42% of Jesus’ followers DON’T think he’s the “son of god”, or was even resurrected.

Well, the Nicean Creed kind of belies the silliness of this thread. My guess? The pollster took the poll in a place guaranteed to give a skewed result - hence the OP not providing the source. Its just dishonesty, and, as you say, merely a malicious intent to stir things up.

Funny, atheists being so educated and all, didn't see that? A Christian and a Muslim, apparently locked in crusadereque combat ... did. Odd?

 

Indeed lol

No, I've always been saying both Athiests and Monothiests have their arrogant people who make the groups look bad. They have flocked to this thread.

This thread proves that perfectly. There is no actual discussion here. Athiests hating on Christianity and Islam, Christians (self-proclaimed, this is not including yourself Neutral) hating on Islam and athiesm. That's really all this thread is.

Nobody is even discussing Jesus (pbub) unless they are saying I follow the wrong Jesus (pbuh) lol

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was talking about people AFTER Jesus died, I don't know know why you thought otherwise. They are going to hell (apparently) - such as people like OJLeb apparently - because he's non-Christian, because Jesus was too inept to reasonably prove that he was god (such as by leaving physical evidence, or providing real cures to diseases as opposed to just "curing" one person one time, etc.) If he was really go he would be smart/moral enough to do so. But he didn't, so he was either not too bright or not too moral or didn't even exist or was a liar about his divinity.

 

We'll never know, now will we, because the all-knowing "Allah" is such a lousy communicator. I be an eight-year-old relative of yours could communicate better than this "Allah" fellow could....meaning he's probably not real.

 

Nah, all he really accomplished was simple math... to find out how many people recognize Jesus (pbuh) as a religious figure, then divided to see what percentage were Christian and Muslim.

And used this as an attempt to insult Jesus (pbuh) and stir up tension in this thread.

The fact Jesus (pbuh) has a prominent role in the two largest religions on Earth somehow proves he didn't exist.

Somehow that was a logical conclusion.

 

It's just astonishing that followers of Jesus can't even agree on whether he's the son of god (christians say yes, muslims say no), or was resurrected (christians say yes, muslims say no), etc. Those are huge issues to disagree on! Too bad Jesus is just too darn shy (or maybe he doesn't even exist) to tell us right here and now. He helps Tim Tebow beat the other team (they say), but doesn't care enough about any of the followers of this thread to clear all this up for us, even though he OBVIOUSLY could, they believe. He's forsaken you. He doesn't come to your side when a hell-bound "dog" (Jesus used that word for non-believers) like me challenges Jesus. He's a coward to not help you. Jesus is as clear as Zeus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are on their respective teachings.

 

I wouldn't worry about it too much, actual scholars dismiss Jesus Denial as conspiracy. I wonder why the only adherents to such silliness are atheists? Who preport to be ratonalists? I never did understand that ...

Besides, actual Islam and Christianity, flowing from the same Abrahamic tree, have far more in commin than they do different.

 

Look up the nicean creed and spare us the ignorance. Geez, once again, we are supposed to treat such ignorance as if its ... the result of painstaking academic study rather than blind adherence to dogma?

Whose fault is it that you jumped on any random piece of propoganda? yet the Muslim and the Christian saw right through it. The atheist, another one, cannot?

And peple choose that faith of their own free will? Amazing.

Guess it just proves that humans are anything but totally rational.

 

Your ignorance is comical.

First, the Hadith is different from the Quran. The Hadiths have nothing to with Allah's communication.

Second, we already know what he was talking about. Just because you don't doesn't mean "we'll never know".

Lol

Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying that a non-Muslim eats in seven intestines whereas a Muslim eats in one intestine.

Nafi' reported that Ibn 'Umar saw a poor man. He placed food before him and he ate much. He (Ibn 'Umar) said: He should not come to me. for I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying that the non-Muslim eats in seven intestines.

He is saying a Muslim shows (or should show) restraint when eating, to not eat more than one needs to eat.

Using your brain and common sense would go a long way here.

I mean, obviously he did not literally mean a Muslim has one intestine and a non-Muslim has seven.

 

Approval of slavery (a felony) - by Jesus in 3 places in the Bible, kill gays (a felony), approval of genocide (a felony), treat women as vastly inferior (a crime today), approval of torture (Mohammad oversaw, and advocated, torture), a "virgin birth" (crazy). Yes, they have a lot in common....unfortunately.
They also both had crazed founders.

 

You'll never know, now will you, because Allah/Mohammad is long dead, and isn't helping you one bit today. If he helped Muslims, who pray many many times per day to him, then clearly Muslim-majority countries would be LEADING the world in education, scientific advancement, medicine to help people, etc. But they are usually near the very bottom end of those surveys, almost always. Allah clearly does not exist. Clearly.

PS. they do indeed lead in TERRORISM, however, as the Islamic terrorst-attack tracker at www.thereligionofpeace.com is over 19,500 attacks, with no end in sight, because they won't change their religious texts.

 

After your flop with the Hadith about Umar (RA) you are in no position to make these claims without proof from the Bible and Quran.

How are your 7 intestines treating you? Lol...

 

No, the failure to insight servile insurrection is in the Bible from Jesus in three places. Its not slave revolts that ended slavery, and Jesus knew that. You still don't? Even with the benefot of hindsight, what you advocate is slaughter of innocents by Roman legions, who, in case you missed the cruxificiation thingy, were rather notoriously brutal - you can also look up Spartacus, see what happened with the three Jewish revolts against Rome - ending in the diaspora.

I am sure you knew that all though?

Well, glad you secular humanism, not only lead you to conclude that people who do not own slaves, actually advocate the owning of slaves, and that is rationalizes the murder of innocents.

Paranopis in seeing slave owners everywhere? And incitement of servile insurrection when it has no chance of suceeding? What a crappy faith. You chose it though.

THat is the danger in making choicesin comparative morality that requires non-slave owners to be slave owners who beat their wives and be too stupid to understand their own faith - but your maligning of our faith reflects great and studious study - rather than adherence to a broken record of propoganda that leads you to spout off exactly the same silliness as your fellow cult members?

Heh, your life to waste ... enjoy it.

 

A SANE person would not, I agree. But Mohammad had suicidal tendencies, and was also a pedophile, and be-headed 600 captives in one day, and was a brutal warlord, and had black dogs killed for his usual insane reasons, said women are "deficient in intellect" - said they shouldn't be judges, and even said to not play chess (trivial, yes, but it just shows his disconnect from reality - and the amount of CONTROL that he wanted to have over people), so he obviously wasn't sane.

 

You should do the same, and realize that the Qur'an (33:51) is simply wrong so therefore not from some "god": a pedophile who instructs his followers to beat their wives (Qur'an 4:34) is not the perfect role model for all time. Unless you do believe that we should change our western laws to ALLOW pedophilia and wife-beating....do you support that!? I'm not sure you can really answer that question.

 

No, we know very well exactly what he meant. It is actually quite obvious. If you just use common sense.

I thought was something Athiests have over Monothiests. Guess not, hey

Allah SWT does not give us everything for nothing. Islam had its golden age, and the greed and demand for oil - along with corrupt leaders and nearly infinite examples if Western interference - is why the Middle East is how it is today.

There it is.

That explains everything I need to know about you in regards to Islam.

Asalaam wa'alykum.

 

So if I can prove that Islam and the Bible approve of slavery (for example) then will you admit that they are pretty screwed up books? Or at least books that are not really relevant in the year 2012?

 

Another drone skips over information that doesn't meet with his preconceptions. Yawn.

People choose this faith, eh?

And atheists doubt free will ... silliness.

 

Muhammad (pbuh)? Habibi, we are talking about Umar (ra). They are two different people.

Lol

You do an excellent job at making a fool out of yourself. You all over the place in your posts.

I guess having 7 intestines is a real strain on ones brain?

 

Jesus was a moral failure...his failure to directly condemn slavery (possibly the worst moral crime in history!) as such, shows he was not moral. He did little things such as make a chair, went fishing, etc., but a self-proclaimed teacher of morals of all time he just never got around to directly condemning slavery. Priorities, I guess.

 

No, both do approve slaverly. At least, the Quran does.

You mentioned more than just slavery in that post btw.

But if you wish to stick with slavery, why not go into detail the stances Christianity and Islam take on slavery. The... Rules, if you will, both religious established in regards to slavery?

Or would that be counter productive for you?

Probably.

 

The Islamic texts say that (yes, you might be right that Mohammad himself did not say every single one of those, but he likely would have approved strongly), but will you say that those texts are wrong, and remove them because you care enough about you impressionable children/family?
I care about you, but you don't care about me, since you believe it's perfectly FAIR that I will apparently "burn in hell" for not simply buying into a particular one of thousands of unproven fairy tales...while I don't think it would be fair if you suffered the same for simply not buying into modern Secular Humanism. Therefore one of us is clearly more moral than the other.

 

A moral belief system wouldn't HAVE to go into "rules" regarding slavery! It would just say "no slavery"! Your "god" is highly immoral. Mohammad was immoral, as he was an enslaver, slaver trader, and slave master. He's as immoral as any brutal Southern US plantation owner/slaver master. Actually LESS so, as most of those people were probably not rubbing their male-member on 6 year old girls, and having sexual intercourse with them a mere 36 months or so later!
If Mohammad "thighed" Aisha at the mere age of 6, do you think that would have been immoral, at least hypothetically speaking?

 

I am pretty sure Muslims are not 'followers of Jesus'. They acknowledge his existence and his importance as a prophet but they are certainly not 'followers'.

 

Yawn. Typical flame bait of a cult member whose sole purpose is to slap down other people.

Really, do you think such claims reflect more poorly on you ... or Jesus?

And people sign up to act like this? Strange, strange faith ....