But most of all, nothing bad will happen to you if you stop trying to save someone who is unwilling to be saved.

You have worked at warning him of the deficiencies of his ways, and he has adamantly turned against your warnings.

Somewhere along the line it is time to stop. It's time to move on to the joy of reaching those who want to understand. It's time to encourage your own faith by letting go of the folly of others.

Salvation is for you. Those others who tend to reject their salvation, need to be left behind so that they don't drag you down into their disaster.

Be at peace. Encourage yourself with Bible readings, that the Lord will reward you for trying. Move on to the many who will listen.

Absolutely maintain an open heart for af_newbie just in case he does turn and return to you.

Go in the peace and love and joy of your Lord. Hebrews 12:1b,2:
See you there, CoinCube.

Ok af_newbie you did not really address my critique but that is ok.

Its not wrong to teach something that is true and the assertion of Christianity is one of truth. You don't believe in that truth so you are unsurprisingly not Christian.

I have shared with you the path that lead me away from beliefs not entirely dissimilar to yours and towards Christianity. Perhaps someday you will find that reasoning helpful. More likely it be like the passing of a song something noted and quickly forgotten.

Many of us must walk for a time with our eyes closed before we learn to open them. I was such an individual. Perhaps you will be too.

Best Wishes

Very sad story about the little girl.  Any purpose can be twisted if isolated and misunderstood. I don't know the entirety of the circumstances that lead to the tragedy but I would agree that some religious groups focus on heaven with an intensity that places them at risk of neglecting the here and now. This is an area where many Christians can in my opinion learn something from Judaism.  

All moral precepts can if isolated and misunderstood be twisted into evil. Take the purposes you shared. They are all good things but each in isolation can also be twisted.

To be happy: If twisted to extremes can lead one to selfish pleasure seeking and hedonism prioritizing ones happiness over all else.

To desire kids who thrive amidst competition: Twisted this towards evil takes one to a tribalistic mindset and in extreme cases a desire for eugenic supremacy by whatever means necessary.

To help others: Is noble but it is also a cornerstone of many flawed ideals such as communism and the argument that the need to help others requires we take via force from those who possess abundance to fund the redistribution.

Even the desire to learn and invent new things: This desire most certainly advances human technology and power but it also requires a simultaneous increase in human wisdom to be healthy. Technological innovation alone bereft of wisdom simply simply opens the door to extreme and new forms of evil.
"Slaughterbots" | Presented by ALTER
New Robot Makes Soldiers Obsolete (Bosstown Dynamics)

Your stated purposes are all good ones but they are a floating list without a foundation or at least without a foundation you have shared. A solid foundation requires a rational criteria for choosing between them when they conflict as well as a structure that will keep these desires healthy and limit excess when opportunities for excess arise.  

In regards to your argument that you cannot have moral improvement with Christianity because the Bible is fixed and unchanging here is what C.S. Lewis wrote in response to this critique.

"Q: Doesn’t tying ourselves to an immutable (unchanging) moral code cut off all progress and acquiesce in stagnation?"

"A: Let us strip the question of the illegitimate emotional power it derives from the word 'stagnation' with its suggestion of puddles and mantled pools. If water stands too long it stinks. To infer thence that whatever stands long must be unwholesome is to be the victim of metaphor. Space does not stink because it has preserved its three dimensions from the beginning. The square on the hypotenuse has not gone moldy by continuing to equal the sum of the squares on the other two sides. Love is not dishonored by constancy, and when we wash our hands we are seeking stagnation and "putting the clock back," artificially restoring our hands to the status quo in which they began the day and resisting the natural trend of events which would increase their dirtiness steadily from our birth to our death.

For the emotive term 'stagnant' let us substitute the descriptive term 'permanent.' Does a permanent moral standard preclude progress? On the contrary, except on the supposition of a changeless standard, progress is impossible. If good is a fixed point, it is at least possible that we should get nearer and nearer to it; but if the terminus is as mobile as the train, how can the train progress towards it? Our ideas of the good may change, but they cannot change either for the better or the worse if there is no absolute and immutable good to which they can recede. We can go on getting a sum more and more nearly right only if the one perfectly right is "stagnant".

And yet it will be said, I have just admitted that our ideas of good may improve. How is this to be reconciled with the view that "traditional morality" is a depositum fidei [deposit of revelations] which cannot be deserted? The answer can be understood if we compare a real moral advance with a mere innovation. From the Stoic and Confucian, "Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you"; to the Christian, "Do as you would be done by" is a real advance. The morality of Nietzsche is a mere innovation. The first is an advance because no one who did not admit the validity of the old maxim could see reason for accepting the new one, and anyone who accepted the old would at once recognize the new as an extension of the same principle. If he rejected it, he would have to reject it as a superfluity, something that went too far, not as something simply heterogeneous from his own ideas of value. But the Nietzschean ethic can be accepted only if we are ready to scrap traditional morals as a mere error and then to put ourselves in a position where we can find no ground for any value judgements at all. It is the difference between a man who says to us: "You like your vegetables moderately fresh; why not grow your own and have them perfectly fresh?" and a man who says, "Throw away that loaf and try eating bricks and centipedes instead." Real moral advances, in fine [=in conclusion], are made from within the existing moral tradition and in the spirit of that tradition and can be understood only in the light of that tradition. The outsider who has rejected the tradition cannot judge them. He has, as Aristotle said, no arche, no premises"

The lighthouse of Christianity shines because it is based on the reality of an objective & universal Moral Code that we know & have broken. It is this truth which makes Christianity's offer of forgiveness, & its gift of supernatural help towards keeping that Moral Code, so incredible.

On Ethics by C.S. Lewis

misogynists - marrying an young girl doesn't mean misogynists but slaving is also against Islam.

Jihad means extreme love towards something,correct me if I am wrong but if they are killing people for that reason then they are not Muslims.

Terrorists are terrorists no matter which religion they belong to.

homophobes - I see this is something against the nature cycle.AFAIK human is the only animal attracted to same gender.

There is only God and its Allah,other religious people call him with different names.

You are a little contradictory because you said that we can't kill an idea and religion is actually also an idea, a spiritual idea, so it can't be killed.

This thread is about why you hate Islam,it maybe for anyone who hates it.

Whenever I visit mosque I find people with peace and equality even I visited other muslime countries where king and people are same while praying there is no supermacy as you think in general.

But if you found anyone influencing people to kill people then why you blame every muslim? Why people don't even wanted to speak with hijab in country like America?

Misquoting someone's religious text then using that to dog on them is not really very 'grown-up'.  In fact it is rather juvenile and desperate.

I don't know jack shit about Islam because I've not studied it.  I'm absolutely not about to get my information from people who have strategic reasons to make me hate them.  As a matter of fact, you asserting that Muslims have violence problems kinda makes me believe that they do not.  Or at least question that it's much of a big deal.  I'm pretty sure I would be about as violent as possible if I were being treated like a Palestinian, Syrian, etc, etc.  I mean if someone attacks me, kills my family, and steals my land I'll certainly be fighting back in any way possible.  It would have nothing to do with religion because I'm an Atheist.

It has to do with getting two of your adversaries fighting with one another while you sit back, enjoy, and profit.  Islam and Christianity being the two in this case.

This cartoon seems a really good case study in a couple of propaganda techniques.  The chief one is 'accuse your adversaries of that which you are guilty of.'  We see it all over the place these days.

I actually bothered to look up 'Muslim (8.3311)'.  You'll be unsurprised to learn that the 'to have sex with her' in parens part seems to be fabricated.  Probably the propagandists didn't think anyone would look.

Turns out that Talmudic Judiism speaks in some depth about sex with children.  The modern day apologists for Judaism are quick to point out that there were arranged marriages so because a 'girl of 3' was stated it didn't mean that the Rabbi was boning her (or him.)  While the explanation could apply to the correctly translated Islamic texts, there is trouble in Talmud-land:  The Talmudic debate seemed to specify three as the age when a girl's body was 'ready' which wouldn't make much sense unless sex was involved.

Dovetailing with the Rabbinical texts we have a seemingly never ending stream of certain behaviors among people of a certain background (Allen, Polanski, Weiner, Weinstein, Dershewitz, Barak, Epstein, etc, etc, etc.)

I would take exception to the idea that a 3 year old girl's body is 'ready' for sex, but then I'm just a animilistic goyim who's soul stems from the satanic spheres.  The Rabbis have souls which come from by the divine so who am I to argue that it's pretty fucking awful to be dicking 3-year-olds when They say it's all good.

Who agree here? NO one has right to kill anyone even if they insulted anyone.

But imagine the same kind of insult was given to Jesus the same kind of threats may be arise to that creator so why particularly targeting Islam?

Reason and logic are process not purpose. They are tools used to acquire and retain power. Power over the world power and power over ourselves. The pursuit of power is not an ends it is a means.

You imply we should reject God in favor of accumulating as much individual knowledge and thus power as possible but to what end?

The Christian goal is moral improvement forgiveness of and eventual freedom from sin, and oneness and harmony with God in the world to come. You have chosen to reject that and have replaced it with...

That’s just it you haven’t replaced it with anything you’ve just created a void. It’s that void that drives many to suicide and others to insane ideologies and depression. You can try to fill it with something artificial. You can create some purpose maybe sex, money or perhaps scientific know how. Whatever you choose, however, will forever be an artificial construct something you purposely constructed and something that can be torn down and discarded whenever the mood shifts.

You feel the ‘God' proposition does not justify serious consideration. I respectfully but profoundly disagree.

That made me laugh I will give you that.

No offense intended but my skepticism over your divine providence exceeds even your disregard of my beliefs.

Though your post was clearly in jest you should consider the degree to which your belief structure leads you to a very similar pronunciation of self-righteous.

When we reject God something else will inevitably fill that void. The most common modern path of the nons is to declare themselves their own god perhaps not explicitly as you did in jest above but in a functionally identical way via their choices and actions.

I guess they have dare to do anything because they are going to blowup in the next moment.

Am I hearing good Muslims? Wah yeah that is what I am telling Muslims also same like others who fight against terrosirsm so not every muslim is terrorist.

AFAIK,Quran said if you are a muslim try to make others follow the right path by words or action,if you can't convince them then just leave them never told us to kill for doing bad things for that the punishment will be given from God.

Muslims not discriminated anywhere? This is just politics nothing related to religion.

That is a difference between us. You think you are a good person. I know I am a flawed sinner in need of grace.




I must politely disagree on which of the two of us are engaging in a death cult.

If all you hear from me is la-la-la Christians good then you are not listening.

Christians are not good. No humans are good. We are all fallen. Humanity is a worming and struggling mass of the ignorant and foolish wallowing like swine in a mud-pit each of us covered from head to toe. Most of us spend our time looking for comfortable pits or fighting with each other for the best mud.

The Christian worldview opens ones eyes to the reality. It is the wiping away of at least a portion of the mud covering our eyes so we can see the reality of the world around us. However, Christianity is far more than just a realization of our fallen state. It is also the assertion that underneath the inches of hardened mud their exists a core of infinite value something worthy of forgiveness and life. It is a calling to clean the mud off of ourselves to the best of our ability and then help others do the same.  

The only solution to the inherent flaw in humanity is to forsake all for a selfless existence. But this is extremely difficult for a human to even approximate. We are bound in our evolutionary fragment of the universe which make it impossible for us to be truly superrational of our own accord. Our biological and human limitations ensure this at least in this world and in this form.

The process is in my opinion what C.S. Lewis was referring to in his man vs rabbit essay when he said we cannot reach the top of the mountain on our own and even if we could we would perish because we currently lack what is necessary at those heights.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X9fR1vSxNEQ

The symmetry of our common human situation is what is notable. Some of us may be slightly higher up the mountain then others and further along in our climb. But we are all still among among the bottom slopes of the mountain and incapable of completing the journey on our own. Our weakness and ignorance guarantee our eventual death no matter how high we climb. Thus our desperate need for a savior.  

Christians follow Jesus but our role can only be that of a sheep following a shepherd. Wayward, foolish and prone to stray regardless of our intent.

Why does God call us sheep?
https://inhonoroftheking.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-does-god-call-us-sheep.html?m=1

It's about salvation. Science won't save you. So far science hasn't been able to extend the lives of people any more than Biblical hygiene does. Science doesn't even talk about salvation.

Step up to Christianity, and let God save you for eternal life in Heaven.

You claim to support science and agree with it. The thing that science does is it gets down to the tiny points, examines the evidence, watches how things react together, and draws conclusions from what is happening.

Why is it that you want to disregard the science of formal religion? Formal religion isn't something you can lump together and draw conclusions about without deep examination. What you are doing is akin to religion more than it is science. So...

You again show us all that you are a religious being. And that in this case, you would rather set yourself and your ideals up as god over scientific examination.

You need to find the best formal religion you can find, and adhere to it. If you don't, your duplicity will ultimately destroy you. Your choice.

No he is highlighting the fact that the Bible mitigates and restricts slavery in practice and simultaneously establishes the conditions where slavery can eventually be reduced or eliminated.

It was no coincidence that the abolitionist movement was led by Christians.

There is indeed nothing to argue about.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1566146.msg17342890#msg17342890

Over 400,000 people living in 'modern slavery' in US, report finds - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/19/us-modern-slavery-report-global-slavery-index.

What is Modern Slavery? - https://www.state.gov/what-is-modern-slavery/.

Again, what do you want? Death or slavery? If you are out of options, wouldn't it be nice if you could find a master who would feed you in return for some labor?

We have welfare systems set up. Other places in the world don't. If it is volunteer slavery so that you can survive, and if it is legal or acceptable, why die?

The Bible talks in the O.T. against stealing people (for slavery). The slavery that was the custom of ancient peoples was being reduced in O.T. times by the Bible. You don't simply take a system that people have been using for ages, and suddenly change it. It took time for things to get where they are today. However, all over Africa and the Middle East and China, slavery is presently being allowed by governments even though they formally have laws against it.

Read what Saint Paul said as I added it above. The Bible is against slavery. But the people had to be trained out of their long-time habits. And systems had to be set in place for taking care of those in need so that they didn't have to sell themselves into slavery.

Until we can set up systems to take care of impoverished people all over the world, slavery is good. It benefits the slaves.