Title: *BRUTAL TRUTH DEBATE*: Christian vs. Muslim; Christ vs. Muhammad/Bible vs. Koran (Fascinating Listen) Source:
You Tube URL Source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVU3 ... ist&p=8DF2F55C1F8C5A75&index=2 Published:Feb 28, 2008 Author:Dave Hunt Post Date:2009-12-13 03:17:12 by Liberator Keywords:Christianity, Islam, debate Views:64003 Comments:164
This is a debate between Dave Hunt and Shabir Ally in Toronto Canada in 2008. Christianity vs. Islam.
Hunt's credentials and scholarship are impeccable as is his courage. As the author of over 4,000,000 books (of which three I own), you will see and hear him NOT mince any words about the deeply flawed Muhammad, and how deeply flawed the Koran is. No candy-coated PC-Speak here.
He compares and contrasts the Koran vs. Bible convincingly, with conviction and armed with facts. Chances are none of us will ever see another non-compromising debate of this kind ever.
This is Part 3 which blends seamlessly into Part 4, into Part 5 and so on. Hunt's politely yet firmly continues to delve into the stark differences between the two belief systems.
Get off your high horse. You're no better than anyone else.
LOL - who said I was (?!?) And neither had MD.
Do you absolve "Christians" from the murders they have committed in the name of Christianity? Was it OK for them to slaughter millions in the name of Christianity?
NO "Christian" murders "In the Name of Jesus Christ" you ignorant twit. It's NOT part of His Gospel. Or haven't you gotten that memo yet?
I'm no apologist - not for anyone...
Oh YES YOU CERTAINLY ARE.
your denial of the historical events of slaughters and massacres that took place in the name of Christianity leads me to believe you feel they were right in doing the exact same thing you accuse all Muslims of being wrong for doing.
You must have confused ridicule with "denial."
You know - as I sift through this thread, your posts get more shrill, incoherent, and ignorant of history.
Commanding those to act "In the name of Jesus Christ" was the easiest way to control those in the Roman Empire since faux-"Christian" Emperor, Constantine. Later on Popes lorded over Kings. Whatever corrupt Popes and Vatican of a corrupted "Christianity" did centuries ago had either to do with defending their turf (against Mooslems) or expanding their turf. Or even because they were motivated by greed and power.
Do NOT confuse the righteous keepers of the faith and gospel of Jesus Christ with THEM. Many were forced to go underground.
Now let's NOT pretend as though ALL peoples, tribes, empires, and cultures throughout the ages haven't conducted themselves in the VERY same way - ESPECIALLY Islam. Yet you fail to mention other warring participants and their respective casualties and KIA. Your selective historical perspective makes it clear that you have an agenda; A PRO-MUSLIM agenda. Why keep denying it?
The difference is much Christianity has been realigned with Christ's original gospel and its culture progressed righteously and expeditiously over time, while the Cult of Muhammad's Islam was never righteous to begin with, nor have its adherents progressed beyond that of 7th century culture in any manner.
Religion does not breed evil, evil breeds evil.
Now here's something - were you to publicly criticize Islam in Saudi Arabia, the penalty for such "blasphemy" would be....DEATH, backed by several of the 20 passages of the Koran cited by Gary in post #9.
Will you answer the questions? Sure. But you'll answer mine first right? Because if you don't I'll refer to you as a "cornered weasel" for the next 50 posts or so.
I did not see this while I was working on my last post - I will respond after you read the comments I just posted.
Then I will be pleased to answer any and all non-personal questions your may have and I understand that you will do the same.
There is one conditions I am compelled to place on these proposed exchanges - This is to say that all exchanges will be conducted in a most courteous manner and without any resort to sarcastic ad-libs or comments.
I respectfully await your considered reply, and remain, with warmest personal regards, Tater
Me: terrorism is the tactic of muslims, Islam is the religon of and guiding principal of terrorist.
You: Islam is an insane murder cult.......nothing more,,,,nothing less. These defenders of this death cult are as dangerous as the cultist themselves and all are a threat to all of humanity.
Me: terrorism is the tactic of muslims, Islam is the religon of and guiding principal of terrorist.
You: I find no disagreement here. You are in agreement with my point that terrorism is defined and acknowledged as a tactic. And I am in agreement that terrorism has been a tactic used by some Muslims who feel they used Islam as a religious guiding principle in the conduct of their terrorist activity.
FTR - I very much enjoyed your commentary. Keep up the good work! lol
Word of the DayMonday, December 14, 2009 numinous NOO-min-us; NYOO- , adjective; 1. Of or pertaining to a numen; supernatural. 2. Filled with or characterized by a sense of a supernatural presence. 3. Inspiring awe and reverence; spiritual. Happy Birthday, Jesus! Merry Christmas everyone!
Way wrong. Muhammad had only one wife. His revelations came from God. He was recognized as a prophet by a Christian Monk. He was the last known prophet. He slaughtered no one. You can't even spell Qur'an. You are ignorant. Let's hope that ignorance gets you to heaven.
WRong! Muhammad had 15 wives,
Even biographer Muhammad Husayn Haykal tacitly acknowledged the superiority of monogamy when he affirmed that “the happiness of the family and that of the community can best be served by the limitations which monogamy imposes” (294). Muhammad’s relationships with his wives are themselves an argument against polygamy. The wives went so far as to plot against him. This is understandable in that Muhammad often ignored some of his wives, and avoided others on many occasions (ibid., 436). He adds, “Indeed, favoritism for some of his wives had created such controversy and antagonism among the ‘Mothers of the Believers’ that Muhammad once thought of divorcing some of them” (ibid., 437). All of this falls short of an exemplary moral situation in principle and practice. Even if polygamy, as taught in the Qur’an, is deemed morally right, there remains another serious problem. Muhammad received a revelation from God that a man should have no more than four wives at once, yet he had many more. A Muslim defender of Muhammad, writing in The Prophet of Islam as the Ideal Husband, admitted that he had fifteen wives. Yet he tells others they may have only four. How can someone be a perfect moral example and not live by one of the basic laws he laid down for others as from God?
The Muslim answer is unconvincing. Muhammad received a “revelation” that God had made an exception for him but not for anyone else. He quotes God as saying: “Prophet! We have Made lawful to thee Thy wives . . . ; And any believing women Who dedicates her soul To the Prophet if the Prophet Wishes to wed her;” but adds quickly, “—this Only for thee, and not For the Believers” (sura 33:50). What is more, Muslims believe (based on sura 4:3b and other teachings) that they may have an unlimited number of concubines, especially among those they conquer in war. This was, no doubt, a powerful motivation for success on the battlefield.
Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library (507). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
You don't need a PhD to know how to be a Christian.
I'm not saying I know more about it than them either.
Word of the DayMonday, December 14, 2009 numinous NOO-min-us; NYOO- , adjective; 1. Of or pertaining to a numen; supernatural. 2. Filled with or characterized by a sense of a supernatural presence. 3. Inspiring awe and reverence; spiritual. Happy Birthday, Jesus! Merry Christmas everyone!
