Bro what? There you go judging and making assumptions again

You're right a lot of violence has been committed in the name of religion. Idk why I expected any better of you

"pretty much untraceable in origin stories" im supposed to somehow read that and come to this post that you wrote?

next time be more forthcoming with what you're trying to say, and regardless this is still a semantic and terrible critique on Christianity in general, you didn't even address half of the paragraphs i had sent earlier

in addition, something being untraceable is not an indictment on the actual falsifiability of something, ala the absence of evidence etc. unless of course you're some brand of covert scientific rationalist, in which there is a very long conversation to be had

yep and a lot of violence has been committed in the name of other secular ideologies, it has also singlehandedly bred nihilism and skyrocketed suicide rates in today's society too, but of course with your absolute distaste for anything religious you're willing to look over that

wait until bro finds out most genocides were committed by atheists

No lol because that sentence it is very applicable to the term Bible which inherently means the compilation of all the scriptures.

To this point you’re still misrepresenting the argument and also my character considering the fact you’re labeling me as a scientific rationalist when I’m a Muslim lol

You commenting and explaining the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence to me basically is irrelevant. We’re talking about comparing two different faiths here and Christianity fails where Islam doesn’t.

I don't have distaste towards religion. I have distaste for hypocritical and judgemental religious people like yourself.

No lol because that sentence it is very applicable to the term Bible which inherently means the compilation of all the scriptures.
To this point you’re still misrepresenting the argument and also my character considering the fact you’re labeling me as a scientific rationalist when I’m a Muslim lol
You commenting and explaining the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence to me basically is irrelevant. We’re talking about comparing two different faiths here and Christianity fails where Islam doesn’t. Your entire defense of Christianity when argued for Islam would be redundant because Islam can actually verify its primary source to dictations to the current version of the Quran.

You put up some weird strawman and made the whole discussion about some make-believe criticism I had of the contents of the Bible when in fact Islam and Muslims believe in the old testament in many forms

you can be a muslim and have covert scientific rationalist tendencies which you're exhibiting by trying to discredit an entire wealth of evidence and information pertaining to the historical reliability of Christianity off the basis that we can't empirically verify/confirm where exactly they began to be compiled and written, that is no different from how atheists go about and say "books written thousands of years ago" like that's somehow an actual criticism on religion as a whole - this is completely tangenital to what i thought you were initially arguing in the first place mind you

you're extending empiricism to lengths to the point that it's literally the pedestal of your argument, it is extremely relevant whether you want to admit it or not

But this is the thing and probably the most relevant framework to keep in mind when we’re talking about this — Islam as a faith is considered to be a rectified version of Christianity and Judaism, (all Muslims believe this) as it is believed the Scriptures/Books of those faiths
have been corrupted and the practice of them through oral history and observations during the time of the prophet Muhammad SWT. It is believed that the prophet received the correct version of the Old Testament when the Quran was revealed to him.

You have the world’s second largest religion of 2 billion followers they’re able to take the leap of faith of Islam because they see the rationale and concern surrounding the origins of Christianity and its holy book and its current practice at various stages of history

the socialism vs capitalism threads were getting boring, i’m f***ing with this

okay and that's fine, this kind of ties in with me calling you a dogmatist earlier, if that's what you've been taught and instilled, naturally you're going to criticize the Bible in that way, when in actuality the epistemic woes of history does not have anything to do with the actual religion, it has to do with the limits of human knowledge itself and it should not be leveraged to discredit religion literally at all

this is borderline no different of saying "how do you know God wrote the book? did you see it for yourself?" it's straight up douche-y skepticism

No it isn’t because I was literally raised Catholic and chose the religion which makes the most sense it to me in my 20s.

You tend to make a lot of assumptions about people lol

you can choose a diff religion and still be a product of that religion's dogma my guy

Is being gay a sin?

In your view sure if you want to undermine the critical assessment and personal reflections of what went into that decision and how I practice my faith lol.

You can’t just go around calling people of different faiths victims of dogma for calling out legit criticisms in a thread meant to compare and contrast two separate religions

Ultra religious people get their morals from a book while a normal person can figure out right from wrong

But secular people are coping

Secular people morals are just a decentralized religion known as western philosophy upheld by ruling classes so whatever man

You just said a bunch of nothing

It’s pretty basic

You can link a small group influential philosophers whose ideas and teachings governed and guided the actions of various empires, ruling classes of people, and societal organization throughout all of western civilizations history. For the vast majority of history the only people with the luxury of being educated were the elites and they opted to embrace philosophy as enlightenment, religion was for the poor for the most part.

ive actually been reading a s*** ton about this topic in particular, and there's some arguments that say that being gay was actually condemned within Leviticus because it was done under a pagan god, versus the actual act of being gay itself being a sin (this is also not getting into Leviticus essentially being amended when Jesus came out in the New Testament and died for our sins) this also kind of plays in the literalism vs contextualism dichotomy within Christianity as well

"The stories of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) and the Levite’s concubine (Judges 19) are about sexual violence and the Ancient Near East’s stigma toward violating male honor. The injunction that “man must not lie with man” (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13) coheres with the context of a society anxious about their health, continuing family lineages, and retaining the distinctiveness of Israel as a nation. Each time the New Testament addresses the topic in a list of vices (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10), the argument being made is more than likely about the sexual exploitation of young men by older men, a practice called pederasty, and what we read in the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans is a part of a broader indictment against idolatry and excessive, self-centered lust that is driven by desire to “consume” rather than to love and to serve as outlined for Christian partnership elsewhere in the Bible."

hrc.org/resources/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality

hell, the Bible was even used to justify slavery and when the interpretation (as it says in the article) swapped within a society, it no longer was leveraged to do that

static1.squarespace.com/static/54c917b1e4b0c192557a0337/t/5f05febd7e6b942a780932dd/1594228420632/Is+same-sex+attraction+or+%28being+gay%29+a+sin_.pdf

here's another resource i checked out a long time ago if you're genuinely interested, also:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_affirming_LGBT_people#Denominations

i mean many secular western morals are inherited from the christian religion morals the religious aspect just been secularized

i don't think critical assessment is the correct word for it if you couldn't pull out "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" out of your ass for such piss poor philosophical argumentation

this is really base level epistemology