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:64002 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.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know your self but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle ~ The Art of War, Sun Tzu
Is terrorism the enemy or is Islam the enemy – “Both” is not an answer.
You are just another ignorant fool or a whore for islam.
Do you even know what islam and it's "holy" books teach about how moo slums MUST treat ALL non- islamic peoples of the world?
Do you even know what islam's own histories say about what it has done to the "dar al-harb"?
It certainly IS true that for ALL non-islamic peoples of the world, and for most islamic peoples of the world, islam IS 'terrorism". (What is the punishment for conversion from islam genius?, how are islam's women and children treated like genius?)
I wouldn't rate your intellect nearly as high as that of even a stoned "adolescent", and I d@mned sure don't care what it "does" for you chump.
I'll reply to your expected answers sometime tomorrow, you caught me as I was going out the door.
… “expected answers” …
Please don't be surprised when the answers you “expect” do not arrive – and don’t bother to wait for them.
The norm for the practice of social intercourse prohibits me from accepting a bully’s claim that his views are correct or that he has the right to expect anything - because he simply thinks he has the strength and propensity to violence, to attack a poster’s comments.
Therefore, I cannot exchange thoughts and opinions with you until you learn to develop and to exhibit a tone of civility in your approach to sharing information.
Should you have an interest in conducting an intelligent discussion, then I will join you in that and you may now make your attempt at a courteous exchange.
However, if you are interested in continuing to act like an a**, then you are doing an excellent job and you can continue alone in your quest to exceed your current level - and move on to achieve far greater supremacy, but you will do that with someone other than me.
In closing, may I say that evidence of the arrogance you display is exceeded only by your attempt at the use of fevered language.
MD; I'll reply to your expected answers sometime tomorrow, you caught me as I was going out the door.
T; … “expected answers” …
Please don't be surprised when the answers you “expect” do not arrive – and don’t bother to wait for them.
The norm for the practice of social intercourse prohibits me from accepting a bully’s claim that his views are correct or that he has the right to expect anything - because he simply thinks he has the strength and propensity to violence, to attack a poster’s comments.
Therefore, I cannot exchange thoughts and opinions with you until you learn to develop and to exhibit a tone of civility in your approach to sharing information.
Should you have an interest in conducting an intelligent discussion, then I will join you in that and you may now make your attempt at a courteous exchange.
However, if you are interested in continuing to act like an a**, then you are doing an excellent job and you can continue alone in your quest to exceed your current level - and move on to achieve far greater supremacy, but you will do that with someone other than me.
In closing, may I say that evidence of the arrogance you display is exceeded only by your attempt at the use of fevered language.
Good luck – Sir - I wish you well.
Sigh ...
I meant that I expected you to answer. I made no comment on what you would answer with. I'm not God, I can't see the future.
"Bully"? Why because you pull your ideas about what islam is out of thin air and I have actually READ about it and I actually know what it's history and dogma and traditional practices are and I object to your ignorant nonsense re: islam?
When you want to discuss things it is adult behavior to actually know FACTS about the subject.
It is not a matter of me being "superior" it is about the actual FACTS vice the absolutely brain dead sheeple delusions about a very great threat to US ALL.
I don't give a rusty F if you are offended by me b!tch slapping you with the TRUTH.
Maybe that will wake you up?
What is truly ARROGANT is talking bullsh!t in a life and death matter and then posing as the wronged and offended party when you get called on it.
Grow F ing up.
I also don't give a rusty F if you don't care for my vocabulary and syntax.
As you search for the reality, may you find strength and solace to comprehend this profound revelation. Let yourself cry knowing each tear is a note of love rising to the heavens above. Learn to lean on your friends for strength and support to avoid unilateral or selective reaction as you continue your burden in life.
You TRYING to lecture me then acting worse than I have has a name.
"Do as I say, NOT as I DO" is called HYPOCRISY.
Keep your attempts to pose as having ANY sort of "moral" superiority aimed at small children and dumb animals, you mealy mouthed hypocrite, they will believe you.
Ignore the insulting tongue. Duck the provoking blow. Run from the assault of the strong. The wild boar runs from the tiger, knowing that each be well-armed by nature with deadly strength, may kill the other. Running, he saves his own life and that of the tiger. This is not cowardice. It is the love of life. -- Master Kahn
"You TRYING to lecture me then acting worse than I have has a name.
"Do as I say, NOT as I DO" is called HYPOCRISY.
Keep your attempts to pose as having ANY sort of "moral" superiority aimed at small children and dumb animals, you mealy mouthed hypocrite, they will believe you."
I want to ask you the same series of questions I posted on another thread. This is what ever you wish to call it. I call it food for thought.
Jews don't celebrate Christmas. A lot of people don't celebrate Christmas. Did you know that only approx 33% of the worlds population consider themselves Christian? 22% consider themselves Muslim. The number of people who convert to Islam is growing at a much faster rate than those converting to Christianity. About 76% of Americans consider themselves of a Christian faith of one denominations or another. The nuber who chose basic Christianity is much less than that, approx 2/3 less.
So, if Obama chooses not to celebrate Christmas the way your average Christian does, why would that bother you? Do we not have the freedom to choose our own religion in the US? Furthermore, why would you be suprised? You already know what type of bigoted "Christian" church he attended for many years. Did you actually believe he was a real Christian and therefore would hold the same Christian values that real Christians hold?
This leads me to another question. Do you think the only presidents we should ever elect should be those of a Christian faith? What about Mormons? Are they eligible? Jews? Buhddists? Hindus? Pagans? Wiccans? Muslims? In a world were we are to be free and be able to freely practice our religions of choice, should we now ban some religions and not others? And who gets to determine which ones are allowed and which ones are not? In China, the Government is officially athiest. It took some time to get them to accept some religions, but others are still banned. Should we do the same in America? Or should Christianity be considered the official religion of the US? So which is it? We would be hypocrits in the eyes of Jesus if we preach such freedoms and pass laws to limit them at the same time. We would surely be damned to hell for such practices.
I want to ask you the same series of questions I posted on another thread. This is what ever you wish to call it. I call it food for thought.
1.) Jews don't celebrate Christmas. A lot of people don't celebrate Christmas. Did you know that only approx 33% of the worlds population consider themselves Christian? 22% consider themselves Muslim. The number of people who convert to Islam is growing at a much faster rate than those converting to Christianity. About 76% of Americans consider themselves of a Christian faith of one denominations or another. The nuber who chose basic Christianity is much less than that, approx 2/3 less.
2.) So, if Obama chooses not to celebrate Christmas the way your average Christian does, why would that bother you? Do we not have the freedom to choose our own religion in the US? Furthermore, why would you be suprised? You already know what type of bigoted "Christian" church he attended for many years. Did you actually believe he was a real Christian and therefore would hold the same Christian values that real Christians hold?
3.) This leads me to another question. Do you think the only presidents we should ever elect should be those of a Christian faith? What about Mormons? Are they eligible? Jews? Buhddists? Hindus? Pagans? Wiccans? Muslims? In a world were we are to be free and be able to freely practice our religions of choice, should we now ban some religions and not others? And who gets to determine which ones are allowed and which ones are not? In China, the Government is officially athiest. It took some time to get them to accept some religions, but others are still banned. Should we do the same in America? Or should Christianity be considered the official religion of the US? So which is it? We would be hypocrits in the eyes of Jesus if we preach such freedoms and pass laws to limit them at the same time. We would surely be damned to hell for such practices.
1.) That is not correct, many Jews do "celebrate" Christmas. In fact many non-Christians worldwide "celebrate" Christmas. Again you post numbers without citing the sources. So those numbers in this discussion mean absolutely nothing.
I note that you totally ignore the effects of the fact that all children born to islamic parents are considered to be moo slums by islam, and that the penalty for islamic apostacy is death, effects on the inflated numbers claimed by islam.
But really no matter what, so what? Who cares?
What happens between an individual and GOD is not my business. I see no biblical requirement to "celebrate" Christmas, where do YOU see it?
2.) LOL! It is important because he CLAIMS to be a "mainstream American Christian" and "mainstream American Christians" by and large celebrate Christmas. Of course he has the right to be whatever he wants to be. But if he is not a "main stream Christian" he LIED to America.
It is also important because no matter how you gin up the numbers, the vast majority of Americans ARE self professed Christians, and the messiah "king" obammy by breaking this specific TRADITION is purposely insulting us all.
I never believed that that stalinist scum was anything but the enemy of ALL things American. I wouldn't believe him if he said that it was daylight at high noon.
Do you know the difference between the messiah "king" obammy and GOD?
GOD doesn't think that he is obammy.
LOL!
3.) Already mostly answered.
There is no official religion of America, and that is one of the basic ideas of America since our founding. I certainly don't support such nonsense. Nor does anybody or any religion, (except islam and moo slums of course).
But I don't think that any moo slum should hold any position of public power and trust.
Would you have supported a Japanese American presidential candidate during WW2?
If so, you really are a deluded Polly Annish PC fool imo.
"The bill of rights is NOT a suicide pact."
Btw; don't you even TRY to speak for Jesus. Jesus hates satan, and islam is the tool of satan IMO.
Well...You've turned out to be quite the hypocrit. That's not very Christian- like.
Jesus loves everyone, including his enemies. He has stated that.
Thanks for proving you too are incapable of addressing legitamate questions and concerns.
Hypocrites! It was you Isaiah meant when he so rightly prophesied: “This people honors me only with lip service / while their hearts are far from me. / The worship they offer me is worthless; / the doctrines they teach are only human regulations.”24 He called the people to him and said, “Listen, and understand. What goes into the mouth does not make a man unclean; it is what comes out of the mouth that makes him unclean. . . . For things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and it is these that make a man unclean. For from the heart come evil intentions. . . . But to eat with unwashed hands does not make a man unclean.”25 . . . “Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You who are like whitewashed tombs that look handsome on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of corruption. In the same way you appear to people from the outside like good honest men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.”
Jesus loves everyone, including his enemies. He has stated that.
"I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet dI have loved Jacob 3 but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.” The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
MALACHI 1:3—If God is love, how could He hate any person?
PROBLEM: In the latter part of verse 2 and the first part of verse 3, God says, “Yet Jacob I have loved; But Esau I have hated.” But, John says, “God is love” (1 John 4:16). How can a God of love hate any one person?
PROBLEM: In the latter part of verse 2 and the first part of verse 3, God says, “Yet Jacob I have loved; But Esau I have hated.” But, John says, “God is love” (1 John 4:16). How can a God of love hate any one person?
Jesus commands the people to not only love thy neighbor as theyself, but to also love thy enemies.
Is not Jesus the same as God? Is not Jesus God incarnate?
Who Jesus is, is the beginning of the problems. The Roman Catholic church split in tow - the East and the West, mainly out of argument of who Jesus is and who should be worshipped. Is God the one and only true God? Should our prayers be directed towards him and only to him? Then why the symbols of the Virgin Mary, the other saints, and Jesus on the cross?
Jesus commands the people to not only love thy neighbor as theyself, but to also love thy enemies.
Is not Jesus the same as God? Is not Jesus God incarnate?
Who Jesus is, is the beginning of the problems. The Roman Catholic church split in tow - the East and the West, mainly out of argument of who Jesus is and who should be worshipped. Is God the one and only true God? Should our prayers be directed towards him and only to him? Then why the symbols of the Virgin Mary, the other saints, and Jesus on the cross?
You didn't even begin to address the question. Your answer was fluff, nothing more.
I would have to say in the same way you or I could hate one person. I love everyone, even those with faults. People are who they are and nothing will ever change that. It is possible to love and hate a person at the same time. I hate my brother with a passion you may or may not ever understand, but, he is my brother and a part of me will always love him.
I would have to say in the same way you or I could hate one person. I love everyone, even those with faults. People are who they are and nothing will ever change that. It is possible to love and hate a person at the same time. I hate my brother with a passion you may or may not ever understand, but, he is my brother and a part of me will always love him.
That is not correct.
The word “hate” in the Bible does not always carry the same sense of antipathy and disgust associated with the English expression; it can mean simply to favor someone else with special privilege, devotion, or love less. In that sense, the Lord’s “hatred” of Esau was only the other side of His loyalty to His covenant with Israel. Paul quoted verses 2–3 with that meaning in Rm 9:13 as an illustration of the Lord’s mercy and compassion on whomever He chooses to bestow them (Rm 9:15). Nevertheless, in the circumstances of the Jews’ return from exile, the hostility of the Edomites seems to have reached another level, provoking Malachi to call them “the people the LORD has cursed forever” (v. 4).
The point I was attmeping to make gracefully is you should not be lecturing Christians, when your knowledge and insight into the Word is extremely limited.
There are some, to many, Christians who interpret the word "hate" to have many meanings, including the interpretation which you have expressed:
The word “hate” in the Bible does not always carry the same sense of antipathy and disgust associated with the English expression; it can mean simply to favor someone else with special privilege, devotion, or love less.
Some have said that in the passage below that the word “hate” does not mean “hate” in the commonly accepted definition of the word and does not mean what it says, but actually means that you're to love your god more than anyone else...
Luke 14:26 – If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.
I cannot comprehend that. Hate is a pretty clear word, and we all know what it means. If someone screams "I hate you!" in someone's face does that mean "I don't actually hate you, but I'm more devoted to liking a different friend!"
If we do a search for the word hate in the NIV bible online, will not in these passages the word hate seems pretty clear as well.
Therefore, my question is basically: Where is the reference book that God wrote that says what he *actually* meant by several words since it's so open for interpretation?
Not intended to be sarcasm: If a terrorist screams “I’m gonna kill you” – Should I have anything to fear, by stopping think that “kill” may not really mean “kill” but mean “love?”
I cannot comprehend that. Hate is a pretty clear word, and we all know what it means. If someone screams "I hate you!" in someone's face does that mean "I don't actually hate you, but I'm more devoted to liking a different friend!"
If we do a search for the word hate in the NIV bible online, will not in these passages the word hate seems pretty clear as well.
Therefore, my question is basically: Where is the reference book that God wrote that says what he *actually* meant by several words since it's so open for interpretation?
Tater, we are not discussing the English language, rather the Greek and Hebrew in which these passages were originally written. Translators do not go to Webster's, but to lexicons. I have all the major lexicons and interpretator's notes, and have contributed updates to two major translations. I am going to show you just one of the interpretator's handbooks.
1:2–3 “I have loved you,” says the LORD: Here as in 1:6; 3:7 and 3:13, the Assertion element of the dispute is introduced by a quotation formula. In 1:6 and 3:7, it is the longer formula “says the Lord of hosts,” but here and in 3:13 it is only the shorter form says the LORD. Translators should be careful to maintain the distinction. In some languages it will be necessary to put the verb of speaking before the direct quotation, especially at the beginning of the section. TEV makes it clear who the Lord is addressing by adding “[says] to his people.” CEV uses direct speech without an introductory formula: “Israel, I, the Lord, have loved you.” Other languages may have a preference for indirect rather than direct speech, but in a book like Malachi which uses dialogue extensively, direct speech should be preserved if at all possible. In languages in which indirect speech is unavoidable, translators could say, for example, “The Lord says that he has loved you.”
The word translated loved is a broad general term appropriate to a covenant relationship. Translators should avoid words that have strong sexual overtones. You is plural and refers to the whole nation. GECL1 makes this clear by saying “I love you Israelites,” while GECL2 says “I love you, you people of Israel.”
This sentence constitutes the prophet’s opening Assertion in his dispute with the people. TEV expresses it very emphatically by saying “I have always loved you.” In some languages it may be more natural to express this with a present tense “I love you.” Translators should avoid giving readers the impression that the Lord used to love the people but does not love them anymore. But you say, “How hast thou loved us?”: There is a strong contrast between the Lord’s Assertion and the people’s Objection, so if translators have a choice of terms for But, they should choose one that conveys the contrast forcefully; one such example is “On the contrary.” You is of course again plural. The formula you say is used to introduce the Objection element in each dispute. See also 1:6, 7; 2:14 (RSV “you ask”), 17; 3:7, 8, 13. In all these places, what follows is a question and translators may prefer to render it as “you ask.” The form How hast thou … gives an old-fashioned feeling to the RSV. This is not in the Hebrew, where the second person singular is normal use when one person is addressed. NRSV uses the current English form “How have you …” as do TEV and most other modern English versions. In languages that make a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person plural, us should be translated as exclusive. TEV and many other versions expand the question as befits the context to “How have you shown your love for us?” (similarly JB/NJB, NEB/REB, NJPSV, CEV). The people’s doubt arises from their lack of prosperity and political power. “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” says the LORD: This sentence begins the Response. It has the form of a negative rhetorical question, and is framed in such a way as to show that the expected answer is “yes.” Thus it has the force of a statement, “You know that Esau was Jacob’s brother,” and so it will be translated that way in a number of languages. The prophet was aware that he could rely on his audience’s knowledge of the history of their ancestors (Gen 25:19–26). Esau and Jacob were in fact twin brothers, and some languages may require this to be stated. TEV restructures the question as a statement: “Esau and Jacob were brothers” (compare NJPSV, CEV, NLT), and in cultures where readers are not so familiar with the Old Testament, translators may choose to follow this example. In Hebrew there is no verb in the clause, and TEV has used a past tense “were” rather than the present tense is. A similar change may be necessary in other languages to avoid giving the impression that Esau and Jacob were still alive in Malachi’s own day. The words translated says the LORD are not the same in Hebrew as the words translated in the same way earlier in the verse. The expression that occurs here is not found anywhere else in the book of Malachi. Its discourse function is probably to help mark the beginning of the Response element of the dispute. It is helpful to begin a new paragraph at this point, as do TEV, NIV, Beck, NLT, FRCL, GECL, and ITCL. Yet I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau: Although the names Jacob and Esau are the same as in the previous sentence, they now stand both for the individuals and for the nations descended from them, as is made clear in verse 4. TEV shows this by saying, “Jacob and his descendants … Esau and his descendants.” The descendants of Esau are the Edomites, that is, the people of Edom. The main problem in translating this sentence lies in the verbs loved and hated. Most English versions use these words, and run the risk of representing the Lord as acting in an arbitrary and unpredictable way. Although the words are used in other contexts of ordinary human emotions, the important feature here is that they are used together to give a sharp contrast, and carry the meaning “I have loved Jacob [and his descendants] more than Esau [and his descendants].” Compare the description of Leah as “hated” in Gen 29:31, when the previous verse has made it clear that she was simply less loved than Rachel. (Compare also the parallel passages in Luke 14:26 and Matt 10:37, the first of which says “hate” and the second “loves … more than.”) This sentence is expressed in NJPSV as “I have accepted Jacob and have rejected Esau,” and in CEV as “I chose Jacob instead of Esau.” ITCL expresses this meaning more blandly as “I chose Jacob and not Esau.” In languages where the use of hated is likely to be misunderstood by readers, we recommend that translators should express the meaning in some way similar to NJPSV, CEV, or ITCL. Paul quotes this sentence in Rom 9:13. Translators should note that in Hebrew there is a stylistic feature called a chiasmus, in which the order of elements within the two clauses is reversed to give an A–B–B–A pattern. The Hebrew order is “I-have-loved (A) Jacob (B), but Esau (B) I-have-hated (A).” The pattern may be seen in the following diagram: I-have-loved (A)
Jacob (B),
X
but-Esau (B)
I-have-hated (A).
In many languages such a change of order would simply be confusing, but in others it may be retained and may produce a strong rhetorical effect. Translators must consider the stylistic patterns of their own language in deciding whether or not to retain the chiasmus. See the discussion of this feature in “Literary devices in these books” in “Translating Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi,” pages 6–7. Clark, D. J., & Hatton, H. (2002). A handbook on Malachi. UBS handbook series (373–375). New York: United Bible Societies.
... The main problem in translating this sentence lies in the verbs loved and hated ...
... Compare the description of Leah as “hated” in Gen 29:31, when the previous verse has made it clear that she was simply less loved than Rachel ...
Thanks for taking time to provide me with the comprehensive explanation. After reading your explanation twice, I am still having a problem in understanding. I can easily get the "love" part, but I fail to see or understand how the word "hate" translates into "love."
It may be so simple that I am missing it, but as hard as I try and want it to read that way - I can't get the meaning of "hate" to confer the feeling of "love."
There is no doubt you can see the true meaning ... I just cannot and it is confusing to me. I don't like to be confused, I am a person who searches for comprehension and true meaning.
Thanks for trying ... and if you can furnish any further amplification without wasting too much of your time - I will gladly read it to learn.
Repeating: It really bothers me that I don't see what you are seeing.
