Red cows pagan sacrifice to capture Al-Aqsa, a solar eclipse, and Aid-el-fitr.

You indicated (among other things) that Jews and Christians are "pagans". They are literally the opposite of pagans. The term "pagan" is from Middle English, where it was used to describe those who were neither Christians, nor Jews. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pagan

The common modern definition includes anyone who worships more than one god (i.e., polytheists-- which happens to be another category you lumped Christians and Jews into). Again, Christians and Jews would not qualify. They are two of the three major monotheistic world religions.

Heck, in Islam, there is a unique term for Christians and Jews that seperates them from pagans and polytheists. People of the Book (or, according to wikipedia, أهل الكتاب).

This makes your entire topic nonsensical and indecipherable, as you are basically trying to strip any sort of denotation from words to trigger an emotional reaction towards Christians and Jews that is not really present in Islam. You might as well have written about how the Banana People of Jupiter were trying to eat your precious burrito, and that it was your duty as a Muslim to find the right sauce.

How are we supposed to take gibberish seriously?

And don't even get me started on the later implications. It feels like you drew inspiration from evangelical Christian moms of the 1970s talking about how rock and roll was ruining the souls of the youth. If we're being completely honest, I had flashbacks to the movie "Day of the Beast".

@clousems said in #11:
> You indicated (among other things) that Jews and Christians are "pagans". They are literally the opposite of pagans. The term "pagan" is from Middle English, where it was used to describe those who were neither Christians, nor Jews. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pagan
You want to do it this way, let's do it. I did research just for you.
First, Christians. We know Christians _of today and after Jesus' era_ preach the trinity, a belief literally no one can understand. The trinity is literally 3 persons = 1 being, and those 3 persons must be coequal and coeternal. Jesus didn't even teach the trinity at his time, because nowhere in the old nor new testaments there's the word "trinity". And in the bible, there are verses that indicate that at least two persons in the trinity aren't coequal (as far as I'm aware). www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2024%3A36 (we both agree God knows everything, but the "Son" doesn't know the hour so he ddoesn't know everything, so he's not God). Or
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026%3A39&version=NIV (We both agree God can do everything, so Jesus can't be God because he is praying to the Father).

Christians are teaching something new to what Jesus was actually teaching, which corresponds to the definition of "paganism".

Second, Jews. Down is my view on why Judaism isn't monotheism. And you agree anything that is new to a well-known religion is paganism, because it's new and hasn't been teached before.

> The common modern definition includes anyone who worships more than one god (i.e., polytheists-- which happens to be another category you lumped Christians and Jews into). Again, Christians and Jews would not qualify. They are two of the three major monotheistic world religions.
Dude, Christians of today literally preach the trinity, which is easily arguable it's not monotheist (because it's 3=1), and I already demonstrated the Trinity isn't teached in the bible.

Now to Jews. Monotheism isn't just "believe in one God and that's it". Pure monotheism means you worship one God and you do not associate with him attributes that are not for God.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206:5-7&version=NIV You agree Genesis is a book in the Old Testament, and Jews follow the Old Testament. So why in Genesis, God "regrets"? if you regret, that means you made a mistake. God doesn't make mistakes by definition, so Judaism isn't monotheistic.

> Heck, in Islam, there is a unique term for Christians and Jews that seperates them from pagans and polytheists. People of the Book (or, according to wikipedia, أهل الكتاب).
Do I have to distinguish for the 10th time the Christians of Jesus' time and Christians of today? Jews of Moses' time and Jews of today? The Jews who follow the Torah [of Moses] in its original form and the Christians who follow the Gospel [of Jesus] are believers and will not be harmed, because they followed God's messengers. The أهل الكتاب are a term to distinguish between those christians and jews, and the idolaters / polytheists.

> This makes your entire topic nonsensical and indecipherable, as you are basically trying to strip any sort of denotation from words to trigger an emotional reaction towards Christians and Jews that is not really present in Islam.
> You might as well have written about how the Banana People of Jupiter were trying to eat your precious burrito, and that it was your duty as a Muslim to find the right sauce.
It's simple; There are Christians who believed, and Christians who disbelieved. The Christians and Jews who followed Jesus and Moses completely who believed in one God without any innovation are أهل الكتاب. I think this is where you misunderstanding is.
I don't need an emotional reaction towards Christians and Jews of today. I just need them to have an open mind and to look twice at their bible. I will not force them to convert, because God ordered me so, and I'm too lazy.

@WassimBerbar said in #12:

Wassim, you don't get to define words based how you want them to be defined. Paganism, as already defined by clousems, refers to polytheism. Because the Trinity is still one God, you cannot say that the Trinity is Paganism.

As for religious arguments, I think it's a bit odd to be arguing that in what I thought was an April Fool's prank by you?

Monotheism, as defined by Oxford Languages, is "the doctrine or belief that there is only one God." Because both Jews and Christians believe there is only one God, they qualify to be recognized as monotheistic.

Again, friendly reminder the meaning of words don't change just because we want them to. If it worked like that, I could call everyone pagan except for this super specific hyper small branch of Christianity...and get away with it. But if we all got to define words the way we wanted and there was no general consensus, words wouldn't have meaning, would they?

@WassimBerbar said in #12:
>Now to Jews. Monotheism isn't just "believe in one God and that's it". Pure monotheism means you worship one God and you do not associate with him attributes that are not for God.

No. It does not. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monotheism
www.oed.com/dictionary/monotheism_n?tab=factsheet#36336947

> Christians are teaching something new to what Jesus was actually teaching, which corresponds to the definition of "paganism".

No. It does not. See my previous post.

As for your conclusion regarding People of the Book being used to describe Christians and Jews who were really... uh, just other Muslims*, the combination of time difference between the death of Christ and the Islamic teachings on the matter would indicate that Muslims knew pretty damn well what Christians thought by the time the Quran was finished (c. 600 AD). Also, God is omniscient, so it would be odd for him to put his seal of approval on a book compiled 600 years after it was outdated.

I submit to you the following lines of reason:

1) Islamic theology is based on the Quran
2) You are dismissing the teachings of the Quran to fit your personal narrative
3) You are dismissing Islamic theology, and are thus an infidel**
----------------------------

I respect your devotion to your religion, but I once again respectfully request that you stop. Lichess isn't a place for you to preach, and its especially not a place to accuse other religions of being false ones.

-----------------------------
* One has to wonder why the distinction would exist between Christians, Jews, and Muslims prior to the development of Christianity and Islam as distinct religions. Remember-- the Quran was compiled 600 years AD. Muhammed was born 570 AD.

**By the way, THAT is probably the term you were looking for-- it literally means one who has no faith, and can be used to mean anyone who doesn't follow a certain religion.

To sum up #14:
Reality is not mandated by desire or preference.

@clousems said in #14:
> No. It does not. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monotheism
> www.oed.com/dictionary/monotheism_n?tab=factsheet#36336947
This is overall. It's in the word, mono + theism. But let's imagine for one second, there's for example, a rock, and you say there's one God, the rock. Is it monotheism?
If yes, then it's not logical, because it's a rock, it can't do anything, it sits there and does nothing. The rock can't be God.
If not, then you agree monotheism isn't only believing in one God. Yes, monotheism is belief in one God in general, but you got to clarify wether you give created things' attributes to God or God's attributes to created things, because the last two cases cannot mean monotheism.

> No. It does not. See my previous post.
I literally justified it. "Pagan" means "Relating to, characteristic of religions that differ from main world religions" according to the wiktionary article you just sent. I can't believe you said "no" when I used an article you yourself posted.

> As for your conclusion regarding People of the Book being used to describe Christians and Jews who were really... uh, just other Muslims*, the combination of time difference between the death of Christ and the Islamic teachings on the matter would indicate that Muslims knew pretty damn well what Christians thought by the time the Quran was finished (c. 600 AD).
And? What's the issue? Muslims knew what Christians thought between the "crucifixion" of Jesus and the revelation of the Quran (نبوة prophethood of Mohammad صلى الله عليه و سلم). There were Christians who believed, and Christians who disbelieved. Those Christians who believe in one God before the revelation of the Quran are still believers.

It's like saying "David is the messenger of God and got the زبور Zaboor revealed to him, but why another revelation after him?". Simple: Because there were people who disbelieved. And when Mohammed صلى الله عليه و سلم came, Islam was completed. Islam abrogated the commands of the scriptures of the previous prophets. Got it?

> Also, God is omniscient, so it would be odd for him to put his seal of approval on a book compiled 600 years after it was outdated.
God is independent. He doesn't need to do what you expect him to do. He "put his seal of approval" on the scriptures at the time of the prophets. The Quran approves the Injil of Jesus, the Tawrat (original Torah) of Moses, the Zaboor of David, and the scriptures of all the prophets.

> I submit to you the following lines of reason:
>
> 1) Islamic theology is based on the Quran
You forgot the Sunnah, and you forgot the Salaf. Muslims don't just follow the Quran, we also follow the Sunnah with the understanding of the Salaf.

> 2) You are dismissing the teachings of the Quran to fit your personal narrative
No. Tell me otherwise where i didn't follow the Quran or the Sunnah or سلف الأمة.

> 3) You are dismissing Islamic theology, and are thus an infidel**
No. Tell me otherwise where i didn't follow the Quran or the Sunnah or سلف الأمة.

> I respect your devotion to your religion, but I once again respectfully request that you stop. Lichess isn't a place for you to preach, and its especially not a place to accuse other religions of being false ones.
Who brought up Islam and Judaism and Christianity in the first place in a discussion about the day of Judgement? lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/red-cows-pagan-sacrifice-to-capture-al-aqsa-a-solar-eclipse-and-aid-el-fitr?page=2#11
You brought up those three religions out of nowhere. No one mentioned أهل الكتاب before you did in #11. You tell me I should stop when you're the first one derailing from the original topic.

> * One has to wonder why the distinction would exist between Christians, Jews, and Muslims prior to the development of Christianity and Islam as distinct religions. Remember-- the Quran was compiled 600 years AD. Muhammed was born 570 AD.
For the 10th time, the people of the book who believed in one God and obey his commands are believers. Those who disbelieved from the people of the book are who I'm talking about that disbelieved, the Christians who believe in the Trinity and the Jews who give God human attributes.

@greenteakitten said in #13:
> Wassim, you don't get to define words based how you want them to be defined. Paganism, as already defined by clousems, refers to polytheism. Because the Trinity is still one God, you cannot say that the Trinity is Paganism.
Clousems posted the Wiktionary of thee word "Pagan", and used as an adjective, pagan is "Relating to, characteristic of religions that differ from main world religions". Something different from main world religions.

> As for religious arguments, I think it's a bit odd to be arguing that in what I thought was an April Fool's prank by you?
I already said it's not an April Fool's joke, and I do not make jokes about such topics, even on April 1st. April 1st is like any other day of the year, at least for me.

> Monotheism, as defined by Oxford Languages, is "the doctrine or belief that there is only one God." Because both Jews and Christians believe there is only one God, they qualify to be recognized as monotheistic.
You dismissed everything I said. The Bible (old and new testaments) give God human attributes, like "God regretted created human beings".

> Again, friendly reminder the meaning of words don't change just because we want them to. If it worked like that, I could call everyone pagan except for this super specific hyper small branch of Christianity...and get away with it.
He posted what he thinks is the best reference for the definition of "pagan", I follow the definition given by my arguing opponent. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pagan#Adjective

@clousems I recommend you stop your spoiling the original topic of this discussion right now. I expected you to be better than this, Clousems. Stop this while it's time.

@WassimBerbar, you got a couple things wrong here.

1) If I declare a rock is God and only that rock is God and that there are no other gods, then that religion which I shall call Rockism is indeed monotheism according to the dictionary.

Look, whether something "makes sense" or doesn't "make sense" isn't part of the definition for good reason - humans have very different ideas of what will make sense.

2) Christianity is the biggest world religion worldwide. If your definition of paganism is "religions that differ from major world religions" - I'm sorry, but you would still be wrong. The fact that Christianity is bigger than Islam as a religion means that by your own definition Islam is pagan and Christianity is the monotheistic religion. This is why we don't make our own definitions ;)

3) If you wanna talk about religion, fine. "Regret" in the original Hebrew text refers to something different from "regret" in the modern human sense. Look, we could talk semantics all day, but like you said, you don't want to "spoil the original topic", do you? ;)

4) You were the original one to bring up Christians and Jews as "pagans". Don't think you can back out of that now :)

I'll leave clousems for the rest. :)

@WassimBerbar said in #18:
> @clousems I recommend you stop your spoiling the original topic of this discussion right now. I expected you to be better than this, Clousems. Stop this while it's time.

Eh look, I have a hard time understanding how clousems did anything. Weren't you the guy that took one offhand comment about religion from Thalassokrator and started typing a whole essay on it? ;)