frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Is the Jesus of the Bible different than the Jesus of the Quran?

2»



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • ethang5ethang5 258 Pts   -  
    @mickyg

    I answered you. If you're too dumb to find replies that isn't my business. Go back to my replies and answer some of my questions.

    You must be lonely the way you're now stalking me. Don't worry, I don't mind. The young militant atheists like you always do.

    I just had one try the same thing and the mod had to tell him to chill out. You are headed the same direction.

    Stalking will not help you or bother me. You can't goad or taunt me. I don't care for your childish games, and I don't tire. I can reply or ignore you without a second thought.

    You will learn or run away. Being will only let everyone see that you are . Something I don't mind you showing. Saves me having to do it.

    Again, Ethan does not reward stupidity. You aren't on an atheist board anymore. Here, you will be required to think.
  • ethang5ethang5 258 Pts   -  
    @mickyg

    I answered you. If you're too dumb to find replies that isn't my business. Go back to my replies and answer some of my questions.

    You must be lonely the way you're now stalking me. Don't worry, I don't mind. The young militant atheists like you always do.

    I just had one try the same thing and the mod had to tell him to chill out. You are headed the same direction.

    Stalking will not help you or bother me. You can't goad or taunt me. I don't care for your childish games, and I don't tire. I can reply or ignore you without a second thought.

    You will learn or run away. Being will only let everyone see that you are . Something I don't mind you showing. Saves me having to do it.

    Again, Ethan does not reward stupidity. You aren't on an atheist board anymore. Here, you will be required to think.
  • mickygmickyg 349 Pts   -  
    I am not stalking you.I am replying to your lies.I am 66 years old .Unlike you i have read the bible .Cover to cover.Pluss i have read the NT another three times.
    Say .When you read the bible ..did you notice ..as i did...that the gospels are anonymous??.....and why do they not appear in history until 160ad??
    @ethang5
  • ethang5ethang5 258 Pts   -  
    @mickyg

    >I am not stalking you.

    Lol. Ok.

    >I am replying to your lies.

    Call it whatever makes you feel better.

    >I am 66 years old .

    If you are 66, you are definitely retarded. But OK.

    >Unlike you i have read the bible .Cover to cover.

    OK. But I wish you had used some of that time to learn to write.

    :Pluss i have read the NT another three times.

    And you didn't know Paul mentioned Jesus' return? OK. I don't need to argue this cause your bible ignorance is apparent to all.

    >Say .

    .

    >When you read the bible ..did you notice ..as i did...that the gospels are anonymous??

    I answered you already. Stop asking the same questions over and over. The gospels are not anonymous.

    >.....and why do they not appear in history until 160ad??

    I answered you. If you're too to comprehend the answer that is your problem.

    "Appearing in history" is wrong and silly. The earliest copy found so far is 160ad. That is not the same as "appearing in history". Its just the oldest copy found so far.

    Really. Slow down and think. You already don't do it well.

    When do you expect the earliest copies to have been found? Because you seem to be floating on some silly assumptions you're taking for granted.

    For the time in question, the technology, the social upheaval, and the harsh climate, it is miraculous we've found any copies at all.

    Who would have written earlier copies? For whom? Remember now shemp, hardly anyone could read, much less write.

    And if it was copied, how would the copies survive to today? What was it written on? There was no paper back then shemp. No libraries with climate control.

    Really, you are wholly ignorant. You will not even understand the implication of the things I just mentioned.

    You have no clue how difficult it was then to find someone who could write, and another who could write to proofread. 

    Or to get the materials for writing. There were no pens. No paper. No ink. No office despot to buy them. Who would pay for those things? Being rare and elitist, they were expensive, and everyone was poor.

    The culture was by oral history. Only after the old folks started to die off would someone think of putting the story down in writing. And that would be about 100 years later.

    Again. Read slowly. Turn off the militant. Read it again.
  • mickygmickyg 349 Pts   -  
    SHOW where paul says jesus is returning .Your last three "examples" did not say he was returning.Wanna try again morty?@ethang5
  • mickygmickyg 349 Pts   -  
    yes we are getting somewhere.So far you have admitted the gospels are anonymous and aren't written until maybe as late as mid second.
    @ethang5
  • mickygmickyg 349 Pts   -  
    Yes they did not have climate control but thousands of documents survived first century.Just none of them mention jesus or the gospels.>@ethang5
  • ethang5ethang5 258 Pts   -  
    @mickyg

    >SHOW where paul says jesus is returning .

    I did.

    >Your last three "examples" did not say he was returning.Wanna try again morty?

    Sure they did. I am unmoved by your stupidity.

    >yes we are getting somewhere.

    Congrats on being able to type and breathe at the same time.

    >So far you have admitted the gospels are anonymous

    When yo wake up, we can debate it.

    >and aren't written until maybe as late as mid second.

    Tell us about your dating method that is accurate to within 40 years.

    >Yes they did not have climate control but thousands of documents survived first century.

    And thousands didn't. So?

    >Just none of them mention jesus or the gospels.

    >Then how do you know about Jesus and the gospels moron? Were you there? Or are you reading from documents that mention Jesus?

    You are just ignorant. But your ignorance is not your main problem, your militancy is. I have better things to do than argue with an illiterate ignorant.

    I have a life.
  • mickygmickyg 349 Pts   -  
    Yes its true.Paul never says jesus is returning.He always says jesus is coming.Paul said jesus was never on earth.Dating goes like this.
    Justin Martyr wrote an apology in 160ad.He mentions the gospels and calls them memoirs of the apostles.He does not name them.Irenaeus is tge first to nsame them in 175ad.
    Bishop Papias in 140 ad writes that he prefers ORAL transmission of the gospels.
    So ORAL in 140ad...suddenly written in 160ad.
    Now .......who was luke?
    @ethang5
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @mickyg

    "no both jesus of quran and jesus of bible are the same..NEITHER EXISTED AS A MAN ON EARTH"

    How do you know?

    Where is your individual evidence, to support your statement?

    Did you before, live in the middle east at the same time that Jesus was around, during his days on this planet?

    And you can legitimately say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jesus never existed at the individual behest of your individual say so, because you didn't see him with your own eyes?
  • mickygmickyg 349 Pts   -  
    THE gospels are anonymous and don't appear in history until 160ad.The oldest copy of a gospel is from 200ad.There are no eyewitness accounts of jesus on earth.@TKDB
  • ethang5ethang5 258 Pts   -  
    @mickyg

    >PAUL said jesus was never on earth.

    Lie borne of ignorance.

    >Pauls jesus was a MYSTERY god.

    You are confused. 2 billion + Christians are doing fine.

    >A common fixation at the time
    Paul never says jesus will return because PAUL said he was never on earth.

    Lie based on ignorance.

    >Greeks mistook PAULS messiah as an historical person.

    Lie. Many Greeks believed Jesus because of Paul.

    >The gospels written in greek make so many mistakes about JUDAISM and jewish custom that is just a cosmic joke.

    The only joke here is you thinking you can comment intelligently on Jewish customs.

    >SAY how many guys named jesus was  there in first century judea?

    A few less than are currently named Micky, but I bet no one will confuse you with some intelligent guy  named micky. Know why?

    Because people having the same name confuse only people. We know where Jesus was born, when He was born, who His parents were, and who his grandparents were, and how He died. How many people do you think fit all those criteria?

    Can the class say ? I thought it could.
  • IdolRocksIdolRocks 64 Pts   -  
    @mickyg ;Maybe he will answer you when you start acting mature and ask respectfully instead of calling him names? How about you stop cussing and being immature and simply have a conversation with him?
  • 21CenturyIconoclast21CenturyIconoclast 169 Pts   -  
    @IdolRocks

    It is always hard for the Atheist to show respect to a pseudo-christian in the 21st century that believes in your brutal serial killer Yahweh/Jesus god that has MURDERED innocent babies, women, aborted fetus,' conducted killing plagues, killed the first born of Egypt, etc., and the fact that you pray and worship such a KILLER!  Surely you can understand this simple premise, yes?


  • IdolRocksIdolRocks 64 Pts   -  
    @21CenturyIconoclast ;

    "It is always hard for the Atheist to show respect to a pseudo-christian in the 21st century that believes in your brutal serial killer Yahweh/Jesus god that has MURDERED innocent babies, women, aborted fetus,' conducted killing plagues, killed the first-born of Egypt, etc., and the fact that you pray and worship such a KILLER!  Surely you can understand this simple premise, yes?"

    Before, I start, I want to point out to you, that I will be quoting the Bible and may speak of it as being the Word of God. Now, I do know and I do realize that you don't think it is the Word of God, so I don't need you to waste time telling me that.  

    It is hard for a Christian, such as myself, to show respect, to Atheists, when they usually prefer to insult and make fun of what people believe, rather than being right. I have observed them preferring to be insulting, and use ad-hominems over and over, instead of having a logical back and forth conversation. And you know what, I am sure that you have observed the exact same thing happening with Christians, so there is no reason to point that out to me, I am completely aware of that fact. 

    Anyways, where is your Objective, Absolute, Unchanging Standard, that you use to judge God? If you do not have one, then you are giving nothing more than your opinion?

    IOW, 1.)"Do you have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong?"

    https://answersingenesis.org/morality/the-source-of-moral-absolutes/

    You also seem to have this idea that God is (somehow) obligated to follow His own rules, like He is just another person?  God is not obligated (does not have to, nor is there any reason for Him to have to), in following His own Rules. 

    Now, putting all babies, children, and aborted fetus aside, for this entire comment, there is no such thing as an innocent person. The Bible makes it clear that all have sinned. 

    Romans 3:23-24

    23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.


    Now, as far as "innocent women", if you could please point to the verse(s), that you are specifically referring to, I would greatly appreciate that.

    Now, as far as God being a murder, I have to point out to you that you are mistaken. He is not a murderer, because all those who He decides to end their life of, He is completely justified in doing so.

    Here's why:

    "Murder is the unlawful taking of life.  Killing is the lawful taking of life." 

    "One final comment: since all people have sinned against God (Rom. 3:23) all people are under the judgment of God.  The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23), so when God executes someone it is not murder, it is killing because it is a lawful taking of life.  Remember, all people have sinned.  Sin is the breaking of God's law.  Therefore, God's execution is lawful."

    https://carm.org/questions/you-shall-not-kill-yet-god-kills

    https://www.gotquestions.org/God-killing.html

    "In order for God to commit murder, He would have to act “unlawfully.” We must recognize that God is God. “His works are perfect, and all His ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is He” (Deuteronomy 32:4; see also Psalm 11:790:9). He created man and expects obedience (Exodus 20:4-6Exodus 23:212 John 1:6). When man takes it upon himself to disobey God, he faces God’s wrath (Exodus 19:5Exodus 23:21-22Leviticus 26:14-18). Furthermore, “God is a just judge, and God is angry with the wicked every day. If [man] does not turn back, He will sharpen His sword; He bends His bow and makes it ready” (Psalm 7:11-12). Some would argue that executing the innocent is murder; thus, when God wipes out whole cities, He is committing murder. However, nowhere in Scripture can we find where God killed “innocent” people. In fact, compared to God’s holiness, there is no such thing as an “innocent” person. All have sinned (Romans 3:23), and the penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23a). God has “just cause” to wipe us all out; the fact that He doesn’t is proof of His mercy." When God chose to destroy all mankind in the Flood, He was totally justified in doing so: “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5)."

    https://carm.org/genesis-66-and-lord-was-sorry-he-had-made-man-earth

    I am providing a link that explains Genesis 6:6 since many Skeptics like to point out that verse. I am simply providing an explanation, ahead of time, in case, you decide to do that. 

    You also seem to think that God is somehow not allowed to do what He wants with His own Creation. He created us and if He wants to get rid of us, then He is allowed to do that. Plus, we are all sinners, and the Bible makes it clear that the Penalty for Sin is death. 

    https://www.str.org/articles/can-god-kill-the-innocent#.XObfuchKhPY

    "I am merely stating that there are certain things which are clearly God's prerogative. Can God create something and then destroy what He's created? Yes, He can do as He wishes, though His wishes are constrained by His character so He can't wish something that is immoral or inconsistent with His character. And there is nothing patently immoral about the Creator of life taking away life. It's immoral for us because when we take life, usually we are exercising a prerogative reserved for God alone. Clearly God can play God. He can take a life anytime He wants. Taking innocent human life is wrong for us, because taking life is God's prerogative, not ours, which means it is appropriate for Him to do it, not us, and He can dispense and retract life whenever He pleases. Part of the problem here is that we want to hold God to the same standard of morality He holds us to, as if the standard is above us both and man and God are on equal terms when it comes to behavior. Whatever we can't do, God shouldn't be allowed to do either. But every parent knows that such an arrangement is just plain false. Parents aren't constrained by the same standards that their children are constrained by, and in the same way God has a different set of prerogatives as well. Life and death is one of His, not one of ours, and that's why it is appropriate for Him to make His sovereign decisions with regards to the disposition of life and death. We are not to do so, and that's the long and short of it."


    https://www.str.org/articles/does-god-have-to-obey-the-ten-commandments#.XOjnx4hKhPZ

    "The first thing in answering the objection is to make sure we understand exactly what the commandment says. "Thou shalt not kill" is actually a misquote. The commandment isn't against killing; it's against murder. Just as in English, the Hebrew language has two different words; and the word murder is what is described in the commandment, not killing. It should be fairly evident to people that God is not proscribing all killing because part of the very Mosaic law that God gave capital punishment as an appropriate punishment for quite a number of crimes. You can't say, I forbid you to kill, and by the way, kill. That would be an obvious contradiction, and that is obviously not what God has in mind. No, the prohibition is against murder, which is an inappropriate kind of killing. And then God talks about certain circumstances when killing is legitimate and other circumstances when it is not legitimate. Taking a human life without proper justification is murder and is wrong. But if the circumstance changes and there is appropriate justification, then arguably this is a morally relevant factor that changes the moral nature of the act of taking a life. Therefore, you would be justified in taking his life in self-defense. When the circumstance changes in a morally relevant way, the application of the moral rule changes."

    "Why is murder wrong? According to Genesis 9 the reason that murder is wrong is you are destroying something of God's, something that bears His nameplate - His image. You destroy another human being and you will be punished for destroying God's property." "Can God destroy God's property? The answer seems to be yes. You see, God is the King of the universe. He is King of the universe not because He is the most powerful, and not by some arbitrary rule, but because He created it and it belongs to Him from the beginning. God can do what He wants with His universe. If He chooses to give life, He can give it. If He chooses to take life, He can take it. It's not immoral for God to take the life of His own property." "The universe is God's, and if He wants to take life, He can do so. I'm not saying He doesn't have reasons, but I'm saying He doesn't have to give reasons because it is fully within His purview to do as He wishes."

    "The simple answer is, no, God does not have to keep all the Ten Commandments. In fact, it is hard to imagine how many of them even apply to Him. Does God have to keep the Sabbath? Does God have to dedicate a portion of His week to the Lord? No, that's for His subjects, not for the King. Should God not have any other Gods before Him? That's kind of ludicrous. It doesn't apply. He doesn't have to honor His parents. He doesn't have parents. What about coveting? Thou shall not covet. What is coveting? Isn't it desiring something that is not your own? Is it possible for God to covet? What is there that is not properly His? Nothing, therefore God can't covet. The Ten Commandments are an expression of God's desire and in many ways an expression of His character, but they are expressions of His character that have a certain application to human beings who are His subjects and the rules do not apply to Him in the same way."


    So, to sum everything up, you have a lot of nerve to be attempting to Judge an all-knowing, all-powerful, God, who unlike you, knows everything, and has never sinned. While, you have sinned, and you don't know anything. You are certainty allowed to give your opinion, but you have to understand that that is all it is. It is nothing more than your opinion. 

    "Atheists who sit in judgment over God are arrogant. They base morality on their own subjective, personal preferences combined with social norms, and from that mix they pronounce moral judgment. Unfortunately, they are blind to their own self-serving, narrow-mindedness and will never find God."

    https://carm.org/atheism/atheists-moral-complaints-against-god-are-not-valid

    https://carm.org/atheism/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch