Does anyone else feel this way about Christianity vs Islam?

T

Third City

Guest
Greetings. I've been fascinated with religion and would call myself an agnostic theist at the moment. I do think there is a God simply for the fact that no origin of life theory makes sense to me. I've been looking into Christianity and Islam since they are the two largest religions and well, they both have a Hell which is going to influence someone's decision a hell of a lot. ;)

My question is, does anyone else have the following issue with these two religions.

With Christianity - I really find the religion beautiful. Despite all the negative things said about it (which seem like 99% the OT and a-hole preachers) the book does have some extremely inspiring and wonderful passages about love, hope and redemption. This is something that I find Christianity has more-so than Islam. However, the Trinity does not make sense. Every way of explaining it, all the analogies don't cut it. From water/ice/steam to past-present-future. It just does not make sense. I don't think I can believe in something when the core belief of it does not make sense to me. I refuse blind faith and I think everyone here would too.

With Islam - the monotheistic conception of God makes perfect sense. The issue is however, that despite there being great passages in the Quran, the RELIGION (not the concept of God) is very strange. There is a lot of superstition and very odd rules that I can't get my head around. Another thing is, I just see way more violence and harsh passages that I can't swallow. The Old Testament is just as bad but the New Testament is a lot "nicer" and "holier" or whatever than the Quran. This would make it difficult to be a Muslim, how could I be Muslim whilst at the same time liking another religion?

Also, Jesus Christ the character does not seem like he would fit with the Quran. He seems way more pacifist and lovey dovey, which is great.

Anyone in this situation? I honestly do think there are many "truth-seekers" who feel this way. Christianity is nicer and easier, but the Trinity is ridiculous and to top it off, there is so much controversy about it being added in well beyond Jesus' death. And Islam, has the monotheism that makes sense but there is too much fear, hatred and violence in it. How do Christians and Muslims deal with this? Or do all Christians have no issue with the Trinity and all Muslims do not feel the Quran is a more "harsh" book than the Bible.

Thanks and I mean no offense to anyone with this post. I am just looking for the truth and find these as two huge hurdles in the way. As for being atheist, the issue with this is that I can't accept that either. I feel trapped! I suppose being agnostic might be the best option.
 
Welcome to the forum Third City,
You have two choices.
1) Take Christianity and just gloss over the Trinity. It can be a concept and the icing on religion i.e. Religion need not be expalinable, don't you solve all mysteries, it will be too bland. Christianity will be the easier path.

2) Take Islam and try to change it to be tolerant, at least in your locality. If everybody cleans his yard the whole planet willbe clean. So said a famous Christian and I totally agree. Being religious is a process. Not an event.
 
this is the way i look at the trinity...

the father, i see as the creator and judge, so i equate it with law, as in the laws which govern the universe.

the spirit is just that, a spirit which interacts with us on a spiritual level.

and the son is the human manifestation of god.
 
Why doesn't any origin of life theory make sense to you? And why would the image of a superhuman father figure in the heavens make more sense? It's about the most absurd thing I could think of.
 
There is general leeway in belief. It's when belief is compelled via group-dynamics, religious laws and a societal sense of superiority that there's a problem. You might feel as I do that Islam is more prone to this, but it's happened to other religions at other times as well, and it's far from decided even now. I will say that punishment dealt out to apostates in every Islamic country in the world, among other issues, don't disagree with the above supposition.
 
Lori_7 said:
of course. after all, it is the scapegoat.
Click to expand...
I mean, for me abiogenesis seems reasonable. As a matter of fact, logically thinking, if there were Gods, one would presume they had a beginning as well. It's not very likely a God would exist in the singularity of the big bang. So, it must have arose on a distant planet around a far away star. If it were outside the big bang event, it still would have arisen in some fashion, somewhere (if there even is a where?).

So, again, abiogenesis of life on Earth, seems much MUCH more plausible to me.
 
Michael said:
I mean, for me abiogenesis seems reasonable. As a matter of fact, logically thinking, if there were Gods, one would presume they had a beginning as well. It's not very likely a God would exist in the singularity of the big bang. So, it must have arose on a distant planet around a far away star. If it were outside the big bang event, it still would have arisen in some fashion, somewhere (if there even is a where?).

So, again, abiogenesis of life on Earth, seems much MUCH more plausible to me.
Click to expand...

that depends on what you perceive god to be, as in how you would define god. not that i can define god. i'm not convinced it might be possible to do so entirely from our limited perspective. i have however been able to observe some characteristics of god via interaction (with me) and influence (on me). i don't get the impression that god is a being. jesus is a being. but i think that god is an entity that is so all encompassing that's it's difficult to comprehend entirely, if not impossible. i think the trinity is telling us that god is multi-dimensional. i think most people can comprehend jesus (a human), and some can comprehend some aspects of the holy spirit (a spirit), but i don't get the impression that most if not all people can comprehend the father. i think the father is, at least, the laws that create and govern the universe.
 
Lori_7 said:
of course. after all, it is the scapegoat.
Click to expand...


I’ve noticed that you’ve made several references towards atheistic views being a scapegoat. Doesn’t religion offer huge scapegoats for sins?

I agree with spider, as well. Explaining the unknown by using a supernatural being is illogical. Religion has hindered progress towards finding answers in the past and will continue to do so.
 
Third City said:
I do think there is a God simply for the fact that no origin of life theory makes sense to me.
Click to expand...
But the god hypothesis does not explain the origin of life. The god is clearly alive, so where did he/she/it come from? The Abrahamic religions are fastidiously silent about that, and if you ask too stridently their priests will fall back into their classic stance and accuse you of blasphemy. The god hypothesis is a textbook-perfect example of the Fallacy of Recursion. It's really hard to understand how anyone with half a brain can accept it.

This blatant fallacy, perhaps more than anything else about the so-called creation "scientists," makes it so difficult to respect them. If they have a functional-level IQ, they sure do a damn good job of hiding it.
 
@Fraggle Rocker

The apparent strength of cosmological arguments for the existence of God is specifically that they avoid a problem of infinite regress.

The observable universe, and therefore all life in it, is visibly causal. Its seeming dependence on linear cause and effect is what begged the question of an origin in the first place, even more so after the non-linear alternative, steady state theory, was invalidated. But this restriction - and therefore the question of origin - would not logically apply to a Creator per definition.

So to subject God to cause-and-effect questioning comes down to avoid speaking of God at all, since it conflates creation with creator, slipping God into his universe by a semantic sleight of hand, so to speak. That's why everything goes back into an infinite regress.

Or as wikipedia put it, "One cannot disprove the existence of primary causality by taking note of the persistence of secondary causality; there is no shared frame of reference".
 
@Third City

The doctrine of the Trinity was an attempt to bring together diverse ways in which God has been encountered and perceived. It is very specific about the belief that it's always been an encounter with the same God, but in irreducibly distinct ways (i.e. they couldn't be 'collapsed').

You might say the reason for its formulation is that people have not been able to quite make sense of those encounters, which shouldn't be a surprise. It's like trying to see all sides of a three-dimensional object at the same time - you're bound to end up with an abstraction. Have a look at Chapter 23 of CS Lewis' 'Mere Christianity', here and see if that helps.
 
Last edited:
Trooper said:
I’ve noticed that you’ve made several references towards atheistic views being a scapegoat. Doesn’t religion offer huge scapegoats for sins?

I agree with spider, as well. Explaining the unknown by using a supernatural being is illogical. Religion has hindered progress towards finding answers in the past and will continue to do so.
Click to expand...

religion is used as a scapegoat for a lot of things...sin, hatred, violence, not thinking or being open-minded, and not having a relationship with god. and from what i've observed of many atheists, they buy into these scapegoats hook, line, and sinker for the same reasons religious people do...because it's easy, and appeals to their egos.
 
The goal of Christianity and Islam is to spread their religions to the far corners of the earth and bring everyone under their law. This is a fact. They want to take away our freedoms. They are dangerous.
 
we're already under god's law. the goal of christianity is to restore communion with god, so that we're not opposing it or transgressing it, and suffering because of that.
 
Jenyar said:
The apparent strength of cosmological arguments for the existence of God is specifically that they avoid a problem of infinite regress.
Click to expand...
That's some mighty strange reasoning there. When I ask you how the universe originated, you tell me it was created by a creature with enormous power and considerable intelligence. Since the definition of "the universe" is "everything that exists," and this creature clearly (at least in your model) exists, this is a textbook case of that fallacy.
But this restriction - and therefore the question of origin - would not logically apply to a Creator per definition.
Click to expand...
Wow, you supernaturalists have really got this stuff well organized and memorized. I wonder if you have any idea just how ridiculous it sounds to someone who rejects the hypothesis of the existence of a supernatural universe because there is no evidence for it. What you guys are doing is pointing to the fact that we haven't figured out the origin of the universe yet, and calling it evidence that your fairytales are true. How many people outside of your own cabal fall for this?
So to subject God to cause-and-effect questioning comes down to avoid speaking of God at all, since it conflates creation with creator, slipping God into his universe by a semantic sleight of hand, so to speak. That's why everything goes back into an infinite regress.
Click to expand...
You're still saying that we must not ask questions about God, and you twist what you learned in Logic 101 to make that seem reasonable. Sorry, we're a curious, inquisitive species by nature, and we cannot stand to allow a mystery to remain unsolved.
Or as wikipedia put it, "One cannot disprove the existence of primary causality by taking note of the persistence of secondary causality; there is no shared frame of reference".
Click to expand...
The primary versus secondary causality distinction is only temporary, until we figure out more of the details. Nobody knew about the Big Bang 200 years ago. I see no reason to assume that 200 years from now our descendants won't have finally cracked the mystery of that first 10 to the minus 1000 second, or whatever it is. Meanwhile you religionists will still be dressing up your Stone Age myths in modern language, hoping people will continue to fall for them.
Lori_7 said:
religion is used as a scapegoat for a lot of things...sin, hatred, violence, not thinking or being open-minded, and not having a relationship with god. and from what i've observed of many atheists, they buy into these scapegoats hook, line, and sinker for the same reasons religious people do...because it's easy, and appeals to their egos.
Click to expand...
That's way too general, at least for me personally. I hold the pathetic one-dimensional monotheistic religions of Abraham, not the other religions, responsible for a major portion of the wars and genocides that have occurred in the times when and places where they were dominant. Christianity obliterated the Inca and Aztec civilizations, melting down their art and burning their libraries, respectively. And today Judaism and Islam, with nuclear weapons on both sides, are hell-bent on turning this planet into a cinder.

Fuck 'em all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top