Hello everyone, Nabeel here!
So the debate series so far has been pretty exhilarating! We're done with the first three, and we got 3 more in the next 2 days. Here are some reviews on the first three; understand that these are reviews I typed up, and therefore are obviously biased :-) If anyone out there saw the debates, please write a review and I'll past it over my review. Alternatively, in the future, if someone writes some reviews after watching them online, I'll post that in here.
Converts Debate
Qureshi vs. Williams
I opened this debate with my ground-up apologetic to Christianity: defending the death, deity, and resurrection of Jesus. I did so using arguments that I've used many times before in public debates, so there was really nothing new here (except for the cursory depth secondary to time constraints). I followed up with a 2 step apologetic against Islam, showing that it was not likely that Muhammad was a prophet, nor was it likely that the Qur'an is a book from God. For the former, I simply pointed out that the inception of Muhammad's prophethood was very suspicious, and that he did many things that raise doubt concerning his status as an exemplar, let alone the best exemplar for all time (i.e. the atrocities at the Battle of Khaybar).
Paul's opening statement really demonstrated the he has studied up on Christology, as this topic consumed the vast majority of his OS. In fact, he attempted to center the whole debate on this topic. He quoted James D.G. Dunn, F.F. Bruce, and other notable scholars to support his position that the New Testament contains a gradually evolving Christology and the Gospel of John cannot possibly be considered to have the words of Jesus. He then briefly, ever so briefly, touched on his reasons for becoming a Muslim, most notably that the Muslim portrayal of Jesus was rather similar to his conclusions about Jesus.
In the rest of the debate, I think I did fairly well on making Paul branch out into other areas. Though he had studied the field of Christology to greater depth than most (including me), his lack of familiarity with virtually any other topic in the debate was obtrusive. He defended Jesus' non-death on the cross by quoting John Hick who said it's non-falsifiable, and he argued against resurrection by going with the hallucination theory. He also advanced a Pauline corruption of Christianity, as no Muslim position is complete without it. I returned fire by quoting Hick against his position, as Hick states that Islam's denial of Jesus' death by crucifixion is entirely due to Islamic presuppositions. I responded to the hallucination theory by showing its poor logic and low rate of espousal in the scholarly circles. All in all, I think the Christian side made an excellent overall case, including responding to difficult arguments against Jesus' deity, whereas the Muslim case was lopsided on one issue and entirely unequipped to discuss the other four.
That's my appraisal of that debate. Let's now move on to the second debate.
Is Islam a Religion of Peace?
Wood and Qureshi vs. al-Andalusi and Seymour
This is an expounded version of a review I sent to some of my friends as soon as I got back from the debate on Tuesday. Here goes:
Well, David and I just got back from our debate "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?", and I have to say, it was the most fun debate I've ever had. It was a blast! It was a 2 on 2 debate (something I've never seen before) with the two of us versus Yahya Seymour and Abdallah al-Andalusi. The debate was fast paced, intense, and non-stop. Well, there was a 15 minute break, but the event ended up being over 3 hours long!
The affirmative case from the Muslims can be summed up as follows: Islam teaches peace from multiple aspects, including peace within one's self, peace with others, and peace with God. The permission that is granted for physical violence is the method God uses to establish justice in the land. There is no gratuitous violence in Islam.
Our position was the usual: The Qur'an contains peaceful and violent passages, but the violent ones were the later, unabrogated ones. Ahadith, sirah, and tafseer all support the view that Islam condones violence as the solution for most difficulties in Islam, and it is enjoined upon unbelievers, women, apostates, critics, and homosexuals, to name a few. In fact, certain verses such as 9:29-30 seem to indicate that people can be killed for their beliefs, and ahadith commanding the death of apostates and war against non-Muslims until they recite the shahadah definitely support this. One final point that we made was that violence is more than just a peripheral thing that's allowed in Islam, it appears to be of central importance (this is deducible from ahadith in Sahih bukhari which consistently say that fighting/jihad is the most valuable thing in this earth).
At the end, everyone was electrified with energy - even after a 3 hour debate! Someone remarked that this debate "Was better than watching sports". I certainly agree - I'm still coming off the rush. Praise God, I think some wonderful points were made, and David and I worked together really well as a tag team. Can't wait to do it again on Thursday!
Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?
Wood vs. al-Andalusi
Unfortunately, the tag team didn't happen again. The Muslim Debate Initiative had not been certain with regards to who would be debating alongside Abdullah. It was first supposed to be Sami Zaatari, then Yahya Seymour, then there was rumour of Paul Williams taking the spot, back to Seymour, and finally on Tuesday we had confirmed that it would be Adnan Rashid. However, just moments before the opening statements were to be given, we were told that Abdullah would be debating by himself. This threw us off, as we had prepared to do a 2 on 2 debate; alas, what could we do? We weren't going to go 2 on 1, it just doesn't seem right. So I decided to step down and let David debate on his own.
David's case was as straightforward as it can be: the New Testament is abundantly clear that we are to love our enemies, show kindness towards everyone, and love indiscriminately. He also showed that basic principles of hermeneutics could preclude many misinterpretations: taking account of context, genre, and clear teachings. He argued that any argument against a peaceful Christianity falls into one of three logically flawed categories: ascribing to Christianity the violent actions of Christians, importing Old Testament commands as imperative upon Christians, and misconstruing clear statements.
Abdullah came out of left field by appealing to what he labelled "orthodoxy". He quoted Augustine's "just war" theory and stated it was a logical outflow of the teachings of Christianity. Augustine was just one of many Christian thinkers whom he quoted; Aquinas and Luther were two more. His basic position was this: Christianity enjoins violence according to Paul in Romans 13 and Peter in 2 Peter, and the violence is justified since it involves taking care of people in a systematic way. However, since there is no fully developed code for governing in a Christian state, the Christian violence is less just than Islamic violence.
Abdullah mangles Romans 13, not taking into account that Paul is referring to the Christians as the subjugated, not the subjugators. In no way was Paul talking about Christians governing, but rather submitting to those who governed over them. Abdullah simply ignores this. Regarding 2 Peter, I was unable to find the exact verse to which Abdullah was referring. Perhaps I misheard him. When the video comes out, I'll definitely be checking out what he said. Besides these, Abdullah was entirely dependent upon Christian thinkers for their opinion, though he did not show the audience how their opinion was automatically orthodoxy. That being said, he spoke with authority and the tone of his voice was quite convincing.
Well, that's it from me. Hope these comments from me will suffice until we get to upload the debates! We've tried a few times, but the internet at this hostel has been pretty "dodgy", to use a good English word. May the Lord keep you all!
In Christ,
-Nabeel
77 comments:
I have to disagree with what Nabeel says.
* Theres TONS of evidence that Jesus was a human being and not divine in anyway. Even atheists agree with Islam on that. Nabeel and I were suppose to have this debate-- but for some reason it fell apart-- I am hoping to do this debate later this year or next year if Nabeel is interested.
* No evidence for a phyiscal resurrection of Jesus-- Therefore Christianity falls apart. After reading Richard Carriers Online work :Why I don't buy the Ressurection story-- I dont see ANY evidence for a phyiscal resurrection. As for the Quran 4:157--- It's possible that Jesus did die, in other words his soul left his body and the Jews and Romans took and crucified an empty body. But I believe Jesus survived.
* Is Christianity peaceful? Didn't Jesus say in Luke 19:26-27 to slay his enemies? He also says he has come not to bring peace but a sword. Does this sound peaceful to you? As for Islam and terrorism-- well we'll discuss that some other day.
In any case I am busy-- and I'll comment some more-- but it should be obvious that Islam has all the evidence on its side not Christianity. If only I can hone my debating skills. Next year, Inshallah (Allah willing)
Yours in Islam
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com
Metaphors are used lots of times in the Bible.Jesus used them alot.Luke 19:26-27 is a metaphor(translated:those against me will be punished.)
Will it happened that live people will be killed in his presence?Knowing Jesus used metaphors in a universal way,I doubt it.The Koran several times says Allah has a "throne in heaven".Metaphor?Yes.It means power of Allah.
Jesus used metaphors and parables because 90% of the people were illiterate.It was to make them remember."I have not come to bring peace but the sword",metaphor,translation:"there will be division because of me."
Other example:"Do not call any man father,for you have only one father who is in heaven".Then we can't call our biological father dad,pop,father?No,metaphor:translation:"Give importance to God above all,even if your father is against God."
Again Principal Idea/secondary idea.Christianity is based on the ideas of Jesus.Jesus only a man?Ok,but what was his principal ethical command?
An atheist,agnostic,Hindu,deist,etc would agree that Jesus' central ethic is the Golden Rule:"do to others as.../love your neighbor like yourself".That is the basis of human rights.
Not that Jesus invented it,for example Confucius said it in 600 BC in the Analects(collection of his sayings).So the essence of Confucianism is peace,of that philosophical system.I'm sure any impartial person will agree,correct?
The same for Jesus' theologico-philosophical system(even just making him a man and nothing else).The essence of it is peaceful,and that includes Christianity.
Can a Muslim give a convincing argument Jesus was for violence?Only by ignoring his central ethic as though it didn't exist.To do so would be to say you understand Confucius and leave out his ethics.
As for Carrier I have given good reasons to reject his idea Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection.He holds to it, it seems, for emotional reasons,not because the linguistic data is in its favor.
Ehteshaam,let's say the NT is false.All the linguistic data shows Mohammed isn't in John.He's supposed to be there.Otherwise Allah made a mistake.But if one error is in the Koran,it can't be divine,according to Islam.So then neither is true.
I think you speak well-enough in a debate.Only thing is most Muslim debators,after shown how to do a TEXTUAL ANALYSIS of the ideas attributed to Jesus,don't follow something so simple.
What a real scholar does,but continue with that Jesus mentioned a sword,Jesus said to hate your parents(translation:"disagree with them if they are against God,don't follow their bad advice"),etc and say that shows Christianity is bad.That's why people begin to not take them seriously.They don't do simple textual analysis that takes into account the thinker's principal idea,sec.ideas,mode of expression of them (direct saying,metaphor,parable).
Well Ehtesham, Lets go to default position first and then take it from there. Let's Say Jesus is only Human, regular Human like me and You,is that fine. Then Lets go to Koran, and see what it says about him:
1- Jesus Is word of Allah
2- Jesus is Spirit of Allah
3- Jesus appears to me that he has no Father and he comes directly from Allah
4- Creation Miracles.
Then The Koran Says: Is this who creates, Like this who Can't. ( meaning there is no one like Allah , having the ability to Create)
5- Knowing the hidden, and Unknown things
6- Spoke in infancy
7- Is still Alive , and never died
8- Will Come back to Judge people, you and me and Even Muhammed
Is this by anyway a normal human like me and You ?!
Is this Just a prophet like muhammed ?!
Is he having any divine charachteristic ?!
Now, Let me ask you A question: Do u think that it is impossible that Allah appears in the Flesh ?! and why ?!
Please take into consideration, that Allah in the Koran appeared in the burning tree, and spoke out of it.
Also Allah in Quran, revealed himself on the mountain.
So we first assumed he was human, then mentioned what Koran said about him, and about Allah revelation.
My Conclusion according to Koran he is Allah appeared in the Flesh.
Then the Koran teaches us, if you are in Doubt to check the bible and ask the christians, So I Did , and Guess what, My conclusions was right
GOd Bless
"* Is Christianity peaceful? Didn't Jesus say in Luke 19:26-27 to slay his enemies? He also says he has come not to bring peace but a sword. Does this sound peaceful to you? As for Islam and terrorism-- well we'll discuss that some other day. "
Ehteshaam,
I am sure when You asked those questions, you are not seeking an answer, nor u are searching for the ruth, U are just asking those question for the heck of showing yourself, and just for debating. The reason I am saying that, is that the meaning and explantion of what Lord Jesus meant by these is clear and found everywhere.
But anyway, again, as U might be willing to hear this time:
1- Slay his enemies:
Go read this within its context, go ouple of verses earlier, and you should understand it by yourself. (Hint: he is talking about Judgment Day)
2- Sowrd: Havent you heard of what St paul his said, about the sowrd of spirit, or the sowrd of the word.
a-Jesus meant, the people will suffer because of having faith in him (havent you heard of martyrs)
b- Families are spilited bcause of Faith, and u can easily c this if a member of a muslim family converts
c- his word differentiate the good from evil.
d- There is no peace between the Satan and God
Of course you are free to interpret it the way you like, but I will ask you , on what basis, you should give a proof for your explanation.
As for my proves, see any church commentary book, in any of the Christian sects, if u found a different meaning tell me.
Second we beileve that the bible explains itself, so If u dont understand a verse, c what the bible says about the issue elsewhere, and c if they r in line or not.
God Bless
Ehtesham:
U say u believe, Jesus survived, simply I can do the same with you, and ask, Tere is no eveidence that Jesus Survived, specially it was never mentioned elsewhere other than Koran. which is 600 years after !!
U know, it is like me telling u now, do u know, muhammed was crucified, and I wrote it down in a book. And I will sinoly say, I had a divine revelation from Gabriel !!!
Now prove me wrong, and that muhammed was not crucified :P and let me add, Your books are all corrupted and I dont believe in them, so Please dont use them as a refernce !!
I also forgot to ad to my first comment about Jesus, that muhammed said about Jesus:
That everyhuman being is being poked by satan at birth(even muhammed) execpt Jesus.
This really sounds weird to me , if Jesus is a human or just a prophet as u say. Bcuz simply: WHY JESUS ?! AND NOT MUHAMED OR MOSES ?!
Doesn't this means that Satan had no power on him and is scared to death from him ?! or u have some other good explanation about this ?!
Ehteshaam said: "Theres TONS of evidence that Jesus was a human being and not divine in anyway. Even atheists agree with Islam on that."
You mean atheist who don't believe G-d exists also don't believe Yeshua was G-d? I can't believe an atheist would ever say Yeshua was just a human *gasp* *double gasp* ;)
In all seriousness Ehteshaam, this is a horribly inconsistent group for you to appeal to authority from. The line of thinking that forces the atheist to deny the deity of Yeshua is the same thing that forces them to deny the deity of Allah; namely, that no such being as a Deity exists [that's why they are a-theists, lol].
Ehteshaam said: "No evidence for a phyiscal resurrection of Jesus-- Therefore Christianity falls apart. After reading Richard Carriers Online work :Why I don't buy the Ressurection story-- I dont see ANY evidence for a phyiscal resurrection."
First of all, Richard Carrier denies the Resurrection based on a naturalistic and atheistic worldview. No Muslim has that luxury. The Quran tells you that Yeshua worked signs and miracles. Secondly, your emphasis on "physical resurrection" is just pointless. There never was ANY other type of resurrection conceived of in the first-century Jewish milieu that all the authors of the Messianic writings were a part of. Who knows why Carrier tries to cast Paul as believing in some sort of "spiritual resurrection", but it is complete nonsense. Paul was a trained Pharisaic Rabbi, that studied under the renowned Jewish scholar Gamaliel. To think that a Pharisaic Jew in the 1st century had any other concept of resurrection rather than a literal, physical one is laughable. You really shouldn't run to atheism to argue against other religions until you are ready to use the same people to argue against Islam. Consistency please.
Ehteshaam said: "As for the Quran 4:157--- It's possible that Jesus did die, in other words his soul left his body and the Jews and Romans took and crucified an empty body. But I believe Jesus survived."
I agree that according to the plain words of Sura 4:157 it is possible that Yeshua did die. After all, that passage only denies that the Jews crucified or killed Yeshua, which still leaves open the possibility that the Romans did it.
"It's possible that Jesus did die, in other words his soul left his body and the Jews and Romans took and crucified an empty body."
So, you reject the Resurrection because you say it lacks evidence, but you are willing to present this hypothesis....without any evidence? Strange. Now, if you are correct in your claim, you would now have to say that Yeshua did die, and when His soul went to Heaven, what happened next? There is absolutely no doubt from Ahadith that Muhammad taught that Yeshua would come back again. If His soul left His body and went to Heaven, are you suggesting He will come back as some sort of "ghost"? I think you are making real problems for yourself as a believing Muslim here.
"his soul left his body and the Jews and Romans took and crucified an empty body. But I believe Jesus survived."
So, now you are saying that His soul left His body, and His body was really crucified? Even if we put aside the streams of eye-witness testimony we have recorded that make this problematic [what with Him speaking on the cross etc], this explanation you offer creates major problems for you. If they just stuck an empty body into a tomb, what happened to it? We know from hostile testimony that the body was gone. This is undeniable. Plus, how can you say someone "survived" a crucifixion if their soul leaves their body and doesn't return to it? That is what death is! Your soul leaves your body. This is getting messy and confusing.
(cont)
Part 2
Ehteshaam said: "Is Christianity peaceful? Didn't Jesus say in Luke 19:26-27 to slay his enemies? He also says he has come not to bring peace but a sword. Does this sound peaceful to you?"
OK, now that is just wildly disappointing to me Ehteshaam. I really thought that you would be able to accurately represent what you are quoting above. I can't imagine that no one has gone over these verses with you. Nevertheless, Luke 19:26-27 is not a positive Command for anyone to kill anyone else. Go back a few verses. It's a parable. The speaker of those words is one of the characters in the parable. There is no indication that any Christian, or anyone else for that matter, should be killing anyone. Also, "sword" is applied metaphorically. Look at the context. Yeshua speaks of families being divided due to the Gospel, and what is the function of sword? It divides things [sometimes even people]. Yeshua is saying that in bringing His message He is serving the same function as a sword > to divide. If you need any evidence that this is in fact true, perhaps you could talk to some Muslims who left Islam to become believers in the Gospel.
Ehteshaam said: "If only I can hone my debating skills. Next year, Inshallah (Allah willing)"
I commend your humbleness, and you seem like a genuinely nice person. But, have you ever considered that it might not be all about your skills as a debater that is causing you difficulties? Have you considered that it might be the claims you are trying to defend [i.e. the Quran and saying of Muhammad]?
Young Doctor Ehteshaam Gulam... going thate path off denial wont gibe you any credebility: the workes off Richard Carriers do nott habe the slightest quality to eben been quoted... perhaps thats whie he does nott publishe them in anoither support: nott to be confrontated by academics and schoolars who woulde debukle his inconsistencyes and ignorance...
ignorance: precisely the worde thate comes into mind when reading your referrence to Lk 19:26s... how non-familiar whin the Bible and with the hermeneutics off it to misread those two versicles? Young Doctor Ehteshaam Gulam: please: do nott follow the path off others muslms debaters: making themselfs look like ignorant people...
May the Holy Trinity help you.
Ehteshaam,
- I agree that there's TONS of evidence that Jesus was human. That's great, since that's part of the Christian doctrine. But what's the evidence that Jesus wasn't divine that you're talking about?
- Can you name two of the best book-length defenses of Christianity that you've read that were either totally or to a large part focused on the resurrection of Jesus?
- Please take either one of the two passages that you said were "violent" or "not peaceful" and take your best shot at characterizing the Christian response to the allegation of them promoting violence. Then could you tell what's wrong with that response?
Ehteshaam:
"Didn't Jesus say in Luke 19:26-27 to slay his enemies?"
I suggest you read the whole context, starting from Line 11. Is the words of Jesus or the words of the King in the Parable? I think it is pretty obvious.
"He also says he has come not to bring peace but a sword."
There are several interpretations for it, and I'm inclined to agree with at least a couple of them. In my opinion, the Bible is multi-layered, and often conveys several meanings and implications in one verse.
So, here are the two main interpretations:
1. Jesus was saying that He was bringing a sword against sin and spiritual death.
2. Jesus was saying that believing in Him would divide families.
In my opinion, both are right.
A word of warning: One should never try to interpret a single verse by itself. The verses around it should always be considered. So no, Jesus is not inciting violence. You should try reading on until you get to verse 42. Then what Jesus meant becomes a lot clearer.
If you want to compare which is peaceful, Christianity or Islam, just look at the cases of when adulterers are brought before Muhammad and Jesus respectively.
Jesus forgives and lets the woman go (John 8:7).
Muhammad doesn't forgive and orders stoning (Sahih Muslim, Book 017, Number 4211).
Now which to you, is more acceptable in our society?
Ehteshaam, Luke 19:26-27 is a parable about the final judgement when Christ returns, not a command for Christians to 'slay his enemies'. Christ will then condemn those people to eternal death in "hell".
As for your other points, the problem for you is the "evidence" you are relying on condemns the islamic texts far more than they do the Bible. The islamic texts are on far shakier ground for legitimacy, especially considering it was over 600 years later and the "technology" was more advanced.
By the way, the only evidence that mohammet even existed is in the islamic trilogy. So, islam falls apart. I wouldn't go pushing that one against Christian debaters as a muslim.
The fact is both muslims and Christians claim Divine Revelation, so my Divine Revelation is truer than your Divine Revelation isn't a strong debating argument.
shafsha711, allow me to answer.
1- Jesus Is word of Allah
He is the word of Allah in the same way as Adam. According to the Quran, Allah said "Be" and he BEGAN to exist. Since whatever has a beginning is created, and Jesus has a beginning, he is also created. And since no creation is worthy of worship, neither is Jesus.
I am very busy so I won't be addressing the rest of your silly points for the time being. Meanwhile, content yourself with the following argument. Since God is the greatest being conceivable, and innumerable greater beings than Jesus can be conceived, Jesus is not God.
If you disagree, please explain how my argument is rationally implausible.
thanks Nabeel for an interesting reviews of the previous three debates. I generally agree with alot of your comments, but I have a few contentions about a few others (but hey, that was to be expected! Besides, it was a 'biased review' by your own admission ;) ).
Here are the two core verses I used in my talk (NIV).
1 Peter 2:13-25
13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as SLAVES of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
22"He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth."[e] 23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.
Romans 13
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
"and innumerable greater beings than Jesus can be conceived"... such as?
Abdullah -
Both those verses have to do with Christians submitting themselves to authority, not imposing authority. There's no violence enjoined upon anyone. If you say there is violence enjoined upon Christians there, please show me.
And I can't believe anyone in their right mind would draw a parallel between "kill the unbeliever" and "everyone must submit himself to the governing authority"; or "fight those who believe not in allah" and "submit yourself for the Lord's sake to every authority". Those are the commands given to the Muslims vs. the christians.
Want to see that again? Here it is:
Islam tells Muslims: Fight! Kill!
Christianity tells Christians: Submit, submit.
Yet you think Christianity is not a religion of peace and Islam is. I sincerely pray that God will straighten your mind, my friend.
@ IBN:
1- Ypu say about My point SILLY, Well I wont describe how you are answer, and be in same level as you, but I would say God Bless you
2- Yous say Jesus is Word of Allah:
The only one mentioned in the whole quran as word of Allah is Jesus. So if u say Adam is word of Allah, u have to prive it from your quran, otherwise , anyone would say I am the word of Allah too, with no Proof
2- In what way Jesus is like Adam ?!
is there any point of resemblense between the life and birth of Jesus and Adam in the quran. Let me tell you NOTHING.
Adam was created from mud or dust. Jesus was word / spirit of Allah who incaranated from Virgin MAry Daughter od Emran.
Compare the life of Adam to Life Jesus... Do u see any resmblence ?!
3- Word of Allah means:
If u say a word, this word is part of you, it came out of your brain, and if you wrote this word down , it is still you word. In that Sense, Jesus was mentioned in the Quran as Word of Allah, He he came from him.
unfortunatelty Muhammed Just heard the christian tribes around him saying jesus is Word of God, so he didnt undersand it, but thx God that he used in the Quran.
(Our God Doesnt leabe himself without a witness)
4- "He is the word of Allah in the same way as Adam. According to the Quran, Allah said "Be" and he BEGAN to exist."
Well you are saying that, but the quran Didnt say that about Jesus. You are taking a verse from some other part of the quran, and trying to stick it to Jesus Birth,
If you are implementing this method in the quran, then, thhanks, cause then we can do all of sort of things, we can play puzzle with quran, and I dont think u will accept that. Would u like me getting another verse and trying to apply it to muahmmed , saying that this what Allah means, meanwhile he was crystal clear when Allash Said that Jesus is his word, and even muslims admit that Jesus is Allah's word.
Why you muslims Alwasy trying to reinterpet everything is Quran. Didnt the Quran said, that its meanings are clear ?!
Since God is the greatest being conceivable, and innumerable greater beings than Jesus can be conceived, Jesus is not God.
And how did ALLAH appeared in the burning tree ?!! are u telling me the Since God is the greatest being conceivable became a burning tree !!!
or when muhammed Said in the Koran , that ALLAH revealed himself to the mountain:
Since God is the greatest being conceivable, and innumerable greater , then he became a mountain?!
which is better , if u saw a burning tree in the street, or a human is more valuable ?!
Do u consider a mountain (something that really very solid) is valuable than a human ?!!
SO since He already revelaed himself twice to very solid ODD things, tell me what prevent him to reveal himself in the flesh, specially if he showed himself in a complete divine way (as already mentioned in my first, and forth comment)
I think all the evidence in Quran iself, are on the side of his Divinity, otherwise u cant explain how did he do all these miracuolus things in birth, life, and suvival ..
U can reintrpret all facts as usual, but just lay down the facts, look at them, and ask yourself WHO IS THIS ?!!
Ibn Said:
1- Jesus Is word of Allah
He is the word of Allah in the same way as Adam. According to the Quran, Allah said "Be" and he BEGAN to exist. Since whatever has a beginning is created, and Jesus has a beginning, he is also created. And since no creation is worthy of worship, neither is Jesus.
Rafa-el says:
First of all the Qur'an clearly states that allah called Eisha ibn Maryam His word(not a word!)
Now let me ask you : Is the word of allah eternal? did it always exist? if not, you concide to the point that allah was inperfect en hath to create something in addition to himself).
So by claiming that Jesus was created you have to accept the 'fact' that the word was created.By doing so you concide to the point that allah had the create something in addition to himself, Cause he wasn't perfect in its 'original' state.
A Quick comment to Etheshaam:
Did you really reffer to the atheistic believe that jesus wasn't devine? Are you kidding me?
Atheist that don't believe a men can be divine? maybe this duo the lack of believe in a divine being.
That must be the most weak 'argument' i ever heard.
Btw: All Atheist agree with the christians that muhammad wasn't a prophet.... loool
And if you are trying to argue about similarity to adam in creation. If we said that adam creation was by necessity. Why does Jesus Come from No father ?! do u think anyone can come to our world in sucha way ?! and why ?!
if u said just because he is a messenger of GOD , well u consider muhammed the very top messenger of god, and nothing miraculous about him. Same story with moses and the rest of prophets ..
SO the question is still there :WHY JESUS ?????????
Abdullah... are you the same Abdullah that defeated to the ground James White when he was in London? I'm a great fan of yours! In šāʾ Allāh I'll meet you some day. After Osama Abdalah you are one of the biggest Muslim apologist in the world. That's why Nabeel, that was horribly defeated by Osama, urged the necessity to answer you here.
To Mister Fernando: I'm the MuslimPhantom, not the MuslimPhanton; and Muhammad (saw) was biggest than Jesus (pbuh). No doubt about that: your simple question, that do not recognize this fact, is an amazing offence to Islam.
Dear MuslimPhoton--
Thanks for posting on this site. I wish to encourage you, friend, that the more you choose to twist the interpretation of clear things (such as me asking for reviews) the more you will deceive yourself in the future. I pray God will stop you from destroying your salvation through deception and, ultimately, self-deception.
Sincerely,
-Nabeel
Ibn... this is for you (and If you feel offended that's precisely what your stupid and illogical syllogism made Christians feel):
1) Every promiscuous man is happy;
2) A happy man is a gay man;
3) Muhammad was promiscuous, there he was homosexual...
1) If God is all knowing;
2) allah in teh qur'an is very ignorant;
3) Then allah is not God...
1) Having sex with a 9 years old girl is disgusting;
2) Muhammad did have sex with a 9 years old girl;
3) Folowing Muhammad's example is disgusting...
Let's consider the rebuttals to my argument about Jesus not being the greatest being conceivable (I'll get to the one about Jesus being God's Word later; as I've said, I'm a very busy person).
The first person to address it was shafsa. Actually, he didn't address my argument at all. All he did was whine about how the Quran apparently supports the idea that God can manifest in various things. According to him, if I accept the Quran, I shouldn't make such a big fuss about Jesus' Divinity. This is an ad hominem circumstantial and a red herring.
Now for Al Forecca. According to him, my argument is wrong because it offends Christian. Great logic!
Fibn,
It is well known that Muhammad picked up words and phrases from Jews and Christians like a dog picks up fleas: unknowingly (i.e. without understanding).
But as with fleas, so with words, if you are not careful, they can turn around and bite you in the end.
You said that Jesus as the Word of God is simply a product of God's word "Be", but the Targums that Muhammad (over)heard and, with an evident lack of clarity or insight, tried to incorporate into his Qur'an, tell us that he (and you following him) got things terribly confused:
And the Word of YHWH said to Moses: "I am He who said unto the world 'Be!' and it was: and who in the future shall say to it 'Be!' and it shall be." And He said: "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: 'I Am' has sent me to you." (Exodus 3:14, Jerusalem Targum)
According to the Targumic paraphrase of the Old Testament, it is the Word of YHWH who created all things by His word 'Be', and it is the Word of YHWH who declared Himself the great I Am.
According to the New Testament Jesus is the Word of God who created all things (John 1:1; et. al.), and the great I AM (John 8:58; et. al.).
What Muhammad said about God's word 'be' and Jesus as the 'Word of God' doesn't reflect an original revelation of a god named Allah, but is rather a sloppy handling of a Jewish paraphrase that actually exalts rather than deigrates the Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.
@ IBN:
1: You said: You Are busy
So why do u bother yourself answering ?!
thanks anyway
2: u say: I havent addressed your point:
a: thats from your prespective
b: simlary I consider (as everyone else, i guess) that u havent addressed any of my points
c: To prove Jesus deity, it not a single point issue, it is everything together. Similar to how to prove u are human. you have to prove that u have mind, so u are able to think, u have body, and u have a spirit. Can we just mention one of them to address that u r a human being ?!
just body = solid thing
just spirit= angel / satan
spirit + body = animal
spirit + body + mind + human
so u cant say I am offtopic
Ehteshaam:
Talking about the sword that Jesus mentioned, please read these first and tell me what the sword looks like in these two verses:
Ephesians 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the SWORD of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged SWORD, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Ibn... no: I clearly separated the rudeness of your comments (and possible mines, although mines are based on true facts) and my syllogisms... they have nothing in common: your argument if false in itself, nothing to do with the fact it is offensive to Christians. More: can you give us all, as Fernado asked you, an example of a greater being than Jesus? Unless you can provide an example, your argumentation crumbles... More: can you explain where my arguments are rationally implausible? By the way: I'm a "she", not a "he".
Al forecca:More: can you give us all, as Fernado asked you, an example of a greater being than Jesus? Unless you can provide an example, your argumentation crumbles
Sure! Superman.
Al forecca:More: can you explain where my arguments are rationally implausible?
You got the facts wrong. Since rationality is based on facts, but your arguments aren't, your arguments are therefore rationally implausible. BTW your attempt at digression won't work. Either you address the argument I made about Jesus' divinity, or I won't respond to your puerile assertions.
So you are a girl, huh? If you are married, shouldn't you be slaving over your husband, as per the bible, instead of participating here?
Ehteshaam Gulam wrote...
Even atheists agree with Islam on that.
It is strange that you are referring to atheists. How about atheists' claiming that Allah is no God and Mohammed is no prophet? Do you believe it is true?
Ehteshaam Gulam wrote...
No evidence for a phyiscal resurrection of Jesus-- Therefore Christianity falls apart.
What kind of evidence do you expect?
Ehteshaam Gulam wrote...
* Is Christianity peaceful? Didn't Jesus say in Luke 19:26-27 to slay his enemies? He also says he has come not to bring peace but a sword. Does this sound peaceful to you?
Here you are twisting the biblical verses. Luke 19:26-27 is taken out of context. About Jesus bringing sword, it only means that because of Jesus there will be divisions and hostility in families, that is, people (or family members) will turn against those who follow Jesus.
Alforecca: " By the way: I'm a "she", not a "he".
I like thhis, how christian gurls are proud of their Gender. The story is completely different in the islamic world, where gurls dislike their own gender, and asks their Allah, why he created them as females ?!!
Even more, I heard that Iran has the highest world transgender exchange operations in the world , if I am not wrong.
* Theres TONS of evidence that Jesus was a human being and not divine in anyway. Even atheists agree with Islam on that. Nabeel and I were suppose to have this debate-- but for some reason it fell apart-- I am hoping to do this debate later this year or next year if Nabeel is interested.
WOW! You are going to atheists to try to support your thesis that Yeshua wasnt God. I would be surprised to see an atheist affirming that Yeshua was God, since atheists dont even believe that God exists!
* No evidence for a phyiscal resurrection of Jesus-- Therefore Christianity falls apart. After reading Richard Carriers Online work :Why I don't buy the Ressurection story-- I dont see ANY evidence for a phyiscal resurrection. As for the Quran 4:157--- It's possible that Jesus did die, in other words his soul left his body and the Jews and Romans took and crucified an empty body. But I believe Jesus survived.
OK do you suggest that Yeshua was raised spiritually? Let me ask you a question: If there is a physical death, how can there be anything BUT a physical resurrection? There can be no other resurrection than a physical resurrection. You can only have a resurrection if that which died, actually raises. So if he physically died, then that which is raised, must be physical. I challenge you or anyone else to show otherwise.
* Is Christianity peaceful? Didn't Jesus say in Luke 19:26-27 to slay his enemies? He also says he has come not to bring peace but a sword. Does this sound peaceful to you? As for Islam and terrorism-- well we'll discuss that some other day.
WOW! So Muslims claim that islam is peaceful, yet islam has numerous commands about attacking, killing, maiming, fighting others. Yet they claim that Christianity is violent when they can only go to a PARABLE in Luke where Yeshua executes Divine Judgment on mankind. AMAZING! In islam up is down, left is right, right is wrong, straight is crooked, light is darkness, truth is falsehood, violence is peace.
Nakdimon
Shafsha: The only one mentioned in the whole quran as word of Allah is Jesus. So if u say Adam is word of Allah, u have to prive it from your quran, otherwise , anyone would say I am the word of Allah too, with no Proof
Hello Shafsha, That is a good point you're making. NO ONE is said to be the word of Allah in the Quran, besides, that argument is just nonsensical. Because if what IBN says was true (and many muslims use this flawed argument) then we have to conclude, based on that same logic, that pigs are the word of Allah too. Since Allah said "BE" to the pig and the pig began to exist. Or how about the grass? Muslims also use this argument to explain John 1:1 and 1:14. They claim that thats why John could say that "the Word became flesh" because Allah said "BE" and his word became flesh in Yeshua. Well then that means that when Allah said "BE" to the grass, the word became grass! This nonsensical argument is nothing short of laughable.
And of course you nailed that too by pointing out that the Quran says nothing of anyone being the word of Allah BUT Yeshua. The "Adam was also the word of God because God said "BE" and adam existed"-argument is just impossible and contrary to the Quran.
God bless,
Nakdimon
Alforecca: By the way: I'm a "she", not a "he".
I know why he mistook you for a man, sister. That is because his prophet teaches him that women are stupid and your rebuttal was of "male quality".
lol,
Nak
Nakdimon: Thanks brother
I still have a lot more to say about Word of allah, specially if we go back to the arbic context , we will find a surprise , but I dont know why Ehtesham or Ibn took back !!
Ibn snidely said to Fernando and Alforecca: Sure! Superman
Semper: But surely it is greater to exist than not to exist; therefore, Jesus is greater than Superman.
So much for Ibn's would-be ontological argument.
----------------
BTW, Ibn:
what is it you like the most about Superman?
Is it that he was the only son of his father, Jor-EL? (Hint: "El" is the Hebrew word for God)
Is it that his real name, Kal-EL, means "voice of God"?
Is it that he was sent to earth with great power?
Is it that he disguised himself as one of us?
Is it that he saved and rescued people?
What else did you expect of a character created by two Jewish guys reflecting on Old Testament characters and themes (all of whom pointed to the Messiah)?
// and it is enjoined upon unbelievers, women, apostates, critics, and homosexuals, to name a few//
women? isnt this topic getting old??
i dont understand why christians constantly attack women in islam. i guess those muslim sites (many by women themselves, even some former christians) that refute all myths and lies spread by christians, really has no effect on the christians themselves.
i dont know why ignorance and hatred is what christianity is all about.
Nakdimoron:I know why he mistook you for a man, sister. That is because his prophet teaches him that women are stupid and your rebuttal was of "male quality".
If the Prophet(saw) really taught that, I would have taken you for a woman.
Nakdimoron:if what IBN says was true (and many muslims use this flawed argument) then we have to conclude, based on that same logic, that pigs are the word of Allah too. Since Allah said "BE" to the pig and the pig began to exist. Or how about the grass?
Yes, they all began to exist as Allah said "Be". So what's nonsensical about it?
I find it funny that the Christians are appealing to the Quran to support their polytheistic theology when it does more harm to their position that good. According to them, if I accept the Quran, then I have no choice but to regard Jesus as the Word of God in the same way Christians regard him. Not really. If I accept the Quran, then I also accept the verses that say Jesus was not God. These verses, however, preclude interpreting God's Word in a way Christians would like me to. Hence, if I accept the Quran, I still cannot regard Jesus as a deity. Besides, even if I didn't accept the Quran, I would still reject Jesus' Divinity based on the argument I made earlier which remains to be refuted.
Ibn... no, superman in not a greater being than Jesus: he does not exist, and only in an immature and lunatic mind his (false) qualities would be presented as an example that he was greater than Jesus... so: can provide an example of a greater being than Jesus? Unless you do so, your syllogism does not stand and we have proved that it is not only rationally implausible, but impossible.
Ibn: no, my facts are absolutely correct; all off them. Rationality is not only based on facts, but on true facts, not in invented ones like muslims often present in order to make themselves comfortable with their false religion.
I'm not digressing: you asked us to show were your argumentation presented in the syllogism you falsified, was rationally implausible... that's what I was doing: asking you to give us a SINGLE example of your middle proposition; and giving you TREE examples of rationally plausible conclusions that express the true face of islam. Denying these and not answering our question about a greater being than Jesus (thinking does not imply directly true existence) is the complete destruction of your attempt to deny Jesus' divinity.
Yes. I'm a girl. And I'm proud of it. In Christianity women are absolutely equivalent to men. And we are grateful to Jesus and to the cultural civilization that emerged from Him for that. I'm not yet married: he do not admit forced or arranged marriages that deny the dignity of women (and men). But when I'll get married I wont slave myself to anyone: submission in the Bible is not the same as in islam: its a tender and charitable relation of understanding as it's clearly stated in the context of the text from where you falsely got the idea that the Bible makes similar claims as in the barbaric examples presented in the qur'an and in the hadiths.
Finally: are you, Ibn, sleeping with two fingers in your a** as it's told, in an muslim tradition, Muhammad ordered male teenager to do in order to increase manhood? I hope you're: that will be the only way to prevent a Physical اسهال similar to your mental one.
Ibn... no, superman in not a greater being than Jesus: he does not exist, and only in an immature and lunatic mind his (false) qualities would be presented as an example that he was greater than Jesus... so: can provide an example of a greater being than Jesus? Unless you do so, your syllogism does not stand and we have proved that it is not only rationally implausible, but impossible.
Ibn: no, my facts are absolutely correct; all off them. Rationality is not only based on facts, but on true facts, not in invented ones like muslims often present in order to make themselves comfortable with their false religion.
I'm not digressing: you asked us to show were your argumentation presented in the syllogism you falsified, was rationally implausible... that's what I was doing: asking you to give us a SINGLE example of your middle proposition; and giving you TREE examples of rationally plausible conclusions that express the true face of islam. Denying these and not answering our question about a greater being than Jesus (thinking does not imply directly true existence) is the complete destruction of your attempt to deny Jesus' divinity.
Yes. I'm a girl. And I'm proud of it. In Christianity women are absolutely equivalent to men. And we are grateful to Jesus and to the cultural civilization that emerged from Him for that. I'm not yet married: he do not admit forced or arranged marriages that deny the dignity of women (and men). But when I'll get married I wont slave myself to anyone: submission in the Bible is not the same as in islam: its a tender and charitable relation of understanding as it's clearly stated in the context of the text from where you falsely got the idea that the Bible makes similar claims as in the barbaric examples presented in the qur'an and in the hadiths.
Finally: are you, Ibn, sleeping with two fingers in your a** as it's told, in an muslim tradition, Muhammad ordered male teenager to do in order to increase manhood? I hope you're: that will be the only way to prevent a Physical اسهال similar to your mental one.
Ali:
U dont know how Islam humilated womed in islam, let me tell u few points:
Many have asserted that "women are not treated as equal members" of Muslim societies and have criticized Islam for condoning this treatment.The term "Muslim apartheid" has been used to highlight religious isolation in France as well as gender segregation practices. The Catholic Church has warned Christian women about marrying Muslim men because of the "inferior" status of women in Muslim countries and the non-existence of maternal rights to children. Critics argue that women have an inferior status in Islam based on verses found in the Quran and Hadiths. Some of the main points of contention are:
A woman's witness is worth half of a man's:
The sharia law based on Sura 2:282 regards the witness of a woman to be worth half of a man. This has been a major point of discrimination in Muslim society. Critics argue that to be a witness to a crime, a woman is not deficient in her intellectual capabilities as compared to a man.
Women can be beaten for disobedience:
Based on Sura 4:34 the Quran clearly states that a woman can be scourged for disobedience. This has led to higher levels of abuse against women in Islamic societies.
A woman is cursed if she refuses to sleep with her husband:
The hadiths state that a woman is cursed by angels if she refuses to sleep with her husband. This is equivalent to a woman's sex life being enforced by her husband. Critics argue that marriage is a compromise between two people in any culture. This clearly gives woman a subordinate status in Islam.
A wife may remarry her ex-husband if and only if she marries another man, they consummate the marriage, and then this second man divorces her:
The need for a pointless ritual to marry a second husband and then hope to get divorced before being allowed to remarry the first husband has been called a tribal practice that has nothing to do with divine inspiration.
According to Muhammad, a woman lacks common sense because their minds are deficient:
Muslim apologists like to rationalize this by the false claim that the ratio of women to men is 3:1, hence the rationale that hell is filled with more woman. No society exists at this time or has been proven to historically exist with a 3:1 ratio of women to men. On closer observation of the verse, this has nothing to with biology. In fact when the prophet himself answers in this verse that the reason for hell being filled with woman is because a) they curse, b) they are ungrateful to their spouses. Another key point to note here is that there are no verses that explain what happens to a man who is ungrateful to his wife. In any case the prophet goes on with more comments like a) they lack common sense, b) they all fail in religion, and c) they rob the wisdom of the wise. Lastly women are accused of not fasting in Ramadan. This is a reference to women not fasting when they experience their monthly periods, however this directly contradicts the Quran when it explicitly allows Muslim women to not fast at such times based on this verse
4 witnesses are needed to convict a rapist:
Muslim apologists like to claim that Sure 4:15 has been misinterpreted in Arab countries. However this happens in most fundamentalist Islamic societies that follow the letter of the Quranic law. It is extremely difficult to get 4 witnesses in a rape case which explains why since 1947, only 2 women have won rape cases in the entire nation of Pakistan.
Heaven for Men vs. Women:
Heaven for men is 72 big breasted virgins to do their bidding. [13]However the Islamic heaven for woman does not promise women any similiar sexual rewards, instead they are rewarded by standing in corners waiting to be molested by the men that make it to heaven.
Islam permits the marrying of 4 wives:
Polygamy in Islam is permitted for men but not for women. Apologists have argued that this verse was sent down at a time when there was a shortage of men because so many of them were dying in the wars waged during the early days of Islam. However this has not stopped a widespread practice of Muslim men taking multiple wives all over the Muslim world.
Muhammad's lack of respect for women can be seen from other examples in his life:
There are atleast 20 different verses in different Hadiths that say that Muhammed Married Aisha when she was 6 and consummated that marriage when she was 9.
Muhammed forced his adopted son Zaid to divorce his wife Zainab so he could marry her by conveniently getting a revelation from Allah that Zainab was going to be his wife now.
Based on the hadiths, slave girls were the sexual property of their male owners. They could be raped and then sold off. One hadith narrates a story where the Muslim warriors find excellent arab women that they not only want to sleep with, but later sell off. Also they do not want to impregnate the women (According to Islam, they are required to take care of the women if they do) so they perform Al-Azl. Upon approaching the prophet, he does not rebuke them rather he sanctions it saying that it makes no difference whether they do al-azl or not. In another verse, Ali performs this act, someone complains to the prophet and the response he gets is that Ali not only deserves this slave but more than that from Al Khumus(this is the Arabic word for One Fifth (1/5), its 1/5th of the war booty). The Pakistani army raped thousands of women in Bangladesh during the separation of East Pakistan citing this verse as scriptural basis.
A man may suckle an adult woman to make them related in an Islamic sense, hence preventing them from ever being married. This was the basis of the famous breast feeding fatwa issued in Egypt that was reported in the media where a person was ordered to suckle the adult women in his office to make it Islamically legal for him to work with unrelated women in his office
IBN:
U r pointiong a finger to the other verses in quran , that u think they deny Jesus Deity. Let me tell, there is no conadiction.
The quran criticized the existence of a son of God in many verses
1) The women chapter (Surat An-Nisa)171:For Allah (God), is one Illah (God),glory is to him
above having a son
2) The Cattle chapter(Surat Al-An’ am) 101; He is the originator of the heavens and the
earth, How can he have a son & he has no wife he created everything & he is the Allknower
of everything
3) Mary chapter (Surat Maryam) 35: it befits not Allah that he shout beget a son, glorified be
he
4) The believers chapter (Surat Al-Mu’minun ) 91: No son did Allah begets, nor is there any
illah along with him
& other verses with the same meaning as Mary chapter 88, 91, 92, the cave chapter 4, the
Jinn chapter 3, the prophets chapter 26, Salvation chapter2, Jonah chapter 68
The night Journey chapter 111, the cow chapter 116, Ornaments chapter 81
After all of these verses how dare the Christian to say that: the Christ is the incarnated son
of God
Actually brother, our faith doesn’t contradict with all of these verses
Then you will ask how our faith doesn’t contradict with all of these clear verses that need no
explanation
The answer is so simple & logic & doesn’t need any effort to clarify it
The key is: by saying son of God we didn’t men at all any physical, or reproduction
relationship, or God “glorified be he “had a wife which is rejected by The quran in The Cattle
chapter(Surat Al-An’ am) 101 when he said “How can he have a son & he has no wife” God
forbids
That’s why I said that these quran verses don’t contradict with our faith at all
Someone may say from where we got the expression of the Christ is the son of God?
Actually this expression is not a human invention but it is mentioned clearly in the
holy bible when it said to Virgin Mary: “Therefore also the holy one who is born
from you will be called the Son of God. “
Hi Ali... back again withe your incapacity to understant thate the Holy Spirit protects true Christians from lies? That's why those sites, some off them with the textes off former false-Christians, do not produce the goals muslims accostumed to lies an to dfende lies expecte...
May God, Jesus the Truth, iluminate your heart.
P.S.: Ali: no Christian as hatre in his heart as do muslims following wahte is inscribed in allah's heart (since the qur'an is, according to muslims, his eternal word); and knowing the truth is only ignorance to those who live in a fictional world. Butt if you habe problems with hatre and ignorance about others, me, with my heart full off peace and love, woulde recomend you, and all muslms, to say goodbye to allah, teh qur'an and Muhammad... the entire worlde woulde bee a butter place.
May God, the Holy Trinity, bless you!!
Forecca:Ibn... no, superman in not a greater being than Jesus: he does not exist.
Clearly, you didn't understand my argument. I said Jesus is not God because beings greater than him can be CONCEIVED. In other words, it is not necessary that there actually exist beings that are greater than Jesus. So long as I can imagine a being greater than him, Jesus cannot be God. Thus, my argument remains uncorrected-Jesus is not God.
To make things easier for you, my argument is a variation of Anselm's Ontological Argument.
Forecca:I'm not digressing: you asked us to show were your argumentation presented in the syllogism you falsified, was rationally implausible... that's what I was doing: asking you to give us a SINGLE example of your middle proposition; and giving you TREE examples of rationally plausible conclusions that express the true face of islam. Denying these and not answering our question about a greater being than Jesus (thinking does not imply directly true existence) is the complete destruction of your attempt to deny Jesus' divinity.
Actually, all your arguments were red herrings besides being rationally implausible (for instance, it is not a fact that promiscuous people are gay). What does the perceived evilness of Muhammad have to do with Jesus' Divinity? Even if I admit for the sake of the argument that Muhammad was evil, that doesn't take away from the fact that greater beings than Jesus can be merely thought of.
Forecca:Yes. I'm a girl. And I'm proud of it. In Christianity women are absolutely equivalent to men. And we are grateful to Jesus and to the cultural civilization that emerged from Him for that. I'm not yet married: he do not admit forced or arranged marriages that deny the dignity of women (and men). But when I'll get married I wont slave myself to anyone: submission in the Bible is not the same as in islam: its a tender and charitable relation of understanding as it's clearly stated in the context of the text from where you falsely got the idea that the Bible makes similar claims as in the barbaric examples presented in the qur'an and in the hadiths.
You are a teenager, aren't you? If you are, I wouldn't be surprised at your lack of comprehension of even the simplest of logics, much less the dark truth of the position of women in the bible.
Forecca:Finally: are you, Ibn, sleeping with two fingers in your a** as it's told, in an muslim tradition, Muhammad ordered male teenager to do in order to increase manhood? I hope you're: that will be the only way to prevent a Physical اسهال similar to your mental one.
Please do not project your fantasies onto Islam. There is no tradition of that sort. If you think there is, please present it.
Paratus:But surely it is greater to exist than not to exist; therefore, Jesus is greater than Superman.
If greatness necessitates existence, and Superman is greater, then surely he exists? You're in a dilemma. Whether or not greatness necessitates existence, beings greater than Jesus can still be imagined and so he cannot be logically considered God.
shafsa:The key is: by saying son of God we didn’t men at all any physical, or reproduction
relationship, or God “glorified be he “had a wife which is rejected
First, I'm not your brother. Second, I know mainstream Christians don't regard the relationship between Jesus and His Father as being biological in nature. The point is does the Quran support the notion of Son of God even at least in the metaphorical sense? No it doesn't. Hence, my argument remains to be refuted. If I accept the Quran, I cannot Jesus as the Son of God, either in a literal or a figurative sense.
IBN:
First: Relax. I consider U as a brother, in humanity. If you dont, I dont care, thats your problem with your religion.I wont be judged for what u think, but for what I do.
Second:
muslims claim that islam came to correct judaism and christianity
Yet We have never see that this is God's Policy to send someone against other believes, neither during judism, till now. If this is the case why dont we find Allah sendin someone to Hindus, Buddism,...etc to correct them, specially they were never mentioned in you quran
Meanwhile, when we read the koran, we find muhammed never understood other belief. e,g:
1: he understood son of god , as physical relation, and reproduction. He never spoke about Sons of God as per our understanding.
2: he understood trinity as Father, Son , And Mary !!! never mentioned Holy spirit in the trinity
3: He said Jews consider Ozayr (Ezra) Son of God !!
4: didnt correct the concept of origianl sin
5: Denied crucifiction against all eveidence on the world
6: Mentioned many wrong and copied stories in his book
r these christian / jews believes ?
I really wonder how can u criticise a movie if havent seen it. How u criticis a book if u havent understood it ?!
Who was muhammed talking about ?! are these believes by anyway related to us ?!
So how in the world Muslims claim he islam is to correct christianity, if it was stupid enough not underastand any of its doctrines, nor discussed any of them ?!
it is like me trying to correct islamic believes, and u find me talking about Bahai, u will tell me u r stupid, thats not us !!!
muhammed when he discussed christian doctrines, didnt understand any of them ., and discussed something totally away from Jew / christian in his quran
So let me ask u what was meant by Son of God in the quran ?!
I don't know why Muslims say the NT is against women.First of all all Christian guys have to follow the Golden Rule.It appears 7 or 8 times in all.Again,principal idea,secondary ideas.It is the guiding rule for a woman-man relationship whether friends,brother-sister,husband-wife.
WIFE AND HUSBAND
Muslims often cite Ephes.5:22:"wives,submit to your husband as to the Lord."But in their lack of fairness don't cite:
"The husband has to love his wife like his own body.He who loves his wife loves himself",Eph.5:28.
"All of you love your wife like yourselves,and the wife respect her husband."Ephes.5:33.
OBEY IN ALL THINGS?
Ephes.5:24:"Just like the church submits to the Messiah,the wife should also submit to her husband in all things."
EVEN IF IT'S AGAINST GOD?
All who know Paul's thought know he didn't mean it if the husband told the wife to kill,steal,lie,etc.Also the NT tells the slave to obey the master but using deduction we know it doesn't mean if it means going against God.Besides Paul told slaves that if they could become free to do it( 1 Cor 7:20-21).
AND BESIDES
Just BEFORE Ephes.5:22 it tells all believers to "submit yourselves to ONE ANOTHER in the fear of the Messiah",Ephes.5:21.So the submitting goes both ways:wives give in to husbands,and husbands to wives.
SEXISM IN WESTERN CULTURE
Women have been discriminated,they couldn't vote because they were women,they were paid less for the same work because they were women,but it wasn't because it's in the NT.
BUT IN SPITE OF THAT
On top of that the NT forbids polygamy.And having non-Christian women as slaves for sexual pleasure.The second was bad:the caliph of Al-Andalus (an example for us?)had a harem of 6,000 Christian women.Akbar the Great of India,the Moghul emperor had a harem of 5,000 Hindu women.Is that a good example?
Ibn Protagoras,
Although all other signs point to the fact that you were a good little student at the University of Sophists at Athens, you forgot one of the first rules they teach all up-and-comers: never return to the scene of your original blunder, otherwise your error will find you out.
First, I did not say that "greatness necessiatates existence"; rather, I said "to exist is greater than to not exist". The fact that you couldn't respond to what I said without recasting it is a good indication that you don't have an answer to my point. (I guess you didn't forget what you learned in the class on how to commit a straw man fallacy.)
Second, it does you no good at this point to say that you were talking about what can be "conceived", since your example of Superman as someone who can be conceived of who is greater than Jesus is trivially easy to refute.
After all,
1. Is Superman great because his father was Jor-El, a leading scientist on his home planet of Krypton?
But Jesus is the Son of God!!!
2. Is Superman great because he came from Krypton to Earth?
But Jesus came from heaven to earth!!!
3. Is Superman great because he was born a long time before his spaceship arrived on earth?
But Jesus existed with the Father from all eternity!!!
3. Is Superman great because he can walk on water?
But so can Jesus; in fact, Jesus has power over the waters such that even the winds and the waves obey Him!!!
4. Is Superman great because He can overpower Ten men?
But Jesus could knock a group of six-hundred men down merely by declaring that He is the great "I AM"!!!
5. Is Superman great because he has a team of Super-friends?
But Jesus could call legions upon legions of angels to do His bidding!!!
6. Is Superman great because he can fly?
But so can Jesus; indeed, Jesus not only ascended, but He ascended to heaven. Superman cannot do this since his powers are contingent upon the yellow Sun of our solar system!!!
Can Superman drive out demons? Heal people of sickness? Raise people from the dead? Take away the sins of the world? Does he have all authority in heaven and on earth? Is Superman seated at the right hand of the Father? Will Superman return at the end of history to judge the living and the dead?
Comparing Superman to Jesus is like comparing you to a serious philosopher.
In a previous post you said you are a very busy person. Well, all I can say is it shows in what you write. My advice to you: don't write again till you have some time to think through what you are going to say before you say it.
Ibn,
You said:I find it funny that the Christians are appealing to the Quran to support their polytheistic theology when it does more harm to their position that good.
I find it funny and ridiculous the silly Muslims attempts to portray Mohammed as predicted in the Bible. What has the Bible got do with Mohammed, a man with inferior morals?
Ibn... relax! Don't feel threatened by my femininity! I’m a woman, but I don’t eat anyone! So: It was you that did not understand my arguments.
Clearly, you didn't understand my argument. I said Jesus is not God because beings greater than him can be CONCEIVED. In other words, it is not necessary that there actually exist beings that are greater than Jesus. So long as I can imagine a being greater than him, Jesus cannot be God. Thus, my argument remains uncorrected-Jesus is not God.…
as I said: from conceiving to existing there’s an hiatus that must be overcome. You can imagine everything you want, that does not make it an existing being. That’s the problem with the Anselm's Ontological Argument… it does not prove anything. Strange that a pseudo-philosopher like you do not know this fact. So: 1 either you reformulate your syllogism, or you have implicitly to imagine an existing being in order to prove anything you want. Otherwise it does not stand.
You also said: «Actually, all your arguments were red herrings besides being rationally implausible (for instance, it is not a fact that promiscuous people are gay). .
Are you going to start with your list of philosophical names that you do not know what they mean? Would you like that people around here started to do the same? I just could have said you had incurred in the fallacy of accident; or in the one of affirming the consequent; or amphibology… this one is precisely the one I used to prove the nonsense of your reasoning. With “gay” I meant “happy”: every promiscuous people are happy… the middle term in that syllogism of mine is not common. Just like yours.
«What does the perceived evilness of Muhammad have to do with Jesus' Divinity? Even if I admit for the sake of the argument that Muhammad was evil, that doesn't take away from the fact that greater beings than Jesus can be merely thought of.» …
Precisely: I just wanted to prove that a logical perfect argument does not imply anything: starting from ambiguous propositions you can stand for anything. But my arguments are absolutely solid. Not like in yours.
«You are a teenager, aren't you? If you are, I wouldn't be surprised at your lack of comprehension of even the simplest of logics, much less the dark truth of the position of women in the bible…
As we have seen it’s you that do not know anything about logic or logic implications. And yes I’m a beautiful teenage girl with an almost perfect body that God gave me to glorify His goodness. A body I want to share with a loving husband, and not hide behind a burka. Everything true and beautiful is to be seen in a decent way. And I know much more about the position of women in the Bible than you might think. Do you want to debate that here? I’m absolutely willing to do so.
«Please do not project your fantasies onto Islam. There is no tradition of that sort. If you think there is, please present it…
No, I’m not projecting anything in islam. It does not need my imagination: in itself it is the most fantastic creation of men: a bunch of falsities. And that tradition is as solid as anything you have in islam. So: you want proves? Do the same with the position of women in the Bible since it was you the first to refer, in our exchange of words, that topic. So: until then: Ibn, I hope you’r sleeping with two fingers in your a** as it's told, in an muslim tradition, Muhammad ordered male teenager to do in order to increase manhood.
Mie friend Ibn: how is superman bigger than Jesus? can you explaine us all thate? Unless thate (or withe any other example of a greater being than Jesus) youre pseudo argumentration crumbles like a castle made off sugar candie...
your heart is full off falsity... please: open itt to the truth.
And remeber: islam spread by the sword. No doubt aboute iti.
hParatus accuses me of sophistry whene is the one who is arguing circularly. He presupposes that Jesus is God and so to him Jesus has to be the greatest being conceivable. I, on the other hand, am approaching this from an objective perspective. Does the NT give one the impression that Jesus is the greatest being conceivable? Any honest person will say No.
As for the Superman example, readers, notice how cleverly Paratus leaves out Superman's ability to handle damages which a normal mortal cannot. Can Superman be killed by crucifixion? No. Was Jesus killed? Yes. Now let's give Superman a few more powers. Let's make him so powerful that he doesn't need to eat food. Compared to Jesus, is he now greater or inferior? Obviously greater since Jesus ate and it is possible to conceive of a being, just as I have done, that doesn't need to eat food.
Kids! They are so adorable!
nma:as I said: from conceiving to existing there’s an hiatus that must be overcome. You can imagine everything you want, that does not make it an existing being.
Again with the straw man! I'm not arguing that greater beings than Jesus actually exist, only that they can be thought of. Why do you keep insisting on existence?
nma:That’s the problem with the Anselm's Ontological Argument… it does not prove anything. Strange that a pseudo-philosopher like you do not know this fact
I admit Anselm's argument is wrong. Greatness doesn't necessitate existence. But that's not what I argued about! I didn't say greater beings than Jesus actually exist! For the umpteenth time, you are attacking a straw man.
nma:Are you going to start with your list of philosophical names that you do not know what they mean? Would you like that people around here started to do the same? I just could have said you had incurred in the fallacy of accident; or in the one of affirming the consequent; or amphibology… this one is precisely the one I used to prove the nonsense of your reasoning.
Actually, my argument is not logically invalid. Even you admitted it, "I just wanted to prove that a logical perfect argument does not imply anything." In other words, you're saying that even though my argument is logically perfect, the conclusion is false.
nma:With “gay” I meant “happy”: every promiscuous people are happy… the middle term in that syllogism of mine is not common. Just like yours.
Is it a fact that all promiscuous people are happy? Have you talked to all promiscuous people? Given how shamelessly you talk about the beauty of your body, I presume you are in contact with a lot of loose people. In all seriousness, you should abstain from giving out physical descriptions of yourself on the internet since it is not a safe place for kids to be. I'm sure your parents will agree with me on this, as will all the other members here who have children.
nma:And that tradition is as solid as anything you have in islam. So: you want proves? Do the same with the position of women in the Bible since it was you the first to refer, in our exchange of words, that topic. So: until then: Ibn, I hope you’r sleeping with two fingers in your a** as it's told, in an muslim tradition, Muhammad ordered male teenager to do in order to increase manhood.
Fine. To give you an example of how misogynistic the bible is, I refer you to Zecharia 5:5-8 wherein a woman is presented as the embodiment of evil. Think about it. Out of all the things in the world, why does it have to be a woman who typifies evil?
Now its time for you to present the hadith.
I think I mistakenly referred to Forecca as nma in my last post.
Hi Ibn... your arguments always make me fell so happy: I thought Homer Simpson was only a cartoon character. I was mistaken: no matter the times I give you solid arguments you refuse to see them. Let’s try once again.
1) «Again with the straw man! I'm not arguing that greater beings than Jesus actually exist, only that they can be thought of. Why do you keep insisting on existence?»
Because both Jesus and God, that you presented in your syllogism, are existing beings: in order to it function the middle term has also to imply, not only “mental idea” but “existence” as well. I thought that you, being a world famous (in your mind) philosopher, would have understood that before. No straw man here, Ibn. I’m sorry to point it that to you.
2) «I admit Anselm's argument is wrong»… precisely my point: if it’s wrong why do you use an experrion of it, as you have recognized, to PROVE anything? I thought that you, being a world famous (in your mind) philosopher, would have understood that before.
3) «Greatness doesn't necessitate existence»… no Ibn… it’s wrong because from a conceivable being you cannot imply its existence. I thought that you, being a world famous (in your mind) philosopher, would have understood that before.
4) «But that's not what I argued about! I didn't say greater beings than Jesus actually exist!»… well: you cannot attack someone for showing the imbecility of your argumentation. Your syllogism would only prove anything IF, as I said previously numerous times, from a “bigger imaginable beings than Jesus” you could imply that “bigger beings than Jesus” really existed. No straw man here, Ibn. I’m sorry to point it that to you. I thought that you, being a world famous (in your mind) philosopher, would have understood that before.
5) «Actually, my argument is not logically invalid»… yes it’s just as I have proven before.
(end of part 1)
(part 2)
6) « Even you admitted it, "I just wanted to prove that a logical perfect argument does not imply anything." In other words, you're saying that even though my argument is logically perfect, the conclusion is false»… no Ibn: I was talking about MY three syllogisms since I was answering to a reference you made about them: «What does the perceived evilness of Muhammad have to do with Jesus' Divinity?»… in other words: if even a logical perfect argument does not imply anything, your stupid and immature syllogism won’t prove anything either.
7) « Is it a fact that all promiscuous people are happy? Have you talked to all promiscuous people?»… How do you know it’s not a fact? Have you talked to all promiscuous persons in the world as you have thought to have imagined a bigger being than Jesus? Or are you an unhappy promiscuous person? It’s a psychological fact that promiscuous people behave as such because that behaviour makes them feel happy.
8) « Given how shamelessly you talk about the beauty of your body, I presume you are in contact with a lot of loose people»… No: my way of speaking is only shameful to someone who believes in an ideology that impregnates minds with a retarded and immature perception of reality and God’s beauty. And as a Christian I was asked to be able to talk to all kind of persons.
9) « In all seriousness, you should abstain from giving out physical descriptions of yourself on the internet since it is not a safe place for kids to be. I'm sure your parents will agree with me on this, as will all the other members here who have children»… I’m not a kid. I’m a grown up girl. Worse than do what I did would be being around here lying and making false claims about something. And I do know that the NET is dangerous: it’s the typical way that muslims jihadist use to publicize the violent ideology of islam. About what member here might thin, that’s not a problem for your concern. If they have anything to say, they are free to do so.
10) «To give you an example of how misogynistic the bible is, I refer you to Zecharia 5:5-8 wherein a woman is presented as the embodiment of evil. Think about it. Out of all the things in the world, why does it have to be a woman who typifies evil?»… Oh, Ibn, your first try to show how the Bible is awful towards women is so stupid than I’ll refrain to put here the sources to the muslim tradition I talked about. Perhaps nest time? About Zecharia 5:5-8, let’s see: do you know what’s an allegory? Perhaps not, since in the qur’an allah sais he always speak without poetry. Since in the ancient times the cultic prostitution was a female activity (not as today that in islam muslim male persons prostitute themselves in all sort of activities) it’s understandable that the hagiographer used a female character to talk about the worst reality he conceived: the religious syncretism. Poor Ibn… You can’t imagine how sad this first attempt of yours made me feel. I was expecting something better… Perhaps nest time?
Not one to follow advice, Ibn gave us another one of his poorly thought out responses. He told us before that he was busy, and I sure hope he isn’t sloughing off at his day job in order to respond here. We all know he doesn’t have a good prospect of becoming a full-time apologist if he gets canned at work. In any event, let’s look at what Ibn said.
First, Ibn tells us he is not a sophist because I engaged in circular reasoning. But that kind of response is what merits the charge of sophistry. Ibn simply doesn't cease to be a sophist because of what others are (allegedly) guilty of. Can you say Tu quoque, anyone?
Second, related to the above, I deny the charge that I have engaged in circular reasoning. Ibn is the one who is trying to run an ontological argument, the nature of which is to compare two conceptions - in this case the New Testament conception of Jesus with the conception of a guy in blue and red tights that Ibn's eyes are transfixed upon - and so of course I was assuming that Jesus is God, just as Ibn was assuming that Superman was the sort of being described in his fourth favorite comic book (the Qur'an, ahadith, and Sirah literature being the first, second, and third).
Third, when Ibn tells us that the New Testament doesn't teach the sorts of things I enumerated, he is either willfully ignorant or he really is a sophist. I'm going with the latter. To claim objectivity at this point shows us just how self-deluded Ibn is. The Jesus of the New Testament most certainly is the Son of God who came down from heaven, became a man, worked mighty miracles, accomplished redemption through his work of atonement, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven where He sits at the right hand of the Father. Only someone with anti-Christian glasses on could possibly miss this. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then it is for a fact to pass through Ibn's retina. As the saying goes, "All is yellow to the jaundiced eye."
Now Ibn may not believe the aforementioned view of Jesus is true, but that is the "conception" of Jesus conveyed by the New Testament. And it is the "conception" of Jesus, not whether or not these claims correspond to the facts (especially not as the facts are viewed and evaluated by a squint-eyed Muslim e-pologist), that any true ontological argument is concerned with. (This latter observation also shows why Ibn's claims to be looking at the facts objectively are as irrelevant as they are untrue. Again, an ontological argument is concerned with the implications of certain ideas, not whether or not such claims correspond to some observable state of affairs.)
Finally, when Ibn tells us that I left out certain disparities between Superman and Jesus that he thinks favor viewing Superman as greater than Jesus, he is simply wearing his bias on his sleeve, the very bias he is anxious to tell others he doesn't have. He tells us that Jesus had to eat, but it is possible to "supe up" Superman such that he is now conceived of as not needing food. But the fact that man lives by bread (though not bread alone), only proves that Jesus is a man; it doesn't prove that Jesus is only a man. Christians don't deny that the Word became flesh, such that He was one person with two natures. What Ibn is doing here is ASSUMING (i.e. presupposing) the opposite of the Christian position, the very thing he castigated me for earlier, except in this case he is doing so in an illicit way, a way that violates the terms of the argument. In any event, you can't refute a theory or idea or "conception" without taking into account all that the theory entails. According to Christianity, Jesus is both God and man. As God, Jesus is greater than all created things. As a man, although He is still the most perfect person, there are certainly (self-imposed) limitations that Jesus experienced. In fact, as Augustine said long ago, because of the incarnation Jesus is both greater than and less than himself. As God, Jesus didn't need to eat or sleep and couldn't die, but in becoming a man and as a man all of these things became and were true of him. Furthermore, the resurrected Christ no longer needs to eat and he can never die again (and even when he did die, it was only because he allowed it; He had the power to lay His life down, and to take His life up again).
I’m sorry Ibn, but this means you will have to find another guy in tights to be your hero. Perhaps we can think of another person who wore female clothing to compare to Jesus…What do you think? I have one in mind.
I wrote: 5) «Actually, my argument is not logically invalid»… yes it’s just as I have proven before... I meant: Yes it is just as I have proven before.
Just to back up what sister Alforreca said, the reason why wickedness is portrayed as a woman is because the word rish'ah itself is feminine in gender. By the same token Wisdom which God commands everyone to get in Proverbs 1 and 8is described as a woman. Again, the reason it is portrayed as a woman is because both the Hebrew word for wisdom, hokmah, and the Greek word for it, sophia, are feminine in gender.
And its' funny that Fibn Allah mentions how adorable kids are since I think he has in mind all those young boys in paradise that Allah will give him along with those countless numbers of whores with swelling breasts whom no man or jinn has deflowered yet according to the Quran.
Forecca, I kept up my part of the deal by providing a verse of the bible that clearly presents a woman as the embodiment of evil. Now its time for you present that pertinent hadith you've been boasting of. Where is it?
Provide it and I'll get to the rest of your responses.
Forecca:Because both Jesus and God, that you presented in your syllogism, are existing beings
Not at all. I didn't presuppose the existence of God when I said he is the greatest being conceivable. If I had presupposed His existence, I would have simply said God is the greatest being without mentioning the word "conceivable". Even the darling of modern Christian apologetics, William Lane Craig, employed my line of reasoning during his debate with Jamal Badawi when he argued that a greater being than Allah could be conceived. Did he assume Allah's existence? No.
Hence, my charge about you attacking a straw man is valid.
Forecca:2) «I admit Anselm's argument is wrong»… precisely my point: if it’s wrong why do you use an experrion of it, as you have recognized, to PROVE anything?
Foolish girl! I am not using Anselm's argument, only the premise on which he builds his case. I use that premise for a different case, and so, even if his argument is wrong, that doesn't mean mine is as well since we are arguing two different things.
Forecca:3) «Greatness doesn't necessitate existence»… no Ibn… it’s wrong because from a conceivable being you cannot imply its existence.
Huh? I didn't imply its existence! So why are you complaining?
Forecca:4) «But that's not what I argued about! I didn't say greater beings than Jesus actually exist!»… well: you cannot attack someone for showing the imbecility of your argumentation. Your syllogism would only prove anything IF, as I said previously numerous times, from a “bigger imaginable beings than Jesus” you could imply that “bigger beings than Jesus” really existed.
You are contradicting yourself. You said "from a conceivable being you cannot imply its existence". "IF....from a “bigger imaginable beings than Jesus” you could imply that “bigger beings than Jesus” really existed".
You cannot have it both ways.
Forecca:7) « Is it a fact that all promiscuous people are happy? Have you talked to all promiscuous people?»… How do you know it’s not a fact?
The burden of proof is on you, not me.
Forecca:It’s a psychological fact that promiscuous people behave as such because that behaviour makes them feel happy.
Really? Prove it!
Forecca:Oh, Ibn, your first try to show how the Bible is awful towards women is so stupid than I’ll refrain to put here the sources to the muslim tradition I talked about.
Haha I knew it. Such a tradition doesn't exist. I won't call you a liar because you probably heard it from some idiot without verifying if what he/she said was true. Next time, come prepared.
Forecca:About Zecharia 5:5-8, let’s see: do you know what’s an allegory? Perhaps not, since in the qur’an allah sais he always speak without poetry
What does the Quran have to do with this? You are making an ad hominem of the circumstantial kind by bringing the Quran into this.
Forecca:Since in the ancient times the cultic prostitution was a female activity, it’s understandable that the hagiographer used a female character to talk about the worst reality he conceived: the religious syncretism.
That's a non sequitur. How is it justified to say that a woman is the embodiment of all evil from the premise that prostitution (which constitutes a single evil) was a female activity?
I agree with Ibn that God as the greatest conceivable being is a valid concept even apart from the ontological argument.
However, Ibn would need to show that the idea that God takes on human nature IN ADDITION TO His divine nature, would somehow disqualify Him from the status of the greatest conceivable being.
IBN:
Since u switched ur talk now to woman status, and werent able to focus on the rest of the poitns proving Jesus Deity. I have already presented several points to u about woman status in islam, with refernce and evidence , and We all here, would love to hear more from you about this issue.
Lets start with Adult Breast Feeding, since I already posted some evidence already on this blog @ "VideoBlog #9: Islam and Free Speech in the West " link: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/07/videoblog-9-islam-and-free-speech-in.html
So Having mentioned that, do u do this among your family?! Do u follow the sunna of the last prophet (PBUH) ?! Do muslim women suckle foreigner so she can meet them ?! like if one of your family goes to university, she should suckle the whole class ?! or if u have guests at home, first thing to provide to a guest, is the welcome breast feed !!!
I just have a question, cause this was not mentioned anywhere in the Hadith of reda (brest feeding) , since this applies to forgeiners mostly, so Are we as non-muslims eligible to have some of the islamic breast?!. if yes, May be thats a great way to have good relations, and stop bad desires and sin, accroding to your great prophet Muhammed (PBUH)
But, If this only applies for muslims, May be this is a great way for preaching. Guys Try this motto "Become muslim now, recieve 5 Full Suckles till u are satisfied"
And here is one Hadith as an example, and U can see the rest on the other post, as I already mentioned before:
Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Number 3421: Narrated Aisha:
It had been revealed in the Qur’an that ten clear suckling make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five suckling and Allah’s Apostle (peace_be_upon_him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Qur’an (and recited by the Muslims).
and here is a direct link:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3421
have Fun :-)
Hi Ibn... my words and your words speak for themselves... we cannot be both on the side of truth. Everyone will be free to see who’s the one that as been inconsistent around here. Proves? You want proves? Just fine: start studding psychology and you’ll learn what I said just in your first year of college studies. Although it has already passed 2 years since that stage of mine I can still remember that persons who behave like you suffer from adjustment disorder. But that does have treatment. Feel glad for that. On the other hand islamity is harder to get ride of. Only the love for the truth and love will be able to restore de health to your heart.
Brother Ibn. I feel your words are as apart from Islam as someone can be. Your love for logic (or illogic as someone called it) is the path for agnosticism and atheism. Don’t follow that path. May Allah help you.
I juste came with a being I can imagine being far greater than allah: the foonie Ibn himself. Iff "existence" is a predicable aspect bigger than "non-existance", then, Ibn, thate exists, is far greater than allah, which is a mearly invention off Muhammad and/or Uthman...
Sister Alforreca: great jobb exposing the lacunar arguments in Ibn's attempt to spit sand in other person's eyes. Nevertheless I do feal I habe to agree withe him when he says it's dangerous to speak about ones beauty in teh net: no one knows who mighte bee on the other side: people like Ibn for example. So: take care and may God bless you my sister in Christ.
Here's a syllogism to Ibn:
Since God is the greatest being conceivable, and innumerable greater beings than allah can be conceived (such as the Christian God), allah is not God.
Hummm...
Fernando: thanks for your kind words. The syllogism of yours is even better than mine. God bless!
Post a Comment