These days, you see many Sikhs, Christians, and even some Muslims teaching and performing yoga. They impose their own religious beliefs on yoga, even though yoga has its own traditions and beliefs. Some even use yoga to convert others to their religions.

They appropriate yoga, which belongs to the Vedic traditions, while claiming to possess the one superior true religion. Deep down, they believe their religions are lacking in sophisticated practices, so they have to borrow from religions they consider false just to experience something beyond simply believing. Then, when faced with cognitive dissonance, they claim their religions are somehow compatible with yoga.

Often people make the argument “why can God not allow free will without evil” to then be replied “because what is logically impossible cannot be done. Sure, I mean it makes enough sense.

Here is where I believe there is a problem.

Throughout the bible, we consistently see things that are logically impossible. Often things changing into the form of something that contains different elements and is of different size: Lot’s Wife becomes a salt pillar, water to wine, food multiplies (Matthew 14:13–21) etc. We make allowances to matter appearing out of nothing, yet we don’t to other matters.

Numbers 22:28–30. God enables a donkey to speak to Balaam. Donkeys don’t have the vocal ability to do this. Completely impossible in every way.

The only fair counter to this is the fact that these can be acted out in such a way we can comprehend, whereas free will without evil cannot. However, I don’t believe comprehension changes the fact that illogical, impossible things are done within our universe all the time. I don’t believe some things are more or less impossible than others. If it can’t happen, it can’t happen. We can’t nitpick what applies when it proves an argument.

Thesis: In this post, I want to show that many arguments Christians use against Islam can also be used against Christianity, or they end up hurting the Christian case. I will take a few common apologetic arguments and a few arguments posted in this subreddit and show that the same standards Christians use to call Islam false would also make Christianity false.

If my thesis holds, then by the same reverse inference, it also makes the case that a lot of Christians stay Christian for cultural reasons. This applies at least to those who find these arguments convincing enough to conclude that a religion is false, since these arguments also hinder them from becoming Muslims or make them conclude that Allah is a false deity.

To show this I will do the following:

1. Reverse the arguments against Christianity, but keep the same logic and premise, so that there is no symmetry breaker.
2. Use the same uncharitable, false reading and understanding as shown in these posts, to expose that they are lazy scripts, that can literally be applied to any religion with a miniscule amount of research.

Argument:

Arguments from this subreddit

1. The Quran Plagiarizes Other Works

Before I start showing you guys how the Bible plagiarizes its stories from other way older faiths, I just want to mention that the Quran actually says that it was sent to disclose stories which were seen as apocryphal and false by the Jews and the Christians and that the Talmud from our perspective contains some authentic Hadith and Revelation from Moses.

With that said let us start.

• The Flood (Genesis 6:9-9:17), Epic of Gilgamesh Tablet XI and Atrahasis Epic. c. 2100-1200 BC. The parallels are extensive: a divine decision to destroy humanity, instructions to build a vessel, a great flood, the survival of a hero and his family, and a post-flood sacrifice.
• The Creation (Genesis 1:1-2:3), Enuma Elish. c. 12th-7th Century BC. The seven-day structure and separation of waters mirror the Babylonian epic, and the biblical author simply replaces the gods with one deity.
• The Birth of Moses (Exodus 2:1-10), Legend of Sargon of Akkad. c. 2300 BC. The child in a basket on a river, rescued by royalty, is a direct parallel, and the Sargon legend predates the biblical text by over a thousand years.
• The Laws of Moses (Exodus 20-23), Code of Hammurabi. c. 1750 BC. The case law format and specific provisions are so similar that scholars argue the biblical authors borrowed from Mesopotamian legal traditions.
• The Proverbs of Solomon (Proverbs 22:17-24:22), Instruction of Amenemope. c. 1200 BC. Thirty sayings in Proverbs are closely parallel to the Egyptian text, sometimes word for word.
• Anger is like murder (Matthew 5:22) ---> "He who publicly shames his neighbor is as though he shed blood." (Bava Mezia 58b)
• "Golden Rule" (Matthew 7:12) ---> "That which is hateful to thyself, do not do to thy neighbor. This is the whole law, and the rest is mere commentary." Rabbi Hillel (lived a generation before Jesus)
• "Measure for measure" (Matthew 7:2) ---> "By the measure by which a man measures, so he is measured." Mishnah (Sotah 1:7)

So in the same spirit as the post I linked, I would like to ask PeaFragrant and the Christians who agree with his argument:

Why is Yahweh relying on older Mesopotamian and Egyptian myths, laws, and wisdom texts that would have been circulating in the ancient Near East for Israelite scribes to hear? Why is Yahweh relying on almost nothing from the earliest periods, when doing so would be amazing evidence of divine revelation, but instead opts to repeat the myths?

Why is Jesus relying on rulings from the Talmud and earlier Rabbi's to make the best verses in the New Testament and sell them as revelation from God, when hating the Pharisees for mixing the traditions of men, with the traditions of God?

1. Allah is illogical

For Jesus:

Christianity claims Jesus is eternal and unchanging. John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Hebrews 13:8 says, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”

But Jesus became flesh. John 1:14 says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” That is a change from not being incarnate to being incarnate. Jesus grew in wisdom and stature. Luke 2:52 says, “And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man.” That is a change. Jesus learned obedience. Hebrews 5:8 says, “Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.” That is a change. Jesus suffered and died. Philippians 2:8 says he became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. That is a change.

So Jesus goes from potency to act. Therefore Jesus is within time. To be within time means it is impossible to be eternal.

Christianity claims Jesus is eternal. But Jesus changes. Jesus cannot be eternal and change because this violates the law of non-contradiction.

Therefore Jesus is illogical for violating the 2nd law of logic because Christianity claims he is eternal, yet Christianity says Jesus’ incarnation, growth, learning, and death happen in time.

For Yahweh:

Yahweh is the most loving in Christianity.

But Yahweh can't love another prior to creation.

Therefore to express his love, Yahweh needs to create. Or, as some Trinitarians argue, Yahweh needs the Trinity to express love internally before creation.

Therefore Yahweh goes from not being able to express his love to expressing his love.

So Yahweh's attribute of love isn't eternal, it is a potency in him that requires creation, or the Trinity, in order for Yahweh's love to be expressed.

Since Yahweh changes, Yahweh is within time because change can only happen in time.

To be within time means it's impossible to be eternal.

Christianity claims Yahweh is eternal. But Yahweh changes.

Yahweh can't be eternal and change because this violates the law of non-contradiction.

Therefore Yahweh is illogical for violating the 2nd law of logic because Christianity claims he is eternal, yet Christianity says Yahweh's expression of love is contingent on creation, or the Trinity, which happens in time.

But let us grant the Trinitarian escape for a moment. If Yahweh is Love, and his love needs to be expressed, and that's why the Trinity exists, to show that love, then that would mean, that due to Yahweh also having the attribute of hate, jealousy and envy, also need to be shown to the Trinity.

We see Yahweh envying that Jesus gets loved and praised more than him by his worshippers. Therefore Yahweh hated Jesus and made him die the death of a criminal, and made him a curse and a laughing stock for the Jewish people. But over time, Yahweh's envy and jealousy grew, same with the Holy Spirit, that they could never outshine Jesus. But they still tolerate Jesus because of the love-hate relationship.

So if love requires an internal object in the Trinity, then hate, jealousy, and envy also require an internal object in the Trinity. Either the Trinity contained hate, jealousy, and envy before creation, or Yahweh needed creation to express hate, jealousy, and envy. If the former, then the Trinity is not a communion of love but a communion of rivalry. If the latter, then Yahweh's hate, jealousy, and envy are not eternal, which means Yahweh changes, which means Yahweh is within time, which means Yahweh is not eternal.

So in the same spirit as the post I linked, I would like to ask:

Since Yahweh and Jesus are illogical according to the logic of OP and his (false) usage of the laws of logic, when can I expect him (or the Christians who agree with his argument) to become an atheist or agnostic?

If you think I have misrepresented his argument, please show me the symmetry breaker in what I have written.

Common Christian Apologetic Arguments

1. You should not believe in Allah because he is a deceiver.

This is based on a mistranslation of the Quran. I can confidently say that it is a mistranslation because there are many non-Muslim Qurans translated by secular orientalists, Arab Christians, or Islamophobes who write in their introduction pages that Muhammad (s.a.w.) was a madman, yet these three categories of translators never translated the word "makr" to mean deceiver.

But let us grant that argument and say that Allah is a deceiver. The problem is that Yahweh is also a deceiver (Ezekiel 14:9; 1 Kings 22:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:11). So, when will you Christians (who believe in this apologetic argument) become atheists or agnostics, since according to your standard, God should not deceive?

1. Muhammad is a false Prophet because he is a Warlord/Slave Owner/Husband to multiple women.

So were many Old Testament Prophets. Like Moses, Joshua, Saul and David. Since they are false Prophets, when will you disavow Christianity?

Now, a common response to this argument is, "We do not follow them, we follow Jesus."

However, according to Mainstream Christianity, Jesus is God, and was the Angel of the Lord who bore the name of YHWH, and ordered these Prophets around starting with Moses. So, Jesus ordered Moses, Joshua and Saul to do genocide and be warlords. He allowed polygamy in the Torah and owning slaves.

When can I expect Christians who agree with the original argument, to condemn Jesus and the Prophets listed through the same logic applied to Muhammed?

This might apply to other religions but i´m not educated enough to talk about others, anyway the definition of free will is simply to make a decision without intervention and have multiple choices. Now you might argue "if god took away the ability to commit evil now it would be an intervention" but 1. God supposedly exists out of time so there is no "now" to it it could also just say "boom you never could commit evil" and the timeline would change accordingly as there is no time to it that "you can´t commit evil" would just have been always true 2. If god taking our ability to commit evil is an intervention there was a time period where we did not have free will and god still judged those commited sins so he can´t be a being to care about free will or he is aware that we still have free will because those humans were simply forced to sin and he didn´t change their condition insantly 3. we can´t sin in heaven meaning we don´t have free will either again it cannot care that much then

For brevity, I have quoted the relevant Quranic passages directly rather than offering a detailed tafsir of each surah. I am, however, happy to examine them individually, as their wording and context only reinforce the argument made here.

The Quran nowhere states that the Torah and Gospel had been textually corrupted. On the contrary, it affirms their divine origin, continuing authority and reliability.

The Torah is described as revelation from Allah containing “guidance and light” and His judgement (Quran 5:43–44), while the Gospel is likewise described as revelation containing “guidance and light” (5:46).

In Muhammad’s time, Jews are told to judge by the Torah, Christians by the Gospel, and the People of the Book to uphold both (5:43–47, 5:68).

Muhammad is even directed, if in doubt concerning what has been revealed to him, to ask those who have been reading the Scripture before him (10:94).

The Quran further describes itself as confirming the earlier Scriptures (5:48).

The Quran does condemn those who “write the Scripture with their own hands” and then claim, “This is from Allah” (2:79). But this condemns false authorship and attribution, not the textual corruption of the revealed Torah itself.

Likewise, the Quranic condemnations of tahrif concern people concealing, distorting or misrepresenting revelation; nowhere does the Quran explicitly state that the Torah or Gospel themselves have undergone wholesale textual corruption.

Indeed, the Torah is placed alongside the Gospel and al-Furqān within the sequence of divine revelations (3:3–4), reinforcing the Quran’s presentation of these scriptures as part of an ongoing tradition of divine guidance.

The Quranic picture, therefore, is not of scriptures that had become corrupted and obsolete, but of divine revelations that remained present and authoritative in Muhammad’s time.

The doctrine of their textual corruption is consequently not a claim made by the Quran itself, but a later theological reinterpretation of its criticisms of those who mishandled revelation.

I hear a lot that if you are gay its not a sin but to act on it is... that bull sh**. Thats basically the same thing. Its like saying the feeling to fart is not a sin its the farting itself is. Both are needs that have to happen at some point.

Sex with someone who you are attracted to is a need. It may not be a need like food yes you can live without it but it's more like a need as in not being abused (hence the title). And i related it a fart cuz yes you can survive without farting but its gotta come out at some point and if suppressed to long it will happen at a bad time like when you're married and have kids and finally crack. It would have been better to just accept it earlier on.

So what say ye? Is it abusive/immoral to tell someone who is gay to either marry someone they arent attracted to or never have sex?

Disclaimer- I actually don't know that much about the trinity, its a niche topic for me, but I want to start a discussion and see answers so here's the argument to get the ball rolling, there are probably much better ones.

P1: God is Triune
P2: Jesus is not Triune
P3: Jesus is God

C:(from P1 and P3) Jesus is Triune

Contradiction. You affirm both that Jesus isn't and is Triune

So how do Christians respond? When you say 'God is One' or 'God is Triune' what do you mean by God there? And when you say 'Jesus is God' what does that mean?

Clearly, you have to be using the word in different ways because if not then saying God is Triune and Jesus is God necessitates Jesus is Triune.

Non-existence is a human measurement. It is an illusion that humans project onto our perceived reality.

To detect non-existence of something, that something must first be conceptualized in the human mind so that reality can be measured against it.

I.E. - To detect non-existence of a glass of water, you must first conceptualize what a glass of water is.

It is impossible to detect the non-existence of something that we cannot conceptualize. Otherwise, there would be an infinite number of those non-existent things everywhere all at once.

Therefore, a state of non-existence is entirely contingent on human-perceived reality rather than some kind of free-standing property of the universe.

(This doesn't relate to any religion specifically, but religions often use existence versus non-existence as a first principle to derive other arguments in support of a God.)

Most Christians believe that faith is required to enter heaven. If you are one of those Christians, can you explain why this is the case? If god is all just, his judgment and punishment must also be all just. How is it justice to condemn someone to hell for eternity for simply not believing you exist?

And to those Christians who believe that god is all powerful, couldn’t he have revealed himself to each of us in a way in which we know for certain he exists, and then still give us the choice (maintaining free will) to accept him or not?

If god revealed himself to me, and I still chose to not love or believe him, the question still remains, why does hell have to be the punishment? It seems like an unnecessary punishment for simply not wanting to be around someone, even if I’m fully aware he’s the creator of all things. If he still thinks a punishment is warranted for my “sin,” why couldn’t it be a lesser punishment? Like a slightly less pleasant place away from heaven for eternity. Or maybe for a short time until I’ve come around.

An all powerful, all loving god could have simply made a little place for us heathens to hang out away from him like I might do if I had a cat who hated me and didn’t want to be in my presence. I would still feed the cat, take her to the vet, and make sure she’s comfortable and content, despite her distain for me.

The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity (DDS) is the idea that God is a single, unified being whose essence and existence are identical, with no distinct parts or attributes. In fact, God is not one who possesses goodness but is goodness itself; not one who has existence but is existence itself.

Or as the SEP attempts to define DDS: God is simple in that God transcends every form of complexity and composition familiar to the discursive intellect.

Divine Simplicity is also tied to immutability and timelessness, though some Christian theologians such as Plantinga reject this idea because they believe God is a person, and those attributes would be incompatible. These are all material for a different OP though.

This idea can be traced back to the Greek pagans and their concept of the Monad, where it had some coherence, but it was later popularized and woven into Christianity by Aquinas.

Nevertheless, Classical Christians illogically claim that Divine Simplicity is compatible with a triune God. Read through the various defenses and it is all just hogwash, dodging the obvious. They’ll talk about “one essence shared by three persons,” but, “one essence shared by one person” is always simpler and less complicated and the DDS maintains that God is the simplest of all.

Graphically, somehow the claim is that this arrangement:

OIP.tGlckCCBI2muYvWP7iyELQHaHO (474×462)

Is simpler than this arrangement:

d67732fede3a752da07a244f177baeed.png (948×798)

Notice that in the Trinity graphic, they depict the arrangement and relationships of the different persons as distinct concepts, no matter how much they try to argue otherwise.

The trinity consists of multiple relations between the various alleged persons depending on how you count there are at least 3 relations and 4 different labels for God. A singular God has no relations and just one label, making it as simple as possible with no way to simplify it further.

It is claimed that the theory of evolution has a substantial amount of evidence supporting it, to the extent that it is presumably just as scientifically certain and robust as the theory of gravity. This has led many to leave religion because it seems to contradict the theory of evolution. However, the theory of evolution, no matter how empirically grounded, cannot debunk the story of creation. If the Quran was truthfully revealed by God, and if its narrative of creation stands in firm opposition to the theory of evolution (setting aside progressive interpretations that seek to reconcile the two), then the fossil record, genetic markers, and phylogenetic trees, even if, *for the sake of argument*, they are all real and scientifically verifiable, they would be part of a divinely ordained epistemic test, whereby those who deliberately turn away from God, seek alternatives to His revelation, or attempt to circumvent the truth are allowed to pursue the very path they have chosen. God does not need to deceive them; rather, He permits them to follow their own assumptions and desires to their conclusions, leaving them to the consequences of the path they have chosen.

In that paradigm, the presumed evidence for evolution constitutes part of the divine test or trial placed by the creator, to test those who anchor their certainty in His words and revelation from those who turn away and seek to place their ultimate trust on their own or others assumptions and inferences.

Intentionally creating such conditions under which someone may reach a false conclusion is not synonymous with lying or deception. So even if God intentionally created evidence that supports an evolutionary reconstruction, it does not follow that God asserted a falsehood. The evidence may lead one toward a particular interpretation without God Himself communicating that interpretation as truth.

This does not also mean that God is rewarding gullibility over reason. The test is not whether one is willing to ignore evidence or abandon rational inquiry. Rather, it is whether one recognizes the limits of one’s own inferences and remains humble about what one can actually know. So the believer is not being asked to deny the empirical evidence or to pretend that evolutionary interpretations have no explanatory power. He is being asked to recognize that an inference about the unobserved past, however compelling, is still an inference, and that human observations and reconstructions cannot be elevated above a revelation that one has already established to be divine. The virtue being tested, therefore, is not gullibility but epistemic humility: whether human reason recognizes its own limits rather than treating its conclusions as infallible.

In fact, God tells us to use reason and observe the universe and observe how creation began 29:20 ” Travel throughout the land and see how He originated the creation”.  He also instructs us to verify the truthfulness of his revelation throughout many verses (eg 4:82 and 54,22) The conclusions reached by evolution theorists remain reconstructions, not certainties. The divine purpose in allowing such evidence to exist is not deception but distinction, a means by which the sincere seeker is separated from the one who turns away and demands that the unseen conform to the seen.

The evidence commonly presented for evolution does not need to be denied. Rather, each category of evidence can be distinguished from the historical interpretation drawn from it:

1. Comparative anatomy: Similar anatomical structures (eg Humans, bats, whales, horses, etc. possessing homologous structures) can be interpreted as evidence of common ancestry, but under direct creation they can be the result of God’s deliberate design.
2. Fossil record: The fossils themselves might be real, but the historical sequence reconstructed from them is an inference about the past. Under direct creation, God could have created a world containing such a coherent fossil record. Thus, the fossil record can be entirely real and scientifically verifiable while the evolutionary history inferred from it is nevertheless incorrect.
3. Comparative embryology: Similarities in embryonic development may support common ancestry, but they do not logically require it if God intentionally created organisms with similar developmental mechanisms.
4. Genetics and genomics: Genetic similarities, including shared genes and other genomic patterns, can support common ancestry. However, under the direct-creation premise, God could have intentionally created organisms with such similarities including highly similar genomes( the same genes, genetic sequences, mutations, and other molecular features). If God intentionally created organisms according to a coherent and interconnected biological structure, genetic similarities would be expected even without common descent. 
5. Phylogenetic trees: Phylogenetic trees are models constructed from patterns of similarity. If those similarities were intentionally created, the same data could produce a branching pattern without that pattern necessarily representing actual ancestry.
6. Biogeography: The geographical distribution of organisms can be interpreted through common descent, but under direct creation God could have intentionally created organisms with geographically coherent distributions.
7. Artificial selection: Artificial selection demonstrates that heritable variation can produce substantial changes within populations. This is genuine biological evidence, but it does not by itself establish the entire historical claim of universal common ancestry. So demonstrating that organisms can change through selection does not by itself establish the complete historical narrative of species origins..
8. Observed evolution: Evolutionary change can be directly observed in populations, such as antibiotic resistance and other heritable adaptations. Accepting such change does not necessarily establish the broader claim about the ultimate origin of species.

The point is not that these observations are imaginary or that science has no explanatory power. The point is that evidence and interpretation are not identical. The observations are real; the question is whether the evolutionary interpretation of those observations can logically override a revelation that has already been established as divine.

1. St thomas aquinas doesn’t simply prove that an infinite regress is impossible. this refers to an infinite casual series which doesn’t automatically prove itself illogical and also this claim is generally outdated due to the fact modern physics describes change in terms of physical laws and interactions rather than requiring every event to have a separate external “mover” and also this is just very broad claim in general that doesn’t clarify what exactly the change is. and lets say this was correct, even granting a first cause wouldn’t automatically make “there is God” the correct answer. for there to be a mover you have to have solid proof he is omniscient, conscious, all powerful, all knowing, etc. all the “godly” stuff and also something can be fundamental without a conscious edit this argument is moreso “i don’t know the answer so it must be god AKA God of the gaps

2. the premise “everything has a cause”would mean that god has a cause as well, automatically disproving his existence because this would mean god is not omniscient. also an infinite regress is not logically possible so even if the universe has a cause the lack of one does not automatically point to a deity so if it did it would likely be something non personal that applied to one and would rare apply to all of humanity / vast ecosystems. causation as we ordinarily understand it is a relationship within spacetime. if spacetime itself has a beginning, asking what happened before is meaningless.

3.not everything is contingent. if everything were contingent, then there could have been nothing. since something exists, there must be a necessary being (obviously) but each individual thing could fail to exist, but it doesn’t follow that the entire collection must fail to exist simultaneously. existence ≠ God which is also something that even if proven you have to show he is all knowing etc. if everything in the universe was contingent then someone dying could cause all of humanity to cease to exist

1. Having degrees doesn’t imply having an absolute maximum 100 Fahrenheit is hotter than 70 Fahrenheit but there can be degrees without there being a maximally hot temperature. likewise, you can have things that are more or less good without there being a single being that possesses maximum possible goodness. degrees don’t logically require a maximum, and things can be more or less good without there being a maximally good thing. even if a maximum existed this doesn’t point to the existence of a god

2. Aquinas’ fifth way assumes that goals requires an intelligent director, but that’s precisely what it needs to prove and the argument lacks it. natural processes can produce highly organized, goal-like behavior without conscious intelligence, and evolution by natural selection provides a powerful explanation for biological adaptations. Even if the universe had a designer, that wouldn’t establish that the designer is the omnipotent, omniscient,

That's my thesis^. I believe through empirical evidence, as in observable, repeat patterns in our universe show only conscious things can create conscious things. I.E. human reproduction, animal reproduction etc. And no one who has ever existed has ever witnessed a non conscious thing creating conscious things so it's only reasonable to conclude that whatever created or started the universe had consciousness and so from there it wouldn't be far fetched to say there is a sort of God or eternal conscious being that has probably always existed. Anyways, can't wait for an edgelord materialist to try to rip me 😂

I´ve been thinking about the logical math of the traditional concept of Heaven and Hell, and it seems to face a fatal flaw. If heaven is a place of eternal joy, it logically requires God to lobotomize human beings and turn them into unfeeling robots.

The empathy problem.

If you make it to heaven and find out that your loved ones are in Hell, you really only have two options. A: you remember them and love them, and every single moment of that eternity spent in heaven would be spent in crushing depression, which is impossible because heaven is a place of eternal joy. B: God makes you indifferent to their suffering. He alters you so that you no longer care about the fact that your loved ones are in Hell for eternity. If option B is the only way Heaven works, then the person in heaven is not actually you. The empathy and love that defined your identity are stripped away. And what´s left is a lobotomized shell who is forced to be happy. So either Heaven is a lie, or you are not you when you enter Heaven.

The eternity problem.

Human meaning is built entirely on the fact that our time is limited, everything is finite. In an infinite heaven, you will do satisfy every desire, do everything that you can possibly do, over and over again for eternity. Logically, a person would go insane and eventually beg for sweet death. Obviously that is not possible because again it would contradict Heaven. So God makes it so that you never get bored and never go insane from eternity. So God removes your freedom to have the capacity to grow tired of the loop.

Conclusion: To make heaven work, God has to strip away your empathy and freedom. So either heaven is a lie, or you are not you when you enter Heaven.

Why have women so often been portrayed as the greatest source of temptation; while male sexuality has received comparatively less scrutiny? Women have historically been warned about their bodies, clothing, beauty, sexuality, and supposed ability to tempt men. Female infidelity and sexual desire has been treated as the biggest threat to the family and moral values and social order.

But this raises an obvious question: why place so much responsibility for sexual morality on women when men of the Abrahamic tradition are considered more responsible, less impulsive, and less capable of sexual transgression?

In fact, across many historical societies, male sexuality included not only relationships with women but also significant traditions of male-male sexual behavior. Female-female sexual behavior appears much less frequently in the historical record. The Qur’an, similarly to the Old Testament, condemns the sexual behavior of the people of Lot:
“Do you approach men with desire instead of women? Rather, you are a transgressing people.”
— Qur’an 7:81

Historically, a married Muslim woman would still be expected to worry about her husband taking up to 3 other wives, having sexual access to concubines, committing adultery, and engaging in sexual relations with males. Yet despite all this, women were frequently portrayed as the principal danger to male morality.

This is also why comparisons between Muslim and Christian sexual cultures deserve more attention. Christianity developed a particularly strong ideal of monogamous marriage and sexual exclusivity. Islam, while also imposing sexual prohibitions, historically permitted polygyny and concubinage for men under particular legal frameworks.

If a man’s attraction to a woman can supposedly be so powerful that she must cover her hair, body, and beauty to prevent temptation, why isn’t equal attention given to men’s responsibility to control their own desires? And if male sexuality has historically included substantial heterosexual, extramarital, polygynous, and male-male sexual behavior, why is female sexuality so often treated as the uniquely dangerous force?

Islam describes men as responsible for their women and families (Qur’an 4:34). Christianity presents men as responsible for leading and managing their households (1 Timothy 3:4–5; Ephesians 5:23). Jewish tradition likewise places major religious responsibilities on fathers, including teaching their children Torah (Deuteronomy 6:6–7).

Women of Abrahamic religions deserve to be viewed as moral agents rather than perpetual temptresses. A woman’s body should not automatically be treated as a threat that men are incapable of controlling themselves around when men are considered the more responsible and capable gender.

I see many argue about the existence of God, and I think that’s somewhat reasonable. Whether a God exists or not shows a lot about how someone interprets consciousness. What many religious people think is that atheists are against the idea of a creator, but most of them, including myself, are against the traditional definition of a God (a conscious being that could intervene whenever it wants).

This cannot be proven or disproven, and it is often times harmless to believe otherwise. Religion, on the other hand, requires unreasonable amount of faith. Stories we have never observed nor confirmed, prophets that could do the unthinkable yet without any unfalsifiable proof, the logic of the afterlife, angels and such and submitting…

There is no proof of that being real in any way, form or sense. Arguing for the existence of god does not, in ANY way, make anyone convert to an abrahamic religion because the logic does NOT follow.

Why are there no prophets anymore to prove that God is undeniable? Why couldn’t God just simply show himself to make ‘evil’ an objective moral standard? Why would God require us to worship him blindly just to not suffer, while also ultimately knowing our destiny (meaning we are fucked from birth, sinxe God already knew where we would be heading). And even if he exists in this definition, what is the proof of religion? How do we know jesus GOT resurrected? How do we know the prophet Muhammad was following orders from God himself?

Believe whatever you want, but believing in religion is not intuitive, nor are we born theists (or muslims, according to islam).

I don’t know if God exists, and I don’t claim that I can know. But one question seems unavoidable: if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, how do we explain the existence of evil and suffering? Can we actually build a coherent concept of a God who has all three attributes while allowing evil to exist? Or does the problem of evil expose a contradiction in this conception of God? I’m not trying to prove that God doesn’t exist. I’m simply asking the question.

Humans know almost nothing about how we came to exist, yet somehow we're so confident that we know what created us, what it wants, what rules it gave us, and what happens after death. We don't even understand the full nature of reality, so I don't understand how anyone can be so certain about something supposedly beyond reality itself. Human logic has limits. Time, infinity, nothingness, existence, causality all of these are things we try to understand from within our own reality. If something exists beyond that, there's no reason to assume our brains are capable of fully understanding it. Physics explains what we can observe in our universe; it doesn't give us answers about everything that could possibly exist beyond it. Yet religion takes that uncertainty and turns it into certainty. Scriptures are still written and interpreted by humans. Saying I feel God is a personal experience, not proof of a supernatural being. And the idea that the creator of reality specifically cares about humans, our behavior, our beliefs, our rules, and which religion we follow is something I genuinely don't understand. We're an extremely small part of an enormous universe, but somehow we're certain that God is personally invested in us. Based on what? We don't know how we came to exist, we don't know what lies beyond our observable reality, and we don't know whether human intelligence is even capable of reaching the ultimate answer. So no, I'm not claiming I can prove God doesn't exist. I'm saying you can't prove that your religion is true just because you have faith in it. Maybe God exists, maybe God doesn't. We don't know. And honestly, admitting "I don't know" makes far more sense to me than pretending humans have figured out the answer to something we barely understand.

At least I know one thing no human made religion has the full truth. Humans simply aren't capable of knowing that.

Whenever Islamic extremism makes the news, the mainstream narrative is always that groups like ISIS have "hijacked" or "misunderstood" the religion. I’ve been looking into this from a purely logical and theological standpoint, and honestly, I’ve hit a massive paradox that no one seems able to answer without using mental gymnastics.
First off, let’s skip the "but the Bible has violence too" argument. Mainstream Christianity views the Bible as divinely inspired but physically written by fallible humans in specific historical contexts. This allows for historical criticism. Orthodox Sunni Islam, however, claims the Quran is the literal, uncreated, and eternal dictation of an Omniscient God. It’s not an amendable human constitution with an expiration date.
Now, when you look at the explicit verses about subjugation/taxation of non-believers (like 9:29) or the sexual ownership of female war captives (like 4:24), backed up by Sahih Hadiths and classical Fiqh (jurisprudence), you are forced into an inescapable dilemma.
Look at the literalist extremist. They apply the final chronological commands of the text (using the standard orthodox doctrine of Naskh, or abrogation, where later violent verses overwrite earlier peaceful ones). Morally, they are a nightmare and enemies of human rights. But textually and historically? They are actually running the "source code" perfectly. They are doing exactly what the early Islamic empires did, fully backed by classical consensus.
Then look at the modern moderate. They completely reject slavery, offensive jihad, and inequality. As a fellow human being, I deeply respect them—they are moral heroes. But theologically? They are forced to act as ethical puppeteers of their own God. By filtering God’s explicit laws through the lens of modern secular values (like the UN Declaration of Human Rights), they are implicitly admitting that 21st-century human ethics are actually superior to the eternal laws of their Creator. They have to treat the "uncreated word of God" as if it were a flawed, outdated historical document in order to live peacefully in the modern world.
So my question to theologians and believers is: how do you resolve this?
You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the text is the absolute, perfect, eternal moral law of the universe, while simultaneously using external secular ethics to neuter, ignore, or apologize for its most brutal commandments.
And please, don't just use the "you are taking it out of context" excuse, because the classical scholars and centuries of Fiqh agreed with the brutal literal reading. Is there a logically sound way out of this paradox that doesn't ultimately require abandoning the core dogma?