r/DebateReligion

Islam Does Not Understand Consent

Islam Does Not Understand Consent

Thesis: Islam forces Muslims to either reject or ignore the basic definition of consent, because acknowledging the basic definition would clearly identity Mohammed and his companions as serial rapists (thereby making Islam false, because it claims Mohammed is a “perfect moral example until the Last Day” and the companions are “the best of all people”).

The focus of this argument will focus on three main examples, with sources from the Quran, authoritative Tafsir, and Authentic Hadiths:

  1. The use and permitting of sex slaves
  2. The having of sexual relations with children even by Islamic standards
  3. The coercion of Muslim women to sleep with their husbands with threats of curses if they say no.

Each of these points individually would be enough to prove the case, but combined they are insurmountable.

Basic Definition of “Consent”:

(Cornell University Legal Law Institute)

Consent: “Consent means that a person voluntarily and willfully agrees in response to another person's proposition. The person who consents must possess sufficient mental capacity. Consent also requires the absence of coercion, fraud or error. Consent is an essential constituent of a contractand a defense to a tort.

In cases of rape and sexual assault, someone’s consent is not their true intent if they are under duress or fear. For example, coercion and/or subsequent compliance when resistance is no longer useful cannot be considered consent. In addition, a person who is impaired, developmentally disabled, or under the legal age of consent may voluntarily engage in sexual activity and still be unable to give valid consent because they do not have the legal capacity to consent.”

This is a very straightforward concept. Agreement or permission to have sex is something that must be freely given without coercion or force, and it must be given by someone who is physically and mentally able to give consent. If consent is not given, or permission is only achieved through force, or it is given by someone not of sound body and mind (like a mentally disabled person or a child), that is not consent. ANY SEXUAL ACT TAKEN WITHOUT PROPER CONSENT IS BY DEFINITION RAPE AND/OR SEXUAL ASSAULT.

This seems like basic common sense. If you threaten violence to get sex, that is rape. If you have sex with a child under any circumstances, that would be rape because children are by definition not mentally or physically ready to consent to sex. Obviously, you would not want someone to threaten violence against you to have sex, you would not want someone to take advantage of you while you are in a vulnerable state.

But Muslims cannot affirm this definition. Why? Because it would make their Prophet and his companions serial rapists. People who the Quran calls the “perfect moral example until the Last Day” and “the best of all people”. This leads Muslims to have to twist the concept or outright ignore what the word means so they can remain a Muslim. Though, if you ask me, I believe they do understand the concept but family, political, and societal pressures prevent them from outwardly acknowledging it. Mohammed did say “He who leaves his religion (of Islam), kill him” in Sahih Al Bukhari 6922, after all and that is law in multiple Islamic majority countries like Afghanistan, Brunei, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and the UAE.

Below are a list of several examples from the Quran and Authentic Hadith that clearly show Mohammed and his companions both violating the consent of others and promoting such behavior. If you are a Muslim reading this, I’m willing to be you feel that conflict within you. Don’t shut that part of yourself off. Truth holds up to scrutiny. If you believe Islam is true you should scrutinize it thoughtfully. Either you will read all of these and your faith will be bolstered because it stands up to reason, or you will realize the horror of these teachings and free yourself from a false religion.

1. Allah permits sex slaves, and Mohammed and his companions owned MANY.

Surah 4:24: “And (It is impermissible for you to have sex with) all married women except those whom your right hand possess”.

“Those whom your right hand possess” is a common Arabic idiom that means the slaves that you own. This is verified in other verses of the Quran as well as the Tafsirs of this verse:

Tafsir Ibn Abbas, 4:24: “And all married women are forbidden to you, save those captives whom your right hand possess of captives, even if they have husbands in the Abode of War

Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, 4:24: “And forbidden to you are wedded women… save what your right hand owns of captured slave girls whom you may have sexual intercourse with even if they should have husbands among the enemy camp”

Tafisr Ibn Kathir, 4:24: “Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri said “we captured some women from the area of Atwas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So we asked the Prophet on this matter, and this Ayah was revealed … consequently, we had sexual relations with these women”. This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi An-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir, and (Imam) Muslim in his Sahih”.

Summary:

Allah and Mohammed explicitly say it is permissible to take women as sex slaves and use them for your sexual pleasure, even if they already have husbands that are still living.

Obviously, a sex slave by definition did not consent to be a sex slave. Hence why they are called “slaves”. It explicitly says they were taken captive. They were not there voluntarily. They were already married women and their husbands were still alive. When you forcibly take a married women (or any women) from their home and use them for your sexual pleasure, that is RAPE. These women didn’t consent to be there, and they certainly didn’t consent to be taken from their husbands to be used as sex toys, and the slave owners held immense power over them to make their lives hell if they refused (there’s a shorter world for that, it’s coercion). Imagine a group takes a bunch of married Muslim women captive to be used as sex slaves until the end of their days. Imagine it was your wife taken as a sex slave and forcibly raped by these invaders. Would you finally see and call this despicable act what it is?

2. Mohammed committed and permitted sexual acts with a child, even by Islamic standards

Sahih Al-Bukhari 5134: “Narrated `Aisha:
that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet (ﷺ) for nine years (i.e. till his death). “

Muslims often try to defend this horrible action by stating that she was a woman by Islamic standards. Not only is this nonsensical because it’s a literal nine year old, but it’s not even true by Islamic standards:

Sahih Al-Bukhari 6130: “Narrated Aisha: I used to play with dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends used to play with me. When Allah’s Messenger would enter (my dwelling place) the used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for Aisha at that time, because she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty)”

Did you read that? Playing with folls is forbidden for Muslim women, because it’s considered a form of idolatry/shirk, but Aisha was allowed because she was prepubescent. “But this could have been a Hadith talking about a much earlier stage of her life”, you may say. Nope. Absolutely false. Read the next Hadith:

Sahih Muslim 1422c: “She (Aisha) was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Prophet) died she was eighteen years old”.

Summary:

Little nine year old Aisha brought her dolls with her to Mohammed’s house on the day of the consummation….. proving that she was prepubescent on the day of the consummation. She was a child, even by Islamic standards. Either that, or Mohammed was letting her commit shirk in his house by playing with dolls, which would make him a false prophet and Islam false as well. That poor child …

As previously established, having sex with a child under ANY circumstance is rape, because children are by definition not mentally or physically developed enough to consent to such a thing. Read that last Hadith back again. Do you really think a prepubescent who was STILL PLAYING WITH DOLLS is actually developed enough to consent to such a thing? What if that were your prepubescent daughter playing with dolls when someone took advantage of her? Would you then finally see the despicable act for what it is?

3. Women do not have autonomy over their bodies and will be cursed if they say “no” to their husbands.

Sahih Muslim 1436d: “When a man invites his wife to bed and she does not come, and he (the husband) spend the night being angry with her, the angels curse her until morning”

Summary: If a woman says “no” to sexual activity to her husband, Allah’s angels will curse her until morning. That is literally a threat. That is literally coercion. That is saying “sleep with me or else I will have angels curse you”. As previously established, consent cannot be gained under coercion or threats. Because a Muslim woman cannot say no without being threatened with curses, Muslim women by definition cannot consent because they are always under the threat of curses. If you are only saying “yes” to sexual activity to avoid being cursed, that is not consent. That would be rape. It’s just the same as threatening violence or blackmail to get sexual activity.

Conclusion:

There is no way around it. There’s no way to say what Mohammed and his companions did wasn’t rape without denying the basic definition of the word “consent”, which would just prove my thesis. You can’t say these sources are weak, they are Sahih, the highest rating possible.

You’ve got two options: deny what you see to be clearly true: that what Mohammed and his companions did was clearly rape, and continue to defend such atrocities. Or: turn over a new leaf. Realize this is obviously not a “perfect moral example” or “the best of all people”, realize you would be horrified if someone did to a girl or woman you love what Mohammed and the companions did, and start calling out these horrific acts for what they are. I trust you’ll make the right choice.

u/PeaFragrant6990 — 1 day ago

There is no reason to assume god is completely devoid of evilness and is fair

​

For the sake of argument let's assume some kind of God/source/whatever is 100 percent real.

My argument is the fact that while morality and what's considered evil will change depending on culture and particular person's beliefs, there is always something that could be considered evil around you water you agree with it or not

Either specific actions, ideology etc. whether you consider them to be evil or not will be around you in a shape or form.

one might say that to god either no action is evil, but to me it means that God might be so detached from human perspective, that you could argue that every action will be excused.

Seeing ridiculously primal and predatory existence can be, let's say afterlife of torture could be reality, because if god is okay with it happening on earth, why not continue it in a afterlife

Of course I'm not saying it's something I believe in, but it feels weird to me how the belief of peaceful afterlife is considered a certainty.

And there may be a possibility that God don't give af and straight up doesn't care.

If evil consciously was created means that God is completely okay with it. For example I find it weird how in the story of garden of Eden the blame is out on talking snake instead of God that created it. god there was purposely creating evil temptations, and since he punished eve for interacting with his own creation, the image of perfectly just god crumbles.

reddit.com
u/digital_black_ — 1 day ago

Adam and Eve

So apparently Adam and Eve were completely innocent minded before they ate the forbidden fruit from the tree GOD put in the middle of the garden. And god is almighty, so he's aware of the future before it happens.

So he knew they were gonna do that... And he decided to put that there?

And why tf was the talking sneak even there?

Also how would they even know that disobedience was something bad when they couldn't even tell what was good and bad yet? How do you demand moral responsibility from someone before you give them the intellect to understand what morality is?

Putting a tree with a fruit and forbidding them to eat it is the same as putting a loaded gun in a crib with a baby and telling it to not mess with it, they couldn't even tell they were both naked.

And Christians want us to believe we've inherited the punishment for that twisted story. Man, I can't believe I was raised to believe this.

Thank God I'm an atheist.

reddit.com
u/rileystanheight — 1 day ago

yeah... no, i refuse to believe such claims that god reads minds of everyone non-stop 24/7

major religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism say that god is omniscient, and includes that god is aware of human thoughts and secrets without any exception, and remembers all of it too. the thought of someone reading every second of your mind is just way past uncomfortable, like someone with OCD would have involuntary intrustive thoughts like "i will kill god" and God would hear every second of it, god having to here a plethora of cursed and spine chilling thoughts would make him want to quit having this omniscient power

(bold = newly edited body text)

reddit.com
u/reeseesg7 — 1 day ago

It doesnt matter if God is real or not.

Theres a common discussion around debating whether god is real or not. Coming up with evidences and everything. I came up with my own conclusion

"I dont care if god is real or not. If it serves me a purpose that feels right, why not continue practicing islam?"

But i myself arent very religious. And for the past few months ive been questioning on whether my religion, islam, is truly is the way of life.

I accept many parts of islam like saying drinking alcohol is sinful, gambling is sinful, and suddenly music is also haram. And im like "is there a reason why?" Ive heard stories where it says how music makes people forget god. Well so are many things in life.

And the most questionable part is about hell and heaven. Wdym non muslims suffer in there forever? At some point i have the feeling that islam doesnt feel reliable to follow. And honestly i'd rather make my own principles of life. Maybe its imperfect but so is islam.

If praying is wonderful for others but not me, why should i pray more?

But for those who are muslims, go on. Stay being a muslim if it makes you happy. But i just dont see it as a bad thing to leave. To me, religion is mostly philosophy with many kinds of philosophies out there.

But i do feel like "damn. Do i really have to leave islam?" Which is why i wanna know some of yall opinions on it. Let me know! 🙏🏼🙏🏼

reddit.com
u/atsenc — 1 day ago

Jesus christ as described in the canonical gospels did not exist.

The Jesus Christ described in the canonical Gospels did not exist as a historical reality because the gospel narratives are littered with anachronisms, they describe the socioeconomic, geographical, and religious landscape of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries, rather than the 30s CE.

In Mark 12:15, Jesus is tested by the Pharisees about paying taxes to Rome and asks them to produce a denarius. He famously points out Caesar's image on the coin. Numismatic evidence from 1st-century Syro-Palestinian hoards shows that Roman denarii did not widely circulate in Judea or Galilee prior to the 60s CE. The common silver currency during the 30s CE was the Tyrian shekel or tetradrachm. The author of Mark was writing in a different region decades later, anachronistically placed a Roman coin familiar to his own audience into the hands of a 30s CE Galilean peasant.  

The Gospels says Galilee was saturated with Pharisees constantly clashing with Jesus but historical evidence suggests the pious Pharisee movement was concentrated in Jerusalem and Judea prior to the Temple's destruction in 70 CE. It was only after 70 CE that refugees, including Pharisees, fled north into Galilee to establish Rabbinic Judaism. The famous Pharisee Yohanan ben Zakkai, who lived in Galilee a generation later, reportedly handled only two cases in 18 years, lamenting that the region ignored the Torah. The intense Jesus-Pharisee debates in Galilean synagogues are anachronisms reflecting the later struggles between early Christians and Rabbinic Jews after 70 CE.  

The Gospel authors demonstrate a lack of firsthand geographic knowledge, betraying that they were not local eyewitnesses, example is Mark 7:31, which describes Jesus leaving Tyre and going through Sidon to reach the Sea of Galilee. Sidon is roughly 20 miles north of Tyre, while the Sea of Galilee is far to the south. Critical scholars point out that this route makes no geographical sense, describing it as the equivalent of traveling from Cornwall to London by way of Manchester. 

All these shows Jesus as described by the Bible doesn’t exist.

reddit.com
u/Yeledushi-Observer — 1 day ago

Islam allows child marriage

And no, I'm not going to talk about Aisha.

I'm going to quote the Quran, whose authenticity no muslim can deny.

Quran 4:6: "Test ˹the competence of˺ the orphans until they reach a marriageable age. Then if you feel they are capable of sound judgment, return their wealth to them."

This verse clearly states two different thresholds for the handing over of property to orphans. First they need to reach a marriageable age. And at this point, they can get married. Then they need to be tested for sound judgement for the handing over of property.

If you read the verse clearly, sound judgement is not included in the "marriageable age", it comes after the completion of marriageable age. Therefore, marriageable age in this context means puberty only.

If sound judgment were part of the definition of marriageable age, there would be no reason for the Quran to introduce sound judgment as a separate test afterward. The sequence is unmistakable: first they reach the age considered suitable for marriage; then their judgment is evaluated for the separate purpose of determining whether they can receive control of their property. If sound judgement was included in the marriageable age, then this verse would become grammatically incorrect.

That distinction matters because it means the Qur’an does not establish full intellectual or psychological maturity as a prerequisite for marriage. It establishes a marriageable threshold and a separate threshold for financial competence. If a person has reached the former but not the latter, the verse's structure still makes sense: they can be marriageable while not yet being sufficiently judicious to control their property

reddit.com
u/Crazy_Guidance_2220 — 1 day ago

God is the conclusion of Presuppositionalism and not the Presupposition. The Presupposition of Christian Presuppositionalism is Nihilism.

The fundamental flaw and trick of Christian Presuppositionalism is that it hides its true presupposition in order to disguise its conclusion as the presupposition, thus hiding the fact that the argument is inherently self-defeating as the entire argument is predicated on the assumption that human reasoning in a material universe cannot be trusted in order to come to the conclusion that human reasoning can be trusted, thus contradicting the very presupposition that leads to its conclusion.

One must treat logic as self-evidently true and reliable in order to make the Presuppositionalist argument whilst presupposing logic's unreliability. That fact negates the presupposition which the argument relies on and pulls the rug out from under it. We have no need to justify reasoning because we have already affirmed it by trying to justify it.

However, if it is the case that we have reason to consider human reasoning as unreliable then there is no reasoning out of that hole. The moment you affirm "we have reason to doubt human reasoning" you have denied the very basis upon which you make that claim. Any ontological claim is reliant on the coherence of the semantics and epistemology you deploy and Presuppositionalism relies on a fundamentally incoherent starting point to get itself off of the ground. If we have reason to doubt human reasoning, then we have no reason to trust the Presuppositionalist argument no matter how sound it is. If we do not have reason to doubt human reasoning, then the Presuppositionalist argument fails to get off of the ground.

What it comes down to is that we all typically presuppose and affirm logic as tautologically reliable and doing so does not entail the conclusion that God exists. To even get the argument that would lead to that conclusion, one must presuppose a contradiction and then hide that presupposition in order to justify the conclusion. So Christian Presuppositionalism is fundamentally and inescapably incoherent.

reddit.com
u/TakeMeInYourArmy — 1 day ago

Free will isn’t free.

Sin would not exist without free will.

Free will causes sin.

God gave us free will.

No human accepts free will or agrees to it.

No human can avoid free will.

No human is infallible and can choose not to sin.

Sin is a conflict with God.

God’s justice is administered to deal with the sins we have committed.

Justice is the fair resolution of conflict.

A fair resolution to the conflict sin creates is to choose to reject free will.

God has not given us the option to reject free will.

God is not just if he denies us a fair resolution to the conflict sin produces.

Conclusion: Having free will means we are denied justice. God has given us the source of the conflict, and denies us justice when we use it. Free will isn’t free, we pay for it by accepting God’s injustices.

reddit.com
u/DeltaBlues82 — 1 day ago

A malevolent God is not incoherent

Thesis: A malevolent God is not incoherent

In another thread, a theist challenged the idea of a malevolent God as incoherent and confusing. I suspect they are leaning toward Classical Theism, which holds that evil is merely the absence of good.

There’s no inherent contradiction between the idea of a malevolent God vs a benevolent God. In fact, based on the evidence in the world, the malevolent God theory is easier to defend given the overwhelming presence of natural evil, while theodicies like “the fall” fail on multiple levels.

Furthermore, any proposed solution to the Problem of Evil can be flipped to address the Problem of Good. For instance, Plantinga’s so-called solution to the Problem of Evil is easily reversible, portraying a God who actively seeks free-willed moral evil and in doing so risked some free willed agents using their free will for good.

Note: Yes, I agree there are many possible options between those two extremes, including God not existing, being disinterested, existing in the future, and so on.

reddit.com
u/truckaxle — 1 day ago

i think Jesus wasn't born from a virgin pregnancy

there has been zero human spermless virgin pregnancies recorded in history. biologically speaking, human conception requires a male's spermcell to enter the female's ovum, and there was no recorded method of human artificial insemination dating back before the 2nd century, so this suggests Mary couldn't have been a virgin when she was pregnant withs Jesus.

edit: also adding, if virgin birth were possible, Jesus would have been a female instead of male, because the sperm carries the XY chromosomes when entering the ovum, females only has XX chromosomes in their body, and lack any natural XY chromoomes

reddit.com
u/reeseesg7 — 2 days ago

Pascal’s Wager is fundamentally broken: A lottery ticket doesn't force you to devote your entire life to cash in the prize.

Pascal’s Wager fails as a logical argument for religious belief because it falsely assumes the "buy-in" for faith is zero, while completely ignoring the statistical improbability of choosing the correct deity out of thousands.

When believers present Pascal's Wager, they typically frame it as a harmless safety net: If you believe in God and are wrong, you lose nothing. If you don't believe and are wrong, you lose everything. This logic is deeply flawed for two main reasons:

The Immense "Cost of Belief". The wager treats religious adherence like buying a lottery ticket. However, if I buy a lottery ticket, the sacrifice is practically non-existent.. few dollars and ten seconds of my time. I don't have to change my lifestyle, restrict my behaviors, or alter my worldview to see if my numbers hit.

Religion is not a cheap lottery ticket. The "buy-in" requires a massive, lifelong premium. It demands absolute devotion, time spent in worship, mental energy, financial tithing, and strict adherence to rigid behavioral codes. By treating belief as if the cost is "free," Pascal completely ignores what the believer actually sacrifices: the uninhibited autonomy, freedom, and enjoyment of the only finite life they are actually guaranteed to experience.

The Problem of Inconsistent Revelations. Even if we accept the immense cost of the wager, the bet itself is mathematically illogical. The wager is almost always presented as a 50/50 binary choice: either a specific God (usually the Christian God) exists, or Atheism is true.

This ignores the thousands of documented, mutually exclusive religions throughout history. Say you pay the massive lifelong "buy-in" to be a devout Christian. You restrict your behaviors and dedicate your one life to this specific dogma, only to die and face the Islamic Allah, the ancient Egyptian god Osiris, or a deity that only rewards honest agnostics. You have taken on an incredibly heavy "sunk cost" for a system that has a massive statistical probability of being incorrect.

reddit.com
u/BestHD12345 — 1 day ago

It is reasonable to find theism false.

I'll keep it short and sweet with a syllogism. Shout out to hitchens razor for the inspo, I guess. Which of the below do y'all contest, if any?

P1:If an extraordinary existential/ontological claim lacks any sound deductive argument or sufficient empirical/inductive evidence after thorough, millennia-long epistemic scrutiny, then it is epistemically reasonable to conclude that P is false.

P2: The claim that God exists (theism) is an extraordinary existential/ontological claim that lacks any sound deductive argument or sufficient empirical/inductive evidence despite thorough epistemic scrutiny.

C: Therefore, it is epistemically reasonable to conclude that theism is false.

Edit 1 8:17a est - after ~90 comments not a single commenter has attempted a sound deductive argument or presented any empirical evidence. Honestly, I think that says it all, doesn't it.

If you had the argument, why wouldn't that be the first thing you present, why would 3 people ask the definition of sound, a half dozen people cry that it's unprovable and dozens of other random meta commentary that is unrelated to the above syllogism.

reddit.com
u/protestandprose — 2 days ago

Personal Experience is the worst theist argument and also the most commonly used.

I have come across many hideous theist arguments, but none of them were as nasty as this one.

Personal Experience? Are you serious?

You telling me you believe in god because you saw him in your dreams? Well, I saw batman, spiderman and superman in my dreams. Then the marvel universe must be true.

I hate it when theist step up in a public professional debate, only to say "Personal Experience". Trust me people, if the crowd was full of philosophers, they would kick you off the stage.

The worst part is, everyone, I mean every theist I have encountered always gives the same answer."Oh, but you haven't seen god because you don't believe in him. If you trust him enough and worship him, he will definitely appear to you." That is what theists say.

I have seen devotees in churches, mosques, temples. People that devoted their entire lives, decades to god. They loved nothing else ever, except the love of god. And they too honestly confess, that they have never seen god.

Even then, personal experience could be explained by a lot of scientific theory as well. There's this one theory that says, if you believe something long enough, you start to accept it. You keep saying,"Yes, its true. Yes its true." Then one day you will be absorbed into that belief. You will start believing it is absolutely true because that is what you have believed all your life.

Then you start believing what you see. Not because it's true, but because your mind wants it to be.

reddit.com
u/the_cartel_guy — 1 day ago

Sin is mysterious, arbitrary and criminally underexplained for how incredibly, vitally important it is.

Most people generally want to follow the rules. In a recent study in Nature, 55% to 70% of all humans, even when no one is around and no one is watching, will follow arbitrary non-zero-cost rules. Rules allow functioning societies to scale up via the establishment of expected behaviors sans explicit context and awareness (thus letting society grow beyond the bounds of any one human's knowledge), and thus exist for reasons.

Rules existing for reasons, and not for no reason, should be relatively uncontroversial. Any rule, law, moral prescript or expectation has to exist to serve a cause. A "Duty" without a reason for existing is senseless and arbitrary.

So let's talk about a very specific duty that has almost no explanation, despite being considered the reason we're being told we need salvation.

Why does sin exist? Not, "Why did Adam sin". Why does the system as a whole and in its entirety work this way? Why did God construct the framework known as Sin, categorize some behaviors as specifically "behaviors that are anti-God", and then make it so that humans, against their free will, are forced to inherit and incorporate it into their very base nature, and then need to believe that someone else's story is true in order to escape the consequences God designed for people to inflict on themselves?

A good moral framework has a reason for existing. Sin doesn't seem to. It's just arbitrary nonsense that God decided would be caused by humans disobeying him, after God decided to make the concept of obeying vs. disobeying for some reason, and then decided to make disobeying cause suffering for billions of people for some reason.

A good moral framework has clear rules. The concept of sin doesn't. What counts as a sin? What doesn't? Is it even a binary state, or is sin a sliding scale? The Bible never says. We're told some examples, but are never given any functional framework for sin identification - and as a result, humanity cannot even agree as what counts as a sin or not. There's no helpful indicators or useful tooltips in life indicating what to avoid, so even a good-faith attempt to be sinless may fail due to God's choice to not enumerate all sins or provide a proper heuristic for what is and isn't a sin.

A good moral framework relates the consequences of actions to the actions taken in ways that logically flow causally. Sin doesn't - it causes "separation from God", whatever that means, and might send you to hell, or might not, maybe sin doesn't actually have consequences and universalism is true, or maybe sin has consequences and some people burn for eternity, or maybe hell's temporary - no one knows, because nothing is explained and nothing has reasons and nothing follows rules and it's just chaos instead of a well-ordered framework on how to best live your life.

And I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm part of the group that just wants to follow rules and not cause harm. Why does the Bible have to make figuring out what counts as a sin and what doesn't so darn difficult? Why does it have to do absolutely everything to force everyone to have to be a sinner against their will? It makes no sense.

And people have tried to give me explanations - just had a good conversation with someone where they insisted they were choosing sin. Well, I'm not - I'm apparently having it forced on me. People told me to look at Catholic documentation, but when your explanation explicitly says, quote, "the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand", that's not helpful. Generally, every discussion I've ever seen, instead of directly tackling any of the many questions I raised above, dances around them and tries to find satisfying and fruitful platitudes that make people worry less about the problem, rather than answering the problem. I state this as an explicit prediction of behavior for later checking, and dearly hope I'm proven wrong and people explain why the concept of forbiddenness had to and has to be a thing.

reddit.com
u/Kwahn — 1 day ago

Jesus's death is an act of suicide, not self-sacrifice.

Suicide is an act, a collection of acts, or the lack thereof that are intented to bring about the death of the person. Given how Jesus knew that Judas was going to betray him and have him crucified, and yet he still intentionally allowed it to happen and did not stop him, it can be said that he's lack of intervention in Judas's betrayal was intentional. Given further that he knew he was going to die from it, it can therefore be concluded that he's seeking his own death and had committed suicide.

Now, regarding self-sacrifice, it cannot be the case for Jesus instead of suicide because he lost nothing. As God, he has everything, so even if he dies, he can easily reverse it if he wants. theres also the factor that he knew that he's God and that death is not the end of it all, which is different from humans who have to die to protect their family, thinking that they will never see them again.

reddit.com
u/MountainAdeptness631 — 2 days ago
▲ 89 r/DebateReligion+3 crossposts

The Resurrection on Trial: David Hume and the Case Against Miracles

David Hume’s essay “Of Miracles” provides, to my mind, the decisive case against belief in miracles and, by extension, belief in the one miracle at the core of Christian faith: the resurrection of Jesus. 

Hume’s central maxim is “that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish.” Applied to the resurrection, it questions what possible rational basis there could be for believing testimony about an event that runs contrary to everything we know about the ordinary course of nature. 

This article examines Hume’s skeptical framework and applies it to the testimony surrounding the resurrection in the New Testament. More broadly, it considers what happens to religious belief when we apply the same standard of evidence to miracles across different religions. 

The Resurrection on Trial: David Hume and the Case Against Miracles

u/EclecticReader39 — 2 days ago

Hitler treated Jews better than God will treat disbelievers according to Islam and Christianity

Hitler treated Jews better than God will treat disbelievers according to Islam and Christianity.

God in the most popular versions of Islam and Christianity tortures disbelievers forever. This is far worse than anything Hitler did to the Jews. Even if you multiply what he did to them by a hundred times, it still wouldn't be as bad as how God allows disbelievers to be treated in the afterlife.

Although this may seem obvious, it seems to me that believers experience a disconnect between what God's punishment for disbelievers is, and how bad it is. My hope with this post is to break this disconnect and to help believers recognize how bad eternal hell actually is.

Note that this only applies to versions of Christianity where God lets disbelievers be eternally tortured. The Christian God that only annihilates disbelievers is slightly less bad than Hitler.

reddit.com
u/TheIguanasAreComing — 2 days ago

Religion itself isn’t my problem, the way people use it is

I feel like religion becomes a scam when people start using it to control, manipulate or exploit others.

This happens in almost every religion. Hinduism has fake babas, superstition, money scams and politicians using religion for votes. Islam also has extremists and religious leaders who manipulate people in the name of faith, and in some extreme cases people are radicalized into killing themselves and innocent people with promises of rewards after death.

And before anyone misunderstands me, I’m not saying all Muslims are like this. Obviously the vast majority of Muslims are normal people living their lives. I’m talking about the misuse of religion and the extremist side of it.

For me the real problem starts when someone says “God wants this” and uses that statement to stop people from questioning them.

Believe whatever you want, but the moment religion is used for money, political power, fear, violence or controlling other people, it deserves criticism.

What do you guys think?

reddit.com
u/smok-n — 2 days ago

Christianity is fine with a world where everyone makes the same choice as long as it's the wrong one.

Christians who hold to God's perfect, omniscient foresight are fine claiming that a world where everyone chooses to disobey God and eat the fruit is a world with free will. After all, that's the world of the Garden of Eden.

But they also believe a world where everyone chooses to be a Christian is a world without free will.

A world where The Poop Sandwich is always ordered is a perfectly fine world that is the result of human free will. That's fine. But a world where the Poop Sandwich is never ordered? Nope, not allowed. Free will only counts as free will if it's misused.

Given 2 options, 100 percent compliance is considered a violation of free will, while 100 percent failure to comply is considered an exercise in free will.

I suspect the core issue here is that responsible use of free will makes Jesus' sacrifice superfluous, so Christians instinctively discount hypothetical possible worlds where free will is used correctly. Ultimately, though, it's inconsistent. It shouldn't matter whether options A and B are good or bad, 100 Percent A and 100 Percent B should both count as violations or examples of free will.

Now, for the Christians who are consistent and actually agree with this, I still have a follow-up:

How many people need to pick the wrong option? For instance, both you and I have chosen not to murder. How many people need to choose to murder in order for our free choice not to murder to count as being free? 1? 10? 100 million?

If the answer is zero, then we've moved beyond free will as a theodicy. Clearly, murder is required, because murder exists when it could trivially not have.

reddit.com
u/E-Reptile — 2 days ago