Click Here if You Are a Muslim 2

Debating a Muslim.jpg

Continuation of my dialog with a Muslim man in the UK. For part one see here.

You said:

6 Trinity
How on earth can 3 Gods be 1.Not even in your mind can you put these the different personalities into 1. It would have made some sense if you had said that you believe in 3 Gods.

Another Deedat-ism, I see. The idea that Christians worship three Gods suggests another defect in the Qur'an, for no Christian has ever held to the belief in three Gods, so how did the author of the Qur'an make such a blatant error again?

It would be illogical if Christians said we worship three gods as one god. It would likewise be illogical if we said we worship three persons as one person. A god or a person cannot be both three and one at the same time and in the same sense. Such a notion would violate the Law of Non-Contradiction.

But neither example defines the concept of the trinity. The trinity is defined as three PERSONS in one GOD. No contradiction, no violation of the law of non-contradiction. To say such a notion is illogical would be akin to saying it is illogical to think of humans as composed of body, soul, and spirit. Are you three persons in one person as body, soul, and spirit? If this does not rise to the level of a contradiction, then neither does the Christian definition of the trinity. 

Moreover, the trinity simply defines how God has chosen to reveal Himself to humanity throughout history.
God the father: God over us
God the son: God with us
God the Holy Spirit: God in us


7) If you say that Jesus is God because he had no father, so God must be the father, then why dont you worship Adam as God, because he had no father and no mother.

Nope, that's not why we say Jesus is God. Already answered this in full earlier, not going to repeat it again.

How can a new born baby, which has not even said its first word yet be born in sin. It is more logical to believe that a baby is free of sin.

Why is it more logical? You made the assertion but did not back it up with any sort of evidence or logic, so I assume the statement is merely an opinion. Fine.

1) Do you have children or have you spent time around a toddler? Why is a toddler so possessive of his toys (covetousness) that when another toddler attempts to take the toy away from him, he screams "mine, mine" and the anger is such that if he were older and stronger, a fight would ensue (anger, rage, potential murder?). Are these emotions not sinful? How did the toddler "learn" these responses? Or are they part of his nature from birth?

2) If Adam was born without sin in paradise, then it would logically follow that if all humanity is likewise born without sin, we would be also born in paradise. But we are not. Since the punishment for Adam's transgression was expulsion from paradise to inhabit earth for a while, the very fact that we are born on earth suggests we also are suffering the consequences of Adam's transgression. This is logical.

(Side note: The Qur'an teaches that Adam and Eve were in Paradise as sinless beings, but when they rebelled against God, they were expelled from Paradise and sent to earth. In the story in the Qur'an, the garden is not on earth, but in space somewhere)


2) How is their any justice and logic in Jesus committing suicide to wipe out my sins. Surely it is more logical to believe that when a person wants to repent, he asks for Gods forgiveness and tries his best to be pious and is forgiven by the mercifull God.

First, it is a mischaracterization of the event to say Jesus committed suicide. You're an intelligent man and you know what suicide is. Jesus did not commit suicide. Again, you are borrowing from Ahmed Deedat's polemics, and his logic, coherence, and consistency was abominable.

Second, how is it illogical? Again you make a claim without evidence. Let me clarify with an illustration.

Suppose a young man with a wife and children suddenly finds himself without income and without government assistance. With the cupboards and refrigerator bare, and hungry children to feed, he sets out to the market where he loads up with as much food as he can manage and walks to his automobile without paying for the food. He is arrested for theft and is taken before a judge or magistrate. The magistrate listens to the man's plea: "Your honor, I admit what I did was wrong. Stealing is a crime. But I was desperate and had many mouths to feed. Since nobody got hurt, it was a relatively small crime. Please let me go this time." The magistrate has a decision to make: Let the man go, thereby failing to uphold his oath to administer justice, or pronounce a jail sentence to a man who truly is sorry. To make things more interesting, suppose the magistrate is the father of the criminal. Now the decision he makes will affect his child. Neither decision seems like a good choice. But there is a third choice: the magistrate himself can pronounce a sentence so that justice is upheld, and the magistrate himself can take the punishment that he would have inflicted on his son. Justice is served, the truly repentant man is set free, and a loving father gives of himself sacrificially and willingly.

No illogic here. This is exactly what Jesus did when he willingly chose to take the punishment for our sin.

3) Why does the Bible contain so many cases of incest. and in so much graphic detail. Whats even more shocking is that God doesnt even say that this is wrong.

1) The fact that such stories are in the Bible attests to its authenticity. If the authors or later copyists wanted to present their prophets in the best possible way, doesn't it seem reasonable that they would have removed such embarrassing details? The fact that the embarrassing details remain intact is one of many evidences that the text has remained untouched by those who would have had a vested interest in scrubbing such embarrassing details out of the text.

2) You fail to make the distinction between when the Bible is prescriptive and when it is descriptive. Simply because the authors write history as it really occurred (descriptive) does not mean that the Bible condones such action. As a history text, it tells unvarnished history in all its ugly details.

4) Why does the Bible insult the prophets. Describing them as drunks, adulterers and murders.
We believe the Prophets and messengers are Holy and good people who would never do such things.These are dont forget the chosen people of God.

See my previous comments on the criterion of embarrassment and the Bible as descriptive vs prescriptive. The prophets were mere men, subject to the same human limitations and temptations as you and I.

* Responding to his last objection was rather lengthy, so I will post that separetely.