The Instigator
Muslimdebater
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
42lifeuniverseverything
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Jesus isn't the son of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 458 times Debate No: 93394
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

Muslimdebater

Pro

Jesus isn't son of God because God can't have sons. That would imply that there is a whole family of gods up there. And if there's a family there should be a community too and world's? So the logic that God has sons is illogical.
42lifeuniverseverything

Con

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for challenging me to this topic, and for being willing to shed light on the universe we live in one debate at a time.

I often get asked about this topic (being God in general) and I have to steer the topic in the correct direction. If we wish to answer the question of whether Jesus is God's son, then we must examine not the Son himself, but instead the true nature of God the father.

As such
this debate is not about the nature of the Son, but about the nature of God the father and whether His nature makes a Son of God possible.

Let me first present very important definitions. Because I am a fan of Merriam Webster, my definitions come from there unless otherwise specified.

1. God: "T
he Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality 3 : a person or thing of supreme value" All underlined parts are the important ones.

2. Christ: "the man who Christians believe to be the son of God and whose life, death, and resurrection as reported in the New Testament of the Bible are the basis of the Christian religion"

3. Divinity: "the state of being a god : the state of being divine
: a god or goddess : the formal study of religion, religious practices, and religious beliefs"

Now that I have covered definitions let us begin opening arguments. I am doing this because I assume that is what my opponent did in his opening speech.

1. God the father is omnipresent.

This is the attribute that can be simply defined as "all-present". Or better yet, "all everywhere". Both of these imply that God's presence is felt everywhere. This does not mean His physical being spreads like a blanket through all things with being. Rather it means that God is able to insert His physical or metaphysical presence anywhere He so desires. This means that God, can be a part of anything He wishes without it being God. So if he moved his metaphysical presence into a toad, that toad would be highly beneath him, but it would become Godly in nature so long as God inhabited that toad.

Bearing this in mind, God has the ability to have a son.

2. God is omniscient and omnipotent.

These two attributes are the most important to recognize. The first being "all-knowing", the second "all-powerful". The logic here follows itself when applied to the Son. What we must recognize is that God's infinite power and wisdom mean that He could easily find a way for some being to be His Divine Son, and also could make it possible that this Divine Being is the only one besides God and the Holy Ghost who possesses Divine attributes.

More specifically under this argument I wish to address my opponent's argument. My opponent assumes that because God is one without a wife, then He cannot have sons. To which I reply false, because His all-powerful nature can allow Him to give birth without being a mother. More specifically God might have even birthed Jesus Christ metaphysically and that is how Jesus came into being. So my opponent's argument is not very logically sound when examined against God's nature. Also my opponent assumes that one son would mean a family of God's. But this is simply incorrect because by definition, only one God can be "all powerful". So that God is the Trinity of God the father, God the Son, and The Holy Ghost. These are all unique beings, but are connected together with a bond that makes them the same, at the same time. I don't expect my opponent to believe this, because it is difficult to comprehend. Actually it is completely possible to have this Trinity because God is all powerful.

3. The real nature of God the Son.

Combining all that was previously said, the real nature of God the Son is a man who is Divine in nature and part of a Trinity that is made of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. So it makes perfect sense that God can have a Son, but not have multiple worlds of Gods.

With that said I rest my case and eagerly await my opponent's response.

-42

Debate Round No. 1
Muslimdebater

Pro

The response was very nice by my opponent. He tried to prove the logical aspect of the debate that he thinks I didn't provide. He says "this debate is not about the nature of son but about the father".

I would like to tell my opponent that I'm well aware of the nature of God. I am also religious and not an atheist. Now let's discuss the topics spoken by my opponent.

Definitions;

I'm well aware of all the definitions. Thanks

Omnipresent.

Now that is where, My opponent is wrong. Being omnipresent does mean being literally present everywhere. That does not have to be physically or by moving his presence to some other body. The meaning of omnipresent is that God is present everywhere in the sense that he can see everything, no matter where it is. Nothing is hidden from him and he is basically, for us, spirituAlly present around us.

God does not need to put his presence in some other being. He is well able to do everything from up there (That's another concept) he did send 'messengers' (not sons) to convey his message to the people. And they did a very good job. And Jesus too was a messenger. Not son.

"God has the ability to have son"

No he doesn't you see, sons are needed in two cases. Either when you're too old to carry on your work any longer, or when you plan to retire. Since God is not in need of either ofthose. He doesn't need a son. And he can't have a son. Why? He is God. One other aspect of God is, He is one. And having a son would make two Gods. Two Gods. Two different Gods. One son and another father. How can a God die? As stated that Jesus dies. God cant die . GOD can't feel pain. As Jesus did. So, Jesus wasn't God. Nor was he son of God.

SON:;

My opponent claims that God gave birth to Jesus. How can a God give birth to a human? Is God human too?

My opponent himself says 'only one God can be "all powerful" does that imply that son of God isnt powerful? Why is he son if he doesn't have all the powers inherited?

CONCLUSION: -

Things wrong with my opponent argument;-

1) God's son is in human form?
2) God just didn't need a son. He has messengers and angels to convey his message.

A bit of my actual argument too here...

1. Jesus always said God is the greatest and told people to follow God. Were he the son of God. Would he not say that follow me, because he too is a God in a way. But he constantly says to follow God.

2. Jesus did have a mother. Mary. The father is what people imagine God to be. Now people just cant imagine a person without father. So thwy imagine God to be the father but what about Adam? He too didn't have a father. Yet people don't say him to be son of God. Why?

If Adam didnt have a father. So it is possible that Jesus didn't either.

I'll keep it that much as of now. Thanx :)
42lifeuniverseverything

Con

I'm sorry I have delayed this as long as possible but I have been busy and this debate is not exactly going where I intended.

I will confine this round to responding to my opponent as my opponent has already done. Thus I will do the final round for concluding arguments.

Responses: All my opponent's words are bolded. My responses are normal font.

"I would like to tell my opponent that I'm well aware of the nature of God. I am also religious and not an atheist. Now let's discuss the topics spoken by my opponent"

Well you don't need to tell me that, your supposed to convince the voters, but ok understood.

"I'm well aware of all the definitions. Thanks"

So I hate to be rude, but you are not. Your argument clearly shows how you disregarded how my definitions I provided linked to my argument. Since you didn't understand that, you are not aware of all the definitions pertaining to the subject. You have definitions in your head, but not out on paper. It's not the same thing.

"Being omnipresent does mean being literally present everywhere. That does not have to be physically or by moving his presence to some other body. The meaning of omnipresent is that God is present everywhere in the sense that he can see everything, no matter where it is. Nothing is hidden from him and he is basically, for us, spirituAlly present around us."

Let's define omnipresent first. "present in all places at all times" http://www.merriam-webster.com... Honestly I fail to see how this definition helps you. When one is present in all places, that can be EITHER physical or metaphysical (meaning spiritual realm). So when I said God was metaphysically omnipresent, I was not lying. I fail to see a single point of disagreement which means my opponent has not addressed my actual argument under this.

"God does not need to put his presence in some other being. He is well able to do everything from up there (That's another concept) he did send 'messengers' (not sons) to convey his message to the people. And they did a very good job. And Jesus too was a messenger. Not son."

God can do whatever he desires correct? Because He is God. So when I say that God wants to be present in a Son figure of himself, if I have proof of that claim (a.k.a. the Bible) then there is no argument. God just has a Son. It's not something one can completely logically piece out because God is able to operate outside human logic. He is God. That point at least cannot be stressed enough.

"No he doesn't you see, sons are needed in two cases. Either when you're too old to carry on your work any longer, or when you plan to retire. Since God is not in need of either ofthose. He doesn't need a son."

You seem naive. Sons sometimes come because of pleasurable sex, which was an unintended consequence of said pleasurable sex. Therefore, Sons don't have only those two purposes as a need for existing. Also God does not need a Son but He has one. How is that difficult to understand? It's like a human father not needing a kid, but trying for one anyway. It is more of a desire to fellowship with such a being, not to need it.

However if you wish to be technical, God needed Jesus to be able to complete his plan of fulfilling a people to himself. That is the only need God has for Jesus, but because God needs nothing, He doesn't per say "need" Jesus in the human sense of the word.


"He is God. One other aspect of God is, He is one. And having a son would make two Gods. Two Gods. Two different Gods. One son and another father. How can a God die? As stated that Jesus dies. God cant die . GOD can't feel pain. As Jesus did. So, Jesus wasn't God. Nor was he son of God."

Multiple issues here. First, Jesus rose again according to the Bible. So He died temporarily. Also He was a human, so humans can die. But He was also fully God. Because He was a perfect human, which is essentially God. Because humans are made in God's image. So if they are perfect, then they are able to host God correctly. I hope this makes sense.

Second, God is a trinity, He is not one in the sense that God the Father is by himself. He also has the Holy Ghost, and God the Son in continual existence with him. I can't fully explain it, because its a holy relationship that is very impossible to explain.

Third, as I mentioned before, Two different Gods existing together is impossible. There is God, then if they do exist, gods. Not Gods.

"My opponent claims that God gave birth to Jesus. How can a God give birth to a human? Is God human too?"

I am being misquoted. I said "More specifically God might have even birthed Jesus Christ metaphysically and that is how Jesus came into being."

I fail to see how this is making Jesus only human. Because it isn't. Also Jesus Christ is not just fully human, but also fully God, and until my opponent disproves that fact (having the burden of proof) the argument stands. So God is not human too.


"'only one God can be "all powerful" does that imply that son of God isnt powerful? Why is he son if he doesn't have all the powers inherited?"

Jesus Christ is also fully God.

"Jesus always said God is the greatest and told people to follow God. Were he the son of God. Would he not say that follow me, because he too is a God in a way. But he constantly says to follow God."

Not because He was solely a messenger, but because He was sent to warn us of our misdeeds and turn to repentance in Him. Basically He was doing humanity a solid that we promptly punished by hanging him from a cross. What a bunch of losers we are eh?

"2. Jesus did have a mother. Mary. The father is what people imagine God to be. Now people just cant imagine a person without father. So thwy imagine God to be the father but what about Adam? He too didn't have a father. Yet people don't say him to be son of God. Why?"

Ok too many things wrong. Jesus mother that made him fully human was Mary. His father was God which made Him fully God. Your right people can't imagine no father, because human logic doesn't apply to God. Adam was born of the dust of the earth. HE WAS DUST. Dust cannot be God. He was also made in such a way that God clearly made him to be in His likeness but without God's immortal power.


"I'll keep it that much as of now. Thanx :)"

So will I. Eagerly awaiting my opponent's response.

-42




Debate Round No. 2
Muslimdebater

Pro

It seems like my opponent finally have his argument ready. Which Is basically answer to my argument. And since this happens to be my last word and I have to conclude the matter at hand, I'll briefly answer my opponent and then conclude this debate.

My opponent constantly claims that "God wants to be present in a son figure and he just has a son, no real logical reason he just wants to so he has "

Here, I'd like to tell my opponent and the voters something. It isn't appropriate for God to have a son. When you believe in God and his might, You can't expect him to have a son. And my opponent agrees that it cant be logically explains and he fails to provide proof. So that a minus for him.

Secondly, My opponent says "God needed Jesus to be able to complete his plan...."

Well, first of all God doesn't need anything. He is well able to do everything in his own. Second, if he wanted to complete his plan, must he get a son? Why not Angel? They would be better and why make him son? How does that change anything. The word'son' is just a label as of now. Jesus is who he is. Calling him son changed What? God gave him certain powers, but so did he to many other messengers. No one calls them son. Why should they to him? Just because he doesn't have a father?

"ADAM WAS DUST"

umm... We are all dust.

One point Here, IF JESUS WAS GOD HE CAN'T DIE. It doesn't matter he was half human or whatever his half god self shouldn't let him die. You cant be human and god. Jesus isnt no hybrid or whatever.

Having answered the misconceptions in my opponents arguments, a provide a bit of my own.

1.
The Bible says that Jesus denied he is God

Jesus spoke to a man who had called him "good," asking him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." (Luke 18:19)

And he said to him, "Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:17)

Jesus did not teach people that he was God

If Jesus had been telling people that he was God, he would have complimented the man. Instead, Jesus rebuked him, denying he was good, that is, Jesus denied he was God.

The Bible says that God is greater than Jesus

"My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28)

"My father is greater than all." (John 10:29)

Jesus cannot be God if God is greater than him. The Christian belief that the Father and son are equal is in direct contrast to the clear words from Jesus.

If Jesus was God, he would have sought worship for himself

Since he didn"t, instead he sought worship for God in the heavens, therefore, he was not God.

That clarifies that Jesus isn't God. He is fully human.

2. Jesus isn't son of God

"Enos was the son of Seth, and Seth was the son of Adam, and Adam was the son of God." [Luke 3:38]

Note: Adam, not Jesus, is listed in this genealogy of Jesus as the son of God, not Jesus.

Later on, the priests are asking Jesus (peace be upon him) if he claims to be the son of God. He tells them in fact, it is they who are making this claim.

"You say that I am."

Gospel of John contains the greatest number of references to "son of God"

Jesus, speaking in the third person talked about the "Son of God" in [John 3:17 - John 5:24 - John 11:4 - John 11:27]

Martha, one of the followers, calls Jesus, peace be upon him, "The Messiah, the Son of God"

"The Messiah, the Son of God." [John 20:31]

But no verse makes the exact statement "Jesus is the Son of God and as such he is divine or God."

From the Quran; since we need evidence from both books.

"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah anything but the truth. Christ Jesus, the son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: It will be better for you: For Allah is One God: Glory be to Him: (Far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs." [Noble Quran 4:171]

Notice in the Bible, the frequent link between the position of Jesus, peace be upon him, as the Messiah and the "son-ship."

This should be evidence enough but I'll provide a bit more since there is just so much evidence to support my case. And i have a lot of characters left :P

"You are my Son; today I have begotten you." [Hebrews 1:5]

Does this support the case the doctrine that Jesus, peace be upon him, is the "begotten Son of God?"

My opponent has said that God has the ability of having sons in the first round. And he said that it's possible by "moving his metaphysical presence into something".

Now, Here in the bible it's that god begotten Jesus.

BEGET;
(especially of a man) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction.

Does that mean.. god begotten Jesus? If so, then How? I'd love to know the logic behind this. Because to beget a child, you need to go through sexual intercourse. And if so.. with whom?
The BOo of this topic is on the opponent

I have finished explaining my two main points that i had to.
1. Jesus isn't God
2. Jesus isn't son of god

I'd love to see my opponents response and if he can provide the proofs or not?

Vote Pro!

Thanks..
42lifeuniverseverything

Con

I would like to thank Muslimdebater for a good debate. I will finish this round with concluding arguments and a recap of why previous arguments show I am correct. As well as responses to my opponent's last round. Let's begin.

Responses:

My opponent in the last round did something that I never appreciate. Instead of presenting the evidence that fulfills Pro's burden of proof in Round 1 like Pro should have, Pro decides to leave it out until Round 3 of a long debate. The reason this is mishandling of evidence, is because evidence is used to present BOP. When Pro does so at the end of the round and not the start, it means that I have been fulfilling my BOP and Pro has not. Note that I have definitions throughout the debate. With this is mind I ask voters to avoid attributing Pro's evidence to his cause because its foul play to suddenly bring up the Bible now.

Another thing. The resolution's interpretation from its wording, implies all I have to do is show one way of seeing Jesus as God being correct, and I win. Just so we are all on the same page.

Now for some responses to my opponent's points. Opponent's words in Bold.

"Here, I'd like to tell my opponent and the voters something. It isn't appropriate for God to have a son. When you believe in God and his might, You can't expect him to have a son. And my opponent agrees that it cant be logically explains and he fails to provide proof. So that a minus for him."

Ok I fail to see how this is a minus for me. If I may, here is a logical explanation. God was going to create a people. He knew when He gave them free will they would use it to make themselves trash. He needed a sacrifice, hence Jesus fit his Divine plan from the beginning. That is the human logic reason as to why God would ever create Jesus. But it seems the Bible makes it clear God must have Jesus to exist as the God He is. They are one and the same.

John 1:1-5 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it." https://www.biblegateway.com...

This is clearly saying that Jesus was God in the begining. And if that was so, then He is God currently because God cannot suddenly end being God. Note this also, Jesus is agreed upon by almost everyone to represent the "Word" in this verse because when Jesus came down to Earth He was the literal Word of God.

So this is clear evidence of Jesus as the Son of God, being God.

"Well, first of all God doesn't need anything. He is well able to do everything in his own."

Yes, that is completely true. But one thing God the Father (a spirit metaphysical being) had to do to reach humanity on the same level, was have a son who could be human. This is where God needing Jesus, another aspect of Himself to reach humanity, came into play. Stop seeing this in human terms, and think from the persective of God knowing He is a three-part tool (a trinity) that can accomplish different things which add up to doing everything.

"Why not Angel? They would be better and why make him son?"

Because Angel's are not perfect. Have you read the Bible? Satan is a fallen Angel.

"Why should they to him? Just because he doesn't have a father?"

Oooh the roast. But seriously, Jesus Himself claimed God was His father.

John 8:12-19 basically sums up your complaints on my arguments and my responses. "12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.13 The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.” 14 Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.” 19 Then they asked him, “Where is your father?” “You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” https://www.biblegateway.com...

What Jesus is saying here was clearly understood by the Pharisees. Jesus claimed He was God, and therefore stood for two people, making two witnesses in the eyes of the law. He is saying the Father sent him because in the Trinity, Jesus is the one who takes orders from the Father, who is the giver of the orders to Jesus and the Holy Ghost. It's not too difficult to understand.

"One point Here, IF JESUS WAS GOD HE CAN'T DIE. It doesn't matter he was half human or whatever his half god self shouldn't let him die."

Seems I didn't adequately explain this enough. Jesus when He died as a human, lost the human part of His soul to death in sins. What Jesus still had was His soul that made Him God as God's Son. That soul was what allowed Jesus to rise from the dead, and beat death. So after that Jesus ascended up into the clouds to live forever fully human and fully God. So in the human sense of the word Jesus did not die. Because He failed to stay dead.

"Jesus spoke to a man who had called him "good," asking him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." (Luke 18:19)"

Contrary to what you think no where in that verse does Jesus say He isn't good. He just asks WHY is he being called good. He is throwing the argument and an explanation back.

"If Jesus had been telling people that he was God, he would have complimented the man. Instead, Jesus rebuked him, denying he was good, that is, Jesus denied he was God."

He did not rebuke Him. The man was calling Jesus the human God. But Jesus the fully human is not God. Jesus would not have complimented the man because the man would not have believed Him to be God. It's simple logic really.

"Jesus cannot be God if God is greater than him. The Christian belief that the Father and son are equal is in direct contrast to the clear words from Jesus."

Umm actually we Christians believe whatever is written in the Bible. And that varies based on interpretation. However I believe firmly these verses are saying Jesus is the subordinate to God the Father in the Trinity relationship.

"If Jesus was God, he would have sought worship for himself"

Wrong. The scriptures clearly state Jesus was there to serve us, not receive our worship while on Earth. Once he ascended to Heaven and completed His work, then He was deserving of our highest praise.

"Note: Adam, not Jesus, is listed in this genealogy of Jesus as the son of God, not Jesus."

You don't read the genealogy that way. Jesus is the very first name in the Genealogy and Adam being a son of God is the last entry. So you are reading it wrong. That genealogy is in the Bible to prove Jesus mighty heritage through all the partriarchs.

"Later on, the priests are asking Jesus (peace be upon him) if he claims to be the son of God. He tells them in fact, it is they who are making this claim."

Because Jesus was not there to make it know He was the Son of God in need of worship. The Pharisees thought the Messiah would strike the Romans. Jesus here is pointing out that He is there for a different purpose.

"Jesus, speaking in the third person talked about the "Son of God" in [John 3:17 - John 5:24 - John 11:4 - John 11:27]"

Should have listed the verses out. Actually quoted them.

"since we need evidence from both books."

We don't because both contradict each other. Therefore Jesus should be proven Son of God from where the idea of Jesus came from, the Bible.

"Does this support the case the doctrine that Jesus, peace be upon him, is the "begotten Son of God?"

How does it not?

"Does that mean.. god begotten Jesus? If so, then How? I'd love to know the logic behind this."

He's God. He a) doesn't conform with human definitions that are imperfect b) can do whatever He desires and c) Had Jesus as a Son in a way we might never know.

"I'd love to see my opponents response and if he can provide the proofs or not?"



Since I have little time and characters I will be brief.

In this debate I have proven not through direct logic of the begetting of Jesus by God itself. But through outside evidence, definitions, and sources that Jesus is undoubtedly in the Christian religion's eyes, the Son of God most high. I believe if the voters review the evidence they will see this.

To recap.

Jesus is God's Son.

God is a trinity that is split into God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. This trinity is a perfect organism that is bonded as well as separate.

The Trinity is the reason that Jesus makes claims of God heirarchy.

The Trinity is the reason Jesus has a purpose.

The Trinity is the reason Jesus exists.

My opponent has wasted his early chances for sources, and has resorted to using misleading verses in the last round. Because of all this, I would strongly ask you

VOTE CON.

Thank you for a good debate.

-42
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Muslimdebater 10 months ago
Muslimdebater
Surely! 42 It was nice and good one indeed :)
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 10 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
Thanks for a great debate Muslimdebater! I had to fit these arguments in around work which is why one of them took so long. I hope that we both learned things.

-42
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 10 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
That is by no means what I said Justtieddebates. Read my argument and don't pull one sentence out of context please.

-42
Posted by JustVotingTiedDebates 10 months ago
JustVotingTiedDebates
a GREAT book.
https://www.google.com...

Very short book. MUST read it.
Posted by JustVotingTiedDebates 10 months ago
JustVotingTiedDebates
a GREAT book.
https://www.google.com...

Very short book. MUST read it.
Posted by JustVotingTiedDebates 10 months ago
JustVotingTiedDebates
God had sex???
Posted by ThinkBig 10 months ago
ThinkBig
Will be following
Posted by Muslimdebater 10 months ago
Muslimdebater
Thanks for the awesome comment sheed1980
Posted by Sheed1980 10 months ago
Sheed1980
I as a Muslim agree that God begets no children. Now even though we as Muslims say we are sons of Adam pbuh to prevent confusion from being called sons of God, I understand that in the biblical days religious people called themselves sons of God in a spiritual sense. God created us all so spiritually we are all God's children just as the sun, moon, stars, and everything else created in the universe is a child or creation of God. I don't say that as a Muslim but I understand the theory. Spiritually, great we are all God's children. No problem. The problem comes when Christians say Jesus pbuh is God's only "begotten" son. Begotten is a term used in the animal act of sexual reproduction. So to say God begot Jesus pbuh is saying God sired Jesus pbuh as His offspring by having sex with the virgin Mary which is totally blasphemous towards God's majesty, also meaning Mary is not a virgin which means Jesus' pbuh birth was not miraculous either. So by saying this, Christians not only blaspheme against God but admit they don't believe in the virgin birth of Prophet Jesus pbuh.
However where I disagree with my Muslim friend on the comment they made "God can't have children". God CAN DO ANYTHING HE WILLS. The word can't does not fit with God's power. The word to use is WON'T beget. So to say God begets is no different than saying He has to eat, sleep, makes mistakes, dies, forgets, can't see everything, doesn't know everything, excretes waste, gets sick & all other things that we as creatures of God have to do in our lives. If God begot offspring among any of these other things listed He would lower His standard to that of His human and animal creatures becoming equals with us, ceasing to be The One & Only, Unique, Most High perfect being. He WON'T do this.In the Qur'an 19:35 God says: "It is not befitting to God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him. When He determines a matter He only says to it "Be" & it is" This is an act only performable by God Almighty Allah alone
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 10 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
Ok cool. I will accept.

My argument will be up by Saturday.
No votes have been placed for this debate.