Do you have 1 minute to talk about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? 😇🙏🏻✝️

[Eternal_]

Do you wish to be saved and to have eternal life? There is only one path to salvation and it is through Him—King of kings, Lord of lords—Jesus Christ .

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. By His grace and only through faith in Him, we are saved

 

[MaghrebGator]

Mark 10: 18
"And Jesus said unto him, “Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but One, that is, God."

Matthew 27: 46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”

Matthew 24: 36
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Numbers 23:19
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

 

[Eternal_]

Mark 10: 18
"And Jesus said unto him, “Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but One, that is, God."

Matthew 27: 46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”

Matthew 24: 36
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Numbers 23:19
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

 

[MaghrebGator]

View attachment 2743195

View attachment 2743199

Lol, again a random hadith from a narrator that never has been heard of JFL. He doesn't even quote the Prophet (Peace and Blessings be upon him), but he quotes some companion

Also loooool, i just checked the reference of Tirmidhi 877 and this is the hadithIt was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When the Black Stone came down from Paradise, it was whiter than milk, but the sins of the sons of Adam made it black.”

(Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 877; Ahmad, 2792. Classed as saheeh by Ibn Khuzaymah, 4/219. Al-Haafiz ibn Hajar classed it as qawiy (strong) in Fath al-Baari, 3/462).

Can't believe you literally made it up

Now go ahead, answer the bible verses like i did.

 

[Eternal_]

Lol, again a random hadith from a narrator that never has been heard of JFL. He doesn't even quote the Prophet (Peace and Blessings be upon him), but he quotes some companion

It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When the Black Stone came down from Paradise, it was whiter than milk, but the sins of the sons of Adam made it black.”

(Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 877; Ahmad, 2792. Classed as saheeh by Ibn Khuzaymah, 4/219. Al-Haafiz ibn Hajar classed it as qawiy (strong) in Fath al-Baari, 3/462).

Now go ahead, answer the bible verses like i did.

Cope

I will answer the Bible verses when you answer me why you condone child marriage and pedophilia.

 

[Eternal_]

Mark 10: 18
"And Jesus said unto him, “Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but One, that is, God."

Matthew 27: 46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”

Matthew 24: 36
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Numbers 23:19
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

It’s over muslimcels

 

[MaghrebGator]

Cope

I will answer the Bible verses when you answer me why you condone child marriage and pedophilia.

I already answered that hundreds of times.

I don't accept pedophilia. Anyone who does it nowadays should be in prison.

However whether we like it or not people in the past had extremely low life expectancy ages (From 19 to 28), that's why they married at very young ages. Any society or tribe that didn't do so was condemned to dissapear unfortunately because of low birth rates than the rest of tribes and societies. No civilization could have survived 1000 years ago or even 400 years ago without marriage at a young age.

Now address this Bible verse, and also address the ones i gave you up there if you have the balls, one by one. And don’t qorry, i already have the refutations for all possible answers ready.

Numbers 31: 17-18
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Do you wish to be saved and to have eternal life? There is only one path to salvation and it is through Him—King of kings, Lord of lords—Jesus Christ .

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. By His grace and only through faith in Him, we are saved

View attachment 2743182

And the heretic shall be burnt alive for his sins agaisnt god. JESUS PROTECTS, THE INFIDEL BURNS, GOD FORGIVES THE REPENTANT.

FOR GOD

 

[Eternal_]

I already answered that hundreds of times.

I don't accept pedophilia. Anyone who does it nowadays should be in prison.

However whether we like it or not people in the past had extremely low life expectancy ages (From 19 to 28), that's why they married at very young ages. Any society or tribe that didn't do so was condemned to dissapear unfortunately because of low birth rates than the rest of tribes and societies. No civilization could have survived 1000 years ago or even 400 years ago without marriage at a young age.

Now address this Bible verse, and also address the ones i gave you up there if you have the balls, one by one. And don’t qorry, i already have the refutations for all possible answers ready.

Numbers 31: 17-18
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Muhammad married a 6 year old child when he was 54, not at 19-28. When does child marriage become immoral to you? How do you have no shame for being a part of a satanic and cultish faith that condones pedophilia and child marriage?

Shame on the muslimcel goyim

 

[MaghrebGator]

Muhammad married a 6 year old child when he was 54, not at 19-28. When does child marriage become immoral to you? How do you have no shame for being a part of a satanic and cultish faith that condones pedophilia and child marriage?

Islam doesn't accept pedophilia, the age of consent for sex is once the person is both physically and mentally ready. People in the past didn't have schools, they were already working at a very young age and they died at 19 years old to 28 years old by average.

Again, in every older society it was the norm for women to marry at a young age, whether we accept it or not, for it to survive and have the possibility to grow in numbers. Life expectancy was 19 to 28, so every civilization that didn't accept it at that time was deemed to dissapear. There are tens and tens of christian kings marrying at 30 with 7 year olds just 400 years ago. It's the world people lived in and the harsh conditions they endured as with many other things.

Why do you condemn your God which you believe was Jesus ordering Moses to do what this verse says??? All you have seems to be "B-b-b-but old testament", seems like you are calling God himself immoral in the past revelation

Numbers 31: 17-18
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Of course the verse is clearly immoral, as God would never allow such a thing.

 

[ferfdd]

Do you wish to be saved and to have eternal life? There is only one path to salvation and it is through Him—King of kings, Lord of lords—Jesus Christ .

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. By His grace and only through faith in Him, we are saved

View attachment 2743182

Fuck that jew

 

[Eternal_]

Islam doesn't accept pedophilia, the age of consent for sex is once the person is both physically and mentally ready. People in the past didn't have schools, they were already working at a very young age and they died at 19 years old to 28 years old by average.

Again, in every older society it was the norm for women to marry at a young age, whether we accept it or not, for it to survive and have the possibility to grow in numbers. Life expectancy was 19 to 28, so every civilization that didn't accept it at that time was deemed to dissapear. There are tens and tens of christian kings marrying at 30 with 7 year olds just 400 years ago. It's the world people lived in and the harsh conditions they endured as with many other things.

Why do you condemn your God which you believe was Jesus ordering Moses to do what this verse says??? All you have seems to be "B-b-b-but old testament", seems like you are calling God himself immoral in the past revelation

Numbers 31: 17-18
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Of course the verse is clearly immoral, as God would never allow such a thing.

Was Aisha mentally ready at 9 years old when Muhammad forced himself and penetrated her when he was 57 years old?

Was she physically ready to be married to a 54 year old man when she was 6 years old?

Would you accept the same standard for your hypothetical daughter?

Shame on the muslimcel goyim x2

 

[MaghrebGator]

Was Aisha mentally ready at 9 years old when Muhammad forced himself and penetrated her when he was 57 years old?

Was she physically ready to be married to a 54 year old man when she was 6 years old?

We know she went through puberty at that age (9)

Would you accept the same standard for your hypothetical daughter?

Nowadays, definetly no, neither any other person obviously. Our civilization survival doesn't depend anymore on it and we can and should allow children to live their first 20 years studying and growing, and work so that they can have the best future possible

In the past, with a life expectancy of 19 to 28 years old from my society, probably everyone would accept it. In fact it is what happened in every society of the past.

Shame on the muslimcel goyim x2

If anything you are the one accepting pedophilia by not answering. Not only you accept it, but you support the rape of children for God's sake! Shame on you!

Numbers 31: 17-18
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

You know, im 100% with the theory (Well, i should call it fact) that you are definetly not a christian believer. If you were the least you could do is to learn about your religion and address the points and bringing. Your entire faith is supposedly based on insulting a foreign religion.

Sounds like someone who is getting paid to bait muslim users in random forums or something.

 

[PseudoMaxxer]

View attachment 2743195

View attachment 2743199

women are evil, what’s the problem here?

 

[NoReedemingFeature]

Mark 10: 18
"And Jesus said unto him, “Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but One, that is, God."

The meaning of this quote is Jesus challenging a man to affirm his deity, not refuting it. Also Jesus literally goes on to call himself good many other times.

Matthew 27: 46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”

Irrelevant to Jesus' deity. The fact Jesus prayed doesn't challenge the dynamic that he is Godly.

Matthew 24: 36
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

No one denies that Jesus was not all knowing during his earthly ministry.

Numbers 23:19
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

Again this is you not understanding what the verse portrays. All Muslims seemingly fail to grasp any nuance whatsoever regarding God. Just because it says "neither the son of man" isn't meant to state that God doesn't have a son. It's meant portray that God isn't like a man in His behaviors. You can see a same point being delivered in a quote like Isaiah 55:8.

You're just coping that Jesus isn't the son of God which the Bible literally says. You misinterpret quotes from a book that you don't believe in nor understand. This is a pathetic attempt trying to somehow prove that God can't or doesn't have a son (as if that would not be possible for Him) just to affirm your belief. You look like an idiot quoting a book trying to interpret it's verses to somehow connote that Jesus is not the son of God. Which again, it literally states.

 

[Eternal_]

We know she went through puberty at that age.

Nowadays, definetly no, neither any other person obviously. Our civilization survival doesn't depend anymore on it and we can and should allow children to live their first 20 years studying and growing, and work so that they can have the best future possible

In the past, with a life expectancy of 19 to 28 years old from my society, probably everyone would accept it. In fact it is what happened in every society of the past.

If anything you are the one accepting pedophilia by not answering. Not only you accept it, but you support the rape of children for God's sake! Shame on you!

Numbers 31: 17-18
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

You know, im 100% with the theory (Well, i should call it fact) that you are definetly not a christian believer. If you were the least you could do is to learn about your religion and address the points and bringing. Your entire faith is supposedly based on insulting a foreign religion.

Sounds like someone who is getting paid to bait muslim users in random forums or something.

She had her first period at 9 hence why Muhammad had sex with her at 9. Your religion is predicated on its final prophet being the holiest of holy—the perfect man, yet this is who your final prophet was. He was a pedophile. He was a brutal murderer. He had pagan parents who died and are forced in hellfire with no recourse—as per Allah.

Your religion is fraudulent. Most of you Muslims also condone child marriage and pedophilia and it is revolting. May a swift and decisive death come to the cancer that is Islam

 

[randomop]

Will Jesus accept me if I rope

 

[Eternal_]

Will Jesus accept me if I rope

No, don’t do that

 

[Egyptianmogger]

Not a single quark

 

[randomop]

No, don’t do that

But I’m subhuman autist

 

[Eternal_]

Not a single quark

Not a single quark but at least read a few gluons

 

[MaghrebGator]

The meaning of this quote is Jesus challenging a man to affirm his deity, not refuting it. Also Jesus literally goes on to call himself good many other times.

Random interpretation with no basis honestly. Just changed the meaning. Any person that hears it for the first time doesn't interpret it that way

Irrelevant to Jesus' deity. The fact Jesus prayed doesn't challenge the dynamic that he is Godly.

It's Jesus supposedly in the cross saying to God "Why did you forgotten me"? Anyone who claims to be God the last thing he would do is to challenge in public the idea that he himself has forgotten himself

No one denies that Jesus was not all knowing during his earthly ministry.

Again this is you not understanding what the verse portrays. All Muslims seemingly fail to grasp any nuance whatsoever regarding God. Just because it says "neither the son of man" isn't meant to state that God doesn't have a son. It's meant portray that God isn't like a man in His behaviors. You can see a same point being delivered in a quote like Isaiah 55:8.

Again, very shady interpretations changing the complete meaning of everything that is being said and understood by the ones hearing it, both live and in the future.

There isn't much to confirm God isn't a man than saying that "God is not a man, nor He is the son of Man"

It's like trying to play football with a goalkeeper that everytime he scores an own goal tries to justify to the referee that his team scored.

You're just coping that Jesus isn't the son of God which the Bible literally says. You misinterpret quotes from a book that you don't believe in nor understand. This is a pathetic attempt trying to somehow prove that God can't or doesn't have a son (as if that would not be possible for Him) just to affirm your belief. You look like an idiot quoting a book trying to interpret it's verses to somehow connote that Jesus is not the son of God. Which again, it literally states.

Not really. Im bringing you some (And just some, which i could go all in and copy and paste everything i have and would occupy 5 or 7 pages of this thread) controversial verses of the different Bibles i have been reading for years now, and their scholarly interpretation. I have different bibles at home, different translations, different interpretation books, watched debates for years.

It isn't something i have doubts on to begin with. "You bring a book you don't understand", if anything im bringing all the books into the table, you are the ones going to reddit to try to debunk any verse i bring, i go to scholarly works. I could say the same about people here quoting the Qur'an while being correct this time but you wouldn't care less anyways.

 

[randomop]

But I’m subhuman autist

So what will happen ?

 

[MaghrebGator]

She had her first period at 9 hence why Muhammad had sex with her at 9. Your religion is predicated on its final prophet being the holiest of holy—the perfect man, yet this is who your final prophet was. He was a pedophile.

No. In his time he wasn't considered a pedophile. Explained in the comments above. If anything you are the one saying Jesus ordered Moses to rape children, stating clearly "Any children woman that has not know lying with men", something which we completely reject in islam

He was a brutal murderer.

Not really.

Abdullah ibn Amr reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "Verily, the worst transgressors to Allah are those who kill in the sacred mosque, those who kill whoever did not fight him, or those who kill with the vindictiveness of ignorance."

Abu Shuraih reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "Verily, the most tyrannical of people to Allah the Exalted is he who kills those who did not fight him."

It was marrated Abu Bakr As Siddiq (The best companion of the Prophet) said:
“Do not betray or be treacherous or vindictive. Do not mutilate. Do not kill the children, the aged or the women. Do not cut or burn palm trees or fruitful trees. Donï؟½t slay a sheep, a cow or camel except for your food. And you will come across people who confined themselves to worship in hermitages, leave them alone to what they devoted themselves for.”

If anything you believe that God (Which you say is Jesus) ordered this to Moses. Something unnaceptable both in the past and in the future, unjustifiable

Samuel 1: 15
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. '"

He had pagan parents who died and are forced in hellfire with no recourse—as per Allah.

If anything this just confirms his truthfulness to the claim.

Islam accepts for example that our mother Mary was the best of women.

If he was making up a religion what prevented him from just lying and saying that his entire ancestry line was in paradise just like kings and despots do??

Instead, he said the truth as a believer in God should do

Muslim (203) narrated from Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) that a man said: “O Messenger of Allah, where is my father?” He said: “In Hell.” When he turned away he called him back and said: “My father and your father are in Hell.”

Muslim (976) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “I asked my Lord for permission to pray for forgiveness for my mother, but He did not give me permission. And I asked Him for permission to visit her grave, and He gave me permission.”

Also i don't understand how can you reverse this to make a claim that Islam is false lol. Is this how desperate you are??? You don't even believe in anything the Prophet says, why do you even affirm his parents are in hell because he says it??? JFL

Your religion is fraudulent. Most of you Muslims also condone child marriage and pedophilia and it is revolting.

Not really. Never met someone in real life who accepted it and people are very much against it. Only cases you'll find are random documentaries which you could make anywhere in the world. If anything your society is the one run by Epstein friends who made it to the White House and the British royal family lol

May a swift and decisive death come to the cancer that is Islam

May Allah guide the sincere people and either guide or destroy the unsincere ones.

 

[pig_face]

How to become Christian?

 

[StuntmanMike]

Jesus was a brown man not a white man !
All semitic religions are shitskin

 

[NoReedemingFeature]

Random interpretation with no basis honestly. Just changed the meaning. Any person that hears it for the first time doesn't interpret it that way

No. It's the agreed upon interpretation by commentators.
Example:

Spoiler: .

And Jesus said unto him,.... The same as in Mat_. 19:17, See Gill on Matthew 19:17.
Why callest thou me good? This is said, not as denying that he was good, or as being angry with him for calling him so, but in order to lead this young man to a true knowledge of him, and his goodness, and even of his proper deity:
there is none good, but one, that is, God; some render it, "but one God", as the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions; and so the words are a proof of the unity of the divine being, and agree with Deuteronomy 6:4, but are not to be understood to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit, who, with the Father, are the one God: nor do these words at all militate against the deity of Christ, or prove that he is not God, as the Jew objects (a); seeing this is not to be understood of the person of the Father, in opposition to the Son and Spirit, who are equally good: nor does Christ, in these words, deny himself to be God, but rather tacitly suggests it; since he is good in the same sense in which God is good: in Matthew it is added, "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments", Matthew 19:17, this Christ said not as his sense, that the way to eternal life lies in keeping the commandments of the law; but he speaks in the language of the Pharisees, and of this man; and his view is, to bring him to a sense of the impossibility of obtaining eternal life by these things, as the sequel shows: wherefore the above Jew (b) has no reason to confront the followers of Jesus with this passage, as if it was a concession of his, that it is impossible any should be saved without keeping the commands of the law of Moses.

And just because reading it at face value makes it appears to portray something, doesn't mean that that's what is actually meant.

It's Jesus supposedly in the cross saying to God "Why did you forgotten me"? Anyone who claims to be God the last thing he would do is to challenge in public the idea that he himself has forgotten himself

Like I said, failing to capture nuance is a repetitive theme here. Why would the son of God not be able cry to his father as he was still man?

Again, very shady interpretations changing the complete meaning of everything that is being said and understood by the ones hearing it, both live and in the future.

There isn't much to confirm God isn't a man than saying that "God is not a man, nor He is the son of Man"

It's like trying to play football with a goalkeeper that everytime he scores an own goal tries to justify to the referee that his team scored.

No, dumbass. That's literally the message portrayed there. It's not saying that God does not have a son like you're trying to make it out to be. If it was meant to explicitly say that God doesn't have a son it'd be a quote saying exactly that, not "that he should lie" and "neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?".
And the best part, the quote isn't even God speaking. It's a conversation between Balaam and Balak. With Balaam saying what you quoted. How retarded do you have to be to try to claim it's supposedly some revelation of God's character that He doesn't have a son?

Not really. Im bringing you some (And just some, which i could go all in and copy and paste everything i have and would occupy 5 or 7 pages of this thread) controversial verses of the different Bibles i have been reading for years now, and their scholarly interpretation. I have different bibles at home, different translations, different interpretation books, watched debates for years.

Yeah, you surely research your quotes to the point of reading individual scholars when you couldn't even bother to check the context of the quote from Numbers and deduce what it means. Also lol at "watched debates".

 

[NoReedemingFeature]

How to become Christian?

Repent of your sin. Accept Jesus as the messiah and the living Son of God. Seek knowledge of God's word. Follow the commandments. Get water baptized if you want to.

 

[MaghrebGator]

No. It's the agreed upon interpretation by commentators.
Example:

Spoiler: .

And Jesus said unto him,.... The same as in Mat_. 19:17, See Gill on Matthew 19:17.
Why callest thou me good? This is said, not as denying that he was good, or as being angry with him for calling him so, but in order to lead this young man to a true knowledge of him, and his goodness, and even of his proper deity:
there is none good, but one, that is, God; some render it, "but one God", as the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions; and so the words are a proof of the unity of the divine being, and agree with Deuteronomy 6:4, but are not to be understood to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit, who, with the Father, are the one God: nor do these words at all militate against the deity of Christ, or prove that he is not God, as the Jew objects (a); seeing this is not to be understood of the person of the Father, in opposition to the Son and Spirit, who are equally good: nor does Christ, in these words, deny himself to be God, but rather tacitly suggests it; since he is good in the same sense in which God is good: in Matthew it is added, "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments", Matthew 19:17, this Christ said not as his sense, that the way to eternal life lies in keeping the commandments of the law; but he speaks in the language of the Pharisees, and of this man; and his view is, to bring him to a sense of the impossibility of obtaining eternal life by these things, as the sequel shows: wherefore the above Jew (b) has no reason to confront the followers of Jesus with this passage, as if it was a concession of his, that it is impossible any should be saved without keeping the commands of the law of Moses.

And just because reading it at face value makes it appears to portray something, doesn't mean that that's what is actually meant.

Again, just read what you have written or better said, copypasted. It's literally just a desperate attempt to justify the trinity by a christian trinitarian with the classic argument of "He is making the connection that he is God by using a completely unnecesary wording". Of course a christian trinitarian interpretation will

It's literally the same answer you gave me the first time but more elaborated

Also he tries to make this unexistent connection with Deuteronomy 6:4, which is literally the pinnacle verse of monotheism in the Bible: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one."

He knows exactly that the verse does not connect with monotheism so he quotes it trying to make it as if they have a relation

Also surprised that you quoted an exegesis of John Gill. Are you a calvinist?

Like I said, failing to capture nuance is a repetitive theme here. Why would the son of God not be able cry to his father as he was still man?

This is not an answer, just a desperate cop out. Why would the Son of God and also God himself would cry out to himself in public claiming that God or He Himself has forgotten himself??? It doesn't make any rational sense again. The only counter you have is "Why not???"

Yes, but why if it does contradict everything you supposedly stand for??

No, dumbass. That's literally the message portrayed there. It's not saying that God does not have a son like you're trying to make it out to be. If it was meant to explicitly say that God doesn't have a son it'd be a quote saying exactly that, not "that he should lie" and "neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?".
And the best part, the quote isn't even God speaking. It's a conversation between Balaam and Balak. With Balaam saying what you quoted. How retarded do you have to be to try to claim it's supposedly some revelation of God's character that He doesn't have a son?

Again, you are completely misunderstanding the context and the verse

The verse clearly states "God is not a man" that he should lie". That is the first insertation the verse makes, so anything that comes next to that is subject to God not being a man, i.e eternal, not having sons nor being born, etc. And then it goes into confirming it by saying he has not a son, so he shouldn't repent at all. Which by the way completely again debunks the notion that Jesus would repent on his end days if he was God. Well, it completely debunks any idea of Jesus being a God with just the first verse, let alone the second.

Also yes, the verse is spoken by Balaam, but the words were put on him by God himself according to the Bible if you read the complete sequence

Numbers 23:16-19

"The LORD met with Balaam and put a word in his mouth and said, “Go back to Balak and give him this word.” So he went to him and found him standing beside his offering, with the Moabite officials. Balak asked him, “What did the LORD say?” Then he spoke his message: “Arise, Balak, and listen; hear me, son of Zippor. God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?"

And afterwards he continues to say how the israelites defeated the egyptians and the pharaoh and were given victory. Also the verse itself is debunking polytheism because Balaam (A Prophet) is addressing Balak (King of the moabites, enemy of the believers in monotheism at the time), which was worshipping a bull and making altars.

Literally every verse i give you it's like you desperately trying to completely reverse the meaning. It's insane honestly.

Yeah, you surely research your quotes to the point of reading individual scholars when you couldn't even bother to check the context of the quote from Numbers and deduce what it means. Also lol at "watched debates".

Whatever man. I feel too old for playing hide and seek with serious stuff like this with some of the users here. Take what you want and leave what you want.

I can’t be wasting sharing the knowledge God gave me while all you probably do is copy and paste the first thing you find in reddit, with all due respect.

 

[NoReedemingFeature]

Also surprised that you quoted an exegesis of John Gill. Are you a calvinist?

Just used it as example commentary.

it completely debunks any idea of Jesus being a God with just the first verse, let alone the second.

No it doesn't. It doesn't imply what you're desperately wanting it to. And Jesus has never repented for anything.

Also yes, the verse is spoken by Balaam, but the words were put on him by God himself according to the Bible if you read the complete sequence

You're right. I concede on this.

Whatever man. I feel too old for playing hide and seek with serious stuff like this with some of the users here. Take what you want and leave what you want.

I can’t be wasting sharing the knowledge God gave me while all you probably do is copy and paste the first thing you find in reddit, with all due respect.

Didn't open reddit or any other forum at all, fool. And you're right, let's not waste each other's time. As futile as it is. God bless you and have a nice rest of the day.

 

[Fish]

Mark 10: 18
"And Jesus said unto him, “Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but One, that is, God."

Matthew 27: 46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”

Matthew 24: 36
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Numbers 23:19
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

1st verse:
1: Jesus claims only God is good.
2: Jesus claims to be good.
3: Therefore, Jesus claims to be God.

2nd verse:
Jesus’ intent in quoting Psalm 22:1 was to point His hearers to that psalm. When they read Psalm 22, they would no doubt see the many fulfilled prophecies included in that song of David. Even while experiencing the agony of the cross, Jesus was teaching the crowds and proving yet again that He was the Messiah who fulfilled the Scriptures.

3rd verse:
The key to understanding Jesus’ seeming lack of knowledge in this matter lies in the nature of the Incarnation. When the Son of God became a man, He remained fully God, but He also took on a true human nature. Jesus retained all the attributes of divinity, yet, as a man, He voluntarily restricted their use. This was part of the “self-emptying” or self-renunciation spoken of in Philippians 2:6–8. When Christ entered our world, He laid aside the privileges that had been His in heaven. Rather than stay on His throne in heaven, Jesus “made himself nothing” (as the NIV translates Philippians 2:7). When He came to earth, “he gave up his divine privileges” (NLT). He veiled His glory, and He chose to occupy the position of a servant.

When Jesus said He did not know when He would return, He was actively humbling Himself and taking the form of a servant (see Philippians 2:7–8). Since no other mortal knows the time of Jesus’ return—that information is the Father’s alone (Matthew 24:36)—Jesus voluntarily restricted His knowledge on that point. It was part of Jesus’ submission to the Father (see John 5:30; 6:38; 8:28–29) and His mission to live a human life.

4th verse:
The Old Testament references to God being unlike man do not apply to Jesus’ particular type of humanity. All they are telling us is that God is not a man as we think of men. It’s a contrast, not a restriction. There is nothing that logically prevents God from becoming a man in a whole new way—in fact, redemption requires this, and redemption was God’s plan from before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). Thus, it can be said that God knew He would become a man before Numbers 23:19 was even penned.

God’s statements that He is not a man and Jesus’ statements that He is the Son of God coexist as true; they are not in conflict. Remember what Jesus said about the Law: “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” (Matthew 5:17). All of Jesus’ new revelations work exactly the same way. The old knowledge was shadowy, and, as the Light of the world, Jesus dispelled the shadows (see Colossians 2:16–17). Revelation is progressive, and Old Testament concepts are more fully developed in the New Testament. Finally, God always had it in mind that the Son would become flesh and dwell among men, so God never “changed His mind” about becoming a man.

 

[Fish]

Numbers 31: 17-18
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

The utterly disgusting depravity in which these Midianite boys had been raised is well documented. Regular behaviors among the Midianites included child sacrifice, cult prostitution, and bestiality. The divine prohibition of these acts was codified, and the acts were known to the Israelites (Leviticus 18:21, 23–24). Male inhabitants carrying on the lineage of this culture would have been a perennial problem for Israel.

The other perspective we should consider is the divine. Now, we cannot know the mind of God or comprehend the depths of His wisdom (Isaiah 55:8–9). But we can know that, given the depravity of the Midianites, God’s command to kill the Midianite boys might have been an act of divine mercy. In His perfect knowledge—including His knowledge of what would happen in the lives of those young Midianites, had they lived—it’s possible that God brought them to Himself before they had the opportunity of choosing to reject Him. It is highly possible that, had these males grown to maturity, they would have embraced the wanton rebellion and idolatry of their fathers. From God’s perspective, it may have been better for them to die at a young age than to endure a life of depravity and the attending temporal (and eternal) consequences.

In all this, we must remember that God is goodness. He is not simply a good moral agent like humans are commanded to be; He is not beholden to or measured by a standard outside of Himself. We cannot look at God’s actions as being in any moral category like human actions. God is not a man (Numbers 23:19). The very nature of God is such that He cannot do evil. “The LORD is righteous in all his ways” (Psalm 145:17). This is the point by which we must reconcile passages such as Numbers 31:17 with the likes of John 3:16.

Moreover, a major mistake we sometimes make is to think that our lives are our own. We are creatures, not the Creator. We could not exist for one moment without God’s willing our existence (Hebrews 1:3; Acts 17:28). We should not think that God owes us anything, be it a long life, a life free of suffering, or anything else. God desires our ultimate good, which is everlasting union with Him (2 Peter 3:8–10). Our ultimate good may not be realized in a long life or one devoid of pain and suffering. As strange as it may sound, the ultimate good of the Midianite males may not have come about without their being killed by the Israelites in warfare. This is “brass tacks” and gets to the root of whether one thinks that man was made in the image of God or whether one makes a god in the image of man.

It is difficult to discuss these topics rationally because emotions often take over, and proclamations of “the innocence of children” grow loud. We sometimes hear things like “I could never believe in a God like that.” We are correct in the visceral reaction to children suffering and dying. At the same time, we must differentiate the cause and circumstance of the young Midianites’ deaths from current situations. Suffering today is not brought about by God’s people taking possession of their promised land against a morally depraved and militant people group.

Also, we are profoundly incorrect when we start embracing notions like “if I were God, I certainly would not have done that.” God does not see human events as we do; He sees them as only God can. Thus, we have no basis by which to say that God would not have a humanly understandable, morally sufficient reason for commanding the death of children during the conquest of Canaan.

 

[Fish]

All you faggots ripping verses out of context should maybe try actually reading the Bible first before quoting from it. The Bible is completely perfect.

 

[Eternal_]

The utterly disgusting depravity in which these Midianite boys had been raised is well documented. Regular behaviors among the Midianites included child sacrifice, cult prostitution, and bestiality. The divine prohibition of these acts was codified, and the acts were known to the Israelites (Leviticus 18:21, 23–24). Male inhabitants carrying on the lineage of this culture would have been a perennial problem for Israel.

The other perspective we should consider is the divine. Now, we cannot know the mind of God or comprehend the depths of His wisdom (Isaiah 55:8–9). But we can know that, given the depravity of the Midianites, God’s command to kill the Midianite boys might have been an act of divine mercy. In His perfect knowledge—including His knowledge of what would happen in the lives of those young Midianites, had they lived—it’s possible that God brought them to Himself before they had the opportunity of choosing to reject Him. It is highly possible that, had these males grown to maturity, they would have embraced the wanton rebellion and idolatry of their fathers. From God’s perspective, it may have been better for them to die at a young age than to endure a life of depravity and the attending temporal (and eternal) consequences.

In all this, we must remember that God is goodness. He is not simply a good moral agent like humans are commanded to be; He is not beholden to or measured by a standard outside of Himself. We cannot look at God’s actions as being in any moral category like human actions. God is not a man (Numbers 23:19). The very nature of God is such that He cannot do evil. “The LORD is righteous in all his ways” (Psalm 145:17). This is the point by which we must reconcile passages such as Numbers 31:17 with the likes of John 3:16.

Moreover, a major mistake we sometimes make is to think that our lives are our own. We are creatures, not the Creator. We could not exist for one moment without God’s willing our existence (Hebrews 1:3; Acts 17:28). We should not think that God owes us anything, be it a long life, a life free of suffering, or anything else. God desires our ultimate good, which is everlasting union with Him (2 Peter 3:8–10). Our ultimate good may not be realized in a long life or one devoid of pain and suffering. As strange as it may sound, the ultimate good of the Midianite males may not have come about without their being killed by the Israelites in warfare. This is “brass tacks” and gets to the root of whether one thinks that man was made in the image of God or whether one makes a god in the image of man.

It is difficult to discuss these topics rationally because emotions often take over, and proclamations of “the innocence of children” grow loud. We sometimes hear things like “I could never believe in a God like that.” We are correct in the visceral reaction to children suffering and dying. At the same time, we must differentiate the cause and circumstance of the young Midianites’ deaths from current situations. Suffering today is not brought about by God’s people taking possession of their promised land against a morally depraved and militant people group.

Also, we are profoundly incorrect when we start embracing notions like “if I were God, I certainly would not have done that.” God does not see human events as we do; He sees them as only God can. Thus, we have no basis by which to say that God would not have a humanly understandable, morally sufficient reason for commanding the death of children during the conquest of Canaan.

I commend you for answering at depth all of his “concerns” but I find it entirely useless and I do not and will not argue scripture with a muslimcel. They’re not asking in good faith and it’s not like anyone’s mind is changed. He will just come up with new trivial issues he has.

This is why I solely focus on trolling them, defacing and degrading Islam and their pedophilic final prophet Mohammed.

Arguing scripture is uninspiring in my opinion. For people to see the filth that Islam is, it must be caricatured and displayed to the world in its nude form and not over its many veils.

 

[albe.ORG]

God I know you are reading. Go fuck yourself nigger.

 

[MaghrebGator]

1st verse:
1: Jesus claims only God is good.
2: Jesus claims to be good.
3: Therefore, Jesus claims to be God.

Not really. By that logic any prophet that claims to be good is a God in the Bible

Reminds me of the logic of the famous terminology christians use when referring to Jesus being "Firstborn direct son of God", when at the same time God according to the Bible also calls in Exodus the Israelites "My firstborn son" and also to the prophet David "my firstborn son" in Psalms 89:27/28

2nd verse:
Jesus’ intent in quoting Psalm 22:1 was to point His hearers to that psalm. When they read Psalm 22, they would no doubt see the many fulfilled prophecies included in that song of David. Even while experiencing the agony of the cross, Jesus was teaching the crowds and proving yet again that He was the Messiah who fulfilled the Scriptures.

That sounds very shady and made up in the run.

Also going back to Psalms 22 which is the verse you are quoting, which if anything, it just goes to show that God and David are not the same. It says: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from my cries of anguish? My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, but I find no rest.

Honestly it's undoubdetly impossible for someone to read this verse and think that Jesus is the same as God, and that somehow it's a clear straight line towards pointing that Jesus and God are the same.

If anything the only thing that demonstrates is that there is a clear separation between God and the one who utters these words.

3rd verse:
The key to understanding Jesus’ seeming lack of knowledge in this matter lies in the nature of the Incarnation. When the Son of God became a man, He remained fully God, but He also took on a true human nature. Jesus retained all the attributes of divinity, yet, as a man, He voluntarily restricted their use. This was part of the “self-emptying” or self-renunciation spoken of in Philippians 2:6–8. When Christ entered our world, He laid aside the privileges that had been His in heaven. Rather than stay on His throne in heaven, Jesus “made himself nothing” (as the NIV translates Philippians 2:7). When He came to earth, “he gave up his divine privileges” (NLT). He veiled His glory, and He chose to occupy the position of a servant.

Yes, i would buy that argument if it was not for one, the clear philosophical inconsistencies of a man being God, and two, the irreconciliable position between saying that Jesus the human gave up his divine privileges but still performed miracles, walked in the water, healed the leper, etc

The most rational and logical position would be that Jesus is a Prophet given the ability to perform miracles by the permission of God, as it says in Islam

When Jesus said He did not know when He would return, He was actively humbling Himself and taking the form of a servant (see Philippians 2:7–8). Since no other mortal knows the time of Jesus’ return—that information is the Father’s alone (Matthew 24:36)—Jesus voluntarily restricted His knowledge on that point. It was part of Jesus’ submission to the Father (see John 5:30; 6:38; 8:28–29) and His mission to live a human life.

Again, the same point. You claim he is a God for some things but for others he isn't. And the problem is that there exists no criteria nor line for where is the line to draw between Jesus the supposed God who has abilities and Jesus the supposed God who doesn't have them, apart from the philosophical inconsistencies but that is a whole another issue by itself.

Best you could say is "Well he was trying to prove a point" but at the same time he is supposed to be God, he can prove a point perfectly without resorting to violating his own rule of living as a human being, and be completely consistent with it.

4th verse:
The Old Testament references to God being unlike man do not apply to Jesus’ particular type of humanity. All they are telling us is that God is not a man as we think of men. It’s a contrast, not a restriction. There is nothing that logically prevents God from becoming a man in a whole new way—in fact, redemption requires this, and redemption was God’s plan from before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). Thus, it can be said that God knew He would become a man before Numbers 23:19 was even penned.

God’s statements that He is not a man and Jesus’ statements that He is the Son of God coexist as

I understand all this explanation you gave. However it's again full of inconsistencies and completely illogical sharp turns

"God is not a man" is a very straight forward point, there isn't much to argue about it. Your argument that redemption requires this simply makes no sense being that God is someone who can forgive without a problem, without the necessity to sending his supposed begotten son to be slaughtered by the Romans to forgive humanity. It's like if my family sins and the only way for us to attain forgiveness is to send one of our sons (Which is also myself somehow in an incoherent narrative) so that he can be imprisoned and sacrificed by some authorities as a way for salvation. Why God would do that when He has proven thousands of times in the scriptures that He can forgive without any sacrifices??

The connection you are trying to make simply is very shady and inconsistent to say the least, with all due respect. And also it contradicts again completely the narrative that Jesus was made a man and that he was relieved of his divine attributes. Which showcases again the inconsistency between the line of where is Jesus "The divine" and Jesus "The mere human", and makes you look more like the christian exegesis is just playing the card of "He is divine when it fits me and he is human when it doesn't" without providing any consistent and clear criteria to argue with.

The utterly disgusting depravity in which these Midianite boys had been raised is well documented. Regular behaviors among the Midianites included child sacrifice, cult prostitution, and bestiality. The divine prohibition of these acts was codified, and the acts were known to the Israelites (Leviticus 18:21, 23–24). Male inhabitants carrying on the lineage of this culture would have been a perennial problem for Israel.

Not necessarily at all. That is why slavery existed in the first place in ancient societies, as a way of mercy towards captives of war so that they weren’t simply erased and at the same time a way to divide them so that they didn't regroup and attack you again.

Especially when it comes to children the narrative is impossible to defend. But the problem does not lie only on the children, it lies in the indiscriminate violence against every living thing period, like in the verse of the amalakites which included harmless donkeys. The argument you provide crumbles completely with these issues.

The other perspective we should consider is the divine. Now, we cannot know the mind of God or comprehend the depths of His wisdom (Isaiah 55:8–9). But we can know that, given the depravity of the Midianites, God’s command to kill the Midianite boys might have been an act of divine mercy. In His perfect knowledge—including His knowledge of what would happen in the lives of those young Midianites, had they lived—it’s possible that God brought them to Himself before they had the opportunity of choosing to reject Him. It is highly possible that, had these males grown to maturity, they would have embraced the wanton rebellion and idolatry of their fathers. From God’s perspective, it may have been better for them to die at a young age than to endure a life of depravity and the attending temporal (and eternal) consequences.

Again, not really. As i said, slavery had it's purposes, and they didn't even need to be enslaved since they were children.

And also the slavery of the midianites was completely possible and was even performed.... to young woman who did not lie with men according to the verse... Why this criteria to enslave those young woman yet not forgive the lives of young male infants that didn't even develop a concsiousness of their own?? Where is the mercy in all of this??

In all this, we must remember that God is goodness. He is not simply a good moral agent like humans are commanded to be; He is not beholden to or measured by a standard outside of Himself. We cannot look at God’s actions as being in any moral category like human actions. God is not a man (Numbers 23:19). The very nature of God is such that He cannot do evil. “The LORD is righteous in all his ways” (Psalm 145:17). This is the point by which we must reconcile passages such as Numbers 31:17 with the likes of John 3:16.

I agree that God is moral always, of course. However, the criteria of everybody in this place is that killing innocent infants is immoral independently of the situation. Then why does God supposedly orders in thag verse that???

Also remember that i'm just arguing with the moral criteria and paradigm that OP has brought. He criticizes whatever the Prophet Muhammad did but when the Bible meets a similar criteria or even a harsher one it seems that you will just resort to justify it.

Moreover, a major mistake we sometimes make is to think that our lives are our own. We are creatures, not the Creator. We could not exist for one moment without God’s willing our existence (Hebrews 1:3; Acts 17:28). We should not think that God owes us anything, be it a long life, a life free of suffering, or anything else. God desires our ultimate good, which is everlasting union with Him (2 Peter 3:8–10). Our ultimate good may not be realized in a long life or one devoid of pain and suffering. As strange as it may sound, the ultimate good of the Midianite males may not have come about without their being killed by the Israelites in warfare. This is “brass tacks” and gets to the root of whether one thinks that man was made in the image of God or whether one makes a god in the image of man.

I agree with this, God has the image and we just have a pixel. As a muslim i believe that the people who are loved the most by God are the ones who are tested the most. However this is just not a mere test, it's an indiscriminate order of slaughter against children that was completely avoidable in all sense. But the problem also grows way more when it orders the taking and raping of young woman in that verse.

It is difficult to discuss these topics rationally because emotions often take over, and proclamations of “the innocence of children” grow loud. We sometimes hear things like “I could never believe in a God like that.” We are correct in the visceral reaction to children suffering and dying. At the same time, we must differentiate the cause and circumstance of the young Midianites’ deaths from current situations. Suffering today is not brought about by God’s people taking possession of their promised land against a morally depraved and militant people group.

I don't know man. People are using today those bible verses to justify the 13.000 children dead in Gaza. It is more alive today than ever if anything. More children have died in Palestine in 4 months than in wars that have been going a decade or more during this century.

However i don't want to use this point against you because they also do the same against muslims whenever they want by taking out of context different verses. And although the context in the Bible verse is clear, i found it as a bit lowlife to argue in that line of thought.

However don't forget, we all have an instinctive moral code as human beings brought by God. My line of argument is simply that the Islamic way of not even burning trees in war resonates more with that instinct than the Midianite and Amalekites verses in the Bible.

Also, we are profoundly incorrect when we start embracing notions like “if I were God, I certainly would not have done that.” God does not see human events as we do; He sees them as only God can. Thus, we have no basis by which to say that God would not have a humanly understandable, morally sufficient reason for commanding the death of children during the conquest of Canaan.

Again, i agre that God definetly has the entire image and not just a pixel like us.

And as i said, i'm just arguing against the notion that somehow the innate moral predisposition of men and women resonates more with the Biblical rulings of war than the muslim ones.

Also at last i want to add May Allah send Peace and Blessings upon all the Prophets and Messengers i mentioned in this comment.

 

[Eternal_]

Not really. By that logic any prophet that claims to be good is a God in the Bible

Reminds me of the logic of the famous terminology christians use when referring to Jesus being "Firstborn direct son of God", when at the same time God according to the Bible also calls in Exodus the Israelites "My firstborn son" and also to the prophet David "my firstborn son" in Psalms 89:27/28

That sounds very shady and made up in the run.

Also going back to Psalms 22 which is the verse you are quoting, which if anything, it just goes to show that God and David are not the same. It says: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from my cries of anguish? My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, but I find no rest.

Honestly it's undoubdetly impossible for someone to read this verse and think that Jesus is the same as God, and that somehow it's a clear straight line towards pointing that Jesus and God are the same.

If anything the only thing that demonstrates is that there is a clear separation between God and the one who utters these words.

Yes, i would buy that argument if it was not for one, the clear philosophical inconsistencies of a man being God, and two, the irreconciliable position between saying that Jesus the human gave up his divine privileges but still performed miracles, walked in the water, healed the leper, etc

The most rational and logical position would be that Jesus is a Prophet given the ability to perform miracles by the permission of God, as it says in Islam

Again, the same point. You claim he is a God for some things but for others he isn't. And the problem is that there exists no criteria nor line for where is the line to draw between Jesus the supposed God who has abilities and Jesus the supposed God who doesn't have them, apart from the philosophical inconsistencies but that is a whole another issue by itself.

Best you could say is "Well he was trying to prove a point" but at the same time he is supposed to be God, he can prove a point perfectly without resorting to violating his own rule of living as a human being, and be completely consistent with it.

I understand all this explanation you gave. However it's again full of inconsistencies and completely illogical sharp turns

"God is not a man" is a very straight forward point, there isn't much to argue about it. Your argument that redemption requires this simply makes no sense being that God is someone who can forgive without a problem, without the necessity to sending his supposed begotten son to be slaughtered by the Romans to forgive humanity. It's like if my family sins and the only way for us to attain forgiveness is to send one of our sons (Which is also myself somehow in an incoherent narrative) so that he can be imprisoned and sacrificed by some authorities as a way for salvation. Why God would do that when He has proven thousands of times in the scriptures that He can forgive without any sacrifices??

The connection you are trying to make simply is very shady and inconsistent to say the least, with all due respect. And also it contradicts again completely the narrative that Jesus was made a man and that he was relieved of his divine attributes. Which showcases again the inconsistency between the line of where is Jesus "The divine" and Jesus "The mere human", and makes you look more like the christian exegesis is just playing the card of "He is divine when it fits me and he is human when it doesn't" without providing any consistent and clear criteria to argue with.


Not necessarily at all. That is why slavery existed in the first place in ancient societies, as a way of mercy towards captives of war so that they weren’t simply erased and at the same time a way to divide them so that they didn't regroup and attack you again.

Especially when it comes to children the narrative is impossible to defend. But the problem does not lie only on the children, it lies in the indiscriminate violence against every living thing period, like in the verse of the amalakites which included harmless donkeys. The argument you provide crumbles completely with these issues.

Again, not really. As i said, slavery had it's purposes, and they didn't even need to be enslaved since they were children.

And also the slavery of the midianites was completely possible and was even performed.... to young woman who did not lie with men according to the verse... Why this criteria to enslave those young woman yet not forgive the lives of young male infants that didn't even develop a concsiousness of their own?? Where is the mercy in all of this??

I agree that God is moral always, of course. However, the criteria of everybody in this place is that killing innocent infants is immoral independently of the situation. Then why does God supposedly orders in thag verse that???

Also remember that i'm just arguing with the moral criteria and paradigm that OP has brought. He criticizes whatever the Prophet Muhammad did but when the Bible meets a similar criteria or even a harsher one it seems that you will just resort to justify it.

I agree with this, God has the image and we just have a pixel. As a muslim i believe that the people who are loved the most by God are the ones who are tested the most. However this is just not a mere test, it's an indiscriminate order of slaughter against children that was completely avoidable in all sense. But the problem also grows way more when it orders the taking and raping of young woman in that verse.

I don't know man. People are using today those bible verses to justify the 13.000 children dead in Gaza. It is more alive today than ever if anything. More children have died in Palestine in 4 months than in wars that have been going a decade or more during this century.

However i don't want to use this point against you because they also do the same against muslims whenever they want by taking out of context different verses. And although the context in the Bible verse is clear, i found it as a bit lowlife to argue in that line of thought.

However don't forget, we all have an instinctive moral code as human beings brought by God. My line of argument is simply that the Islamic way of not even burning trees in war resonates more with that instinct than the Midianite and Amalekites verses in the Bible.


Again, i agre that God definetly has the entire image and not just a pixel like us.

And as i said, i'm just arguing against the notion that somehow the innate moral predisposition of men and women resonates more with the Biblical rulings of war than the muslim ones.

Also at last i want to add May Allah send Peace and Blessings upon all the Prophets and Messengers i mentioned in this comment.

Jesus isn’t a prophet you retard

Jesus is God incarnate

 

[i_love_roosters]

Damnit there was a debate, I wish I had pulled up. It's funny how I'm so good at disproving Islam that that Abdul @MaghrebGator thinks I'm being paid for it

 

[Deleted member 27066]

It's really easy:
Yahweh described in the Old Testament:

The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing.
2 He makes me lie down in green pastures,
he leads me beside quiet waters,
3 he refreshes my soul.
He guides me along the right paths
for his name’s sake.

Jesus described in the New Testament:

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

Let´s do it again!
Yahweh describing himself on the Old Testament:

This is what the Lord says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.

Jesus describing himself in the New Testament:

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.


A prophet claiming God´s titles to himself? What a silly prophet! Or maybe he wasn´t a prophet, he was something more important? mmmmmm...

 

[Skywalker]

And the heretic shall be burnt alive for his sins agaisnt god. JESUS PROTECTS, THE INFIDEL BURNS, GOD FORGIVES THE REPENTANT.

FOR GOD

muslim maxx nigga
4 virgin wives and punishing them for bad behavior
whats not to like?

 

[Eternal_]

muslim maxx nigga
4 virgin wives and punishing them for bad behavior
whats not to like?

Women are not what life is about. You are enslaved by your hormones like a wild and insentient animal. As such, you will not inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[yeeyeeslayer]

I don’t even have 1 second to talk about that dawg

 

[Eternal_]

I don’t even have 1 second to talk about that dawg

Suit yourself, trick.

 

[Skywalker]

Women are not what life is about. You are enslaved by your hormones like a wild and insentient animal. As such, you will not inherit the kingdom of God.

cope
jesus was a whoremaxxer
@PrinceLuenLeoncur @Primalsplit @MoggerGaston @InnerVoid @Gargantuan @NumbThePain

 

[Eternal_]

cope
jesus was a whoremaxxer
@PrinceLuenLeoncur @Primalsplit @MoggerGaston @InnerVoid @Gargantuan @NumbThePain

Aren’t you Muslim?

 

[Skywalker]

You are enslaved by your hormones like a wild and insentient animal.

we ARE animals and hormones are everything

 

[InnerVoid]

cope
jesus was a whoremaxxer
@PrinceLuenLeoncur @Primalsplit @MoggerGaston @InnerVoid @Gargantuan @NumbThePain

life is literally about getting your oneitis even jesus said it

 

[Skywalker]

life is literally about getting your oneitis even jesus said it

cope jebus was a whore maxxer based chad
while normies were stuck in unhappy ltrs, whoremaxxer jebus convinced normies that he is the "son of god" lmao

 

[Eternal_]

cope jebus was a whore maxxer based chad
while normies were stuck in unhappy ltrs, whoremaxxer jebus convinced normies that he is the "son of god" lmao

Why are you spelling Jesus’ name as “jebus”? Is it because you’re ashamed of what you’re saying so you’re outsourcing your blasphemy to a different figure? Shame on you

 

[Skywalker]

Why are you spelling Jesus’ name as “jebus”? Is it because you’re ashamed of what you’re saying so you’re outsourcing your blasphemy to a different figure? Shame on you

ok jesus then cuck
but....you seem to conveniently forget the whorishness of mary and the whore positiveness of jesus
just admit youre a low t beta...it will do you well lol