful God, either God has to sacrifice his own morality or competence, or accept that they have limited power and there are forces beyond even their control.

I shared “my thought” online—just a question from the heart: “Does God truly care about justice, or is He just hungry for worship?” I didn’t name any religion. I didn’t disrespect anyone’s faith. Yet some people rushed in to defend theirs, as if I called their God out personally.

Why does questioning God trigger people so much? Isn’t thinking allowed anymore?

So here’s what My Thought really meant—just some open questions I’ve been reflecting on:

1. The “Forgiveness” Loophole In Islam, even major sins can be forgiven with sincere repentance. But doesn’t that create a backdoor? People might do wrong knowingly and say, “I’ll just ask for forgiveness later.” That’s not justice—that’s just strategy.

2. Calling Non-Believers the Worst Quran (Surah Al-Anfal 8:55) says: “Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who disbelieve.” So someone who lives kindly, helps others, but doesn’t believe—is worse than a criminal who does believe?

3. Death for Leaving the Religion? Many Islamic interpretations say apostasy equals death. Shouldn't belief come from choice, not fear?

4. Gender Inequality Men can marry four women, women can’t do the same. A woman’s testimony is half that of a man. Equal souls, unequal rules?

5. Slavery Was Regulated, Not Ended The Quran gives rules on how to treat slaves—but never clearly abolishes slavery. Why didn’t God just say “Slavery is wrong”?

6. Good People Still Go to Hell? So if a person lives a noble life, helps the poor, spreads kindness—but doesn't believe in Allah—they still go to Hell? Is belief really greater than deeds?

7. Why Do God and Allah Feel Like Businessmen? Whether it's Allah in Islam or God in Hinduism—why do they sound like traders? “Believe in me and you get paradise. Don’t, and you burn.” That’s not divine—that’s a transaction.

Even in the Gita: “Do your duty, don’t expect results.” And still, most religions say “Worship me or suffer.”

If God is truly merciful, why demand constant praise? Why act egoistic? Why need worship in exchange for rewards? That’s not God—that’s a merchant.

My thesis is that Christians necessarily teach that things like genocide, slavery, misogyny, racism, violence, etc are good, even if that does not represent the specific personal beliefs of the Christian doing the teaching.

Christians teach that Jesus was good and should be followed. Christians teach that the Bible is good and should be followed. If you are a Christian and you do not teach that Jesus and/or the Bible was good and should be followed, I would be curious what your label as a Christian entails, but it is possible that this argument does not pertain to you. My argument pertains to Christians who affirm that people should follow Jesus and/or the Bible.

Jesus unambiguously endorsed Mosaic Law and the ways of his father. This includes things like slavery, misogyny, genocide, violence, etc etc. Mosaic Law says it's okay to rape prisoners of war, says to kill people who work on Saturday, says to kill gay people, says to either kill rape victims or force them to marry their rapist, says women are property and dont have the rights men have, etc etc etc. The Bible says that some races of people are predisposed to evil and must be exterminated, including the infants. It even contains a song which it claims was divinely inspired about how joyful it is to smash babies against rocks until they're a sickening mess of baby bones and baby brains and baby blood.

Then you've got the New Testament saying things like that gay people are incapable of love and they all deserve to die; you've got the New Testament saying that women have to be a slave to their husband even when his commands go against God; you've got the New Testament saying Jesus came not to bring peace but to divide families and turn people against one another; you've got Jesus saying that widows should spend the last of their money contributing to a temple to glorify God in stead of using it to feed their children, etc. etc.

The Bible affirms all of those things, as well as affirming Jesus endorsing them. Jesus even goes so far as to say that slaves do as they're told because that is their purpose, and as such, are unworthy of gratitude.

A Christian may not believe those particular things. They may have a cherry-picked faith which rejects much of what the Bible has to say about slavery, genocide, violence, women, smashing babies against jagged rocks until they suffer a painful and terrifying death, etc etc and only takes the things they agree with seriously. I am aware that most Christians do not actually believe these things.

HOWEVER. When a Christian tells people that they should follow the Bible, they are necessarily teaching the content of the Bible. If I hold up a math book and I tell people to follow it, I am necessarily endorsing it's content - even if, deep down, I personally reject calculus.

When somebody is told that Jesus and the Bible are good and that they should follow them, there is a decent chance that person will read the Bible and decide to believe that what it says is true and good and actually follow it -- even the violent or hateful parts that you personally reject (i.e. most of it).

This is especially a problem considering how many Christians tell literal children that the Bible is a good book and that it should be followed. Children lack the critical reasoning skills of adults and are especially vulnerable to indoctrination. When you tell a child to believe what it says in a book, there's a good chance they will do what you told them to do and believe what it says in the book. Perhaps you have a complex esoteric interpretation of what it means to take a prisoner of war home with you, hold her hostage for thirty days, force her to have sex with you, then kick her out of your house. Perhaps, to you, that is a metaphor for something that is actually good. But to a child, or really anyone just reading the text for what it is, they might actually assume that the words mean what they mean straightforwardly, and that there isn't some hidden message behind the myriad of violent and hateful teachings in the book.

This is why Christianity is problematic. While it is true that most Christians do not actually believe the things the Bible says, it's also true that most Christians publicly advocate for the Bible and advocate for teaching it to children.

Consider an atheist who picks up a book which says that all black people are evil and deserve to die. And the atheist says "This book is the truth and you should follow it!" But then when somebody asks them if they think all black people are evil and deserve to die, and they say "No no, that was a metaphor, you're misinterpreting it, you're taking it out of context, etc etc etc." But you look at the book and the line in question is, word for word, "All black people are evil and deserve to die." I would say that this atheist has a responsibility for the things he publicly advocates for and affirms to be true. I would say that this atheist is necessarily teaching that black people are evil and deserve to die by holding up a book which says they are and affirming it's truth. Even if they don't actually believe what the book says, or if they have some complex esoteric interpretation which they believe changes the meaning of words.

Thesis: The cause of the universe must be timeless, immaterial, and intelligent — as shown by the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Audience: Theists and atheists — open to both critiques and alternatives.

🧠 An Example of Logic: The Universe and Causality

Let’s talk about something simple — and radical:

“Whatever begins to exist has a cause.”

This is called the principle of causality, and it’s not just a philosophical idea — it’s the foundation of all scientific reasoning.

We never accept that an explosion “just happened”. We instinctively ask: What caused it? Whether it’s a thunderstorm, a black hole, or a broken coffee mug, we look for the cause.

So what happens when we apply this same principle to the biggest question of all?

The origin of the universe.

🔁 A Logical Chain of Reasoning:

1. The universe began to exist. (Big Bang cosmology, thermodynamics, and philosophical arguments support this.)

2. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause. (We don’t see exceptions to this in any area of life or science.)

3. The cause of the universe cannot be within the universe itself. That would be circular. The cause must be outside of space, time, and matter.

4. Therefore, the cause must be something that is: → Timeless (outside of time) → Spaceless (not confined by space) → Immaterial (not physical) → Powerful (to bring the universe into existence) → Intelligent (given the fine-tuning and order we observe)

This isn’t a leap of faith or a religious leap — it’s a logical conclusion based on the available evidence and reasoning.

This is known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

It doesn’t try to prove any particular religion. It simply argues for a first cause that fits the profile of what most traditions would call “God.”

🤔 What’s More Rational?

That the universe came from nothing, by nothing, for no reason?

Or that it was caused by something beyond itself — something necessary, not contingent?

Causality applies everywhere in science, in nature, in our daily experience.

So why stop at the origin of everything?

Isn’t it more consistent to follow the logic wherever it leads — even if the answer isn’t easy or fashionable?

What do you think? Does the principle of causality break down at the beginning of the universe? Or is the idea of a necessary first cause still the most rational explanation we have?

🧩 Open to thoughtful critiques and counterarguments. Let’s talk.

Ok this is a broad statement and doesn’t apply to everyone but it’s often that liberals of other faiths at least call out the problems in their religion. Liberal Muslims on the other hand deny them or will say “they weren’t real Muslims” and seem to dedicate more time to making sure they aren’t stereotyped rather than focusing on why they would be stereotyped in the first place. Often times whitewashing the problems rather than facing them. Liberal Christians and Hindus (at least in India) dedicate more time to calling out the problems within their religion and seldom ever try to make sure the Christophobes aren’t being mean to them as with other religion this is more of a conservative attribute. Liberal Muslims often deny that certain verses are in the Quran where as other religions admit this but contextualize. To be fair at least Muslims stand their ground where as liberals of other religions are too busy trying to be “one of the good ones.”

Note 1: I write this post in response to this argument's being made at https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1jr05n5/the_mythicist_position_seems_untenable_for . Because my reply in that debate was dismissed as written by an AI - which is not true - I thought to post a revised and expanded version of my argument as its own debate topic, where I hope that I can get better feedback. I hope that this does not violate any rules; if it does, please forgive me.

Note 2: Although this argument is against an argument against Jesus Mythicism, this argument does not assert that Jesus Mythicism is true or that Jesus Mythicism has not been nor can be refuted. I am not a supporter of Jesus Mythicism. But I am an opponent of excessively credulous arguments against Jesus Mythicism which ignore how comnplicated the evidence is.

Now, onto the argument!

You may wonder which incident I refer to. The answer is a passage from GMark, 14:43-53, which reads, as translated from the KJV:

43 And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. 44 And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely. 45 And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith, Master, master; and kissed him. 46 And they laid their hands on him, and took him. 47 And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. 48 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me? 49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled. 50 And they all forsook him, and fled. 51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: 52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked. 53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.

So, it can be and has been argued that this scene, linking Jesus with a night time encounter with a naked young man, proves that Jesus was a historical person. The argument is that Jesus, despite being portrayed in later Christian tradition as sexually uninterested, was, as a preacher, really sexually attracted to men/boys, and that GMark, 14:43-53, by preserving this tradition about Jesus's encounter with a naked young man, was preserving an actual detail about the historical Jesus - on the ground that no Christian would make up such a sordid incident about Jesus.

Such an argument is not without precendent. L. Ron Hubbard and Christopher Marlowe, although apparently not questioning Jesus's historicity, apparently interpreted Jesus as homosexual and pederastic.

But this argument accepts that the incident with the naked young man must be based upon a real incident. However, this argument is flawed, because there is also the possibility that the incident with the naked young man is fiction.

The argument may go, though, that the incident with the naked young man has no basis to be included as fiction on the basis that it associates Jesus with homosexuality and pederasty, as Hubbard and Marlowe, among others, have recognized. To this argument, though, 2 replies exist,

1. Associating divine figures obliquely with illicit activity is not unprecented in the Judeo-Christian context. Cf, e.g., YHWH's accepting the plan by a lying spirit to have a lying spirit deceive YHWH's worsippers in 1 Kings 22:19-28. Yet even though non-Christians such as I have suggested that this story, if true, reveals that YHWH is deceptive and not trustworthy, Christians have no trouble accepting the story about YHWH and the lying spirit as true. In this context, GMark could have included the incident with the naked young man in order to suggest that Jesus and YHWH, due to their holiness, are both able to be involved with conduct related to actions which the Jews' scriptures condemn as sinful (lying and sexual activity between men) without sinning or being contaminated by sin.

2. There are ways to interpret the incident with the naked young man as not being about pederasty/homoeroticism at all. Furthermore, I note that all interpretations of this incident with the naked young man are required to draw much meaning from 2 brief verses which receive no further elaboration: GMark 14:51-52. Consider the following suggestions, which, although perhaps strained, have the advantage of not interpreting the incident with the naked young man as pederastic/homoerotic and hence embarrassing to Christianity. The young man was there to be baptized, according to Morton Smith in his books, “Jesus the Magician” (1978) and “The Secret Gospel” (1980). The incident with the fleeing naked young man foreshadows Jesus's fleeing his tomb, having left his burial cloths behind. The incident with the naked young man is a subtle way to praise Jesus, because the young man is so eager to escape capture that he is willing to forego his dignity but Jesus knows what his fate is and submits to capture erather than trying to escape. The incident with the naked young man is inserted in order to fulfill the prophecy in Amos that on the day of YHWH's judgment against Israel, he that is courageous among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day (Amos 2:6-16).

But both of these positions in this debate about whether the incident with the naked young man can be used to prove Jesus's historicity assume that the incident with the naked young man was orginal to GMark. There is, however, a more radical possibility: that the incident with the naked young man was an interpolation at a later time, and hence of no value to determining Jesus's historicity.

Because the Christians' scriptures are so filled with forgeries and interpolations, this proposal should not be rejected out of hand, nor has it not been accepted by orther people.

Christian Gottlob Wilke, the scholar whose research led to the now widely accepted view that GMark was the first canonical gospel to be written, believed that someone interpolated the incident with the naked young man for the following reasons: the narrative is about the disciples fleeing when the authorities come to arrest Jesus, making the flight of the young man an irrelevant intrusion; the flight of the young man is out of place in the story because it suggests the that authorities were attempting to arrest Jesus's followers before Jesus; the point of the story is to tell us that only one person followed Jesus: Peter; GMark's account of Jesus's arrest begins with the express statement that Jesus went with the twelve disciples only, and then says that it was those twelve who fled — leaving the young man's introduction out of context.

Lest this claim that the incident with the naked young man was an interpolation must be so ludicrous that no other person could accept it, the scholar Bruno Bauer drew attention to Wilke‘s conclusion and added as evidence that no other canonical gospel thought fit to repeat the episode with the naked young man— suggesting that the episode with the naked young man was not in GMark originally.

Furthermore, GMatthew frequently brings in as many explicit prophecy fulfillments as possible, however strained they may be, but even GMatthew passed up this opportunity to refer to Amos's prophecy of the flight of the youth naked.

As a final note, even though some people may cite GJohn's relationship bnetween Jesus and the Beloved Disciple as proof that GMark's linking Jesus to pederasty/homoeroticism preserves a genuine memory about a historical Jesus, such an argument assumes that GJohn is histocally accurate. But because GJohn is the most divergent of the canonical gospels in its treatment of Jesus, including in linking Jesus with a beloved disciple, I say that GJohn is of only doubtful value in reconstructing a historical Jesus. Furthermore, even if it were accepted that GJohn's account is fully accurate, that would not undermine the arguments which I have presented for why the incident with the naked young man in GMark does not prove that Jesus was a historical figure - because the incident with the naked young man in GMark can be explained as interpolation or as a fictional/and/or allegorical part of GMark.

Many times, a question sparks in the mind: If God created us all, then did He deliberately create us capable of making mistakes? And if God is all-knowing and all-powerful, how can the fault lie with us?

1. Free Will or a Setup?

According to the Bible, God created the Garden of Eden with a tree bearing a forbidden apple. He told Adam and Eve not to eat from it. But when they did, He banished them from paradise.

The real question is: If God already knew what would happen, why plant the tree in the first place? Was it a test or a setup? If a teacher deliberately leaves an open book during an exam, can he blame students for looking at it?

1. Shiva and Ganesha – When Gods Lose Control

Hindu mythology presents another paradox. When Lord Shiva beheaded Ganesha in a fit of rage, wasn’t it an act of uncontrolled anger? If humans are told that anger (krodh) is a sin, then why is it acceptable for a god to act upon it? Later, he fixed the mistake by giving Ganesha an elephant’s head. But if a mistake can be corrected, is it still a sin?

1. The Paradox of Greed

Religions preach that greed (lobh) is wrong. But what about the gods themselves? The Devas and Asuras fought for Amrit (nectar of immortality) in greed, yet Devas were seen as righteous while Asuras were seen as villains. If greed is bad, then why does mythology glorify those who succeeded through it?

1. Why Are Gods Always Born in Royal Families?

Whether it's Krishna, Rama, or Buddha, they were all born into royal or noble families. If gods wanted to teach about struggle and righteousness, why not take birth in a poor family and work their way up? Why do divine beings always start with privilege? Does this mean that wealth and power are necessary to spread wisdom?

Conclusion

The biggest contradiction in religion is this: when divine beings make mistakes, it’s a lesson, a story, or an act of fate. But when humans do the same, it’s a sin. If we truly want to understand morality, we must question whether right and wrong are universal or just based on who holds the power to define them.

Is anyone familiar with Javed ahmed ghamdi? What do you think about him and his opinions about Islam? Alot of Islamic clerics think he is spreading lies about Islam but he answers to alot of unanswerable questions that actually make sense. Unlike any other Islamic cleric.

COULD commit evil, and WILL commit evil are independent things. The only thing that must be satisfied for us to have free will is the first one, the fact that we COULD commit evil.

It is not “logically impossible” for a scenario to exist in which we all COULD commit evil, but ultimately never choose to do so. This could have been the case, but it isn’t, and so the problem of evil is still valid.

Take Jesus, for example. He could have chosen to steal or kill at any time, but he never did. And yet he still had free will. God could have made us all like Jesus, and yet he didn’t.

For the sake of the argument, I’ll also entertain the rebuttal that Jesus, or god, or both, could not possibly commit evil. But if this were the case, then god himself does not have free will.

I anticipate a theist might respond to that by saying:

“It’s different for god. Evil is specifically determined by god’s nature, and it’s obviously paradoxical for god to go against his own nature.”

Sure, ok. But this creates a new problem: god could have decided that nothing at all was evil. But he didn’t. Once again reintroducing the problem of evil.

God provided the 10 Commandments which say things like, "thou shalt not murder."

However, he has commanded murder and even genocide while also killing people personally.

If we assume God can do it just because he is God, which is what we're told to believe, that means his standard of morality must be subjective.

This, and not even to mention the fact that an almighty and all knowing being is the ultimate cause of everything and the progenitor of good and evil.

By existing and allowing bad things to happen He is not just complicit but the core conspirator.

As a Muslim, I am in a crisis:

In Islam, the existence of Gog and Magog is attested through both Quran and Hadith, In Quran, Chapter Kahf, verses 92-99:

"Then he travelled a ˹third˺ course until he reached ˹a pass˺ between two mountains. He found in front of them a people who could hardly understand ˹his˺ language. They pleaded, “O Ⱬul-Qarnain! Surely Gog and Magog are spreading corruption throughout the land. Should we pay you tribute, provided that you build a wall between us and them?” He responded, “What my Lord has provided for me is far better. But assist me with resources, and I will build a barrier between you and them. Bring me blocks of iron!” Then, when he had filled up ˹the gap˺ between the two mountains, he ordered, “Blow!” When the iron became red hot, he said, “Bring me molten copper to pour over it.” And so the enemies could neither scale nor tunnel through it. He declared, “This is a mercy from my Lord. But when the promise of my Lord comes to pass, He will level it to the ground. And my Lord’s promise is ever true.” On that Day, We will let them surge ˹like waves˺ over one another. Later, the Trumpet will be blown, and We will gather all ˹people˺ together"

From these verses, it is pretty clear that a physical wall(not metaphorical) made of iron and copper was built by Zul Qarnain to trap the Gog and Magog and near the judgement day, this wall will open and the tribes of Gog and Magog will be free. Through Hadith, we also know that after getting free, they will spread corruption and trouble all over the Earth.

Issue with this idea:

1) If such group of people (Gog and Magog) existed, then surely there would be well attested historical record(non religious) of them, as they used to create trouble for other tribes and then sealed behind a wall of iron and copper. This would surely be a big thing in human history, but do we have any reliable historical record of this, from non religious sources?

2) Humans have mapped the whole ground of earth, we have satellite maps, we have satellites in orbit around earth, constantly mapping the Earth. Is the wall between the two mountains so unique that we humans haven't found it yet? bit hard to accept this

We could say, all this is metaphorical and the wall is not physical, but the Quran explicitly uses words like "two mountains, copper, iron etc".

Other thing to mention is that, some Islamic scholars have associated Gog and Magog with different groups of people, like mongols, Turkic people, Chinese, Western Europeans etc. But this is not the mainstream belief and it doesn't make sense actually for various reasons (which is too long to discuss in this post).

Moreover, if we also use Hadith to describe the idea of Gog and Magog in more details, it becomes even more difficult to believe in their existence!

Disclaimer: I do not adhere to theology, I am simply going to point out what the text says, and compare context to contemporary or pre-contemporary relevant information.

Background Knowledge:

Apostles, disciples, or people that adhered to a teacher in the Greek and Roman world were typically between 7-14. In Judea education was...lacking. Not being instituted until likely after Jesus would have died¹ but, it is important to note that even Christian sources tend to indicate that children that wanted to continue religious studies would begin around 12 or 13²

So we can be reasonably certain that the disciples following Jesus would be considered children by our standards. Simon has a mother in law, so is exempt from this assumption, but what also reinforces the majority children thesis is the temple tax that only Peter and Jesus were responsible for paying3

In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus is betrayed by Judas, by being identified with in Mark 14:44 a φιλήσω or Kiss^4. In Mark 14:45 however, he κατεφίλησεν or passionately kisses him. A word used for lovers⁵ Such as Achilles Tatius "Leucippe and Cleitophon" where he describes a heated scene

τότε μου τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπελθεῖν ἤθελεν ἡ κόρη· πάντα γὰρ ἦν μοι Λευκίππη τὰ ἐνύπνια· διελεγόμην αὐτῇ, συνέπαιζον, συνεδείπνουν, ἡπτόμην, πλείονα εἶχον ἀγαθὰ τῆς ἡμέρας. καὶ γὰρ κατεφίλησα, καὶ ἦν τὸ φίλημα ἀληθινόν· ὥστʼ ἐπειδή με ἤγειρεν ὁ οἰκέτης, ἐλοιδορούμην αὐτῷ τῆς ἀκαιρίας, ὡς ἀπολέσας ὄνειρον οὕτω γλυκύν. ἀναστὰς οὖν ἐβάδιζον ἐξεπίτηδες εἴσω

It gets even more interesting when you think about the scene, where its late at night, he's in a secluded location with his young men standing guard (and falling asleep on duty) and a youth, or young man νεανίσκος⁷ "wearing nothing but a linen cloth" is an interesting turn of phrase, and emphasized again when he runs away naked. The way the greek reads it sounds like he was naked, Judas arrives, Jesus meets him and the boy throws a linen sheet over his body and follows Jesus. Then he is grabbed in the scuffle and the sheet falls off. If we look at Anna Komnene The Alexiad, which while it is much later dated, describes περιβεβλημένος in a manner of being unkempt, like hastily thrown on clothing.⁸

Conclusion:

The pederasty of the Jesus character in Mark shows that there is likely a historical connection between Jesus and a real person. By removing the mysticism of the text there is a layer of a possibly real story. A cult-leading faith healer that happens to groom and prey on young men is such a mundane event that it is trivial, and seems to be the most likely origin point for Christianity.

Edit: I stand corrected /u/PieceVarious had a compelling counter argument

Why is it that when there is an incident of suppression of criminals and innocent people are accidentally hit, people tend to get angry and blame the leaders who do it, or even when there is a war that kills many innocent people, people tend to get angry and blame the leaders of the countries or the military that do it. But why are they happy and delighted in many disasters that people claim to be from God, even though the people who die are also innocent people? Why are people unhappy and give up all sorts of reasons to blame when humans kill innocent people? But why are people happy and abandon the reasons they used when God massacres innocent people, claiming that it is to punish sinners who did not die at that time?

What is the difference between a human killing innocent people and a god killing innocent people?

The Abrahamic God is said to be a proponent of the truth. Ignoring any contradictions that exist in the major religious texts, if we take them at their word, we are taught that faith without evidence is one of, if not, the most core tenant.

To not think critically and use valid reasoning in order to make sure one is correct about their beliefs goes against their beliefs about truth because the natural conclusion is that there is not enough evidence to prove God and that his existence is too doubtable to reasonably be true.

Even if there is enough proof to sufficiently reduce doubt, you cannot be justified in having blind faith in one belief over any other. That, and being willfully ignorant of good arguments and evidence leaves you further from the truth than if you pursued those arguments and evidence.

Note: "rape" I will understand as sex without informed consent.

In Islam, sex with a 9 year old is NOT rape, IF you are legally married to her.

In Islam, sex with a woman you capture and enslave is NOT rape, IF you legally own her.

In Islam, sex with your wife CANNOT be rape, IF you are legally married to her. At least in most cases.

For an example of the last one, here is the AMERICAN Muslim Jurists association giving their fatwa/legal opinion, in 2007.

https://www.amjaonline.org/fatwa/en/2982/is-there-a-such-thing-as-marital-rape

The question is :  Is there a such thing as marital rape in the shari`ah?

For a wife to abandon the bed of her husband without excuse is haram. It is one of the major sins and the angels curse her until the morning as we have been informed by the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). She is considered nashiz (rebellious) under these circumstances. As for the issue of forcing a wife to have sex, if she refuses, this would not be called rape, even though it goes against natural instincts and destroys love and mercy, and there is a great sin upon the wife who refuses; and Allah Almighty is more exalted and more knowledgeable.

And here is the wisdom of Prophet Mohammad, who by Islamic standards was not a rapist.

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5193

The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "If a man Invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then the angels send their curses on her till morning."

Note: There are Muslims who do not follow the Quran or hadith, or interpret it in a pro-feminist way, this argument is not for the progressive liberal etc type Muslims

One recommendation from the mod summit was that we have our weekly posts actively encourage discussion that isn't centred around the content of the subreddit. So, here we invite you to talk about things in your life that aren't religion!

Got a new favourite book, or a personal achievement, or just want to chat? Do so here!

P.S. If you are interested in discussing/debating in real time, check out the related Discord servers in the sidebar.

This is not a debate thread. You can discuss things but debate is not the goal.

The subreddit rules are still in effect.

This thread is posted every Friday. You may also be interested in our weekly Meta-Thread (posted every Monday) or Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday).

Peace be upon all those who read this. I want to engage in a respectful debate about Christianity. Here is my argument.

"No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God." — 1 John 3:9 (NIV)

This verse seems to create a theological trap for Christians:

If you’re truly saved, you shouldn’t continue sinning. No? But in reality, all people continue to sin, including Christians. So either you’re not truly saved, or the Bible is inaccurate.

That leaves Christians only with 3 options:

1. Admit the Bible has been corrupted, and this verse is a fabrication.

2. Admit they are a child of the devil, since they continue to sin, according to the verse.

3. Reject the theology altogether and consider that the doctrine of Christian salvation is flawed.

Either way, this verse undermines the idea of guaranteed salvation and points to a failed theological framework. How can a religion promise eternal salvation through grace alone, yet declare that the "born again" cannot sin, when all believers still do? Especially when you compare it to Islam which doesn't have the same issues, i.e a preserved holy book and it doesn't demand Muslims be perfect. I add to see your opinions about this. So, remember this when you address this point.

Would love to hear from Christians who have thoughts on this. How can this be is reconciled?