Christians, what are your arguments against non-christian forms of theism?

Christians, what are your arguments against non-christian forms of theism?
I've seen plenty of christian arguments against atheism/for the existence of god but I rarely see any reasons why I should believe in the christian god in particular rather than be a muslim/hindu/pantheist/polytheist/deist.
Hard mode: no presupposing biblical authority

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Dirk

    The historicity of the nativity, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Any non-christian will counter this with their specific narrative

      • 4 months ago
        Dirk

        You mean like the story of Mohammed, or like personal experience?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yep, Muslims will tell you that the Quran is miraculous, and any denomination of Christianity that you don't happen to belong to will tell you that theirs is the only correct interpretation

          • 4 months ago
            Dirk

            The Quran is evidently erroneous while the christian bible is not

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Spurious. The entire OT is anti historical drivel.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      What's the evidence that those things actually happened as described in the bible? If you're going to cite the biblical account as evidence then what are the reasons that we should believe it's reliable?
      Accepting the philosophical proposition that a god exists and accepting falsifiable historical events are two different things.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >If you're going to cite the biblical account as evidence then what are the reasons that we should believe it's reliable?
        Because they are testimonies of multiple people who died for this message.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Jihadis will die for Islam, does that make Islam correct?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            They didn't die to prove a testimony. They died to prove their dedication and I have absolutely no doubts they did have dedication.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They didn't die to prove a testimony.

            Ask a jihadi, he'll have a different opinion

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Really? And what testimony would that be? That they saw Muhammad talk to Gabriel? Tell me more.
            Lol they die to prove their dedication, it is something they are pretty explicit about. There is no historical claim they are claiming to have witnessed that is behind their death.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Really? And what testimony would that be?

            Amongst other things that Jesus was merely a prophet

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            is no historical claim they are claiming to have witnessed that is behind their death.
            >Jesus
            QED. There is no witness account.
            I am absolutely ok with the fact that they died for their religion and that they had dedication and faith in it. Doesn't mean shit to my argument, because my argument isn't "someone died for Christianity". My argument is that eye witnesses wrote testaments that they got tortured and died for rather than call them untrue.
            That a muslim somewhere blew up about a thing he couldn't really know is not a counter-argument.

            so communism is a viable and just system because people died for it? is this what christcucks actually believe?

            You'll have to ask someone who argued "if ppl die for it, it's viable" lol

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >My argument is that eye witnesses wrote testaments that they got tortured and died for rather than call them untrue
            How do you know this?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            they wrote about it

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >they wrote about it
            They wrote about their own death?

            That's what happened to Christians over the first three centuries.

            [...]
            >witnessed the Glory of God
            Rarely. Again, Muhammad himself in the Quran never sees God even once. For a Muslim to claim he's witnessed God's Glory is usually figurative and even when it isn't, I'm fine with them having had an experience they believe was God.
            >i can't tell if you're engaging in reductivism
            I take it you're not the person who a minte ago reduced my argument to "ppl die fo religion"? That would be extremely ironic. If you have no arguments, I suggest not to reply on a hypothetical realm of religious affairs, at least not before you actually understand the argument you're facing.

            [...]
            They absolutely can. Again and again, a muslim blowing himself up over something he never witnessed is no threat to me. There's no shortage of people who die for things they don't know. But there absolutely is a shortage of people who die instead of admitting they made something up.

            >That's what happened to Christians over the first three centuries.
            The question is about the eyewitnesses though.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's what happened to Christians over the first three centuries.

            they testify to having witnessed the glory of god, having been driven to ecstasy and are proof that his righteous wrath is to be feared

            i can't tell if you're engaging in reductivism or if you're just generally incapable of understand how wildly perspectives and "anchors" of interpretation vary between cultures, but either way it's clear you don't actually know a whole lot about the state of religious affairs outside of the very tiny slice of pauline christianity. my recommendation when coming into a topic that you are ill-equipped to actually engage with in a meaningful format is that you listen and learn so you might be able to contribute something next time. otherwise you simply denigrate your own position by making yourself look a fool. i tell you this only because you're engaging in a sin by breaking the third commandment.

            >witnessed the Glory of God
            Rarely. Again, Muhammad himself in the Quran never sees God even once. For a Muslim to claim he's witnessed God's Glory is usually figurative and even when it isn't, I'm fine with them having had an experience they believe was God.
            >i can't tell if you're engaging in reductivism
            I take it you're not the person who a minte ago reduced my argument to "ppl die fo religion"? That would be extremely ironic. If you have no arguments, I suggest not to reply on a hypothetical realm of religious affairs, at least not before you actually understand the argument you're facing.

            >My argument is that eye witnesses wrote testaments that they got tortured and died for rather than call them untrue.

            Yes, and my argument is that someone would rather strap some bombs around him and blow himself up, rather than call your testaments true, so by your own logic, they can't be true

            They absolutely can. Again and again, a muslim blowing himself up over something he never witnessed is no threat to me. There's no shortage of people who die for things they don't know. But there absolutely is a shortage of people who die instead of admitting they made something up.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They absolutely can.

            No, because I'm using your own logic, you fricking moron. 'Proposition X is true because people die for it', which you suddenly don't accept when it's used against you. From this I conclude that your belief is garbage and that you are a stupid motherfricker

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >'Proposition X is true because people die for it'
            Not my logic. I would only be repeating myself at this point so if you don't understand what I've said, then I guess this is where your journey ends with me.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, you're just wrong, and a fricking moron

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sure thing. It's not like I've clarified multiple times that "anything is true if you die for it" isn't my argument lol. Not like I brought up examples. Not like I addressed specific cases. It just so happens that I'm stupid for making a historical argument and the best way to debunk it was "but a muslim blew himself up over something he heard".

            Are you being moronic on purpose, or are you just genuinely moronic?

            Nothing moronic about not tolerating the weakest pseudo-argument atheists ever had: "What if someone else had said it" lol

            >Rarely
            You do not need to see god to see god's glory. Imagine making such a basic mistake. They are all witness, and they testify to that through bloodshed.

            Which again, you would have known this if you shut the frick up for a second, left the thread to actually go give even a mild skim over jihadist rhetoric and came back. But you can't even do that.

            This isn't an argument. It's you digging your pit deeper.

            >all witnesses
            Yeah having an experience is not what that kind of witnessing means. Imagine making such a basic mistake.
            >don't need to see god
            Perhaps it has eluded you, but the point of comparison was Muhammad. And again, he has not seen even God's Glory in the Quran either, which if you want to believe is detached from God, feel free.

            You fail to respond to the points I'm making, you're just arguing based off of superficial knowledge.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's not like I've clarified multiple times that "anything is true if you die for it" isn't my argument lol. Not like I brought up examples. Not like I addressed specific cases. It just so happens that I'm stupid for making a historical argument and the best way to debunk it was "but a muslim blew himself up over something he heard".

            Correct. You didn't do any of this. You just pretended the two are totally different without ever explaining why

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you missed it please see

            is no historical claim they are claiming to have witnessed that is behind their death.
            >Jesus
            QED. There is no witness account.
            I am absolutely ok with the fact that they died for their religion and that they had dedication and faith in it. Doesn't mean shit to my argument, because my argument isn't "someone died for Christianity". My argument is that eye witnesses wrote testaments that they got tortured and died for rather than call them untrue.
            That a muslim somewhere blew up about a thing he couldn't really know is not a counter-argument.

            [...]
            You'll have to ask someone who argued "if ppl die for it, it's viable" lol

            The points being made is that a historical witness testimony is likely to be true if maintained under a death threat. Not a single person who died in Jihad made a historical witness testimony. It's not just about a person dying for a claim, because a person dying for something they couldn't actually know is meaningless.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The points being made is that a historical witness testimony is likely to be true if maintained under a death threat.

            And is 'Muhammed is God's final prophet' a historical claim and were the first jihadists under the threat of death?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is something they couldn't know, since God's prophet can't be reliably recognized by a commoner whatsoever. Hence it's not a historical witness testimony, no.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It is something they couldn't know, since God's prophet can't be reliably recognized by a commoner whatsoever.

            And how do you know this isn't just as true for Christianity? Did Paul ever meet Jesus? Where does most of the story of Christianity come from?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Paul saw him in a vision, and since it's Paul himself testifying of what he himself witnessed, I would count his insistence until death as the same thing as other apostles insisting their witness accoutns are valid.
            If you don't want to do that, I'm fine with only considering Matthew etc.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I would count his insistence until deat
            We have no evidence that this occurred.

            >as the same thing as other apostles
            We have no evidence that this occurred.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Rarely
            You do not need to see god to see god's glory. Imagine making such a basic mistake. They are all witness, and they testify to that through bloodshed.

            Which again, you would have known this if you shut the frick up for a second, left the thread to actually go give even a mild skim over jihadist rhetoric and came back. But you can't even do that.

            This isn't an argument. It's you digging your pit deeper.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >My argument is that eye witnesses wrote testaments that they got tortured and died for rather than call them untrue.

            Yes, and my argument is that someone would rather strap some bombs around him and blow himself up, rather than call your testaments true, so by your own logic, they can't be true

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They didn't die to prove a testimony
            they absolutely did homie, have you ever even listened to the shit that comes out of their mouth and their cleric's mouths?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I did. See

            Really? And what testimony would that be? That they saw Muhammad talk to Gabriel? Tell me more.
            Lol they die to prove their dedication, it is something they are pretty explicit about. There is no historical claim they are claiming to have witnessed that is behind their death.

            They don't testify to anything they've witnessed. They testify to their dedication. And they absolutely achieve this testament via their death.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            they testify to having witnessed the glory of god, having been driven to ecstasy and are proof that his righteous wrath is to be feared

            i can't tell if you're engaging in reductivism or if you're just generally incapable of understand how wildly perspectives and "anchors" of interpretation vary between cultures, but either way it's clear you don't actually know a whole lot about the state of religious affairs outside of the very tiny slice of pauline christianity. my recommendation when coming into a topic that you are ill-equipped to actually engage with in a meaningful format is that you listen and learn so you might be able to contribute something next time. otherwise you simply denigrate your own position by making yourself look a fool. i tell you this only because you're engaging in a sin by breaking the third commandment.

      • 4 months ago
        Dirk

        >what are the reasons that we should believe it's reliable?
        This isn't how history works but it's an ancient, well preserved source with thousands of surviving manuscript copies, it's written (much of it, talking about the NT) in historical prose, and hundreds of witnesses throughout the centuries treat it as history.
        We're already presupposing theism in this discussion, so why would you presume this text to be totally unreliable?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >because I said so

      They are all degenerations of the one truth.
      >muslim
      Muhammad is a guy who never saw God and nobody who did agreed with him. He's neither a prophet nor a verified source. Christianity has dozens of people who were in touch with God across centuries, all testifying to the same thing.
      >hindu
      >polytheist
      Polytheism is inferior because the source of reality must be One God as per both the revelations and the contingency argument. The few brands of hinduism that actually do approximate something of a monotheist framework are surpassed in every regard by Christianity - in consistency, in practice, in results etc.
      >pantheist
      Pointless philosophical label
      >deist
      Revelation.

      >because I don't like 'em

      >If you're going to cite the biblical account as evidence then what are the reasons that we should believe it's reliable?
      Because they are testimonies of multiple people who died for this message.

      >because people died for it!
      >please don't bring up all the people who died for heinous cults and political regimes

      embarrassing. this is why the catalog has "why do muh gaytheist" threads 24/7. their low IQ goes on full display when met with someone who who is of a different religion.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        don't bring up all the people who died for heinous cults and political regimes
        Please do. These points will fail just like your post fails to address

        The historicity of the nativity, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus

        and

        They are all degenerations of the one truth.
        >muslim
        Muhammad is a guy who never saw God and nobody who did agreed with him. He's neither a prophet nor a verified source. Christianity has dozens of people who were in touch with God across centuries, all testifying to the same thing.
        >hindu
        >polytheist
        Polytheism is inferior because the source of reality must be One God as per both the revelations and the contingency argument. The few brands of hinduism that actually do approximate something of a monotheist framework are surpassed in every regard by Christianity - in consistency, in practice, in results etc.
        >pantheist
        Pointless philosophical label
        >deist
        Revelation.

        .

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          so communism is a viable and just system because people died for it? is this what christcucks actually believe?

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    This isn't an argument, and I'm not trying to pass it off as one, since I don't actually have one I can think of and my own personal reason for being Christian, as opposed to another religion, is that Christianity specifically is the belief I was lead to after a lifetime of atheism, but I wanted to mention: an important distinction to make is that Christians (and it's likely same for most religions) don't actually believe that other religions are flat out make-believe, I'm sure the people of those other religions have experienced what they claim to (for the most part), rather the canonical Christian view is that other religions are the result of people worshipping lower deities than God, usually demons, who they have simply come to believe are the highest beings either through the trickery of those beings (again, typical demon stuff) or simply lack of knowledge of any higher beings. So you'll likely find most Christian arguments center around identifying other Gods as being remarkably similar to demons.

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    They are all degenerations of the one truth.
    >muslim
    Muhammad is a guy who never saw God and nobody who did agreed with him. He's neither a prophet nor a verified source. Christianity has dozens of people who were in touch with God across centuries, all testifying to the same thing.
    >hindu
    >polytheist
    Polytheism is inferior because the source of reality must be One God as per both the revelations and the contingency argument. The few brands of hinduism that actually do approximate something of a monotheist framework are surpassed in every regard by Christianity - in consistency, in practice, in results etc.
    >pantheist
    Pointless philosophical label
    >deist
    Revelation.

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The atheistic mind cannot grasp "dying for your words" so it regresses to the closest thing it knows - "dying for an institution".

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The perfection of the Scriptures mean they could only be authored by the only perfect Being. If Christianity had flaws, it would only be an imperfect or partial revelation, but it doesn't. Obviously I'm not going to go over every verse and dogma, but if a Moslem or deist has something he's hung up over, he is free to point it out.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The perfection of the Quran means they could only be authored by the only perfect Being. If Islam had flaws, it would only be an imperfect or partial revelation, but it doesn't. Obviously I'm not going to go over every verse and dogma, but if a Christian or deist has something he's hung up over, he is free to point it out.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, you would have to respond to that too if it was posted. Don't have a response?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Are you being moronic on purpose, or are you just genuinely moronic?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Least moronic atheist.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nice non-argument

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Like what you posted? Essentially

            >Nooooo but if someone else had said this I would have trouble making sense of it
            Damn, you're so right, atheists. Time to ditch the cross because you guys are confused lmao.

            ?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, like 'I'll magically reject my own logic when it's used to prove a completely different religion based on differences I never explain or demonstrate'.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            No magic involved in the same logic applying to different bodies of claims with different results lmao. Again, just because to you they seem the same doesn't mean the argument yields the same conclusions for them.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            The point of my post was that you can't prove a whole religion is completely flawless in its doctrines and scriptures in a single post but I was willing to reply to any perceived flaws anyone brought up. You then proceeded to give two totally braindead replies that have nothing to do with any of that.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >>>It's a question of consistency and individual arguments
        >>Haha but other theories are also claiming they are consistent!! How could I ever make sense of it all?! Not like I can check.

  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Nooooo but if someone else had said this I would have trouble making sense of it
    Damn, you're so right, atheists. Time to ditch the cross because you guys are confused lmao.

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I've seen plenty of christian arguments against atheism/for the existence of god
    I'm a Christian, and I would like to read more arguments for the existence of God, cna you please post some of those arguments?

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Christianity can account for all other religions theology. Vice versa isn't true.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      How so? It seems like both christians and non-christians can say that the other is wrong.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        My argument wasn't about who says what is wrong. My argument was that one system can account for another, but the other can only partially explain the former. That is objective.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          can you give an example? I don't fully understand your point.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            For example some pagan religions have a so-called "Deus Otiosus" narrative, where a creator God has departed from his creation and they are now managed by smaller deities or not managed at all. Christians can account for this by the fact that after the Tower of Babel, God ceased to govern all nations and handed them over to smaller spirits. After Christ, the spirits would either give the nations back or die. From the perspective of individual tribes, this would be a deus otiosus. And Christians have the theology to bridge from Christianity to these theological systems. But those same pagan religions cannot account for the fact that God had a Son and that he reclaims the world. They don't have the theology to understand that.

  9. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Where's that Anon who knows a whole lot about the state of religious affairs but at the end always reverts to "what if someone else said it"?

  10. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    I could present arguments, but honestly, my faith is mostly centered around a deep, rock solid certainty Christ rose from the dead.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *