Was Muhammad a good man?

[1robin]

Christianity to me looks illogical and a nonsense belief.

You may think as you wish, but in a debate you must demonstrate what you think, is true. How is this a defense of Muhammad or a comment on anything I said? This is a diversionary attempt in the form of a personal complaint.

To think of God as a human being or to think God has a son or the son to be the God and then put limits to God in such a stupid way.

There is no actual reason Christ could not become a man who voluntarily limited his capacity so as to be an example for men who have limited capacity. You can like it or dislike it. What you can't do is show a fault of any kind actually occurred.

Why God needs to come as a human being and then shows us his miracles such as walking on the water to convince the others to believe him.

Again you can like what you want but you have demonstrated nothing that was actually wrong.

God doesn't need to walk on water to convince us,God doesn't need to die in order to save us from our sins.

Christ who even Muhammad revered said he did. Who are you to arbitrarily declare he didn't. Even in philosophy substitutionary atonement is the only coherent salvation system. It is more comprehensive, more sophisticated, and more adequate than any system in any other religion including Islam.

God if wanted to save us then he can do it without the need to kill himself or to kill anyone else.

God did not have to create a Universe, nor a single man, nor Muhammad, nor anything. Sitting around telling God what he must do is a suckers tactic. God can do what he chooses whether you think he had to or not.

How you love Jesus ? by obeying God's law or by kissing Jesus face.

What? I love Jesus by virtue of the fact I spiritually experienced his forgiveness and healing. Obeying laws has more to do with fear than love.

 

[FearGod]

You may think as you wish, but in a debate you must demonstrate what you think, is true. How is this a defense of Muhammad or a comment on anything I said? This is a diversionary attempt in the form of a personal complaint.

It is in defense of prophet Mohammed as i believe he was telling the truth that Jesus wasn't God or his son but Just a prophet.

That make sense to me and for whom have brains in their heads.

If you believe that God can be a man,then he can be as well a girl or a monkey,a dog or whatever he wishes,so that is an absurd belief.

There is no actual reason Christ could not become a man who voluntarily limited his capacity so as to be an example for men who have limited capacity. You can like it or dislike it. What you can't do is show a fault of any kind actually occurred.

The fault is God in your image was a man,visiting the toilet and running from the jews and crying at the cross fearing of death.

Matthew 27:46​

Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Mark 15:34
And at the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, "Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Again you can like what you want but you have demonstrated nothing that was actually wrong.

No,It isn't a matter of like or dislike,but it is about facts.

Christ who even Muhammad revered said he did. Who are you to arbitrarily declare he didn't. Even in philosophy substitutionary atonement is the only coherent salvation system. It is more comprehensive, more sophisticated, and more adequate than any system in any other religion including Islam.

Prophet didn't do miracles but it is God's power.

[youtube]5p6y12fOjAI[/youtube]
Touchdown Jesus Fire - The Truth - YouTube

God did not have to create a Universe, nor a single man, nor Muhammad, nor anything. Sitting around telling God what he must do is a suckers tactic. God can do what he chooses whether you think he had to or not.

And he sent prophet Mohammed as well but you dislike it.

What? I love Jesus by virtue of the fact I spiritually experienced his forgiveness and healing. Obeying laws has more to do with fear than love.

So you loves him because of healing,so if you got a terminal illness then you won't love him any more and how you could know that you are forgiven.

 

[1robin]

It is in defense of prophet Mohammed as i believe he was telling the truth that Jesus wasn't God or his son but Just a prophet.

If your defending something it helps to post what it is your defending. In debate a premise is sated and then defended or contended. There are about a million reasons to think Muhammad wrong but you can believe anything you wish but unlike Christianity you will not know your wrong until it is too late to make any difference. I will mention only two of the millions of reasons Muhammad was probably wrong.

1. The people on the scene and knew more about Christ's identify and actions than any other humans who ever lived unanimously believed what Muhammad claimed was untrue. Not to mention Muhammad was separated by events by hundreds of years. My guys were there.
2. God raised Christ, the point of doing so was to put a seal of approval on what he and his apostles claimed. God said to everyone in history "yes, his and the apostles words were correct and Muhammad and 2/3rds of humanity were wrong".

Now you are free to believe Muhammad but you are doing so in spite of the evidence not because of it. The evidence (all of it) is on my side, not Muhammad's. His words mean no more than Nostradamus' or Edgar Casey's. I am going with the ones who were there and direct access.

That make sense to me and for whom have brains in their heads.

No it does not. In every single category that is used to examine historical claims Muhammad was wrong as he was time after time.

If you believe that God can be a man,then he can be as well a girl or a monkey,a dog or whatever he wishes,so that is an absurd belief.

Declarations are not evidence. You do not understand the concept od debate do you. It is not for the purpose of yelling what you wish to believe. It is for presenting evidence demonstrating what you believe is true. You have none. There is not a single reason to suggest God cannot take the form of anything he wished. You are just told to believe he can't (which is a logical contradiction with omnipotence) and do as you are told.

The fault is God in your image was a man,visiting the toilet and running from the jews and crying at the cross fearing of death.

No God took on the form of a man to be an example to us. You are free to deny that but so far you have not even attempted to post a reason to think you are right. God can do anything that is not logically impossible, and his sending Christ is a demonstration of love greater than any religion in history and especially Islam can not equal. Love is only perceived and firmly believed when demonstrated. Not only does Allah never demonstrate love he talks far more about those he does not love than those he does. Sounds like a bitter and tyrannical human being not a loving God.

http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Matthew 27:46;&version=NIV;

Matthew 27:46http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Matthew 27:46;&version=NIV;http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Matthew 27:46;&version=NIV;

​

Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Mark 15:34http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Matthew 27:46;&version=NIV;
And at the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, "Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

​

​

Jesus was 100% man and 100% God in essence. At times his human nature struggled with his divine nature. The point is that his divine nature never failed.​

​

No,It isn't a matter of like or dislike,but it is about facts.

Where are they? You have not even presented a single potential fact. Just constant opinions and preference.

Prophet didn't do miracles but it is God's power.

[youtube]5p6y12fOjAI[/youtube]
Touchdown Jesus Fire - The Truth - YouTube

For about the 100th time I can't watch utube at work. Utube is not a scholarly resource anyway. It is used by hacks.

And he sent prophet Mohammed as well but you dislike it.

I do not find any reason to believe it and therefor dislike it. I dislike lies. Things do not become lies because I dislike them.

So you loves him because of healing,so if you got a terminal illness then you won't love him any more and how you could know that you are forgiven.

I was talking about salvation not some petty physical ailment. I love Christ because I felt him save me and he has never forsaken me and promised to always be with me. Even if I become sick or die as every person in history has he will raise me because he will never forsake me. That is a reason for love. A tyrannical man killing people for no reason and distributing booty stolen from caravans is not a man who can be loved.

 

[Quagmire]

That is illogical. We are not discussing the goodness of a man as a simple man but as a prophet.

No, we are not.

The poll choices were:

--- He was a great man and those who insult him must be punished!
--- He was a great man, but people are free to insult him
--- He was not a good man, but we should respect him because I believe in respecting other religions
--- He was a terrible man and we should condemn his awful actions!

The word prophet doesn't show up in any of the choices.

Put the goal posts back where they were.

Prophets can be one of two things.

1. Holy men deserving of veneration, loyalty, and reverence but not worship as God is worshiped.
2. Or he is a diabolical liar worthy of derision and condemnation.

Or . . .
3. Self-deluded
4. mis-understood social reformers
5. fictional
6. or. . .

 

[1robin]

No, we are not.

The poll choices were:

--- He was a great man and those who insult him must be punished!
--- He was a great man, but people are free to insult him
--- He was not a good man, but we should respect him because I believe in respecting other religions
--- He was a terrible man and we should condemn his awful actions!

The word prophet doesn't show up in any of the choices.

Put the goal posts back where they were.



Or . . .
3. Self-deluded
4. mis-understood social reformers
5. fictional
6. or. . .

What do you do? Do you sense my presence and come out of retirement to insult me? The goal posts are right where Muhammad put them. He claimed prophet hood. By any measure that exists a false prophet is the most evil of men, a true one the best. As Christ was either a raving lunatic or the Messiah, so the rest.

 

[Quagmire]

What do you do? Do you sense my presence and come out of retirement to insult me?

I just tell the truth. I can fully understand how uncomfortable that makes you.

(Now watch, folks: he opens up this round of dialogue with a personal remark, I respond honestly to his question, and guaranteed in his next post he'll accuse me of attacking him. It never fails, and it never fails to amuse. )

The goal posts are right where Muhammad put them. He claimed prophet hood.

We aren't discussing that claim in this thread. Again, these are the poll options:

--- He was a great man and those who insult him must be punished!
--- He was a great man, but people are free to insult him
--- He was not a good man, but we should respect him because I believe in respecting other religions
--- He was a terrible man and we should condemn his awful actions!

By any measure that exists a false prophet is the most evil of men, a true one the best.

This has nothing at all to do with anything you said in the post I responded to.

As Christ was either a raving lunatic or the Messiah, so the rest.

Trying to validate one false dichotomy with another false dichotomy.

It's amazing how so many people think they can pry their foot out of their mouth by using their other foot.

 

[Quagmire]

It looks to me like the fake votes came from those opposed to Muhammad.

But surely Christians would not lie in order to defend their hatred for Muhammad.

Surely not.

I noticed that too. Maybe we should call this a "Poe-Poll".

Catchy name I think, sounds Hawaiian.

 

[illykitty]

I noticed that too. Maybe we should call this a "Poe-Poll".

Catchy name I think, sounds Hawaiian.

How do you play with Poe-Polls? Is it like limbo?

 

[Quagmire]

How do you play with Poe-Polls? Is it like limbo?

It might as well be. :yes:

 

[gnomon]

Never met him. There you go.

 

[1robin]

I just tell the truth. I can fully understand how uncomfortable that makes you.

(Now watch, folks: he opens up this round of dialogue with a personal remark, I respond honestly to his question, and guaranteed in his next post he'll accuse me of attacking him. It never fails, and it never fails to amuse. )

What kind of rabble rousing nonsense is this? Sounds more like an episode or Morten Downey Jr.

We aren't discussing that claim in this thread. Again, these are the poll options:

--- He was a great man and those who insult him must be punished!
--- He was a great man, but people are free to insult him
--- He was not a good man, but we should respect him because I believe in respecting other religions
--- He was a terrible man and we should condemn his awful actions!

Are trying to win a word fight by semantic technicality of debate a issue that deserves debate. The relative goodness of a random middle eastern warlord is not exactly a decisive conundrum.

1. He was not a good man by any standards.
2. He claimed to be a prophet so even an arbitrary and meaningless discussion about his worth as a sword swinging merchant on the silk road can be discussed without his theological ramblings.
3. In fact without his theoretical theological his moral quality as a man deteriorates further. If even the possibility exists that God ordered some of his actions he may have an excuse. Without that possibility he was insane as well as bloodthirsty.
4. I have no idea what you value in a discussion that is circling the semantic toilet but even it makes Muhammad a worse man in the end. Exactly what are you doing?

This has nothing at all to do with anything you said in the post I responded to.

I have no idea what post it must or must not be relevant to. It however is the most relevant issue in the thread.

He claimed to be a prophet and slaughtered thousands of people on that basis. Anyone who would separate his prophetic claims from his actions is wasting time.

Trying to validate one false dichotomy with another false dichotomy.

It is one thing to misunderstand. It is quite another to lack the capacity or the will to.

It's amazing how so many people think they can pry their foot out of their mouth by using their other foot.

When was the last time you said anything whatever that has any bearing on Muhammad's quality? You have been arguing with semantic technicalities of an argument you are wrong about to begin with. Do you have anything but personal commentary, sarcasm, and irrelevant trivialities to offer? If not I am going to semi-permanently end my capacity to even view your posts. You do not have the slightest desire to debate the actual issues involved do you? What you value in what you type completely escapes me.

 

[Quagmire]

What kind of rabble rousing nonsense is this? Sounds more like an episode or Morten Downey Jr.

Trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to reason with a Magic 8 Ball of diversionary statements.

Are trying to win a word fight by semantic technicality of debate a issue that deserves debate. The relative goodness of a random middle eastern warlord is not exactly a decisive conundrum.

Then you should have no problem debating the subject in that context. I mean without pretending the argument is about something else.

1. He was not a good man by any standards.
2. He claimed to be a prophet so even an arbitrary and meaningless discussion about his worth as a sword swinging merchant on the silk road can be discussed without his theological ramblings.
3. In fact without his theoretical theological his moral quality as a man deteriorates further. If even the possibility exists that God ordered some of his actions he may have an excuse. Without that possibility he was insane as well as bloodthirsty.
4. I have no idea what you value in a discussion that is circling the semantic toilet but even it makes Muhammad a worse man in the end. Exactly what are you doing?

Why don't you ask me what my shoe size is, or what my favorite color is?

If you can't address the points, you can't address the points, so it really doesn't matter what sort of diversionary tactics you try to use to save face. It's going to be just as obvious regardless.

I have no idea what post it must or must not be relevant to.

The one I quoted. It really isn't all that difficult to figure out.

It however is the most relevant issue in the thread.

He claimed to be a prophet and slaughtered thousands of people on that basis. Anyone who would separate his prophetic claims from his actions is wasting time.

Sorry: you don't get to come into a thread and decide what the topic should be. If you don't like the topic brought up in the OP, start your own thread.

It is one thing to misunderstand. It is quite another to lack the capacity or the will to.

Wow. Another remarkably compelling argument: "I don't have to address your objection cuz you're stupid".

When was the last time you said anything whatever that has any bearing on Muhammad's quality? You have been arguing with semantic technicalities of an argument you are wrong about to begin with.

If any of that were true you'd be able to show it, rather than just making a lot of ridiculous and unfounded accusations followed by the usual sanctimonious and self-serving lecture.

Do you have anything but personal commentary,

I just don't understand: where do you get this "I can talk to you anyway I want but you better watch how you talk to me" crap.

sarcasm, and irrelevant trivialities to offer? If not I am going to semi-permanently end my capacity to even view your posts. You do not have the slightest desire to debate the actual issues involved do you? What you value in what you type completely escapes me.

Of course it does. I value integrity.

 

[1robin]

Trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to reason with a Magic 8 Ball of diversionary statements.



Then you should have no problem debating the subject in that context. I mean without pretending the argument is about something else.



Why don't you ask me what my shoe size is, or what my favorite color is?

If you can't address the points, you can't address the points, so it really doesn't matter what sort of diversionary tactics you try to use to save face. It's going to be just as obvious regardless.



The one I quoted. It really isn't all that difficult to figure out.



Sorry: you don't get to come into a thread and decide what the topic should be. If you don't like the topic brought up in the OP, start your own thread.







If any of that were true you'd be able to show it, rather than just making a lot of ridiculous and unfounded accusations followed by the usual sanctimonious and self-serving lecture.



I just don't understand: where do you get this "I can talk to you anyway I want but you better watch how you talk to me" crap.



Of course it does. I value integrity.

I have no idea what your on about. By far more posts in this thread discuss Muhammad in the context of a prophet. Given the facts:

1. He was not a good man by any standards.
2. He claimed to be a prophet so even an arbitrary and meaningless discussion about his worth as a sword swinging merchant on the silk road can be discussed without his theological ramblings.
3. In fact without his theoretical theological his moral quality as a man deteriorates further. If even the possibility exists that God ordered some of his actions he may have an excuse. Without that possibility he was insane as well as bloodthirsty.
4. I have no idea what you value in a discussion that is circling the semantic toilet but even it makes Muhammad a worse man in the end. Exactly what are you doing?

I will continue to discus him in a prophet context. If you wish to deal with the only issue that makes Muhammad relevant then have at it. If instead I am your only interest, then I have no interest.

Wow. Another remarkably compelling argument: "I don't have to address your objection cuz you're stupid".

I did not say you were stupid. I said you did not understand and would not understand and I was not going to track you down the off ramp you took. It is Muhammad as a prophet under discussion. I am interested in no side bars.

 

[Quagmire]

I have no idea what your on about.

Of course not.

 

[1robin]

Of course not.

Well I am sure glad that is concluded.

 

[ladybug77]

I have no idea what your on about. By far more posts in this thread discuss Muhammad in the context of a prophet. Given the facts:

1. He was not a good man by any standards.
2. He claimed to be a prophet so even an arbitrary and meaningless discussion about his worth as a sword swinging merchant on the silk road can be discussed without his theological ramblings.
3. In fact without his theoretical theological his moral quality as a man deteriorates further. If even the possibility exists that God ordered some of his actions he may have an excuse. Without that possibility he was insane as well as bloodthirsty.
4. I have no idea what you value in a discussion that is circling the semantic toilet but even it makes Muhammad a worse man in the end. Exactly what are you doing?

I will continue to discus him in a prophet context. If you wish to deal with the only issue that makes Muhammad relevant then have at it. If instead I am your only interest, then I have no interest.

I did not say you were stupid. I said you did not understand and would not understand and I was not going to track you down the off ramp you took. It is Muhammad as a prophet under discussion. I am interested in no side bars.

How is it a fact....that he is not a good man under standards?? Even the Devil himself was once worthy in the eyes of God. Why must we judge? Do we even have the authority to do so?

Lameeeeeeee.......

 

[Quagmire]

Well I am sure glad that is concluded.

You misspelled "eluded".

 

[F0uad]

I have a Question for the Christians if you find the Prophet Mohammed (saws) to be violent what about Moses (pbuh) and the other Prophets/Sons of Gods described in the OT?

Lets not forget The Prophet Mohammed (saws) was in a long war with the Pagans who started attacking him and hes followers, the death toll on both sides combined were around 1500 while in the OT its described that Moses(pbuh) killed over 3000 people in one event. This is without even mentioning all the other things that are told in the OT.

So if Mohammed (saws) is violent what does that make Moses (pbuh) and the other Prophets/Sons of Gods in the OT?

 

[1robin]

How is it a fact....that he is not a good man under standards?? Even the Devil himself was once worthy in the eyes of God. Why must we judge? Do we even have the authority to do so?

Lameeeeeeee.......

Exactly how many men does a person have to kill in order to plunder his caravans, how many Jews tied up and helpless need to be beheaded, how many holy books plagiarized, etc.. for man to be called a bad man exactly? On what basis would anyone call Muhammad a good man?
What was once true concerning an archangel has no bearing a an exceedingly sinful Arab in the 7th century. What kind of logic is that? We must judge because that is how we may know right from wrong, poison from food, a prophet from a false prophet. The same judgment you use in every aspect of your life is not suspended for theology is it? Of course we have the authority, the same authority we use to lock up and put to death men who have done a tiny fraction of what Muhammad did.

 

[1robin]

You misspelled "eluded".

I almost never contend with condemnations of my grammar. This one however is an exception.