Islam and Christianity, do these religions, which are centuries old, address the problems of today's world?
Are believers in these religions really encouraged to live moral lives once they accept...
Islam and Christianity, do these religions, which are centuries old, address the problems of today's world?
Are believers in these religions really encouraged to live moral lives once they accept faith or can they "get by" with putting a lukewarm amount of effort to fight sin and still be guaranteed heaven? Could a religion like this really keep a society on the straight path in today's world?
This debate attempts to answer these questions.
The Christian representative was Matt Slick B.A., M. Div. webmaster of Christian Apologetic Research Ministry.
The Topic of Debate: Islam, Christianity and Morality
Nadir Ahmed (www.Examinethetruth.com)
vs.
Matt Slick (www.Carm.org)
For further information on upcoming or previous debates click here
Like to rate videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Like to share videos with friends?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Arguing like little kids!!! tut-tut-tut.... Interestingly, Islam today is where Christianity was 600 years ago, 1. Christians too back then wanted to convert the whole world to Christianity, and would kill people to prove their point. (And also, interestingly said they were spreading the message of peace). 2. Had religious dogmas(still do ofcourse), that were unfounded in scientific nature. Peace is only a few hundred years away, and then both of you can find new people to hate.
answering-christianity speaks against Nadir Ahmed. This is because even Muslims can see that he is irrational and doesn't admit when he gets defreated that's why "he has never lost a debate"-Wow he needs to come back to earth
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
1. Christians too back then wanted to convert the whole world to Christianity, and would kill people to prove their point. (And also, interestingly said they were spreading the message of peace).
2. Had religious dogmas(still do ofcourse), that were unfounded in scientific nature.
Peace is only a few hundred years away, and then both of you can find new people to hate.
Stupid comment. btw this debate was on Matt's website long before it was on here.
He won.
Matt Slick lost.
Keep telling yourself Nadir won. You are only fooling yourself.
I think Nadir won.
And the objective person would think that Nadir won as well.
Now I cannot speak here.
That is because it is wasting my download limit and I have very little left.
I have heard Sami Zaatri and Ali Altaie use the same little argument. It is funny.
Whatever. If you think Nadir won good for you.