Total posts: 47
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
@Best.Korea
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
@aql_reason
No, I do not"DEBATE" Bible Stupid pseudo-christians like you since my godly arrival upon this Religion Forum in years past, BUT, I will discuss their Bible Stupidity and runaway status like yours in the "RELIGION FORUM" for quicker end results for all to see! Get it? Huh? Maybe? Just a little bit? SCARED?
Well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Here lies brother Thomas. He spent years pounding his chest, but, we've finally laid him to rest
Of course, it shouldn't surprise you that a troll, with little intention of having serious discussion, should be inclined to run away so publicly and so gloriously at the slightest challenge.
However, I didn't expect his defeat to be so deliciously obvious.
In his own words, he refuses to step into the debate arena with me.
That's right, my friends. A chubby little school boy, with a paper bag over his face, has publicly shamed, humiliated, and silenced one of the most notorious debate art trolls in history.
And what do we have left now? My dear friends?
Legends. We have legends.
"Do you remember that time Brother D Thomas got called out to a public debate?"
"Yeah...I do... Whatever happened?"
"He backed out!"
"No way!"
"Yep, the guy talked a big game, but in the end he didn't have the moxie."
"Who was the guy who challenged him?"
"Can't remember the guys name, super handsome though. He's probably on a yacht somewhere, sipping champagne as he floats off into the sunset. Chubby little bastard"
Yep, that's right folks. That's what will echo on this forum for years to come.
While users will come and go, one thing will not go... The ghost of shame. The memory that brother Thomas chickened out of a debate... After YEARS of smack talk!!!!.. Those my dear friends, are the whispers that can never truly be silent.
And now, my humble debate fellows, my work here is done. I came, I saw....I exposed.
And I shall return from whence I came.
Good day, my fellow debate art members. Just remember one thing.
The forum is now free.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Claiming that the laws of logic are grounded in an immaterial transcendent mind is not only a baseless assertion, but as I've already broken down for you, it's not an explanation at all because it tells us nothing about how any of this would actually work.Let's first look at your god definition. It comprised of 3 words; transcendent, immaterial, mind.Immaterial is a negative trait, it tells us only what this mind is not. It tells us nothing about what it actually is.A mind is as far as we have ever been able to observe, the product of a functioning brain. Brains are material, so a brain that is not the product of a mind is something we can't possibly have any knowledge of with regards to how that works.Transcendent simply means it crosses over, but crosses over to what? Don't know because we don't even know what the immaterial is let alone have the basis for understanding how a mind could cross over to it.So not one word in your three word definition tells us anything about your claim, but the rest of your "explanation" is even worse because you assert that the laws of logic are grounded in it. What does this even mean? If the laws are grounded in it then that implies they are subject to it, meaning it's possible for this mind to be what it is not, or to exist and not exist at the same time, etc. That's logically absurd so it is at the outset missing the most basic qualifier of an explanation.The reality is that what you're appealing to here is a silly tactic meant to sound like a reasonable argument. It fails because at it's core it is nothing more than an attempt to use logic to argue against the use of logic. That is, you're claiming that without first presupposing God, logic itself would not be valid. But you have to use logic in order to reach that conclusion. "Valid" is itself a logical term.The reality is that logic is foundational because any attempt to justify or invalidate it requires it's presupposition. That's why it is the foundation of all intelligible thought, we cannot even begin to have a conversation until both parties accept it.So as much as you claim our world views are different in this respect you are just flat out wrong. You do in fact presuppose logic without any explanation for it just as we do. The difference is that after presupposing it, you are then using it in order to justify it's use. That is not only unnecessary, it's self defeating.
I'm not sure why describing something in the negative would be an issue, given we do that in our vernacular every day with things.
But, instead of going point by point, allow me to just lay out the argument more clear.
Yes, we presuppose logic. Yes that is inevitable. Us presupposing logic is not the issue. The issue is justify the universality and immutability of said logic.
which worldview makes more sense:
World A. No immaterial, omnipresent Mind. In this material only world, we have laws of logic, that are not made of material, cannot be reduced to material. They apply everywhere, and never change. Yet, these laws cannot be traced back to a mind that shares these qualities. They just somehow are.
Or
World B. We have these same laws, but we can explain why they are. The laws are immutable, universally applicable, and immaterial because the Mind in which they originate is immutable, universally present, and immaterial.
You see?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
I'm a runaway and a coward? Real rich coming from a guy who's been on this forum for years and doesn't have one debate.
I'll tell you what, you REALLY want to discuss those verses? Or Catholicism, or whatever topic, then you and I have a formal debate about it.
But you won't. Because you don't want an answer, you just want to misuse Scripture as a blugeoning tool.
Let the record show, that I, the fearsome and formidable, Morphinekid77, am publicly calling you out, brother Thomas, to an actual debate. Not just a poop slinging contest in the forum.
Will you do it? Or will you be another Bible runaway?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
other words, you have to presuppose logic in order to justify anything, and if your position is not ultimately based within the laws of logic then it is by definition not justified.
Again I agree but my presupposition of the laws of logic and yours are different. A materialist must simply presuppose them without any explanation for how a material universe can have immaterial transcendent laws.
In my worldview however I can have immaterial transcendent laws because they're grounded in an immaterial transcendent Mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
Created:
-->
@Double_R
To say A is responsible for A is to say that A came before A, which is logically contradictory and therefore not a justifiable statement.
Agreed, however that's not how we would phrase the argument. It would make more sense to say that A has the "principle" of "A-ness" within itself. Therefore A explains A.
How this relates to God, creation, or anything of the sort, I'll give you a standard analogy.
Suppose we have a train car (Train car 1) in motion. And I ask you, why is train car 1 moving?
And you answer, because it's being pulled by train car 2.
I then ask you, why is train car two moving? And you answer because it's being pulled by train car 3.
This goes on for infinity.
If this were to go on for infinity, we never actually arrive at an explanation for why the train cars are moving. Because the "answer" just keeps getting pushed back one.
In order to explain the motion of the train cars, the buck has to stop at an entity that has the principle of motion within itself.
That's the engine car. The engine car has the principle of motion within itself, therefore, it is a sufficient explanation for why the train cars are moving.
In our train analogy, the cars are contingent entities. Their motion is explained by an entity outside themselves. The engine car is the necessary entity. It's motion is not explained by an entity outside itself, it's sufficient to move itself.
Now replace train cars and motion, for any given entity and existence.
Why does entity A exist? It exists because of entity B. Why does entity B exist? It exists because of entity C.
Again, if this goes on for infinity, we never arrive at an explanation.
We need to stop at an entity that has the principle of existence within itself. That, we would call God.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Thats a religious way of saying that God doesnt have reason to exist, or that God is the reason that God exists.
Just because you don't like the explanation doesn't mean it isn't true
So no, Christians cannot explain the existence of God without using circular logic and violating the law of logic which says that everything needs a cause.
Accept there is no law of logic which states that. You're literally making it up. Find me any logic text book or authoritative reference that says this.
If you want to understand the difference between contingent and necessary entities look into Aquina's argument from motion
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Because they are what logic is and breaking them would make your God illogical?
In other words "they are what they are because they are". That's not a very good explanation.
So you believe things dont need a cause in order to exist?I wonder why doesnt orange donkey appear in my house without a cause?
Yes. Some things can exist without a cause. Necessary entities exist without causes. An orange donkey is not a necessary entity, as the explanation for their existence is found outside of themselves. Therefore donkeys of any color cannot appear without explanation, therefore they are contingent entities.
You said that they werent created, so there is nothing to justify.
In my worldview there is nothing to justify. In a world without an immaterial transcendent Mind there certainly is. So, according to you, where do the laws of logic come from and why are they universal?
Created:
"Every thing has a cause."
I'm going to regret posting this cause I really don't want two separate conversations going at once, but, as I said in my reply on your post about God's relationship to logic, this statement is simply false.
According to the PSR (principal of sufficient reason) NOT everything needs a cause, but everything needs an explanation for it's existence. There are therefore two types of entities that exist. Contingent and Necessary. A contingent entity is one who's existence is explained by another. It depends on something outside itself for it's existence.
A Necessary entity does not depend on an outside agent. It's explanation for it's existence is found in itself.
I can provide some analogies to give you an example if you're interested
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
. Everything has a cause ( X needs a cause)
This is NOT a law of logic and is patently false!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
True, but I would prefer if you guys could agree on one translation. "word" is not equal to "logic" in English.So it either means logic either it doesnt. You cant exactly have both.
You can't expect people writing in Koine Greek, a language completely alien and unlike our own, to cater to the whims of people 2000 years in the future, speaking a language they didn't even know would exist, nor would they care existed.
Logos means word, it means reason, it means logic. It other words, it means all things that are true, orderly, truthfully spoken and reasonable, sensible, etc. It absolutely can and does mean both.
Thats a good explanation, but then you would also have to assume that there are things that dont have beginning.
God and His Logos don't have a beginning.
Christian God violates all 4 of them.
When? The better question to be asking is WHY are these laws the way they are? Why can't they be broken? A material universe without an eternal Mind cannot justify the existence of the laws. My view can however.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So Christian God cannot do illogical things? Thats really an even worse position to defend, as explained by the other topic I posted where I assumed Christian God is unable to do illogical things.
Define illogical
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I guess Christians failed in translation then.
Maybe... OR, here's a crazy concept. Words can have multiple translations.
It was really supposed to say "in the beginning, there was logic", which would imply that logic had a beginning. Awkward!
My point wasn't that it SHOULD be translated logic. The proper translation is word. My point was that it also means logic and if you break down the etymology of logic we get the Koine Logos.
The "beginning" is not a reference to logic, in context, it's a reference to all things that came into being. The Logos, being God, is clearly distinguished as something that did not come into being. I suggest reading the whole chapter honestly.
Sounds like Augustine was a bad boy.
Yes and look what he became. One of the greatest minds in Christian history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
St. Augustine was quite the ladies man before his conversion. He admits this in explicit detail in his Confessions. What exactly is your point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Ah I see. You are adding words to the Bible that arent in the Bible.
Um, you are aware that the Greek word for "Word" is λόγος which is Logos right?
I wasn't adding words to the Bible, I was translating it back to it's original language.
Some Christians claim he did, so I guess now you have to fight over which version of Christianity is correct one.
Yes and if we follow what those (mistaken) Christians are saying, it leads to the absurdities you're mentioning. Hence God did not create logic. And not to mention the Logos is clearly uncreated in the Johannine text. As the chapter goes on to say (verses 3-4)
I will, as soon as you present it.
I already did. It's quite simple. How can an eternal Mind be void of knowledge of logic, numbers, math etc? Therefore those abstract things were always present in His Mind. Therefore they were not created.
Created:
Posted in:
In the beginning was the Word (Logos) and the Word (Logos) was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God. (John 1:1)
Logos is where we get the word logic
God did not create logic. God IS logic. Logic is a reflection of how He thinks. God is Truth and truth excludes contradictions. God is eternal therefore God is eternally logical.
I suggest you look into St. Augustines argument from abstract concepts (numbers, shapes, math, etc all eternally reflects the Mind of God)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A Muslim is a Christian is a Jew.
Oh that's just crazy talk
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Right, just wanted to point that out in case any Theology noobs were lurking about.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm ok with the body soul spirit analogy as long as we understand the Persons of the Trinity aren't parts to a whole.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
You're being dramatic
Created:
Posted in:
It gets even worse when you know about the story of Abdullah Ibnumar. He was a 14 year old kid who asked Mohammed if he can fight with Mohammed's army in the battle of Uhud. Mohammed turned him away because he was too young.
i.e. Mohammed was well aware of what he was doing with Aisha. If a 14 year old male is too young in his eyes to fight, what business did he have with a 9 year old girl in the bedroom?
Created:
Ain't no way hunger games above John Wick
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I mean.... She's not THAT chubby
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I agree wholeheartedly with that text you quoted, and that was exactly what I was trying to articulate. However, your interpretation that it was "man's law" is not what the article was saying.
It was divine law, in fact, it was perfect divine law, showing sinners what they deserve. But the penalties are not acted out in the new covenant because God has given us a more merciful way.
But yes, I agree with the article
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Again I'm not sure what there is to reconcile. Do you have children? Do the terms and conditions you set in place for them change as time goes on?
Is the way you handle a three year old little baby the same way you handle that child at 13?
If I tell my 5yo child if they eat all their peas I'll let them have a cookie, we entered into a contract. They'll do their side of the bargain and I'll do mine.
That same child, ten years later, I may enter another contract with them. If you eat all your peas you can go to your friend's house for the night.
Imagine someone coming along and saying:
"How can we reconcile these two moral truths? Which is it? A cookie or a friend's house????"
It's both. One worked for that time and one worked for the other.
Now imagine your children are tens of thousands of Israelites, and 1000 years from now, you're going to adopt more children, all the gentiles. Of course there's going to be differences in the covenants.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
even jesus said that his followers would go on to perform greater works than the people of his day saw. most people interpret that as miralces but is there more to it? i do acknowledge that we dont see the dead raised and such, but there are healings all the time, medically, even to this day. you might be right but i would be careful to say so, even the conventional wisdom of that bible verse, and the fact that miracles still happen to this day.
Fair enough, but even the healings today aren't of the same magnitude. Jesus was out there regrowing peoples limbs and such. We just don't see that today
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
still maintain they seem to contradict each other on a moral truth level.
The Law was sent to show us our need for Christ. It is the gold standard that nobody could uphold perfectly. And therefore the judgment was death for breaking it.
Once we get to Christ we are saved from the penalty of the Law, and now our new contract has different terms and conditions for not just a single nation (Israel) but all humanity.
So eye for and eye for example, is still true, and still the standard. But as the saying goes, an eye for an eye would make the world blind. So, the new covenant teaches turn the other cheek. This, put into practice is more suitable for all humanity
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
But even miracles of the magnitude of the Red Sea being split are still extremely rare in the O.T.
And even then how many people would have believed it if they had not seen it?
God could set up shop on the moon and perpetually glare at us making sure we don't sin.
But He doesn't force His presence on any of us, and wants us to respond in faith.
And, also, I would strongly challenge the idea that we are seeing healing miracles of the magnitude Christ performed today.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
And furthermore, the Law of Moses was the golden standard to show us how sinful we are and how severe God is. It showed us our need for a Savior.
Once the need is met however, the Law has done it's job.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
how can a consistent God at different times teach both? how does truth change?
There are moral truths that transcend both covenants. i.e. murder was wrong before during and after the old covenant. But there are some moral stipulations that were for a specific time. Turn the other cheek is superior to eye for and eye, and is the recommended way for all nations. The Jews practiced eye for an eye because that was best for their society at the time
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
There's really no need to reconcile the covenants because they're not at odds with each other. They're just two different contracts, put in place at different times, for two different people groups. They don't have to be the same, or do and say the same thing.
Some things from the first contract are carried over to the second (no murder, no gay relations, etc) and some are reversed (divorce in the first contract but not the second) and some are completely new.
Again, I see no reason to try and make them agree with each other when they were never even supposed to
Some things from the first contract are carried over to the second (no murder, no gay relations, etc) and some are reversed (divorce in the first contract but not the second) and some are completely new.
Again, I see no reason to try and make them agree with each other when they were never even supposed to
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
God, in both testaments, deals with humans in covenants. Which is a fancy word for contract.
The old testament doesn't contradict the new. And visa versa.
They're two different contracts, for two different groups of people, with two different sets of terms and conditions.
Once you realize that, you'll save yourself a lot of trouble
The old testament doesn't contradict the new. And visa versa.
They're two different contracts, for two different groups of people, with two different sets of terms and conditions.
Once you realize that, you'll save yourself a lot of trouble
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I was spanked as a child and I turned out, dare I would say, far more normal than the vast majority of the people on this website.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Bro's been hitting the Rob Schneider movies a bit too hard....
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Forgive me for being a party pooper, but I feel like these "arguments" are coming from a person who has simply never interacted with a knowledgeable Theist and received answers to these types of basic objections.
Some of these statements you have made are just downright bizarre. Very odd.
Very odd indeed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
Cool beans. I also recommend doing some reading into "Chalcedonian Christology." Talk to you soon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
I'm afraid at this point you have simply ignored literally everything I said about the Hypostatic Union and the Divine nature.
And He was not in His divine essence simultaneously created and creator at the time of the Incarnation.But He was...
The Divine essence cannot cease to be what it is.
Again, at risk of pointlessly repeating myself, there was no change to the Divine essence at the incarnation. Because the Divine essence cannot change. God is immutable. When we say "God became man" we mean the divine essence was united to something that was created, i.e the body of Jesus, but the D.E. itself did not "become" created in the sense that it ceased being creator and was now created. That doesn't even make logical sense to say that and it's not what we teach.
There was a very ancient heresy called Kenosis which taught the D.E. lost some of it's attributes during the incarnation. We beat those guys and that is not what we teach. To formulate it mathematically, A=Divine Essence. B=created flesh.
We are not saying, A turned into B and therefore ceased being A. We are also not saying A and B were united in such a way that they became a hybrid blend of each other (C). (Both of those mistaken views would entail the contradiction you're speaking about)
What we ARE saying is A was united to B (AB) but both natures remained perfectly intact. The human nature was not swallowed up by the Divine, and the Divine did not cease being divine and turn human.
I want you to really give some thought to that before responding.
In regards to "Can God make a square circle or a rock so heavy he cant lift it"
The reason God "cant" do any of those things is because they do not exist. There is no category for a married bachelor or a square circle or a rock so heavy omnipotence cant influence it. They are just combinations of words that don't mean anything.
However, you're assuming God cannot become incarnate, and then arguing that because God cant become incarnate, a body he inhabits is not a thing that exists, therefore He can't make a body for Himself because its a logical contradiction. Not only are you arguing in a circle, that is a HUGE leap. You're telling me an all powerful God could not create a body and step into it? What is logically impossible about that? Given the formulation I laid out above, where the D.E. does not cease being what it is, I will ask again, where is the logical contradiction.
"The Islamic concept of God emphasizes that he is absolutely pure and free from association with other beings, which means attributing the powers and qualities of God to his creation, and vice versa (wikipedia)"
Accept the Quran does exactly this. How does Allah create man? He breathes into the clay and it becomes man, correct?
How does Jesus create birds in Surah Al-Ma'idah?
"How I taught you writing, wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel. How you moulded a bird from clay—by My Will—and breathed into it and it became a ˹real˺ bird—by My Will. "
Did Allah take Jesus as a partner in creation? If no, why did he give him the same exact power to create that Allah alone should possess?
Why did Allah AND Gibreel create the body of Jesus together?
Surah At-Tahrim
˹There is˺ also ˹the example of˺ Mary, the daughter of ’Imrân, who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her ˹womb˺ through Our angel ˹Gabriel˺.1 She testified to the words of her Lord and His Scriptures, and was one of the ˹sincerely˺ devout.
If Allah alone is creator and giver of life, what in the world is going on in this Aya? Was Gibreel Allah's partner in creating Isa?
If Allah has no partners, it certainly seems Gibreel and Isa create and help him create in identical manners.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
the contradiction is within itself God being creator and created during the time of Jesus being born of a virgin.
God in His divine essence did not go from creator to "created" at the time of the Incarnation. And He was not in His divine essence simultaneously created and creator at the time of the Incarnation. The person of Jesus Christ, if we are using Chalcedonian Christology (which I believe is the correct one) is fully God and fully man. In His divine nature he is uncreated. His humanity was created. Because He has two natures, what happens in time and space to one does not say anything about the other necessarily. What I mean is, because His human nature came into being, that says nothing about His divine nature, which we know is eternal.
The error you're running into is conflating the two natures. How can He be uncreated and created at the same time. Well He cant. In his divine nature. The nature that was created is not divine however.
The contradiction you're trying to make could also be played back the other way.
Can Allah create a body he cannot inhabit?
Yes or no? If yes, then you admit the Incarnation is not logically contradictory. If no, Allah is not all powerful.
We know even angels can appear as men (Surah 19) and Islam also believes in demonic possession. So are the angels and demons more powerful than Allah?
I understand as a Shia you do not accept the dilemma that the Sunni's face with the eternal Quran theology. However, 85 percent of Muslims do believe what I wrote. Are they in a logical contradiction as well?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
Ok great. I guess then I would just make a few comments on the general idea of God stepping into His creation.
Number 1, we see in the Hadith Allah steps down and inhabits the heaven closest to us. Since God created the heavens, that means he is stepping into something he himself created.
Sahih Al-Bukhari 1145 Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) (p.b.u.h) said, "Our Lord, the Blessed, the Superior, comes every night down on the nearest Heaven to us when the last third of the night remains, saying: "Is there anyone to invoke Me, so that I may respond to invocation? Is there anyone to ask Me, so that I may grant him his request? Is there anyone seeking My forgiveness, so that I may forgive him?"
If Allah can come down into his created heaven, why couldn't he come down in a created body?
Becoming incarnate doesn't mean that his eternal, unchanging nature as uncreated creator has changed, it just means he added flesh to that nature. His essence remains exactly the same.
More importantly, the main point I would like to get across, is that Sunni Muslims believe the Quran is Kalam Allah, and it's one of his Sifat, that is to say, they believe the Quran is uncreated.
Imam Bukhari narrates in his book Khalq Af'aal al-Ibaad:
Sufyan ibn Uyayna narrated: I met our teachers for seventy years among them Amr ibn Dinar, all of them used to say, "The Quran is the speech of Allah, and it is not created."
Obviously you don't believe the Quran is God, HOWEVER, what we have is a paradigm of an eternal, uncreated Sifat becoming a physical, paper and ink book. Since, at some point in history, the Quran became a Kitab, a literal book, you have the eternal uncreated becoming something that is eternal and created, namely, pages and glue.
Yet no Muslim would say the eternal nature of the Quran changed. So now we have a Quran that has two natures, an eternal uncreated nature and a physical, temporal book nature.
So, if I as a Christian, believe the eternal, uncreated Word of God became a Man in Jesus Christ, I really don't see on what basis Islam can criticize that based on their own teaching, of Allah coming down into the heaven (something created) and the Quran having two natures, an uncreated nature and a created nature.
Thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
In other words is I sum it up, you're basically saying God cannot enter His creation? Would that be a fair representation of your argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
Disclaimer as I have not been following the entire back and forth of this thread, but I would like to have a friendly discussion on your objection to the incarnation (since, this thread WAS originally a Christian/Muslim dialogue, before the atheists took over ;) )
It seems your objection to the Incarnation goes, if I understanding you correctly:
1. God is uncreated
2. Jesus was created (at least His body)
3. The Creator cannot be both creator and created
4. Jesus cannot be God as per step three.
5. Therefore Jesus is not God and the Incarnation did not happen.
Before I move forward with my response, would you agree I am representing you accurately? BTW, are you a Sunni Muslim or a Shia?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
And for the record I'm a Christian but I don't hate trans and gays. You can love a person and disagree with their lifestyle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
No this is not true we are nothing like the Muslims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Not to mention the Quran explicitly and repeatedly affirms the books Christians and Jews had as the revelation of Allah.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
"Europe will be Muslim"...
My ancestors defeated Islam at the battle of Lepanto and saved Europe from Islam. They did it before we can do it again.
Created:
Posted in:
Mohammed came and affirmed the Books before him. Modern Muslims insist the Bible is corrupt, they repeat it like a mantra.
That's not what their prophet taught.
The Bible I believe in can stand on it's own. If the Quran is true, the Bible is true. If the Quran is false it makes no difference to my religion because my Book is still true.
That's not what their prophet taught.
The Bible I believe in can stand on it's own. If the Quran is true, the Bible is true. If the Quran is false it makes no difference to my religion because my Book is still true.
Created:
Posted in:
The only thing worse than the scum who commit these atrocities are the Western media outlets who ignore, rationalize, and justify it.
Created: