Thursday, July 31, 2008
Must not mention that Mohammed took children to bed -- He married a 6-year-old
What starts out as a peaceful debate between a Christian man and a Muslim woman quickly turns violent when the Christian claims "Mohammed was a pedophile" which spurs the usual reaction from the religion of peace: uncontrollable violent outrage.
See the video here
Background on Mohammed's lusts here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Wow! Definitely a double standard. She felt it was ok to insult the guy's religion but when he put it right back at her about her own she went berzerk. Of course he would probably be charged with a hate crime in some countries for pointing out what he did about Mohammed.
same fight was breaking out 400 years ago
The only solution re: Islam is total eradication! Or, you can wait for them to do it to you.
No insult on his part, strictly a statement of fact.
And the people said "AY-men" !!!
Street "debates" like that are pointless and inevitably lead to shouting matches and violence.
Anonymous said...
" same fight was breaking out 400 years ago"
Hands down, funniest comment on here.
Anyway, as the first Anonymous correctly pointed out, it is a double standard that has become too popular it would seem in today's political climate.
timesobserver.blogspot.com
I've gotta say that even though what the street preacher said was true, it was tactically stupid.
The goal is not to win arguments, it's to convince people of the truth. By verbally returning fire with the "Mohammad was a pedophile" statement he A) did not answer her challenge, implying that there is no answer (there is), and B) provoked her physical attack instead of treating her as a human being just as much in need of God's grace as the rest of us.
Let's face it, her challenges were openly hostile. But if Christianity is actually true—and I'm convinced it is—then the goal is to help her win by seeing the truth, not by beating her up further. By answering her challenge directly, she may not have changed her mind, but then again she might have. Furthermore, onlookers would have learned more and also seen love instead of hate from this preacher. In that case, they could have won too.
Here's a possible answer to her challenges:
Yes, the word "Trinity" does not actually appear in the Bible. It's a word we've applied to describe an attribute of God which is described one piece of a time throughout the Bible, especially in the New Testament. But before I give you verses, let's talk about the idea that one being could have several parts.
I've been told that the Q'ran teaches that the first five books of the Bible are accurate, though they're supposed to describe the actions of Allah. Are you aware of that? (Hopefully yes.)
Right in the very first chapter of the Bible (Genesis 1:26) it says, "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;'". Would you agree that we are made to be similar to God?
Now, it seems that the Q'ran teaches that human beings have at least two parts which can be separated. After all, it teaches that Muslims will live in paradise with Allah, right? And that includes those who die fighting for Allah, including suicide bombers, right? Now if human beings had only one major part, then when the body is destroyed, especially as thoroughly as someone who dies in an explosion, then the whole being would be destroyed. So if the soul survives to be with Allah, then human beings have at least two major parts which are separable even though we're just one being.
Therefore, if we are similar to God (again, not equal, but of the same basic design), then it is certainly possible for God to be one being with three major parts, parts which are still God in every way, but which can be separated then rejoined just as humans can be separated from the body, then restored to wholeness when the body is rebuilt. (Also, notice the portion of Genesis 1:26 I quoted uses plural personal pronouns: "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;'".)
The rest of the argument can be built from there. The reason I've gone through this twofold. First of all, to show that this woman's challenges can be answered reasonably. Second, to show that her challenges can be answered by relying only on ideas she already accepts. It makes no sense to quote the Bible to someone who rejects the Bible as unreliable. But since Islam teaches that the first five books of the Bible are (at least partially) reliable, it can be used. The rest just builds on what she accepts and can otherwise be observed or reasoned out.
On that basis you could argue that God has any number of parts or attributes (as Hindu gods are all just supposed to be attributes of the same ultimate God). As God is supposedly a spiritual entity, "numbers" or "parts" are irrelevant. How many angels can dance on a pin-point was a similarly pointless theological debate in the middle-ages. Have we moved on?!
Anonymous,
She was making a specific argument that Muslims often make, that the Bible teaches polytheism (many gods). It does not. It teaches one God made up of three, and only three, "persons"; the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For example, Jesus made statements such as, “I and the Father are one” and "He who has seen Me has seen the Father."
It would be a simpler argument to just show her the relevant Bible verses, but she rejects the Bible as being inaccurate. Therefore, the concept would have to be demonstrated to her using sources she does accept.
The bottom line is that she was making a claim about the Bible's teachings as a reason to reject the Bible. Therefore, even if a particular topic is minor (though the nature of God is kind of the central point of religious truth claims) it is important to her and must be answered for her sake.
Post a Comment