Sam Shamoun Challenged to a Debate on Jesus

IMG_5357

The debate will be on Zoom on the last Friday of November at 10pm UK.

The title will be ‘Is Trinitarian Jesus more peaceful than the Islamic Jesus?’

Sam, please confirm your acceptance. And please don;t do what you did last time when we agreed to debate on Brannon Howse’s radio show, please do not send me angry tirades of insults by email or post such on social media. No immature tactics to try and get the debate cancelled or changed.

NOTE: I understand people don’t want anything to do with Sam Shamoun but this is a personal initiative and does not represent the Muslim community. The screenshot is from a comment I sent somebody other than Sam

The Sam Shamoun refutation and rebuke section is here

 

Advertisements


Categories: Islam

111 replies

  1. Sam, please confirm your acceptance. And please don;t do what you did last time when we agreed to debate on Brannon Howse’s radio show, please do not send me angry tirades of insults by email or post such on social media. No immature tactics to tray and get the debate cancelled or changed.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Well brother you got that idiot’s attention now. He couldn’t keep his manners as predicted.

      “The sewage of Islam has challenged me to debate.
      This is the same sewage who has agreed to debate me in the past and ran with his tail between his legs. Here is my response in all caps:
      I ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE TO DEBATE YOU ON ZOOM IN NOVEMBER, BUT ON YOUR WICKED VILE PROFIT’S VIEW OF THE OT WARS. WE WILL DEBATE WHETHER YOUR ANTICHRIST MUHAMMAD AFFIRMED THE WARS OF THE OT AS RIGHTEOUS AND JUST OR CONDEMNED THEM AS VIOLENT AND UNJUST. SO LET’S GET THIS DEBATE UNDERWAY.”

      Like

    • He is throwing his toys out of the Oran in an effort to avoid debating. He always does this when challenged to a debate, he hopes his wild abuse filled rants will make the opponent walk off into the sunset whilst he is having a hernia yelling abuse.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Sam, just to remind you, you are cursed by your prophet, Paul of Tarsus. In fact he cursed all Trinitarians:

    http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/sam-shamoun-and-david-wood-cursed-by.html

    And if you are worried about your prophet’s curses and decide to give up the Trinity doctrine, you may still be cursed by your prophet due to you giving up on Penal Substitution (see the bottom of the page linked above)

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yahya – have you even read Bukhari or are you just talk?

      Muhammad cursed all Muslims shortly before he died, not only the Jews and Christians. According to Bukhari:

      Aisha said, “The Prophet in his fatal illness said, ‘Allah cursed the Jews and the Christians because they took the graves of their Prophets as places for praying.”‘ (Read it here https://sunnah.com/bukhari/23/143 )

      Now tell us where the 2nd ‘holiest’ mosque is located …directly at Muhammad’s grave!! ha ha ha … Muslims are cursed by there own prophet and they don’t even know, that is too funny!

      Enjoy your false prophet, the ‘lousy wife-beater and illiterate Muhammad’.

      Like

    • The better debate comparison would be Mohammad, the champion of the muslims versus Jesus, the Champion of the Christian’s.

      You can’t compare a fiticious entity (isa of the muslims) to Jesus, the Savior of the world, the Son of the living God.

      Liked by 1 person

    • 😂 😂 😂

      Liked by 1 person

    • “a fiticious entity”
      That’s funny seeing how you people have gospels which are historically unreliable according to your own bible scholars. Zero eyewitness accounts. Just beautiful!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Kevin,

      You believe the historical Jesus (the Islamic Jesus) is fictitious but we believe the Trinitarian Jesus is fictitious. We don’t believe Jesus allowed the severe beating of females or ordered the killing of children and women or ordered the chopping off of women’s hands for helping their husbands in a fight via low blows or was, as the Greek philosophy has him, the 2nd person of a Trinity.

      There’s a lot to discuss.

      I’m not sure why Sam is so reluctant to debate this topic, maybe the need he’s been cursed by Paul of Tarsus is affecting him.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Miaow,

      We’ve already addressed that David Wood polemic here

      https://bloggingtheology.net/2017/09/19/will-serious-minded-christians-rebuke-david-wood-for-misusing-nabeel-qureshis-death/

      Now how about we discuss Paul’s curse on Trinitarians?

      Liked by 1 person

    • the apostle Paul cursed all Trinitarians

      Yahya,
      That’s a crazy accusation, seeing that the apostle Paul definitely affirmed the Trinity all throughout his writings: These verses from the text of Scripture informed the doctrine of the Trinity.

      2 Corinthians 13:14
      “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ (the Son), and the love of God (the Father), and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.”

      In Ephesians 1:3-14 the apostle Paul mentions the work of the Father in election and predestination, the work of the Son Jesus Christ in redemption, and the work of the Holy Spirit in sealing us believers as His possession.

      In Ephesians 4:4-6, the apostle Paul teaches among other things, that there is One God and Father, One Lord (Jesus Christ), and one Spirit.

      This teaching of the apostle Paul is in unity with the teaching of Jesus (Matthew 28:19), and Peter (1 Peter 1:2 – chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ . . . (the Son) who shed His blood on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins, etc.)

      Also, in unity with Jesus’ baptism event in Matthew 3:13-17 (Jesus the incarnated Son, with the voice of the Father from heaven, and the anointing of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove.)

      Also, Luke 1:34-35 agrees, in the incarnation of Christ – 1. the power of the Most High (the Father), the conception by the Holy Spirit, and the holy child himself in the womb of Mary (the Son). John 1:1-5 and 1:14 are explained in terms that show that Jesus had no human father and there was no sex involved, but that God put His own nature/substance into the womb of Mary to make Jesus Christ in one person with 2 natures, fully God and fully human.

      So, we have Jesus, Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, all agreeing with each other and mentioning the 3 persons of the Trinity.

      Like

    • Paul does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. You are committing the sin of anachronism.

      NT Professor Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian

      DH Can you speak to the problem of anachronism and its effect on understanding Paul?

      PF I’m a historian, and the most grave “original sin” for a historian is anachronism. What that means is that you lift something out of its historical context and put it in a different historical context, and so misinterpret it. If in addition we think of Paul as an orthodox Christian, we will only misinterpret him that much more. He’s living in a period where he’s not thinking in a Trinitarian manner. The idea of the Trinity hasn’t been conceived yet. His letters will have Jesus Christ in them; they will have God the Father in them; he will talk about the Spirit of God. Those are the textual origins that will be used to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity, but Paul’s not thinking in a Trinitarian way.

      People reading Paul assume that he’s hostile to Judaism because he’s the “inventor” of Christianity. In fact, he’s still imagining himself as a Jew and he’s presenting Christianity in continuity with Judaism. The fact that Paul is such a huge figure for Christianity makes it almost impossible for us not to interpret him anachronistically when we look at him, because it’s so important that his message speak immediately to modern Christianity. If we allow ourselves to see how much his message actually cohered with first-century Judaism, then we have to relinquish an immediate connection between him and us, between this ancient Jewish messianic movement and the modern church. [Source]

      Liked by 4 people

  3. saam sshamoun afraid from Imam Hussain Makki

    Like

  4. Wow… a tu quoque fallacy and it’s not even valid. I’ll be impressed at your ignorance after I finish laughing.

    Oh and it’s *their

    😂😂😂

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Don’t debate Shamoun on total depravity. You can’t win, he is living proof.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. “The title will be ‘Is Trinitarian Jesus more peaceful than the Islamic Jesus?’”

    No NT scholar takes the quran seriously as a source for the real jesus so how do you debate on a topic where the muslim side has an entirely fantasized concept of jesus that is unhistorical, derived in no small part from christian forged apocrypha, and is largely the work of human speculation?

    Like

    • No NT scholar takes the Trinitarian version of Jesus seriously.
      The difference here is that we believe God has spoken and told us about the historical Jesus in the Quran. While Christians are relying on secular historians to sift through available sources close to the time to tell them about Jesus. Yet, interestingly enough these secular historians are coming out with a version of Jesus which is very similar to the Islamic view of Jesus: somebody who believed he was a Prophet of God (not God himself!)

      Liked by 3 people

    • Yah

      “No NT scholar takes the Trinitarian version of Jesus seriously.”

      Uh-huh.

      That’s untrue, as you know, but also tu quoque.

      Name a single NT scholar who references the quran for an authentication of the historicity of jesus.

      “The difference here is that we believe God has spoken and told us about the historical Jesus in the Quran.”

      Then why does allah plagiarize known apocryphal christian forgeries,talmudic speculation and pagan fables? The problem for muslims is that once you start to make historical claims, historical facts beat you down. The facts of history, as generally agreed upon by qualified scholars, are that the representation of jesus in the quran comes from pre-islamic sources that largely have no historical basis in fact.

      No scholar would agree that jesus told allah that he did not want people to worship him.

      If the quran makes historical claims that are at odds with known historical facts, then the quran is false, and allah is not god.

      Like

    • piggy jelly. do you. believe. everything. the torah. says about moses, abraham, adam……

      ?

      if yes, why?

      Like

    • “…are that the representation of jesus in the quran comes from pre-islamic sources that largely have no historical basis in fact”

      piggy jelly, do you believe all the sources the torah employs comes from the historical adam, abraham, moses, solomon….?

      Like

    • “No scholar would agree that jesus told allah that he did not want people to worship him.”

      piggy jelly that would be a conversation which would take place on d.o.j

      when you will be a witness to the shit u used to say.

      piggy jelly, u like worship male jews don;t u . how would u grab jesus while he is leaving an empty tomb with no linen clothing. let your homosexual fatasy out. according to your lord yhwh, worshiping a jew would be ADULTERY.

      ACCORDING to yhwh, you are a spiritual faggot.

      Like

    • heathcliff

      “piggy jelly, do you believe all the sources the torah employs comes from the historical adam, abraham, moses, solomon….?”

      The quran contains elements of known forgeries – works written sometime after jesus died by authors pretending that they were apostles. These contain nonsense stories rejected even by the superstitious standards of the 1st and 2nd centuries as made up nonsense.

      You worship a god and follow a prophet who plagiarized forged works, fairy tales and known human rabbinic speculations. Your quran even admits this – the meccans knew that mohammed’s “revelations” were nonsense.

      Like

    • “You worship a god and follow a prophet who plagiarized forged works, fairy tales and known human rabbinic speculations”

      since there is no evidence that jesus was born of a virgin or that he performed any miracles, do you believe that virgin birth is fairy tales and jesus’ miracles are fairy tales?

      jesus killed 2000 pigs in one go. who was a witness to that?

      the holy ghost (one person like one goat ) went in the womb of mary
      who witnessed that ?

      jesus shot off like superman into the heavens

      why do the miracles attributed to jesus sound like they have come directly from the jewish bible?

      which hospital did jesus visit to cure the sick ? which historical documents do we have for all these miracles?
      we can apply the same on everything jesus did.

      which village did jesus go to perform miracles? who witnessed satan baptizing jesus in the wilderness?

      jesus krist believe that moses, solomon , abraham and adam were real people, so do you , like jesus krist believe the STORIES attributed to these people in the “holy” torah?

      Like

    • heathcliff

      So you admit that the quran borrowed really stupid stories from works that christians thought were written by forgers and liars, that rabbinic jews knew were mere speculations, and which the meccans knew were fairy tales and fable?

      Like

    • no dumb piglet, all i am asking you to do is apply the same on jesus and his beliefs about the torah, because if you do it will screw you big time

      do you get it animal/gentile pig?

      Like

    • heathcliff

      I thought that the quran couldn’t be examined in the same way that the bible is since it is the word of “god” and pure revelation.

      Your point is stupid and ignorant because your quran cannot be both the eternal word of “god” and the plagiarized work of faux christian forgeries, rabbinic speculation and made up fairy tales told to keep kids entertained.

      We know that the qurn has plagiarized from different sources, it cannot be the eternal word of god, ergo.

      You are an idolater who reveres known human made up stories.

      Like

  7. By now it’s pretty obvious that I’m not a Muslim, so I wonder if Sam would be willing to debate *me*? Perhaps he will explain his bigotry to someone else?

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Keith Thompson fully answered the charges Muslims bring against the Bible and Christianity about 1 Samuel 15, and other issues also.

    http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/religion_of_peace.html

    Like

  9. the article that the foul mouthed Muslim “mr.heathcliff” linked to actually affirms what Paul Copan wrote, which is the view that Keith Thompson explains.

    Foul mouthed Mr.heathciff did not even bother to read the article that I linked to.
    His foul mouth and cursing discredits him, showing his character is bad, and he does not obey Surah 29:46 in using good and beautiful (Ahsan, احسن , from which is derived Hossein حُسین and Hasan حَسَن) arguments with the people of the book.

    Maybe I missed it, but I have not seen any of you other Muslims rebuking him either, for his cursing and dirty language.

    Like

    • “God exists outside of time, there is no “yet”, “about to be”, or “was”, as far as the true god is concerned. Is allah constricted by time?”

      No Allah is not constricted by time. But we are!
      If we repent, we don’t repent in accordance to some event that will take place in the future. The Israelites didn’t repent because they believed a man-god would die on a cross 2000 years later and magically take away their sins.
      The question is not whether God is constricted by time since it’s not Him who needs to repent. We do and we are constricted by time.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sorry, meant to post this below.

      Like

    • “The Israelites didn’t repent because they believed a man-god would die on a cross 2000 years later and magically take away their sins.”

      that would imply that after david did adultery, a future pagan sacrificial ritual got him out of the death penalty sanctioned by the torah. and they tell us that god can’t stand sin. they tell us that god they worship is a “holy ” god.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Genesis 15:16 shows God gave the Amorites (i.e., the most powerful tribe of the Canaanites) four-hundred years to repent. He let them live for four generations since their sin did not yet peak to the point of no return until that time: “And they [Abraham’s offspring] shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (Genesis 15:16). Thus, the Canaanites brought destruction on themselves by reaching unthinkable levels of wickedness and not repenting.

    from Keith Thompson’s article, linked above

    Like

    • ken temple the christian cockroach wrote :

      Genesis 15:16 shows God gave the Amorites (i.e., the most powerful tribe of the Canaanites) four-hundred years to repent. He let them live for four generations since their sin did not yet peak to the point of no return until that time :

      do you honestly think that these arguments have not ALREADY been demolished?

      Like

    • Dude try and moderate your language please

      Liked by 2 people

    • no; no Muslim has dealt with these arguments in a fair and consistent way.

      Like

    • First, how caould’ve they repented while god did not die on the cross yet?

      ” Canaanites brought destruction on themselves by reaching unthinkable levels of wickedness and not repenting.”
      Hmmm! It seens the same reason why Allah(sw) has crushed the pagan kingdoms in Daniel2.

      Liked by 1 person

    • ” Thus, the Canaanites brought destruction on themselves by reaching unthinkable levels of wickedness and not repenting.”

      quote :

      My point is that, if the Bible is to be believed, Yahweh took the land of Canaan from the Amorites and the other nations there because of their “wickedness” and gave it to the Israelites, who turned out to be just as bad as the nations they replaced. The Old Testament is full of tales of Israelites who “did that which was evil in Yahweh’s sight,” and their “evil” became so bad that Yahweh at times sent them into foreign captivity.

      quote :

      Deuteronomy 9:3

      The Bible itself, however, admits that the evil of the Israelites at times exceeded that of the Amorites.
      1 Kings 21:26 25 (There was never a man like Ahab, who sold himself to do evil in the eyes of Yahweh, urged on by Jezebel his wife. 26 He behaved in the vilest manner by going after idols, like the Amorites Yahweh drove out before Israel.)

      2 Kings 21:1 Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-five years. His mother’s name was Hephzibah. 2 He did evil in the eyes of Yahweh, following the detestable practices of the nations Yahweh had driven out before the Israelites. 3 He rebuilt the high places his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he also erected altars to Baal and made an Asherah pole, as Ahab king of Israel had done. He bowed down to all the starry hosts and worshiped them. 4 He built altars in the temple of Yahweh, of which Yahweh had said, “In Jerusalem I will put my Name.” 5 In both courts of the temple of Yahweh, he built altars to all the starry hosts. 6 He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced sorcery and divination, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of Yahweh, provoking him to anger. 7 He took the carved Asherah pole he had made and put it in the temple, of which Yahweh had said to David and to his son Solomon, “In this temple and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my Name forever. 8 I will not again make the feet of the Israelites wander from the land I gave their forefathers, if only they will be careful to do everything I commanded them and will keep the whole Law that my servant Moses gave them.” 9 But the people did not listen. Manasseh led them astray, so that they did more evil than the nations Yahweh had destroyed before the Israelites. 10 Yahweh said through his servants the prophets: 11 “Manasseh king of Judah has committed these detestable sins. He has done more evil than the Amorites who preceded him and has led Judah into sin with his idols.”

      ///

      ken, why didn’t yhwh tell the jews to turn the SWORD on their children after they had COMPLETED massacring the CHILDREN of the amorites?

      Like

    • abdull

      “First, how caould’ve they repented while god did not die on the cross yet?”

      Silly question that emphasizes just how confused islam is about the true god.

      God exists outside of time, there is no “yet”, “about to be”, or “was”, as far as the true god is concerned. Is allah constricted by time?

      Like

    • So the death of your god didn’t happen in a specific time, Joel?
      What a religion ! 🙂

      Like

    • “God exists outside of time, there is no “yet”, “about to be”, or “was”, as far as the true god is concerned. Is allah constricted by time?”

      yhwh was eternally KILLING himself on a heavenly cross?

      Like

    • abdul

      “So the death of your god didn’t happen in a specific time, Joel?”

      Sure it did, but god’s work is not constricted by it.

      Heathcliff

      “yhwh was eternally KILLING himself on a heavenly cross?”

      Not as far as I know.

      Like

    • It seems for Jesus being begotten( generated) & dead are always in the eternal sense! How ? It’s a mystery of a religion developed by councils in lobbies of Roman empire.

      Like

    • “God exists outside of time, there is no “yet”, “about to be”, or “was”, as far as the true god is concerned. Is allah constricted by time?”

      No Allah is not constricted by time. But we are!
      If we repent, we don’t repent in accordance to some event that will take place in the future. The Israelites didn’t repent because they believed a man-god would die on a cross 2000 years later and magically take away their sins.
      The question is not whether God is constricted by time since it’s not Him who needs to repent. We do and we are constricted by time.

      Like

    • abdull

      “It seems for Jesus being begotten( generated) & dead are always in the eternal sense! How ? “

      That is so incoherent. I said that the works of god are eternal and have effect outside of time – this has to be obvious for anyone who believes in an eternal creator who exists outside of created time but who also acts within creation. The fact that you don’t agree and are having such a hard time comprehending this fact is a great example of how the islamic concept of god is absurd and merely reflects pagan arab anthropomorphic concepts of god.

      You pay lip service to god’s timelessness, but your islamic brainwashing renders you incapable of following this concept to its logical conclusion.

      Like

    • belieber

      “The Israelites didn’t repent because they believed a man-god would die on a cross 2000 years later and magically take away their sins.
      The question is not whether God is constricted by time since it’s not Him who needs to repent. We do and we are constricted by time.”

      You need to stop trying to be clever – it isn’t working. Your comment is dumb.

      God is perfectly just, which means that all sin throughout the course of human existence must be addressed by yahweh, and it is redressed by yahweh.

      The muslim answer to this fact is to stupidly claim that allah revealed islam before mohammed existed and that muslims existed long before mohammed whom the quran (i.e. the revealed word of “god”, LOL!) claims was the first muslim (although it eternally contradicts itself on this, LOL).

      No scholar accepts this muslim nonsense and that there is no evidence in history to support this stupid claim.

      The more rational answer is that god’s actions within time, have effect throughout time. You sorry excuses for apologists are roundly refuted.

      “The Israelites didn’t repent because they believed a man-god would die on a cross 2000 years later and magically take away their sins.”

      What are you even talking about? Somehow walking seven times around a pagan cuboid tent and praying 5 times a day (none of which your god actually commanded in his “revelation”) will assuage an eternal being? LOL!!

      Like

  11. “As noted, this type of “destroy all that they have … man and woman, child and infant” language was commonplace in the Near East and is not to be taken literally. It was simply a way back then of saying there was going to be war victory. How do we know Saul did not literally annihilate all the Amalekites including women and children? Because later in 1 Samuel 27:8 we see that there are Amalekites still living. They are also seen again in 1 Samuel 30 in massive number (four hundred) (vv. 1, 17). Thus, to argue Saul literally wiped out of all Amalekites including women and children is erroneous since the totality of the book demonstrates a great number of them were not meant to be killed. Again when those in the Ancient Near East would say they were going to (or did) wipe out all of the people of a land; it was a hyperbole to communicate desired decisive war victory.

    Now it must be asked: who were the Amalekites and why was war with them justified? Immediately after Israel crossed the Red Sea and camped in the wilderness in Rephidim in Exodus 17, these barbaric nomad Amalekites viciously attacked them there (Exodus 17:1, 8). As Copan notes, “The Amalekites were relentless in their aim to destroy Israel, and they continued to be a thorn in Israel’s side for generations (e. g., Judg. 3:13; 6:3-5, 33; 7:12; 10:12; etc).”(7)”

    From Keith Thompson’s article, linked above

    I would add that Deut. 25:17-29 explains the background (along with Exodus 17) – that it was the Amalakites who attacked the weak and stragglers and weary Israelites FIRST, and that I Sam. 15 is a command to judge them “in the land” (Deut. 25:19). The command is to get the victory in war and to drive the pagans out of the promised land. The command is not literal to wipe every person and child out; it is to cleanse the promised land of paganism and idolatry.

    Also, even after Samuel executes Agag the king of the Amalakites, his descendents, the Agagites, lived on outside of the promised land, and Haman in the book of Esther was a descendent of king Agag and had in his nature and character an evil, wicked soul, and he tried to wipe out all of the Jews living in the Persian Empire. (book of Esther)

    Like

    • do you think all the BULLSHIT you quoted from thompson has not already been addressed?

      Like

    • more confirmation of your bad character and you make Islam look bad by your bad behavior and dirty language.

      Like

    • Ken, stop this hypocrisy.
      If Christianity (i.e. the religion of the pagan Rome) had not been adopted by Rome, it would have been demolished.
      The spread of your christianity, ken is because of the political power of Rome.

      The “love” theory has nothing to do with your christianity in light of the reality of your history, the reality of today, and even in the future.

      Your religion is just a fantasy which has nothing to do with reality of this word. You wanna proof?
      Just look to you, Ken in the west. This fact has been proved historically.
      Recently, it’s been realized by the secular ones though muslims has known this fact already as the sun

      Enjoy 🙂

      Like

    • Most Christians acknowledge that the complete marriage between the state government and the religion after 380 into the 500s was a mistake, and not the original thing – the original entity was from roughly 0-400 AD.

      I have seen the Bill Maher thing before and he is clever, but he mixes up Christian truth and the Church with the government’s power and authority to punish evil (police and just wars – like against Hitler). Anyway, I understand the history and problems and of course, they are a complicated mixture of good and bad. Maher is just an old atheist who is pretty similar to Hugh Heffner, the founder of Playboy who just died. (immoral serial adulters and pornographers) So, I don’t have much respect for them at all. But Maher also criticizes Islam big time, so it’s kind of ironic for you to use Bill Maher.

      Enjoy 🙂

      Like

    • More of Bill Maher on Islam. enjoy! 🙂

      Like

    • No …No Ken.
      I know what the secular west says about Islam, and what the secular perspective is about Islam. Regardless what they think is true or not, those people have always been with violence & force to spread their values which they think are the best for this glob from their perspective.
      The result is “amazing”!

      However, he as an atheist and Us as muslims can deal with each other, and we know how this glob works (in reality not fantasy). But we both , also, know how hypocrite you’re when you’re the most violent people on this glob, and you are in the favour of violence (historically and in the present) in the active form while your religion allegedly is about (love, doves, and rain bows). It seems you consider Jesus is “nuts”.

      Enjoy for the second time ( as the shameless hypocrites as they’ve always been) 🙂 How deep!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Most people apparently take for granted that Copan’s “give-them-a-chance-to-flee-before-you-attack” interpretation would, if true, make God’s intentions for the Canaanites appear a bit less barbaric than as they do under the literal interpretation.

      I beg to differ:

      a) resources in the ANE were scarce, its no coincidence that the land God allegedly promised to Moses and Joshua just happened to have been lush with water and vegetation suitable to the needs of agrarian settlers;

      b) We have no indication from the bible that Moses, Samuel or Joshua or anybody else ever gave any Canaanite city any advance notice of opportunity to flee the coming invasion. So the only way Copan’s thesis could ring true is if we suppose Canaanites got lucky, and their own military spies came back to town with word that the Hebrews are advancing in battle formation. In other words, if the Canaanites fled, they likely did so in a rushed way that abandoned most of their water and food resources, so when they arrive in some inhospitable place outside the promised land, they have even less resources in this harsher environment than they had in the land of milk and honey.

      c) We have no indication that Moses, Samuel or Joshua ever gave any Canaanite city any advance notice of how far they needed to flee to avoid battle with the Hebrews. So if the Canaanites did flee, there was a risk they’d naturally go to some other part of the promised land which had vegetation and water, and thus subject themselves to battle anyway, or a need to flee a second and maybe a third time;

      d) If the Canaanites properly fled to a point outside the land of milk and honey, then those few places there which were blessed with a bit of water, vegetation and other resources to take the misery out of life, would likely have already been occupied or owned by previous pagan settlers. They would likely interpret towns full of Canaanites marching toward them as either a military threat, a health threat, or at the least a threat of decreasing their own food supplies, which reasonably justify the conclusion that fleeing Amalekites would increase the probability of their slow miserable deaths if they chose to flee a looming Israelite invasion.

      Some would argue that God’s “allowing” a 4 year old Canaanite girl to die slowly over a period of a couple of months from starvation, thirst, sickness, exposure, attacks by traveling bandits and exhaustion (these things took many lives in the 19th century as people in the eastern US migrated westward on the Oregon Trail), makes God to be a greater moral monster, than if he had simply effected her death in a matter of seconds by Hebrew sword, spear or club.

      I conclude that when properly analyzed, Copan’s “allow-them-to-flee” thesis, if correct, only shows that God is far more barbaric and cruel than the literal “kill all the children” interpretation that Copan was trying to avoid.

      barryjoneswhat@gmail.com
      http://turchisrong.blogspot.com

      Liked by 1 person

  12. “Although Muslims condemn such wars of Saul and David, the Islamic religious sources place the responsibility of them onto Allah. The Allah of Islam claims to be behind them. Thus, Muslims must condemn their own false god if they are going to be consistent in their condemnation of these wars. In Surah 2:249-252 of the Quran Allah takes responsibility for the wars of Saul and David which can be found in the book 1 Samuel, the very book containing Saul’s wars which Muslims condemn:

    “49And when Saul marched forth with his forces, he said, “God will test you by a river: He who drinketh of it shall not be of my band; but he who shall not taste it, drinking a drink out of the hand excepted, shall be of my band.” And, except a few of them, they drank of it. And when they had passed it, he and those who believed with him, the former said, “We have no strength this day against (Djalout) Goliath and his forces:” But they who held it as certain that they must meet God, said, “How oft, by God’s will, hath a small host vanquished a numerous host! and God is with the steadfastly enduring.” 50And when they went forth against Goliath and his forces, they said, “O our Lord! pour out steadfastness upon us, and set our feet firm, and help us against the infidels!” 51And by the will of God they routed them; and (Daood) David slew Goliath; and God gave him the kingship and wisdom, and taught him according to His will: and were it not for the restraint of one by means of the other, imposed on men by God, verily the earth had been utterly corrupted. But God is bounteous to his creatures. 52Such are the signs of God: with truth do we rehearse them to thee, for one of the Sent Ones art Thou” (S. 2:249-252).

    In fact such wars are called “the signs of God” in S. 2:252. This truly demonstrates the inconsistency of the modern Muslim since they are condemning military expeditions which the Quran speaks of with approval.

    Moreover, In Sahih Bukhari we learn that Muhammad and his companions affirmed Saul’s rightful authority to wage wars; the same Saul and wars mentioned in 1 Samuel Muslims vehemently attack:

    “Narrated Al-Bara: The companions of (the Prophet) Muhammad who took part in Badr, told me that their number was that of Saul’s (i.e. Talut’s) companions who crossed the river (of Jordan) with him and they were over three-hundred-and-ten men. By Allah, none crossed the river with him but a believer.”(8)

    Muhammad and his early companions were perfectly fine with the wars of Saul which modern Muslims attack. They even referenced his military campaigns as something positive and ordained by God. In fact they identified those who fought alongside Saul as “believer[s].”

    From Keith Thompson’s article linked to above

    Like

    • Ken you just don’t want to understand do you?
      We’re not saying that wars in ancient Israel were wrong. We’re saying the BIBLICAL wars of ancient Israelites were wrong. Is it that difficult to understand. Just because Islam affirms an event in the past doesn’t mean that that event is what the Bible describes.
      It’s like saying Islam affirms Jesus his miracles but in the bible he is also mentioned as the Son of God so Islam affirms him as the Son of God.
      I don’t think you’ll ever get it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • the guys who put the Qur’an together did not know what the contents of the OT was, cause they got the info from Jewish Midrash, apocraphyl Gnostic gospels, legends, and myths.

      Like

    • Buahahaha pathetic! Another accusation with zero proof.

      Like

    • Ur NT potatoes copied from enoch, from each other from pagan sources like paul did.

      Like

    • belieber

      “We’re saying the BIBLICAL wars of ancient Israelites were wrong. Is it that difficult to understand. Just because Islam affirms an event in the past doesn’t mean that that event is what the Bible describes.”

      The stupidity is unrelenting. Did you just say the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard?……..”islam affirms an event but it doesn’t mean that the event is what the bible describes”? LOL!!! You are so dumb.

      Nowhere in the quran are the biblical wars condemned, nor does mohammed condemn them. Modern muslim condemnation is merely an elaborate, but transparent, strategy to deflect attention away from the implicit sadistic savagery of mohammed and his god.

      Nowhere are christians called to murder innocents, nor are we called to murder apostates, adulterers, or unbelievers.

      Your goat god commands that muslims kill apostates, adulterers, and unbelievers, and this is the example for all time set by your prophet. No wonder you keep trying to deflect attention away from your own faith onto events set way back in history that could be mere metaphor.

      Like

    • The Quran itself tells you that the Jews wrote their scripture with their own hands. The Prophet condemned the killing of women and children. Your man-god didn’t! That’s why we say it’s not just. And no one needs to explicitly say that killing women and children is wrong anyways. If God needs to tell you that then your are a sick fuck!
      What sadistic savagery joely? You mean genocides which involve killing women, children and livestock? You pagans have the nerve to point your finger at someone else while you have the stuff of nightmares in your book. Look at the shit in your bible before you start pointing fingers at others.
      You talk about apostasy/adultery law while your man-god said that if someone in your family becomes an apostate then you are the first to put them to death. But of course you’ll play the ‘O that was in the OT, now we have Jesus’ card (whatever the hell that means). The OT becomes a historybook when it’s convenient and scripture when it’s convenient (when there is some alleged prophecies about your man-god).
      Killing unbelievers is the most pathetic argument that crosstians can bring. It’s only in self defense. Not that you’ll ever understand that of course.

      You idiots don’t follow the OT or the NT for that matter.
      Do the women cover their heads in church?
      Do you put your children to death after they curse their parents?
      You assholes needed a reformation cus the people had enough of your shit. The only reason you follow parts of your book and neglect chunks of it is because the secular world had enough of you and kicked your ass and put you in your place and rightly so.
      For hundreds of years crosstians didn’t treat the OT as a historybook. They actually followed the stuff of nightmares in your comicbook. They also killed apostates, adulterers and unbelievers: like the many sects in South America that were wiped out by the crosstians.
      Like I said to Ken:
      The history of Islam compared to that of crosstianity is like comparing ghandi movement to that of the fascist movement.
      Now go ahead and justify your shit by throwing the OT (and parts of the NT as well btw) under the bus and your history as well.

      Liked by 1 person

    • You have discredited yourself and your religion (just at Mr.heathcliff already did) by your dirty language and cursing.

      The Quran itself tells you that the Jews wrote their scripture with their own hands.
      No, not all of them, and only the illiterate ones who go apart and heard wrong and make up stuff. See below.
      You refer to Surah 2:79, but you have neglected the context of verses 75 to 78. Shame on you! You are a bad exegete and sloppy.

      Context of Surah 2:75-79

      Muslims seems to constantly say 2:79 means the Torah was completely corrupted.

      Surah 2:75 – “a party/sect/group from among them” ( the Jews) ” فریق منهم , who used to hear the words of Allah and distort / change (the Torah) after they had understood it.
      This goes with Surah 3:78 – منهم لفریقا – “from among them there is a party/group” – a party among them who distort the Scriptures with their tongues. (not the writing there, but with their words, interpreting the text wrong)

      Surah 7:159 – a faithful party / group of the Jews.

      Surah 3:113-115 – a faithful party of the Jews who stayed up late at night reciting the Scriptures.

      One party cannot totally corrupt all of the Scriptures because there are so many other copies globally of the Scriptures.

      So, it cannot mean that all of the original Torah was corrupted or lost.

      Keep reading to 2:85 – condemns people who don’t accept ALL of the Word of God. (in context, meaning The Torah or Tanakh)
      The context of 2:75-79 points to some parts of verses or writings that people were making up and going apart and saying “this is from Allah”, but it could not effect all the other Scriptures all over the world.

      I would add that 2:78 shows that this group is:
      a. Uneducated / illiterate
      b. Don’t know the Scriptures
      c. Only going by what they hear

      so this group of 2:79 are uneducated and illiterate and don’t know the Scriptures and only going by what they hear.

      This is seems to be what Muhammad did – he is just hearing things, doesn’t have the Scriptures in Arabic, and cannot read Hebrew or Greek, so he doesn’t know everything about the previous Scriptures (except what he is hearing, and the true parts of Midrash and apocryphal gospels -the word Injeel, Jesus is Al Masih, born of the virgin Mary, etc.) and is just assuming that he understands them and approves of them, and assumes the Christians and Jews are teaching wrong things.

      Like

    • first 3 tp almost 4 centuries was good and no war and no force. So you are wrong. Islam was the one that joined with HItler and fasicism – Mufti of Jerusalem approved of Hitler and they were friends. Shame !!

      Like

    • The first 3 to almost 4 centuries of Christian history was good and no war and no force. So you are wrong.
      John 18:36
      Matthew 26:52
      Ephesians 6:10-18
      2 Corinthians 10:3-5

      Like

    • Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”
      John 18:36

      Like

    • Then Jesus *said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.” Matthew 26:52

      10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might.
      11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.
      12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.
      13 Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.
      14 Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness,
      15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
      16 in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.
      17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

      18 With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints, 19 and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel,
      20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in proclaiming it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

      Ephesians 6:10-20

      Like

    • quote :
      Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”
      John 18:36

      just imagine if saint pontius pilate found out that jesus TOLD his pals to purchase swords.

      just imagine if saint pilate found out that one of jesus’ pals chopped off an ear

      christian history was BLOODY the day your pagan lord was born. god got saved by his parents, but all those poor souls were MURDERED because herod was TRICKED.

      jesus used violence in the temple

      conveniently kept that hidden from pilate, wink wink

      jesus was praying “thy KINGDOM come here on earth….”

      wink wink

      kept that hidden from p pilate, didn’t he?

      Like

    • quote :
      Then Jesus *said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.” Matthew 26:52

      wink wink, kept the following hidden from pilate

      “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

      Of David. A psalm. The LORD says to my lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

      wink wink

      all “lokey”

      all hidden

      deceptive “savior” and LIAR and deceiver

      Like

    • by the way who was there to listen to the conversations between pilate and jesus? all the pals had already fled and according to mark jebus KEPT silent . john is a later fiction and invention. john invented conversation without any source for it.

      you cannot use john or matthew when mark tells you that jesus kept silent.

      johns chatty jesus did not EXIST in marks time.

      Like

    • belieber

      Make up your mind idiot, should we beliebe that the OT writings on warfare are true, or are they made up? If they are made up – s you just stupidly claimed – then your ignorant rants against them are pointless and stupid. If they are true, then you own holey book and its satanic god are culpable because it never condemns OT violence. Either way, you come out looking even more stupid than ever.

      “You talk about apostasy/adultery law while your man-god said that if someone in your family becomes an apostate then you are the first to put them to death. But of course you’ll play the ‘O that was in the OT, now we have Jesus’ card (whatever the hell that means). “

      Idiot. That was the OT. Where are chritstians commanded to kill apostates, adulterers, homosexuals and unbeliebers? OT laws applied only to ancient israelites living in ancient israel. There’s no command to spread this law to non-jews through violence or otherwise.

      Moron. The OT is history and scripture – it is inerrant in its teaching, that doesn’t mean we imitate every story, or even that every story is literally true, it means that the teaching is true.

      From the violent verses we are not taught to view these as great examples of behaviour like muslims are taught that mohammed gouging out people’s eyes for apostatizing is a great example for all time. From the violent verses we learn that god’s punishment is just, we learn trust in his omniscience and wisdom, and that his will is sovereign. You can judge yahweh as much as you want, but you implicitly condemn your prophet and whatever “god” he represented.

      Like

    • Wrong Ken!

      Your exegesis isn’t correct.

      Distort or change doesn’t have to mean change it with their tongues. That’s just you reading it into the text. You refer to 3:78 but I would love to see some evidence that 2:75 and 3:78 are talking about the same people. I asked this of you in the past but you didn’t provide anything.
      Indeed, read the context!
      Q 2:79 says So woe to those…
      Whether they are illiterate or not is of no importance. Q 2:79 is talking about ‘those’ who write the ‘scripture’ with their own hands. Who is this those referring to? To the ones that write it with their own hands. Q 2:79 does not necessarily talk about the illiterate ones writing it. Even if it did, it doesn’t matter. The fact is that the Quran confirms the corruption of their scripture.
      “The context of 2:75-79 points to some parts of verses or writings that people were making up and going apart and saying “this is from Allah”, but it could not effect all the other Scriptures all over the world.”
      That’s you reading things into the text again. Q 2:79 just says Woe to ‘THOSE’ who write the ….
      It could be that ‘those’ are the vast majority of writers of the ‘scripture’.
      The Quran doesn’t say: woe to those wrote it with their own hands while most others wrote the true word of God.
      You are giving your own spin to it.
      Commentary on Q 2:79:
      These observations relate to their rabbis. They were not content with misinterpreting the Word of God. They also interjected into it their readings of the Scriptures and their explanatory comments thereof, stories from their national history, superstitious ideas and fancies, philosophical doctrines and legal rules. The result was that the Divine and the human became inextricably mixed. They claimed, nevertheless, that the entire thing was divine! Every historical anecdote, the interpretation of every commentator, the doctrine of every theologian, and the legal deduction of every jurist that managed to find its way into the Bible became the ‘Word of God’. It was thus obligatory to believe in all that, and every deviation from it became tantamount to deviation from the true faith.

      Ibn Kathir on 2:78:
      (And there are among them Ummyyun people) meaning, among the People of the Book, as Mujahid stated. Ummyyun, is plural for Ummi, that is, a person who does NOT write, as Abu Al-`Aliyah, Ar-Rabi`, Qatadah, Ibrahim An-Nakha`i and others said. This meaning is clarified by Allah’s statement,
      Ibn Kathir on 2:79:
      This is another category of people among the Jews who called to misguidance with falsehood and lies about Allah, thriving on unjustly amassing people’s property. `Waylun (woe)’ carries meanings of destruction and perishing, and it is a well-known word in the Arabic language. Az-Zuhri said that `Ubadydullah bin `Abdullah narrated that Ibn `Abbas said, “O Muslims! How could you ask the People of the Book about anything, while the Book of Allah (Qur’an) that He revealed to His Prophet is the most recent Book from Him and you still read it fresh and young Allah told you that the People of the Book altered the Book of Allah, changed it and wrote another book with their own hands. They then said, `This book is from Allah,’ so that they acquired a small profit by it. Hasn’t the knowledge that came to you prohibited you from asking them By Allah! We have not seen any of them asking you about what was revealed to you.” This Hadith was also collected by Al-Bukhari. Al-Hasan Al-Basri said, “The little amount here means this life and all that it contains.”

      Q 2:85 doesn’t affirm that the bible is uncorrupt.
      Here is some commentary on it.
      Before the advent of the Prophet (peace be on him) the Jewish tribes who lived on the outskirts of Madina had concluded an alliance with the Arab tribes of Aws and Khazraj. When the Arab tribes fought against one another each Jewish tribe fought on the side of its allies, which led to fratricide and so to a flagrant violation of the Book of God. Moreover, when the war ended the captives were ransomed. This ransom was justified on the basis of scriptural arguments; they extolled the Word of God when it permitted the ransom of prisoners of war, but attached no significance at all to the same Word of God when it prohibited mutual feuding.

      “but it could not effect all the other Scriptures all over the world.”
      How do you know the Quran implies that these “other Scriptures all over the world” aren’t corrupt either?
      You see you have assume one thing after another. God just says woe to THOSE who write the ‘scripture’ with their own hands. You go ahead and take this and pretend that it’s only talking about 5 potatoes somewhere in Arabia.

      Really Ken? You’re gonna show the Mufti now? I don’t agree with him but the Mufit at least didn’t have any influence on Hitler because everything he said Hitler already affirmed and approved it months (and some of it even years) prior to their meeting.
      Do you want me to show you the involvement of the Zionists? You know the ones who actually run the entire west now via private banks. The ones who funded all the wars in the ME and are continuing to fund them. How they had their zionist coin at that time with the involvement of Hitler.
      How they funded both sides.
      Do you want me to talk about the UK/US involvement?
      Are you gonna cry ‘conspiracy theory’ now? Like a 21st century politician.
      The Mufti’s sayings aren’t a conspiracy theory but ALL the UK/US/Zionist involvement is OBVIOUSLY a conspiracy theory.

      I do however fully apologize for my behavior. You’re right Ken. I am commended to behave in a proper manner to you (or anyone else for that matter). I just lose my stuff because of joel’s arrogance and I just can’t stand this amount of massive hypocrisy and because I’m in a pretty bad mood lately with the things that are unfolding in my life.
      So again, my apologies.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I do however fully apologize for my behavior. You’re right Ken. I am commended to behave in a proper manner to you (or anyone else for that matter). I just lose my stuff because of joel’s arrogance and I just can’t stand this amount of massive hypocrisy and because I’m in a pretty bad mood lately with the things that are unfolding in my life.
      So again, my apologies.

      I appreciate that part. Thanks.
      The other part I don’t have time right to answer, but, Lord willing, later. I have to go an appointment and be on time, etc.

      Like

    • As I expected joely throws the OT under the bus.
      I’m not saying that you should or should not follow it. I just point to what your history says and what your bible says. I’m pointing to the fact that you appeal to the secular world and the Christianity you have today is not what you had in the past. The church did not consider the killing of adulterers abrogated. You do. That’s not my problem.
      In the NT killing your children for cursing the parents is clearly not abrogated. That’s why you have preachers like steven anderson who actually listens to his bible and wants this to be applied today.
      I just point out what your bible says. That’s it.
      John Calvin ordered Michael Servetus (a unitarian who opposed the trinity) to be burned at the stake. Is this the religious freedom you’re talking about? This was such a common practice. Burning witches at the stake like the OT demands. Is this throwing the OT under the bus? No.
      Whether you wanna follow it or not is up to you. I just point out that the church didn’t consider the OT to be JUST a history book.

      “OT laws applied only to ancient israelites living in ancient israel.” That’s your saying. That’s not what Christians thought in the past.
      Jesus affirms the Jewish laws fully and orders you to fully obey them.
      Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever PRACTICES and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17-19

      If the OT is not to be followed anymore and hence many commandments have thus been abrogated then. How can you practice something if it’s abrogated?
      You can’t.

      Liked by 1 person


    • Idiot. That was the OT. Where are chritstians commanded to kill apostates, adulterers, homosexuals and unbeliebers? OT laws applied only to ancient israelites living in ancient israel. ”

      where did yhwh say that his ETERNAL laws applied only in ANCIENT city of israel?

      tell us PIGGY jelly.

      https://imgur.com/ITm7h7g

      Like

    • “gouging out people’s eyes for apostatizing is a great example for all time.”

      They were heavily punished because they took advantage of the hospitality and KILLED a man for providing for them and cured their illness. Of course you left that part out.

      Inerrant in its teachings? Is this another way of saying that there are errors in the bible but the teachings behind them are just?
      “From the violent verses we learn that god’s punishment is just”
      Like ordering the killing of infants and livestock. Suuuuuure.

      Like

    • Brother I think it’s enough with the three headed goat.

      Like

    • The idiot Ken appeals to the Mufti of Jerusalem for like the 50th time, as if repeating idiotic things makes them more logical. Ken, didn’t your lying spirit tell you that Christians were the number one supporters of the Nazis?

      The Mufti of Jerusalem had a political reason to side with Germany. He wanted the hated British out of the Holy Land. Since the British were Germany’s enemies, it made strategic sense to ally with the Germans. This was the same reason the British and Americans allied themselves with Stalin. It was an alliance of convenience. They had a common enemy, so they cooperated.

      In any case, the Mufti of Jerusalem was not the emperor of Muslims, you dingbat.

      Now let’s watch little Kendra whine and moan like a little girl…

      Liked by 2 people

    • belieber

      Where does jesus tell us that christians should kill apostates, adulterers and homosexuals? And, no, I haven’t thrown the OT under the bus – its teaching is inerrant. As I said, god’s commands to kill in the ancient world applied only to that time and to those people.

      How many apostates and apostates have you stoned to death? My count is zero, because I’m not commanded to do so. How many homosexuals have you thrown from the “high places”? My count is zero since I’m not commanded to do so.

      You ARE commanded to do these things because your goat god, whose oneness is so unique, animals can attain it, is a man made construct shaped around the barbaric practices of nomadic arabian tribesmen living in a harsh environment, and not from any genuine revelation. After all, why would any true god claim that human religious speculation, fairy tales, and religious forgeries are revelations? The quran comes from the mind of an ignorant 7th century nomad who didn’t have the sense to tell the difference between shit and shinola.

      “They were heavily punished because they took advantage of the hospitality and KILLED a man for providing for them and cured their illness. Of course you left that part out.”

      Your prophet GOUGED their eyes out after cutting off their hands and feet – is this a good example for all time? How many guys’ hand and feet have you cut off? Gouges any eyes recently?

      “I’m not saying that you should or should not follow it. I just point to what your history says and what your bible says. I’m pointing to the fact that you appeal to the secular world and the Christianity you have today is not what you had in the past. The church did not consider the killing of adulterers abrogated. You do. “

      So, so, so, so….stupid. You said none of the above in your comment, idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.

      Like

    • “As I said, god’s commands to kill in the ancient world applied only to that time and to those people.”

      that’s what you said before, but then you got bitch slapped on this last year.

      your poughter god was such a mad bad god in ancient of days, but then he had a son and calmed down?
      thats the portrayal of your poughter god

      my questions are

      1. where does yhwh say that his ETERNAL COMMANDS are ONLY for the ANCIENT world?

      2. where did yhwh say NOT to follow moses EVEN in jesus’ time?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Coco said:

      “Where does jesus tell us that christians should kill apostates, adulterers and homosexuals? And, no, I haven’t thrown the OT under the bus – its teaching is inerrant. As I said, god’s commands to kill in the ancient world applied only to that time and to those people.”

      Hey stupid, read Ezekiel. Apparently, he disagreed with you! God’s commands in the OT were for ALL time, especially after the temple is supposedly rebuilt.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “You ARE commanded to do these things because your goat god, whose oneness is so unique, animals can attain it,”

      how many persons are currently in you? is it the whole triune god?
      what does “one person ” mean?

      did the whole triune god send the son? how does that make any bloody sense?

      the the father (one person which has oneness like a GOAT) send his son to become a GOAT ?

      since jesus is viewed as an ANIMAL sacrifice, then did yhwh put a goat on the cross?

      yhwh was so influenced by GOATY rituals the jews were doing, his heavenly nostrils love the stink of goat, that he thought to himself “i’m gonna become like an animal ” ?

      Like

    • “Your prophet GOUGED their eyes out after cutting off their hands and feet – is this a good example for all time? How many guys’ hand and feet have you cut off? Gouges any eyes recently?”

      pig, i will ask again, what standard does a SON OF A BITCH like you have to JUDGE ON GOUGING WHEN yhwh COMMANDED the RIPPING TO PIECES OF INFANTS AND YOUNGSTERS?

      yhwh told his hebrews to APPROACH pregnant women from 0-9 months and RIP THEM AND THEIR UNBORN.

      the CHILDREN knew nothing about BELIEF.or the alleged practices of the pagans.

      what standard do you have to judge ANYBODIES action when you believe the sick stuff in your “holy ” bible?

      Liked by 2 people

    • qb

      “Hey stupid, read Ezekiel. Apparently, he disagreed with you! God’s commands in the OT were for ALL time, especially after the temple is supposedly rebuilt.”

      So we should support Israel? Should we all go over there and annihilate the canaanites/palestinians? Whoudl I finds some amalekites to enslave? LOL!! You are just too ignorant for words!!!

      Where are christians commanded to kill innocents? Surely your goat god could send you some inspiration since he is close to your jugular?

      Like

  13. Yahya, let me get this straight. You’re the one challenging Sam Shamoun to a debate. And basically demanding he debate you? It doesn’t work that way in real debates. I’ve debated and never once would I even dignify a demand for one. Do you know why? Because it tells me, from the get-go, that I am walking into a very hostile forum which, if guarded by the challenger and their supporters, is likely going to shut out anything I have to say; limit my time for response; and more than likely cut off my opposing view. Now, I think he should debate you, don’t get me wrong. I’m sure he can handle his own quite well. I’m just saying you shouldn’t be surprised if he has reservations about whether or not it would be a grand waste of his time.

    Anyway, might I suggest that you both show your faces during the debate? I, for one, am loathe towards audio only debates. I want to see both faces and with today’s technology that’s so possible it should be a given! 🙂

    Like

  14. Beating someone to the extent of leaving a wound is inconsonant with the Royal Law of Leviticus 19 v 17-18, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

    Therefore Exodus 21 is talking about an accidental wounding indirectly caused by correctional use of the rod.

    If there is an intent to kill, which is obviously the case if the beating is severe, then the slaveowner must be put to death.

    Exodus 21 vs 12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. 13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.

    14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.

    Liked by 1 person

    • LOL, madman and Kendra try to put the best possible spin on the Biblical verses allowing the beating of slaves!

      “Accidental wounding”?? WOW!!! Let’s see what the verse actually says:

      “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers AFTER A DAY OR TWO, since the slave is their property.”

      So a beating that takes a day or two to recover from is somehow “accidental”? Christian logic strikes again!

      The verse allows deliberately and severely a slave to the point of death, but not to the extent of killing him. Oh yeah, that’s much better! Torture your slave with a severe beating, because he is your PROPERTY. Just don’t kill him please. LOL!!!

      Like

    • Have to agree with qb here.
      That is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much of a stretch.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Who ordered the killing of Job’s grandchildren?

    Like

  16. ken temple

    quote:

    ‘Jesus said to [Judas], ‘Friend, do what you are here to do.’ Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and arrested him. Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it , and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.’ (Matthew 26:50-52. NRSV. Emphasis added)

    Whatever one might think of whether Christians can be pacifists or whether they can use violence in self-defence, the context supports the comments of the ESV study Bible on this passage:

    ‘True disciples of Jesus do not seek to advance or impose God’s will on others through violent means.’

    response :

    1. jesus already told his disciples to arm themselves
    2.disciples drew the sword because they knew that jesus did not always object to using violence
    3, mark has no rebuke . go and check marks version. jesus does not rebuke the guy who chopped of the ear. mark has his jesus responding to those who came to arrest him.

    the only reason they were carrying arms was to protect themselves against jesus’ disciple who carried out an attack, so jesus’ response in mark makes no sense.

    think about it. if pontius pilate knew jesus told his desiples to arm themselves would pontius pilate transfer jesus from one place to another and have sweet dialogue with him? he would have crucified him upside down. but each writer is careful not to reveal anything to pilate.

    4. the gospels are lies, how is it possible jesus is the only one arrested and the rest aren’t ?
    5. there is more to this guys arrest which is being covered by the later liars.
    6. why did the other writers have desperate need to add jesus’ rebuke?
    7. notice that in matthews version, jesus thinks that his god can send angelic back up to demolish the arresting authorities? this means jesus’ mind is VIOLENT minded. one can compare him to budda and other pacifists and ask if they had violent mind like jesus .

    8. this is differed violence, not putting away violence but waiting for violence when the time is right.

    9. jesus wants to receive a thrashing because he thinks it would cool of his daddy’s anger. jesus is not saying “no ” to violence , it is just that he has a need to appease yhwh

    10. jesus’ is only “fulfilling” what is allegedly was written for him in old testament. the violence in the divine plan cannot be INTERRUPTED otherwise jesus might get SAVED and the divine plan messes up.

    11. the greater violence shall come after jesus gets a thrashing by god himself

    12. jesus then says , a few verses later

    ” but i tell u … you will see the son of man coming seated at right hand of power….”

    referring to the verses in psalms where yhwh makes enemies his footstool.

    Like

  17. ken temple wrote :
    “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.

    “thY kingdom come”

    Ehrman says :

    For one thing, almost all scholars today would agree that when Jesus talks about the Kingdom of God, he is not referring to “heaven” – in the sense of the place that your soul goes, God willing, when you die. To be sure, the Kingdom of God has some relationship to “heaven” as the place where God is enthroned; but when Jesus talks about the Kingdom, he appears to refer principally to something here on earth – where God will at some point begin to rule as he already does rule up above. This is in full keeping with the Jewish background to Jesus’ life and thought. For throughout the Hebrew Bible, there is constant talk of the God of Israel being the King of all people and establishing his rule for them.

    God is the king of all the earth; sing praises with a psalm.

    God is king over the nations; God sits on his holy throne. (Ps. 47:7-8)

    The LORD is king, he is robed in majesty;

    The LORD is robed, he is girded with strength …

    Your throne is established from of old;

    you are from everlasting. (Ps. 93:1-2)

    Moreover, when Jesus refers to this coming Kingdom, in which God will reign, he does not appear to be thinking in purely symbolic terms about God becoming the ruler of your heart. For he often describes the Kingdom with graphically tactile language. Jesus talks about the Kingdom of God “coming in power,” about people “entering into” the Kingdom, about people “eating and drinking in the Kingdom” with the Jewish ancestors, about his disciples serving as “rulers” of the Kingdom, sitting on actual “thrones” in the royal court.

    https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-teaching-about-the-kingdom-of-god/

    why did john remove “thy kingdom come, thy will be done here on earth”

    kenny?

    Like

  18. kenny temple wrote :

    “but it could not effect all the other Scriptures all over the world.”

    hahahahah

    read this

    https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11209

    please read the comments below. please. lol

    Like

  19. “Idiot. That was the OT. Where are chritstians commanded to kill apostates, adulterers, homosexuals and unbeliebers? OT laws applied only to ancient israelites living in ancient israel. ”

    1. where did yhwh say that his PUNISHMENT laws were not ETERNAL?

    2. where did yhwh say that one should not FOLLOW those prophets who had butchered children?

    you can’t say “that was the OT”

    the ot says it is eternal .

    i quote :

    Notice also how the immediate context stresses the keeping of the “statutes”. The idea that this could be harmonized with another set of laws that provide exceptions under which the statutory penalties can be avoided, is total bullshit.

    Notice also that the precise wording of Moses must be followed to the letter, because in v. 8, it is observed that no other nation has laws as good as Mosaic law. This rhetorical question wouldn’t make sense if the laws that made Israel unique, could be circumnavigated around in the Pharisee fashion Holding advocates for.

    31 “You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.
    32 “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it. (Deut. 12:31-32 NAU)

    So when Holding says law codes were only “didactic”, thus implying more words were added and showing the law was not as mandatory as it looks on the surface, he contradicts Deuteronomy’s mandate that the people follow exactly what was written without adding exceptions or additional circumstances. If Holding is repeating what other scholars say, then those scholars have the same problem Holding does: reading exceptions and extra conditions into the laws of Moses despite clear Mosaic injunctions against modifying the codes in any way.

    Like

    • jeol, you have the CURSE of yhwh on you

      here is proof :

      When Holding says the death penalty for non-virgins in Deut. 22 is not prescriptive, isn’t he opening the door to ways to abborgate this law in certain circumstances? What did Jesus say about those who would attempt to get around or otherwise not comply with even the least part of the law?

      17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
      18 “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
      19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
      20 “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
      21 “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ‘ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’
      22 “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
      (Matt. 5:17-22 NAU)

      Anyway, here’s Deut. 22

      13 “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her,
      14 and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,’
      15 then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate.
      16 “The girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her;
      17 and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, “I did not find your daughter a virgin.” But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.
      18 “So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him,
      19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl’s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.
      20 “But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin,
      21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you. (Deut. 22:13-21 NAU)

      Holding doesn’t make sense as usual:

      1 – Deuteronomy twice warns against anybody adding to or taking away from its words, it commands Israel to follow it exactly as written:

      1 “Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I am teaching you to perform, so that you may live and go in and take possession of the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you.

      2 “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

      3 “Your eyes have seen what the LORD has done in the case of Baal-peor, for all the men who followed Baal-peor, the LORD your God has destroyed them from among you.

      4 “But you who held fast to the LORD your God are alive today, every one of you.

      5 “See, I have taught you statutes and judgments just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do thus in the land where you are entering to possess it.

      6 “So keep and do them, for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’

      7 “For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as is the LORD our God whenever we call on Him?

      8 “Or what great nation is there that has statutes and judgments as righteous as this whole law which I am setting before you today? (Deut. 4:1-8 NAU)

      Notice the last clause, “ther you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God”. It is assumed in the text that one would not be obeying the Lord if one attempted to add conditions to, or allow exceptions to, the commands as they are given.

      Notice also how the immediate context stresses the keeping of the “statutes”. The idea that this could be harmonized with another set of laws that provide exceptions under which the statutory penalties can be avoided, is total bullshit.

      https://turchisrong.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/james-patrick-holding-attempts-in-yet.html

      Like

  20. “So a beating that takes a day or two to recover from is somehow “accidental”? Christian logic strikes again!”

    Why not? If the beaten person falls or stumbles as a result and twists their ankle, just to give one possible scenario among many.

    Muslim logic strikes again!

    Like

    • Lol, madman is desperately trying to overrule his god. The verse says nothing about accidents, like twisting an ankle. It links the recovery with the beating via a rod. Your pathetic eisegesis shows that you are still haunted by a lying spirit. What a loser!

      Like

    • Madmanna even you have to admit that your ‘explanation’ is unbelievable stretchy.
      If the rule of the neighbor applies to slaves as well then that by that logic there should be no slaves at all cus if the owner doesn’t want to be a slave himself (which he obviously doesn’t)then he is forced to free all his slaves and hence there would be no slavery to begin with.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Exactly, but don’t expect these lying losers to be mature and honest about their Bible for once. They will lie through their teeth rather than admit the truth.

      Like

  21. Coco said:

    “So we should support Israel? Should we all go over there and annihilate the canaanites/palestinians? Whoudl I finds some amalekites to enslave? LOL!! You are just too ignorant for words!!!

    Where are christians commanded to kill innocents? Surely your goat god could send you some inspiration since he is close to your jugular?”

    LOL, the utter stupidity of this little monkey is beyond belief!

    Of course you shouldn’t do those things idiot! My point is that your Bible is self-contradictory and that you should abandon your silly religion. Ezekiel states that the temple will be rebuilt and that the sacrificial system will last forever. In other words, the law of Moses stands for all time. That contradicts your NT which claims that the law of Moses no longer applies! Get it, idiot?

    Liked by 1 person

  22. “If the rule of the neighbor applies to slaves as well then that by that logic there should be no slaves at all cus if the owner doesn’t want to be a slave himself (which he obviously doesn’t)then he is forced to free all his slaves and hence there would be no slavery to begin with.”

    If the debtor pays his debt to the creditor by working for him he is keeping the royal law from his end. The creditor is his neighbour.

    This is not slavery.

    Like

  23. The Quran or The Bible: Which is the Word of God?

    I wanna see David Wood & Sam Shamoun debate Adnan Rashid & Zakir Hussain at a Baptist Church

    Like

  24. Is Islam or Christianity a Religion of Peace?

    I wanna see Sam Shamoun debate Paul Williams at a Baptist Church

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Hatun Tash’s Teacher’s Abuse Scandal Continues – Sam Shamoun Strikes Again! – Blogging Theology

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: