[Lukongsimi]

https://youtu.be/Rkar-q7UhtU

[pinkpanther]

His Koran knowledge also kosong .lol

His God and Muhammad agree on one thing but our moslem friend disagree with them ..  our friend is God

[Lukongsimi]

His God and Muhammad agree on one thing but our moslem friend disagree with them ..  our friend is God :

I think he is siao spews nonsenses n lies everyday 
He wanted us to bow to him as god n worship him..
lol

[Lukongsimi]

https://youtu.be/DlzPAY6l4Ss
Uncovered Jesus words to Peter.

[pinkpanther]

I think he is siao spews nonsenses n lies everyday 
He wanted us to bow to him as god n worship him..
lol

Only ckpm can tahan him

[Lukongsimi]

Only ckpm can tahan him

His good fren he scared to lost mah

[Lukongsimi]

Tomorrow I will let that parrot talks to the walls not gg to reply.
Spends too much time debating a nut..lol not worth it.

Pink u cont..

What a day..
Halleluvia praise the Lord

[S I M T A N]

It's a good thing that our societies have made strenuous efforts to develop laws that stringently reduce the occasions on which a person is allowed to take the life of another. Traditionally, there are three circumstances in which it's acceptable to take human life: (1) killing as self-defence or in order to protect the life of another, (2) killing in the course of just war, and (3) killing in the case of capital punishment, where the executors are agents of the state.

In the case of Palestine, they kill people because they say the God of the Bible gives them the right to do that.

Atrocities committed by terrorists in the name of their religion is wrong, and it's given their faith a bad name. Israel's supporters stated that the Palestine army, aka Hamas, fired the opening salvo, and they tried to rationalize the Israelites' behavior by saying they hit back in self-defence. Sure, it was heinous to bomb civilians, but all's fair in love and war. Mercifully, all the three aforementioned circumstances are continually subjected to rigorous ethical debates, and efforts are being made to further reduce occasions where taking the life of a human being is allowed.

[S I M T A N]

I will ask the same question I've asked so many times with no answer.

Why the sudden change? Just before Paul came along, God can just forgive sins without demanding any punishment or blood sacrifice. Suddenly, God loses this ability to just erase our sins.

Why?

Mind you, God our Forgiver does not inflict any punishment on us after forgiving our sins. Don't you think you're inflicting your strange ideas about God on us, such as Him losing His ability to erase sins?

Throughout the Bible we repeatedly see God's compassion for those who need His forgiveness. God desires to save as many people as possible, not as few people as possible.

Say to them, "As I live!" declares the Lord God, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways!" (Ezek 33:11).

"For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10).

"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:3-4).

"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9).

[S I M T A N]

“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭4‬:‭12‬ ‭KJV

I agree! You took the words right out of my mouth. In the Bible the sin of unbelief is not simply failing to believe God; it's the deliberate choice not to believe what God has said. Unbelief is the willful rejection of God's revelation. The writer of Hebrews, quoting Psalm 95, describes this willful rejection of God's truth as a hardening of one's heart: Heb 3:7-9 Similarly, Paul says that unbelievers are "without excuse" because of their conscious choice to reject God's truth. (Rom 1:18,20)

To reject Christ is to be in a state of double jeopardy. Now not only has the Father been rejected but the Son as well. Thus every time the gospel is pronounced it bears a two-edged sword. To those who believe, it is the savor of glory. To those who reject, it is death. The gospel is God's gift of redemption for the lost. God sends Christ to give people an opportunity for redemption from the guilt they already have. If men reject Christ they face the double judgment of rejecting both the Father and the Son. Rejection of Christ brings a double judgment (2 Tim 4:1; Col 1:13-17).

[Ali Imran]

Mind you, God our Forgiver does not inflict any punishment on us after forgiving our sins. Don't you think you're inflicting your strange ideas about God on us, such as Him losing His ability to erase sins?

Throughout the Bible we repeatedly see God's compassion for those who need His forgiveness. God desires to save as many people as possible, not as few people as possible.

Say to them, "As I live!" declares the Lord God, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways!" (Ezek 33:11).

"For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10).

"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:3-4).

"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9).

Hi SimTan.

It seems you didn't understand the argument, so let me repeat it.

For more than a thousand years, sinners were saved if they repented, sought God's forgiveness, made amends, and obeyed the commandments. If they do that, all their sins will be erased.

How come there is a sudden change when Paul came along? How come God could no longer just erase sins? How come God suddenly needs to do his "justice" by punishing an innocent man in the place of the sinners?

[Ali Imran]

Atrocities committed by terrorists in the name of their religion is wrong, and it's given their faith a bad name. Israel's supporters stated that the Palestine army, aka Hamas, fired the opening salvo, and they tried to rationalize the Israelites' behavior by saying they hit back in self-defence. Sure, it was heinous to bomb civilians, but all's fair in love and war. Mercifully, all the three aforementioned circumstances are continually subjected to rigorous ethical debates, and efforts are being made to further reduce occasions where taking the life of a human being is allowed.

Intentionally killing babies and children is a fair game in a war?

I know where you get that standard.

[Ali Imran]

His God and Muhammad agree on one thing but our moslem friend disagree with them ..  our friend is God

Do you have the Injeel containing the words of the son of Mary, peace be upon him?

[Ali Imran]

Mary is not God...so what is the issue? Our core faith remains the same

If you pray to someone other than God, you are taking that someone as God. You held that stance when you accused us of praying to Muhammad صلي الله عليه وسلم, which we don't, and you have now stopped saying that. But the principle should remain. 

So, that is why the Protestants may say the Catholics are bound for hell because they pray to Mary.

Is that a critical divide?

[pinkpanther]

If you pray to someone other than God, you are taking that someone as God. You held that stance when you accused us of praying to Muhammad صلي الله عليه وسلم, which we don't, and you have now stopped saying that. But the principle should remain. 

So, that is why the Protestants may say the Catholics are bound for hell because they pray to Mary.

Is that a critical divide?

Again there is no divide as they are still trinitarians.
They do not worship Mary as God..and we do not pray to Mary...just a different set of beliefs

[pinkpanther]

Do you have the Injeel containing the words of the son of Mary, peace be upon him?

Yes. Allah says it is with us. Muhammad affirmed and confirmed it to be the word of God ..why are you disagreeing with them?

[Ali Imran]

Again there is no divide as they are still trinitarians.
They do not worship Mary as God..and we do not pray to Mary...just a different set of beliefs

And then, the Protestants will say that having statues and images in the Catholic church is breaking the commandment which is a cardinal sin and will lead one to hell. That's what the Protestants are saying, the Catholics are hell-bound.

Is that a critical divide?

[Ali Imran]

Yes. Allah says it is with us. Muhammad affirmed and confirmed it to be the word of God ..why are you disagreeing with them?

Does the Quran state that the Israelites have concocted verses and made them look like they are part of the holy scriptures?

Did our Prophet صلي الله عليه وسلم say we should not trust what is in their scriptures?

Did your own scholars say the Bible has been corrupted?

Yes, yes, and yes.

[pinkpanther]

And then, the Protestants will say that having statues and images in the Catholic church is breaking the commandment which is a cardinal sin and will lead one to hell. That's what the Protestants are saying, the Catholics are hell-bound.

Is that a critical divide?

I repeat again, there is no divide in our core faith.
. Catholics believe Mary is a blessed woman, a model of faith, and an intercessor, but they worship only God.

[Ali Imran]

I repeat again, there is no divide in our core faith.
. Catholics believe Mary is a blessed woman, a model of faith, and an intercessor, but they worship only God.

Protestants saying the Catholics are hell-bound for having statues and images, and that is not a critical divide in your mind?

[pinkpanther]

Does the Quran state that the Israelites have concocted verses and made them look like they are part of the holy scriptures?

Did our Prophet صلي الله عليه وسلم say we should not trust what is in their scriptures?

Did your own scholars say the Bible has been corrupted?

Yes, yes, and yes.

No, your Quran is very clear. However, moslems have misinterpreted the words. I do not see anywhere in the Quran that suggests the previous scriptures were corrupted....Is Allah sending Muhammad to confirm the validity of corrupted scriptures? If the scriptures were indeed corrupted, Allah should have simply advised not to trust the previous writings. Why then would He spend time affirming and confirming them as true?

The Islamic dilemma continues once again

[Ali Imran]

No, your Quran is very clear. However, moslems have misinterpreted the words. I do not see anywhere in the Quran that suggests the previous scriptures were corrupted....Is Allah sending Muhammad to confirm the validity of corrupted scriptures? If the scriptures were indeed corrupted, Allah should have simply advised not to trust the previous writings. Why then would He spend time affirming and confirming them as true?

The Islamic dilemma continues once again

There you go. 

You know our Quran and our Hadith better than the billions of Muslims.

Okay noted.

[pinkpanther]

Protestants saying the Catholics are hell-bound, and that is not a critical divide in your mind?

Shias think that God has face, hands and shin ..are they hell bound?

[Ali Imran]

Shias think that God has face, hands and shin ..are they hell bound?

Not only Shias. Even among the Sunnis, there are differences of opinion on that issue. 

Both can be accepted.

[pinkpanther]

There you go. 

You know our Quran and our Hadith better than the billions of Muslims.

Okay noted.

The Injil was read and known among the Christians during the time of Prophet Muhammad. He acknowledged that Christians should be judged according to their own Injil, and even Allah mentions that Christians possess it.

Given this, why do you insist on needing further proof of the Injil's existence? Why do you claim it was never recorded or that we do not have it today? These claims seem to contradict the teachings of the Quran, which affirms the existence and recognition of the Injil among the People of the Book.

[Ali Imran]

The Injil was read and known among the Christians during the time of Prophet Muhammad. He acknowledged that Christians should be judged according to their own Injil, and even Allah mentions that Christians possess it.

Given this, why do you insist on needing further proof of the Injil's existence? Why do you claim it was never recorded or that we do not have it today? These claims seem to contradict the teachings of the Quran, which affirms the existence and recognition of the Injil among the People of the Book.

Did the Quran strongly rebuke those who say God is a man? Yes, clearly. That is shirik, and believing that will mean hell.

So, your Gospels say God is a man. Do you think the Quran will then affirm your Gospels?

[pinkpanther]

Did the Quran strongly rebuke those who say God is a man? Yes, clearly. That is shirik, and believing that will mean hell.

So, your Gospels say God is a man. Do you think the Quran will then affirm your Gospels?

I don know...you tell me .  
I'm only telling you what is in your scriptures do not match what you think

[Ali Imran]

I don know...you tell me .  
I'm only telling you what is in your scriptures do not match what you think

I already told you.

In the authentic Hadith, the Messenger of Allah, صلي الله عليه وسلم, told us that we should not trust your scriptures. That is already enough to defeat your so-called "Islamic dilemma" argument but you want to remain intellectually dishonest.

[Ali Imran]

Dr. Wallace argued that the New Testament is remarkably well preserved, despite the fact that there are many variations among the thousands of ancient manuscripts. He argued that most of these variations are minor and do not affect the meaning of the text.

So what is the point of restoring the NT .

Let me show you two narrations of the same event.

Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?” - Mark 4:38

But Jesus was sleeping. The disciples went and woke him, saying, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!” - Matthew 8:25

So tell me. Which one is true? They both convey a different picture of the disciples' interaction with Jesus. The latter tells us that the disciples treated Jesus as divine, while the former doesn't.

This is a classic example of embellishment and an elevation of Jesus's status. The first one doesn't convey the picture of Jesus as divine but, a decade or so later, they changed the story to make Jesus look divine.

[pinkpanther]

I already told you.

In the authentic Hadith, the Messenger of Allah, صلي الله عليه وسلم, told us that we should not trust your scriptures. That is already enough to defeat your so-called "Islamic dilemma" argument but you want to remain intellectually dishonest.

This will once again result in a contradiction. Allah instructed Muhammad to consult the People of the Book, specifically those who have read the previous scriptures, if he was in doubt. In this context, he was to inquire with the Jews about the stories from Moses' time. How do the Jews verify these stories? They refer to the Torah....