No God but One: Allah or Jesus?: A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity - Nabeel Qureshi Audiobook
Language: EnglishKeywords:
Nabeel Qureshi
No God But One
Shared by:Eric5253
Written by
Read by Nabeel Qureshi
Format: MP3
Unabridged
Having shared his journey of faith in the New York Times bestselling Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus, Nabeel Qureshi now examines Islam and Christianity in detail, exploring areas of crucial conflict and unpacking the relevant evidence.
In this anticipated follow-up book, Nabeel reveals what he discovered in the decade following his conversion, providing a thorough and careful comparison of the evidence for Islam and Christianity–evidence that wrenched his heart and transformed his life.
In Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus, Nabeel Qureshi recounted his dramatic journey, describing his departure from Islam and his decision to follow Christ. In the years that followed, he realized that the world’s two largest religions are far more different than they initially appeared.
No God but One: Allah or Jesus? addresses the most important questions at the interface of Islam and Christianity: How do the two religions differ? Are the differences significant? Can we be confident that either Christianity or Islam is true? And most important, is it worth sacrificing everything for the truth?
Nabeel shares stories from his life and ministry, casts new light on current events, and explores pivotal incidents in the histories of both religions, providing a resource that is gripping and thought-provoking, respectful and challenging.
Both Islam and Christianity teach that there is No God but One, but who deserves to be worshiped, Allah or Jesus?
| Announce URL: | http://tracker.publicbt.com/announce |
| This Torrent also has several backup trackers | |
| Tracker: | http://tracker.publicbt.com/announce |
| Tracker: | udp://tracker.publicbt.com:80/announce |
| Tracker: | udp://tracker.leechers-paradise.org:6969 |
| Tracker: | udp://tracker.coppersurfer.tk:6969 |
| Tracker: | udp://explodie.org:6969/announce |
| Tracker: | udp://tracker.desu.sh:6969 |
| Tracker: | udp://tracker.opentrackr.org:1337/announce |
| Tracker: | udp://tracker.tiny-vps.com:6969/announce |
| Tracker: | udp://tracker.vanitycore.co:6969/announce |
| Tracker: | http://tracker.baravik.org:6970/announce |
| Tracker: | http://tracker2.wasabii.com.tw:6969/announce |
| Creation Date: | Sun, 04 Feb 2018 22:00:56 -0500 |
| This is a Multifile Torrent | |
| No God but One_ Allah or Jesus_ - Nabeel Qureshi [cover].jpg 98.46 KBs | |
| Edonkey2000 Hash: | a2bf0568a9135f4a0ad84c317b3969c5 |
| _____padding_file_0_if you see this file, please update to BitComet 0.85 or above____ 157.54 KBs | |
| No God but One_ Allah or Jesus_ - Nabeel Qureshi.epub 709.46 KBs | |
| Edonkey2000 Hash: | d65b53a74ed8df9224cea17b519aa16a |
| _____padding_file_1_if you see this file, please update to BitComet 0.85 or above____ 58.54 KBs | |
| No God but One_ Allah or Jesus_ - Nabeel Qureshi.mobi 731.44 KBs | |
| Edonkey2000 Hash: | 27d40c97248cffa5033ad7da0d48ba8b |
| _____padding_file_2_if you see this file, please update to BitComet 0.85 or above____ 36.56 KBs | |
| No God but One_ Allah or Jesus_ - Nabeel Qureshi.mp3 511.15 MBs | |
| Edonkey2000 Hash: | 1ff18646617645784618258e12bca926 |
| _____padding_file_3_if you see this file, please update to BitComet 0.85 or above____ 97.55 KBs | |
| metadata.opf 3.35 KBs | |
| Edonkey2000 Hash: | 51693d660af7342b213ce492647ae815 |
| Combined File Size: | 513 MBs |
| Piece Size: | 256 KBs |
| Comment: | Updated by Biography Audiobooks |
| Encoding: | UTF-8 |
| Info Hash: | 646c38c05098152c5da359c50e3cefe6265b85ff |
| Torrent Download: | Torrent Free Downloads |
| Tips: | Sometimes the torrent health info isn’t accurate, so you can download the file and check it out or try the following downloads. |
| Direct Download: | Start Direct Download |
| Tips: | You could try out alternative bittorrent clients. |
| Secured Download: | Download Files Now |
| AD: |
|
This post has 24 comments with rating of 5/5
February 5th, 2018
Good one!
Thanks.
February 5th, 2018
Thank you for this!
February 5th, 2018
Shouldn’t the title be something like “No God but: Allah or Jesus or YHVH (though technically they’re the same one) or Zeus and the Greek pantheon or Odin and the Nordic pantheon or Inti and the Incan pantheon or Quetzalcoatl and the Aztec pantheon or Ra and the Egyptian pantheon or Enlil and the Summerian pantheon or…”? I feel there is an absurd, unwarranted dichotomy in the actual title…
February 5th, 2018
I’ve been looking for this book for a while. Thanks.
February 5th, 2018
Chipy25, take a chance and listen before you completely show your disdain.
February 5th, 2018
The Rose, I’m not judging the book itself, merely the premise of its title (which I AM mocking, as a result of the false dichotomy it presupposes). Imagine a book titled “Zebra Reproduction: Stork Theory or Sporogenesis?”, it would be (wrongly) presupposing that those theories are the only possible theories and regardless of its content, it should thus be mocked for such a title, for such a premise. (That is without getting into the notion, stated in the subtitle, that a former Muslim, now-Christian author will investigate the evidence for both (gee, what will he conclude? the suspense is killing me)…)
Again, I wasn’t judging the book’s content in my previous comment, just the mock-worthy title. Perhaps the book is good, perhaps the author does a great job, perhaps he proves that Jesus exists (even more astonishingly, perhaps he proves that the evidence suggests that Allah is the one true God). Even better, perhaps Mr. Qureshi truly analyzes both religions in a somewhat objective manner, comparing and contrasting them. I wasn’t commenting on any of that or his effort (though of course I have an idea, my own presumption of the content’s nature, partially based on my knowledge of Nabeel and my knowledge of and experience with similar books, but I didn’t express it).
Ironically, your comment received a response that is far more explicit on my “disdain” than my original comment, which (once again) was merely a criticism of (, a sarcastic remark on) the book’s title…
February 7th, 2018
PhilK, judging a whole generation by one single stupid specimen, says a lot about you.
As a Millennial, all I have to say in our defense is we were raised by your generation, so please talk to yourself if you have any complain.
Thank you very much for your time
Loli
February 7th, 2018
Loli, well, he ASSUMED I am a millennial and THEN judged the whole generation on an imagined (“single stupid”, as you eloquently put it) specimen. Mind you, this all started after I correctly (as I later explained) made fun of the title’s premise and got accused of “completely showing my disdain”. The fact that I calmly explained the logic behind my original comment and refused to judge the book itself, though acknowledging my presumptions, disagrees with your estimation of my “stupidity”. In any case, thank you for defending the millennial generation…
In any case, since I am (presumably) so young, you, wise ancient, (presumably) must have lived during the caring Inquisition or the loving Crusades, you know when non-Christians were persecuted by Christians (that is, effectively, Christianity murdered people who left the religion, unlike those filthy, evil, heretic Muslims who murder people who leave the religion). Also, what did you loving old Christians do to Giordano Bruno? Christians talking about Muslim barbarity (while correct) is hypocritical and they usually ignore their own history while throwing stones from a glass house. Beware the glass house you are in…
February 7th, 2018
Chipy25 - Wow! What an angry flow of discriminatory rhetoric. It seems to me that what The Rose was saying was perfectly reasonable, you’re essentially blundering and floundering against the cover of a book.
You don’t like some titles, fine, but try reading (or listening) and broadening your perspective.
Even after these efforts you may still be inclined to make ad hominem attacks, but truly informed critiques represent a better direction of travel.
Don’t merely swallow selective media tendentiousness and then bring your confirmation bias (which we’re all prone to) to every contentious issue.
Read about what atheist, secular regimes did to human beings in the 20th century.
Between them, with their forced famines, purges, death camps, cultural revolutions, “Special Actions” and policies of eugenics, they may have “liquidated” as many as 200 million human beings. Communism and Fascism have contributed nothing to the world, only death, torture and misery.
They liked to burn a few books too, probably based on the title or cover, because its fairly certain that they didn’t read or understand the works.
Also, you should reflect on the source of your ethics and morality - if you take a reasonably atheist position - is it still possible for you to access objective moral values? Can you condemn a truly wrong action based on universal values or is your condemnation merely relativized opinion?
If so, your morality is based on sand, such an ethical stance could comprehend murder, rape or paedophilia as acceptable cultural practices - depending on where one lives or was born.
No moral absolutes only contingency.
Or you could just unleash a stream of vituperative bile!
February 7th, 2018
Sorry, Loli, the second part of that is a separate comment:
Loli, well, he ASSUMED I am a millennial and THEN judged the whole generation on an imagined (“single stupid”, as you eloquently put it) specimen. Mind you, this all started after I correctly (as I later explained) made fun of the title’s premise and got accused of “completely showing my disdain”. The fact that I calmly explained the logic behind my original comment and refused to judge the book itself, though acknowledging my presumptions, disagrees with your estimation of my “stupidity”. In any case, thank you for defending the millennial generation…
February 7th, 2018
Philk, thanks for your ancient “Christian” love (and calling him young)! So, since I’m apparently (based on your “pompous” presumption) a millennial, you must be a self-important, “repulsive” old fart of the apathetic, hedonistic, apatheistic Gen X or the self-righteous, sexist, homophobic, old-fashioned, “real Christian” Baby Boomers.
In any case, since I am (presumably) so young, you, wise ancient, (presumably) must have lived during the caring Inquisition or the loving Crusades, you know when non-Christians were persecuted by Christians (that is, effectively, Christianity murdered people who left the religion, unlike those filthy, evil, heretic Muslims who murder people who leave the religion). Also, what did you loving old Christians do to Giordano Bruno? Christians talking about Muslim barbarity (while correct) is hypocritical and they usually ignore their own history while throwing stones from a glass house. Beware the glass house you are in…
February 7th, 2018
caesar963, what discriminatory rhetoric? I made fun of the premise of the book’s title and pointed out that I wasn’t making a judgement on the book itself. I do read/listen and broaden my perspective (it’s how I ended up an atheist). The only ad hominem attack I have made is towards Philk for his ad hominem attacks, as a ridiculous parody of his prejudice against millennials.
A truly informed critique of what? The book? I haven’t criticized the book (only acknowledged my own prejudices toward it), let alone made fallacious attacks against it. A truly informed critique would be a review of the book or the religion or whatever it is I am attacking in your mind that requires such a critique. That would require a far longer comment than I can bother to write here (I have only been responding to comments about me). I know about the socialist governments of the 20th century and must say there is a HUGE difference between atheism/secularism and the tyrannical, centralized governments with cults of personalities. Was the extermination of those 200 million people made in the name of atheism/secularism? No, it wasn’t. The governments banned religion to ban opposition to their authority, that is, for pragmatic reasons (in the present day we can appreciate, especially in the US, the clash of authorities between the secular state and the church). It should also be noted that socialism, communism, and Marxism (not the same thing) aren’t necessarily atheistic (read about Christian socialism and the communistic early Christians).
Are you under the impression that communism (the stateless, classless, moneyless utopia of socialists and Marxists) and fascism (corporate-aligned, public-private-fused, rightwing dictatorship) are the same thing as atheism? Or are you attributing their casualties to atheism as misleading rhetoric and absurd argumentation? In any case, I don’t know why you brought them up (Franco was a very-Christian fascist, as was Pinochet). Now that I think about it, the US, Latin America, and Europe (including Russia) are Christians and have committed atrocities, war crimes, and human rights abuses, so let us count them as part of the Christian death count (even though they aren’t committed in the name of Christianity). Thus, we conclude that slavery and the genocide of the Native Americans are the results of Christianity.
February 7th, 2018
caesar963, I apologize for the long, two-comment response, but I wanted to answer you seriously and honestly, which requires a long response (especially considering with are dealing with morality, its foundation, and its relation to religion).
Part 1:
The source of my ethics and morality? Well, you can be an atheist and still be a Platonist or Stoic or Epicurean, or ascribe to any other moral philosophy (the atheistic philosopher Schopenhauer has a wonderful book on the subject, where he provides a metaphysical foundation). Atheism only means not believing in God, not nihilism. However, I agree with you (and Nietzsche) that an honest atheism (or rather skepticism, which would reject Schopenhauer’s concept of “will”, not just deities) would admit a lack of a true, objective, or “fixed” foundation for their values. One has to choose one’s values and create one’s morality, rather than depend on higher beings that may or may not exist. One can base them on empathy and compassion, self-interest, truth and scientific inquiry, love, duty, reason (Kant provides a rational, universal morality, independent of God), or whatever else one wants.
Objective moral values are also complicated. An absolute “Thou shalt not kill” doesn’t allow for self-defense. Moreover, religious people differ in their values. Just watch a Jesuit priest and an orthodox Catholic priest discuss morality and you’ll see how two Catholics priests differ greatly in their values, despite a so-called (shared) objective or universal foundation. I should also note that the Ancient Greeks didn’t have a common morality based on their gods (who were more like superhumans than a GOD!, around whom reality centers), but on their culture (and probably history). Ultimately, regardless of whether one is religious or not, one has to create one’s values, even if unconsciously. We read, judge, and interpret the Bible with already-established values.
February 7th, 2018
caesar963, Part 2:
Nevertheless, I don’t see how religion (besides perhaps Buddhism) helps with objective moral values when people always pick and choose the religion’s values they like while ignoring the ones they don’t like. Slavery and the genocide of the Native Americans weren’t committed in an atheistic, morally nihilistic context, but a Christian one, with the so-called “objective moral values” or “universal values” Christianity gave them. Not just powerful corrupt men, but also ordinary people enslaved the Africans and exterminated the Americans while stealing their lands. Do you think everyone who participated in the colonization of the Americas was atheistic, morally ignorant, corrupt, or evil? Religion is already relativistic, that is, relative to the person.
On the relative nature of so-called immoral actions (such as murder and rape), even in the Bible, God orders genocides and the enslavement of virgins, kills the eldest child of every Egyptian family (including the innocents), and commits the greatest genocide in history (leaving only a family alive, so they can have God-approved incestuous relations to remake the human race (after the initial incest that created it)), and approved of abortion (in the case of, and to prove, infidelity). So, even the Bible believes that immorality is relativistic, that is, relative to God’s whim. A nihilistic atheism would make immorality relative to one’s whim, choice, or principle, though laws would still apply and be established based on consensus (no one wants to be murdered, stolen from, attacked, abused, etc.). So, while not an “objective” morality, one could ideally have a intersubjective morality based on empathy. Those who commit crimes are still punished based on the law (a lot of which is already made without religious principles; to my knowledge, YHVH didn’t prescribe financial regulations and an ideal minimum wage.)
February 7th, 2018
What specific Christian doctrine mandates these murders and atrocities? The Parable of the Good Samaritan? The Gospel of Matthew? The Sermon on the Mount?
The atheist, secular Nazis and Communists who murdered as many 200 million human beings, detested Christianity. They actively acted against the doctrines of Peace, Love, Charity and Forgiveness.
The Nazis believed that all Christianity was a residue of Jewish poison, the religion of the slave, and it weakened Aryans with beliefs such as Turn the Other Cheek and Love Thy Neighbour.
The Civil Rights Movement was motivated by Christian principles and those activists, or any other Christians, can’t be held responsible for anyone who may distort Christian values.
Quakers and Catholics who opposed the Vietnam War were not distorting Christian values.
Nor were the Quakers who struggled to feed starving people during the Great Famine in Ireland when the Royal Navy were turning away ships filled with food aid from other countries.
The Catholic Liberation Theology activists who died protecting poor people from fascist regimes in South and Central America (tortured by savages trained in the School of the Americas in Georgia) they were not distorting Catholic doctrine either.
Are there any atheist equivalents of Dietrich Bonhoeffer or MLK?
By the way I don’t have any hostility towards people who take an atheist position (just to dial down the ad hominem - not constructive) but I’m truly interested in your view on how morality can be grounded in atheism? I used to be one, but I just look at this history and see the suppression of the Christian values we mentioned and then the nihilistic moral vacuum which remained, quickly filled by murderous ideology. If everything is based on this empty materialism then human life has no value and can be discarded in the name of progress.
You seem to be idealising the Communism of Russia, China and the rest. This is truly revealing and disturbing. Doesn’t that conceal the forced famines, purges, death camps and Cultural Revolution? Read Solzhenitsyn, this was not Utopia! The death count for communism leaves even the evil Fascists in the shade.
But they were all, right or left, able to unleash their brutality because they were “freed” from the shackles of any principled moral system.
Communist or Fascist, it doesn’t matter, you still end up just as dead.
The truly informed critique referred to the approach one should take in fully investigating this area.
You can’t seriously be attacking the cover of the book? You say you’re prejudiced against it, that’s not informed or reasonable.
February 7th, 2018
caesar963, this will be a long three-part response, so be patient:
First, the more personal matters:
I’m prejudiced against this (type of) book, insofar as my previous experiences with Nabeel and similar books give me a general attitude towards them. Thus, a “prejudice” based on experience, that is, because I am informed. And yes, again, I was making fun of the premise of the title (that is, a false dichotomy). I didn’t make a single criticism of the author or the book’s content in my original comment. I wasn’t making any serious critique of the book nor was I planning on having a philosophical debate on the foundation of morality, a discussion on my original comment, and a back-and-forth with ad Hominems.
When did I idealize the “communism” of Russia, China, and the rest? If you mean my description of communism as an utopia, then I’m talking about the actual definition of communism (a STATE-LESS, moneyless, CLASS-LESS society where the means of production are owned and controlled democratically by the community as a whole; that is the actual definition of communism). What those countries had was socialism (specifically state socialism, just as there are libertarian capitalism and social democracy, so too there are different socialisms) and they never ever claimed to be communist (communism to them was like the Second Coming, a promised day that would make all the hardships be worth it; in fact, in Marxist thought, communism is the stage of development that succeeds socialism). Thus, it is inaccurate to describe those countries and the soviet model as “communist”; they claimed to be “socialist”, nothing more, or less.
It is sad to find out that atheists didn’t participate in the Civil Rights Movement (how did you find out?). An argument can be made that the movement was based on equality (and, politically, on liberalism, by which I don’t mean the center-left ideology of the US, but the actual philosophy, with Locke and the rest), not Christianity. That it was led by Christians is not the same thing. On the Quakers and Liberation Theology activists points I agree wholeheartedly.
On the question of atheist equivalents of Bonhoeffer and MLK, that is a difficult question since for most of the last two millennia, atheists were persecuted and killed, so they weren’t open about their beliefs. Similarly, considering that atheism has no doctrines (it is merely a lack of belief in deities), activists have no reason to declare their atheism. For example, the union leader, democratic-socialist presidential candidate, and social activist Eugene Debs was likely an atheist, but had no reason to say it, since it had no significant importance in his social activism, which was based on his socialist principles. Atheism is only a source for social activism against theocracy and religious intervention in politics, where there are famous atheist activists. Despite this, important openly-atheist activists include Emma Goldman, Goparaju Ramachandra Rao (or Gora, for short) and his wife Saraswathi, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, William L. Moore, and Nicolas Walter (A. Philip Randolph is sometimes described as an atheist). You can use the internet to search for a list of atheist activists if you want an actual list of people (Wikipedia has one).
February 7th, 2018
caesar963, Part 2:
What “atheistic doctrine” mandated or demanded the atrocities you attribute to atheism? Atheism has no doctrine, besides there being no god. Any murder committed by a soviet was in the name of socialism (and the eventual communist paradise), not atheism. The murder is thus strictly attributed to soviet socialism, not atheism (which is ridiculous). Also, let’s leave the Nazis out of this, since we could spend the whole discussion debating whether they were atheists or Christians or something else (there is an actual debate on the subject). And again, Christian fascists include Franco and Pinochet (the only atheist fascist I know of is Mussolini), so a significant part of fascism’s death count is Christian (and most, if not probably every, Latin American dictator was/is Christian, so add their numbers too).
If by “these murders and atrocities” you mean slavery and the genocide of the Native Americans, then you didn’t understand me. I am saying that attributing the socialist/communist death count to atheism is like attributing these atrocities committed by Christians to Christianity. If they were not committed in the name of said position (Christianity/secularism/atheism), then they are not attributable to it. Though, the Bible does implicitly condone slavery (and abortion) insofar as it has guidelines for it. You should know that slavery in the US was defended (and condemned) by Christians with the Bible (or is anyone who has a different interpretation of Christianity not truly a Christian? Tell me, so I can do the same to “fake atheists”…). If you can attribute the death count committed by atheists to atheism, then I can attribute all deaths committed by Christians to Christianity (I don’t know about you, but I suspect that with 2,000+ years and ruling a large part of the world throughout them, they probably have a pretty big death count…).
Peace, love, charity, and forgiveness are not solely Christian values or doctrines. Moreover, those are not the only things mentioned in the Bible. It also includes passages like Deuteronomy 13 and 17 and Numbers 31. That goes to my point that Christians ignore the “nasty” parts of the Bible and pick and choose the ones they like (others focus on the homophobia, rather than loving the poor).
Distorting Christian values and acting on them (what if they merely focus on others or interpret them differently than you) is closer to acting in the name of Christianity than acting in the name of atheism, which prescribes no values or doctrines. Moreover, most Marxists, socialists, and communists argue that the soviet model was a distortion of the doctrines of socialism/Marxism (they are about as right as you are). Where in Marx’s writings does it mandate the atrocities and murders committed by the governments that called themselves “socialist”? Nowhere! Marx would have been horrified by Stalin’s and Mao’s actions as well as the tyrannies of the so-called “socialist” countries, which claimed to have been inspired by his writings.
February 7th, 2018
Finally, caesar963, part 3:
On your question of atheism and morality, atheism only precludes God as a basis for morality, not philosophies and metaphysical theories (e.g. Platonism and Schopenhauerian philosophy). Atheism does not have to be nihilistic. Morality can be grounded atheistically in duty, reason, compassion, empathy, love, self-interest, and other such concepts (though perhaps what you want is to justify your own Christian morality without Christianity; in such a case, Nietzsche has good news for you: most philosophers merely provide a rational or irreligious ground for Christian morality, rather than question it).
Only in a nihilistic atheism, can morality never be objective (again, this isn’t the only type of atheism). Read Schopenhauer’s “On the Basis of Morality” if you want a completely atheistic grounding of a morality based on compassion. Kant’s rational, universal morality of duty is also independent of any deity, establishing the human subject as legislator of moral laws through reason, which he claims (with as much evidence as moralists do with morality) is universal, and based on a principle similar to “do as you would like other to do unto you”. For practical purposes, both Spinoza and Einstein were atheists and both provide their own accounts of morality (the latter grounds it in empathy and rejects any need for religion as a ground; I recommend his essay “Religion and Science”).
On your point of nihilistic moral vacuums, they happen already, in Christian contexts. What do you think slavery and the Native American genocide were?( Or the Crusades and the Holy Inquisition?) They occurred in a Christian context, where Christians (with the approval of the pope himself) kidnapped, enslaved, raped, tortured, and exterminated Africans and Americans. What suppressed the Christian values then? Francoist Spain and Pinochet’s Chile were Christian fascist countries for decades, suffering their governments’ tyrannies (to their credit, local priests, especially Jesuits, opposed them). There was no collapse of Christianity in those countries and the darkness of the human soul (or, as you put it without the poetry, “murderous ideology”) appeared anyway. All these things you criticize about atheism already occur in Christian contexts.
You are wrongly viewing atheism as nihilism or as an empty, nihilistic materialism, which few atheists believe in (check Neil deGrasse Tyson’s description of the universe). Atheists can be “spiritual” (again, deGrasse Tyson) and the atheistic left (including anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, socialists, communists, anti-capitalists, and Marxists) opposes the consumerism and empty materialism that capitalism encourages. CAPITALism focuses on money and individualistic nihilistic materialism, while SOCIALism and COMMUNism and leftist strands of anarchism focus (and encourage) a social and communal feeling, an attitude of equality, fairness, sharing, solidarity, and altruism.
I’m afraid this is my last comment here, so I hope that you enjoyed our discussion as much as I did and that I was helpful in your inquiries about the relationship between morality and religion/atheism. I probably won’t be reading any further responses, so I wouldn’t recommend bothering to write an long, argumentative response to my comment. I’m afraid this discussion is at an end, but it was nice while it lasted and I thank you for it.
April 10th, 2019
Just to address the original statement of Chipy25, although according to his last comment he will no longer be reading any comments on this. The reason the title is “No God but one” is because their can be only one true God. The premise of this book is the exploration of that subject. All of the other “god’s” Chipy25 mentioned in his first comment are fakes, frauds. While they may have made great displays of so called “power” in either myth or even reality, they are petty in comparison to the one true God. Bear in mind that the title of the book is a question, not a statement. It’s an exploration. You are given the right to make of it what you will and decide for yourself. That too is one of the premises of our beliefs. As we believe that God has created, we also believe that He has granted men free choice. Which explains a lot of the reasons that the world is in the state its in today.
Chipy25 also mentioned the crusades of Christians against non-christians. In regards to that, I would question whether they were really Christians at all. There are many instances in history where man has taken the banner of one religion or another and utterly misrepresented it. As I read my Bible, I find no references where Jesus called us to kill those who oppose us. Rather, I read in Matthew where Jesus says to ” But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Matthew 5:44 KJV
That cannot be misconstrued as a command the crusaders were following. At best they were utterly misguided and at worst they were imposters using the name of Christianity to wreak havoc. And I haven’t even gotten to the fact that people can do all manner of evil things under the name of any function, religion or group. I find often though that people only point to flaws they can find in Christianity to prove their point. What they often forget though is that we don’t claim to be perfect. We claim to serve a perfect God. Which means that if you really want to find dirt on our clothes, you’re going to find it. We have, are and will make mistakes. So do you.
If any one has any more questions about this, I’ve only touched the tip of the iceberg on this issue. I also know that others have posted on this issue already and I confess I haven’t read their responses. From what I did read, it didn’t seem like anyone addressed the “question” raised in the first comment.
April 10th, 2019
I also want to be sure I address the heart of the real issue at hand. The real heart of Christianity is that as I already mentioned, we are all broken people and Christ Jesus is the only answer to our spiritual dilemma. And when I say all, I mean ALL people in general, no one is exempt even if you think you are OK. The heart of Christianity is that all have sinned and fall short, that Christ Jesus paid our debt by coming to earth, living a perfect life (which I think we all could agree none of us could do) and dying in our place to take the punishment for our transgressions. Since all have free choice, the ability to accept that free gift is up to you. Whether you accept it or not is up to you. Laugh now, weep forever.
April 24th, 2019
Also, bear in mind that many of the issues Chipy25 mentioned where God “acted on a whim” as chipy puts it, were in fact not acting on a whim at all. First let me address the Exodus. God did not begin by wiping out the firstborn of the Egyptians. In fact he warned them, chiefly Pharaoh to let his people go. Bear in mind that Egypt was unlawfully enslaving the Jewish people and subjecting them to bondage. Also allow me to draw your attention to the fact that it was not only Pharaoh that made the decision not to let the people go, it was an entire nation. Therefore, before bringing any plague they were given a warning, then a plague, warning, plague recurring 9 times BEFORE THE KILLING of the firstborn. In other words they were warned 9 times with lighter more bearable plagues before they were subjected to the killing of the firstborn. Which means they were also most certainly warned before the firstborn plague as well. How is that God’s fault? It wasn’t, Pharoah and the Egyptians brought that upon themselves.
Secondly, addressing the issue of the Flood of Noah which he (or she) eluded to. Once again, all of the inhabitants of the earth at that time were also warned of the Flood to come before it actually happened. It was their choice to stay behind. Chipy makes it sound like God played the favorite when it came to the people who got on the ark when that is in fact the furthest from the truth. The Bible relates that Noah preached the Flood warning message for at least 50-60 years while building the ark. All who died in the Flood was by their own choice.
Also, Chipy refers to the incest of the reproduction of humanity after the Flood. I find that actually laughable, because I have no idea what he’s talking about! And apparently he’s misguided in that issue and has only displayed his ignorance. Noah and his family got on the ark and the Bible tells us as follows that: In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
Genesis 7:13 KJV
So pardon my sarcasm but who committed incest with who?
September 27th, 2023
Rarely have I seen a comments section so full of mental midgets with large vocabularies. Caesar, have you ever found a hornet’s nest you DIDN’T hit with a stick?
How can so many words be used while at the same time saying nothing?
October 23rd, 2023
Define…”nothing,” PP. It’s become controversial - if you follow the current controversies.
May 28th, 2025
Please reseed. Thanks.
Add a comment