Christianity

Can God Become A Man? James White vs Abdullah Kunde

MDI Australia member, Abdullah Kunde debates Dr James White, of Alpha & Omega Ministries.

Debate filmed 17/09/2011 at UNSW, Sydney, Australia.

Categories: Christianity, Debates

104 replies »

  1. Hell, first Paul Williams sets the scene on fire and now this!

    Top class rational argumentation from Kunde, really made things clear and stuck to his guns. It was sad to see White resort to a kind or emotional argument at the end and to drag things out for the alleged purpose of clarity, all the while muddying the waters.

    Between this and Paul Williams recent debate Christmas, it looks like the best has been saved for last this year.

    Encore boys!

  2. If God can become a man then he can become any of his creation why only man .He can become a snake ,ant,grasshopper, lizard,mosquito,fly,pig,cockroach etc etc .So Christians should look out for a snake or a cockroach who says “Iam” and start worshiping them instead of killing them.

  3. I’ve seen here a typical emotional response from moslem….

    Dr.Mustafa said, ” If God can become a man then He can become any of his creation why only man.

    question foe the Doctor…
    Why insisting that God can become any of His creation and not uniquely exclusively just become an absolute uncomparable perfect man?

    Concerning your comment about cockroach,snake,etc, actually out of emotional frenzy you are objecting your own reasoning sir! It was actually you yourself who think that God can become anything & not human only, wasn’t it?

    If only all moslem will ponder with clear mind and sober heart, they may see the brightness of the Gospel….

    GBU

  4. REPLY TO REGULAR REGULAR JOHN

    Brother what i wrote above is not an emotional nor a frenzy response, instead i wrote a very logical assertion that if God can become a man according to christian understanding then continuing in the same logical reasoning he can become any of his creation why only man? .Becoming creation other than man is easier as man is structurally and functionally more complex than others as you yourself said.

    The christian line of reasoning is that since God can do every THING , then he can become a man

    Lets see how much this reasoning of the Christians is logical or scientifically correct.

    According to OXFORD dictionary a THING is any OBJECT .

    Suppose if God becomes man he is…..

    ….all knowing and not all knowing at same time

    ….self subsisting and not self subsisting at the same time

    ….eternally living and not eternally living at the same time

    ….all seeing and not all seeing at the same time

    ….all hearing and not all hearing at the same time

    ….all powerful and not all powerful at the same time , etc,etc

    So as you see all these are self contradictory or inherently contradictory things.Self contradictory things does not exist or they are not THINGS .

    IT IS A SCIENTIFIC ABSURDITY AND THERE IS NO OBJECT IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE THAT IS INHERENTLY CONTRADICTORY

    Example….

    ….100% positive 100% negative

    ….100% hot 100% cold

    ….100% tall 100% short

    ….100% fat 100% thin

    ….100% north 100% south

    ….100% male 100% female

    ….100% black 100% white

    ….100% present 100% not present , etc,etc

    I CHALLENGE EVERY CHRISTIAN ON THIS PLANET WHO BELIEVES THAT GOD CAN BECOME MAN TO SHOW ME ONE EXAMPLE IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE WHERE SUCH A INHERENTLY CONTRADICTORY THING IS PRESENT

    So basically these inherently contradictory things are not THINGS they do not exist they are only hypothetical

    In the same line when one say God can do every thing it does not mean that he can do inherently contradictory things as they are NOT THINGS they are hypothetical

    Brother regular John you said “If only all moslem will ponder with clear mind and sober heart, they may see the brightness of the Gospel”

    Brother regular John Muslims know the light of the gospels and they are following it .It is u Christians who has to follow it.

    Let us see the light of the bible, what does it say whether God can become a man and come to earth.

    If you take the whole Old Testament this concept of God being
    unlimited and the one who can’t come on earth will be seen.For example

    1 kings 28:6

    In this verse Solomon says “but will God indeed dwell on
    earth .behold heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain thee”

    2 chronicle 2:6

    In this verse Solomon says “but who is able to build him a
    house since heaven and even the highest heaven cannot contain him”

    You can see by this verse that Solomon who according to the bible is man with most wisdom that God cannot dwell on earth and cannot be contained.

    SO regular John please follow the bible and stop saying God can become a man.

  5. Peace & Blessing in The Name Of Ar-Raab Isa Al-Masih

    Hi, Doctor Mustafa 🙂

    You wrote:
    Brother what i wrote above is not an emotional nor a frenzy response, instead i wrote a very logical assertion that if God can become a man according to christian understanding then continuing in the same logical reasoning he can become any of his creation why only man? .Becoming creation other than man is easier as man is structurally and functionally more complex than others as you yourself said.

    RJ Answer: I see you still trapped in your own reasoning “Doctor” (God can become Jesus so He can become EVERYTHING) , contrary to your “own reasoning” , We christian believe God can ONLY become A MAN named Jesus Christ, even the right term of this “becoming” is not a 100% God become 100% man BUT 100% God being incarnated as 100%God and 100% Man.

    Hope after receiving my “lesson” your mind will be illuminated by truth ,Doctor…

    Doctor Mustafa said: “IT IS A SCIENTIFIC ABSURDITY AND THERE IS NO OBJECT IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE THAT IS INHERENTLY CONTRADICTORY Example….

    ….100% positive 100% negative

    ….100% hot 100% cold

    RJ Answer: Does Asharite Doctrine of Quran as both 100% Created & 100% Uncreated INCLUDED ? 🙂
    So Asharite Sunnis are absurd people then…( L.O.L)

    I just want to take a few “simple” example taken from your example..
    A Magnet consist of both 100% Negative & 100% Positive
    Earthworms consist of 100% Male organ & 100% Female organ
    Earth consist of 100% North Pole and 100% South Pole
    Refrigerator consist of 100% Hot part and 100% Cold Part

    It is not a matter of contradiction actually but a matter of wrong perception… 🙂

    The most profound scientific evidence is Particle-Wave Principle in Quantum Physics where Light is considered as Dualism of 100% Wave and 100% Particle, but in PARADOXICAL way till now no acknowledgeable scientific evidence can prove that Light is MIXED OF BOTH 100% Particle AND 100% Wave , instead it’s been proven that Light is 100% ABSOLUTE Particle AND 100% ABSOLUTE Wave

    Concerning 1 Kings 28 & 2 Chronicles, Yup its true that God is All-Great & Unlimited, but first let me teach you another lesson to make you smarter in your thinking :
    Sura 67:16-17 , (16)Do ye feel secure that He Who is IN heaven … (17) Or do ye feel secure that He Who is IN Heaven …Almost all translators translate arabic word “Fi” as “IN” , which mean that verse clearly said that Allah dwells “IN” A Space called Heaven. Some translators try to change its true meaning to “above” the throne, but in that case it should written “Fawqa” and not “Fi”
    Here Islam were being faced with dilemma cause the most logical interpretation is Allah is Limited by space.

    As for Christian with God Trinitarian Nature ,this problem can be easily solved, as God the Son (The Logos) rules over Universe IN HEAVEN as representative of The Father would almost as the same as I stick my hand into a small tiny aquarium catching the fish and “rule” in that small aquarium without whole of me literally plunge into this small tiny aquarium.

    Doctor Mustafa said “In the same line when one say God can do every thing it does not mean that he can do inherently contradictory things as they are NOT THINGS they are hypothetical”
    RJ said : I absolutely agree with that Sir, so why don’t you stick to your premis then? Wouldn’t be saving a lot of “YOUR” time,energy &”EMOTION” if you finally realize that Christology is not base on “God can be anything” paradigm?

    Again I must humbly say :” If only all moslem will ponder with clear mind and sober heart, they may see the brightness of the Gospel” 🙂

    Let Peace Of Jesus Our God be in your heart… Cheers 🙂

    • REPLY TO REGULAR JOHN

      POINT 1
      You said iam trapped in my own reasoning .Iam not trapped in my own reasoning you think so .Iam saying that if God CAN become a man according to christian logic it is in the same logic that he CAN become any other creation .I did not said since that God can become a man he SHOULD or he MUST become other creation.

      POINT 2
      You said that that the Asharite Sunnis believe Quran is 100% Uncreated and 100% created .It is there logic it is not in line with the Quran as God says in the quran that it is the revelation send down from him .The Asharite Sunnis are wrong as they are contradicting themselves just like the Christians who say Jesus is God (uncreated) an man(created) at the same time

      POINT 3
      Next you gave the following examples to show contradictory things present together.

      A Magnet consist of both 100% Negative & 100% Positive
      Earthworms consist of 100% Male organ & 100% Female organ
      Earth consist of 100% North Pole and 100% South Pole
      Refrigerator consist of 100% Hot part and 100% Cold Part

      These examples you gave are the height of your ignorance of science.

      Let us look into these examples one by one

      1st magnet and the earth:
      Earth having north and south poles is not a contradiction but a normal physical law for any other magnet it is not a contradiction as both the poles are apart from each other and not at the same point .A contradiction is when both are present at the same point .Same with the magnets opposite charges in a magnet are normal physical characteristic for them not a contradiction.These charges are present at different points or at different poles in the magnet that is why it is not a contradiction .A contradiction is when these are present at the same point

      2nd the earthworm:
      As a student of science i laughed when i read this example of yours.An earth worm is not 100% male because it has female organs and it is not 100% female because it has male organs .Since it has both male and female organs it is called hermaphrodite not a 100% male and 100% female.

      3rd refrigerator:
      One more example of your sheer ignorance about science.Hot and cold parts in a refrigerator are at different points hence it is not a contradiction.A contradiction is when both temperatures are at the same point.It is normal for any thing to have different temperatures at different parts of it will you then call it a contradiction?
      You said “it is not a matter of contradiction but a matter of wrong perception”

      It is neither of these as i have shown you .It is normal physical laws of nature that you are perceiving wrongly and thinking it to be contradiction .If you think that there is no contradiction if opposite things are present together then you don’t know what is meant by inherently contradictory things .Iam clear when i said what is inherently contradictory if you do not understand just refer any dictionary

      POINT 4
      You gave the example of dual nature of light to prove one thing which is contradictory.This is one more example of your ignorance of science.

      Let me quote you a textbook of physics on what exactly is the dual nature of light

      Text book of Engineering Physics new age international publishers chapter 7 page 105:
      According to De Broglies hypothesis light has dual nature of a particle and of a wave BUT light act as a wave SOMETIMES and particle OTHER TIMES not simultaneously.

      So your example of contradictory nature existing together crashes as it is not a contradiction to have two opposite nature at two different times but it is contradictory if present at the same time which is not the case even with light.
      Moreover this hypothesis is rejected by majority of present day scientist.According to them a particle is also a wave and is defined as 2 spherical waves travelling radially in opposite direction with particle forming the wave center.

      A new theory “the string theory” says matter (including light) is made up of strings vibrating in different waves .The whole concept of matter is made up of particles which are static is rejected by this theory

      SO MY CHALLENGE REMAINS .SHOW ME ONE THING IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE WHICH IS CONTRADICTORY IN NATURE AT THE SAME TIME AND POINT .NOBODY CAN SHOW AS THEY DO NOT EXIST.

      The reason why they do not exist is they cancel out each other.

      So brother regular John next time if you want to show me 2 contradictory things existing together you first try to learn what does it mean by contradictory things and read some science and then try to respond
      And next time time please don’t give the type of examples what you have given it only shows how much science you know and how much aware are yo with the meaning of basic words.

      POINT 5
      The next point you raised is that of Quran chapter 67 verses 16 and 17 over the word ‘fi’ and according to you it means in so Allah is in the heaven and is bounded by it.

      This citation of yours is a characteristic example of the perennial knowing notthing but commenting attitude of Christians with the arabic language in particular and that of the Quran in general
      Let us see what a christian says in his arabic english dictionary

      Hans Wehr Arabic English dictionary edited by J.Milton Cowan page 734

      ‘fi’ means -in,at,near,on,over,during,among,about,concerning,regarding,dealing with ,behalf of,according to.

      So brother before commenting on something please refer to some books.

      Citing this u said Islam is faced with the dilemma of God being limited by space.One more of your guess work.There are innumerable verses in the Quran that shows God being the creator of heavens and earth and not bounded by any thing and not even being seen by our vision as he is not bounded by even that .

      The verse which you cited never says God binded by the space ignorant people like you think so .Not a single commentator of the Quran not a single scholar commenting on the above verse says so .There is not a single verse of the Quran which says so.

      Try your best .

      POINT 6
      You said if God becomes a man and came on earth he is not getting bounded by it and you gave the example of a person putting hand in a aquarium and not getting bounded by it.

      What an example!

      In your example one part of the man that is his hand is still getting bounded by the aquarium.So God if he becomes man and come to earth his one part will be binded and the other not!.
      How many parts do God have!?

      Let us see what the Bible says about this issue
      John 1:1″In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

      John 1:14″And the Word became flesh, and DWELT among us”

      So the word who is God became flesh and DWELT among us

      Let us see what Solomon says

      1 kings 28:6
      In this verse Solomon says “but will God indeed DWELL on
      earth .behold heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain thee”

      2 chronicle 2:6
      In this verse Solomon says “but who is able to build him a
      house since heaven and even the highest heaven cannot contain him”

      According to Solomon God cannot DWELL on earth because he cannot be contained by the heavens and the earth.This means according to Solomon God dwelling on earth will be God getting bound by it the other way round .The logic of regular John beats the logic of Solomon the most intelligent man in the Bible, Solomon says dwelling on earth is getting bounded by it and regular John says otherwise may be this is because Solomon does not know the example of the aquarium!

      Gospel of John says God DWELL among us a sheer contradiction to what Solomon says.So whom we should believe Solomon or the anonymous writer of gospel of John.

      You cannot say that a part dwelt on earth because John never says a part of the word became man and a part dwelt among us and you cant even say God did not dwelt his human nature dwelt as John clearly says God BECAME man and then dwelt among us

      So brother John next time you reply please refer some books and please use your brain and do not just reply by seeing some site what it is saying and copy pasting it.

      THANK YOU

      • REPLY TO REGULAR JOHN

        Brother when i said

        Suppose if God becomes man he is…..
        ….all knowing and not all knowing at same time
        ….self subsisting and not self subsisting at the same time
        ….eternally living and not eternally living at the same time
        ….all seeing and not all seeing at the same time
        ….all hearing and not all hearing at the same time
        ….all powerful and not all powerful at the same time , etc,etc

        These are self contradictory or inherently contradictory things.

        If you say these are not contradictory things it is only my perception then if i say

        Iam rich and poor
        Barrack Obama is president of USA Barrack Obama is not the president of USA
        Iam a doctor Iam not a doctor
        Christians are 2 billion on earth and there are no Christians on earth
        Sun is bigger than earth Sun is not bigger than earth
        etc,etc,etc…………

        Will you now say these are my perception and not contradictory.If you still say yes then you should consult a PSYCHIATRIST because perception can never be two opposite at the same time in our brain.

        This is because iam either rich or poor not both, Barrack Obama is either president or he is not president not both. Same with other examples .

        IN THE SAME WAY THIS APPLIES IF GOD BECOMES MAN IT WILL NOT BE A WRONG PERCEPTION IT WILL INDEED BE CONTRADICTION.

  6. lol, Sam Shamoun posting his articles acting like nobody’s dealt with them, Bassam destroyed your silly arguments when it came to this topic, move with the times Sam, stop living in the past.

  7. Yes, I challenge everyone to read Zawadi’s replies and compare them to mine. If you are honest you will see that Zawadi and Zaatari have no business defending Islam or attacking Christian, since they are simply a disgrace to intellectual discourse and debate. In fact, here is a link that even Williams didn’t want to post since it catches Zaatari in a humiliating contradiction: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zaatari/mo-false3.html

    Again, I expect Williams to be a man of integrity and let this link be posted, and not remove it like he did last time.

    So enjoy the documentation which exposes these two as intellectual frauds.

  8. Shamoun keeps embarassing himself. It’s not enough for him to let the readers make up their own minds, but feels the need to play with their heads and attempt to influence their decisions in advance.

    Shamoun knows that given his shallow argumentation, the only thing he could rely on is his superficial and outward confidence and rhetorical skills (mainly filled with abuse and immature remarks, especially given his age) to try and bring people over to his side.

    Just read the articles and contrast and compare the arguments and ignore everything else.

  9. Sam,

    Do you even read your own material? Or do you merely scan it for buzzwords and hope that readers will do the same?

    You quote Ibn Kathir, translated into English, who illustrated:

    —–
    Ibn Abbas said that “muhaimin” means to be a judge over the books that preceded it. All these sayings are similar in meaning. The word “muhaimin” includes these meanings for the (Quran) is a protector, a witness and judge over every book that preceded it. Allah has caused this great book (Quran), which He brought down, to be the last, the seal, the most comprehensive, the greatest and the most complete of all the books (scriptures). In the Quran was gathered all that was good in the previous scriptures and (Allah) increased it in perfection, which was not found in other books. That is why Allah made the Quran a witness, a protector and a judge over all other books and He took the responsibility Himself of protecting it, for He says (Sura 15:9) “We have sent down the differentiator and we are a protector of it.”

    …That is because the word “muhaimin” is associated with the word “confirming” (musadikan) [sic]…
    —–

    What do you think it means to ‘be a judge over the books that preceeded it’? What would the role of a judge/protector/witness/confirmer be?

    Moreover, here you have Ibn Kathir agreeing that muhaymin and musadiqan are related. Ergo, translating muhaymin as ‘confirming’ is acceptable according to the sources you have asked us to consider.

    I get the feeling you’re more of a reactor than a reader, Sam. Sadly, most of your written arguments, while being voluminous, are replete with the most basic misapprehensions, which can be recognised by merely reading the sources you quote and utilising basic comprehension skills.

    A piece of advice (if I may); If you truly believe in your religion, spend a little bit more effort in arguing for it, not merely arguing against Islam. The very thing you accuse us of (i.e., distorting our sources) is precisely what you do through your poor comprehension. You are much better off focusing on how good Christianity makes you feel (if it truly does), and not how angry Islam and Muslims make you feel (which is perpetually apparent). But, I get the feeling that you would eventually start to take your anger out on your fellow Christians (assuming you haven’t already?).

    وَمِنَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّا نَصَارَى أَخَذْنَا مِيثَاقَهُمْ فَنَسُواْ حَظًّا مِّمَّا ذُكِّرُواْ بِهِ فَأَغْرَيْنَا بَيْنَهُمُ الْعَدَاوَةَ وَالْبَغْضَاء إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ وَسَوْفَ يُنَبِّئُهُمُ اللّهُ بِمَا كَانُواْ يَصْنَعُونَ

    Christians like you facilitate the Truth in the Word of God being clearly exposed.

    وَمَا أَدْرَاكَ مَا الْحَاقَّةُ

    May we all be guided.

  10. Sam,

    I’m sure Br. Bassam is merely following the example of Imam ash Shafi’i (ra):

    “I never debated with a knowledgeable person except that I won the debate, and I have never debated with an ignorant person except that I lost.”

    You would do well to consider another of the Imam’s advices:

    “If you fear becoming deluded and impressed by your deeds then remember whose pleasure you are seeking, and the joy (paradise) in which you want to be, and what punishment you fear. Whoever thinks about these things will diminish his deeds.”

    Perhaps, also, it may be valuable for you to consider the possibility that you are afflicted with NPD. Symptoms include:

    Believing that you’re better than others
    Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
    Exaggerating your achievements or talents
    Expecting constant praise and admiration
    Believing that you’re special and acting accordingly
    Failing to recognize other people’s emotions and feelings
    Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
    Taking advantage of others
    Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
    Being jealous of others
    Believing that others are jealous of you
    Trouble keeping healthy relationships
    Setting unrealistic goals
    Being easily hurt and rejected
    Having a fragile self-esteem
    Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional
    (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=symptoms)

  11. Kunde, don’t flatter yourself. Zawadi has constantly humiliated himself in trying to pretend to be intelligent. And I see you following the same pattern. It is when Christians like myself debate Muslim like you who have no respect for truth or for your audience’s intelligent that we end up wasting time. Now instead of running your mouth here, make sure you come over to Wood’s blog and defend some more of your lies which I exposed: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/01/is-quran-miraculous.html

  12. Wow Kunde, this perfectly describes the condition of your prophet as detailed in the sirah and hadith literature!

    Believing that you’re better than others
    Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
    Exaggerating your achievements or talents
    Expecting constant praise and admiration
    Believing that you’re special and acting accordingly
    Failing to recognize other people’s emotions and feelings
    Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
    Taking advantage of others
    Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
    Being jealous of others
    Believing that others are jealous of you
    Trouble keeping healthy relationships
    Setting unrealistic goals
    Being easily hurt and rejected
    Having a fragile self-esteem
    Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional
    (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=symptoms)

    In fact, I think I am going to write an article in your honor where I quote from the hadiths and the sirah showing that your prophet suffered from all these symptoms. Thanks for bringing this up since you have given me a great idea!

    In the meantime can I ask you why do you follow such a man who suffered all of these symptoms which you shamefully tried to pass on to me? We know why since you are another dishonest dawagandist. But don’t worry, people are already starting to see you for what are, thanks to the debates and Wood’s blog.

    Anyway, I am out of here. Thank you Williams for allowing me to post here.

  13. Sam,

    Firstly, thanks for your non response to the above (regarding your article re: 5:48). Silence truly is golden!

    With regards to any further response to you on David’s blog (or a debate, etc), as a clinician that has come to the conclusion I have, I could not ethically undertake any activity which may potentially worsen your NPD, at the very least for the sake of your wife and daughter.

    You do a fine job of refuting your own arguments in your articles, as I’ve pointed out above and previously. Why should I facilitate pathology to merely repeat the rebuttal that already exists?

    Perhaps another question you may want to ask yourself; why is it that so many rely on your arguments, yet so few seem to want to expose their association with you in public? NPD aside, I think the juvenile nature of much of your writing is a clue to the answer.

  14. [comment deleted] Please respect MDI’s public decency policy in the comments. If you continue to insult, hurl abuse, you will be banned from making further comments. I suggest you take example from the many other christian commenters who write on this site without need to insult or use offensive language – Ed.

  15. Even though I said this would be my last post i can’t let Kund get away with lying again. Kunde, I understand that you can’t help yourself from lying about others since you are following the example of your god and his messenger who do it all the time throughout the Quran and hadith.

    Did you bother going to the articles provided in the links where I address your distortion of Q. 5:48 and 15:9? Did you even bother reading my comments to Williams where I plainly stated that my 2 part rebuttal to his use of Q. 5:48 will be coming out in a few days?

    And if you are confident in your interpretation of these texts do you care to debate me on it? Let me guess, you are going to do me a favor and follow Shafi’s advice by not debating me since you know it is a waste of my time to dialogue with an ignoramus such as yourself. Thank you for your kindness.

    And to expose your other lie, most of my articles are focused on defending what I believe as a cursory look at my links will show.

    But again, I don’t expect you to be honest since if you were you wouldn’t be a Muslim. You do make your god proud with your lies and distortions of the facts.

    And I will take your lame excuse that you won’t be coming voer to Wood’s blog as an admission that you know what will happen to you if you try to come over there and defend your lies, or spew some more.

    And as far NPDis concerned, I am sure you are going to enjoy my article where I use your religious sources that it is your prophet who suffered from this. You can thank yourself for running your mouth of for the article.

    BTW, thanks for again exposing that you are a liar since what was that garbage you spewed in your debate with Green about being forbidden by the Quran to insult people? I can see here by your attacks how much you really believe your “holy” book. It was only a matter of time before you exposed yourself. Like I said, you make your god proud. 🙂

    Now keep talking tough here in front of your fan base since that is all you can do.

  16. Sam,

    A clinical suggestion is an attack? Goodness me, you really should take the time to read a little more about NPD. You may get some insight into difficulties that I would strongly assume you are experiencing daily.

    May your affliction be lifted and may you be granted guidance. Amin.

  17. A Message to Mr S Shamoun from the Muslim Debate Initiative

    I have been sent a request to moderate your latest comment. Usually this is just a formality and I happily approve comments. But on this occasion I was very disappointed to read your comment and I regret that I cannot in good conscience allow it to be approved on the MDI website.

    We at MDI adhere to certain standards in our debates and public discourse (see our two most recent debates for example). We always welcome non-Muslim contributions even when they extremely critical of the beliefs we hold, as long as they are expressed in an intellectually serious manner and with due decency and respect.

    To publish your comment on this website would breach these standards, therefore your ‘new comment waiting approval’ has been trashed.

    I invite you to resubmit the text but this time expressing yourself in ways that are consistent with the values that are common to all people of Faith.

    yours sincerely

    Paul Williams

    (on behalf of MDI)

  18. Paul, since I respect you I will refrain from commenting anymore. However, I ask you to be fair and remove all the insulting comments I have read in other sections such as the ones from Rehan (a.k.a. Nazam) and Rambo John. If you don’t want any insults coming from any side then please remove the attacks by these gentlemen on apologeticsandagape whom you can testify has gone out of his way to be gracious.

    Anyway, Kunde can go to Wood’s blog by clicking the link to read all those quotes which I provided showing where Muhammad and his followers engaged in vile language and curses. He will also find plenty of hadiths from Muslim where Muhammad cursed and abused his own followers who had done him no wrong, even going so far as to insult an orphan girl whereby he ended up making her cry.

    Take care Paul.

    • No, Paul doesn’t have to do what you ask for, if Paul doesn’t want insults, then all he will do is send your insulting comments to the trash where they belong (with you), simple as that, you don’t control this forum.

  19. Asalamualaikum Warahmatuilahi , Mr.Kunde

    Excuse me for asking, but I can’t help to ask since you commenting about this” muhaimin” thing. If true that Quran confirming and be the judge of previous Law of God, so in relation to Law of Stoning in OT, what does Quran confirming about then?

    A) Confirming that Law of Stoning couldn’t be applied anymore since there are NO such Law being written in Quran OR

    B)Confirming the INCOMPLETENESS of Quran, since OT has it, Hadiths acknowledge it and many Muslims want to apply it.

    Please explain if u kindly would, Mr.Kunde

    Smile, Jesus God of Us ALL,, Loves U 🙂

  20. Sam Shamoun writes: “Kunde referred to “a prominent Christian apologist” calling him a snake and said that Muslims are forbidden from speaking this way. This again confirms that this man has no business debating since he doesn’t know his own religion.”

    This is rich coming from Sam Shamoun who has called a much respected prominent Muslim apologist Shabir Ally a “coward”, “idiot”, and “slime ball” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryLXp5EJv_k).

    To quote Shamoun himself This again confirms that this man has no business debating since he doesn’t know his own religion.”

    Ecclesiastes 10:12 Words from a wise man’s mouth are gracious, but a fool is consumed by his own lips.

    Colossians 3:8 But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.

    Sam Shamoun is the methanogenic bacterium that resides within rotting fecal covered flesh of a swine.

  21. Whats with the come to my gang territory( i .e come argue on David Woods blog instead) and fight me there invitations?Whats the problem with addressing the issue right here and now? Or is it that Sam needs the shallow cheerleading of fellow christian bloggers to make him feel like he is really beating up the bad muslim foe? Or perhaps David allows him to curse and insult muslims which gives Sam the false feeling of accomplishment ? I always wondered why some of the more brash and arrogant Christian apologist seem to also challenge Muslims to debate in their chat rooms or on their blog instead of just facing the Muslims in the Muslim chat room or Muslim blog site.I surmise its because they are not confident, and need the moral support of their fellow bloggers or chat room members to back them up because they lack the confidence and arguements to stand on their own.

  22. Greetings to Dr.Mustafa

    Dr. Mustafa: I am saying that if God CAN become a man according to christian logic it is in the same logic that he CAN become any other creation .I did not said since that God can become a man he SHOULD or he MUST become other creation.

    RJ: Sorry Wrong again, “doctor”….. 🙂 Sadly you show to me that you still can’t think straight According to Christian logic God can ONLY INCARNATING HIMSELF AS 100% GOD & A 100% PERFECT MAN as None other than JESUS CHRIST and nothing else. Please don’t push yourself to hard in insisting your heretical mindset to our pure mind by twisting and playing words, thank you.
    ————————————————-
    Dr.Mustafa : “You said that that the Asharite Sunnis believe Quran is 100% Uncreated and 100% created .It is there logic it is not in line with the Quran as God says in the quran that it is the revelation send down from him .The Asharite Sunnis are wrong as they are contradicting themselves just like the Christians who say Jesus is God (uncreated) an man(created) at the same time”

    RJ : Oo..Playing the blame game then? thank you for showing how respectful of you toward your own Islamic brethren (The Ashariite Sunni) by condemning their logic is incoherent with Quran :), So are you Wahabist? or Shia? If you’re Wahabist can you explain what is behind the logic in defining word “KUN” is UNCREATED AS SAME AS ALLAH? If you are a Shia then how can you believe that Allah could ever speak at all ?
    ——————————————————
    Dr.Mustafa:” So brother regular John next time if you want to show me 2 contradictory things existing together you first try to learn what does it mean by contradictory things and read some science and then try to respond And next time time please don’t give the type of examples what you have given it only shows how much science you know and how much aware are yo with the meaning of basic words.”

    RJ: ” Doctor”, is this an indication of your being emotionally blinded? haven’t you realized yet? What I’ve given you was to show you how to see in right perspective. If you see Jesus NOT AS 100% GOD BECOMING 100% MAN but instead 100% God become incarnated as 100% God and 100%Man , then there would be no contradiction at all my dear friend. Why keep insisting to ponder in this heretical contradictory thought, that 100% God transforming Himself as 100% Man ? naudzubillahmindzalik
    ——————————————————
    Dr.Mustafa : “SO MY CHALLENGE REMAINS .SHOW ME ONE THING IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE WHICH IS CONTRADICTORY IN NATURE AT THE SAME TIME AND POINT .NOBODY CAN SHOW AS THEY DO NOT EXIST.”
    RJ: Ehem..And what is the purpose of your challenge Doctor? We Christians agree that 100% God cannot transforming Himself to become 100% Man, that is herecy. CAN ANY MUSLIM GIVE JUST A TINY LOGICAL PROOF THAT GOD CAN’T INCARNATE HIMSELF TO BECOME 100% GOD& 100 MAN-CHRIST? 🙂
    —————————————————–

    Dr.Mustafa : It is neither of these as i have shown you .It is normal physical laws of nature that you are perceiving wrongly and thinking it to be contradiction .If you think that there is no contradiction if opposite things are present together then you don’t know what is meant by inherently contradictory things .Iam clear when i said what is inherently contradictory if you do not understand just refer any dictionary

    RJ: Please take it easy & take a deep breath…, Of course I fully understand… havent’ you read my previous comment? ***”RJ said : I absolutely agree with that Sir, so why don’t you stick to your premis then? Wouldn’t be saving a lot of “YOUR” time,energy &”EMOTION” if you finally realize that Christology is not base on “God can be anything” paradigm?****
    Christology clearly is not base on God Can be anything , “Thing” that i meant of course also includes “Contradictory Thing”. Please Doctor Mustafa get hold of yourself &come to your senses, with all do respect, why keep on denying the truth and insisting this heretical thought as if Christian belief 100% God can transforming Himself as 100% Man? Let God forbid…naudzubillahminzalik…my Gosh…please wake up for your own sake…
    ——————————————————————-
    Dr.Mustafa :” Text book of Engineering Physics new age international publishers chapter 7 page 105:
    According to De Broglies hypothesis light has dual nature of a particle and of a wave BUT light act as a wave SOMETIMES and particle OTHER TIMES not simultaneously.”

    RJ: Base on those ‘HYPOTHESIS” Light may act as wave& vice versa, but is it tells us that WAVE=PARTICLE? OF COURSE NOT! If you acting like something it is not an indication that you are that something right? The Truth still remained Light is Particle & Wave but not a mixture and Still Particles ≠Waves, Interestingly No Light is Particles only and No Light is Wave Only.

    Btw “doctor”, in relation to De Brogliese, do you aware that in fact he widen This Duality Wave-Particle Concept not exclusively to Light but ALL MATTER? That ALL MATTER have DUALITY of WAVE& PARTICLES?
    CAN YOU PROVE TO ME ANY OFFICIAL RECOGNIZED BOOK WHICH ABSOLUTELY CONFIRM THAT A WAVE IS A PARTICLE ?

    Does God hear,see& think? Yupz! Does Man-Christ hear,see&think ? Yupz again!.. 🙂 God can act like man,cause man is the image of God, and Man-Christ is the ONE& ONLY PERFECT IMAGE OF GOD, but again STILL Human Nature of Christ ≠ God , so Christ as 100% God & 100% Perfect Man can’t be denied. So AGAIN “doctor” can you logically point out any contradiction concerning True Principle of Incarnation?
    ———————————————————————————
    Dr.Mustafa: A new theory “the string theory” says matter (including light) is made up of strings vibrating in different waves .The whole concept of matter is made up of particles which are static is rejected by this theory ”

    RJ : Again, are you aware on what you presented here?Did I object the notion that Light is Matter? Do you aware that De Brogliese by his concept of Matter as Duality of Wave-Particle has already defined Light as matter also? What is the point you want to make? It doesn’t change the concept of Wave-Particle Duality
    ———————————————————————————–
    Dr.Mustafa : “Moreover this hypothesis is rejected by majority of present day scientist.According to them a particle is also a wave and is defined as 2 spherical waves travelling radially in opposite direction with particle forming the wave center”

    RJ: What majority? Is this “HYPOTHESIS” widely & “OFFICIALLY ESTEEMED” by Science community ? just reminding in case you forgot your own word “So brother John next time you reply please refer some books and please use your brain and do not just reply by seeing some site what it is saying and copy pasting it.”
    Excuse me for “borrowing your terminology”, I hope you yourself are using your brain while claiming some “HYPOTHESIS” as Valid Refutation toward Officially acknowledge Principal in Quantum Physics, again sorry for any inconvenient if I’m presenting your words against yourself 🙂

    ————————————————————————————-
    Gr.Mustafa: Let us see what a christian says in his arabic english dictionary Hans Wehr Arabic English dictionary edited by J.Milton Cowan page 734
    ‘fi’ means -in,at,near,on,over,during,among,about,concerning,regarding,dealing with ,behalf of,according to.

    RJ: That’s funny, why are you asking for recognition from christian when examining your own Quran? What’s with this low self confidence doctor? 🙂

    ——————————————————————————————
    Dr. Mustafa: So brother before commenting on something please refer to some books.

    RJ: HOW ABOUT QURAN? WOULD IT BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU?:) CAN YOU SHOW ANY SINGLE VERSE (BESIDES SURAH 67:16-17) THAT TRULY DEFINES WORD “FI” AS “OVER” ?
    ——————————————————————————
    Dr.Mustafa :”The verse which you cited never says God binded by the space ignorant people like you think so .Not a single commentator of the Quran not a single scholar commenting on the above verse says so .There is not a single verse of the Quran which says so. Try your best .”

    RJ: Hardly a sweat actually ( L.O.L) http://quran.com/67/16-17
    Yusuf-Ali, Pichtall , Shakir translation define word Fi as IN, and ONLY Muhsin Khan translation that defines it as word “OVER”
    Sahih International defines it as “IN” but with certain arrangement, where it says : Do you feel secure that He who [holds authority] in the heaven would not cause the earth to swallow you and suddenly it would sway?Here interestingly It’s not God who is IN Heaven, but His Authority is. (Non-Wahabist view).

    I STAND TO MY STATEMENT, that since the beginning these verses have already been dilemmatic

    Al-Haafiz Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr argued that Fi was being defined as same as Fi word in Sura 9:2 & Sura 20:71 (http://www.islamhouse.com/p/206934) .But carefull reading of these verses show:
    So travel freely (O Mushrikoon) for four months (as you will) throughout the land [fi’l-ard]” [al-Tawbah 9:2], this journey Al-Baar referred to is STILL IN EARTHLY REALM & so if it had been truly applied to Surah 67:16-17, it would still conclude ALLAH IS “IN” HEAVENLY REALM .

    The same with Surah 20:71, and I will surely, crucify you on the trunks of date palms [fi judhoo’ al-nakhl]” [Ta-Ha 20:71]
    the one who is crucified WOULD BE STILL IN THE REALM OF THE TREE, so in that case nothing change ALLAH STILL DWELL IN THE REALM OF HEAVEN

    That’s why many Sunni scholar trying desperately to interpret it in figurative way

    Imam Al Qurtubi out of his confusion insist on FIGURATIVELY interpreting this verse
    First , This may mean: “Do you feel secure that He Who is the Creator of whomever is in the heavens will not make the earth swallow you, as He did Korah?” The more exacting hold that “in the heavens” signifies: “Do you feel secure from Him who is over the heavens,” just as Allah says: “Journey in the earth” (9:2) meaning over it; not over it by way of physical contact or spatialization, but by way of omnipotent power and control. Qurtubi tried to interpret it as “way of control”, he refused to define word “fi” in physical way. (http://sunnah.org/aqida/aqida2.htm)

    ***Nawawi in his commentary on Muslim agreed with Qadi `Iyad that the words “in the heaven” in the verse “Have you security from Him Who is in the heaven” is interpreted figuratively. Fakhr al-Din Razi said in his Tafsir (3:69): “It is the anthropomorphists who used the verse “Have you security from Him Who is in the heaven” to claim that Allah Himself is in the sky.” The Qur’anic commentator Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi said the same thing in his Bahr al-muhit (8:302) and Nahr al-madd (2:1131-1132) with particular reference to Ibn Taymiyya.(http://sunnah.org/aqida/aqida2.htm)**

    Again Non-Salafist scholar insist on interpreting this verse figuratively,one of the obvious reason as I’ve already stated,” because the only reference in quran on implementing word “Fi” as “over” was in Surah 9 & 20 BUT careful reading on those two verses concludes they still describe arabic word “Fi” as “IN” anyway.

    By that , Salafist such Ibn Taymiyya were condemned as anthropomorphist when defining this Surah literally.
    AGAIN, I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR , Sura 67:16-17 is an obvious dilemma among Muslim.

    ——————————————————————–
    Dr.Mustafa : ” You said if God becomes a man and came on earth he is not getting bounded by it and you gave the example of a person putting hand in a aquarium and not getting bounded by it. What an example! In your example one part of the man that is his hand is still getting bounded by the aquarium.So God if he becomes man and come to earth his one part will be binded and the other not!.
    How many parts do God have!?”

    RJ: Take a deep breath first Doctor, Wow… have you forgot when I said it seems you were commenting out of emotional frenzy? please take time to examine yourself and then examine my argument . Regarding that “specific sentence ” you refer to, actually I DIDN’T SAY THAT GOD CAME TO EARTH & BECOME A MAN ..Please if you don’t understand at least QUOTE it right ,Sir! so you might be saved from further embarrassment

    Please read my argument again carefully & not “emotionally” if you kindly would? 🙂
    ———————————————————
    Dr.Mustafa : ” The logic of regular John beats the logic of Solomon the most intelligent man in the Bible, Solomon says dwelling on earth is getting bounded by it and regular John says otherwise may be this is because Solomon does not know the example of the aquarium!”

    RJ: Nope.. wrong again! sorry btw for any disappointment upon yourselves …. The truth is my logic is absolutely in accordance with Solomonn’s logic and debunking your logic, Doctor Mustafa

    Allow me to explain Solomon’s logic if you wouldn’t mind sir 🙂
    1 Kings 8:10-12 ,When the priests withdrew from the Holy Place, the cloud filled the temple of the Lord. And the priests could not perform their service because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled his temple. Then Solomon said, “The Lord has said that he would dwell in a dark(thick) cloud

    Let see this premise: IF God would dwell in a thick cloud and can’t dwell in earth as you assumed , then this intelligent man surely had committed a fallacy,because after the appearance of THE CLOUD that filling the temple ,Solomon then said ” The Lord dwell in thick cloud”
    If what Solomon’s meant was really as you assumed to be ,then why would he said ” (The Lord has said) : He would dwell in thick cloud” ? Please pay attention for Solomon’s sentence ” The Lord has said “, it’s clear clarification from God Himself that He was present in this particular cloud which filled the Temple.

    Astonished by this phenomenon out of amazement he then said ” But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!
    It is not complicated to understand actually, When God through His Element revealing Himself at the Temple & not only that but also FILLING the Temple, Solomon in his “Wisdom” admit that ALTHOUGH GOD’S ELEMENT WERE FILLING THE TEMPLE BUT CERTAINLY NOT AN INDICATION THAT GOD WERE CONTAINABLE.

    John 1:14, And the Word became flesh, and DWELT among us”, and in 1 Kings 8:12 , Then Solomon said, “The Lord has said that he would dwell in a dark(thick) cloud
    No Contradiction here, cause Element of God (Word as in John 1:14 and The Spirit as in 1 Kings 8) surely can dwell. But if we speaking in regard to Abba Father Majestical nature then surely not!
    Remember God is Triune being… please don’t forget this btw…

    The problem here is not with Solomon’s logic or mine but with your own logic, Sir 🙂
    ———————————————————————–
    Dr.Mustafa: How many parts do God have!?
    RJ: If you mean Elements (Hypostasis) then its THREE = Father, Son and Holy Spirit
    Is this a Sunday school trivia ? ( L.O.L )
    —————————————————————-
    Dr. Mustafa : You cannot say that a part dwelt on earth because John never says a part of the word became man and a part dwelt among us and you cant even say God did not dwelt his human nature dwelt as John clearly says God BECAME man and then dwelt among us

    RJ: Ooops YOU DID IT AGAIN! WRONG AGAIN Doctor ! (L.O.L ) You only grasp half of the truth, sure John didn’t say part of the word became man, it would be heresy to say Jesus Christ Godly Nature is partly man, In fact Gospel of John did say The Word which is one of the Hypostasis of God did dwell among us. Please I suggest you not to be emotionally hasty and soberly give attention to this fact “The Word & The Spirit” can dwell with man but not The Father in His Majestic Nature.

    Wouldn’t be nice if muslim care to take a moment to think patiently & not emotionally? Why insisting on blinding yourself to the truth, Sir?
    ————————————-
    Mr.Mustafa :Will you now say these are my perception and not contradictory.If you still say yes then you should consult a PSYCHIATRIST because perception can never be two opposite at the same time in our brain.

    RJ: I hope you may keep yourself cool Mr.Mustafa, no need to be overly emotional upon this matter especially when the one who really have problem is yourself. Let me teach you another lesson so hopefully you will be more mature after this. Do you familiar with term “Straw Man Fallacy” ? It is a form of logical fallacy when you attempt to attack a person’s logical position but you refuting him not on his true logical position instead on “false position” that you think this person has.

    Since the beginning I’ve been teaching you in how to see in right perspective THAT WE CHRISTIAN REFUSE THE IDEA OF GOD TRANSFORMING HIMSELF TO BECOME 100 %MAN, INSTEAD OUR GENUINE BELIEF IS GOD INCARNATE HIMSELF AS 100% GOD&100% MAN, NOT JUST ORDINARY MAN BUT AN ABSOLUTE PERFECT MAN NAMED JESUS CHRIST ONLY

    Through out your post it is clear that your premise is CHRISTIAN BELIEVES GOD TRANSFORMED INTO 100% GENERAL HUMAN BEING

    So frankly , sadly to say your long line refutations are useless, because this idea of yours is just your own hallucination, Sir… So please wake up … Peace&Thanks 🙂

    • REPLY TO OUR CONFUSED BROTHER -REGULAR JOHN

      POINT 1

      You said that iam insisting heretical mindset on Christianity .Iam not at all doing so you think so.What i said is exactly in line with Christianity.Orthodox Christianity says that God became man who is Jesus Christ .They also say he was both God and man.My whole presentation of points above was in line with this that God and man cannot be together because it is inherently contradictory and i have also given enough scientific proof to support my points .

      You have not at all read my points carefully and is continuously repeating the same points that iam attacking straw man and not what Christians believe instead iam logically and scientifically showing that God and man cannot be at the same time and even Abdulla Kunde also did the same in his debate excellently .

      You refuted none of my points but instead blaming me for being frenzy

      POINT 2

      You said iam disrespectful to Asharite Sunnis .Iam not at all disrespectful to them you think so.I only told their belief on Quran is not in line with Quran.

      POINT 3

      You said CAN ANY MUSLIM GIVE JUST A TINY LOGICAL PROOF THAT GOD CAN’T INCARNATE HIMSELF TO BECOME 100% GOD& 100% MAN WHO IS CHRIST?

      THE WHOLE OF MY POINTS WHICH I SAID ABOVE I HAVE SHOWED THIS LOGICALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR GOD TO BE GOD AND MAN AT THE SAME TIME .BECAUSE IT IS CONTRADICTORY.

      If God becomes man and is God and man at same time he is
      ….all knowing and not all knowing at same time
      …self subsisting and not self subsisting at the same time
      …eternally living and not eternally living at the same time
      ….all seeing and not all seeing at the same time
      ….all hearing and not all hearing at the same time
      ….all powerful and not all powerful at the same time , etc,etc

      IT IS A LOGICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ABSURDITY .He can be either God or a man but not both at the same time .I have given enough proofs which are very logical and scientific to support my points and YOU HAVE NOT REFUTED ANY OF THESE .

      POINT 4

      Coming to the dual nature of light it is both wave and a particle but wave SOMETIMES and particle OTHER TIMES according to de brogies hypothesis

      The basic purpose of showing this is to show you that because you said they are at the same time which is not .you said light is both wave and particle that is right when did i deny that but it behaves as wave sometimes and particle other times so God should be god sometimes and man other times not at the same time.

      The other purpose of showing this is that inherently contradictory things cannot be AT THE SAME TIME as with GOD BEING GOD AND MAN AT THE SAME TIME IT IS ALSO INHERENTLY CONTRADICTORY.

      SO THE TRUE PRINCIPLE OF INCARNATION IS CONTRADICTORY SCIENTIFICALLY AND LOGICALLY

      POINT 5

      You asked me to show any physics book which is telling that dual nature of light is not held now a days

      If i tell this to a student of physics he will laugh on you .Which world are you brother?

      EACH ANY EVERY BOOK OF PHYSICS NOW TELLS THAT A PARTICLE IS ALSO A WAVE and is the considered to be 2 waves traveling in radially opposite direction with particle forming the center

      Even if dual nature of light which is light being made up of wave and particle is correct it does not refute my claim of inherently contradictory things not being present at the same time and point as De Brogie himself who proposed the hypothesis of dual nature of light claimed that light is wave sometimes and particle other times NOT AT THE SAME TIME

      SO INCARNATION AS TO WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IS A SCIENTIFIC AND LOGICAL ABSURDITY AND IMPOSSIBILITY AND MY CHALLENGE TO ANY CHRISTIAN WHO BELIEVES THIS STANDS THAT TO SHOW ME 2 INHERENTLY CONTRADICTORY THINGS PRESENT AT THE SAME POINT AND TIME IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE

      POINT 6

      You said that why did i quote a christian dictionary to show ‘fi’ also means above

      This is not because of my low self esteem as you claim it is because if i would have showed you Arabic English dictionary written by a Muslim you would have not believed and thought since they are Muslim they are writing ‘fi’ as ‘over’ just to cover up the Quran

      You also asked me to show any verse which shows ‘fi’ as over .Even after my showing of an Arabic English dictionary you are still persisting and you back tracked from your original claim that ‘fi’ does not mean over it should be ‘fawqa’

      Later you quoted Quran 9:2 and 20:71 and refuted your own self to show any verse where ‘fi’ is used as over .Not satisfied you started saying it is still in the realm of those objects.But you forgot that ‘fi’ can be used as over even it has been in the Quran itself.

      Then you quoted various commentaries on 67:16-17 and again refuted your initial claim of Islam being faced with the dilemma of Allah being bound by heaven. All the commentaries and scholars on 67:16-17 never consider Allah to be bounded by heaven

      This sura is not at all a dilemma among Muslims because scholars say ‘fi’ can be used as over and even if it is used as in it is figurative.NO ONE SAYS ALLAH IS BOUNDED BY HEAVEN

      This sura indeed is a dilemma among Christians like you who neither know Arabic nor word using in Arabic and in the Quran and think Allah is bounded by heaven contrary to what Muslims and scholars say.

      POINT 7

      Next you talked about God dwelling in a thick cloud.

      Let us see what does it mean

      1 kings 8:10-12 “And it came to pass, when the priests came out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the Lord, so that the priests could not continue ministering because of the cloud; for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord. Then Solomon spoke:

      “The Lord said He would dwell in the dark cloud.

      I have surely built You an exalted house,

      And a place for You to dwell in forever.”

      a. The cloud filled the house of the Lord: This was the cloud of glory, seen often in the Old and New Testament, sometimes called the cloud of Shekinah glory. It is a radiant outshining of His character and presence. Here it is manifested in a cloud.It not God himself DWELLING in cloud nor any ELEMENT of God as you told .

      All Jewish and Christian commentaries commenting on this verse says it was not God himself in the cloud just his radiance which is refereed to as Lord dwelling in cloud.

      Other examples

      · This is the cloud that stood by Israel in the wilderness (Exodus 13:21-22)

      · This is the cloud of glory that God spoke to Israel from (Exodus 16:10)

      · This is the cloud from which God met with Moses and others (Exodus 19:9, 24:15-18, Numbers 11:25, 12:5, 16:42)

      · This is the cloud that stood by the door of the Tabernacle (Exodus 33:9-10)

      · This is the cloud from which God appeared to the High Priest in the Holy Place inside the veil (Leviticus 16:2)

      · This is the cloud of Ezekiel’s vision, filling the temple of God with the brightness of His glory (Ezekiel 10:4)

      BUT IN JOHN1:14 “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” IT IS THE WORD HIMSELF BECOMING MAN AND DWELLING AMONG US NOT JUST HIS GLORY

      NO CHRISTIAN SAYS THAT GLORY OF GOD BECAME MAN AND DWELT ON EARTH BUT GOD HIMSELF BECAME MAN AND DWELT ON EARTH EVEN THE AUTHOR OF JOHN SAID THAT GOD HIMSELF BECAME MAN AND DWELT AMONG US NOT JUST HIS GLORY.

      Coming on to 1 kings 28:6 “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built!”

      From his statement in 1 Kings 8:12-13 we might have thought that he drifted towards a superstitious idea that God actually lived in the temple to the exclusion of other places. It was important to recognize that though God had a special presence (i.e his radiance not his own self) in the temple, He was far too great to be restricted to the temple.

      Now let us look into Gospel of John 10:23″Jesus was walking in the temple in portico of Solomon”

      Here Jesus came in the temple ! but Solomon clearly said God cant So either Solomon is wrong that God cant come in his temple or Jesus is not God

      You said word and spirit can dwell among us but not Abba father .Solomon does not mention this he clearly said God cant dwell among us if he dwell he will be contained.

      And next time don’t say iam doing a straw man fallacy iam not at all doing a straw man fallacy what ever iam telling is exactly what orthodox Christians belief and IAM VERY BIBLICAL AND LOGICAL IN MY PRESENTATION OF POINTS

      • The whole concept of hypostatic union is illogical and unbiblical as abdullah kunde and i have shown through all my points above as it contradicts its own self .Regular John has not shown why it is logical instead have not answered to all the illogicality and unscientific improbalities associated with it but is continuing to argue many a times refuting his own points and stand on doing so.

      • THE HYPOSTATIC UNION

        Jesus 100% God 100% man is the hypostatic union.Logically AND MATHEMATICALLY .IF ONE THING IS 100% HE CANNOT BE EVEN 1% OF THE OTHER THING .BUT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE A MATHEMATICAL ABSURDITY

        EVEN 1% IN ADDITION TO 100% IS A MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY BUT CHRISTIANS SAYS JESUS IS 100% GOD AND 100% MAN THAT IS A 200%!!!!!!!!!!!

        CAN ANY CHRISTIAN SHOW ONE 200% THING IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE !!!!!!!!

        THIS UNIVERSE IS A WHOLE 100% CHRISTIANS HAVE 200% UNIVERSE!!!!!!!!!

        CHRISTIANS REDEFINING MATHEMATICS AND LOGIC JUST TO PROTECT THEIR ILLOGICAL AND MATHEMATICAL ABSURD FAITH

  23. Regular John, I believe it is you who needs to take a ‘deep breath’ (sir). Making your replies excessively long winded is not a substitute for rigorous argumentation.

    Your understanding of Quantum Mechanics and electromagnetism is idiotic, like your theology. A quantum particle being a particle and a wave is not something which is represented at the macroscopic or relativistic scale. This indeed is one of the shortcomings of the Quantum model in general and the Copenhagen interpretation in particular, it does not explain why Quantum effects do not occur at a large scale level. In any case, are you comparing Jesus to a Photon or electron? Are you saying he is a ‘quantum particle’? And are you then saying that there is nothing special about Christ, he is just like all the other countless Quantum objects in the universe then? Why then should he be worshipped? Also, a magnet is not 100% positive AND negative, it has a negative POLE and a positive POLE, and these are separate, not the same, any more than a zebra is 100% white and 100% black. It just has black and white parts.

    Your attempt to attribute a place to Allah is sub – moronic since he is meant to have created space and time. Bringing up Muslim ‘groups’ and heretical ideas will not help you at all. Will you accept the Unitarian Christians’ interpretation of the person of Christ? Or the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Just because one sect or group in a religion says something does not make it true for that religion, in that case I hope you accept the ideas of all the Christian sects through history, Ebionites included.

    The Quraan clearly states that it contains ayats that are metaphorical and other ayats which are clear, and that people with a disease in their hearts will argue about the metaphorical ones. It is funny that a Christian (even a dumb one like yourself) should accuse Dr Mustapha of anthropomorphism, since you guys are the ultimate man – worshippers!

    And if you want to play the literalism game and take everything in the Quraan literally, well I suggest you do the same for Christianity. Like when Jesus says ‘The Father is greater than I’.

    Everyone has seen the debate and your meandering and prattling is of no use. To say that there is an object that is infinite and finite, God and man is a Square Circle, as Kunde clearly pointed out. Also, as Williams stated, many of your ideas, like MODALISM are heretical even to mainstream Christianity, so there is no point Muslims wasting time on you, you should be debated by other Christians first, since you are not a proper Christian.

    You said on another thread on this site:

    ”(P.S when will ever be MDI arrange a forum in the largest muslim country such as Indonesia? I hope you will arrange speaker like Thabiti from Christian side, Thx)”

    Apart from the bad sentence construction, it seems you wanted MDI to set up a debate in Indonesia. Why don’t you advise them to promote Islam in Indonesia the same way that Christianity was promoted there? By colonising the country for hundreds of years and brutally suppressing other religions while raping the country literally and figuratively. Just like how the Spanish spread Christianity to your neighbour, the Philippines, by destroying the Sultanate of Manilla (amongst others) and having an Inquisition and forcibly converting the population. Contrast this with how Islam came to Indonesia. The Dutch missionaries even used money from the Americans under the Marshall plan, donated to help reconstruct Europe after WWII, to brutally suppress the Indonesian independence movement. Maybe you think Islam is an impediment to all of the sex tourism by Europeans and others in Indonesia. Or maybe you are a victim of this industry?

    You see, your cheap missionary arguments and paternalistic attitude may work when trying to promote Christianity in Indonesia amongst the poor, uneducated and disadvantaged Muslim classes (Bible in one hand, dollars in the other), but it carries no weight here in Europe, and you just sound like an idiot, quoting posts ad infinitum in your replies to make them longer.

    You quote the Bible on and on as if this constitutes some kind of proof. Frankly, I advise you to study the textual history of your NT manuscripts, even the Four Gospels are not available in manuscript form until 300-400 A.C. the earliest is a tiny fragment of John, no earlier than 125 A.C.

    Also, you started with ad hominem attacks on ‘Dr Mustapha’ by calling him ’emotionally frenzied’ and telling him to ‘consult a psychiatrist’. You obviously have no sense of manners or propriety. So don’t complain when I suggest that you are a moron and need to get a job instead of spamming sites with your pathetic drivel.

    All the best, in honour of Your Lord Quantum Physics or The Netherlands or Whatever You Worship. Sir.

  24. It seems this thread won’t contain my long reply, hope it’s just technical & not intentional

    I’ve already send my reply to Comms@muslimdebate.co.uk
    Especially for Mr. Freelover do u have email so i may send u my reply?

    I hope in spirit of free speech & sincerity, my reply will be posted here … thx Regards

    Regular John

    • Regular John, there is no absolute right to free speech on this blog. I refer you to my recent statement on behalf of MDI

      A Message to Mr S Shamoun from the Muslim Debate Initiative

      I have been sent a request to moderate your latest comment. Usually this is just a formality and I happily approve comments. But on this occasion I was very disappointed to read your comment and I regret that I cannot in good conscience allow it to be approved on the MDI website.

      We at MDI adhere to certain standards in our debates and public discourse (see our two most recent debates for example). We always welcome non-Muslim contributions even when they extremely critical of the beliefs we hold, as long as they are expressed in an intellectually serious manner and with due decency and respect.

      To publish your comment on this website would breach these standards, therefore your ‘new comment waiting approval’ has been trashed.

      I invite you to resubmit the text but this time expressing yourself in ways that are consistent with the values that are common to all people of Faith.

      yours sincerely
      Paul Williams

      (on behalf of MDI)

  25. Greetings Mr.Wiliams

    Can u show me any sentence that you would like to edit from my new reply which I send to your side via email?, please as muslim site I understand u may don’t give “absolute free speech for descent & logical christian reply” but at least on the sake of fairness , I humbly ask please examine my reply, does it have the same level of harshness as it contained by Muslims in this thread? It would be funny for people who lives in Western country not to practice liberty&fairness.

    And what’s the use making polemic statement when one expect no solid refutation upon those argument?

    But again it’s up to u to behave as an English gentleman or not., Mr.Williams
    Good day to u Mr.Williams, Thx & Peace 🙂

    Regular John

  26. You see, sadly some insincere Christians (or Christian Modalist heretics in the case of Regular John) are used to behaving in an insulting and paternalistic manner towards Muslims by telling them they need a ‘psychiatrist’ or that they are ‘frenzied’ or that Jesus is ‘their Lord’, but when a Muslim responds in kind, with insulting remarks, these same people cry ‘foul’ and start demanding ‘fairness’ & ‘free speech’. All I did was give you a taste of your own medicine, calling someone a ‘moron’ is no worse than calling someone ‘insane’ or ‘frenzied’ except that in your case it’s actually true.

    The drugs question was nothing to get offended by, many scientists and intellectuals in the 1960’s used to openly experiment with LSD and other substances to get ‘insights’ into various fields of knowledge. even some famous writers, like Aldous Huxley tried drugs. It just seemed to me that some of your ‘insights’ into Christianity may have been arrived at by the same method. I may be wrong.

    I would give you my e-mail address but I am scared that you and Sam Shamoun might start pestering me for internet sex, so sadly I won’t be able to give it out.

  27. To Freelover

    Since the system here unable me to post my comment , i try to post 7 replies through this old post
    https://thedebateinitiative.com/2009/10/ , but I only manage to delivered 6. Since it is an old post i hope it won’t bother anybody.

    Since my 7th reply can’t be delivered , I’ll try to compile & summarize it in shortened way here
    I never called mr.Mustapha insane& i know emotional frenzy can be define as negative over emotional hype up& not particularly as insane, so even in this matter I still bound by “euphemism”. Btw seeing Mr.Mustapha commenting about lizard,cockroach,snake etc in His attempt to criticize Christology was quite “frenzy” for me 🙂 . Secondly, I believe out of your “perverted mind” you accused me of telling Dr.Mustapha to go to psychiatric, Even Mr.Mustapha himself will admit who is the one who really wrote that psychiatric stuff. (Fourth) If u want to commit intellectual jihad through this thread why “chicken out” by refuse to inform me your email? … and about that internet sex&crack stuffs.. that’s lame bro! quite shameful for spirit of gentlemanship… For the sake of decency among religion, please wake up.. Thank You .. Peace R J

  28. Seriously, I don’t even know what ‘gentlemanship’ is.

    Is that like a boat with lots of polite guys on it?

    I would love to give you my e-mail address but I am honestly scared that you and Shamoun will send me nude photos of yourselves or something, so I will regretfully have to decline.

    No offence guys, i just don’t want to see any man – butt.

  29. @ Freelover

    Thank u for showing your inability to answer even the slightest of my refutation, since u just throwing ad hominem without writing any descent&logical sentence

    Please be cool for the sake of decency&honor among religions…. & stay out of crack KIDS! 🙂

    • No problem my friend many thanks! But I think you should stay ‘cool’ as well, you don’t see me spamming internet sites with super long off topic essays with no intellectual content. If you like to write maybe you should consider writing short stories, or a novel. Or maybe get a pen-pal…Oh I get it, maybe that’s why you wanted my e-mail. Are you lonely perhaps 😦

      Thanks for telling the kids to stay off crack. That way there’s more for you!

  30. Here is Jewish response to christians who can magically see incarnation in torah passages. i just want to remind the readers that even if it is proven that yhwh appeared as a man, then it doesn’t mean that it was 100 percent FLESH AND IT had 100 percent human NATURE. also i remind readers that torah is written in a time where pagans claimed regularly that thier gods dressed up in flesh.

    jewish reply:

    From Your Pharisee Friend (R’ Yisroel Blumenthal’s blog)

    Christians point to the burning bush which Moses encountered at Horeb (Exodus 3:1-4). The Christian contends that if God spoke to Moses out of the fire in the bush, He can also speak to us out of the person of Jesus.

    Another passage that Christians point to is Exodus 40:34, where the cloud covers the tabernacle and the glory of the Lord is said to have filled the tabernacle. The Christian argues that if God’s glory can be manifest in a cloud, why can it not be manifest in the person of Jesus?

    These arguments ring hollow for several reasons, but in the space of this brief article, we will limit our focus to one argument.

    The Christian does not believe that the relationship between Jesus and God is the same as the relationship between God and the burning bush or between God and the cloud. No Christian theologian ever maintained that there are five members in the trinity (- add the bush and the cloud to the trinity). The person of the bush and the person of the cloud are insignificant entities in our relationship with God. No one ever recorded an adoring description of the bush or the cloud. The bush and the cloud were used by God to convey certain messages and that is all that remains of these two entities – the messages that God conveyed through them. Christians do not see Jesus as a mere medium that was used to convey a message. The person of Jesus himself is exalted and venerated by Christianity. The books that describe Jesus’ human activities; his birth, his travels, his human struggles and his suffering and death stand at the center of the Christian’s worship of Jesus. These books have no parallel in the Jewish memory of the bush or the cloud, and the Christian veneration of the person of Jesus has no parallel in the Jewish Bible’s teachings on the bush and the cloud.

    Another passage that Christians point to in support of the incarnation doctrine is Genesis 18, where Abraham hosted three men. Two of these men turn out to be angels (Genesis 19:1) but who was the third one? The text tells us that after the men went to Sodom, Abraham was still standing before the Lord (Genesis 18:22). Since the text tells us that only two of the men arrived in Sodom, these Christian concludes that the third man is the one before whom Abraham was still standing.

    The widely held Jewish interpretation of this passage posits that four separate entities appeared to Abraham; God (in a prophetic vision) and three men. Throughout Scripture, visions of God are accompanied by the sighting of angels and this is but another example (Judges 6:12-23, Isaiah 6:1,2). When the two angels left, the third stayed behind while Abraham spoke with God. There is no contextual reason to assume that God and the third person are one and the same.

    However, some Jewish commentators (Rashbam) explain that the third person was the Angel of the Lord who is commissioned to speak God’s words throughout the Scriptures. It is he that is called “Lord” in his capacity of bringing God’s word to Abraham. Christian theologians, on the other hand, argue that this person was God incarnate.

    Before we determine which of these two positions is rooted in the Jewish Scriptures, we will point out that even according to the Christian interpretation (which is erroneous), this text cannot serve as a justification for the worship of Jesus. The Bible tells us nothing about this person aside from the words that he said and the message that he conveyed. The entire function of this entity was to convey a message and that is the only function the Bible assigns to him. The Christian concept of venerating the human activities of the one that they see as an incarnation of the divine has no parallel in the Jewish Scriptures.

    But who was this person? The Bible provided us with an answer before we got to this chapter. In chapter 16 in this same book (16:7-13), Hagar meets the Angel of the Lord. In an uncharacteristic usage of Hebrew, the text emphasizes that it was the Angel of the Lord who spoke to Hagar. Three verses, one after another, all open with the words: “And the Angel of the Lord said to her” (16:9,10,11). Yet when Hagar speaks of her encounter with the Angel, she says that it was the Lord who spoke to her (16:13). It is clear that the Angel of the Lord is chosen to convey God’s words and that when one converses with this angel, he or she has conversed with God Himself – although they have only seen the angel.

    We encounter this same angel in the book of Numbers. The text describes how the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes and he saw the Angel of the Lord (Numbers 22:31). The text makes it clear that the Lord and His Angel are two different entities. The Angel goes on to warn Balaam that he may only speak what he, the Angel, will tell him to speak (22:35). When Balaam actually receives the word that he is to pronounce, the text tells us that it was the “Lord” who met Balaam and placed the words in his mouth (23:16). But the text has already made clear that it was the angel who was commissioned by God to put the words into Balaam’s mouth. This passage gives us to understand that when one meets with the Angel of the Lord, it is described by the text as having met the Lord.

    In the book of Exodus we are told that the Lord traveled before His people in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night (Exodus 13:21). Yet when the pillar of cloud moved from its position in front of the people to stand behind them to protect them from the pursuing Egyptians, the text tells us that it was the Angel of God who moved from before them to stand behind them. Again, we learn that when God acts through the agency of the Angel, the text will describe it as the Lord traveling before His people.

    In light of all of these texts we can confidently state that the Jewish interpretation that it was the Angel of the Lord who Abraham saw as a man and not God Himself, is firmly rooted in the words of Scripture. The Christian interpretation, that insists that it was God Himself incarnated as a man, is without Scriptural foundation. There is not one passage in Scripture which Christians can point to with confidence and say that here God appeared as a physical human being.

  31. jesus went to the toilet, right? okay , did the god who was living in jesus’ flesh FEEL jesus’ human nature i.e felt excretion pass through jesus’ human anus?
    this is a serious question , so don’t delete it.

  32. i am a 100 percent human being , some times i notice that my penis has ERECTED even when i don’t have any sexual thoughts in my head. this is natural for me. the question is, would a god also feel a natural erection? again this is a serious question so don’t delete it .

      • mr williams i have found this copy and paste very interesting. christians are really know match for people who go by the dictionary definitions.

        Quote:
        ME: They are all equal on absolute levels so that all of those proper
        nouns are completely and effortlessly interchangeable.

        YOU: All of the nouns are not equal. The Creator is not The Redeemer,
        etc. READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN ABOVE.

        ***************** sake. What you wrote above was incorrect; wrong; fallacious; bad; poorly conceived; fatally flawed; etc., etc., etc. That’s the
        point!

        If you state that God is the Redeemer, then you are defining God, not
        just defining one of God’s roles. To do that, you would have to declare
        that God is a Redeemer. The best around, perhaps, but still, just a
        Redeemer.

        God is alleged to be the ultimate being, so when you make declarative
        statements, you are axiomatically making declarative statements about
        God’s ultimate status, unless you properly qualify them.

        Therefore, claiming that “God is the Redeemer” is to ipso facto claim
        and confer an absolute, ultimate status as the Redeemer. In other
        words, you are axiomatically declaring that God can not be less than or
        anything other than the Redeemer. That’s what it means when you state
        “God is Redeemer” (or “God is the Redeemer”). You are defining the
        ultimate state of Godhood (as rw alluded to) as “Redeemer.”

        If you wish to qualify your declarative properly, then do so by
        claiming that God is a Redeemer, which is, axiomatically, less than an
        absolute or ultimate status. Roles are less than the person, not the
        ultimate defining characteristic of the person.

        A person can be the best redeemer around and can therefore wear the
        badge of “the Redeemer,” for example, but the person is not equivalent
        to or defined entirely by the role that he or she performs; the role is
        necessarily less than the person performing the role.

        You don’t say that an actor playing Hamlet on stage actually is Hamlet,
        unless you’re either clinically insane, or you are speaking in
        absolutes, but thinking in abstractions; fuzzy abstractions at that,
        which do not have the same impact of the words you so poorly chose to
        express what you were thinking.

        Quote:
        MORE: You cannot work backward logically from one person and apply its
        role another of the persons.

        What the hell are you talking about? You have defined God in three
        ultimate ways, which is a logical impossibility and therefore amounts
        to nothing more than a tautology.

        God is the Redeemer. God is the Creator. God is the Sustainer.
        Therefore, the Redeemer is the Creator is the Sustainer.

        Here, let me be painfully pedantic so you actually see how you’re
        wrong: The Redeemer is The Creator is The Sustainer. These are not
        roles; these are definitions of ultimate states.

        For them to be merely roles, you would have to state that God is a
        redeemer and a creator and a sustainer as various roles among many that
        God has and therefore, when he is redeeming, he is not creating and
        when he is sustaining, he is not redeeming, etc., etc., which is
        precisely what you are doing. You are saying nothing more than God has
        a whole bunch of different roles he performs, but that does not mean
        God is three different beings as God is one being!

        I am a writer and a friend and a son and a lover, but I’m not four
        separate beings as I am one. Not only would that be an unnecessary
        qualification, it completely destroys the meaning of any of those
        terms. If God is ultimate and everything, then everything is ultimate
        and those terms have no meaning.

        Quote:
        MORE: That is because there are no words in the English language for
        the “be’s”, or “is’s” we mean in the case of God.

        Bullshit. Either these are absolutes or they are not; either they are
        ultimate conditions, or merely conditional attributes. If you’d stop
        flip-flopping and equivocating every time this is pointed out to you,
        you’d concede the argument for the tripe that it is, but since that
        would mean the foundations of your beliefs would collapse, you refuse
        to.

        Plain and simple.

        Quote:
        MORE: In fact the three persons exist in completely different ways.

        So you keep claiming without admitting that it is logically impossible,
        probably because you are typing in absolutes, but thinking in
        abstractions. It’s nice work if you can get it, but hardly logically
        consistent.

        Quote:
        MORE: Therefore, if you want to get technical, it should really be
        articulated something like this:

        1. God is[1] The Creator.
        2. God is[2] The Redeemer.
        3. God is[3] The Sustainer.

        In other words, one being with three different jobs and not three
        persons existing in completely different ways!

        *******in’ hell!

        You rendering all of these words utterly meaningless with this
        gibberish. Happy now?

        Quote:
        MORE: Now, The Creator is[1], and The Sustainer is[2].

        Wrong no matter how you torture the language and equivocate disparate
        meanings. God does both of those jobs, but it is logically impossible
        for God to instantiate both of those ultimate states.

        Do you know what the word “ultimate” means? It means there can be no
        other state above and no state below and nothing else to either side;
        it is ultimate, supreme, the whole goddamned shooting match. If one is
        the ultimate anything, then that’s it; that’s all she wrote and there
        can be nothing else that exceeds it.

        So if you are claiming that God is The Redeemer and you are making “The
        Redeemer” an ultimate state, then God cannot be anything other than
        “The Redeemer.” At no point can God be anything less than or greater
        than or other than “The Redeemer” for all eternity. Got that? It is
        therefore the sole (pardon the pun) defining quality, because it is
        ultimate.

        Same is therefore true for The Creator and The Sustainer. By claiming
        these to be ultimate states, you are claiming that God cannot be
        anything other than or less than or greater than…etc., but that’s
        logically impossible if each of these states are uniquely ultimate
        conditions, and not merely conditionally unique (i.e., God could be the
        ultimate Redeemer, as in, God’s the best redeemer there ever was or
        could be, but God cannot be The Redeemer and have that be God’s
        ultimate defining state of existence and also be The Sustainer as God’s
        ultimate defining state of existence, which is why you are trying to
        slip past us all.

        That’s why words have definitions; so that their meanings can be
        properly communicated and not twisted around so painfully in order to
        avoid dealing with the obvious.

        So which is it? Are you claiming that God has various jobs and as the
        boss in charge of those jobs, there is no one higher than he (in which
        case, no trinity) or are you still clinging to this fallacy that an
        ultimate being is actually three distinct and unique ultimate beings
        co-existing somehow within one unique and distinct ultimate being,
        because that is logically impossible and therefore must be
        icontrivertably false in all possible worlds and under all possible
        conditions.

        There can be only ONE ultimate being, or no ultimate beings. Read the
        definition of “Ultimate” before you answer anything further, because
        this Semantics 101 course is so pointlessly time consuming that the
        mind boggles. Words have meanings for reasons. You should look into
        them.

        It is logically impossible for there to be three distinct, unique
        ultimate beings co-existing somehow within one distinct, unique
        ultimate being; there can only be one being that is ultimate, or else
        the word has no meaning.

        Quote:
        MORE: These are three different ways of existing, just as the I am my
        mind, and I am my body, but my body is not my mind.

        “I am my mind” expresses one way of “existing,” to use your terminology
        and “I am my body” expresses one way of “existing,” but the phrase “my
        body is not my mind” isn’t an expression of a way of existing, it is a
        definition of terms; of what you meant when you used the word “body”
        and the word “mind” in your first two ways of expressing your
        existence.

        You didn’t present three ways of existing, you presented two different
        ways of expressing one’s existence (singular) and then defined the
        terms you used in relationship to the two different ways of expressing
        your singular existence (the “I” part).

        Whether your express your existence in terms of your body or in terms
        of your mind, you are still only expressing a singular existence
        described in different ways. You are not, however, expressing two
        distinct and unique beings somehow co-existing in one being.

        It is meaningless to say, “I am my mind” and mean that you are nothing
        but Mind as you also say, “I am my body” and mean that you are nothing
        but Body.

        Quote:
        ME: So, you’ve got a choice. You can either properly format 1-3
        accordingly:

        1. God is the Creator.
        2. God is the Redeemer.
        3. God is the Sustainer.

        Or reformat 4-6 to be consistent:

        4. Creator is not Redeemer.
        5. Redeemer is not Sustainer.
        6. Sustainer is not Creator.

        Either way, your choice, but you can’t format it the way you have it
        now because it’s not logically consistent (deliberatly so, I would
        hasten to add).

        YOU: I still have no idea what your point in that part was.

        Quelle surprise!

        You had orginally formatted (or at least the one I was responding to)
        thus:

        Quote:
        1. God is Creator
        2. God is Redeemer
        3. God is Sustainer
        4. The Creator is not the Redeemer
        5. The Redeemer is not the Sustainer
        6. The Creator is not the Sustainer
        7. There is only one God.

        So, to be logically consistent, you need to either format it thus:

        Quote:
        1. God is the Creator
        2. God is the Redeemer
        3. God is the Sustainer
        4. The Creator is not the Redeemer
        5. The Redeemer is not the Sustainer
        6. The Creator is not the Sustainer
        7. There is only one God.

        In which case 4, 5, and 6 are all false, due to the definitions of 1,
        2, and 3. If God is the Redeemer, then wherever the words “the
        Redeemer” are found, you can substitute the word “God,” and therefore,
        5 becomes “God is not the Sustainer.”

        See?

        Actually, from 1, 2, and 3 you would get the following:

        Quote:
        4. God is not God.
        5. God is not God.
        6. God is not God.

        But back to explaining to you what I was pointing out about being
        logically consistent with your formatting:

        Quote:
        1. God is Creator
        2. God is Redeemer
        3. God is Sustainer
        4. Creator is not Redeemer
        5. Redeemer is not Sustainer
        6. Creator is not Sustainer
        7. There is only one God.

        See? Consistency in formatting is essential, otherwise you would be
        engaging in deliberate fraud.

        Quote:
        ME: This means, by the way, that “4” would now clearly be a
        contradiction no matter what.

        YOU: No, you can’t just slap “be” on God in the same way you can on
        other things in this world. He exists in a way that completely
        transcends our existence.

        So you continue to claim. Petulantly. As if that will add some sort of
        substance to support your assertion.

        Fortunately for us, your petulance is irrelevant and the word
        “ultimate” proves the obvious fallacy of your claim and demonstrates
        the fatally flawed and poorly conceived theology to be nothing more
        than a mythology fit only for the easily manipulated minds of children.

        ———-

        MORE: in which case Koyaanisqatsi is utterly, absolutely wrong to draw
        from the statement, “God is the Redeemer”, the conclusion that “God can
        not be … anything other than the Redeemer”.

        False. You have claimed (erroneously) that the phrase “God is the
        Redeemer” can be restated as “God is the ONLY Redeemer,” which was
        never the argument, other than to be guilty of the same equivocation
        that kierk engaged in. MY argument (from the very beginning of this
        stupidity) was in response to kierks fallacious syllogism:

        1. God is Redeemer.
        2. God is Sustainer…etc.

        Specifically in that he began his first three premises (if that’s what
        they are) by declaring absolutes. Then in the fourth through sixth
        premises (if that’s what they are) he fallaciously qualifies these
        absolutes by declaring “The Redeemer is not the Sustainer.”

        Thus, his syllogism was not being logically consistent with his own
        terms. By stating that “God is Redeemer” you are, indeed, engaging in a
        semantics obfuscation as was my charge against kierk, for that means
        you are defining God as Redeemer (and Sustainer and Creator). Thus,
        they are interchangeable. God is Redeemer. God is Creator. God is
        Sustainer.

        That means you can plug “God” in for any of those others, such that
        “Redeemer is not Sustainer” becomes “God is not God.

        Or, you can change one through three, so that the syllogism is again
        logically consistent and you get “God is the Redeemer” and, later, “The
        Redeemer is not the Sustainer,” but you run into the exact same problem
        of substitution and you get “God is not God.”

        What kierk (and you, presumably) was trying to do was slip one by us
        (semantically) in the first place. I was correcting his logical
        inconsistency first and foremost.

        Then I went on from there, but I digress from my hunt for substantive
        counter-argument to what I’ve posted…

        Quote:
        MORE: Accordingly, it is clear and obvious that God can be the Redeemer
        and the Sustainer.

        Ok, then let’s once again use the law of substitution and plug those
        into kierk’s syllogism. God is the Redeemer and the Sustainer. The
        Redeemer is not the Sustainer, however, according to kierk. Why?
        Because this element of the syllogism relies on equivocation of terms,
        but the law of substitution betrays the fallacy of so doing.

        If premise four (or whatever it was) is: The Redeemer is not the
        Sustainer, and you have just declared that God is the Redeemer and the
        Sustainer, then premise four is contradicted. The Redeemer is the
        Sustainer (is God); they are interchangeable terms of art and once
        again the syllogism fails. Logical consistency; the hobgoblin of
        critical minds.

        But back to the hunt…

        Quote:
        MORE: If, however, Koyaanisqatsi is using “fully” in the sense of
        “only” above described, then he is using “fully” in a manner that does
        not correspond to the Chalcedonian statement which employs the
        conjunction “and” – thereby eliminating the possible sense of Jesus as
        *only* man.

        Great. Still no substantive counter-argument (or, for that matter,
        coherent counter-argument) so the hunt continues…

        Truly God sacrificed Truly God to himself. Or is it, Complete God
        sacrificed Complete God to himself? Or is it Truly God sacrificed a
        part of himself that was Truly Man to himself? I’ll leave out the
        eunuch jokes in order to hopefully get a direct, coherent
        deconstruction from you.

        Here, let’s narrow it down. What part of God did God sacrifice to
        himself and how is that in any way a redemptive act?

        Quote:
        MORE: In order for Koyaanisqatsi to demonstrate the logical
        impossibility of the Incarnation,

        Strawman…again. My argument was that claiming something is “fully”
        and “not fully” is logically impossible, but, again, why let anything
        substantive slow you down? And, yes, I’ve left off the “at the same
        time” aspect of it, because I don’t want you to keep using the word
        “semantics” as if that somehow indicts the question, so now I’ll once
        again accomodate your semantics shuffling and use your terms; how is it
        logically possible to be “truly God” and “not truly God?” Or “complete
        God” and “not complete God?”

        And, more importantly, how can something be “truly God” and “truly
        man,” when “truly God” trumps “truly man” and what does that mean in
        terms of a redemptive sacrifice of one’s own self, even if that self is
        just a lesser part? I cut off my arm as a sacrifice to myself in order
        to save you from my wrath? Is that the thrust here? Because I require a
        sacrifice in order to save you (a blood sacrifice, no less) and that
        sacrifice has to be “pure” in order for it to work in my mind, I
        therefore cut off my own arm (a “pure” arm) in order to satisfy my own
        requirments, therefore making the requirement larger than myself?

        Is this the logic of the Creeds you keep claiming are unrefuted in
        other threads?

        The hunt continues…

        Quote:
        MORE: He has not done this;

        Nor do I need to, even though, I just did, using your own terms.
        Complete God sacrifices that part of himself that is Complete Man (or
        Truly Man, or whatever other spin you want to put on it) to himself in
        order to save us from himself; a self-evidently irrelevant process that
        must therefore mean that the act of sacrifice is so necessary that not
        even God himself can avoid its mandate.

        Is that what your arguing?

  33. one more thing. when moses destroyed the idols and the humans who CLAIMED to be gods, then according to christian logic, moses destroyed ONLY the flesh and the ROCK , but not the gods LIVING inside these items. think about it if your pagan logic works for you then it works for the pagans. actually one can argue that the amalekites, the intelligent apologists among them , could have said
    “you may have destroyed the material matter, but not the spiritual matter and out gods come and go in many forms”
    if you christians think about it, you actually agree with the pagan against yhwh and moses LOL. THINK about it.

  34. To Mr. Mustafa

    Mr.Mustafa: You refuted none of my points but instead blaming me for being frenzy

    RJ:Nope, I called u that base on your earliest comment that showed clearly how “odd” u were behaving when grumbling about unnecessary thing such as cockroach,pig,lizard,etc. And definitely this “identification on u” certainly not bcoz of your comment afters that. I hope this accusation just out of “your sensitivity” , i can understand that 🙂 but certainly it is sad if it is deliberate coz everybody can see the truth of your “behavior” since it is publicly posted.

    Concerning that principle of incoherency that u gave , again you just prove nothing, cause what you’re doing is Fallacy of Strawman & sorry you’re still wrong Sir! cause your principle is irrelevant with True Christology! looks like you even won’t admit the fallacy of your wrong analogy where u claim that 100% South will also became 100% North is same as Christology, when the reality is not. We are actually more tend to have resemblance with your fellow loving brethren The Pious Sunnis Ashariite. If you can accept that Christology Concept (100%Uncreated & 100%Created) are also applicable &being received by MANY PIOUS BRETHREN IN YOUR RELIGION then why insisting to call it absurd? Why don’t you condemned your Brother as Absurd&Heretic people then ? why are u so double standard minded, Sir? 🙂

    U seems trying to dodge my previous question about Salafist belief on the Nature of Quran, because if seeing from your analogy of 100% Unlimited can’t be 100% Limited then HOW CAN THE WORD “KUN” BEING CLAIMED AS NOT CREATED AS SAME AS ALLAH? PLEASE AFTER THIS LONG PERIOD WHY NEGLECTING THIS IMPORTANT ANSWER SIR? Please explain if u kindly would ….

    ————————————————————

    Dr.Mustafa: ” and is the considered to be 2 waves traveling in radially opposite direction with particle forming the center”

    RJ: In what field do u earn your title , “Doctor”?Sorry but It’s quite pathetic in seeing u claiming such uncredited “Hypothesis” in order to support you . This theory of “2 wave creates particles” has been going around since 1986 and being self -promoted by scientist named Milo Wolff, but not being received nor officially recognized by Science community. Though I recognized there is such an idea but sadly out of your unscholarly examination & out of your EMOTIONAL RUSH , you’ve been HASTILY to COPY-PAST this “Idea” then make a claim as if this is A LEGIT &OFFICIALLY ACCREDITED Principle in Science, when apparently NOT. It would’ve been better if u had not put your title written in this thread, Sir, quite an embarrassment for a “Doctor” I might say 🙄

    Please don’t get too emotional, you won’t think straight if still behaving like this… Keep it cool, Shall We , “Doctor”? 😀

    ————————————————————————-

    Dr.Mustafa :”Coming to the dual nature of light it is both wave and a particle but wave SOMETIMES and particle OTHER TIMES according to de brogies hypothesis. The basic purpose of showing this is to show you that because you said they are at the same time which is not .you said light is both wave and particle that is right when did i deny that but it behaves as wave sometimes and particle other times so God should be god sometimes and man other times not at the same time.”

    RJ: Please look at your own statement, Doctor ! it actually supports my premise. I’ve already gave lesson earlier in my earlier statement that LIGHT is seen as ABSOLUTE PARTICLES & ALSO ABSOLUTE WAVES BUT IN PARADOXICAL WAY CAN’T BE PROVEN (until now)AS BOTH PARTICLES&WAVES COZ BASICALLY WAVE IS DIFFERENT ENTITY FROM PARTICLES ! Haven’t u supposed to read my statement already ? See.. how emotional you’ve been reacting? In Bible Jesus Christ showing ONLY His Divinity such as in Transfiguration(Mat 17), and He also showed ONLY His Humanity when he sleep,eating etc, BUT ( till now) NO ONE CAN EVER COMPREHEND TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHEN HIS TWO NATURE BEING SHOWN IN SAME TIME ! Not being shown in same time is certainly different with not having it both, just almost the same like duality of particles&wave.. wouldn’t u agree Mr. “doctor” ? 🙂

    About word “Fi” in quran, I see you were not aware of my sincere good intention in explaining this matter clearly, by accusing me of self-refuting myself. Again please don’t be to overly emotional&hasty in giving response. Now allow me to TUTOR u again if u don’t mind : Undeniable Fact that original usage of word “Fi” is defined as “In” , if u carefully notice my previous explanation , this word have been a dilemma since one side of Islam insisting to interpret Sura 67:16-17 literally, but all ulamas in that know if one interpret Sura 67:16-17 literally it would describe Allah as in heaven. So then those who insisting in LITERAL interpretation still try to TWIST the meaning by defining it as “OVER” which they try to implement in Surah 9 & 20. But again by careful examination we will see that the logic behind word “fi” as over in Surah 9 were not extremely valid, because it assume that if the “F” word being interpret as IN then it would as same as walking INSIDE EARTH . The fact is that surah actually is talking about journey IN a region IN an earthly realm but even if assumably Sura 9 truly defined as “Over”, still it won’t be matched with word “Over” in Surah 67, cause word “over ” in this Surah were supposed to be defined as “BEYOND / ABOVE”. The same is with Sura 20, actually it’s more proper to define it as “On” a tree BUT certainly error if we translate it as “OVER/ BEYOND” only because it hangs on up elevated position, cause basically the hanged person still attached to Tree and still withIN realm of that tree. THAT’S WHY DESPITE OF REVISION IN DEFINING THE “F” WORD BY SALAFI, STILL SCHOLARS SUCH AS AL-QURTUBI ,FAKHR AL-DIN RAZI & IMAM NAWAWI STILL REJECT & CONDEMN ANY ONE WHO INTERPRET SURA 67:16 LITERALLY EITHER DEFINING “FI” AS “IN” OR AS “OVER”

    CAUSE THAT WILL GIVE INDICATION THAT ALLAH IS CONTAINED IN HEAVEN

    Sadly Salafist scholar such as Ibn Taymiyya keep ignoring that and STILL interpret that verse LITERALLY, quite PROBLEMATIC INDEED, wouldn’t u agree, “doctor” ? 🙂
    ——————————

    Dr.Mustafa : “It not God himself DWELLING in cloud nor any ELEMENT of God as you told . All Jewish and Christian commentaries commenting on this verse says it was not God himself in the cloud just his radiance which is refereed to as Lord dwelling in cloud…And next time don’t say iam doing a straw man fallacy iam not at all doing a straw man fallacy what ever iam telling is exactly what orthodox Christians belief and IAM VERY BIBLICAL AND LOGICAL IN MY PRESENTATION OF POINTS. ”

    RJ: Allow me to TUTOR you again regarding this “Radiant of Glory = Shekinah”, by referring to Vatican Interpretation about Holy Spirit (One of the Element/Hypostasis of God)
    Never in rabbinical texts is the Spirit considered as an entity separate from God, even though at times it is used as synonymous with God and inter-changeable with Shekinah (majesty of God present among men and in nature; immanence.
    Hebrew philosophy likens the Spirit to the rabbinical Shekinah (Filone), to the Glory of God (Jehudah HaLevi)……The Mysticism of Rhenish Hassidism (12th-13th century) refers again to the Glory «it is the great splendour called Shekinah and therefore identical to the Spirit of Holiness from which come the voice and the word of God».( http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01021998_p-24_en.html)

    Obviously u haven’t been FULLY CHRISTIANIZED enough to understand orthodox biblical teaching ,Sir! in order to get better understanding would u like to be FULLY CHRISTIANIZED, Mr.Mustafa? 😆 . Now we arrive at an important theme since you mention it ; I clarify myself that : I UNDOUBTEDLY BELIEVE THAT “SHEKINAH” THE RADIANT GLORY OF GOD is LIVING UNCREATED PERSON NAMED HOLY SPIRIT! Now to you “Doctor”, do you believe as Muslim that RADIANT GLORY OF ALLAH IS IT CREATED OR NOT? IS IT ALIVE OR NOT ?

    Then Last ,I remind you again since you keep telling me about Not ALL powerful vs ALL powerful etc, please explain to me why ARABIC WORD “KUN” IS AS UNCREATED , & AS POWERFUL AS SAME AS ALLAH, since u obviously rejecting the Ashariite doctrine, of course unless you are Shia who seems to believe Allah is ALL MUTE … 😆

    I wish in the end u eventually will manage your “inner” problem……. Don’t be so tense “doctor”, don’t u know it’s not healthy,.. Smile God Loves U. 🙂 🙂 🙂

    THx R.J

  35. DUAL NATURE OF LIGHT

    Regular John i clearly said you what is this dual nature of light and i quoted a book also.I will quote you once again

    Text book of Engineering Physics new age international publishers chapter 7 page 105:

    According to De Broglies hypothesis light has dual nature of a particle and of a wave BUT light act as a wave SOMETIMES and particle OTHER TIMES not simultaneously.

    Expanding it

    It’s called Wave-Particle Duality. Some experiments prove that light possesses characteristics of a wave ie Young’s Double Slit Experiment, However, another experiment exists which proves light possesses characteristics of a particle. This is the Photoelectric Effect.In no experiment we see both characteristics at the same time. Sometimes light acts like a wave and some other times like a particle

    But Light in itsef is neither considered a wave nor a particle but it is a “quantum vector field”.It is said to possess characteristics of both a wave and a particle ,with light acting as waves sometimes and as particles other times depending on what we do with it, and what we try to observe. However, it not that if it is a wave then it is a particle moving in a wave like motion, as this is not correct.

    You said

    “Please look at your own statement, Doctor ! it actually supports my premise. I’ve already gave lesson earlier in my earlier statement that LIGHT is seen as ABSOLUTE PARTICLES & ALSO ABSOLUTE WAVES BUT IN PARADOXICAL WAY CAN’T BE PROVEN (until now)AS BOTH PARTICLES&WAVES COZ BASICALLY WAVE IS DIFFERENT ENTITY FROM PARTICLES ! Haven’t u supposed to read my statement already ? See.. how emotional you’ve been reacting? In Bible Jesus Christ showing ONLY His Divinity such as in Transfiguration(Mat 17), and He also showed ONLY His Humanity when he sleep,eating etc, BUT ( till now) NO ONE CAN EVER COMPREHEND TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHEN HIS TWO NATURE BEING SHOWN IN SAME TIME !

    Answer

    My statement does not support your premise .You landed in a big problem when you compared Christ to dual nature of light because light BEHAVES as wave sometimes and particle othertimes, light in itself is neither a wave nor a particle so according to your comparision Jesus is neither God nor man but is behaving like man sometimes and God othertimes.

    You said

    Not being shown in same time is certainly different with not having it both, just almost the same like duality of particles&wave.. wouldn’t u agree Mr. “doctor” ?”

    Answer

    You completely misunderstood my stand .I never said Christ is not showing two natures of God and man at the same time that is why he is not 100% God and 100% man .My whole contention is that ,inherently contrdictory things cancel out each other and cannot be present at the same point and at the same time simultaneously .Same is the case with light, that it is not made of contradictory things and it is also not having any contradictory things together as you said ,it is just that it behaves as waves sometimes and particles other times.These two premises are completely apart one is having 2 inherently contradictory things together which even light dosent have, the other is light showing 2 paradoxical things at different times

    That is why i told you to refer to a dictionary to what is a contradictory thing.

    MY 1ST CONTENTION STILL STANDS SHOW ME 1 INHERENTLY CONTRADICTORY THING IN THE UNIVERSE . Jesus being God and man at the same time is inherently contradictory and he canot be both at the same time as i have shown you with various examples in my previous replies.

    Coming to my qouting of theory of other physicist like Milo Wolff i never said they are accepted and proved theories.

    Next you said ‘fi’ means ‘in’ not ‘over’ .I quoted you an arabic english dictionary which too says ‘fi’ can also be used as ‘over’ but still you are saying the same
    Your previous contention was Islam is facing with the dilemma of God being bounded by heaven .I showed you it is not the case as scolars say ‘fi’ in sura 67:16-17 can also be taken as over as i have shown from the dictionary or it is taken figuratively ,none of the scolars or quran itself say that God is bounded by the heaven

    Coming on to word ‘kun’ .This comes in the following verses
    1. Sura ‘Ale-‘Imran, No.3, verse 47
    2. Sura ‘Ale-‘Imran, No.3, verse 59
    3. Sura Al-An’-am, No.6, verse 73
    4. Sura An-Nahl, No.16, verse 40
    5. Sura Maryam, No.19, verse 35
    6. Sura Yasin, No.36, verse 82
    7. Sura Qafir, No.40, verse 68

    This phrase is about the Will of Allah and His Absolute Sovereignty on the subject of creation.

    To understand this well, we should know the meaning of the Unity of Acts and the creation of all created beings by Allah’s Will. Precisely; Unity of Acts, in terms of His acts, does not need any help or helper from outside Himself. Allah’s Acts need none but Himself and His Will alone.In the above mentioned verses it is clearly used to imply that God does not need any help or assistance from anyone or anything to carry out His plans.

  36. Greetings to Dr.Mustafa

    With all do respect Dr.Mustafa, for the sake of intellectualism please don’t put more embarrassment upon your self and your title (doctor). You said ” Coming to my qouting of theory of other physicist like Milo Wolff i never said they are accepted and proved theories.”
    RJ: IF U ADMIT MILO’S HYPOTHESIS IS NOT ACCEPTED NOR EVEN PROVEN IN SCIENCE FIELD , SO WHY EVEN YOU PUT IT HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE??? 🙄 🙄 (ASTONISHING SPEECHLESS FOR A MOMENT) UNASHAMEDLY U’ve just purposedly degenerated your own intellectual integrity “Doctor”! 🙄 🙄

    Please carefully & soberly examine yourself , I’VE ALREADY EXPOSED YOUR UNSCHOLARLY WAY OF MAKING CONCLUSION , AND I’VE ALREADY EXPOSED HOW NARROW YOUR KNOWLEDGE IN FIELD OF SCIENCE SINCE YOU’VE UNASHAMEDLY PUT SUCH A HYPOTHESIS ( PARTICLES FORMED BY 2 WAVES) IN THIS FORUM WHEN THIS HYPOTHESIS IN FACT IS UNCREDITED IDEA IN SCIENCE FIELD. Isn’t this “desperation” of yours has already been too obvious, ‘doctor’? 🙄

    Now you come with new “ammo” , explaining me that light is “Quantum Vector Field” and not exactly A light nor wave. Ok I might give you credit about this “another attempt”. But please read carefully this reference from St.Bovanture University,

    Light is ­are you ready?­ a “quantum vector field.” That phrase doesn’t give you much of a mental picture, does it? I actually kind of know what a quantum vector field is, and it doesn’t give me any mental picture. The fact is that the true nature of light defies mental picturing, because it’s not quite like anything we can lay our hands on. Under certain conditions, such as when we shine it through narrow slits and look at the result, it behaves as only a wave can. Under other conditions, such as when we shine it on a metal and examine the spray of electrons that comes off, light behaves as only particles can. This multiple personality of light is referred to as “wave-particle duality.” Light behaves as a wave, or as particles, depending on what we do with it, and what we try to observe. And it’s wave-particle duality that lies at the heart of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. (http://web.sbu.edu/physics/faculty/dimattio/Clare102/readings/slaven.htm)

    This “hypothesis” of light as quantum vector field ACTUALLY CAN’T BE DEFINITELY DESCRIBED NOR DETERMINED, this is why it’s part of Heisenberg “UNCERTAINTY” PRINCIPLE ! Haven’t u been matured yet in your thinking after my constant lesson on u? I’ve already said that Light as Duality of Particle&Wave is AN ACKNOWLEDGE PARADOX PRINCIPLE IN SCIENCE.

    The Principal of Christology itself can’t be FULLY COMPREHEND BY “ANY MENTAL PICTURE” ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING ITS METAPHYSICAL NATURE, Sadly your desperate attempt is backfired AGAIN. My deep condolences for you Sir.. since your desperation act obviously are just becoming more&more pathetic 🙄

    Dr.Mustafa: “My whole contention is that ,inherently contrdictory things cancel out each other and cannot be present at the same point and at the same time simultaneously .Same is the case with light, that it is not made of contradictory things and it is also not having any contradictory things together as you said ,it is just that it behaves as waves sometimes and particles other times”

    RJ: Sorry to say Sir! you just make yourself further into intellectual degeneration with this statement, please ponder a while if truly Quantum Theory of Duality of Wave-Particle is not contradictory, so why is it called as PARADOX then? And speaking of your reference about “quantum vector” why is it then it is being defined as part of Heisenberg UNCERTAINTY principle ?O. my..my.. 🙄

    ——————————————————
    Dr.Mustafa : MY 1ST CONTENTION STILL STANDS SHOW ME 1 INHERENTLY CONTRADICTORY THING IN THE UNIVERSE
    RJ: HAVEN’T I TOLD U ABOUT KALAMULLAH QURAN IN ASHARIITE DOCTRINE AS BOTH CREATED &UNCREATED ? WHY DON’T U CONDEMNED YOUR PIOUS BRETHREN AS ABSURD&HERETIC THEN?

    AND SPEAKING OF THIS “KALAMULLAH STUFF”, WHY KEPT DODGING MY QUESTION SIR? WHY IS “KALAMULLAH ARABIC WORD OF ALLAH ” (such as kun) IS BELIEVED AS UNCREATED AS SAME AS ALLAH?
    For I know Salafist believes differently from Ashariite, where Ashariite believe in 2 NATURE of QURAN, but salafist believe in ONE NATURE OF QURAN, PLEASE WOULD U MIND TO EXPLAIN? I JUST WANT TO SEE ANY CONSISTENCY WITH YOUR PRINCIPLE OF INCOHENRENCY WHEN IT BEING APPLIED TO YOUR BELIEF.

    Since you’ve also arguing about Radiant Glory of God (you brought this problem to yourself 😆 ) then please tell me what is your view of Radiant Glory of Allah, IS IT CREATED OR NOT? IS IT ALIVE OR NOT?

    PLEASE DON’T KEPT DODGING SIR… Wasalamualaikum wr.wb

    Sincerely R.J

    • TO REGULAR JOHN

      It is intellectual embarrassment to copy paste points from the net ,it is intellectual embarrassment not to understand what others are saying ,it is intellectual embarrassment not not to even think what you are posting.All of these you are doing regular John

      I doubt whether you are reading what i posted and even doubt whether you are understanding what you are posting and even more what you are arguing .

      You have not exposed me a bit instead exposed your own ignorance of science and your own absurd faith

      You accuse me of being unscholarly .Is it that iam unscholarly when iam quoting numerous books or are you unscholarly when you have not quoted a single book but copy pasting some internet references

      You don’t know what is a contradictory thing and you are arguing that light is contradictory without knowledge .More surprising is that you don’t know what the dual nature of light is and whether it is inherently contradictory or not but you still want to argue

      Dual nature of light is not inherently contradictory if you still don’t understand what does contradictory means please refer to any dictionary and see my examples what i have given above

      Let me quote you again from standard physics books what is dual nature of light is and what is Heisenberg uncertainty principle

      DUAL NATURE OF LIGHT

      Text book of Engineering Physics new age international publishers chapter 7 page 105:

      Light in itsef is neither considered a wave nor a particle. It is said to possess characteristics of both a wave and a particle ,with light acting as waves sometimes and as particles other times depending on what we do with it, and what we try to observe

      According to De Broglies hypothesis light has dual nature of a particle and of a wave BUT light act as a wave SOMETIMES and particle OTHER TIMES not simultaneously.

      Read it carefully John, light itself is not a wave and particle .But it acts as wave sometimes and particle other times.There is absolutely no contradiction in it .

      Lights dual nature is not contradictory because light is neither a particle nor a wave but SHOWS PROPERTIES WHAT A PARTICLE shows at one time and SHOWS PROPERTIES WHAT A WAVE SHOWS other time.Unlike dual nature of light, Jesus is 100% God and 100% man at the same time which is 2 exactly opposite natures simultaneously which is a inherent contradiction and an impossibility or absurdity.

      HEISENBERG UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE

      Text book of Engineering Physics new age international publishers chapter 7 page 106,107

      The position and momentum of a particle cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrarily high precision.

      Is this talking about a contradiction in nature of light or matter ?.No where there is contradiction in light and matter according to this principle.But regular John without knowing thinks so.

      Let us see what Stephen hawking says in his book ‘A brief history of time from big bang to black holes’ chapter 4 page 59:

      Attempting to measure an elementary particle’s position to the highest degree of accuracy, leads to an increasing uncertainty in being able to measure the particle’s momentum to an equally high degree of accuracy.

      It is due to the physical variables intrinsic to a particle’s state due to fluctuations within an elementary particle as to its energy or momentum.

      In the same page Stephen Hawking quotes other scientists Heisenberg,Erwin,Schrodinger and Paul Dirac saying “The striking aspect of the difference between classical and quantum physics is that whereas classical mechanics presupposes that exact simultaneous values can be assigned to all physical quantities, quantum mechanics denies this possibility, the prime example being the position and momentum of a particle.”

      According to quantum mechanics, the more precisely the position (momentum) of a particle is given, the less precisely can one say what its momentum (position) is.

      This is Heisenberg uncertainty principle.How does it suggest light or matter is inherently contradictory in nature?. Wake up regular John read some books before commenting your absurd logic.

      On page 61 of his book ‘A brief history of time from big bang to black holes’ chapter 4 Stephen Hawking says:”Heisenberg uncertainty principle implies particles behave in some respects like wave ,they do not have a definite position but are smeared out with a certain probability distribution .”

      So there is absolutely no contradiction in the dual nature of light and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle never says that there is a contradiction in light and matter.

      On same page of his book Stephen Hawking continues saying “the theory of quantum mechanics is based on maths system that no longer describes real world in terms of particles and waves .For some purpose it is helpful to think particles as waves and for other waves as particles.”

      So regular John please read some books and understand proper physics of dual nature of light and Heisenberg principle before commenting your nonsense understanding of it

      MY CHALLENGE REMAINS SHOW ME 1 CONTRADICTORY THING IN UNIVERSE .LIGHT IS NOT INHERENTLY CONTRADICTORY AS I HAVE SHOWN

      Coming to Asharite Sunni belief of Quran how many times i should tell you that their belief is not in line with what the Quran speaks of itself that it is the revelation of God to Mohammed(p.b.uh) it never says it is 100% uncreated and 100% created at the same time.

      On ‘kun’ i explained to you in the previous reply that God says in the Quran in these verses
      1. Sura ‘Ale-’Imran, No.3, verse 47
      2. Sura ‘Ale-’Imran, No.3, verse 59
      3. Sura Al-An’-am, No.6, verse 73
      4. Sura An-Nahl, No.16, verse 40
      5. Sura Maryam, No.19, verse 35
      6. Sura Yasin, No.36, verse 82
      7. Sura Qafir, No.40, verse 68

      When God intends something he ‘says’ be and it is.The Quran never says ‘kun’ or the ‘kalam’ of God is preexisting like that of God himself .The Quran is very clear that when God intends something he says be ,the Quran never says ‘kun’ is preexisting as that of God .Whoever believes that it is preexisting like that of God are not following the Quran

      Coming on to radiant glory of Allah.In the Quran in chapter 112 God says to Muhammad(p.b.u.h)“ . Say (O Muhammad), He is God, the One God, the Everlasting , who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone”. This is what God is according to Quran .The Quran doesn’t say about any preexisting glory separate to God himself.There is no limit to your ignorance on Quran .

      • Greetings Mr.Mustafa

        I see in your attempt to avoide the problem you try to playing & twisting words and throwing me with quotations which you took by “cherry-picking” method. & just put your own interpretation on duality of particles&waves by quoting things without seeing the whole context. I just present you plain and square that CONTRARY TO YOUR ASSUMPTION , NOT ONLY LIGHT BUT ALL MATTER CAN ALSO BE PARTICLE &WAVE TOO ACCORDING TO DE BROGLIESE PRINCIPLE
        (LECTURE IN Dept.OF PHYSIC UNIVERSITY OF OREGON http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec06.html )

        I’ve already said before that base on my reference, “quantum vector” is a principal that can’t be comprehend with any mental picture but give notion as if it could. I’m seeing you’ve missed my point here because since beginning I’ve noted that Christian don’t believe in Contradiction as North = South, but instead believe as Earth consist of North&South. And base on my reference from Boanventura University I’ve told u even in nature there’re many that can’t be fully being comprehend with our “mental picture” nor fully being determined, and this Principle is being backed by Uncertainty Principle, that conclude one can’t fully determine in measuring an object in real nature especially from its position & velocity. When you insisting on requirement in being shown proof of Jesus as God&Man in the SAME TIME & Same POINT, if u truly accept the uncertainty principle u should’ve fully aware that this MEASUREMENT IS BEYOND COMPREHENSION BUT NOT NECESSARILY CONTRADICTORY.

        Sorry “Doctor”, ALL WHO FOLLOW THIS THREAD CAN SEE HOW UNSCHOLARLY U TAKING&TWISTING REFERENCE , ONE OBVIOUS EXAMPLE IS YOUR THEORY OF “PARTICLES FORMED BY 2 WAVES” & EVERYONE CAN READ YOUR OWN ADMISSION THAT YOU CLEARLY CONFESS (AFTER BEING EXPOSED) THIS THEORY OF YOURS THAT U PRESENTED IN THIS THREAD , IS DEFINITELY NOT ACCEPTED & PROVEN PRINCIPLE IN SCIENCE FIELD.

        Let me remind u again and also asking u … IS THIS YOUR OWN COMMENT ? “Coming to my qouting of theory of other physicist like Milo Wolff i never said they are accepted and proved theories”.

        IF YOUR REFERENCE IS NOT CREDIBLE SO WHY THEN U POSTED IT HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, “DOCTOR” ?

        And u unashamedly commented&TRY TO TWIST THE SUBJECT :”Is it that iam unscholarly when iam quoting numerous books”?
        Nope..I never objected in you quoting numerous references as long as they are CREDIBLE (the most important factor in taking reference)

        So it is “intellectually & scholarly” accepted for u to take reference from source that is not credible then? O.. come on, with all do respect that’s so lame 🙄
        Concerning intellectual degeneration, what can be more obvious than this? 🙄

        Again on another point Haven’t you yourself that’s been saying this thing concerning Shekinah as not Hypostasis of God ? ” iam telling is exactly what orthodox Christians belief and IAM VERY BIBLICAL AND LOGICAL IN MY PRESENTATION OF POINTS”

        And when I present you the truth from VATICAN concerning their view that Shekinah is Holy Spirit, WHAT CAN U SAY ABOUT THIS “INCOHERENCY” OF YOURS DOCTOR ? 🙂

        Haven’t you realize that you just showing to us that you just commenting on something out of ignorance?
        —————————-
        Since you kept on repeatedly “crying” about CONTRADICTORY , allow me to teach you another lesson so u would be smarter&wiser after this (I hope).

        WE ALL KNOW MAN CAN BE MIGHTY, KNOWLEDGEABLE, HEAR&SEE, SO BASE ON THAT WHICH ONE IS CONTRADICTORY ?

        ALL- MIGHTY vs MIGHTY OR ALL-MIGHTY vs WEAK?
        ALL-KNOWING vs KNOWING or ALL-KNOWING vs NOT KNOWING AT ALL?
        ALL-HEARING vs HEARS or ALL-HEARING vs DEAF?

        Another one : Sahih Hadiths& Genesis said MAN IS THE IMAGE/RESEMBLANCE OF GOD
        SO .. WHICH ONE IS TRUE CONTRADICTION
        GOD vs RESEMBLANCE OF GOD ….OR…. GOD VS NOT RESEMBLANCE OF GOD?
        Please dont keep dodging Sir…cause this is definitely COHERENT with your perspective!!
        —————————————-
        Dr.Mustafa :Coming to Asharite Sunni belief of Quran how many times i should tell you that their belief is not in line with what the Quran speaks of itself that it is the revelation of God to Mohammed(p.b.uh) it never says it is 100% uncreated and 100% created at the same time.

        RJ: So your pious fellow brethren (The Ahlul-sunnah Ashariite) are absurd incompetent heretic then? is that you were saying, “doctor’?

        AGAIN I WANT TO ASK U SO IT MIGHT BE FULLY CLARIFIED.. ” DO U BELIEVE LETTER& SOUND OF QURAN ARE UNCREATED AS IMAM HANBALI BELIEVES? PLEASE JUST SIMPLY SAY YES OR NO! ..Thank You… 🙂
        ——————————–

        Dr. Mustafa :The Quran doesn’t say about any preexisting glory separate to God himself.

        RJ: Dr.Mustafa surely u’ve supposed to notice the meaning of the word “RADIANT” ,right? COZ U SAID THAT THIS GLORY ISN’T SEPARABLE FROM ALLAH, CAN U FULLY AGREE THAT THE “RADIANT” THAT “CAME OUT” OF ALLAH IS AS UNCREATED & ALL-LIVING AS THE SOURCE(ALLAH) OF THIS RADIANT THEN? 🙂

        Sorry for any inconvenient…. Peace Blessing …RJ

      • Greetings Mr.Mustafa

        I see in your attempt to avoide the problem you try to playing & twisting words and throwing me with quotations which you took by “cherry-picking” method. & just put your own interpretation on duality of particles&waves by quoting things without seeing the whole context. I just present you plain and square that CONTRARY TO YOUR ASSUMPTION , NOT ONLY LIGHT BUT ALL MATTER CAN ALSO BE PARTICLE &WAVE TOO ACCORDING TO DE BROGLIESE PRINCIPLE
        (LECTURE IN Dept.OF PHYSIC UNIVERSITY OF OREGON http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec06.html )

        I’ve already said before that base on my reference, “quantum vector” is a principal that can’t be comprehend with any mental picture but give notion as if it could. I’m seeing you’ve missed my point here because since beginning I’ve noted that Christian don’t believe in Contradiction as North = South, but instead believe as Earth consist of North&South. And base on my reference from Boanventura University I’ve told u even in nature there’re many that can’t be fully being comprehend with our “mental picture” nor fully being determined, and this Principle is being backed by Uncertainty Principle, that conclude one can’t fully determine in measuring an object in real nature especially from its position & velocity. When you insisting on requirement in being shown proof of Jesus as God&Man in the SAME TIME & Same POINT, if u truly accept the uncertainty principle u should’ve fully aware that this MEASUREMENT IS BEYOND COMPREHENSION BUT NOT NECESSARILY CONTRADICTORY.

        Sorry “Doctor”, ALL WHO FOLLOW THIS THREAD CAN SEE HOW UNSCHOLARLY U TAKING&TWISTING REFERENCE , ONE OBVIOUS EXAMPLE IS YOUR THEORY OF “PARTICLES FORMED BY 2 WAVES” & EVERYONE CAN READ YOUR OWN ADMISSION THAT YOU CLEARLY CONFESS (AFTER BEING EXPOSED) THIS THEORY OF YOURS THAT U PRESENTED IN THIS THREAD , IS DEFINITELY NOT ACCEPTED & PROVEN PRINCIPLE IN SCIENCE FIELD.

        Let me remind u again and also asking u … IS THIS YOUR OWN COMMENT ? “Coming to my qouting of theory of other physicist like Milo Wolff i never said they are accepted and proved theories”.

        IF YOUR REFERENCE IS NOT CREDIBLE SO WHY THEN U POSTED IT HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, “DOCTOR” ?

        And u unashamedly commented&TRY TO TWIST THE SUBJECT :”Is it that iam unscholarly when iam quoting numerous books”?
        Nope..I never objected in you quoting numerous references as long as they are CREDIBLE (the most important factor in taking reference)

        So it is “intellectually & scholarly” accepted for u to take reference from source that is not credible then? O.. come on, with all do respect that’s so lame 🙄
        Concerning intellectual degeneration, what can be more obvious than this? 🙄

        Again on another point Haven’t you yourself that’s been saying this thing concerning Shekinah as not Hypostasis of God ? ” iam telling is exactly what orthodox Christians belief and IAM VERY BIBLICAL AND LOGICAL IN MY PRESENTATION OF POINTS”

        And when I present you the truth from VATICAN concerning their view that Shekinah is Holy Spirit, WHAT CAN U SAY ABOUT THIS “INCOHERENCY” OF YOURS DOCTOR ? 🙂

        Haven’t you realize that you just showing to us that you just commenting on something out of ignorance?
        ===========================
        Since you kept on repeatedly “crying” about CONTRADICTORY , allow me to teach you another lesson so u would be smarter&wiser after this (I hope).

        WE ALL KNOW MAN CAN BE MIGHTY, KNOWLEDGEABLE, HEAR&SEE, SO BASE ON THAT WHICH ONE IS CONTRADICTORY ?

        ALL- MIGHTY vs MIGHTY OR ALL-MIGHTY vs WEAK?
        ALL-KNOWING vs KNOWING or ALL-KNOWING vs NOT KNOWING AT ALL?
        ALL-HEARING vs HEARS or ALL-HEARING vs DEAF?

        Another one : Sahih Hadiths& Genesis said MAN IS THE IMAGE/RESEMBLANCE OF GOD
        SO .. WHICH ONE IS TRUE CONTRADICTION
        GOD vs RESEMBLANCE OF GOD ….OR…. GOD VS NOT RESEMBLANCE OF GOD?
        Please dont keep dodging Sir…cause this is definitely COHERENT with your perspective!!
        ==========================
        Dr.Mustafa :Coming to Asharite Sunni belief of Quran how many times i should tell you that their belief is not in line with what the Quran speaks of itself that it is the revelation of God to Mohammed(p.b.uh) it never says it is 100% uncreated and 100% created at the same time.

        RJ: So your pious fellow brethren (The Ahlul-sunnah Ashariite) are absurd incompetent heretic then? is that you were saying, “doctor’?

        AGAIN I WANT TO ASK U SO IT MIGHT BE FULLY CLARIFIED.. ” DO U BELIEVE LETTER& SOUND OF QURAN ARE UNCREATED AS IMAM HANBALI BELIEVES? PLEASE JUST SIMPLY SAY YES OR NO! ..Thank You… 🙂
        ==================

        Dr. Mustafa :The Quran doesn’t say about any preexisting glory separate to God himself.

        RJ: Dr.Mustafa surely u’ve supposed to notice the meaning of the word “RADIANT” ,right? COZ U SAID THAT THIS GLORY ISN’T SEPARABLE FROM ALLAH, CAN U FULLY AGREE THAT THE “RADIANT” THAT “CAME OUT” OF ALLAH IS AS UNCREATED & ALL-LIVING AS THE SOURCE(ALLAH) OF THIS RADIANT THEN? 🙂

        Sorry for any inconvenient…. Peace Blessing …RJ

  37. Your Koran argument is not accurate. No one believes in ‘two natures’ of the Koran. You are just making that fit with Christian ideas, I’ve heard some missionaries say that Christ is ‘like’ the Koran in Islam. And all that buissness of ashrite and salafist has no bearing on this.

    The Koran is the speech of God, and like any aspect of God is not created by someone else. However, when you write it down or print it or copy it, it is obviously created. No one believes that the actual physical book you hold in your hand is uncreated. As I understand it, muslims believe the Koran will actually be destroyed before the end of days.

    Any book exists in an immaterial form in the mind of it’s author, as an idea. If he publishes it or writes it down, then it exists in physical form. When people read it, it again exists in an immaterial form in their minds and in the mind of the author, weather the physical copy exists or not. If the author is immortal and has a perfect memory, it exists forever in his mind. So in that sense, any book or idea can be said to have a material and a non – material existence. If you want to call that a ‘dual nature’ then fine. I don’t see what you guys are arguing for..

    Also, if as you say ”The Principal of Christology itself can’t be FULLY COMPREHEND BY “ANY MENTAL PICTURE” ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING ITS METAPHYSICAL NATURE,” then why are you guys arguing about it, if it is incomprehensible?

  38. Peace & Blessing In Isa Al-Masih

    To Tsurugi
    You said :Your Koran argument is not accurate. No one believes in ‘two natures’ of the Koran. You are just making that fit with Christian ideas, I’ve heard some missionaries say that Christ is ‘like’ the Koran in Islam. And all that buissness of ashrite and salafist has no bearing on this….. However, when you write it down or print it or copy it, it is obviously created. No one believes that the actual physical book you hold in your hand is uncreated.”

    RJ: Please don’t try to deny this OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE between Salafist& Asharii my friend, but I hope u commenting this out of your own ignorance toward your own belief & not deliberate denial of truth u have already known ! I presume coz you’re new in following this thread then you have no idea on what you’re refuting of 🙂 , FYI I’m focusing on THE LETTERS&RECITEMENTS , my friend.. Such as the word Alif-Lam-Meem , Did the Letter&Its Sound of Recitation Created? Did Letter Alif with Its Sound of Recitation Created? so please explain if u kind would, Sir?. 🙂

    Coz Imam Hanbal were being punished in his view of Uncreated Letter & Sound of Quran , but Ashariite reject that Eternal Kalamullah Quran as Letter and Sound

    —————————————————————————
    You said : Also, if as you say ”The Principal of Christology itself can’t be FULLY COMPREHEND BY “ANY MENTAL PICTURE” ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING ITS METAPHYSICAL NATURE,” then why are you guys arguing about it, if it is incomprehensible?

    RJ: THANK U FOR CLARIFYING MY POINT, SIR! TRULY THAT’S THE EXACT REASON WHY ANY ONE (ESPECIALLY MUSLIM) SHOULD NOT ARGUE ABOUT CHRISTOLOGY (GOD INCARNATION) , RIGHT ? So Who’s arguing exactly here ? 😆

    Sincerely
    RJ

  39. Regular John iam not unscholarly .I quoted views of other scientists on duality of light when i talked about particle being the center of 2 radial waves and when i talked about string theory.

    But i showed that duality of matter is not contradictory, to support this i quoted a standard and highly acclaimed Text book of Engineering Physics by new age international publishers and i even quoted Stephen Hawking a highly regarded physicist from his book ‘A brief history of time from big bang to black holes’

    Concerning the Shekinah glory of God verses ,i never talked about what it is and whether it is holy spirit or not .What i showed by quoting this verses is that it is not God himself dwelling in the cloud .

    Man being the image of God is not literal it is just to say God created man in the EXACT way He wanted him to be ,there is no contradiction in it.God himself becoming man and being both God and man at the same time is contradictory.

    Coming on to Quran it is the revelation sent down to Mohammed(p.b.u.h) from God as the Quran itself says.The Quran never says its letter and sound are uncreated.

  40. Peace & Blessing in The Name Of Ar-Raab Isa Al-Masih

    Dr.Mustafa : Regular John iam not unscholarly .I quoted views of other scientists on duality of light when i talked about particle being the center of 2 radial waves

    RJ: Still trying to deny ain’t u ? AGAIN ALLOW ME TO REMIND U YOUR OWN STATEMENT ****”“Coming to my qouting of theory of other physicist like Milo Wolff i never said they are accepted and proved theories”. **** Sorry to say “doctor”, you exposed your own intellectual degeneration by admitting that u use unproven &unaccepted theory just to back up your “agenda” , the evidence was too obvious to not to be ignored by any healthy minded person. My deep condolences for you “doctor” 🙂
    =========================
    Dr. Mustafa : Concerning the Shekinah glory of God verses ,i never talked about what it is and whether it is holy spirit or not .What i showed by quoting this verses is that it is not God himself dwelling in the cloud .

    RJ: Thank you for showing unto all who see this thread AGAIN how ignorant of you about True Christian belief & how it seems you’ve been making a habit on commenting stuff that you don’t have any clue about what u commenting of. PLEASE ALLOW ME TO REMIND U AGAIN ON YOUR STATEMENT ****”All Jewish and Christian commentaries commenting on this verse says it was not God himself in the cloud just his radiance which is refereed to as Lord dwelling in cloud….iam telling is exactly what orthodox Christians belief and IAM VERY BIBLICAL AND LOGICAL IN MY PRESENTATION OF POINTS”*** As person who’s been self-claiming to know christian teaching u should have been aware that Holy Spirit is God in our view , AND refer to Vatican Document that I’ve given u which AFFIRMING OUR VIEW IN SEEING SHEKINAH AS HOLY SPIRIT , THEN IT IS CLEAR HOW NARROW YOUR TRUE KNOWLEDGE OF CHRISTIANITY, “doctor” ! Again my deep condolences to you, Sir! 😎
    ===========================
    Dr.Mustafa : “Coming on to Quran it is the revelation sent down to Mohammed(p.b.u.h) from God as the Quran itself says.The Quran never says its letter and sound are uncreated.”

    RJ: hmmm…I smell A SHIITE here 🙂 , but again before I teach u lesson concerning this matterI just I want to CLARIFY : DO U REJECT IMAM HANBAL DOCTRINE ABOUT THE UNCREATED LETTER OF QURAN?
    ==========================
    Dr.Mustafa :” Man being the image of God is not literal it is just to say God created man in the EXACT way He wanted him to be ,there is no contradiction in it.God himself becoming man and being both God and man at the same time is contradictory.”

    RJ : I’m not asking your interpretation on how “image of God” being applied in Islam. I just want to know which one is “TRUE” Contradiction for u : GOD (vs) IMAGE OF GOD … (OR)…GOD(vs)NOT IMAGE OF GOD AT ALL

    Again concerning contradiction that you’ve been “CRYING” about ! why avoiding my question Sir? Isn’t it relevant in order to adjust our perception about “contradiction” ,so again Please answer which one is contradictory ?

    ALL- MIGHTY vs MIGHTY OR ALL-MIGHTY vs WEAK?
    ALL-KNOWING vs KNOWING or ALL-KNOWING vs NOT KNOWING AT ALL?
    ALL-HEARING vs HEARS or ALL-HEARING vs DEAF?
    ALL-MERCIFUL vs MERCIFUL OR ALL-MERCIFUL vs ALL-CRUEL ?

    If God punish a kufr with cancer/aids in this life then condemned him to hell fire in after life, is God still ALL-MERCIFUL or CHANGE TO BECOME ALL CRUEL then ? or actually HE IS STILL ALL-MERCIFUL BUT CHOOSE TO LIMIT HIS ALL MERCIFULNESS in this matter?

    And Lastly , you still haven’t answer my question *** Dr.Mustafa surely u’ve supposed to notice the meaning of the word “RADIANT” ,right? COZ U SAID THAT THIS GLORY ISN’T SEPARABLE FROM ALLAH, CAN U FULLY AGREE THAT THE “RADIANT” THAT “CAME OUT” OF ALLAH IS AS UNCREATED & ALL-LIVING AS THE SOURCE(ALLAH) OF THIS RADIANT THEN? *****please answer thiese questios &don’t keep dodging around “Doctor”!!

    Still waiting for your answers …. 😆

    Sincerely… RJ

    • Regular John before commenting read first about what iam posting. Quoting views of other scientist on a point is not unscholarly and more over i have not drawn the proof of my contention from them.

      My contention that duality of light and matter is not contradictory ,I HAVE PROOFED IT FROM 2 HIGHLY STANDARD SOURCES one being Text book of Engineering Physics by new age international publishers and the other being Stephen Hawking from his book ‘A brief history of time from big bang to black holes’ .You too admitted this when you said “it is beyond comprehension but not necessarily contradictory”.

      So my whole point is that there is no contradictory thing in universe and Jesus being 100% God and 100% man is contradictory , absurd and not possible .Your 1st citation of duality of light as an example of contradictory thing is wrong as i have shown from standard sources.

      Regarding shekinah glory when did i say it is not holy spirit as iam not discussing whether it is holy spirit or not .My point here was no Jewish or Christian commentator says God himself came in the cloud and became bounded it .You cited this verse to protect the contradiction between 1 kings 28:6 where Solomon says God cant dwell on earth and John1:14 which says word became flesh and dwelt on earth .By citing this verse you tend to say God coming in cloud is God not getting bounded by it and in the same way God coming on earth is God not getting bounded by it .But i showed you it is not God himself in the cloud .So God coming on earth is definitely getting bounded by it as Solomon said because it is God himself coming on earth not just his glory.You did not get this simple point of mine and you started saying iam talking without knowledge.

      Regarding the contradictions you are talking .You don’t know what is a contradiction .Iam continuously telling you to refer a dictionary .I told you already what is contradictory still you are not understanding and continuing in your absurd logic.

      Regarding glory of Allah i told you it is not separate entity from Allah.Iam not at dodging our questions , i have answered all your points but still you are not understanding and continuing .It is looking as if you are more interested to post than to read and understand what iam posting

      AGAIN LASTLY FOR YOUR DUALITY OF MATTER CONTENTION I HAVE PROOFED YOU IT IS NOT CONTRADICTORY FROM 2 HIGHLY STANDARD SOURCES.

      I think as FREE LOVER said below iam wasting my time time discussing with you as you are not understanding and persisting in your nonsense.

      • Greetings Dr.Mustafa

        Is it nonsense to CLARIFY these matters below as sensible and logical civilized person?

        1. Clarifying in how both of us agree to determine & define a ” true contradiction”!! I just appeal to normal logical way of thinking, Sir

        God is All-Powerful, All-Merciful, Al-Hearing
        Perfect Man is Powerful,Merciful & Hears
        So which one is TRUE CONTRADICTION ?

        ALL-POWERFUL (vs)POWERFUL….OR….. ALL-POWERFUL(vs)TOTALLY WEAK
        ALL-MERCIFUL (vs) MERCIFUL….OR…..ALL-MERCIFUL(vs)ALL-MERCILESS
        ALL-HEARING (vs) HEARS……OR…..ALL-HEARING(vs) ALL-DEAF

        With all sincerity i just want both of us to adjust in how we determine “contradiction”! Wasn’t it u yourself who since the beginning keep bringing up this “contradiction issue” ? Why are u backing down now ? 😎

        2.Clarifying the logic behind taking reference from unreliable source and mixing it with credited source. Again wasn’t it u who said ***”Coming to my qouting of theory of other physicist like Milo Wolff i never said they are accepted and proved theories”*** ? Is it wrong to conclude that your method is intellectually unacceptable in a debate ?

        3. Clarifying who are those christian&jewish “commentators” of yours who define Shekinah not as God The Holy Spirit, since my VATICAN REFERENCE (http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01021998_p-24_en.html) FULLY AFFIRM THAT SHEKINAH IS HOLY SPIRIT who came & indwell in Solomon’sTemple

        Since you’ve been accusing God The Holy Spirit is not Shekinah base on your own understanding of orthodox christian doctrine, so where’s your responsibility upon claim then? 🙄

        4.Clarifying how you yourself define The Radiance Glory of God in Islam (An-Noor) whether it is created & not alive OR Uncreated & Alive. Again i just want to make a same ground of understanding here… so why have u acting so childish in insisting your own way then? 🙄

        5.Clarifying your perception with example of ALL-Merciful&Compassionate God manifest Himself in merciless way ( bring cancer/aids to kufr then send him to hell in after life) , wouldn’t it be almost the same as All-Powerful God CHOSE NOT TO FULLY MANIFEST HIS POWER DURING INCARNATION?

        Show me which one of my points is incoherent with this debate doctor?…
        Let us be reasonable & not emotional shall we? 😎

        Peace &Blessing R.J

  41. Wow! You really do talk a lot of nonsense Regular John, I must say I’m impressed with your capacity for waffling.

    Also, you are literally drowning in missionary arguments against Islam, but these don’t have any effect on Muslims because they are just cheap semantics. You also show your poor understanding of the English language again my friend 🙂 You can’t understand metaphorical language and take everything in the Quraan literally, just how you take ‘Son’ literally for Jesus. Why don’t you take when Jesus said ‘The Father is greater than I’ literally then. Hmmm, I smell an ‘idiot’…

    You see, when you get refuted or answered on a point you simply cannot accept it, and keep plowing on with peripheral arguments and tangents, like all your waffle about Quantum Physics. It is strange that God made Christians wait nearly two thousand years for the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics to give them ‘proof’ of the incarnation. I guess until then it did not make sense eh? And I guess we will forget about the ‘many worlds’ interpretation since it doesn’t fit with Christianity…

    First you accused Mustapha of being a Wahhabi first and now a Shia. Make your mind up dumb – ass. You also got answered on the letter and recitation of the Quraan; no – one believes that the recitation or the written letter of the Quraan is uncreated, but you will keep insisting that your argument is right.This is a clear symptom of being delusional. You don’t even understand Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbals writings, because you have not read them since none of these arguments are even your own, you plagiarised them from missionary websites 🙂

    So what if Allah is ‘All – Merciful’ and throws people into Hell as well? ‘All Merciful’ to those who deserve it, in line with the principle of justice, again, you are a pathetic literalist without higher intellectual faculties. And throwing people like you into hell would be ‘All Merciful’, to the rest of us anyway. Same with ‘Radiant’, who gave you the authority to say it comes ‘out’? And who cares about the translation and interpretation of the Quraan by a missionary who can’t even communicate in English properly anyway?

    The most humiliating thing for you is that you admitted that no one should argue about Christology! So funny! I can’t believe you said that! Usually you are SO careful to keep the argument on Islam instead of Christianity. You actually admitted that it cannot be fully comprehended (read: understood) but you try to make arguments for it anyway, from Quantum Physics to all your wastage about Asharites and Wahhabis.

    You see, writing a lot (in poor English) and selectively answering points while reproducing someone else’s post in you reply to try to give it cogency and length, all the while failing to defend your own religion and even admitting that it is not ‘comprehensible’ (i.e, according to you nonsense), does not make you right. It just makes you a loser with too much time on your hands because you probably don’t have a job or a girl. I’m surprised that Muslims like Mustapha etc. are dumb enough to waste their time on you

    In Peace and Blessings to your god, Some Guy Who Lived Two Thousand Years Ago and Probably Was Not Even Jesus 🙂

  42. @ Freelover

    Sorry my “troubled” friend, it seems my reply couldn’t be posted here so I post my reply to u at https://thedebateinitiative.com/2012/01/18/compel-belief-the-quran-says-no/#comment-1253

    And please behave yourself if you still consider yourself as civilized religious person, if not then a civilized person like me won’t take any of your reply seriously.

    @Dr.Mustafa

    Still waiting for your answers ,Sir!…. (But if u’re unable to answer, please don’t push it beyond your capability 😆 )

    • ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS I HAVE ANSWERED ABOVE PLEASE READ MY POINTS CAREFULLY

      I HAVE GIVEN PROOFS FROM STANDARD REFERENCES PLEASE READ THEM BEFORE COMMENTING

      • @ Mr.Mustafa

        Please don’t try to cover your faults, Sir! Again please answer my questions, or do i need to remind you again?

        1. 1. Clarifying in how both of us agree to determine & define a ” true contradiction”!! I just appeal to normal logical way of thinking, Sir

        God is All-Powerful, All-Merciful, Al-Hearing
        Perfect Man is Powerful,Merciful & Hears
        So which one is TRUE CONTRADICTION ?PLEASE ANSWER SIR!

        ALL-POWERFUL (vs)POWERFUL….OR….. ALL-POWERFUL(vs)TOTALLY WEAK
        ALL-MERCIFUL (vs) MERCIFUL….OR…..ALL-MERCIFUL(vs)ALL-MERCILESS
        ALL-HEARING (vs) HEARS……OR…..ALL-HEARING(vs) ALL-DEAF

        With all sincerity i just want both of us to adjust in how we determine “contradiction”! Wasn’t it u yourself who since the beginning keep bringing up this “contradiction issue” ? Why are u backing down now ?

        2.Clarifying the logic behind taking reference from unreliable source and mixing it with credited source. Again wasn’t it u who said ***”Coming to my qouting of theory of other physicist like Milo Wolff i never said they are accepted and proved theories”*** ? Is it wrong to conclude that your method is intellectually unacceptable in a debate ?

        3. Clarifying who are those christian&jewish “commentators” of yours who define Shekinah not as God The Holy Spirit, since my VATICAN REFERENCE (http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01021998_p-24_en.html) FULLY AFFIRM THAT SHEKINAH IS HOLY SPIRIT who came & indwell in Solomon’sTemple

        Since you’ve been accusing God The Holy Spirit is not Shekinah base on your own understanding of orthodox christian doctrine, so where’s your responsibility upon YOUR OWN CLAIM then?

        4. Please Clarify how you yourself define The Radiance Glory of God in Islam (An-Noor) whether it is created & not alive OR Uncreated & Alive, Since u assumed that Radiance Glory (Shekinah) is not God, Please answer Sir..

        5..PLEASE CLARIFY YOUR PERCEPTION OF CONTRADICTION WHEN BEING ANALYZE through the example of ALL-Merciful&Compassionate God manifest Himself in merciless way ( bring cancer/aids to kufr then send him to hell in after life) , wouldn’t it be almost the same as All-Powerful God CHOSE NOT TO FULLY MANIFEST HIS POWER DURING INCARNATION?

        All-Merciful God not manifesting His All-Mercifulness when dealing with kufr
        All-Powerful God not manifesting His All-Powerfulness when dealing with Incarnation
        If God can Choose to limit (not annihilate) His ability in particular circumstances so why childishly insisting it as Contradiction?

        Show me which one of my points is incoherent with this debate doctor?…
        Let us be reasonable & not emotional shall we? 😎

        Regards
        R J

    • Oh NOW you want to be civilized, after insulting Allah, Christianity and Islam!

      How interesting, it seems I shamed some manners into you! I’m so glad! Some people have to learn the hard way I guess!

      • @ Freelover

        Have u ever engage in polemical debate ?Hard but descent criticism with some euphimistic nuance is normal my friend 🙂 , but debate which consist of vulgar profane words certainly uncivilized & also shows the low character of those who spill those words out.

        Btw sorry Freelover, Wasn’t it you who write this ? ***I’m surprised that Muslims like Mustapha etc. are dumb enough to waste their time on you *** So by your own standard could u be considered DUMB ENOUGH,since you keep on arranging your own special exclusive time for “GETTING SCHOOLED” by me OVER & OVER AGAIN ? 😆 😆

        May Peace be upon you, coz u certainly need one 😎

  43. God becoming man and being a god and a man together is contradiction and i have proofed it convincingly and also answered your other points

    But you are still persisting in your foolish childish illogicality .

    You are emotional not at all logical even others are observing it but still you are persisting with your foolishness

    GOD BEING GOD AND MAN IS INHERENTLY CONTRADICTORY IF STILL YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND PLEASE READ MY POINTS ABOVE INSTEAD OF ACTING LIKE A DUMB BRAINLESS IDIOT

  44. God punishes bad people basing on what they do this is because God is just .God is merciful that is why he forgives people.Where is the contradiction?

    God being God and man at the same time is having 2 contradictory things together which cancel out each other and is not possible or illogical and absurd.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s