Are non-Christian religions (such as Islam) preferable to atheism?

y2k

Sparrow
4. Persecute Christians

It's not preferable, it's just bad in a different way. You're positing a theological unity that isn't there. It doesn't exist between Christians and (non-Christian) Jews either. If those seem like hard words, the Scripture is harder: "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son."

Did the Israelites not believe in Monotheism? Do the modern Jews not believe in Monotheism?
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
...Pagans have not had contact or recognize the Gospel so they are covered under the mercy of God, and having the law imprinted in their hearts can suffice. Both Judaism and Islam however know in detail about Jesus and the Gospel, and they are open, clear rejections of it. Unlike all kinds of paganism, which are merely agnostic to Christ as they don't know Him, Jews and Muslims are atheistic to Christ - they know and they distort, or reject, the revelation.
...
What about people who are born into devout Jewish or Muslim families and communities, are taught the faith from a young age, and never question or doubt what they are taught?

Are those people truly rejecting Christ in their hearts?
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
What about people who are born into devout Jewish or Muslim families and communities, are taught the faith from a young age, and never question or doubt what they are taught?

Are those people truly rejecting Christ in their hearts?

I don't know. I guess it depends. Some who have not really thought about it may not. Others, like the Muslims who are invading this forum, are clearly rejecters.
 

bucky

Ostrich
No one knows God's judgement, so on a personal level it probably depends on conduct.

However, on a theological level, I actually think the other Abrahamic faiths are, in a way, the worse ones to convert to if one is not a Christian. Pagans have not had contact or recognize the Gospel so they are covered under the mercy of God, and having the law imprinted in their hearts can suffice. Both Judaism and Islam however know in detail about Jesus and the Gospel, and they are open, clear rejections of it. Unlike all kinds of paganism, which are merely agnostic to Christ as they don't know Him, Jews and Muslims are atheistic to Christ - they know and they distort, or reject, the revelation.

This might also explain why pagans were and are converted easily to Christ, and we can incorporate their traditions into the unified multiplicity of Christianity, whereas Islam/Judaism and Christianity are mutually exclusive, always.

Jesus was Jewish in the same way that George Washington was British. I can't remember who said that and I know I've shared it on RVF before, but it's worth repeating.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Just to be clear: by Judaism I mean a new religion, not God's law in the Old Testament, but with its official birth after Christ - that is, Talmudism. One could say Christ just made it visible, he separated the false religion of the Hebrews and fulfilled the true religion of Israel. The seeds of Talmudism (the oral law) were sowed already at the foot of Mount Sinai, and hence the rejection of Christ later by those who were already practicing it and that once their folly and pride were exposed by Christ, had it codified in the Talmud to safeguard their lies and give an alternative 'holy book' as a substitute for the now fulfilled Scriptures.

So, indeed, Jesus was not Jewish, even less than George Washington was English.
 

Serie A1

Woodpecker
You’re correct that it’s wrong, but it is what the Qur’an accuses nonetheless:

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them." 5:73

"Say not 'Trinity': desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah" 4:17

"They say: 'Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (To salvation).' Say thou: 'Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham the True, and he joined not gods with Allah.'" 2:135

These are taken from Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation, and I linked so you can read them in context. And it's just a drop in the bucket of the Qur'an's anti-Christianity. While Allah is willing to let us count as people of the Book, in context that gesture doesn’t seem to mean what modern Christians would like it to mean. The Christians spoken highly of towards the beginning, like Waraqah, were Nestorians. They didn’t believe Christ was fully divine in the first place, and this is probably why it says when they hear Allah’s message they’ll be easily swayed to turn aside from their Christianity and follow Islam. But on the subject of orthodox Christians -Trinitarians- Allah routinely paints a quite different picture. We're fuel for the fire.

The Koran is not anti-Christian – but it definitively rejects the Trinity as going against the very concept of the oneness of God.

Moreover, many Christians also reject the Trinity as antithetical to the oneness of God. Indeed, Unitarian Christians define themselves by their rejection of the Trinity:

'Unitarianism (from Latin unitas "unity, oneness", from unus "one") is a Christian theological movement named for its belief that the God in Christianity is one person, as opposed to the Trinity (tri- from Latin tres "three") which in most other branches of Christianity defines God as one being in three persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.[1] Unitarian Christians, therefore, believe that Jesus was inspired by God in his moral teachings, and he is a savior,[2][3] but he was not a deity or God incarnate.'


To be honest, the Trinity is something that confuses even many devout Christians who are Trinitarians.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
This is typical behavior among a subset of Muslims. They are party animals in their 20s and when they are in their 30s they become religious cause they are jaded by the party lifestyle or just getting old and fear of mortality. The mastermind of the Bali bombing in 2002 was the playboy son of a millionaire. He became religious in his 30s and ended up being a fanatic and terrorist.

So either your friend was not an atheist but simply irreligious cause religion interfered with his party life or didn't have the guts to stick with atheism or "eastern" religions as you can them cause of family pressure.

Better keep an eye on him cause now he might really start hating Christianity and western society for "misleading" him and wasting his youth. As if every Christian/westerner does drugs.

I am a going to call out the neocon propaganda here, the Bali bombing was a false flag attack, it was the equivalent of Australia's 9/11 and the UKs 7/7.


People are sucked into the clash of civilizations narrative that has been carefully and systematically (((planted))) into our consciousness (the kind of exercise WannabeAlpha is engaging in here), using false flag terrorism and actively funding the most aggressive and backwards strains of Islam for nearly 200 years, going back to the British arming of the Wahhabists and takeover of Arabia in the 1800s with the installation of the crypto-Jewish Sauds at the helm in that region, and the backing of the masonic Muslim Brotherhood organization, along the same lines freemasons infiltrated Christian organizations starting in the late 18th century.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in the early 90s, islamic jihadism has been weaponized to further the zio-globo control grid. However, as the establishment and public opinion has been shifting to left, and islamic terror no longer as effective a tool, the globalists are switching gears and unleashing the plandemic viral attack on society in order to lock us down.


As to OP Rob's point above, pagan eastern religions, as sold to the West after the 1960s by the likes of Alan Watts are globalist luciferian cults designed to destroy Christian societies. 70 years later, the societal damage they have done has been massive.
There are many essential redeemable features in Islam that can be turned against those who have weaponized mass immigration, including their aversion to usury, feminism, homoglobo and forever war. And as far as redemption, I agree with Max' conclusion above:

Pray for others salvation and happily be a beacon of light in your own life. But focus on God's good and not on hatred or animosity towards others.
 

Serie A1

Woodpecker
People are sucked into the clash of civilizations narrative that has been carefully and systematically (((planted))) into our consciousness (the kind of exercise WannabeAlpha is engaging in here), using false flag terrorism and actively funding the most aggressive and backwards strains of Islam for nearly 200 years, going back to the British arming of the Wahhabists and takeover of Arabia in the 1800s with the installation of the crypto-Jewish Sauds at the helm in that region, and the backing of the masonic Muslim Brotherhood organization, along the same lines freemasons infiltrated Christian organizations starting in the late 18th century.

Even the academic who popularised the 'Clash of Civilisations' thesis – the late Samuel P. Huntington – repudiated it in a 2004 issue of Foreign Policy magazine, at least regarding Islam.

Huntington stated that the 'true threat' to the United States was the importation of large number of darker-skinned Catholics from south of the border, because these fellow Christians nevertheless had a completely different attitude towards politics and institutions which would end up changing the character of the country in a profound way.

It would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Huntington was completely into the BoomerCon ideology, including open borders, until his hometown of Fresno, CA got completely swamped with Mexican migrants, and gangs took over the area around his family farm.

The Clash of Civilizations narrative predates Huntington's work, the primary scholar pushing that narrative was Bernard Lewis at Princeton, who was the academic leader of the trotskyite neoconservative movement.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
...pagan eastern religions, as sold to the West after the 1960s by the likes of Alan Watts are globalist luciferian cults designed to destroy Christian societies...
I agree that "Eastern" religions (as sold to the West by people like Watts) are BS. Too many leftists believe that Buddhism means pacifism and hippie-ism.

But I'm not sure if you can call true Eastern Buddhism (and Taoism and Confucianism and others) "globalist luciferian cults".
 
Last edited:

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Agree, there is some logos in those religions as practiced in their home culture, ensconced in centuries of traditional wisdom. I followed a good presentation on taosim a couple of years ago by a scholar who pointed out some parallels with Grecco-Christian philosophy.

There is a problem however with those religions being customized and bastardized to fit a modern globalist mold, starting with the schemes of Blavatsky and the Rothschild-funded theosophy movement back in the 19th century and culminating in the 1960s Boomer "spiritual" free for all.
 

Hannibal

Ostrich
Gold Member
Islam is hardly a monotheistic religion. The way of mohammed (sunnah I think) is taken seriously enough to be viewed as mohammed worship. They know how he ate his food, shaved his facial hair, wore his sandals and wiped his ass. These details, like many details in Islam, are wholly unimportant but serve to paint a much larger picture that Islam is a religion obsessed with presenting an image of holiness, usually at the expense actual holiness.

The single best example would be that they will drop to their knees and pray anywhere, often making special attempt to pray in public. This behavior is the behavior of the Pharisees, having prayed in the streets like the other hyprocrites, they have reaped their reward.

Many things have been said about the desert moon cult, but here are a few things I noticed that no one else seems to bring up.

The "angel" that "Allah" sent to mohammed first appeared to him in a cave, where it strangled him and threw him to the ground, then forced him to write in words he did not know (mohammed was illiterate). Just spitballing here, do you think a divine entity would commune with man by violent possession?

The "angel" that "Allah" sent to mohammed would not enter his tent because there was a dog in it. A strange limitation indeed, as it cause momo to slaughter every dog in the caliphate. Do you think a divine entity in the service of God would fear His own creation?

To answer this thread.

Most of the larger main world religions have some form of the Golden Rule. This would be the classic do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Islam has this, but only for other Muslims, which is where the starkest difference lies.

The islamic god is not the Christian God. Allah grants you a one way ticket to paradise if you die fighting for him. That is the only condition. You could pray five times a day, wipe your ass the right way, eat your food with your two fingers and thumb, shave your mustache but never your beard, and drink camel piss as a cure all and still go to hell, but a pedophile cannibal who sets fires to nursing homes will go to heaven if he spreads the good word on the back of a hollowpoint.
 

Serie A1

Woodpecker
Islam is hardly a monotheistic religion. The way of mohammed (sunnah I think) is taken seriously enough to be viewed as mohammed worship. They know how he ate his food, shaved his facial hair, wore his sandals and wiped his ass. These details, like many details in Islam, are wholly unimportant but serve to paint a much larger picture that Islam is a religion obsessed with presenting an image of holiness, usually at the expense actual holiness.

One of the main theological criticisms that Trinitarian Christians make of Islam is that it is too monotheistic – because it doesn't believe in the Trinity.

It would be helpful for someone to post a list of scholarly books on non-Christian religions, just to raise the level of debate here. Given a bit of time, I'll try and do just that.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
Reading the replies here reminded me of a post I saw a few weeks back:
I found his testimony quite moving to be honest. That aside, I don't see any issue with his credibility. I don't share your view that anyone who refuses to touch the JQ is a shill. They might just not be courageous enough to throw their life away. I also don't think the issue is jews as such, but Ashkenazim, but that's another matter. I still think it is worth converting Muslims to Christ, which he is clearly doing just going by the comments on his videos - which show that a lot of muslims (the decent ones) really have no idea what their prophet really taught and what their religion entails.

I don't share your starry-eyed view of Islam. While I have met muslims who are ok, the very fact that (just like in the Talmud) they have permission to lie to the unbelievers makes it obvious that we shouldn't be so acritical. This is completely beside the fact that I do believe the Middle East would not be the basket case that it is if America wasn't destroying their countries for Israel. I agree completely that it is the case, and it is utterly and completely disgraceful. I also agree that Ashkenazim influence is who is pushing them to the West. But it doesn't change the fact that at its core Islam is a hateful religion founded by a pedophile madman inspired by Satan and that fosters the worst in humanity when followed appropriately.

For what it's worth, this is what really turned me against it for good.

@ilostabet, in that video you posted, Ann Barnhardt claims Muslims commonly practice female circumcision and that Muslims are taught to hate women -- including their wives -- and that Islam teaches that a man should view sex with his wife as something disgusting but necessary to produce sons, but that he should instead get his rocks off by anally raping teenage boys and children.

Barnhardt tells a story of when American doctors went to Afghanistan (I think it was Afghanistan) and the men there claimed their wives could not get pregnant, but upon further questioning it turned out they were having anal sex because they themselves had been raped as children/teenagers and they believed that's what sex was.

I was talking to a religious Muslim person who lives in the Middle East. This person claims that none of what Barnhardt says in that video is really accurate (except for the female circumcision, which is a problem), that the video describes a perverted and twisted form of Islam, and that true Islam teaches men to value women as a treasure.

This person was not a liberal "Islam is a religion of peace" type. Quite the opposite. Very conservative and traditional, and agreed with me on almost all topics concerning sex, marriage, and relationships.

I'm not saying what this Muslim told me is necessarily true, but it seems apparent that the bad parts of Islam get exaggerated by a lot of Western conservatives.

It seems unlikely to me that a religion -- ostensibly based on Abrahamic tradition and the Old Testament -- would be able to successfully spread throughout the world and shape the cultures of countries from Morocco to Indonesia while preaching homosexual child rape and vicious hatred towards your own wife and family.
 
Last edited:

Serie A1

Woodpecker
Reading the replies here reminded me of a post I saw a few weeks back:

@ilostabet, in that video you posted, Ann Barnhardt claims Muslims commonly practice female circumcision and that Muslims are taught to hate women -- including their wives -- and that Islam teaches that a man should view sex with his wife as something disgusting but necessary to produce sons, but that he should instead get his rocks off by anally raping teenage boys and children.

Barnhardt tells a story of when American doctors went to Afghanistan (I think it was Afghanistan) and the men there claimed their wives could not get pregnant, but upon further questioning it turned out they were having anal sex because they themselves had been raped as children/teenagers and they believed that's what sex was.

I was talking to a religious Muslim person who lives in the Middle East. This person claims that none of what Barnhardt says in that video is really accurate (except for the female circumcision, which is a problem), that the video describes a perverted and twisted form of Islam, and that true Islam teaches men to value women as a treasure.

This person was not a liberal "Islam is a religion of peace" type. Quite the opposite. Very conservative and traditional, and agreed with me on almost all topics concerning sex, marriage, and relationships.

I'm not saying what this Muslim told me is necessarily true, but it seems apparent that the bad parts of Islam get exaggerated by a lot of Western conservatives.

It seems unlikely to me that a religion -- ostensibly based on Abrahamic tradition and the Old Testament -- would be able to successfully spread throughout the world and shape the cultures of countries from Morocco to Indonesia while preaching homosexual child rape and vicious hatred towards your own wife and family.

Firstly, female circumcision is an African problem, not a Muslim one. In fact, in countries such as Nigeria and Tanzania, the rate of female circumcision is higher amongst Christians than Muslims:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women...ainst_female_genital_mutilation_(cropped).jpg

Secondly – on the subject of sex – Islamic cultures are historically quite similar to Hindu, Chinese and Japanese ones in that they do not view sex as intrinsically bad. Historically, they had a very sophisticated sexual literature which emphasised the profound spiritual importance of sexual intercourse.

Claims to the contrary are classic examples of the 'double lie' – not only are they untrue, but they are a distraction from the fact that some other religions really have struggled quite badly with the matter of sex.

Thirdly, your hunch is correct: Islam, like Christianity, was a major world civilisation. It is simply nonsensical to pretend that a civilisation which produced the Blue Mosque, the Taj Mahal and the Alhambra Palace is somehow a strange hate cult with no broad appeal.
 

Athanasius

Pelican
Did the Israelites not believe in Monotheism? Do the modern Jews not believe in Monotheism?

Yes they did, and some still do. But so do demons. (James 2:19). The point is that monotheism that denies the Son is insufficient.

This is where it can be hard for Muslims to look through a Christian instead of a Muslim lens. Our commonality is bound up in being fellow image-bearers of God, in that we were created by God to reflect his image, along with all of mankind, But look at even the Jews of Christ's time, who shared the same Scriptures. Christ said of them that they were of their father, the devil. C.S. Lewis noted correctly that "all of the most terrifying texts came from the mouth of Our Lord" (i.e. Jesus). Who was he warning? Answer: Jews who refused to believe Him, all of whom were monotheists.
 

Athanasius

Pelican
The Koran is not anti-Christian – but it definitively rejects the Trinity as going against the very concept of the oneness of God.

You as a Muslim may not consider that anti-Christian, but Christians do.

Moreover, many Christians also reject the Trinity as antithetical to the oneness of God. Indeed, Unitarian Christians define themselves by their rejection of the Trinity:

'Unitarianism ...is a Christian theological movement

Christians don't consider Unitarianism to be Christian. In fact, the original Unitarianism of centuries ago, of which no Christian church fellowshipped (and that includes EO and RCs), has evolved into an utter train wreck today. There may be a few of these quasi-Arians around today, but anyone who has spent any time around Unitarians can tell you that Unitarianism today is little more than an umbrella organization where people can believe whatever they want, as long as they deny orthodox Christianity. It's a collection of agnostics, New Agers, tree worshippers, political progressives, rainbow flaggers, etc. Lots of videos out on Youtube will bear this out. You may hear a hymn or sermon about climate change if you attend one. I even knew of a Sufi who was going to a Unitarian church.

To be honest, the Trinity is something that confuses even many devout Christians who are Trinitarians.

Those who don't know much about theology get confused about all kinds of stuff. To use James White's definition: "Within the one being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Note the distinction between being and person. Many verses bear out that the Spirit is a person and God, and that the Son is a person and God. Now, there certainly is a mystery to this. By mystery, I mean there is much unrevealed in it, and God has not given us a further glimpse behind the curtain. But we have that same issue with God Himself. Who can understand the mind of God or why He acts in the ways He does? We take what He has revealed and leave the unrevealed (secret) things to Him (Deut 29:29).
 
Last edited:

Rob Banks

Pelican
Christians don't consider Unitarianism to be Christian. In fact, the original Unitarianism of centuries ago, of which no Christian church fellowshipped (and that includes EO and RCs), has evolved into an utter train wreck today. There may be a few of these quasi-Arians around today, but anyone who has spent any time around Unitarians can tell you that Unitarianism today is little more than an umbrella organization where people can believe whatever they want, as long as they deny orthodox Christianity. It's a collection of agnostics, New Agers, tree worshippers, political progressives, rainbow flaggers, etc...
Unitarian and Unitarian Universalist are not the same thing.

Unitarian is a liberal Christian sect that US Founding Father John Adams was a member of. They rejected the Trinity and had generally liberal attitudes for their time.

Presidents John Quincy Adams (Adams's son, Millard Fillmore, and William Howard Taft were also Unitarians.

Unitarian Universalist is the modern sect that allows people of all faiths or no faith to "worship".

Of course, the latter was inspired and influenced by the former.
 

Athanasius

Pelican
Unitarian and Unitarian Universalist are not the same thing.

Unitarian is a liberal Christian sect that US Founding Father John Adams was a member of. They rejected the Trinity and had generally liberal attitudes for their time.

Presidents John Quincy Adams (Adams's son, Millard Fillmore, and William Howard Taft were also Unitarians.

Unitarian Universalist is the modern sect that allows people of all faiths or no faith to "worship".

Of course, the latter was inspired and influenced by the former.

If you have a Unitarian church in your town, it most likely is UU. The UU was a merger of older denominations, but for example King's Chapel in Boston, the first Unitarian church, is today UU. So is First Boston, which is the main edifice I associate with historic Unitarianism.

Unitarianism is tiny-- ~225,000 members in the US based on last stats I saw. Anecdotally I'm guessing their membership skews older.
 
Top