The practice of designating particular humans as being divine is utmost reprehensible

[godelian]

Now you're speaking about a man becoming God.

Well, no, the Japanese emperor is also God who became man. What stops an omnipotent God from doing that, huh?

[Immanuel Can]

Now you're speaking about a man becoming God.

Well, no, the Japanese emperor is also God who became man. What stops an omnipotent God from doing that, huh?

The Japanese are simply wrong. And so are you. It's that easy.

[godelian]

Now you're speaking about a man becoming God.

Well, no, the Japanese emperor is also God who became man. What stops an omnipotent God from doing that, huh?

The Japanese are simply wrong. And so are you. It's that easy.

So, if I understand it right, God becomes man when it suits you, but otherwise, he doesn't do that?

[Alexiev]

Well, no, the Japanese emperor is also God who became man. What stops an omnipotent God from doing that, huh?

The Japanese are simply wrong. And so are you. It's that easy.

So, if I understand it right, God becomes man when it suits you, but otherwise, he doesn't do that?

What about Herakles, Perseus, Helen and Achilles? Are demi-gods also "reprehensible"?

[Immanuel Can]

The Japanese are simply wrong. And so are you. It's that easy.

So, if I understand it right, God becomes man when it suits you, but otherwise, he doesn't do that?

What about Herakles, Perseus, Helen and Achilles? Are demi-gods also "reprehensible"?

You don't believe in any of them. Neither do I. And we both know that these sorts of alleged beings aren't really "God," because they aren't the Supreme Being, even if any of them had existed, which they didn't...at most, they're a kind of contingent "super-human," and not really God at all. They're a totally different concept.

As to whether or not they're "reprehensible," which is your word, I think there's no harm in fiction. But if somebody wants to believe in them and worship them, that's quite a different matter, of course. Then, the First Commandment applies.

But again: could Allah (or God) become a man? You haven't answered that.

[Alexiev]

So, if I understand it right, God becomes man when it suits you, but otherwise, he doesn't do that?

What about Herakles, Perseus, Helen and Achilles? Are demi-gods also "reprehensible"?

You don't believe in any of them. Neither do I. And we both know that these sorts of alleged beings aren't really "God," because they aren't the Supreme Being, even if any of them had existed, which they didn't...at most, they're a kind of contingent "super-human," and not really God at all. They're a totally different concept.

As to whether or not they're "reprehensible," which is your word, I think there's no harm in fiction. But if somebody wants to believe in them and worship them, that's quite a different matter, of course. Then, the First Commandment applies.

But again: could Allah (or God) become a man? You haven't answered that.

Hmmm. The Greek Gods aren't gods. The Norse Gods aren't gods. IC has reinvented the English language!

[Pistolero]

You mean....Chosen?
But...it is prohibited to critique the circularized ones.

Without them we would have no morals. Ther Moses gave us altruism...so we must use double standards when dealing with their actions....like in the Levant
109 times they've been exorcised, for no reason at all.....innocent victims of human prejudices.
Study their sacred books and read what nice things they think of you, and what plans they have for you, if they ever complete their prophesied plan to control the world, and not only the US

[promethean75]

"Circularized". From the typos/autocorrect greatest hits collection.

[Immanuel Can]

What about Herakles, Perseus, Helen and Achilles? Are demi-gods also "reprehensible"?

You don't believe in any of them. Neither do I. And we both know that these sorts of alleged beings aren't really "God," because they aren't the Supreme Being, even if any of them had existed, which they didn't...at most, they're a kind of contingent "super-human," and not really God at all. They're a totally different concept.

As to whether or not they're "reprehensible," which is your word, I think there's no harm in fiction. But if somebody wants to believe in them and worship them, that's quite a different matter, of course. Then, the First Commandment applies.

But again: could Allah (or God) become a man? You haven't answered that.

Hmmm. The Greek Gods aren't gods. The Norse Gods aren't gods. IC has reinvented the English language!

No, just using it in a standard way. There's a reason that the Greek and Norse "gods" get a small "g," and the Supreme Being gets a big "G": that is, that everybody who deals with these concepts realizes that they're not exactly the same concept...and hence, Standard English deals with it this way.

Or, As AI puts it:

"In general, "small g" god refers to deities or beings worshipped in various religions, while "Big G" God refers specifically to the supreme being in Abrahamic religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. The "small g" is used when referring to multiple deities, or a general concept of a god, while the "Big G" is reserved for the singular, supreme being in these monotheistic faiths."

[Immanuel Can]

Well, no, the Japanese emperor is also God who became man. What stops an omnipotent God from doing that, huh?

The Japanese are simply wrong. And so are you. It's that easy.

So, if I understand it right, God becomes man when it suits you, but otherwise, he doesn't do that?

No, it's much more simple than that: God becomes what He wishes to, when He wishes to, if He wishes to. He's God. He does as He wills, not as I might want or you might expect.

Man, whether Japanese, or Arab, or any other man, NEVER becomes God...you and I have already agreed that to go in that direction, from man to God, is impossible.

[Immanuel Can]

I am telling you, the man who died at that cross, was not the creator of the heavens and the earth. He wasn't Christ either, who was released before that happened.

Then you have a very serious logical problem. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8-55DZ7f080.

The Bible, from which Mo tried to get his own credentials, says that Christ did die for our sins. Mo, who was illiterate anyway (as all imams will happily and proudly admit) claimed the Bible was true, and that Allah's word could never be corrupted; but clearly, Mo could never have read the Scriptures, and relied on what he heard from the Nestorians and his own failed memory, so he got the Scriptures wrong, corrupted them himself, and made mistakes...and this wasn't his only mistake. For example, he thought Genesis taught that Ishmael was Abraham's son-of-the-Promise. Any Jew or Christian knows that's wrong, too.

So Mo was wrong because Mo says his authority comes form the Torah, but Mo got Torah wrong. But Mo also said Torah was the word of Allah, and the word of Allah can never be corrupted, Mo said. So Mo was wrong one way or the other: either he was wrong that Torah cannot be corrupted, which would excuse the difference between Torah and NT and Koran, but not explain how it could be corrupted, or he was wrong about Isaac and Christ, and it was never corrupted (just as the manuscript records indicate) and thus was himself a corrupter of Torah and the NT...

Which is it?

[godelian]

I am telling you, the man who died at that cross, was not the creator of the heavens and the earth. He wasn't Christ either, who was released before that happened.

Then you have a very serious logical problem. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8-55DZ7f080.

The Bible, from which Mo tried to get his own credentials, says that Christ did die for our sins. Mo, who was illiterate anyway (as all imams will happily and proudly admit) claimed the Bible was true, and that Allah's word could never be corrupted; but clearly, Mo could never have read the Scriptures, and relied on what he heard from the Nestorians and his own failed memory, so he got the Scriptures wrong, corrupted them himself, and made mistakes...and this wasn't his only mistake. For example, he thought Genesis taught that Ishmael was Abraham's son-of-the-Promise. Any Jew or Christian knows that's wrong, too.

So Mo was wrong because Mo says his authority comes form the Torah, but Mo got Torah wrong. But Mo also said Torah was the word of Allah, and the word of Allah can never be corrupted, Mo said. So Mo was wrong one way or the other: either he was wrong that Torah cannot be corrupted, which would excuse the difference between Torah and NT and Koran, but not explain how it could be corrupted, or he was wrong about Isaac and Christ, and it was never corrupted (just as the manuscript records indicate) and thus was himself a corrupter of Torah and the NT...

Which is it?

The false belief that Christ died at the cross is based on a forgery of the Bible that we can trace back to Origin of Alexandria. Of course, Christ came back three days after the facts, as he had promised, because he wasn't dead to begin with. You would have to read a more original version of the Gospels, such as the Codex Koridethi, to understand what really happened on that Passover night. The modern version of the Bible is so full of fabrications that it is not suitable for any serious purpose. It is a complete joke.

[Pistolero]

Should Europeans Return to Paganism? Survive the Jive & Gnostic Informant

[Immanuel Can]

I am telling you, the man who died at that cross, was not the creator of the heavens and the earth. He wasn't Christ either, who was released before that happened.

Then you have a very serious logical problem. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8-55DZ7f080.

The Bible, from which Mo tried to get his own credentials, says that Christ did die for our sins. Mo, who was illiterate anyway (as all imams will happily and proudly admit) claimed the Bible was true, and that Allah's word could never be corrupted; but clearly, Mo could never have read the Scriptures, and relied on what he heard from the Nestorians and his own failed memory, so he got the Scriptures wrong, corrupted them himself, and made mistakes...and this wasn't his only mistake. For example, he thought Genesis taught that Ishmael was Abraham's son-of-the-Promise. Any Jew or Christian knows that's wrong, too.

So Mo was wrong because Mo says his authority comes form the Torah, but Mo got Torah wrong. But Mo also said Torah was the word of Allah, and the word of Allah can never be corrupted, Mo said. So Mo was wrong one way or the other: either he was wrong that Torah cannot be corrupted, which would excuse the difference between Torah and NT and Koran, but not explain how it could be corrupted, or he was wrong about Isaac and Christ, and it was never corrupted (just as the manuscript records indicate) and thus was himself a corrupter of Torah and the NT...

Which is it?

The false belief that Christ died at the cross is based on a forgery of the Bible that we can trace back to Origin of Alexandria.

Actually, it's not. We can actually trace that belief back to the early disciples themselves, and there's no other reason for them to have promulgated it but that they believed it to be true, because many of them died for it, and died in rather unpleasant ways. That much, we can say for sure.

But what do you do with the two declaration of Mo that it is impossible for the word of God to become corrupted, because God would never permit it; but yet, subsequent Muslim apologists explaining Mo's variance from the Bible by way of corruption? How do you keep those two claims intact?

[godelian]

Then you have a very serious logical problem. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8-55DZ7f080.

The Bible, from which Mo tried to get his own credentials, says that Christ did die for our sins. Mo, who was illiterate anyway (as all imams will happily and proudly admit) claimed the Bible was true, and that Allah's word could never be corrupted; but clearly, Mo could never have read the Scriptures, and relied on what he heard from the Nestorians and his own failed memory, so he got the Scriptures wrong, corrupted them himself, and made mistakes...and this wasn't his only mistake. For example, he thought Genesis taught that Ishmael was Abraham's son-of-the-Promise. Any Jew or Christian knows that's wrong, too.

So Mo was wrong because Mo says his authority comes form the Torah, but Mo got Torah wrong. But Mo also said Torah was the word of Allah, and the word of Allah can never be corrupted, Mo said. So Mo was wrong one way or the other: either he was wrong that Torah cannot be corrupted, which would excuse the difference between Torah and NT and Koran, but not explain how it could be corrupted, or he was wrong about Isaac and Christ, and it was never corrupted (just as the manuscript records indicate) and thus was himself a corrupter of Torah and the NT...

Which is it?

The false belief that Christ died at the cross is based on a forgery of the Bible that we can trace back to Origin of Alexandria.

Actually, it's not. We can actually trace that belief back to the early disciples themselves, and there's no other reason for them to have promulgated it but that they believed it to be true, because many of them died for it, and died in rather unpleasant ways. That much, we can say for sure.

But what do you do with the two declaration of Mo that it is impossible for the word of God to become corrupted, because God would never permit it; but yet, subsequent Muslim apologists explaining Mo's variance from the Bible by way of corruption? How do you keep those two claims intact?

You want to turn this into a debate between Christianity and Islam.

I am not interested in that.

You could as well turn it into a debate between Christianity and Judaism or any other religion for that matter. The very idea that a man would be God is considered bullshit in every other religion. The Jews don't believe it either, while Jesus was a Jew.

If you believe that a hominid would be God and has created the universe, then your religion is simply bullshit, and no better whatsoever than the detestable practice of worshipping the emperor of Japan as a god.