Page 1 of 2

Comments on debunker + 5 on Christianity

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:10 pm
by Pragmatist
debunker wrote:Hello everyone,

I made a claim in one of my posts that Christians don't really know who God of the Bible is, and that they are unware of His confusing and contradictory nature. Our esteemed member, Chief, has challenged me to produce evidence to support my claim.

I promised Chief that I'll be presenting my case sometime soon. However, I need to clarify the rules of the debate.


1- The Bible is the only permissible scripture (the use of any other scripture is NOT allowed in this debate).
2- The maximum number of opponents is 5. Chief and Quills are already invited. I would also like to invite Winston (although he's agnostic) and I'm willing to accept 2 more opponents.
3- Atheists, agnostics, every non-christian, Mods (and trolls) don't qualify as acceptable opponents.

These are the rules, Chief. I hope that you find them reasonable.



Ah another Mohammedan with a colossal ego and arrogance problem which seems to endemic in Islam NPD must be contagious. Lets hope you don't confuse your NT with your OT and presume that the Bible is PRESCRIPTIVE like the Krap Kran is and not DESCRIPTIVE which is what it is. I know virtually ALL Mohammedans can't get their head around this significant distinction having been brain washed with the Krap Krans ridiculous claims to be the 'actual unalterable word of their EVIL allah". Lets see if you are not too Brain Damaged to be able to recognise the difference.

Comments on debunker + 5 on Christianity

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:25 pm
by KhaliL
debunker wrote:Hello everyone,

I made a claim in one of my posts that Christians don't really know who God of the Bible is, and that they are unware of His confusing and contradictory nature. Our esteemed member, Chief, has challenged me to produce evidence to support my claim.

I promised Chief that I'll be presenting my case sometime soon. However, I need to clarify the rules of the debate.


1- The Bible is the only permissible scripture (the use of any other scripture is NOT allowed in this debate).
2- The maximum number of opponents is 5. Chief and Quills are already invited. I would also like to invite Winston (although he's agnostic) and I'm willing to accept 2 more opponents.
3- Atheists, agnostics, every non-christian, Mods (and trolls) don't qualify as acceptable opponents.

These are the rules, Chief. I hope that you find them reasonable.



And where is your presentation for the rest of us to either accept or refute?

KF

Re: Debunker lecturing Chief & pals on God of the Bible

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 pm
by debunker
Khalil,

You're NOT a Christian. This is an Exclusive Room. Make your comments in the comments section please.


Prag (Mr. monkey),

You're a most excellent troll! Out!

Comment Section: Debunker vs Charleslemartel & Others

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:17 pm
by KhaliL
___________________________________________

Debunker (DebunkED) is desperately trying to grab attention of the forum by engaging with formidable opponents like charleslemartel who really kicked his butt here:

viewtopic.php?p=21974#p21974

It was a real slam dunk (courtesy to Ahmed Bahgat :lol: )

I would recommend all readers to go through the thread. It proves how shallow Muslim arguments are against quality debaters..!!!


Regds
KF

Re: Comment Section: Debunker vs Charleslemartel & Others

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:48 pm
by debunker
Of course, people like Charles are great debaters and that's why I enjoy debating with them...

But people like Khalil, on the other hand, are clowns and lowly liars... I would never belittle myself by accepting to debate with people like him ever again.

Re: Comment Section: Debunker vs Charleslemartel & Others

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 7:05 pm
by charleslemartel
KhaliL is way ahead of me in terms of debating skills and his knowledge of matters related to Islam.

May be that is why he seems to enjoy the special "love" of Muslim visitors of FFI.

Re: Debunker lecturing Chief & pals on God of the Bible

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:49 pm
by Nosubmission
Your post convinces me once more that you Muslims will need another millenium to be acquainted with logic. Your addiction to logical fallacies is amazing indeed! You deserve a reward for that.

Apart from being illogical, some points of your post is far from the requisites of a scholarly debate. Your quotations illustrate your prejudice and dishonesty. Sometimes you do not even quote, but prefer comparing the ACTS of SOME Christians (Christian nations! lol) with Jesus' commandments in the Gospel. You naively believe that personal weaknesses or errors can prove Christianity false. You really need to grow up, you little Muslim.

Re: Debunker lecturing Chief & pals on God of the Bible

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:37 pm
by Pragmatist
debunker wrote:Hello Chief & pals,

I’ll try to briefly discuss (in points) why I believe Christians have no clue who their God is.


1- God loves you, unconditionally?

An average Christian believes that they can sin all they want because God loved them so much as to allow His son to be nailed to the cross to wipe out all their sins. Of course, this is nowhere near the truth. The truth (according to the Bible) is that your good deeds alone can’t save you. In other words, God of the Bible is merciless enough as to not be able to forgive you even if you loved Him and even if you led a righteous life. He needs BLOOD to be able to forgive you. And nothing less than a worthy sacrifice will get you off the hook of facing His rampant wrath.

Now here’s where it gets very confusing. God of the Bible, knowing that His appetite for high quality blood is insatiable, He realized that no man can deliver a sacrifice worthy enough of satisfying His divine thirst for blood. So He decided to take the burden of sacrifice off humanity and throw it on the shoulders of Jesus by brutally killing poor little Jesus himself!

I know that doesn’t make any sense. It’s like when you apologize to someone and they insist they cannot forgive you unless they kill their own son. It sounds amazingly stupid, I know, but that’s how the wise God of the Bible believes “justice” is served.

Now Christian priests, desperately trying to sell their screwed up religion to the masses, hide this truth and all they advertize is that God loves you unconditionally. So, it really is no wonder that an average Christian thinks they can sin all they want because their sins are already taken care of, when the fact is (according to the Bible) your sins are taken care of ONLY IF you acknowledge Jesus’ sacrifice BY trying your best to lead a righteous life. Thinking that you can sin all you want is to make a mockery of Jesus’ sacrifice which is even worse than not acknowledging it at all.

In short: this weird, sick, twisted, crazy so-called love is NOT “unconditional” like an average Christian fool has been led to believe. And Jesus has labeled many things taken today for granted as sins. In fact, according to Jesus, even wealth is highly discouraged. Matthew 19:23-24.


2- Jesus is God?

Never, not even once in the Bible did Jesus claim to be God. He never even hinted that he should be worshiped. If Jesus was God then why would he ignore to mention this paramount truth about his new religion? He specifically called upon his followers to worship his Father (God) and call his Father their Father too. He himself prayed to his Father (God). He even was tempted by the devil. He was a man. A sinless man because he was constantly guided by God but that does NOT make him God.

Some Christians argue that Jesus’ title (Son of God) implies this right of worship. If that is the case, then why do Christians blame Catholics for worshiping Mary? After all, she was the mother of Son of God! The truth is son of God is an honorary title given by God of the Bible to his most distinguished servants. But God of the Bible has bestowed this title on many people before. Take for example:

-Adam is a son of God (Luke 3:38)
-In Psalm 2:7 God declares David to be His begotten son (although He later discovered that He made a BIG mistake, for David turned out to be one very naughty boy!).
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=49;
-In Exodus 4:22, God of the Bible declares that Jacob (Israel) is His first born son!
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=49;

Some Christians also desperately argue that people worshiped Jesus and he didn’t forbid them which somehow implies that he wanted them to worship him. And their evidence is? Mistranslated verses in the Bible, for example

Matthew 8:2
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=49;
Mark 5:6
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=49;

Now, the word “worshipped” here is a deliberate mistranslation. The original word is to “bow down”. It depends on which Bible version (translation) you use, but the Arabic Bible (which is closest to Aramaic) always consistently uses “to bow down or to kneel before” instead of “to worship”. In fact, the French Bible translation I found also uses the verb “se prosterner devant” which means “to prostrate oneself before”.

But isn’t kneeling down/bowing down to someone an act of worship? Not necessarily, in the Bible it could mean a great deal of respect. For example, Joseph’s 11 brothers all bowed down to him (in reverence).

Now why would the Church make such a blatant lie about Jesus being God? My speculation is that Christians who are aware of the true savage nature of their God couldn’t live with accepting Him as their God and their denial made them imagine that Jesus, with his extremely selfless nature, is their God. By doing so, they somehow try to make up for God’s monstrous nature.


3- Like Father, like Son?

Was Jesus the spitting image of his Father? Let’s see, shall we?

Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. Everyone else compared to the ancient Israelites were dogs. (Matthew 15:21-28)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=47;
A woman begs him to heal her daughter who was possessed by a demon but he so arrogantly tells her that helping her is like taking bread from one's children and feeding it to the dogs. But when the woman acknowledged her level of being no more than a dog compared to the superior Israelites, he agreed to help her. That was a big change of plans. God of the Bible consistently cared for His chosen people only (Children of Israel). And here we see Jesus, spontaneously decides to break his Father’s old traditions and care for non-Israelites as well.

Jesus also seemed to be either confused or hypocritical about his Father’s old methods. In Matthew 5:18-19, for example, Jesus asserts that we should NOT ignore the OT. But who needs the OT, anyway? Jesus stepped all over it in his teachings. Not only did he abolish many of the old rules, he ridiculed them! Examples:

a- Unclean foods: In the OT God through Moses has defined what is clean to eat and what is unclean. For example, it was considered unclean to eat without washing hands, then came Jesus and did three things: 1- He made these laws of cleanliness obsolete (that's why Christians eat pigs while Jews don't, for example). Honestly, I see no problem here, so it would seem that God decided to make life a little easier for the Israelites. But if only this were the case! 2- In fact, Jesus explains "why" these laws are obsolete. According to the words of Jesus (Mathew 15: 16-17) these laws do NOT make any sense. He explains that whoever thinks there's such a thing as unclean food has NO understanding! He implicitly accuses his Father (God) to be of no understanding since it is his Father who came up with the idea of unclean foods in the first place. If this blaring contradiction doesn't catch your attention then be prepared for this piece of sheer genius: 3- Jesus gives a justification of why his Father's old ways lack understanding, it's because regardless of what you eat it'll all turn into feces in the end anyway, so why bother?

b- In John 8:3-7, a group of Israelites caught an adulterous and wanted to stone her to death according to the Mosaic Law. Again, Jesus wanted to abolish this law. So what did he do? Did he say that God decided to eliminate harsh punishments out of mercy for example? No. He said "let he who has no sin cast the first stone". He's implicitly saying, all of you are sinners too so don't judge her. So what was he thinking? His Father wasn't actually aware of this fact when He laid down these rules in the first place? Again he implicitly ridicules his Father's orders by giving lame justifications of why they are needless.

c- Breaking the Sabbath. Mark 2:23-28.
So Jesus and his disciples broke the Sabbath when they collected grains to eat them. His Father was very particular about the Sabbath. He even ordered Moses to stone a man to death for picking sticks on the Sabbath! So the Pharisees objected to this and Jesus’ response was? He defended himself by citing David and his men’s eating from the Temple’s sacred bread which was an irrelevant incident. The priest agreed to give David and his men the bread because they have kept themselves from women (thus they were ceremonially clean, See 1 Samuel 21:1-10). Besides, why would he hide behind David? David was a big time sinner, anyway. And to add insult to injury, he so hypocritically alters the words of his Father and claims that the Sabbath was made for man! What about Numbers 15:32-36 and Exodus 35:2?

It is no wonder that eventually the Israelites got fed up with Jesus ridiculing the laws of their Sky Daddy and wanted to kill him for his repeated disrespect of the old laws (even though he was hypocritical enough not to reject these laws explicitly).

But one can’t help but point out God’s lack of help to Jesus as opposed to His constant support of Moses. Whenever the Israelites gave Moses a hard time, God personally flew down to earth and gave them a severe beating until Moses intervened to calm down His rampant rage. See for example, this story of a few Israelite men who challenged the authority of Moses and how his God came swiftly to his aid (Numbers 16).

The only good reason I can think of for God’s ignoring Jesus this way, is that He wanted His son to get killed, either because Jesus hypocritically insulted His Father’s old ways or because He really craved Jesus’ blood to finally satisfy His thirst.

The most significant difference between Jesus and his Father, however, is Jesus’ good little heart. His crazy Father insisted that He wanted to spill someone’s precious blood in order to be able to forgive good obedient people for their sins. And Jesus, so selflessly, agreed to play the role of the lamb… Although poor Jesus did plead with His vicious Father to find some other way, like good old mercy, to avoid this bizarre requirement, but his Daddy wouldn’t accept anything less than Jesus’ blood! What a stark difference in personalities! Mark 14:36.

And in case some of you might wonder if God has always been this savage, then you need not but to read the first two thirds of the Bible. A blood maniac, He most certainly is. And just to give a glimpse of God’s evil nature, you can take a look at this little conversation between me and Winston here:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1308&start=20#p18715

Bottom line: Jesus looked nothing like his grotesque Father. He was his Father’s antagonist!


4- Hypocritical Christians.

The heart of Jesus’ teachings is “The Sermon on the Mount” and the holy of holies of this sermon is “Turning the other Cheek”. The basic tenet of Christianity is absolute pacifism. Jesus rejects the basic human right of self-defense. If someone wants to walk all over you, you should not resist but in fact you should encourage them to do so. The best example of this is the instructions given to Christian slaves. A slave not only shouldn’t resist his slavery, but he shouldn’t try to run away either, for that won’t be considered turning the other cheek! [Ephesians 6:5 & 1 Timothy 6:1-2 & Colossians 3:22-25]. I know this sounds beautiful and all, but is it practical? Is it applicable? No wonder Christians have always ignored their beloved Jesus’ most basis instructions throughout history and reverted to using the OT where God of the Bible called upon His children to exterminate/enslave whole nations.


5- Thou Shall Not Pray!

I really find it quite amusing that devout Christians are so big on prayer. Haven’t they ever read Mathew 6: 7-13? Jesus teaches his followers how to pray. FIRST he claims that prayers should never be repetitive with many words like prayers of the "nations" (non-Israelites). But this contradicts the fact that in the OT the "Israelites" had structured, repetitive prayers with many words. In fact some of these prayers were even sung (e.g. Psalms). SECOND he explains that God already knows what it is you need hence the lack of need for all these too many words! HOWEVER, he immediately contradicts "himself" by asking his followers to say only one single prayer over and over and over and over again: "Our Father in heavens, let your name be sanctified..." What just happened to God knows what's in your heart and no repetitions are necessary? Of course God knows what is in my heart but prayer is a very basic form of worship and if you take away my words and cancel repetitions then you are asking me not to pray, period! And when events get heated up and the hour of his capture approaches, Jesus of the Bible reverts to the same exact form of prayer he denies his followers. See Mark 14: 32-42.

So relax Christians, there’s no need for you to pray. Jesus taught you how to pray only one prayer. Do it before you go to bed to help you fall asleep fast (out of boredom).


6- Thou Shall Not swear?!

The biggest lie Christians believe about their God is that He doesn’t like foul language. But God of the Bible Himself never refrained from using the foulest language ever. In Ezekiel 23 He describes the northern and southern nations of Israel as two filthy whores! And in Ezekiel 23: 19-21 He goes to great lengths to describe the extent their whoredom. Another example is when He threatens the Israelites of their fate of eating human dung for bread and the special treatment He gives to their prophet (Ezekiel) is eating cow dung instead. (Ezekiel 4:12-15). Of course, foul language abounds in the holy Bible, these verses I listed are but a few.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=31;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=31;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=47;

So the point is: to swear is a divine Godly behavior, and there’s no need to deprive your kids of using this type of language to creatively express themselves. If anything, you should promote swearing contests and crown as the winner the kid whose profanity outweighs that of God of the Bible.




Ok, I guess that’s enough for now. The floor is yours, Chief & pals.



What a sad illogical piece of nonsense you post Debunker I warned you not to take the NT and OT as PRESCRIPTIVE like your Krap Kran is but you just sail in right away and do EXACTLY that and then fill out the rest with OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS and think you are being clever. :prop: :prop: :prop:

Re: Debunker lecturing Chief & pals on God of the Bible

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:06 pm
by debunker
nosubmission,

Your post is a silly rant. Personal insults don't help you assert your point. Now, I'll have to report you to moderators as a troll.

Pragmatist,

I already told you you are a troll, I'll report you to Mods and ask them to struck down your post.

Dear S,

I honored Chief's request to have you as a member of the opponent team. But I see that he made a poor choice.

Anyway, could we please concentrate on discussing the topic at hand (God of the Bible) without discussing any other (irrelevant) religions? Here are a few convincing reasons:

1- Even if the Quran is the most evil scripture in the world, I don't see how this can help you defend the Bible.

2- If you are interested in attacking the Quran, then you have the whole forum devoted for this. So please let's keep this thread on topic.

3- Your changing the subject might actually help confirm my claims.

4- I specifically clarified that one of the rules of the debate is that NO scripture other than the Bible can be used. If you can't honor this rule, please dismiss yourself.

Re: Debunker lecturing Chief & pals on God of the Bible

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:43 pm
by Skenderbeg
debunker wrote:1- Even if the Quran is the most evil scripture in the world, I don't see how this can help you defend the Bible.


The bible doesn't need any ones help, people can believe or not believe in Jesus as the son of God or prophet of God
or not believe at all, its only the Quran which calls for death war and oppression of unblievers...

the Quran is a threat to people for as long as sick minded people believe in this death cult...

This place is not about Jesus, its about the threat islam poses on all of us....

Re: Comment Section: Debunker vs Charleslemartel & Others

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:59 pm
by debunker
Oh dear S,

All I asked is that you guys debate me like you would debate an atheist.

Besides, I know that this site is dedicated to discuss Islam only. And although it was my idea to start a thread to criticize Christians poor understanding of their precious Bible, I tried to forget about it. But as you can see in these links below, Chief insisted that I give my lectures even though I tried to get out of it. But alas, it has already started!

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1219&start=80#p21725
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1219&start=90#p21745
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1219&start=90#p21746
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1219&start=90#p21747

Anyway, so what's your decision? Do you still think that the bible doesn't need your help? Are you giving up your spot in the opponent team?

Re: Comment Section: Debunker vs Charleslemartel & Others

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:55 pm
by Nosubmission
The Bible has always survived without the Koran whereas the Koran cannot survive without the Bible. This is because the pagan jigolo Mohammad made his false ilah endorse the Jewish and Christian scriptures. We have two options with the same outcome:

1) If the Bible is false, the Koran is also false because the Koran regards the scriptures prior to itself as a checklist (Surah 10:94) and claims that the aim of its existence is the confirmation of the former revelations. If the Bible had been textually corrupted before Islam, the supposed revelation of the Koran makes no sense.

2) If the Bible is true, the Koran is false. Since the Koran overtly contradicts the basic doctrines of the Bible, it cannot be true. It is a book fabricated by the pagan prophet's scribes.

Re: Debunker lecturing Chief & pals on God of the Bible

PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 6:46 am
by Pragmatist
debunker wrote:nosubmission,

Your post is a silly rant. Personal insults don't help you assert your point. Now, I'll have to report you to moderators as a troll.

Pragmatist,

I already told you you are a troll, I'll report you to Mods and ask them to struck down your post.

Dear S,

I honored Chief's request to have you as a member of the opponent team. But I see that he made a poor choice.

Anyway, could we please concentrate on discussing the topic at hand (God of the Bible) without discussing any other (irrelevant) religions? Here are a few convincing reasons:

1- Even if the Quran is the most evil scripture in the world, I don't see how this can help you defend the Bible.

2- If you are interested in attacking the Quran, then you have the whole forum devoted for this. So please let's keep this thread on topic.

3- Your changing the subject might actually help confirm my claims.

4- I specifically clarified that one of the rules of the debate is that NO scripture other than the Bible can be used. If you can't honor this rule, please dismiss yourself.



:lotpot: :BS:

BTW good call on opening this Comments thread M credit where credit is due.

Debunker lecturing Chief & pals on God of the Bible

PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:07 am
by fudgy
Hello,
I do not intend to butt in here. However, it is true that God does not love you unconditionally in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Many Christians are just ignorant of their own sources. Unconditional love in concept is very weak in nature that even most humans are not prone to it.
Hos 9:15 wrote: Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal,
I hated them there.
Because of their sinful deeds,
I will drive them out of my house.
I will no longer love them;
all their leaders are rebellious.

Re: Debunker lecturing Chief & pals on God of the Bible

PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:18 am
by debunker
Dearest fudgy,

Thanks for your comment, but could you please post it in the comments section... I'm afraid by your commenting here you might open the door for off topic... and others might start commenting here too.

This debate is NOT about Islam versus other religions. This debate is about God of the Bible using the Bible ONLY. (And although your verses are indeed from the Bible, they're irrelevant to Christianity).

Here is some of the verses in the NT which clearly indicate that faith alone is NOT enough
James 2:10-26
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=49;

Best regards.

Re: Comment Section: Debunker vs Charleslemartel & Others

PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:41 am
by ixolite
FFS! :bashwall: What. The. ****. Is. So. Difficult. To. Understand. About. An. EXCLUSIVE. Debate?! Third split! :gaah:

Re: Comment Section: Debunker vs Charleslemartel & Others

PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:14 am
by Pragmatist
ixolite wrote:FFS! :bashwall: What. The. ****. Is. So. Difficult. To. Understand. About. An. EXCLUSIVE. Debate?! Third split! :gaah:


Perhaps the answer lies in Debunkers very very loose Thread description of ' Debunker vs Charlesmatel and others' and 'Debunker vs the Chief and PALS'

So why not get Debunker and all the NOMINATED debaters clearly posted in the thread title. Then instead of us seeing our Moderators jump through embarrassing hoops at the beck and call of an abusive Mohammedan you might instead get a proper debate and your head won't need banging on the wall any more.

You are giving this atrocious, pathetic Debunker character who has run from every challenge on here just like BOT1 did the impression he can throw his weight around wherever he feels like it. He was just trying to tell me to stop posting on an open thread.

Re: Comment Section: Debunker vs Charleslemartel & Others

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:13 am
by kamaal
I was recommended FFI by a friend two-three years ago. Until then I knew Islam to be just another creed with a mammoth following and its originator a spiritualist. I was stunned when truth began to unfold and I realized that Islam is the worst catastrophe to occur since the dawn of civilization. Ideally Islam should have been nipped in the bud like Nazism. I request the friends at FFI to let me know if any such attempts were made in the early days of Islam. It would take vast efforts to establish if the wave of Islam was ever proactively challenged because the relevant details have been twisted beyond recognition by the early and contemporary Islamists.
I have my own inferences on the “tolerant” face of Islam which figured in this debate. It is frequently argued by the Muslim apologists that the Muslim “victors” (read “raiders” because “victory” needs a “battle” first. Cite me a single instance in the bloodied history of Islam when Muslims met their adversaries squarely on the battlefield without using inconceivable deceits) spared the “invaded” (read “taken unawares”) masses only with penal levies. Please note that for the Muslims, penal levy on non-believers is a compassionate gesture.
You can discover more in this gesture of allowing freedom of faith to non Muslims. If the entire populace were converted, who do you think could have been made to pay for the Muslim raiders and their weaponry? Those Muslims were not known to be enterprising except on their pillaging missions (not battles). Even to this day Muslims are rarely seen into industry or anything creative. Jizya was a vicious ploy to condemn the diligent populace into ruthless toil and siphon off their gains (half of what they produced, to be precise) to support the Muslim marauders and their armaments.
The debater’s claim that the overwhelming Muslims were no threat to non combating civilians is a blatant travesty of the facts recorded by Muslim chroniclers themselves. Does he think that in face of the advancing Muslims the Hindu royal women in their fallen forts threw themselves into the consuming flames for the sake of fun? Islam imperils the very existence of the mankind. Its homicidal doctrines are apparently dormant yet liable to be invoked as the time and situation suit. This is an alarming truth which the non Islamic states the world over should recognize. America is spearheading the crusade against Islam which is visible in the middle-east, Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is an assault on Islam not the hapless Muslims who are the prime casualties of Islam.
Imagine what could have been the destiny of Iran had it not been subdued by Islam. Iran would have been packed with Rustoms, JRD Tatas, Manekshaws, Soli Sorabjis, Fali Narimans etc. Please also note that every single personality among those named here has or had the capability to alter the road map of an entire nation. I have pointed out only the plight of Iran. Go over to the world map and have your own conclusions.
Do I need to explain further?

Re: Comment Section: Debunker vs Charleslemartel & Others

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:56 am
by debunker
The debater’s claim that the overwhelming Muslims were no threat to non combating civilians is a blatant travesty of the facts recorded by Muslim chroniclers themselves.


Hey kid,

before you open your mouth, read carefully. I never defended Muslims! Never!

Re: Comment Section: Debunker vs Charleslemartel & Others

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:19 am
by KhaliL
debunker wrote:
The debater’s claim that the overwhelming Muslims were no threat to non combating civilians is a blatant travesty of the facts recorded by Muslim chroniclers themselves.


Hey kid,

before you open your mouth, read carefully. I never defended Muslims! Never!


Sorry for intruding:

What do you defend dear debunker? I would like to know if you don't mind. If you should say you came not to defend Muslims, can I assume it is to bury them? But you do defend something. What is it?

Feel not pressed but it would be interesting if you can make it clear...

Regards
KF