Rahiendaishar

[hide=PaperClipsYaaar's argument] Ok? I just suddenly realized that you're contesting Islam and Christianity in "who's right". Isn't this off-topic a bit? We're discussing what Christianity is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that way Yes, you are wrong. When we discuss what something is, no matter what the thing is, we must include evidence that would contradict, nullify, or cancel certain aspects of it. Let me break this down for you and save 2 more pages of text. I'm red and you're blue. The Jewish elder priests at Jesus' trial think that God gave Jesus a choice too. His crucifixion was merely a side-effect of his refusal to accept their God's love. Why does your religion focus on this side-effect while you tell me not to focus on mine? The Jewish elder priests were misguided. Their concept of God had not been updated to the Christian version, which is the right one. Thus, Jesus, through his crucifixion, was affirming God's love rather than refusing it. You say that Christianity does not think people are meant for hell, but God made all of us, so that means he was responsible for making me a non-believer. God gave us free will to decide whether or not we want to accept his love. He didn't make you a non-believer. You made the choice to become one, just like you still have the choice to become a believer. But God could have just made all of us Christians. God's aim is to have fellowship with those who truly love him. If we had been made as inherently good robots, without the potential for the opposite character, evil, we would not have the capacity for true love. For only love that comes from a free choice of the will is true love. But God is the omnipotent creator. He created everyone's being, actions, and decisions. That means he created the series of decisions that led my grandfather to be a non-believer on his deathbed, just like how he created the series of decisions that led your grandfather to be a believer on his deathbed. Ok, so we don't have free will, but part of my argument still stands. It is necessary for God to make both non-believers and believers, because true love cannot exist without evil. The non-believers are part of the environment for making believers. The majority of the world's population are God's necessary victims for creating the conditions that make a minority of the population into the true believers that he wants. In other words, God sacrifices most of the world's people so that a certain minority can feel a heightened sense of love for him, because he would rather have a minority of conditioned love (with the majority serving as non-believers that are required for the conditioning) than a majority of automatic love. There it is. I get to prove that God means for people to be in hell, and you get to explain Creation to its furthest, most truthful extent. It ends as a tie, and a bittersweet one at that, because there are many other religions with more benevolent gods who do not desire to condition their believers with the same intensity and the same sacrificial methods as the Christian god does. I really hope your god doesn't turn out to be the right one. [/hide] Forgive me, but I must interject. I shall deal with facts later, but your argument is not valid in structure, form, or logic. Firstly, Islam and Christianity are not synonymous. This is an argument by analogy but the two items you compare are not identical or even similar save that they both have a monotheistic deity and (supposed)Abrahamic origins. They are no more suitable for comparison of specific qualities then a bear and a fox which are both mammals and share a common ancestor. As most comprehensive biology text will point out they are not suitable for use in comparison of most everything biologist and ecologists measure and record. Secondly your absurd second argument is a glaring example of the fallacies: Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem tu Quoque, appeal to belief(despite the fact your statements are not even in line with most beliefs), appeal to belief(your own. Also known as wistful thinking), appeal to ridicule, begging the question, use of a biased sample(your responses are your own, I have found no other iteration of them in the majority of intellectual circles), appeal to ignorance, circumstantial Ad Hominum, fallacy of composition, and one other. That is the Straw Man fallacy which you did not even attempt to hide. It is the entire basis of your argument. Your distorted and easily refuted misrepresentation of Adventurer's position is all that allows yours flawed logic to work. When Adventurer's actual position is considered your own carries no water.