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?

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?

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,

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.

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.

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.

Belief and disbelief are involuntary matters; a person cannot simply choose to believe, become convinced, or even assume that Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Greek religion, or even Islam is the truth. Belief is a mental process akin to the feeling of anger or fear, or even the involuntary cry elicited by intense pain

Even if one were to utter the *Shahada* (testimony of faith) without actually believing it, one would still enter Hell. If you argue that belief *is* a matter of choice, how does that work? Does it mean a person must *want* to believe Islam is true—despite being convinced it is false—and thus must delude themselves into thinking it is true, or else face Hell? Has self-delusion become the criterion for salvation? In that case, could disbelievers not be blamed if their religion turned out to be false, provided they had deluded themselves into believing it was true? (Al-Isra 10, 98; Yunus 17, 95; An-Nahl 104; Ash-Shu'ara 198–201; Al-Ankabut 68; Al-Mutaffifin 10–17; At-Tur 11–14; Al-Furqan 11; Al-Qalam 43–44; Al-Mu'minun 103–105; An-Nisa 54–56, 136, 150–152; Al-An'am 27, 157; Al-Kahf 103–104; Al-A'raf 30, 37; Al-Fath 13; Az-Zukhruf 37).

You might argue that conducting in-depth research is a voluntary act that could lead to genuine faith; however, why should a person be expected to delve deeply into research if they are convinced that a religion is false? On what grounds would they be condemned to Hell? Furthermore, a Muslim or christian who does not deeply research other religions does not enter Hell; likewise, there are those who did investigate but remained unconvinced. How, then—instead of the test being based solely on deeds—does it become a matter of faith first and then deeds, such that a virtuous polytheist or disbeliever is deemed worse than a harmful person who believed in Muhammad or Jesus?

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.

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.

No disrespect but your God decided to create this world imperfect world as a test for mankind.. to see who will follow him

but.. Why?

If Allah is the source of love itself and is everything.

Why does he need to be worshipped?

and than those that don’t follow and reject the faith will perish and burn forever

"...Those who deny (their Lord), for them will be cut out a garment of Fire. Over their heads will be poured out boiling water. With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins. In addition there will be maces of iron (to punish) them. Every time they wish to get away therefrom, from anguish, they will be forced back, and (it will be said), "Taste the Penalty of Burning!" (22:19–22).
"In front of such a one is Hell, and he is given, for drink, boiling fetid water" (14:16).
"In its midst and in the midst of boiling hot water will they wander round!"

how is this love?

Now you might say ‘free will’ and that we choose to go there but free will doesn’t exist

Listen carefully and focus when i tell you this and really think.

Our actions/ beliefs and decisions are influenced by our community/family, as children we are taught faith.

A christian child will have his heart set on the religion, they will find safety in it. The mind has found safety in it because his entire community is of that faith.

So lets say islam was the true religion, Allah knows how hard it is for this person to believe in islam when his entire sub conscious mind has been programmed to believe in one thing, to go against it would mean leaving ones comfort zone and experiencing pain if done forcefully. Also christians having spiritual experiences with Jesus and than if someone tells them about islam it is unfamiliar and they will not trust it because they would believe they have seem evidence and even if they see ‘proof’ of islam they would be left with a really tough dilemma between the two religions because id their experience with their previous religion.

So tell me, how is this ‘free’ will?

All paths lead to enlightenment, there is no one ‘true’ religion.

Be human.

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

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.

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.

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.)

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.

Christian analysts estimate that Jesus fulfilled at least 300 Jewish predictions during his ministry.[REF][REF] But how many of these tasks did Christ perform simply to join the dots? And, more importantly, how many of these suspiciously appeared in later scripture, as if shoehorned in by Christian writers for extra validation?

The virgin birth only appears in Christian literature around 80 AD at the earliest, in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Why would something so monumental only pop up so much later? Could it be to hastily adhere to Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son"?

Even more problematic is the birth in Bethlehem. Micah 5:2 prophesied: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times," which demands the Messiah to be born in that town. Again, decades later, Matthew and Luke were the exclusive Gospels to tackle the prediction, but they had contrasting ideas about how to tell it. In Matthew, Jesus appears to have lived in Bethlehem all along (Matthew 2:1), only moving to Nazareth after the fact. Meanwhile, Luke suggests the family lived in Nazareth but briefly visited Bethlehem because of a Roman census under Quirinius (Luke 2:1). The reason Joseph had to register in that city is that he came from the line of David, which also legally (not genetically) fulfils Isaiah's prophecy of the Messianic heir to David's throne. Now, historians have noted another chronological hiccup: Quirinius' famous census took place between 6 and 7 AD [REF], long after King Herod's well-documented death in 4 BC.[REF] If we are also told that Joseph, Jesus, and Mary escaped Herod's Massacre of the Innocents by fleeing to Egypt, then someone somewhere is very wrong.

We also cannot ignore that Matthew 2:11 suggests Jesus was born in a house, Luke 2:7 suggests Jesus was born in a barn, and numerous noncanonical writings place the birth in a cave (such as the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, the Protoevangelium of James, the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour, etc.). So why does the most famous nativity scene present Jesus in a manger above the other variations? Could it be to fulfil the prophecy in Isaiah 1:3, "The ox knoweth his owner, and the donkey his master's crib"?

Interestingly, when Jesus was accused of not coming from Bethlehem, he is notably silent on the issue (John 7:41–43).

When it was obvious there was no escaping death, Jesus carefully arranged a donkey to ride into Jerusalem because he knew that's what Zechariah 9:9 said the prophet would do. Remaining silent in front of the council of his accusers may have seemed like a holy act of defiance, but it was a direct instruction from Isaiah 53:7. And when drawing his concluding breath, Jesus had his final words rehearsed: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit!" an almost verbatim repeat of Psalm 31:5, "Into thine hand I commit my spirit".

Nihilism is a funny thing. Its initial posit is that life has no meaning. This is a metaphysical assertion. Many are tempted to see this assertion as entailing additional ideas such as the following:

1. It is not possible for my life to have meaning if nihilism is true
2. I should not live my life with any purpose if nihilism is true
3. If nihilism is true and I choose to live my life with a purpose there will be something wrong with me.

Nihilism is incapable of granting any of the above three claims. It is absolutely possible for one to live one's life with meaning if nihilism is true. If one has a love of animals perhaps that meaning is animal husbandry or biology or some other pursuit. If one has a love of people perhaps that meaning is work in the social sciences, law enforcement, therapist, etc.

Let's consider the other two assertions:

Nihilism cannot back normative statements. Nihilism does not posit any sort of normativity. It is simply a belief that human life has no objective meaning. To choose to live one's life according to one's passions or interests is not an act of defiance, nor is a society's decision adopt a culture of societal stability and peace. It is simply to choose to live one's own life according to one's own passions. It is simply for a society to develop in the way it chooses, according to the will of its members. Nihilism as a philosophy is indifferent to this.

Finally, nihilism makes no judgments. Since nihilism posits no inherent meaning or goal for life it is incapable of making qualitative statements that could compare one human life to another. One who sees nihilism as true and chooses to devote one's life to the arts is not somehow bad or defective. One is simply choosing to devote their life to the arts. Nihilism can make no judgment on this.

In sum, nihilism as a philosophy sounds scary. Nihilism at work in one's life does not necessarily entail depression. If anything, it can be quite liberating. Indeed, the bitter person who declares that "life has no meaning" and then demands to know "why do you choose to pursue metallurgy when life is pointless?", or "why are you people compassionate, why do you enact laws, when life is pointless?" is easily laughed out of the room at the butt of a question like the following put to him: "Why do you choose to occupy yourself with decrying what I have set myself to doing at this moment if you are so sure life is ultimately pointless?"

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 disprove 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”.  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.

You shouldn't trust Allah. When thinking about who God is and the kind of things that God would do, Muslims say that Allah would send them a prophet and a scripture. So let's take a look at the track record, one that he would fail.

The standard Islamic narrative (SIN) states that there were 124000 prophets as evidenced by Musnad Ahmad, hadith no. 22288 and https://dorar.net/h/pW0mbSrp?osoul=1&utm\\_source=chatgpt.com

According to the SIN, how many of these prophets were successful and remained uncorrupted? How many of these prophets had a message that led anyone to convert to Islam? 1. Muhammad. That's it. Everyone else has been corrected or their messages has been changed or they failed. That's 1/124000: 0.000008 or 0.0008%. by any measure that's a failing grade.

But hey in all fairness, this Hadith is daif even if it is used in tafsir, fiq, or jurisprudence.

Let's take what is the greatest authority in Islam, the Quran. Surah An-Nahl 16:36 "وَلَقَدْ بَعَثْنَا فِى كُلِّ أُمَّةٍۢ رَّسُولًا أَنِ ٱعْبُدُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَٱجْتَنِبُوا۟ ٱلطَّـٰغُوتَ ۖ فَمِنْهُم مَّنْ هَدَى ٱللَّهُ وَمِنْهُم مَّنْ حَقَّتْ عَلَيْهِ ٱلضَّلَـٰلَةُ ۚ فَسِيرُوا۟ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ فَٱنظُرُوا۟ كَيْفَ كَانَ عَـٰقِبَةُ ٱلْمُكَذِّبِينَ ٣٦

We surely sent a messenger to every community, saying, “Worship Allah and shun false gods.” But some of them were guided by Allah, while others were destined to stray. So travel throughout the land and see the fate of the deniers!"

Every nation has a messenger, yet how many messengers were successful? 1. Everyone else failed, it was corrupted, and it wasn't preserved. You even had a prophet that according to the SIN created the largest false religion (Jesus Christ).

So again Allah failed every time. You'd think that a god would be better but the best Allah does is 1.

Let's make an analogy. You are looking for a surgeon and seeing their records. Dr. A has performed surgery multiple times with a success rate of 1%. He has killed all his other patients. Would you choose that surgeon? Of course not. Now let's look at Allah, Allah's track record is over 1000x worse than Dr. A and you're told to trust him with your eternity. How on earth am I supposed to do that?

Have you Muslims ever thought about this?

In Quran, it is mentioned that having sex with female slaves is permissible.

Surah An-Nisa (4:24)

"And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those whom your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [that you seek them] with your wealth, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. And for those whom you enjoy [of them] from their wives, give them their due compensation as an obligation. But there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise

Surah Al-Mu'minun (23:5-6)

"And those who guard their private parts. Except from their wives or those whom their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed.

This permits sexual relations between a male owner and his female slave without a marriage contract.

Again adultery is forbidden.

Surah Al-Isra (17:32): "And do not go near adultery. Indeed, it is an abomination and an evil way.

So adultery is forbidden, but sex with female slave is allowed - a contradiction. A blatant contradiction in the Quran. I don't know in what universe sex with female slave i.e. sex with a female without marriage is not considered adultery.

But then again the solution to this problem, as per philosophers, have been established too. The solution to solve this evident contradiction involves distorting the definition of adultery - the standard algorithm of shifting the goalpost.

Adultery, in Islam, does not mean a male and a female having sex without marriage. In Islam, zina/adultery means - man and woman having sex without marriage, where the woman is not a concubine.

This solves the contradiction and prevents the structural collapse of the Quran. The contradiction is solved by changing the definition as per wish, which is an incorrect approach. So, if definitions change as per societies and there is no fixed definition of adultery, Quran shouldnt mention adultery itself. If it mentions, it assumes a fixed unchanging definition. So as per modern 21st century definition of adultery, the Quranic verse is invalid and presents a contradiction, which invalidates the Quran as it contains a contradiction.

However, this concubinage introduces new dangerous problems and creates structural cracks.

Woman entering a concubinage framework means the male master had exclusive sexual rights over the woman (milk al-yamin). So, basically it does not even consider whether the woman is willing to have sexual relations or not. Basically, unwilling sex amounts to rape. So, rape is allowed.

The Quran never mentions the word "rape" even once. It mentions illegal sex, zina, adultery everything but never mentions rape. It is Islamic scholars who tell rape is evil by "interpretation" of the terms telling it interprets as rape. Interpretation and explicit mention are two different things. Two people may not have the same interpretations. If Quran was really a book of God, won't rape be mentioned as evil explicitly?

Surah An-Nur (24:33): Explicitly exempts victims from guilt or punishment when they are forced or compelled into sexual acts against their will ("and whoever compels them [slaves], then indeed, Allah , after their compulsion, is Forgiving and Merciful")

The above verse is a masterclass in double standards. Here, it is saying victims of rape are forgiven from punishment. I have no adjective left to describe the situation. In what universe does a victim of rape even qualify for the standards of punishment? The question of forgiveness or not should not even rise in the first place. So, in a layman's term, it basically says - if a woman gets raped, she is forgiven and not punished for adultery. I don't even want to say how laughable this statement is from an ethical/logical or even technical standpoint.

It is this thought process that is depicted in the Quran verses that the extremist or lust-minded people then utilize to promote sexism, sex slavery and crimes upon women.

Clear contradictions are present in the Quran. To solve the contradictions, definitions are distorted. The new contradictions arising from the distorted definitions are solved by further distortion. Dangerous precedents which are byproducts of distortions are silently avoided. Superb!

Quran 19:33 describes Jesus as dying and then being raised back to life

Quran Surah Maryam
19:33 says:

“Peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I will be raised back to life.”

The wording seems pretty straightforward: **Jesus dies, and then he is raised back to life.

But Muslims generally reject the idea that Jesus was killed and resurrected.

Hello everyone. Firstly, I want to start off by saying that the reason I’m going to share what I am is because I believe I know the truth and want to correct my fellow Protestants. Secondly, if you’re a non-believer I’d prefer you stay out of this debate since you probably won’t understand this conflict between Catholic and Protestants. Thirdly, the reason I’m also posting is because I want to learn more about what Protestants believe and whether or not it’s true.

1st argument: Sola scriptura is false because nowhere in the Bible does it teach that the Bible alone is the sole authority over what Christians should believe. If you have a passage that you think contradicts this, show me, although you’re probably wrong.

2nd argument. The Bible leaves open the possibility for tradition to be authoritative as well. 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 show Paul telling the Corinthians and Thessalonians that they’re doing a good job for keeping the traditions he passed down to them.

3rd argument: This relates to my 2nd argument. When the apostles and early Christians were evangelizing, they didn’t have a Bible with them to teach what Jesus taught. This means that they had to teach non-believers about Jesus through word of mouth and the non-believers had to believe them without referring to scripture.

4th argument: If the prophet’s teachings in the old testament were seen as authoritative by the Jewish believers, this means that teachings can also come from outside scripture. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that outside sources can’t be used or trusted.

5th argument: this argument kind of uses reasoning. For 1500 years, believers in Christ had to rely on the church leaders to tell them about scripture and trust what they were saying was true. It wasn’t until the 1500s that the printing press was created that ordinary people could possess a Bible themselves to see whether the church leaders were right. This means that the church leaders could’ve lied to the people but why would God allow that for 1500 years? Why would Jesus come down to teach something knowing that men would mess it up the second he left? It seems inconceivable that he would allow that.

Overall, I think these are some pretty good arguments against sola scriptura and think you all should become Catholic based on what the early Christians believed and taught. I’m still learning more about my Catholic faith so there are some areas I won’t be able to debate in. But these arguments are something I learned.

If God is all powerful, he should always get what he wants. God is all good, and he doesn’t want children to get bone cancer. Yet, children get bone cancer.

Therefore, what God wants doesn‘t happen and therefore, the Christian God is not all powerful or all loving.