Islam and its factual claims

So what if it applies to Christianity amongst any other similar religions? Why is that disallowed?

He's targeting a set of criteria for criticism. What is wrong with that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@Geoff

The statement isn't about condemning people though definitely not because it's between theists about a theistic subject.​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Amongst? To wit:

I'll answer your question with a question: where did he get those criteria? There were only probably thousands to choose from.

I tried but cannot decipher your meaning here. If this is not condemnation, then why will people who set partners with God go to hell? Seems a little condemnatory. Sorry. :shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I still don't get your point. What crime exactly are you accusing him of?

 

Crime??

 

Not an answer.

You could have continued with what you are accusing him of. That would have saved one more back and forth.

So, what are you accusing him of having done wrong*?

*better?

 

Wrong? He claimed it wasn't a reference to Christians, but it is. Do you consider this wrong? You could call the statement - or any similar - a little condemnatory, I suppose. That wasn't really the point, though.

 

Objections to this:

1. There is no 0 AD.
There is 1 BC and after that comes 1 AD

2. Even if there was a 0 AD, surely Jesus would have been a baby in 0 AD.

3. Using a gas lighter in 0 AD. How is that historically feasible?

4. It's a woman.

 

@Capt Kremmen --

But if Jesus really was born of a virgin then "he" really would have been a woman. That's sort of how parthenogenesis works.

 

That's just being silly.

 

@Capt Kremmen --

Well it is the only known mechanism for sexual species to produce virgin births. So how is that silly?

 

Within religious belief, divine intervention in the form of miracles is accepted.
A scientific imperium is not necessary.

 

@Capt Kremmen --

But wouldn't that make the belief in question silly and not the potential scientific explanation?

 

If a miracle had a scientific explanation then it wouldn't be a miracle would it?

 

I never said that it was a miracle. I think that if this story is anything but made up by later followers then it was a clever lie that Mary told Joseph. My point was that it's not necessarily "silly" to think that Jesus may have been a woman, but that the whole virgin birth belief is silly.

 

It's only as silly as theism: if you believe in a God, then no. If you don't, then the entire concept seems silly from the start. Practically speaking, there's no reason even to believe in a Mary or a Jesus to start with.

 

@Geoff --

True, but one can accept undemonstrated things for the sake of an argument.

 

Of course there's a 0 AD!

I don't understand, he was born in 0 AD, so what's the problem?

They used to use kerosene, that's found in most lighters today (not gas). This seems reasonable to me.

It doesn't look like one, does crack change gender appearance?

 

1. No, there isn't a 0 AD.
Find a single reputable link to an event that occurred in 0 AD

2. Babies can be born with crack addiction, but they have never been seen smoking it.

3. Just because something existed at a point in the past, does not mean that later technologies using that thing also existed.

4. Yes, it does look like a woman, though I could be wrong.
Whoever it is has fine features, not usually associated with the physically devastating effects of Crack.

 

Wow that sucks, I thought this was the only existing photo we had on record.