The Instigator
kwagga_la
Pro (for)
The Contender
Draughtsperson
Con (against)

It is better to believe in the God of the Bible than to believe in Allah

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Draughtsperson has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 584 times Debate No: 103974
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)

 

kwagga_la

Pro

Let's try again...

The Debate is intended for a Muslim to take the Con position.

If I believe in the God of the Bible and die, then I will not be held accountable for disbelief and will be rewarded by gaining a life everlasting with God in Heaven.

If I believe in the God of the Bible and die and rejected Islam, then I will not be held accountable for disbelief or anything else because Allah is All Merciful and therefore forgives ALL sins. I have nothing to worry about.

If a Muslim dies, and the God of the Bible is the true God then he or she will be held accountable for disbelief and will be judged accordingly. Something to worry about.

If a Muslim die, and the God of the Bible is not the true God, then he or she will go to Heaven and will not be held accountable for anything. Nothing to worry about.

The emphasis is on what Islam require people to do to be saved as opposed to what the Bible teach one has to do to be saved and which view is more logical and reasonable. The emphasis is also not on whether or not Allah is the God of the Bible because it is clear that Allah do not beget and therefore the Father and Son cannot be Allah.

Rebuttals and arguments can be done from the first round. Thanks.
Draughtsperson

Con

I am not a Muslim, as you asked for, but I used to be before I apostated from the religion some years ago, and I believe I have in my youth gathered enough insight into its teachings to discuss this matter to your satisfaction.

What you're doing, is rephrasing what's known as Pascal's Wager for the context of a Muslim and a Christian in quarrel, much the way the French mathematician and theologian Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) phrased it as an argument in such a quarrel between a generic believer and an atheist (or the inner discussion a man doubting these two positions may seek solace in).

If reason cannot make certain if God exists or not (and it cannot, the philosopher confessed), yet loss and gain is taken into consideration, then he who believes, if God exists, gains all; if He does not, loses nothing - yet who does not believe, if He does not exist, gains nothing; but if He does, loses all - thus, persuading the thinker, that only belief could possibly be in his gain, and thus the only favourable decision to make.

Though I am amused by the cleverness of this idea, it seems clear to me that such a restrained perspective on something which always pretends to be ever-expansive (namely God) does very little honour to the concept - and can, from a mind as admirable in its inventiveness as Pascal's, only be the product of high sentimental confusion.

For it becomes clear, if you translate this opposition between belief and disbelief arbitrary, to the specific beliefs of Christianity and Islam, it takes on a very different shape. Sure, we can say, almost naïvely, if either one or the other are correct, where are my odds best. A nice little game, which I will gladly play with you, but you'll have to explain to me first exactly how you can apply this seriously in your own metaphysical/spiritual contemplations.
For you would have to take into account all religions, and assuming you cannot solidify on the basis of reason any greater probability for one than any other, the only way of increasing your odds of salvation would be to find, in the largest pool of religions that 'allow' one another, in that the followers of one are 'excused' by the other, as you presume it to be the case with Islam for Christianity, and then to adhere to the least tolerant of them to the others. You could picture it as Euler diagrams (the ones that are popularly used in introductory teaching of formal logic) where one figure or surface is contained in another, so that being in A (for instance, the graces of the Christian faith) also puts you in B (for instance, the graces of the Buddhist faith) but not necessarily the other way about.
If you can organize all religions in this way, you can find the one where in the end you have the most chances of being saved in the afterlife.

And again, is it not peculiar, and so fitting for the ineptitude to provide fixture of heart, which religions pretend to do, that being saved or not, in this wondrously rational perspective, is entirely on chance dependent? But good luck for creating this chart, for the thousands upon thousands of religions, and the various subtle denominations, and differences of opinion between the followers of each on the specifics of their creed. You'll come to the conclusion, by the very statistical reckoning which you wanted to debate, that any one of them, has only the smallest chance of being the right one.


But to get to the intitial question - not to hold you in suspense any longer - if either Christianity or Islam are true, then what are the odds of the adherent of either to be saved? I'm afraid this question, and your very black-and-white assertions concerning it, will also buckle under the theological sophistry and disputes on both sides. To quote against my better judgement, but for the sake of brevity from the Wikipedia page on the Afterlife:

"Some Christian believers have come to downplay the punishment of hell. Universalists teach that salvation is for all. Jehova's witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists teach that sinners are destroyed rather than tortured forever. John 3:16 says that only those that accept Jesus will be given eternal life, so the people that do not accept him cannot burn in hell for eternity because Jesus has not given them eternal life, instead it says they will perish."

If one reads any random spots of the Qur'an, one realizes that the interpretation of All-Merciful does certainly not entail that he forgives all, and extends no punishment.

"…Indeed, We have prepared for the wrongdoers a fire whose walls will surround them. And if they call for relief, they will be relieved with water like murky oil, which scalds [their] faces. Wretched is the drink, and evil is the resting place." [Quran 18: 29]

"And those who disbelieved will be driven to Hell in groups until, when they reach it, its gates are opened and its keepers will say: 'Did there not come to you messengers from yourselves, reciting to you the verses of your Lord and warning you of the meeting of this Day of yours?' They will say: 'Yes, but the word [i.e. decree] of punishment has come into effect upon the disbelievers.'" [Quran 39: 71]

And more of that kind of stuff.
I can say, from my own experience with the mainstream Sunni creed - which exempts a small number of extreme Sufis (the equivalent of Universalists) and those who do not reckon the Jews and Christians amongst the disbelievers, since they believe in God, and only disbelieve in Mohammed's prophethood and the divinity of the Qur'an - that the people of the Book, and all other religions, mono- or polytheistic, if they have come into contact with the truth (i.e. Islam) and then rejected it, they will be condemned, and no refuge will be available to them.

So I feel confident to say that your chances of salvation, if either of these religions must be true, are pretty equal in both, balancing the orthodox and moderate judgements against one another, going on the idea that none has reasonable preference over the other. But how far we drag this, and how theologically specific we'll get, will be for the remaining rounds to show.
Debate Round No. 1
kwagga_la

Pro

Thank you for accepting the Debate!

Based on Con"s reply the issues can be divided into two categories:

1. What are the requirements to go to heaven or hell according to the Muslim faith and the Bible.

2. Which faith is better to believe in based on the chances of facing accountability.

Pascal"s wager may be similar but the emphasis and therefore the crux is different. The emphasis here is what is believed by a specific group compared to another specific group. Pascal's wager cannot be used to determine whether the RCC compared to the Watchtower Society's view is more reasonable or not. This argument can. The argument therefore can distinguish reasonableness between the Watchtower Society, Roman Catholics, Protestants etc. who are all labelled Christians and even other religions. The difference between these groups mentioned is the specifics that determine accountability when you die and face the afterlife. They do not all agree, as do the Muslim faith compared to the view I present. Notice that I added to the resolution "The God of the Bible". I did it specifically because many so called Christians do not follow the Bible but invent their own salvation plans. For example: The RCC believes that the Pope is infallible based on the Bible. However, they also believe the Pope can speak "ex cathedra" and can even override the Bible. They fail to see the fallacy: if you derive your authority from a source that can be overridden then your authority can also be overridden and therefore cannot be "full authority " ex cathedra". The Pope even went so far as to state that Atheists can be saved!! I will argue the same is true of the Muslims.

The Bible states that one can only be saved by faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour without works and will therefore not be held accountable when judgement comes. In other words you cannot do some work to gain salvation but only through faith in what Christ accomplished. It"s that easy!

As you pointed out, the Quran make statements that condemn those who reject the Islamic religion and will therefore be held accountable. This also includes the servants of Allah who do not do everything Allah requires (although it is not clear what to do). Nasser, a Muslim was killed by his Muslim troops because they said he transgressed the faith for instance.

Con states: "If one reads any random spots of the Qur'an, one realizes that the interpretation of All-Merciful does certainly not entail that he forgives all, and extends no punishment".

Con presents here the basic contradiction found regarding salvation which is also found between different Christian groups as pointed out before. If All-merciful does not entail that Allah forgives all then he is NOT all-merciful. If Allah is really All-merciful then He will forgive all and send nobody to a Muslim hell. Allah cannot be All-merciful if it only applies to "believers" and excludes "unbelievers". Consider the following quotes:

"O My slaves who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah, verily Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (Surah Az-Zumar 39:53)

If Allah does not forgive the sin of unbelief then it cannot be said that he forgives "ALL sins".

Abu Hurairah (RA) relates Rasulullah (SAW) said: "Indeed, before Allah created the creation, He decreed for Himself, "Indeed My Mercy prevails over My Anger." (Al-Bukhari)

"My Mercy prevails over My Anger" is self explanatory.

Allah either forgives everyone because he is all-merciful or he does not forgive everyone and therefore is not all-merciful and so looses the moral ground to judge anyone else because one of the statements is a lie. Which verses are we to believe then regarding salvation in the Muslim faith? The answers I find most puzzling at times is when the question is asked: what exactly must be done to be SURE Allah will save you? Not even Abu Bakr who was promised paradise by the prophet was sure whether he would be saved or not (http://www.answering-islam.org...). Perhaps Con can answer this question: What exactly must a Muslim do to be SURE he/she can receive salvation that cannot be taken away.

If Allah is really all-merciful I will not go to a Muslim hell for unbelief. If Allah"s moral ground is removed because it is a lie that he is not all-merciful then I find the God of the Bible more reasonable to follow because His word is coherent. If I am wrong then it is Allah"s fault because he deceived me by not being clear. If Allah is a deceiver then I cannot trust anything he has to say about how to get saved and his moral ground is lost again.

If we therefore compare the Bible view and it is true that Allah is all-merciful then the resolution is summed up as follows:
The Muslim has a 50/50 chance of escaping accountability where as the Bible believer is 100% safe whether right or wrong compared to the Muslim position.
Draughtsperson

Con

The Mercy Question - Eschatological nitpickery (eternity or not?)

A great problem with basing our understanding and judgement concerning an absolute, eternal being on something as temporal and fluctuous as language is that you often get into little disagreements like this, over what a word is intended to mean, and how it is supposed to fit with all the other things that are said. No serious theologian can get away with his belief without the most painstaking and mind-contorting apologism and relativatism, which is as true for the Bible as for any other holy book, and I do hope I won't have to point out in detail why this is. You think of the Bible as a clear and straight-forward book, to represent a clear and straight-forward god? Read it again, brother.
If science would ever have good reason to believe in the existence of a deity, and to study him, the metaphorical, symbolical, hagiographical language of the Stone Age testaments won't do.

The word 'All-Merciful' is supposed to be a translation of either the word رحمان or رحيم, which are often respectively translated as 'the most gracious', and 'the most merciful'. It is not, as I said, by default taken to mean that He forgives everyone and everything. The verse which you quoted then, "...verily Allah forgives all sins...", can indeed be interpreted to say that He will forgive every one sin specifically - entirely semantically valid. Another, again completely valid interpretation however, is that there is no one kind of sin which He does not forgive. Doesn't mean He always forgives it, but He can, if He so pleases.
The one exception, though - and even God may make exceptions, somewhere in the fine print of His contract - is mentioned in chapter 4, verse 48 of the Qur'an: "Verily, Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with him in worship, but He forgives except that (anything else) to whom He pleases, and whoever sets up partners with Allah in worship, he has indeed invented a tremendous sin".

This still doesn't tell us unequivocally if only Muslims get to go to Heaven (and I truly believe I could have a nice intellectual kerfuffle over that with a Muslim, some time) but mainstream Christians, who believe in the Trinity, and therefore associate partners with the one true God, are as such, in the Islamic faith, certainly excluded from mercy - let's work with that.

We were looking for the best odds of salvation, given the possibility that either of these religions are true. You made the argument, dear opponent, that in Islam, it's not clear when Allah will forgive you, while in Christianity it is - namely when you believe in Jesus and his sacrifice.
The Qur'an, however, states plainly, in several places, the attributes of the people of paradise.

"Those who spend (freely), whether in prosperity, or in adversity; who restrain anger, and pardon (all) men;- for Allah loves those who do good;-
And those who, having done something to be ashamed of, or wronged their own souls, earnestly bring Allah to mind, and ask for forgiveness for their sins,- and who can forgive sins except Allah?- and are never obstinate in persisting knowingly in (the wrong) they have done.
For such the reward is forgiveness from their Lord, and Gardens with rivers flowing underneath,-an eternal dwelling: How excellent a recompense for those who work (and strive)!" (3:134-136)

The point is, that even those who did these things, and those who believed, like Abu Bakar whom you mentioned, were always in doubt, fretting over the degree of their sincerity. Did I really do this with a pure intention, pure enough to please Allah? Those religious people who are honest with themselves, notice that their motives and convictions are not always as simple, one-sided, so to speak pure as they believe they should be. How foolish - do they try to surpress the intense complexity of their psyche? In that sense, there is some wisdom in the Christian doctrine that it is not possible for man to overcome his base nature, in his aspiration to the Father, and that by his own deeds, He cannot attain to Him. The singularity of Faith sought by people of faith, is unattainable, and therefore only through God's forgiveness are we saved.
Of course, Muslims believe the very same thing: only God gets to decide, merely by the power of his Mercy, whether one is saved or not. And that which saves someone, is faith, but God needs us to prove our faith, not only by doing good deeds, and avoiding and repenting from sins, but also through tests and calamities which He sends upon us, to test if we believe in Him as well in times of hardship as in times of ease. One certain thing however, is that anyone who did believe, even if it was only a little, eventually is saved, possible after spending a little time in Hellfire to cleanse his soul..
It was narrated from Abu Sa‘eed al-Khudri from the Prophet Mohammed: “Everyone in whose heart there is an atom’s weight of faith will be brought out of Hell.”

And before the final tally, let's review Hell in Christianity for a while. It's true that most Christians believe in the concept of eternal damnation, but that's merely an interpretation, which wasn't prevalent until some time after the intial spreading of Christianity. The Jews, from which the Christian creed sprung, intially had no concept Hellfire at all, and it plays no part in the Old Testament - though later Rabbinic literature does flirt with various ideas of an underworld. Jesus himself, in the New Testament, refers several times to a place call Gehenna (very close to the Muslim term for the same thing, جهنم [djehennem]) which is usually translated as Hell, and described in Matthews 10:28: "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

And then there's John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." It all seems to imply that whoever does not believe in Jesus, does not live forever, and can therefore not be tortured for eternity - at most, he is sent to hell, for both his body and soul to die, which I don't suppose is going to be a very pleasant experience, but it will definitely come to an end. Not so for disbelievers in the God of the Muslims. They don't get the privilege of perishing, '...and live therein forever.' (I used to be so terrified of those verses as a child.)

So let's resume, and evaluate the odds of the wager again. If Islam is right, the Muslim may have to go through some infernal purification, depending on the validity of his faith and God's mercy, but he's sure to enter Paradise at some point. The Christian burns forever. If Christianity is right, the Christian gets eternal life in Heaven, and the Muslim burns for a while and perishes. So, in either case, the Muslim risks only temporary pain, whereas the Christian risk an eternity of it if he's wrong, but the chances of both for having eternal bliss are equal, if the chances of either religion being right are also equal. This puts the odds squarely in the camp of the Muslims, if you ask me.

Yet, I have to ask my honoured opponent again, what is the point of all this calculating? Sincerity, as was mentioned, is a rather big thing in religion. Faith could be said to be the opposite of doubt, and if you don't doubt, then nothing above your faith has any chance of being right at all.
But then, faith comes in many sizes, it seems, even the weight of an atom. In the end, everyone will have to look to his own heart to make the decision. As for me, whose heart is decidedly nothing but a motor for the distribution of bodily resources, I prefer just to look at what's obvious through our own investigations of the natural world, and not to go on believing, or being scared of, childish stories and fantasies, like the monsters in my closet, which have no grounding in reality. Let alone, try and make others believe it too...
Debate Round No. 2
kwagga_la

Pro

Con asks: "what is the point of all this calculating?" People have different criteria"s that can influence individual beliefs and for me "calculating" (more specific calculation to determine reasonableness & logic) is the driving factor. Calculating is for some the difference between buying a car purely because it is popular or based on efficiency versus cost. The God of the Bible says: "Come let us reason together"" (Isaiah 1:18)" and also David proclaims "taste and see that the Lord is good" (Psalm 34:8). Contrary to popular belief the God of the Bible does not demand blind faith but give an invitation to reason, comprehend and understand. Calculation requires understanding of the subject based on logic and reasonableness. If something is determined to be unreasonable it will likely be rejected. Based on this we can conclude whether something is better than something else and therefore more worthy of our devotion and commitment.

Con states that language is temporal and that there are "fluctuations". Agreed, it is true but that is all we have. However, I disagree with the conclusion Con makes. The current exchange that takes place here may be based on something temporal but we can certainly understand each others position based on the "temporal". Con says there is a problem in that we are using the temporal to describe or converse about the absolute. My response is to ask: Is your statement absolutely true? If so, then we can comprehend and express absolutes through the "temporal". If not, then it is irrational to even respond to what you stated. If what you state is true are you then even sure you really mean what you wrote? And if you did, how can I be sure I understand completely what you meant when you wrote it? It seems to me that such statements then become relative and devoid of reasonability. We require absolutes to determine the difference between what is truth and a lie. I believe the Bible is clear and straight forward but by comparing what is found in the Bible with the Bible. I do not read the Bible and interpret it based on modern perception of a concept as found in society. If we keep within in the definitions as defined by the Bible we can have a clear understanding of what the intended meaning is; if not then confusion. An example of this is your explanation of John 3:16 which I will deal with when I get there.

Con seems to rely on science as an argument not to believe in God and in so doing seems to think science do not have limits. The evidence for the Jesus Christ is historical. When it comes to historical proof the limitations of science becomes quite evident. Can you falsify your own existence? Can science be used to falsify my ancestor"s existence of 100 generations ago? The limitations of science become further evident when considering that people who define science usually base their definition of science on the natural. The reason therefore why "science" do not investigate God is because it is limited by human definitions and technology no less. There are people who do research in other areas to explain supernatural phenomena but it is often labelled as "unscientific" by those who cannot see past the natural. Some even go so far to commit fallacies when they proclaim "science has no bounds" and confine it only to the natural at the same time.

Con objects to the interpretation of "All-Merciful" by stating it is not "by default" interpreted that way and it can also be interpreted in another way. However, the objections do not exclude my interpretation and "most (a variable concept that can include meaning to the greatest extend) merciful" or "most (a variable concept that can include meaning to the greatest extend) gracious" encompasses the same idea.

The point of contention here is that Con sates: "Doesn't mean He always forgives it, but He can, if He so pleases". Allah forgives all sins but it doesn"t mean he always forgives it? In order to forgive sins you must do so always. Unforgiven sins are not "all sins" it is some "sins". If Allah can make exceptions then the "All" is proven a lie because "all" is inclusive and not conditional to allow exceptions. In contrast, the God of the Bible says that He is merciful and will have mercy on whom He pleases and never states that He is "All-Merciful". The wording in the Bible eludes these types of contradictions. Again, if it is true that Allah forgives all sins the Christian who sins must also be included, and if it is true that they are excluded then Allah is definitely not "All-merciful". I would really like to hear my esteemed opponent elaborate "This still doesn't tell us unequivocally if only Muslims get to go to Heaven". Quoting verses to support your position do not override the other verses that contradict it. You re-interpret what is written but the question here is: If what is written was not meant then why was what is meant not written? The problem here is not understanding what was written but your interpretation to ignore the contradiction.

Raising the point whether a Muslim can be sure or not about whether they will be saved questions the coherency of Islamic doctrine and therefore whether it is trustworthy. The points to consider is taken from the Quran because I mentioned before that some people might interpret something differently than what is written. In this case what is written in the Quran is from Allah and therefore the final authority in matters of dispute, unless I am mistaken and the Quran is not the final authority to settle disputes. Comparing the nature of Allah with the attributes of the people of paradise creates therefore a contradiction. It is interesting that you mention that even when some die they are able to be saved after spending time in hellfire. Will this not include Christians and the Jews as well because, after all, Islam claim that the God of the Jews and Christians are actually Allah and therefore they do believe in him although they are not clear on the true meaning. Will Allah then, who is most merciful, not have mercy on the Christians and Jews in hell and save them? If only Allah through his grace can ultimately save one then it does not really matter what is written now does it? If Allah can make exceptions then he can make exceptions regarding anyone regardless of his/her believes while on earth. It therefore seems uncertain what exactly must be done and that Allah"s nature determines salvation, whether he will forgive or not. In this case, "all-merciful" again contradicts all the other conditions stated.

Con states: "Everyone in whose heart there is an atom"s weight of faith will be brought out of Hell." Again, Muslims claim the God of Abraham whom the Jews and Christians serve is actually Allah. Therefore, although deceived perhaps, they do have an "atom" of faith and will therefore be brought out of hell. This reinforce the argument set out that the Christian can escape the Muslim hell because there will not be an eternal damnation. Therefore it certainly is better to be a Christian where damnation is temporal if Islam is correct as opposed to eternal hell if the God of the Bible is correct.

Deut 32:22 certainly do speak of hell fire and Isa 5:14 makes it unlikely that there is some condition that can cause hell to cease. Hell is clearly defined in the NT based on the OT that is a place of torment where the fire never ends. Your profile states you are an Atheist and it seems that you use the Atheistic view of death when applied to John 3:16 that everything ends at death. In order to understand perish in light of the Bible it requires an understanding of the terms use. People who are unbelievers alive today is said to be "dead" to God and those who believe are alive to God. Their current condition, although alive, is one of a perishable state. Therefore your interpretation is a fallacy to presume that perish means things end at death because the definition of death and perish has a different meaning when defined according to the Bible because it is also applied to people alive who do not believe.

Let"s evaluate the argument again, not on odds but reasonability:

1. Based on the Quran Allah is "All-Merciful" and will forgive "all sins". Therefore the Christian is included to be a partaker of this mercy even though he/she is not a practicing Muslim.
2. Getting saved depends on Allah solely, according to Con, therefore anyone can be saved because Allah can make exceptions to what is stated within Islam any time he wants to.
3. It is promised that someone with an "atom" of faith will be saved out of hell. It is claimed that the God of the Bible is Allah and therefore the Christians do have faith in Allah although they are not true practitioners of the faith. Based on the promise the atom of faith is enough to save them out of hell.
4. The Bible is clear that only Christ can save people from their sins. The Muslims do not believe this and will therefore be held accountable and be punished/rewarded accordingly. Hell is an eternal place and there is no second chance in hell.

The Muslim whether right or wrong has a 50% assurance of reaching the Muslim heaven.

1. The Christian believes in Christ as Savior and is assured of Heaven when he/she dies. It does not depend on the person but on Christ who is faithful. God cannot change his mind or will make exceptions that will contradict what He said.
2. Since Allah can make exceptions to anything he said then anyone can be saved if Allah so wills. The question also naturally follows: Can one even trust what Allah?
3. If the Christian dies but was wrong and Allah is truly "All-merciful" then he/she will be pardoned of "all sins" which includes unbelief.
4. If the Christian dies but was wrong and go to the Muslim hell then there is still hope that he/she will be saved because Christians certainly believe in the God of the Bible who the Muslims claim to be Allah and therefore definitely have an "atom" of faith.

Whether right or wrong the Christian is assured 100% that he/she will reach Heaven eventually regardless if it is a Muslim or Christian heaven.

Based on the above calculation, I believe it is better to believe in the God of the Bible than in Allah.

I would love to hear Con"s arguments about who can go to Heaven as he mentioned. I would like my honorable opponent therefore to consider the following: Is it then not obvious to you that when you consider that the blood that flows through you has and electrical current that you are composed of energy and not just some biological process? Consciousness can be measured as well by current and therefore is clearly also an energy. Does science not say energy cannot be destroyed?
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kwagga_la 3 months ago
kwagga_la
@ Draughtsperson Reading your post I smell a scent of sarcasm and disrespect. It"s a pity, I took you for civil and considerate. Your last round is certainly arbitrary and devoid of "substance" since you did not bothered to reply and now want to act like some atheist "Yoda". I suspect you are more a Jody though. The Quran states what it states and based on that it proves a contradiction. A contradiction means someone is lying. If we need to "align" meaning then references to "All-merciful" and "most gracious" should be taken out to avoid it. It"s been pointed out in the Debate and now it seems to me you think by saying the same thing over and over again it will turn out true. Allah is said to be the God of the OT and therefore Christians, according to Islam, are worshiping the true God but not correctly. Perhaps you should "align" yourself with the obvious.
Posted by Draughtsperson 3 months ago
Draughtsperson
Pro's assertions that his interpretation of 'most gracious/merciful' fits perfectly within his argument - though in itself being correct - goes against his view on how religious books ought to be read, namely in their own context. If the Qur'an clearly states that people will be punished, and that disbelief is not forgiven, then the interpretation of Allah's mercy needs to align with that, if it can - and I have pointed out that it can.

The atom's worth of faith needs to be in the true God, Allah, not a misinterpretation of him, or anyone who believes in any kind of all-powerful, overarching deity (like Zeus or Krishna) will be reckoned among them, and that doesn't fit within the rest of the Qur'anic scripture either.

I've been arguing a position not my own, just for the pleasure of arguing it, but there's only so arbitrary and devoid of substance an argument can get, and still be fun.

Therefore, I excuse myself to my opponent for forfeiting. I just couldn't be bothered.
Posted by canis 3 months ago
canis
"If God is a maniac He must EXIST to be one!"
No if a god is a maniac some people created a maniac god...
Just to do some creation.. 1. Would a god who is willing to torture humans not more likely be the devil ? The bible /coran would be the words of satan...Following it would send you straight to hell. 2. The bible /coran is gods test of our souls, ( am I willing to do literally anything for "gold" / heaven). In that case atheist will past the test...
Posted by kwagga_la 4 months ago
kwagga_la
@backwardseden You should have taken the advise below for the retard guy and just kept quiet but instead you just further proved your ignorance (having 20 years of experience no less according to you). There are many differences between the God of the Bible and Allah and one is mentioned in the opening: "The emphasis is also not on whether or not Allah is the God of the Bible because it is clear that Allah do not beget and therefore the Father and Son cannot be Allah". Try and find a picture of the Dome of the rock and you will find the same thing written there and it also states on the Dome that Jesus was only a messenger whereas the Bible says Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. Clear and concise differences to anyone who can COMPREHEND what they read, the emphasis being on comprehend and not read in your case. The word Allah is used as a translation for the English word and does not mean the gods are the same. Vishnu is a God in Hinduism but not the same as Allah although the same English word is used to identify them dingleberry. Using your reasoning skills will have to conclude all humans are exactly the same person. Considering our previous exchanges, I know these things are hard for you to grasp but at least try. A typical debate instigated by you is: God is a sadist or God is a maniac... You still do not get get it do you? If God is a maniac He must EXIST to be one!
Posted by backwardseden 4 months ago
backwardseden
Wow. As usual the host of this debate is a super duper idiota and a complete moronsville. Let's prove him wrong as always from a brief clip from wikipedia as punching in "Allah"... " More specifically, it has been used as a term for God by Muslims (both Arab and non-Arab) and Arab Christians.[9]". In other words the christian god AND the god of ISLAM ARE one and the same. DUH. Now what imbecile doesn't know this? The end.
Posted by canis 4 months ago
canis
Anyway. What are funny contest. "Who can create the most evil god".. Pro could be the winner, but lets see..
Posted by kwagga_la 4 months ago
kwagga_la
It's better to let someone think you are an Idiot than to open your mouth and prove it.
Posted by TheRoyalAcer 4 months ago
TheRoyalAcer
Both are Retarded
Posted by TheRoyalAcer 4 months ago
TheRoyalAcer
Both a are fcking retarded.
Posted by kwagga_la 4 months ago
kwagga_la
It is intended for a Muslim but if you would like to Debate the topic then please feel free to do so.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.