Number of Christians (and Muslims) to grow, proportion of irreligious to fall

You can definitely compare Yaweh and Muhammad in this case since both of their actions are considered to be perfect. They don't condemn it. They say it was completely moral in the time that it happened exactly like Muhammad's marriage to Aisha. Ask a Christian to condemn the killing of nations in the OT and you'll find that they won't.

I read it multiple times and made sure it sunk in. They are not all timeless and always applicable and the drinking of alcohol (as well as the other abrogated) verses prove that!

I don't like being dragged into arguments but what's your point?

And I've explained the difference in the religions numerous times! Muhammad's morality is not condemned, Christians will not say the morality of the OT is relevant to today, Muslims will say the morality of the 7th century is relevant to today! Every normal Christian I've aksed would most certainly condemn it, and that's besides the point, as they won't say it's acceptable now. Muslims will.



And I already explained that the Quran, like many holy books, is contradictory. But this doesn't change Islam's official position on the immutability, perfection, timelessness and universality of the Quran and the vast majority of Muslims believe this. Christians don't believe this about the Bible nor is it part of Christian dogma.

Hey plantagenet crown doesnt understand my point about Christians having to assume things about the bible. Can I explain it to you so you can reiterate it to him?

What do they have to assume?

No many Muslims condemn child marriages being carried out today so that defeats everything you said. Hence, parts of the morality is not relevant today.

Because they don't know which parts are true about Jesus and which parts are made up. It's an all-or-nothing principle.

And BTW. Assumptions are not beliefs. Scientists assume things everyday. Doesn't mean they believe them.

EDIT: Sorry thought you asked why they have to assume. Well they don't believe the bible is completely authentic but to actually use it thy have to assume it's all true.

No it doesn't, because I already addressed this point. Ask them to condemn Muhammad and his actions and they won't. In this, as in many other things, they are very contradictory.

Islam is obviously false, this is a discussion about the official dogma of each religion, in which Islam claims its holy book is perfect and immutable, Christianity doesn't.

But how does that mean they assume all parts are true, they clearly don't, as very few Christians will believe all in all of the Bible. They don't treat is as some lucky jackpot guessing game. Most christians will believe all the stuff about Jesus is true, but beliefs that variate will usually be due to differences in sects and their beliefs, not because one sect randomly spun the bottle to determine what they believe and because one sect spun it for another..

No they don't have to assume it's all true to use it! Why would you have to assume all of the OT is true for example, to believe the NT's narration on the life of Jesus?

Again many Muslims condemn modern day child marriages as immoral. You said they will believe it is moral today.

I gave you an example of a rejected verse and you respond with Islam is false. You were the one shifting discussion.

Ok if such beliefs are down to sectarian beliefs and there is an actual system of knowing which parts to believe and which not to then I don't have a problem with it.

Nope. By teachings it is way better. And they actively denounce parts of their religion that is backwards and intolerant. They continue to strive towards progression.

Islam on the other hand advocates killing of apostates, rape, its prophet is paedophile and a warlord and a genuinely disgusting religion. It's degeneracies continue with its followers e.g. 52% of british muslims are against homosexuality.

And I didnt even mention terrorism.

Many will believe it is moral, as evidenced by Muslim majority countries refusing to outlaw it, and as explained before, what's more telling is whether they refuse to condemn Muhammad, and the Quran, which they won't. They try to have it both ways, but as long as they insist that the Quran is perfect and immutable, which they do, they are implicitly stating that everything within it is perfect and immutable. That's why you'll have Muslims condemning ISIS' actions, but refusing to condemn the text that inspires them (the Quran). You're still failing to acknowledge the distinct positions that Islam and Christianity have on their holy books, they're not the same.



There's no system of knowing anything about a god, it all boils down to interpretations and opinions, which is why there are many branches and sects of both Christianity and Islam.

I'm not talking about those who believe it is moral. I'm talking about those who don't. Christians don't condemn God for his actions and Muslims do not condemn Muhammad.

Mohammed is not god. He is your prophet

But if you abrogate a verse then surely the verse is not timeless as it no longer applies? That's the basically the definition of abrogation.

Loool, I'm not converting to Christianity at any point. How about you let us be us and we'll let you be you? Allah SAW is the greatest and is the one and only god. He has no partners. Sorry but I'm not sorry. Have a gd day tho

All muslims are against homosexuality. but we dont assault anyone because of it.