 Hey everybody, today we're debating Christianity, Islam, violence and intolerance and we're starting right now. With David Woods opening statement, thanks so much for being with us, David. The floor is all yours. Hey, that was quick. Started time right here. Well, hello again, YouTube. Looks like I'm back. Just got unbanned again this morning. I'd like to thank Modern Day Debate for setting up this exchange and Daniel for representing the Muslim perspective. Daniel has a reputation as someone who doesn't lie about his religion, which will be a breath of fresh air compared to most of the American and British Muslim apologists I've interacted with over the past 15 years or so. Trust me, all you Westernized Muslim apologists who are watching, when you tell us that there's no death penalty for apostasy in Islam or that Aisha was 19 years old when she married Muhammad, this may win you some cheap Dawa points with people who don't know any better, but it becomes impossible for the rest of us to take you seriously. But if you're honest about your book and your prophet, then even if we disagree with you completely, we can at least have a serious discussion with you. So hats off to Daniel for having the integrity that's so often lacking in Western Dawa. The topic before us was suggested by Daniel. As far as I can tell, here in my opening statement, I'm supposed to present the Christian perspective on violence and tolerance. There's obviously a lot that can be said on this issue, but given the time constraints, I'm going to cover three essentials. One, the biblical teaching that human beings are created in the image of God along with how this influenced Christian thought when it was combined with Jesus' command to love everyone. Two, the biblical teaching that even though we love everyone, some people are especially bad or dangerous and that there is a role for violence in protecting people from harm. And three, the Christian integration of these two biblical teachings, that is, how do we protect society from dangerous people while still loving and honoring all people? First, the image of God, the Christian perspective on violence and tolerance begins with the teaching in the very first chapter of the Bible that human beings, all human beings, men and women are created in the image of God. Genesis 127 says, God created man in his own image. In the image of God, he created him. Male and female, he created them. In Genesis 9, the basis for the prohibition against murdering another human being is that humans are created in the image of God. In the New Testament, the book of James, James says, with the tongue we praise our Lord and Father and with it we curse human beings who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. James' objection to cursing other human beings is that they're created in the image of God whom we praise. So our view of other human beings as created in God's image is supposed to have an impact on how we act towards them. In Matthew 5, Jesus says, you have heard that it was said, you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you so that you may be sons of your father who is in heaven. We can see how this command to love even our enemies, combined with the biblical teaching that all human beings are created in the image of God, influenced early Christian thought. In Romans 12, the apostle Paul says, if possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with everyone. If your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink. In 1 Corinthians 16, he says, let all that you do be done in love. In 1 Thessalonians 3, he says, may the Lord cause you to increase and abound in love for one another and for all people. The author of Hebrews in Hebrews 12 says, pursue peace with all people. In 1 Peter 2, the apostle Peter tells us to honor all people. So whether you are Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, young, old, white, black, straight, gay, trans, whatever, you are created in the image of God. And Christians are commanded to love and respect you based on our shared nature and the love of God. This doesn't mean that we have to love and respect your ideas or your decisions or your actions. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't be punished for crimes. We can love someone and still believe that he is a danger to others and that he needs to be stopped. This brings us to our second point. According to the Bible, governments have the authority to punish wrongdoers and the obligation to protect people's rights. This includes the authority to use violence when necessary. In Romans 13, Paul calls rulers, avengers who bring wrath upon the ones who practice evil. He says that the ruler does not bear the sword for nothing. But this authority doesn't mean that rulers get to do whatever they want. In the book of Acts, chapter 25, the Roman governor, Festus, wants to hand Paul over to his Jewish enemies who are plotting to kill him. Paul responds to the governor, if I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar. So Paul was convinced that the government was supposed to protect him from people who wanted to kill him over his religious views, and he was convinced that no one, not even the government, had the right to kill him if he hadn't done anything that merited a death sentence. The Christian perspective on governments then punish wrongdoers and protect rights. Sometimes this involves violence. Third point, how do we reconcile the Christian belief that we're supposed to love everyone and to honor all people and to pursue peace with all people with the fact that some people need to be punished and that there are wars that may need to be fought? One thing Christians did early on was to influence governments to have more concern for human life. This was obviously connected to Christian love for others. I'll give two examples. First, when Christians began preaching the gospel in the Roman Empire, the favorite form of entertainment among the Romans was the gladiatorial games. The crowd would cheer with glee as slaves and prisoners were forced to hack each other to pieces. Christians were horrified at the bloodshed because they believed that human beings are created in the image of God. What did they do about it? But first, when they had no political power and Christianity was still an illegal religion, they boycotted the games. Within a century of Christianity becoming a legal religion, Christians had the gladiatorial games abolished throughout the empire. Second, infanticide killing unwanted babies and leaving them to die or leaving them to die was extremely common among the Greeks and Romans. Children born frail or with defects would be tossed in a river or left in the woods to die. Unwanted daughters would be tossed in a river or left in the woods to die. Christians condemned this practice in the first century, in the second and third centuries, when Christianity was still an illegal religion, Christians would collect abandoned babies and care for them. After Christianity was legalized, in 374 the Roman Emperor Valentinian outlawed infanticide and child abandonment. So moral reform spread as Christianity spread. Christianity had a similar impact on the concept of war. Christians developed what's now called just war theory. Just war theory deals with issues like what are the appropriate grounds for waging war? How should enemy combatants be treated? Christians like Augustine in the fourth century and Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century applied Christian beliefs about love, justice, and the responsibilities of human governments to theories about war. The developments continued into modern times and can be arranged into three categories. The Latin phrases are use ad bellum, use inbellum, and use past bellum, which we can translate as right to war, justice in war, and justice after war. The principles of use ad bellum, right to war, are directed towards those with the power to declare war, i.e. heads of state. The main requirement here is having a just cause to declare war, such as self-defense or protecting the victims of tyrannical leaders. Other requirements include just intent, war should only be fought for the right reasons, last resort, all peaceful solutions should be considered first, and proportionality, the good outcome sought must outweigh the necessary bloodshed. Once war has been declared, the principles of use inbellum, justice in war, come into focus, mainly dealing with the appropriate treatment of the enemy. The most essential features of use inbellum are the immunity of non-combatants, a soldier may only target someone who is actively attempting some form of harm, proportionality, the tactics used must be proportional to the desired outcome, and the fair treatment of captives. When war is coming to an end, the terms of peace should be, when war is coming to an end, the terms of peace should balance correcting the wrongs that led to the war with respecting the human rights of the defeated group. In general, use postbellum, justice after war, calls for distinguishing between responsible and non-responsible parties and taking steps to ensure that the injustices that led to the war are not repeated. These principles were largely influenced by Christianity, but most of them have become relatively universal by inclusion in the Hague conventions, the Geneva conventions, the Geneva protocols, and various UN resolutions. I should probably clarify here that when I talk about a Christian perspective on war, I'm not claiming that Christians have always lived up to these ideas, very often they didn't, but this debate isn't about how Christians or Muslims screw up or how they deviate from Christianity or Islam, giving a Christian perspective on war and just war theory is a reasonable application of Christian values to the necessities of the dangerous world. Now, given Christian beliefs about humans being created in the image of God and loving others, even our enemies, and governments having the authority to punish wrongdoers and the obligation to protect human rights, how should we view Islam? Well, Islam calls for the violent subjugation of the entire world. It calls for fighting unbelievers simply for being unbelievers. Christians and Jews can accept dimmy status and live as second-class citizens. If we don't accept dimmy status, we are to be fought until we're dead. Polytheists and I'm assuming atheists have to convert to Islam or die, needless to say, going around trying to subjugate the world because a false prophet told you to certainly wouldn't meet the requirements of a just war and it shows utter contempt for human beings who are created in the image of God. So the Christian view would be that governments are supposed to protect people from jihadis. Muhammad commanded his followers to kill anyone who leaves Islam. Can you imagine being taught all your life that the Quran has been perfectly preserved and that it's filled with scientific miracles and the Muhammad was the perfect man and then you decide to do some research for yourself and you find out that everything you've been taught is a lie. You leave Islam but now you're under a sentence of death because you didn't ignore reality. You're going to have any genuine respect for human beings in this world. We have to allow them to reject false prophets. No one should ever be killed for rejecting an obviously false prophet. So again the Christian view would be that governments should protect apostates whenever possible. Muhammad ordered his followers to kill people for making fun of him but Muhammad initially thought that he was deemed possessed. He tried repeatedly to kill himself. He claimed to be a victim of black magic. He claimed that the devil tricked him into delivering false revelations. He had sex with a prepubescent girl. He married the divorced wife of his own adopted son after causing the divorce by lusting after. He torched a man for money. Critics should never be killed for pointing out the obvious. Governments should protect critics whenever possible. Muhammad allowed his followers to beat women into submission. The beatings were so bad during the time of Muhammad that Aisha the mother of the faithful said that she hadn't seen any woman suffering as much as Muslim women. According to Aisha Muslim women were treated worse than pagan women and we can see the results of Muhammad's teachings in countries around the world but Muslim women are created in the image of God. They deserve better than this. In short since the Christian perspective is that governments are supposed to punish wrongdoers and protect human rights and since Islam promotes wrongdoing and violates human rights it must be opposed. Now Muslim apologists generally don't want Islam to seem more violent than Christianity and they don't want Muhammad to seem more violent than Jesus so what do they do? Well there are three basic routes they typically go here. All of them grounded in misrepresentation. One they point out that there's violence in the Bible usually associated with the mosaic covenant 14 centuries before the new covenant. There were commands to wage war against groups and since God appeared to the Israelites in a pillar of cloud, in a pillar of fire, bring food on them and was performing miracles. There were very harsh penalties for disobedience but the Christian perspective on violence generally has to do with commands that are directed towards Christians not with the commands of earlier covenants and if Muslims have any serious problem with God's commands in the Torah they should take that up with Allah who says that he revealed the Torah. Two, Muslim apologists often twist and distort the teachings of Jesus to make them sound violent. Muslim apologists are free to do this but they probably shouldn't tell us that they love and respect Jesus if they're misrepresenting and degrading him. Three, Muslim apologists often point to the actions of Christians who disobey Jesus or obviously don't take his teachings very seriously as if these Christians represent Christianity and this is sheer deception. Now I'm not saying that Daniel is going to misrepresent Christianity in any of these ways these are just things I've seen for most other Muslim apologists. They misrepresent Christianity just as they misrepresent Islam. Daniel's setting himself apart from other Muslim apologists so maybe we'll get something different. You got it thank you very much David for that opening statement and if it's your first time here folks want to let you know first welcome we're glad you're here no matter what walk of life you were from and also want to let you know we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science religion and politics here at Modern Day Debate and with that thrilled to have you here as well Daniel the floor is all yours. Thank you to Modern Day Debates for hosting and thanks to David and thank you to everyone watching. The debate today is about violence and intolerance Christianity versus Islam. Let me say right off the bat that yes Islam has violence and Islam is not tolerant of every belief and way of life and that's a good thing as I'll explain but my problem with David Wood and other Christian apologists is that they are inconsistent and dishonest. I'm going to focus on three main examples of this inconsistency. The first is what we can call the Old Testament question. Imagine there was a hadith that described Muslim soldiers coming back from battle and reporting to the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. The soldiers report that they were victorious in battle and had killed all the enemy men. Then the Prophet peace be upon him asked sternly what about the women and children were they also killed? The soldiers say no we didn't kill them. Then imagine that the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam gets enraged at this and condemns the soldiers for not exterminating all the women and children. Now imagine that if a hadith like this existed David Wood would have no hesitation in citing it over and over again on his channel making a big deal about it denouncing Islam for it and generally characterizing Muhammad sallallahu as an evil bloodthirsty man. But the reality is there is no such hadith instead this is what we read in the Bible about Moses in Numbers 31 verse 14 to 18 of the Bible we read and Moses was angry with the officers of the army. Moses said to them have you let all the women live now kill every male among the little ones and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves kill all the women and children but keep the virgin girls for yourselves as sex slaves. That's what the Bible claims Moses said so I want to ask David Wood do you think that Moses was an evil bloodthirsty man are you going to denounce Moses in this debate because I don't want to see how because I don't see how you can denounce the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi sallam when you have the example of Moses getting angry because his soldiers are not killing enough women and children there's nothing like that in the Quran or hadith or in the Islamic tradition more broadly the fact of the matter is when we look at the content of mosaic law in the Old Testament it contains stoning it contains expansionist war it contains destroying the idols of pagan religions it contains slavery it contains all the things that Christians criticize Islam for and it even goes beyond Islam in advocating killing women and children so if Islam Muhammad and the Quran are evil because of these practices then mosaic law Moses and the Old Testament are at least as evil look I recognize that Christians will say that Moses is not the ideal and that Jesus is the true model of Christian values but that response misses the point the point is that traditional Christianity does not view Moses as evil in fact Moses has always been highly regarded by both Christians and Islam yet Christians like David Wood don't view Moses as an evil warmonger but they do say these things about Muhammad sallallahu alaihi sallam why this blatant double standard but the problem gets even worse for Christians this is because obviously Moses didn't just make up the law he was only conveying the commandments of God Almighty so if stoning expansionist war and slavery are evil then the God of the Old Testament was evil is David Wood going to denounce the God of the Old Testament now let me speak directly to all Christians in the audience you believe that the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament right and that same God is Jesus Christ according to Christianity right so when God in the Old Testament in 1st Samuel 15 commands Saul to kill women children and even infants that's really Jesus who commanded that when God in the Old Testament in numbers 31 1 through 40 24 commands the believers to take virgin girls as sex slaves that's really Jesus who commanded that when God in the Old Testament in Exodus 34 11 through 17 commands the believers to destroy the Canaanite altars and destroy their idols and symbols that's really Jesus who commanded that when God in the Old Testament tells the believers to stone to death fornicating women all those who violate the Sabbath all those who blaspheme all those who curse their parents those are all in reality commands from Jesus Christ right don't give me the usual Christian apologetics about the New Testament superseding the Old Testament and the New Covenant making the mosaic law obsolete that is missing the point the point is according to Christianity Jesus is the God of the Old Testament which means Jesus commanded all that killing and stoning and slaughter all the massacres all the bloody cleansing of the earth that's described in the Old Testament those are all coming from Jesus and in fact they're endorsed by Jesus for a 1300 year period from Moses's time until Jesus's time so you can't present this modernized picture of Jesus only preaching peace love and non-violence Jesus according to Christianity is quite a vengeful and wrathful God or at least he was in Old Testament times how can a Christian who has to believe all this about Jesus Christ turn around and criticize Islam for violence especially since according to the Bible Jesus even calls for killing women children and infants there's nothing like that in the Quran and hadith so isn't this the most outrageous double standard David would please explain this explain how you can criticize Islam and smear the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam as a violent bloodthirsty warmonger when according to your own theology your God Jesus Christ also commanded and approved of all these things and more so David would you're extremely dishonest when you criticize Islam and in fact Christians should really hate you for what you're doing because you're essentially training your fellow Christians to reject the Bible and hate Moses and Jesus because when you tell your Christian audience that Islam is a false religion because as violence and intolerance what's going to happen when those same Christians open up the Bible and read all the violence and intolerance within its pages they'll have to conclude that Christianity is a false religion too so when you try to score cheap points against Islam on violence you're basically undermining the Bible and Moses and Jesus at the same time you are in fact helping atheists drive Christians into apostasy and to lose faith you're paving the road for this how do you justify that David the second inconsistency from Christian missionaries and apologists is what I call the Christian governance question I have a question for all the Christians watching this do you believe that God sent down guidance for every facet of life did God give human beings moral principles by which to conduct themselves in every domain of our earthly existence as Muslims we fully believe that we know that God sent down guidance through revelation since the beginning of human creation culminating in the final revelation to Muhammad and the final revelation contains guidance for every domain of life not just guidance for how to conduct ourselves as individuals but also guidance in the domains of family relations social relations community organization economics and yes even law and governance and it makes sense right if God in his ultimate wisdom created us to dwell on this earth he would also not want us to be stumbling around in the dark he would want to provide us with the light of guidance on how to live life on the micro scale but also guidance on how to organize our societies on the macro scale in terms of law politics and governance in Islam that guidance that encompasses both the micro and the macro is the sharia or Islamic law but my question is where is that guidance found in Christianity sure Christianity sets down principles on personal piety self-sacrifice modesty and other values on the individual scale but what about the macro scale what about law and governance where does Christianity Jesus Christ teach human beings how to regulate criminality how to set up a just judiciary system how to deal with hostile invading forces how to stamp out social vice where in Christianity are their specific guidelines for these things these things are important right human well-being critically depends on the society with just laws and governance right so where does Christianity tell us what just law and governance actually entail this is the Christian governance question and this is really a question about ideals what does Christianity say about the ideal Christian society what does Christianity teach regarding setting up the ideal Christian nation in Islam there is no mystery here Islam is very clear robust and detailed in its teachings about what kinds of law and governance the ideal Muslim nation has in fact Christians are very familiar with many aspects of the ideal Islamic nation because they're constantly criticizing it they claim that the ideal Islamic nation has corporal punishment capital punishment uh warfare and so forth as a Muslim I gladly concede all of that I have to concede all of that because the society of the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi was the ideal Islamic nation and included all of those things but David and Christian missionaries just want to criticize the ideal Islamic nation without defining the ideal Christian nation that's not fair you want to criticize Islam and the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi was for Islamic law and warfare and governance fine but what's your brilliant alternative look it's easy for Christians to criticize Muhammad sallallahu alaihi was for violence and intolerance because the reality is setting up laws and establishing governance is never a peaceful process no matter how good and pure a person you are there's always evil people that are going to oppose and fight you so what are you going to do are you going to give up establishing just laws on earth and allow evil satanic forces to rule or are you going to fight back which means resorting to violence because those are the only two options what's so bizarre from Christians is that they criticize the prophet Muhammad for this they criticize him for violence but that violence is inevitable for anyone who wants to establish a just society in the vision of god almighty the bible attests to this just look at the life of for example moses when Christians compare Muhammad sallallahu and jesus peace be upon them they say Muhammad was about war corporal punishment imposing law while jesus was about peace and turning the other cheek well that's not really a fair comparison because jesus was not involved in government or law he was not a general he did not call for armed struggle so of course he's going to be relatively more peaceful a fair comparison would be to ask if jesus were to have created the ideal christian nation and establish god's law and justice on earth how would he have done it and how could he have done it without resorting to violence bloodshed and intolerance the inconvenient truth for christians is jesus didn't create a christian nation jesus can be understood as following in the line of many hebrou prophets who did not aim to introduce a new law perhaps he was only refining elements of the old law he didn't aim to provide any specific guidance on how to establish the laws of governance of the ideal christian nation so if you can't look to jesus for guidance on how to establish this nation who can you look to muslims have the example of muhammad as the model where what do christians have the third inconsistency is that what i call the politics of jesus question david wood wants to make you believe that faith in jesus's message should cause you to be critical of islam the prophet muhammad and the sharia but is this true would jesus as he is described in the bible disapprove of muhammad well it really depends on jesus's political outlook there are at least three possible options the first possibility is that jesus was not concerned with politics law and war rather he's concerned only with individual salvation in other words jesus is not a political messiah rather he's an in a personal messiah for individual salvation on this view jesus is not concerned with criticizing or rebelling against the roman pagan regime and he would presumably not be interested in criticizing or rebelling against other regimes like an islamic government or a communist government or a liberal government he is not concerned with politics at all on this view of jesus jesus's teaching do not imply imply a critique of cesar's law and military politics but but this would also mean that jesus wouldn't be critical of prophet muhammad so his laws and military policies i mean why would jesus be fine with the pagan roman emperor who was engaged in persecuting believers but have a problem with muhammad so this option is out the second possibility is that jesus is concerned with politics and political change but he's an anarchist who believes in abolishing law and armies because these things are violent and intolerance this is why jesus says things like he who is without sin should cast the first stone or do not resist an evil person and turn the other cheek if someone assaults you or if an unjust person takes your coat give him your cloak as well the interpretation is that jesus is not talking about an an ethic of forgiveness in these bible verses he's actually talking about abolishing laws against assault and robbery he's against policing people he's against a military force that would stop a foreign army from assaulting and robbing the populace on this view jesus would see muhammad as very evil for the specific reason that muhammad is not an anarchist rather muhammad is someone who passed laws and had a military policy which entailed violence but of course such a view of jesus is absurd and no pre-modern christian ever believed he was an anarchist so this option is out the third possibility is that jesus is concerned with politics but he is not a proponent of anarchy rather he wishes to establish a modern liberal state according to this vision of jesus jesus wanted a state that felt something like modern human rights norms and had a foreign policy that consisted of strictly defensive wars on this view jesus would condemn islam because islam is not compatible with such a modern liberal state the problem with this option is that a modern liberal state of this type did not exist before the enlightenment in the 18th and 19th centuries furthermore modern liberal secularism was primarily created by atheists deists and critics of christianity furthermore earlier states established by christians like the bizantine empire the spanish empire etc none of these were modern liberal states or anything close in terms of respecting human rights and so forth how the so how could jesus have called for a state that never existed this is a historical error so this option is out furthermore christians should consider what is involved in a modern liberal state it involves among other things protecting the free speech of people who blaspheme god facilitating sex outside of marriage which destroys traditional family and gender roles where is that where is it that jesus claims that the state should protect so-called human rights of this type there is no proof of this by extension there is no proof that jesus would have condemned the prophet muhammad sallallam or islam for not sufficiently protecting people's rights to blaspheme and have fornication and who attack family life david wood is abusing the historical jesus by claiming that he was an advocate for these types of liberal ideals and that he would have disapproved of islam so this is the politics of jesus question and there's also the old testament question and the christian governance question if david cannot answer these three issues in the debate he really has no leg to stand on in criticizing islam for violence and intolerance and thank you very much for those opening statements want to say folks thrilled to have you here and if you haven't yet hit that subscribe button as we have many more juicy debates coming up in the future you don't want to miss them and with that we are going to jump into one hour of timed sections five minutes back and forth at a time starting with david thanks so much david the floor is all yours well i thought we'd hear a little bit more about islam there seemed mostly on christianity daniel asks well i'll to take these a little out of order and spread them out over this over these exchanges but he says don't you believe that jesus revealed those things in the old testament you'd have to get your theology a bit more accurate jesus is the god man god became incarnate just as he said he would in the old testament so jesus the god man wasn't wasn't back there uh his divine nature was um as the second person of the triumph god of the old testament so you could just say well don't you christians believe that god revealed those things in the past uh yes yes we do and so did your prophet uh in fact according to your prophet daniel Allah revealed the Torah that you're uh criticizing and calling uh saying that that it calls for genocide so you and your followers are attacking your own god and your own prophet here interesting debate tactic uh mocking your own god and prophet is is sure to catch us off guard now uh there are a lot of differences between mosaic law and sharia you're saying how can we criticize uh islamic law if we had mosaic law and there are some obvious differences mosaic law was limited geographically islam is supposed to rule over the entire world so if you didn't like mosaic law the border was right over there you didn't have to whereas islam is supposed to subjugate all of us um according to the bible the mosaic covenant was not the final revelation it was a stepping stone on the way to a new covenants but according to islam Muhammad's the final prophet there's nothing coming after him uh in the old testament god gives the mosaic law to the children of israel after delivering them uh from their bondage in egypt god doesn't go to the jews during their captivity and tell them that if they faithfully obey his laws then he will rescue them from the egyptians instead he rescues them first and then gives them the law this foreshadows the gospel but god demonstrates his own love towards us and that while we were yet sinners christ died for us it's romans five eight so biblical obedience to god is a result of god's love not a prerequisite for god's love by contrast according to the quran uh obedience to Allah's commands must precede Allah's love because Allah has no love for unbelievers or for those characterized by various sorts of sin so uh very big contrast between god redeeming the children of israel and then giving them you know legal requirements and uh islam saying that you have to earn god's love uh now claiming to and this this would be the the most important one for our purposes here claiming to speak for god is a pretty serious issue but the mosaic law came with uh more than mere bold assertions by moses god provided miracles before during and after his revelation of the law for instance judgments on the egyptians parting of the red sea water pouring from iraq men are falling from heaven and so on and the the pagans the canaanites the midianites they were aware of these miracles too so they knew who they were rebelling against if they went after israel by contrast the quran repeatedly denies that Muhammad's revelations were accompanied by any miracle other than the quran itself after being challenged by jews and christians for more than a century on Muhammad's lack of miracles muslims eventually composed a number of miraculous stories and incorporated them insulator sources um but these stories directly contradict the quran uh surah 10 verse 20 they say why is not a sign sent down to him from his lord say the unseen is only for a law to know then wait e i2 will wait with you uh 13 7 and the unbelievers say why is not a sign sent down to him from his lord but thou are truly a warner and to every people a guide uh surah 29 verses 50 to 51 yet they say why are not signs sent down to him from his lord say the signs are indeed with a law and i am indeed a clear warner and is it not enough for them that we have sent down to the the book which is rehearsed to them so the the the big difference here as far as i can tell is god is clearly revealing who's in charge with moses and so if you rebel it's clear who you're rebelling against whereas with Muhammad my goodness hey look at my lovely arabic prose it must be from god so the general rule here would be that uh if a pillar of smoke uh and a pillar of fire that led you into the promised land starts giving you orders you better obey them if on the other hand a pillar of perversion pillar of stupidity who led you to drink camel urine starts giving you orders uh you say no you're a false prophet you got it we'll kick it over to daniel for his five minute response daniel before is all yours well let me just respond to the miracles point um there are entire books written about the miracles of prophet muhammad sallallam it's a whole genre and there are so many hundreds of different miracles that were conducted other than the quran yes the quran is the main miracle of the prophet sallallam do you want to call all of those fabrications that came later what's your evidence for this because this these are coming from hadith that even western academics are sourcing to within 50 years maximum maximum 100 years of the prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam's life miracles that the canaanites and the amalek witness where's your proof that those aren't fabrications uh so i think this is a kind of a weak argument um about god's love and that god loves jesus loves people um just universally did he love the canaanites did he love the canaanite infants that were being uh slaughtered by moses's forces did he love the amalekites and all the other tribes that were order to be killed and slaughtered and destroyed and the other point that you made is that i'm trying to attack the old testament for its violence that's not my point like you completely misunderstood my point david my point is that how are you criticizing muhammad sallallam and the quran how are you criticizing us for abiding by this religion when these things are found in the old testament and you don't consider moses to be an evil person you're the one who is inconsistent i don't have a problem with the slavery that would have been practiced according to mosaic law i don't have a problem with many of these instances of violence and intolerance the people have a problem with it are atheists and liberals the kinds of people that you are sometimes you know fraternizing with on your youtube channel they are the ones who will criticize the old testament for those kinds of acts of violence and intolerance i'm not saying that everything that's in the old testament uh is exactly true because as muslims we believe in in tahrif basically that the older revelations have been modified and distorted and corrupted and by the way this is the view that is corroborated by the western scholarship but i'm not going to affirm or deny these things that are attributed to moses i'm just saying you explain them you explain how you cannot you consider muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam as an evil war monger bloodthirsty but moses you don't seem to have the same position as for this idea of the rules of war uh in the old testament were only limited to a certain geographical area or a certain time period well the time period is about 1300 years because that's the time that the mosaic law was applicable whether it was limited to a geographic location that's disputed in fact if we look at the hebrew interpreters and the orthodox jewish interpreters rabbinic authorities on the meaning of blotting out the amolec they viewed it as a continuous war from generation to generation and there are many verses in the old testament that mentioned this to blot out their name to kill their women their children their infants even their oxen so this is you know in according to jewish authorities called harem warfare and it's not something that was limited to just israel it could be expanded to other places and there are examples of a discretionary war that we can look at numbers within the old testament we can look at deuteronomy many verses that talk about the ability of israelites and jews to according to mosaic law attack offensively and to destroy these other religions and these pagan practices because they are violating mosaic law so you haven't really explained this and i cited all of those verses in my introduction and i mean this is a big issue because i don't understand how you can have this kind of conception of tolerance that you're applying to islam but this is also something that condemns the bible itself i'm not the one who is trying to condemn the bible i love muslims love muslims and we believe in the Torah we believe in the revelation of the past prophets they've just been corrupted and distorted but i don't have a fundamental problem with the violence there so i think you've misunderstood my entire argument you got it we'll kick it away i have 30 seconds can i just say one more thing sure sorry uh so also you cited a lot of augustine you cited a lot of different christian authors i don't think that's really irrelevant because i can also cite many christian authors who said very intolerant things who and christian emperors theodosius who was very intolerant with his policies you have to go back to the original sources because that's how you criticize islam you look at the prophet peace be upon him so when you're justifying just war theory and so forth uh place it in jesus's actual time all right we'll kick it over to david for five minutes as well yeah well the the point about just war theory was simply that that's how uh christianity influenced um governments you were asking about you know how does christianity control governments and so on um not by taking over governments by influencing human beings to have more respect for human life now you said that their entire books written on the miracles of muhammad i pointed out that these contradict the quran over and over and over again in the quran muhammad is challenged by the the unbelievers hey why doesn't your guy have miracles why is your guy so different from everyone else if muhammad is walking around performing these entire books of miracles these objections make absolutely no sense over and over and over again muhammad is challenged why aren't you performing miracles and a lot keeps making excuses oh it's because people from the past didn't believe in the miracles when they were given to them and so on and so that's why muhammad's not not not performing miracles um so again this makes no sense if muhammad is going around performing all kinds of miracles so all i'm saying here is according to your book according to your book he wasn't performing miracles the best explanation for later books saying it is that come on christians and jews were constantly challenging muhammad uh why he couldn't perform miracles eventually muslims wrote some stories very different from um old testament and from new testament but notice the pattern that god gives old testament and new testament if he's giving rules for living he really backs them up with why you should believe where these revelations are coming from and once again that's the difference that that's the difference i see here see keep in mind i have no problem with god crushing people i have no in fact when i was an atheist one of the objections i had to the existence of god you have a atheist today who'll say well if god exists why doesn't he you know make the world as pleasurable as possible or something like that my objection was if god existed he would wipe us out i have no problem with god as the creator having authority over life and death so if god decided to destroy us that's up that's that's up to god if god were here if god were right here right now and he started giving us orders and we said we don't care what you say we don't have to listen to you and god said well now i'm going to destroy you that hey he's he's the creator right so according to the books that both your prophet and your god affirm as the inspired word of god in which jesus affirmed as the word of god the exodus was accompanied by constant miraculous intervention god is raining food from heaven he is parting the red sea and he's literally going around as a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night so here again if there were a pillar of fire or a pillar of cloud giving us orders right now and you say i don't have to listen to you or if you're you're you're not one of the people who were actually following him you're someone else and you're saying i don't care what that pillar of fire says i don't care about these people who are just led through the the sea i say god has the right to give life or to take life this is very different from Muhammad coming along someone who comes along and the guy thinks he's his first impression of his revelations was that they were demonic he has to be talked out of that by his wife and her cousin he tried repeatedly to commit suicide whenever something was going wrong he would try to kill he would try to hurl himself off a mountain he admittedly was a victim of black magic that gave him delusional thoughts and false belief he admitted that satan tricked him into delivering revelations promoting polytheism i mean where do you see that in the prophet someone delivers a revelation promotes polytheism comes back later and says the devil made me do it so this is it's not just hey there's not enough good evidence here there's not enough miracles it's this guy is the least reliable person in history if i were to line up every person who's ever existed and say who is the least who's the last person i would follow telling me about god it would be Muhammad again not just because he's now performing miracles not just because he doesn't have any evidence it's because he has this amazing collection of features that make him the least reliable person in history and it's not just the things i've mentioned already it's it's other things like him just constantly getting revelations that have no purpose other than justifying uh then a lot giving him what he whatever desires he has happens to have for that day and so massive difference massive difference between god visibly appearing giving orders and you saying not following you and someone saying i'm not following Muhammad because he's the most obvious false prophet in history thank you very much David we'll kick it back over to daniel for five minutes oh one second i want to mention folks we have i don't know if we've ever gotten this many questions this fast so i want to mention if you're listening folks we are thrilled to have your questions as it is it makes it fun to have a q and a but i can't promise we'll get to new questions after this moment in time as we have had a huge amount come in but go ahead daniel for your five minutes wait so david is not really addressing the issue like we're not debating the miracles of the prophet Muhammad so i said we're not debating like the reliability of his message that's not the point of this debate it's about violence and intolerance so you need to address the points i'm making you're it seems like the argument that you're making is that moses had miracles and therefore it's it was okay to wipe out the canaanites and the amylokites and the other tribes but that how does that argument make sense because the order in the old testament is to kill babies as well and children uh do the babies understand miracles do the children like are they responsible for recognizing the truth of moses's message again i'm not claiming that this is actually what moses did this is what what is attributed to him in the old testament so i want you as a christian who accepts the old testament and thinks that moses was given commands by god who by the way is jesus christ part of the triune god explain how you are not how you would not be forced to denounce moses's policies and jesus's policies if you're using those kinds of criticisms against muhammad so i said that again about the miracles issue you're just not really educated on it it seems like there are many miracles of the prophet Muhammad mentioned in the seerah in the hadith literature in the just because the quran does not uh it quotes disbelievers Allah is quoting disbelievers of repeatedly refusing miracles just like you actually just like you in this debate are refusing to acknowledge the miracles of the prophet muhammad these disbelievers mushrikin kufar in his time were also repeatedly denying that any miracles took place but there were many miracles shown to all of the people within the arabian peninsula including uh things like splitting of the moon is raw well marriage uh this was the night journey to jerusalem uh the miraculous night journey there were even uh stones and tree stumps that would speak in front of people and testify to the oneness of god and the oneness of Allah these are miracles that are found in our seerah and hadith literature you want to just deny it whatever this is not what the debate is about this debate is about violence and you have not addressed any of the points that i made like explain to me is moses evil or not this should be not something that difficult for you to address so far the explanation that you have given uh doesn't really make sense and also with um you you mentioned earlier this idea that the commands of the mosaic law were limited to a particular geographic region and a particular time again that's not what he drew and jewish scholars have said memonites considered one of the foremost jewish scholars of history said that there is a continuous command because of these verses about the amilex to wage war to wipe out paganism including christian paganism throughout the entire globe so this is an expansive global war against everyone basically who is not following the mosaic law so everyone has that interpretation you have something that has no historical precedent precedence an interpretation that's not based on the actual words of the old testament and the authoritative religious interpretation of not only jews but even christian scholars because you have a lot you have a lot of christian scholars and emperors roman christian roman emperors who interpreted the old testament in this kind of violent expansionist way all the way up until you know the colonial era and with colonial slavery wiping out of the native americans wiping out many native peoples throughout the world all of that violence was justified on the basis of labeling the enemies of the christians as amelokites so how can you deny all of this precedence all of this interpretation and instead you're talking about miracles and something that's really unrelated to this debate we could get over to david for five minutes yeah on that last point that it was expansionistic that it was expansionistic and wasn't limited geographically exodus 2331 god says to the israelites i will fix your boundary from the red sea to the sea of the philistines and from the wilderness to the river your freight euphrates so i mean he actually he actually gives them a boundary and you're saying there's no boundary it's supposed to conquer the entire world you're looking back at that from an islamic perspective you say jewish scholars don't view this the old testament as uh as limited but our topic is not the jewish perspective it's the christian perspective the christian perspective we point out that in the old testament god repeatedly said that there was a new covenant coming that that is not the final covenant that there is a new covenants and uh if you're still waiting on a new covenant that's up to you but jesus said uh he was bringing the new covenant now you said we're not debating uh miracles or these other issues about muhammad uh yeah we're the debate is not focused on those but if you're at if you're saying i'm inconsistent i'm inconsistent because i believe that god had the right to give like give life and take life in the old testament and that god could wipe us out if he wanted and you're saying well if you think that god can give life and take life why do you have a problem with muhammad doing it uh i think i've explained this multiple times that's i i really don't understand i don't understand how this is not clear if god is standing here right now blasting lightning bolts and he gives us orders and we say we don't care what you say god can issue whatever punishment he wants when someone like muhammad comes along thinking he's demon possessed delivering revelations from the devil and then blaming the devil for them um trying repeatedly to kill himself saying that he's the victim of black magic that gives him delusional thoughts and false beliefs when he goes around he's sucking on the tongues of little boys and aisha has to constantly wash the semen off of him uh when he comes up with all these rules saying that most of the punishment of the grave is from urinating improperly so he has to tell you how to how to pee properly and how to wipe yourself properly and he just seems massively obsessive compulsive when i'm looking at someone like this i'm thinking that this is the least reliable person in history and the general rule daniel is not everyone can just come along and say now the entire world has to submit to my rules now the entire world has to submit to my rules you can't just be you can't just follow any random person who makes these kinds of claims if you're going to let someone tell you how to live if you're going to let someone tell you about god you should probably find someone who's trustworthy and moses who leads the children of israel out of bondage out of slavery through the red sea into the promised land pillar of cloud by day pillar of fire by nights raining food down on them and then giving them continuing ongoing miraculous preservation in israel i look at that and say okay well if he does that then you should probably listen to him talking about jesus even according to islam he was raising the dead he was cleansing lepers he was confirmed by miracles uh muhammad comes along all the karan does is deny that he could perform miracles and then you have to go to later sources when we know for a fact that was a period when muslims are inventing stories left and right we know this because i mean the reason for compiling collections like bukhari and so is there so many false stories being invented they were inventing stories about muhammad like it was a sport and again even if you wanted to say you trust them they contradict the karan and so uh as far as uh you know us debating violence and intolerance uh yes we are i have no problem with with again i had no problem with god giving life taking life it's how do we know that something is actually coming from god we have no reason to think that muhammad is from god and so muhammad has no business going around taking life how much time do i have i forgot to set a timer you've got 46 seconds oh awesome awesome awesome um and you say that that you're not saying that moses did these things you believe that earlier revelations were corrupted uh your prophet certainly did your prophet did your prophet believed that that the jews still had the inspired preserved authoritative word of god in fact and synonym abba daud he ordered uh the jews to bring him a copy of the Torah and they brought him the cop their copy of the Torah and he said i believe in you and in the one who revealed you um your god says in the karan uh you have no ground to stand upon unless you stand upon the Torah the gospel and all the revelation that has come to you so he clearly believed that uh that the Torah is the inspired preserved authoritative word of god and if you're saying he's wrong well that's one more reason to not trust muhammad you got it we'll kick it back over to daniel floor is all yours daniel yeah so david do you have that copy of the Torah that the prophet said i was mentioning you have the copy so i can see exactly what is in it so we can see if it matches the current Old Testament again a completely irrelevant and stupid point frankly so let me understand your position david so basically you're saying that you would support sex slavery you would support executing apostates you would support slavery in general you would support stoning adulterers you would support you know wife beading wife scourging you would support all of these things if it was commanded by a prophet that had sufficient miracles am i understanding you correctly so you're just hinging this entire debate on whether the prophet sallallahu alaihi sallam had uh miracles that were sufficiently convincing or not that's like your whole position so really you have no problem with uh all of these aspects of islamic law you find them perfectly acceptable because if god had if the prophet sallallahu alaihi sallam was a true prophet and this is the message that he's bringing then there's no objection that you have to sex slavery slavery in general uh punishment for uh death penalty for blasphemy for apostasy and on and on you have no issues with those things in in and of themselves just clarify that for the audience because i think that'll be very revealing to your christian audience um regarding you know muslims have rules when it comes to purity and urine and how to clean themselves and wipe themselves yes muslims do have that islam does have that kind of level of guidance because muslims are clean muslims are pure we know how to purify and clean ourselves with water and this is part of the guidance of revelation from the creator of all human beings and that's the thing that islam brings guidance from the minutia of human existence the day-to-day existence of human beings as well as the macro level things such as how to run society how to have proper commercial transactions how to have proper just judiciary systems how to have all of these things that are so important for human existence this was as i mentioned the christian governance question there's nothing uh in jesus's teaching that provides guidance on this and i'm not trying to blame jesus for this i just don't think that that was his aim i obviously as a muslim love jesus more than life itself jesus is the messiah muslims believe that we're awaiting his return his triumphant return to establish the kingdom of god on earth which by the way is going to be quite violent even according to the eschatological eschatology and the apocalyptic apocalyptic passages within the new testament but you know he wasn't that wasn't his aim to establish within that time 2000 years ago the kingdom of god and establish rules and establish regulations in the way that the prophet muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam did in the way that moses with mosaic did before so how can christians have an ideal christian nation what is the ideal christian nation this is what david you haven't even touched upon this topic please define that for us and again you can't just cite augustine here and whatever cherry picking that you want to do to cite these kinds of figures and the the ones that most match this kind of liberal secular modernist view that you constantly advocate on your channel show us within jesus's teachings show us within the bible what are the principles of just governance and this ideal christian nation because that's what i'm really curious about and yeah i think that it's don't bring into this discussion about miracles and these irrelevant issues stay on the topic violence intolerance address those issues okay go over david go ahead david all right uh daniel you ask about the ideal christian nation that there's no concept and it's muslims who regard this as a problem because they think of their prophet as coming to take over the world whereas jesus said that his kingdom is not of this world so jesus isn't here to establish the ideal christian nation jesus is here to build the church and so he does that and as far as uh as far as different types of govern governments go again the church would want to influence these governments but christianity far more so than islam is is principle based more than rule based um in islam you have absolutely no clue how to do anything unless a lot tells you you don't you you literally don't know how to pee you literally do not know how to go to the bathroom you don't know how to step into the bathroom properly you have to have all these little rules for everything and then you say you say well you don't have those in christianity well christianity is rule based it gives you principles love your neighbor as yourself do unto others as you would have them do unto you it's it we're it's not built into our system you have to have all these little rules we're created in we're created in the image of god we're not we're not just we're not drones here right we're we're we're ambassadors for the almighty now uh going back you said do i have a copy of the Torah that Muhammad had well that's a copy of the Torah that Muhammad had in seventh century Arabia so this is almost i mean this is more than 2000 years after the Torah has been circulating do we know what the Torah that Jews had in the seventh century uh said yes we have copies of the Torah before that the Dead Sea Scrolls and so on we have copies of the Torah uh afterwards and so if that's the inspired preserved authoritative word of god according to your god and your prophet um my goodness if you're saying it's been corrupted it doesn't go well for uh for your god and your prophet uh now you asked would i support things like stoning and death penalty for blasphemy and uh so you said sex slavery i just want to clear when you're talking about the Midianites and so on if they were going to take those they had to marry them they had to marry their captives this isn't just you're going to be my uh you know i'm taking you as my sex slave so different from Islam but as far as stoning and the death penalty for blasphemy i don't know how many more times i can say it and if you want me to be as clear as possible yes if there is a pillar of cloud right here who is performing all kinds of miracles raining food down upon us and so on and that pillar of cloud uh orders us not to blaspheme and we blaspheme i have no problem with them with him putting us to death it's clear that we are in rebellion against our creator when someone like Muhammad comes along and gives us rules not only is there no clear clear reason to think that in resisting him we're rebelling against our creator it seems like the exact opposite like this is an obvious false profit and we're not supposed to listen to false prophets so again when a guy comes along and he thinks he's demon possessed and he he uh he's suicidal tries repeatedly to hurl himself off a cliff um when he i mean he admits that he delivered revelations from the devil he admits that he is a victim of black magic um his his his rules make him sound massively obsessive compulsive i mean you know i mean most people don't know but i mean you have rules for uh plucking here and uh and and there and i mean it's just it was obsessed with controlling every little facet of your life you look at that and say you see it's this holistic thing and this proves that it's from god i'm looking at that saying this is the weirdest dude i've ever encountered in my entire life there's i mean again it's the most massive collection of signs that this guy is not speaking on behalf of god that's yeah i mean if you if you think that's the same as god speaking from a a cloud of fire and giving you some rules uh we're interpreting this very very differently um and you again seem to like this you say we've got rules from use for using the bathroom muslims know how to be clean i mean the rules are like you have to wipe with an odd number of stones and you have to pee while squatting and you don't need these things to be clean it's just absolute nonsense to say that if you if you don't pee uh squatting um so much for the patriarchy here but um it's just it's just weird to say if you don't pee while squatting you're you're you're dirty or something like that and keep in mind your prophet said that most of the punishment of the grave is from peeing improper you're you're not squatting to the pee and this just it it sounds absolutely insane to me so uh no this guy should not be giving rules uh about killing people you gotta thank you very much we'll kick it over to daniel for his five minute response i mean yeah it is disgusting if you're standing in urinating have you been to like some of these restrooms in public or even at the houses of christians actually where it's just urine everywhere and it splashes back on their clothes yeah it's disgusting man i don't know what's why you're criticizing this of all the things you want to criticize you're like i'm fine with the stoning in and of itself and the killing for blasphemers but it's the urine issue that i have a problem with uh second of all you're calling uh islam obsessive and the sharia obsessive but hello have you heard of mosaic law have you have you heard of the tau mood have you heard of all of these kinds of rules and regulations that are found regarding the Sabbath and keeping kosher take a look at that maybe and see if you're not overwhelmed with the amount of rules that are required in orthodox Judaism which is exactly derived from the old testament according to orthodox jews so if you have a problem with islam in that sense then you have a problem with the old testament again and orthodox jews jews in general i don't see you making any videos about them then the other thing is that people need a pillar of cloud you know a miraculous pillar of smoke and lightning in order to believe in revelation okay well then you're justifying all the disbelief in jesus in the world today by atheists and bisexual people isn't this not your argument you are undermining your in your entire religion with this kind of argument why should people believe in revelation why should people believe in the bible there's not a literal cloud of smoke that's commanding it this is the kind of stupid argument that people the likes of richard dockens and sam harris make and you're just parroting that like where's the evidence of god i don't see lightning coming from the sky where's the you know hand from heaven and therefore why should i believe in the bible this is the kind of argument you're making and it's it's quite uh ridiculous also i want to really hold you to this point about um expansionist war in the new testament because i think you should really read uh this passage in or i maybe i'll read it for you and do to ronnie if i can pull it up yeah in the meantime folks want to remind you we have so many questions i had never seen so many questions come in the first 30 minutes that i want to warn you folks we almost certainly won't be able to read your question if it comes in this late sorry about that folks but we have to get these guys out of here so they can get to sleep at a decent time but go ahead daniel so i'll i'll find in the next five minutes i'll read you the exact passage but it describes it rules for expansionist war and it does not limit it to a certain border it does not limit it to a certain time i mean look at the modern state of israel okay if you want to denounce israel that's fine but they literally name their missiles their nuclear missiles jericho they name their nuclear missiles after these biblical tribes and they and benjamin nate and yahoo all of these israeli politicians refer to their enemies for example in iran or the arab world the muslim world in general and sometimes even american politicians as amalek as amalek the people that who that the bible commands to block their name so that you know their their names really blotted from the earth so this interpretation that you're given is i don't think true to the old testament and i cite the jews and cite um orthodox jews because they have an authoritative interpretation of the old testament if you want to denounce them and say that they don't know what they're talking about only modern christians not even christians within the first 1800 years of christianity but only us now in the 21st century understand the real meaning of the old testament okay you can make that claim it will sound ridiculous to everyone but feel free to make it take it over to david all right well i i quoted um i mean i quoted exodus to you i will establish your borders from the red sea to the Mediterranean sea and from the desert to the euphrates river um there were times when the jews would need to go to war with people from farther off but this concept of them having this obligation to go out and violently subjugate the world that's that's an islamic concept um now i don't even know why i'm saying this uh uh so you said have you been to a christian house um christians have urine all over um my goodness yeah that's definitely what our houses are like isn't that right christians just urine all over the walls and so on do you see how they have to this is this is how muslims think we're just like walking around covered in urine uh i have to say it's i've heard it's much harder for a guy to squat while peeing keep in mind we're not talking about sitting on a toilet you're talking about squatting while peeing then standing up where i don't know i have pretty good aim i mean i can write my name in the snow if i want to you say the talmud has lots of rules too this isn't about having lots of rules i mean according to according to the christian perspective the old testament is a kind of school master until we actually get the law written on our hearts and so uh it's not surprising that you would have rules but it i mean that's that's not the issue here it's that muhammad comes with nothing except issue upon issue upon issue and he's giving you all these details about about how to regulate every little aspect of your life it's almost like he's giving you all these things to keep you distracted from the fact that he is the most obvious false prophet in history right and he does with his obsession with proper ways of going to the bathroom and how many dates to eat for this and how many stones to wipe yourself with and how frequently you need to pluck this or that that doesn't sound like a normal guy who's giving you important rules for living i mean you compare that stuff to something basic like love your neighbor or do unto others as you would have them do unto you there's there's no compare i mean there's no comparison here and it really seems like here do all these little things that make absolutely no sense and these will keep you convinced that you're the true people of God and that you are as surah 3 verse 110 says the best of people's have erased up for mankind and keep you thinking that that jews and christians are the worst of creatures as surah 98 verse 6 declares now you you misrepresented me here and said i was claiming that people need miracles in order to believe in revelation not my point at all i mean if you're i mean if you're if you're going to believe in revelation yes there there should be evidence for it i believe we have that evidence but that's not what i'm talking about at all i'm saying if someone comes along and starts saying here's some here you have to put some people to death we have to execute some people we can't allow blasphemy here are the punishments for this or that you shouldn't just let anyone come up to you and start giving orders like that and biblically you're not supposed to just let anyone come up to you and start giving orders like that that's why we're told not to not to follow false prophets in the bible and if you look at the criteria in the bible for a false prophet i mean my goodness muhammad is like the paradigm example of someone that no one should ever listen to so when muhammad comes along and again this is the same guy who tried repeatedly to hurl himself off a cliff he's the same guy whose first impression of his revelations was that they were demonic he's the same guy who claims to be a victim of black magic that's giving him delusional thoughts and false beliefs he's the same guy who keeps getting these revelations that have no purpose other than satisfying his desires to the point where his own wife aisha his child bride said after he got one of these revelations my your lord hastens to satisfy your wishes and desires she's noticing this when that guy comes out and says we have to violently subjugate the entire world and anyone who criticizes me being the the most obvious false prophet in history anyone who criticizes me has to be killed and anyone who tries to leave me has to be killed and if our wives speak out we'll just beat them into submission someone comes along like that that is not the sort of person that anyone should be listening to and so to actually compare that sort of thing the most obvious false prophet in history giving you rules about slaughtering unbelievers in the name of Allah and listening to him and you compare that to a pillar of cloud telling you you'd better listen to him uh again there's no comparison here we got over to Daniel for five minutes all right so I have the passage in Deuteronomy when you march up to attack a city make its people an offer of peace if they accept and open their gates all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you if they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle they siege that city when your lord your god delivers it into your hand put the sword to all put the sword to all the men in it as for women the children the livestock and everything else in the city you may take these as plunder for yourselves and you may use the plunder of the plunder the lord your god gives you from your enemies this is how you are to treat all the cities that are at our distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby okay so this is Deuteronomy 20 versus 10 through 20 so continuing however in the cities of the nations the lord your god is giving you as an inheritance do not leave alive anything that breathes completely destroy them and then it mentions the the tribes as the lord your god has commanded you otherwise they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods and you will sin against the lord your god so this is very explicit that it's talking about nations that are nearby and nations that are not nearby meaning the entire world and again this is how authoritative scholars like Maamanites have interpreted including Roman emperors including the Byzantines including the Spanish on and on only modern liberal Christians such as yourself who really your true religion is liberal secularism in modern human rights and you're just putting this Christian window dressing only Christians like that have a different interpretation of this verse you know you want to reduce Islam to being concerned with you know urine and stuff like that let me tell you what Islam teaches Islam teaches belief in the one god creator without associating partners with him Islam teaches to respect revere and follow the prophets that have come throughout time since the beginning of creation of Adam peace be upon him all the way to the final messenger Muhammad peace be upon him Islam teaches love for your parents respect for your parents Islam teaches to look to the signs of god almighty in the creation and marvel at his wonder and his bounty Islam teaches you to have sincerity to god to not be a hypocrite Islam teaches you to not have hatred and facade or jealousy in your heart Islam teaches you to have wonderful families beautiful communities worshiping god day after day five times a day from the moment we wake up to the moment we go to bed to maintain the remembrance of god almighty Allah on the tongues continuously with praising god with thanking god constantly and constantly called vicar this is what Islam teaches it is the true religion of god it is beautiful and i mean these are the same this is the heart of the religion is true piety and love and devotion and submission to god almighty and then the bonus is that we also get to understand how to live life from the minutiae the micro scale all the way to larger macro matters how we can organize society how we can establish a just society in god's vision on this earth how can you live i mean christians will be surprised i'm surprised to hear you say that which you just did five minutes ago or 10 minutes ago that actually there is no ideal christian nation really are christians supposed to just sit back and allow these tyrants and these satanic forces to just come and destroy the churches to destroy belief in god are christians supposed to just sit back and allow blasphemy blasphemers all under the banner of free speech and tolerance and liberalism to you know create this speaking of urine piss christ right where they take an image of jesus christ and they put it in a vat of urine and they call this art or they go and start talking about the blessed virgin mary and they call her a prostitute or a whore and we're supposed to just sit back and say okay there's no problem with this yes what islam has a clear solution for people who blaspheme against jesus christ who blaspheme against the virgin mary i'm very shocked to hear david would say that yeah we don't have any guidance when it comes to these kinds of issues because you know whatever so muslims we have a solution we're not going to let people do this piss christ or insult the virgin mary we don't tolerate that we're not about that and you know i really hope that christians can see the wisdom of the sharia and islamic law at least through this lens got it thank you very much we'll go over to david for five minutes all right uh daniel quotes deuteronomy interpreting this as a command to subjugate the entire world again you have to be you have to be viewing this through islamic lenses where where have you seen jews do this where have you seen jews going out and subjugating the entire world they did have a concept of being at war with other nations they had a con not just the nations of the land that god gave them they had a concept of being at war with other nations and of triumphing over them they're not they understand they understand that they may have to have war against other cities that are far away that they may conquer those cities and so on they're not going around subjugating the world again where did they where did they do this they had plenty of time when did they do this and they had they had some very powerful kings along the way when did they do this you you said that my religion is modern liberalism no modern liberalism has been influenced by my religion but then they just they took god out of the equation and that's why they had some problems explaining their reasons right so so the idea that we should care about everyone in the world that we should love everyone in the world that we should promote the the human rights of of everyone in the world whether they you know whether other people are the same religion is us or the same skin color is us and so on that came from the christian concept that god loves us that were created in the image of god and so on eventually that permeates society and then they take god and jesus out of it and if you ask them well why what why should we why should i be concerned with someone on the other side of the world it's not a very good answer but this is why we happen to line up on certain issues like don't kill someone that you have no right to kill as we find jihad he's doing quite frequently you said islam teaches and you gave this thing is list of a long list of things that you believe is good one god no partners and so on i don't know about that i mean islam seems a very muhammad focused religion a law seems like a very muhammad focused god you know we could get into you know kissing the black stone and so on i'll admit that that is that is outside um our current topic uh but you you seem to be giving uh this list that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here my point is that we have no reason to trust muhammad as giving commands uh from god we just have none and so when a guy like this comes out and starts telling you go and kill this person go and kill that person go murder this group subjugate jews subjugate christians uh tell these other people to convert or die beat these women in a submission uh kill that cartoonist over there he's making fun of me when someone like that starts giving you orders that the correct response should be uh why should i believe anything you're saying and all we have as well islam teaches one god islam teaches uh love for parents muhammad teach and islam teaches look to the signs great families i mean i hear you bringing this up with great families i mean muhammad had one of the most dysfunctional families i've ever heard about and i grew up in west virginia trailer park so we know about some dysfunctional families uh but i mean my goodness all those wives the uh the sex slaves the wives constantly fighting and bickering um muhammad gets caught with his having sex with his slave girl and his wife hops his bed then you know he's where he's going to have to divorce all his wives because they're complaining this is massively dysfunctional and if that's your ideal pattern uh you got some issues here and uh so the final point you say that uh you know christians we just you know we allow people to blaspheme that's true jesus allowed people to blaspheme against him right jesus jesus did people were saying all sorts of things about jesus jesus said he could he could call on he could call on plenty of angels uh to wipe them out uh but he didn't and so that's really the strange thing here that uh i don't think you're getting you think we're being inconsistent for pointing out that uh that muhammad did all these things and there's there's no reason to think that he's speaking from god and so we're hypocritical for pointing out all this violence the commands that jesus gave us to love everyone even our enemies we take these seriously these are the commands that are directed towards us so when muhammad comes along and says that he's in the same line with jesus and he turns jesus into a muslim prophet that's blasphemy so if you think that uh islam is here to punish blasphemers against jesus check the mirror buddy you got to thank you very much david we'll kick it over to daniel for five minutes as well and we've got only this is the last five minute actually uh portion so for is all yours daniel okay well i mean why did the jews not conquer it's not because uh or didn't conquer the world or have many conquests it's not for lack of effort or it's not because they didn't have the command to do that they just weren't successful they weren't like muslim so i mean uh don't hate the player hate the game that's basically what i have to say about that and this idea that christianity inspired uh liberalism i mean this is uh very silly because again the main writers of liberalism and the main creators of liberalism were deists they were atheists some of them were extremely hostile to traditional christianity and they actually wanted to leave the influence of christianity and the church and the influence of scripture so i think your history there is quite messed up about jesus allowing blasphemy uh do you so you think that jesus would be okay with people being allowed in his society to insult his mother and and call her a prostitute and call him basically uh you know i don't want to use the word like do you think the society this is something that jesus would approve of well what's the result of such a society because this kind of widespread blasphemy actually leads to atheism it leads to mass apostasy it leads to the destruction of religion because religion is seen as something that is to be spit on to be laughed at to be insulted and that's what we see in the modern secular west and to say that jesus is fine with that it would tolerate that well if you're really saying that that means that jesus's message is will lead to the extinction of christianity and in fact when when you look at the actual christian fathers and the roman catholic church they were extremely harsh about stamping out blasphemy they were extremely harsh about stamping out any kind of heresy so i guess according to you they misunderstood jesus's message because they were forcing mass conversion they were killing the heretics they were killing the blasphemers i guess they for a thousand years or actually 1700 years didn't understand the true message of christianity it only took john lock or thomas jefferson to come along and say that you know actually christianity is inspiring us to write the declaration of independence and to value free speech so that people can go and make piss christ i mean this is a very bizarre interpretation i mean ultimately um when we talk about tolerance um what is tolerance this is something that needs to be defined so when david talks about tolerance he's talking about a liberal tolerance and this is based on the idea that we should allow people to maximize their individual freedom and any restriction on people's individual freedom using the law or using coercion is intolerant okay so for example if you don't let people blaspheme against jesus if you don't let people um commit you know all kinds of deviant sexual acts and you restrict that then you're being intolerant so this is the kind of liberal tolerance that islam doesn't have obviously we have all these corporal punishments the hudud and so forth and we have expansionist war and so forth so we islam is not tolerant according to liberalism and this is basically david's whole argument but there's another view of tolerance we can call it traditional tolerance because traditional tolerance is based on the idea that individuals and human beings they need to be in families they have a need to be in loving marital relationships they have a need to be a part of a community they need to have faith in god and have a connection with god and these are all values that are extremely important to human beings but if you uh have this kind of tolerance this liberal tolerance for everything where you're maximizing human liberty human freedom and choice that will actually destroy marriages that will destroy families that will destroy communities and this is exactly why liberal uh islam restricts people's individual liberty despite people saying that this is intolerant or this is contrary to liberalism yeah islam does contradict liberalism and this idea of liberal tolerance but we want to tolerate and this is very clear within the sharia we tolerate christian uh family law jewish family law the sharia yes it's not uh it doesn't grant equal equality between muslims and religious minorities but it allows this kind of tolerance and when we look at the history of christianity in the muslim world christians have been living for over a thousand years with their institutions with their religion and rituals in muslim lands run by sharia but look at 200 years of secularism christianity is dying out christianity is on the way out churches are closing there's mass apostasy and this is the dialogue secularism we will jump into i don't know how this is going to go but we are going to go into open dialogue thank you very much gentlemen and by the way want to remind you folks our guests are linked in the description we really do appreciate these guys and so i want to encourage you as always to attack the arguments instead of the person in the live chat and the comments but with that we're going into open discussion the floor is all yours gentlemen all right um you you you seem really confused and i i get it that most muslims are um about how we could uh not i guess kill someone who blasphemes against jesus and this goes back to uh to different ideas in our religions if there was ever a time there was ever a time to defend jesus by slaughtering his enemies that would have been in the garden of gethsemane where a group of soldiers came to take him uh into custody and ultimately take him to his execution and one of his followers peter actually did uh actually did pull out a sword and uh used it jesus rebuked him said put your sword back into its place those who live by the sword will die by the sword so the idea that we have from jesus is uh hey god doesn't need you out going around uh slaughtering people who say something about jesus but notice if we didn't hold that view if we said nope anyone who says something wrong about jesus anyone who who uh who condemns jesus uh anyone who blasphemes jesus uh we have to go on a killing spree i mean islam blasphemes jesus every bit as much as uh any atheist does and so look at look at what you're saying you you're you're you're arguing for a massive bloodbath hey anyone who says something wrong about jesus we have to go on a killing spree so we gotta go and kill we gotta go kill the atheists we gotta kill the muslims gotta kill this is this is not the point first of all uh uh islam and christianity are the only pro jesus religions in the world right there are plenty of religions actually that are atheists and jews they have a very derogatory notion of jesus arguably they are anti jesus you don't have any criticism for them you want to say that muslims are blaspheming jesus when we love jesus we're expecting his return we want to be followers of jesus in the end times okay so if this makes us you know the blasphemers that you want to focus on that seems kind of bizarre but i want to ask you this question when you say that live by the sword die by the sword this is jesus is a value okay that can be a good personal value of self-sacrifice forgiveness i can see that but what if you are in a christian city or a christian country or nation and there is an invading force of pagans let's say or whatever atheists who want to come and slaughter all of the christians they want to take all of your land they want to take all of your property should the christians as a policy uh just turn the other cheek and say you know live by the sword die by the sword we're not going to resist is this the kind of pacifism that you're advocating uh no i thought i made this clear my opening statement i don't know if you were if you caught it all um but the the new testament does talk about governments and protecting people's rights and having to punish uh wrongdoers and so on and and it's it's the combination of this this idea of respecting other human beings and loving other human beings while understanding the necessity for war in certain circumstances that gives rise to just war theory so i know you know you're a little confused by me quoting agustin and so on there i was just giving a little history about how how the the ideas were brought together and applied to uh to other situations but as far as what jesus was saying jesus is talking about people sort of people coming after him right there it's understood that there are governments that there are laws huh but that's what i'm saying it's a contradiction people were coming after jesus and he says don't raise a sword so that kind of value that kind of teaching cannot apply for an entire nation of people because the the the bible doesn't it i don't believe that that does apply uh that the idea there is you've got jesus if someone's coming after jesus and god knows what he's doing and jesus tells you hey do not defend me uh it seems it doesn't seem like now i should be going around killing people over jesus when when someone actually did that when someone actually tried to do that tried to try to defend jesus with a sword he said don't do that he's not he's not saying he's not saying hey no one should ever defend themselves or country shouldn't defend themselves against invaders and so on you're specifically asking you know how can we allow blasphemy against jesus how can we not kill people over blasphemy against jesus i'm saying i'm saying that's the example we got from jesus if jesus is saying hey don't hack people up over me then who am i to say now you know what i think i gotta go start hacking i gotta i gotta start hacking people up over jesus so then how do you interpret all of these christians uh throughout history all of the uh roman emperors christian roman emperors in the catholic church that were killing heretics oh and they in in jesus's name because of their beliefs i can tell you i can tell you yeah i can give you i give you you're gonna denounce all of that this is this is my take on this right for three centuries for three centuries christians didn't kill anyone it never occurred to them that they're supposed to control the world um the according to the new testament the harshest penalty that the church gives as the church is excommunication paul says who am i to judge those outside the church god will judge those outside the church so the christian concept as far as you know penalties and so on hey you don't want to follow the rules of christianity there's the door over there there's the door christians don't cause any problems and will generally be fine uh under under various governments when christianity permeated the roman empire the emperor constantine eventually gets so he's so he's a pagan but he gets a dream and he sees a cross and uh he in in this dream which he interprets as revelation it says conquer by this so he's supposed to conquer by the cross what you have there again this is my take what you have after that is a sort of christian roman emperor roman empire hybrid and the roman empire had a roman empire kind of way of doing things the the ideals of the roman empire are crush everything that gets in our way uh destroy we have to control we have to control the world we have to conquer and then now it becomes and we're doing this with jesus we're doing this with jesus we're doing this with christianity so it's my view that these these these ideas don't come from christianity you never get the idea from the apostle paul or from actually jesus jesus said render unto caesar what is caesar's so he actually does explicitly endorse caesar he does endorse actually the roman empire yeah but that's not that's not him controlling it i mean that that's a pagan roman emperor that's that's typerius there exactly so it's jesus is yes jesus saying you're not even you're not going that far you're saying that you're actually distancing christianity from the actions of constantine and these other figures authoritative figures theodosius and the ones who are killing all of the heretics that are killing this this is the opposite of this is the opposite of what you just said so jesus jesus sees no conflict between um having obligations to a non non christian government and having your obligation towards god so you you have your obligation towards god you have your obligations towards your government which isn't even a christian government what i'm saying is what are those those those two things combined well i mean if you're talking about obligations to a to a government i would be i mean in that case it's it's paying taxes you had an obligation to pay taxes who says render you have to support the invasion you have to support the killing you have to support with your taxes as you mentioned all of this expansionist war all of the torture all of the slavery all the sex slavery this is what caesar is doing and jesus is saying render into caesar what is caesar's so that's an endorsement how is your interpretation that you you mentioned several times this is my interpretation this is my interpretation okay i don't really care for their interpretation i want to know what christianity actually says and i consider these figures within christian history much more authoritative than you i mean augustine also justified persecuting heretics right you're quoting uh augustine but he's also justifying that in his books and and and what i'm saying is if you look at what jesus said you don't get the idea that you're supposed to go around uh killing heretics again again render unto caesar what is caesar's that is an endorsement of that government which was killing her heretics killing that's the tradition that you're citing right with constant that government what heretics was the roman government jesus christ he was crucified right according to um no you're you're a little confused you're a little confused as to as to what i'm saying jesus did you forget that jesus was being persecuted jesus is talking about paying taxes to the government right so jesus said hey you've got a government and you have your interpretation right that's not what when he says render to caesar the the the it means just taxes that's what he said right there that that was that's exactly what it was should we pay the caesar's should we pay the tech do you not know that do you not know the actual story they they're they're i know how christians they've been trying to that statement no it's exact it's exactly the situation that they were actually in someone comes to the his his enemies come to him and say is it lawful to pay taxes to caesar or not right so they're trying to trap him here because if he says yes we pay taxes to caesar the sort of the jews who want a rebellion the empire are now going to hate jesus if he says no we don't pay taxes to caesar then the romans would crush him either way he's in trouble and he says show me a coin that used to pay the tax and they show him a coin with a picture of tachyberias caesar on it he says render to caesar what caesar's so that's in other words hey that's his that's him that's his inscription if he wants the coin given the coin he doesn't seem to the point is this is not something we we we're gonna fight over it's his coin it's his coin give it to him right so we didn't we didn't take your interpretation that's not that's exactly what the story that's exactly what that's the story but i'm saying what that's not taken from when i say when i talk about my interpretation i was talking about how later on how later on you're talking about centuries later again three three centuries of christianity if you're a heretic the message is there's the door dude we'll try and convince you otherwise but if you're not going to listen to to the leaders in the church christians weren't empowered to actually christians weren't empowered to impose those kinds of laws in those centuries it only was with constantine it was only with this conversion of the roman empire to catholicism that they had the power and as soon as they got power as you just cited yourself with constantine they started killing in the name of the cross um you you should know very well you don't if you really want to kill someone you really want to kill a heretic you don't need to have political power we see jihadis we see jihadis going around no you don't jihadis go around killing people all the time um you can be a vigilante you can do all kinds of things the point is you don't get the idea kill heretics from jesus the the the only example you have the only example you have is people coming to kill him and he says don't defend me well jesus says don't defend me and that's the situation right i mean that's the situation that's the perfect situation to defend him his followers were ready to do it and he says don't do it um again who am i there this there's nothing that comes after this right there's there's there isn't a revelation that comes after this and says oh by the way now it's time to start killing people so all i have is the example of jesus who says don't defend him in that way and uh so yeah but i don't know jesus's example look there's multiple contradictions i'm pointing out if you take jesus's example of not lifting the sword don't defend yourself against violence turn the other cheek these aren't rules that you can extrapolate and make rules for an entire christian nation um otherwise christianity would have been wiped out within you know the first few centuries um that's the main point that i'm trying to make but you just keep referring to okay well jesus didn't say this jesus didn't say that um but those aren't rules that can be applied on a macro scale and this seems to be a problem for your interpretation of christianity other christians throughout history did not share your interpretation they did engage in uh execution of blasphemers they did execute the apostates they look at the justinian look at the bizantine empire look at the spanish reconquista they all had this interpretation uh that is much in line with actually what we find in islam you're the only one and and christians who follow this kind of liberalized christianity you're the only one who uh does not see that uh no i'm looking at the bible again there's no indication there's no indication when the harshest penalty of the church is there's the door your ex communicated and we see when violence starts it's when you get this this roman christian hybrid again i don't see anything in christianity it says go kill and slaughter unbelievers go kill heretics kill apostates anything like that um the only time you see that sort of thing arising is when it's combined with the roman empire and the roman empire didn't start as some christian thing that arose out of christianity the roman empire was already there and it had its own its own uh strategies for dealing with people and it was you you you crush everything that gets in your way and then you sort of end up with some christians who want to crush everything that gets in their way not what jesus said not what jesus said so i mean you know we can look back and and try to understand them being in that situation but uh they didn't have that interpretation that you have they're looking at the old testament they're looking at moses they're looking at what moses they're not they're not looking at any they're not they weren't looking at anything that's what that's what theodosius cites that's what he cites when he it justifies killing uh the pagans and destroying their religious temples destroying their idols this these are the things that they cite they cite the old testament so so you're saying theodosius couldn't find anything from jesus and so he goes to the old no they looked at the entire bible they looked at the entire bible and they said look we have moses doing this jesus said that he he is a follower of moses and that he respects him did jesus denounce moses did jesus say that moses was an evil man no he endorses moses what's the what's the quote from theodosius i'd be i'd be interested in in seeing the reasoning but notice it wouldn't be very very strange of me to say uh hey here's what i'm commanded jesus commanded me to love everyone even my enemies i'm told to live in peace with all men i'm told to seek the good of all people i'm told to pray for all people i'm told to honor all people but you know moses fought the canaanites so therefore i'm going to go slaughter unbelievers in the name of jesus you really not understand how how strange that is i have commands that are directed towards me the commands that are directed to moses or no no i said there are commands that are directed towards christians right jesus saying um jesus saying that uh that that we have to love everyone including our enemies that that's directed towards how is that a policy that a christian state can take you're talking about i love and i love the enemies that are approaching my city and are about to jesus doesn't jesus doesn't tell a state you can't talk to a state jesus isn't talking to a state he's talking to a christian civilization can exist the christian nation cannot exist america many people consider america a christian nation and if an invading force comes the christians are all supposed to lie down and lay down their weapons because jesus said you know don't you live by the sword you die by the sword i live in texas i think the texans over here are not going to be very happy about this kind of interpretation that you are imposing on jesus and saying that this is his message for a christian nation actually there is no christian nation there is no guidance on that level that that doesn't really make sense you can have me i don't think it makes sense to many christians let me cite you theodosian in the theodosian decree it is decreed that in all places and all cities the pagan temple should be closed at once and after a general warning the opportunity of sinning be taken from the wicked we decree also that we shall cease from making sacrifices and anyone who has committed such a crime let him be stricken with the avenging sword and we decree that the property of the one executed shall be claimed by the city and that rulers of the provinces be punished in the name in the same way if they neglect to punish such crimes codex theodosianus and the citation no my question was where where does he say he's getting this from moses where is he getting it from i mean he's basing it on the bible in general yeah where's no where's he's well what i'm saying is what he just said that sounds exactly like what a roman emperor would say it just got combined with christianity in other words that that's a i mean the thing that this policy from theodosius and other emperors actually makes more rational sense because it seems like they're trying to expand and grow the christian nation they're trying to preserve christians from you know falling into worshiping false idols that seems like a reasonable policy actually what you're saying seems like the destruction of christianity and making sure that christians can't even exist past the first century uh think about what you're saying because i think things make sense in your head but they're totally contradicted by reality christians were persecuted for centuries without shedding a drop of blood and they ended up taking over the roman empire right according to you over how did how did they take over them how did they take over by not by killing not not by killing they didn't take over the roman empire by killing people just kept converting to christianity so that's that's what i'm pointing out the problem in these converts that apparently know so much about peace and not killing they immediately start killing they immediately constantly immediately starts killing after he converts keep in mind what keep in mind constantly got this dream conquered by this now now now the now christianity is something you conquer for so that whole stream he had he has to i don't know i mean it could be a true dream and he just misinterpreted i mean i could i could say you know i'm i'm supposed to conquer by the cross it's not that i'm going out and hacking people up over it but but i mean it's very simple if you're going around killing heretics killing apostates and so on it's very simple you've got the commands that are directed towards christians as the covenant that we're under and it's simple jesus said you shall love your neighbor and and you've heard that it was said you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy i say do you love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you so that you may be be sons of your father who is in heaven is that consistent with going around slaughtering people over jesus because they uh they're following the wrong thing when when jesus was before pilot and he said my kingdom is not of this world if my kingdom were of this world then my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to my jewish enemies as it is my kingdom is not of this world so if he's saying his kingdom is not of this world and you say we have to go out and establish this kingdom for jesus you got issues and when paul says let all that you do be done in love when he says that christians are to walk in love when he says may the lord cause you to increase and abound in love for one another and for all people when he says i urge that in treaties and prayers petitions and thanksgivings be made on behalf of all men when the author of hebrew says that we have to pursue peace with all men when peter says that we have to honor all people it's just not consistent with going on a killing spree again you keep trying to apply that to some christian state these are you you could have a state that punishes wrongdoers and so on this is this is talking about individual christians and how we're supposed to live and how the church is supposed to function in society how can the church function if it's not like an organized body that is has the ability to coerce you know because excommunication is actually you say it like oh just there's the door walk out of it that essentially means that you're banned from society which is condemning people to either death or a life of complete destitution and ruin so that is actually coercion excommunication isn't some you know benign thing that you keep referring to in the first century christians are a persecuted minority so get out of the church that most of the world is open to you no i'm talking about the majority of christian history you are cherry picking these kinds of examples you reference ex excommunications i'm telling you the reality and what that is has been historically like look look augustine is citing just citing the old testament when he justifies persecuting heretics so let me notice he'd have to you would have to go to the old testament right he can't just yeah the bible he can't just christians believe in the bible christians actually take their guidance from the entirety of the bible no one has this interpretation that you have that everything in the old testament is irrelevant don't even look at it no one had this interpretation never said that even the even christians who say that the new covenant abrogates the old covenant and the mosaic law they still took inspiration from the bible they still cite the bible this is the first time i'm hearing a christian you can every time i cite something from the old testament this is augustine you're trying to over talk augustine in your interpretation of if augustine usage of the old testament if augustin throws out the words of jesus for another covenant he's got issues just let me give you an example because we're i don't i don't think this is terribly difficult but the bible contains a series of covenants so there's this there's a covenant between god and adam god says uh you know adam you do this and here's what i'm going to do uh there's later there's a covenant with no matter of fact i'll even give you a specific example god gives a covenant with noa establishes a covenant with noa and as part of that covenant there are uh no eating restrictions he says you know eat eat anything that that moves anything you want to anything you want to kill and eat later on there's a covenant with the children of israel and you can read you can read the the Torah over and over again these are the rules for the children of israel these are the rules for the children of israel and under that covenant you have all these dietary restrictions you didn't have those under the covenant with noa it's a different covenant you're talking about different covenants but also in the old testament we're told a new covenant is coming and so the new covenant is coming and then we have the rules that are associated with the new covenant it would just make no sense and you can eat you can even see this this is in other words this is in the new testament where the the issue comes before the apostles in acts 15 and it's hey which of these rules that are for the children of israel actually apply to non-jewish christians and they only come up with a couple of things that would have interfered with the fellowship between uh gentile christians and jewish christians it was hey you know don't eat certain things in the presence of uh of jewish believers because that's going to cause division but it never crosses their mind oh we have to follow all these things all you all all these new christians have to follow all of these i didn't say that you're straw manning i didn't say that christians believe that you have to follow everything in the old testament in mosaic law you're straw manning me if you're gonna follow it on big things like going around killing people that would be kind of a big one they did take that yeah they did take that they did take that from the old testament did augustine augustine is talking about augustine here the adosius is citing it all of constantine is citing it all of these other christians throughout history are citing the old testament to justify expansionist war to because they they are looking for as christians guidance on how to run uh their state they're trying to run society according to christian values you have this preposterous position that the bible has nothing applicable to running a state and i i agree you talk about me you talk about me strong you talk about me straw manning i talked about how the church would influence governments and so on but yes if you're talking about the church based on what going on in concord on what teaching of jesus did they just just just to his kingdom is not on this world what's that i was going to say just to hear the rest from david what's that they cut me off so i agree it's it's like roughly equal this is where i'm like just to be sure that it keeps going in a civil manner i'm jumping in a little bit more now so i'm not trying to say anybody's doing the other and by the by the way daniel you're free to you're free to cut me off i have no no problems it's a friendly discussion um but jesus says his kingdom is not of this world he establishes the church you could have a nation of christians you could even have a nation um grounded in christian principles and so on you can do all that that's just you're you're kind of on new ground because that's not what you're commanded and christians for the first three centuries of christianity don't seem to have a concept that they're supposed to be out there taking over the world the time when you start to get ideas like that is after after christianity is combined with the roman empire and then you've got this christian roman hybrid and then of course people within that empire start coming up with uh oh here's why we have here's why we have to do it well the the only point here there's nothing there's nothing in your covenant that suggests that um so yeah i i don't and i don't know why we keep why we keep going over this but yeah i'm talking about the the the christian perspective the christian perspective would have to be consistent with the new testament um if you're talking about hacking people up my goodness over and over again we're supposed to love everyone we're supposed to pray for everyone we're supposed to live in peace with everyone and you can't do that if you're going around hacking up apostates uh you know like mohammed told his followers to do i mean site one christian authority prior to modernity prior to modernity jesus has the same interpretation as you who has the same interpretation as you that you should let blasphemers just run wild in society christian society name one christian authority jesus okay chris no you are this is a circular argument the whole question is interpreting what jesus has said to rep because you're saying that again don't uh lift the sword is something that applies to all of society but how is that possible how can that apply to all of society because invaders can come and annihilate the christian nation if you take jesus a statement as you're doing and apply it more widely to the societal level that's the whole problem david and that's why no christian that's not why no christian you're the one to modernity and said never punish blasphemers blasphemers should have freedom of speech and freedom of religion site me one christian authority who has this interpretation of jesus's words that's my question i have no idea what you're talking about i'm giving you jesus words there is no one who comes after jesus you are not you are not jesus right there is no one who comes others have to interpret his words to understand what jesus meant right so i want someone to corroborate your interpretation of jesus's words prior to modernity one one citation i'm not interpreting i cited you many christian authorities i'm not have the opposite interpretation of you who have the opposite interpretation of you if they are not in line with the new testament then they've got issues and again you don't start you don't start getting these guys you don't start getting these guys until christianity emerges with the roman empire so i understand where they got their ideas the point is if you're saying hey we need to go out and subjugate and build a christian society and crush blasphemers you just got no basis for that in scripture and that's a very simple point so i mean are you seriously saying i have to so how about this i have to i have to establish society based on theodosius not on jesus it's a very very strange idea and i mean didn't didn't you even agree that jesus wasn't establishing a you know a a society and so on yeah i agree because the islamic understanding is jesus is refining the mosaic law he's not abrogating it so it still applies but he is not there to introduce a new sharia a new set of laws he is trying to redirect the believers at that time towards a true message of worshiping god alone because there had been a lot of tahrif a lot of additions and corruption that had come and that's the whole purpose of prophets over time this is these are the prophets that come successively to remind people of the correct way to live life and jesus was among them peace be upon him and he's going to return inshallah he's going to return in the end of times to kill the antichrist and to establish the kingdom of heaven on earth this is what we truly believe look in second timothy chapter 3 verse 16 through 17 what do you say about this all scripture is god breathed and is useful for teaching rebuking correcting and training in righteousness so that the servant of god may be thoroughly equipped for every good work so this is in the new testament and it's saying that all scripture is relevant all scripture for teaching rebuking correcting and training in righteousness yeah so that confirms not only what i'm saying about the relevance of the old testament it confirms all of these other christian authors and authorities of the church who are also saying that you're the only one and this liberalized christianity who has to distance yourself from the history of christianity because it is not liberal and it's not secular and you just quoted the apostle paul who is the champion of us not being under the old covenant my goodness so that's a problem for you read read galatians it's only i mean paul quotes the old testament left and right paul does not believe that christians are supposed to go out and subjugate the world so you're you're quoting a guy who certainly did not mean what you're saying yes paul believes that we can the the entire old testament is there for us to learn for us to use from us to learn from to say that we are actually under certain commands that were revealed and directed specifically towards a particular group goes against everything paul ever said and you're saying that it's a very paul is saying that you have to you have to uh you have to follow these commands that are directed towards the children of israel contradicts the entire message of paul i mean the the point is that it's a very simple deduction and i tried to lay it out for you like these christians throughout history are looking to moses and they see that moses is one of the great prophets and he is engaging in expansionist war and god is uh commanding him to do so and so that means it's something legitimate it's something that is not evil is not something that is prohibited and so they take that as inspiration in order to do that themselves that doesn't mean that they're literally following the mosaic law well i don't know i don't know again if jesus says love your enemies pray for those who persecute you um and we're told uh live in peace with all men uh honor all people um pursue peace with everyone we're told this and you interpret this as a call for expansionistic war that is i mean that's just the sloppiest interpretation i can i can even imagine you're cherry picking those are some verses from the new testament but what about the rest of the bible all the verses i cited in dueronomy in numbers you can't all the side verses about amalek all this verses about canonites i just read to you the verses from dueronomy you want me to read them again those are giving general rules about expansionist war jewish scholars all are all mamanites is agreed augustine is agreed constant is agreed god set the boundaries god set the boundaries you're in a passage about fighting people far off why because there there are situations when you fight people far off right the united states the united states can fight someone the united states can fight someone far off the united states can defeat someone far off the united states can do that yeah that's imperialism without taking over the world right when you take any of the world when you choose can fight someone far off when god says here's your borders and then that's the borders that the Jews always use. And you're saying, no, there's this verse that says, you might fight someone. So it's talking about conquering the world. And then you say, and since that's talking about conquering the world, when it clearly isn't, therefore Christians who are commanded to love everyone, to pray for everyone, to honor all people, they have to say, well, now we have to be aggressively expansionistic, and we have to go out and conquer the world. And notice all of this is like, I mean, what's the point here? I mean, I quoted Jesus, I quoted the apostles, you're quoting Roman emperors, and telling us that's the Christian perspective, and I have to refute their respect when I'm the one quoting Jesus and the apostles, and the entire time we're dodging the issue of Islam. And so I mean, going to the point about attacking someone that's at a distance, how can that be defensive? If you are defending yourself against an invader, or you're limited to a particular border, that God has granted you this land from the Nile to the Euphrates, then if it's defensive, then people are at your border, they're not at a distance. Distance means you are offensively attacking a city, and that's exactly what the verse says. Look, Deuteronomy 20, verse 10, it says, when you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace, then kill them all basically. This is offensive war. So when the United States goes and fights Germany and conquers Berlin, you're saying that that's aggressively expansionistic and not, hey, here's a threat to people and a threat to the world and we're going to fight. If that's your definition, then how can you criticize Islam? Because Islam can have that idea of preemptive warfare as well, against the Persians, against the Romans, against other people. That also can be preemptive, just like the US going to Germany. You're not fighting people because they're coming to attack, although that is a reason in Islam to fight against people. But I mean, when Muhammad says, I've been commanded to fight people until they say there's no God but Allah, there you're fighting people because of what they believe. And I mean, it's pretty clear Islam didn't expand from out of Arabia all the way across Northern Africa up into Europe and then across in the other direction all the way out to India by defense. I didn't claim it was defense, I was just using, you're claiming that these verses in Deuteronomy are defensive, even though- No, no, no, no. I'm saying they're not trying. We have no indication that they were ever trying to conquer the world. That's what I'm saying. And so- If God says, if God says- I gave you all the evidence, Maimonides is saying that this is a command to conquer the entire world and to wipe out paganism, including Christianity. Maimonides is saying this. There is an indication, a very clear indication that they interpreted this as expansionist war. And again, going back to all of these- You're talking about the Catholic Church, the Byzantine Church, the Spanish, you're talking about the medieval philosopher Maimonides over and over and over again. And this is very strange. Imagine, I mean, just imagine- I trust his understanding of the Bible over yours. That's the point. I'm just going with what it says. And the fact that the Jews did not go around expanding, conquering the world, they didn't do it. They didn't do it. Not for lack of the textual command to do so and not for lack of the interpretation of those textual commands to do so. Okay, apparently you could take any verse and even though God says, here are your borders and he gives bases for fighting other people, you can say, and the Jews are supposed to go out and conquer the world. And then Christians are supposed to follow that. And then Christians are supposed to ignore every command directed towards them. Come on, this is massive amount of desperation, the idea that a Christian is supposed to say, you know what, I've been commanded, love everyone, love my enemies, that I'm supposed to do good to everyone, pray for everyone, honor everyone. And this means that I'm supposed to follow. You honor the artist who made this Christ? I said in my opening statement that as far as that person is a human being created in the image of God, that person is worthy of a certain level of love and respect, but that we do not have to love what they do or honor what they do. We can condemn what they do and rebuke them for what we do and tell them how horrible they are for what they do. But there are certain things that if given the opportunity, I wouldn't kill him, I wouldn't kill him because that person's created in the image of God. Whereas I suspect, and those of you who are Muslims were created in the image of God, the Amalek were also created in the image of God, the heretics that the Christian church eradicated in the early centuries of Christianity, they were also created in the image of God, had to stop them from killing them. If you're talking about Christians, Christians had no business doing it. The followers of Moses. If you're talking about Moses, again, that's a different situation. By the way, this is kind of a side note. All the groups that you say were genocided are there later. I didn't use the word genocide. You used the word genocide. No, I heard you somewhere else use the word genocide. In this debate? No, in a clip you posted on YouTube. Yeah, I'm not committed to the word genocide if you want to niggle over that. I mean, infants were being killed, children were being killed. That's what the multiple verses say. I'm not sure about that. Now you're questioning the clear wording of the verses. There's a reason for that. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about here. While you're getting that example, let me just say that, yes, Islam is expansionist. In many videos, I have defended this. I think Christianity has been expansionist. Judaism has been expansionist. It seems like all monotheistic faiths, Abrahamic faiths, have been expansionist. It's only these liberalized Christians like David Wood who take this kind of human rights interpretation of the Bible, but all of these religions have been expansionist. The idea, because I want to interpret the Old Testament in the most charitable way, I'm not endorsing everything in the Old Testament because I think there's been corruption in it, but the idea of spreading the word of God and establishing true justice. You cannot have true justice without belief in God and submission to God. This is the message in the Old Testament. It's in the New Testament. It's in the Quran. The idea is very simple. You want to establish the justice of God and there is no justice when people are worshiping Satan, when people are worshiping idols, false gods. This is something that has to be addressed in the world. In Islam, this is something very clear in the Old Testament, in the Orthodox Jewish tradition. This is something very clear. In Christianity, it has been very clear. The only way that you can criticize Islamic expansionism is if you throw your entire tradition under the bus, all of these Christians throughout history under the bus. I don't agree with Christian expansionism because it's spreading idolatry, this triune God, but I don't disagree with the practice or the method of spreading through expansion, through conflict. I'm not criticizing Christianity or Judaism because of the method. Yeah, I don't agree with the theology, but I'm very consistent on this. It's only David, unfortunately. You are inconsistent because you have to trash your entire tradition. You have to trash the Bible. I'm the only Christian in history who believes in human rights and Christians, we got urine all over our walls and so on. Welcome to Daniel's understanding of Christianity. Let me give an example of what I'm talking about here. Here's one of the classic exterminate them passages. Don't leave alive anything that breathes. God says, and this is in Exodus 23, and you start to see the issue here where I'm saying, I'm not sure about certain things. So God says, verse 22, if you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you. My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Parasites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out. So this is the extermination passage. God is going to wipe them out. Verse 24, do not bow down to their gods or worship them or follow their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces. Worship the Lord your God and his blessing will be on your food and water. I will take sickness from among you and none will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will give you a full life span. So this is like talking about the ongoing miracles and why these people are so responsible for rebelling against him. I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make your enemies turn their backs and run. I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way, but I will not drive them out in a single year because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you. Little by little, I will drive them out before you until you have increased enough to take possession of the land. I will establish your borders and I've already quoted this. I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea and from the desert to the Euphrates River. I will give into your hands the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you. And so this is the point I'm making over and over and over again in the Torah. You have these commands which talk about wiping people out. They're going to wipe them out and God says he's going to wipe them out here, but then he explains what it means. I'm going to drive them out little by little over time. And this is something that you see over and over and over again. The way we use language, those mean two completely different things. Saying wipe out everything that breathes is very different from saying drive someone off the land. Isn't Jesus the one who's commanding this though? So how do you reconcile Jesus's apparently universal ethic about not raised? You live by the sword, you die by the sword, but it's Jesus as part of the triune God in the Old Testament. Also saying, fine, let me just concede the border issue and all of these little things that you're adding to the interpretation, which is again not shared by other commentators. Fine, let me concede all of that. It's still Jesus who's commanding wiping out all of these people and or driving them, I should say, driving them out of their homes, driving them out. So how does that reconcile with live by the sword, die by the sword? Well, I mean, no, if you look, this is there's God's judgment on these people, right? I mean, the accusations against them are things like child sacrifice, bestiality, things like that. And God sends them a profit and for four centuries. Why isn't that tolerated? Why doesn't Jesus tolerate that? It's your that the child sacrifice, okay, the babies that are being driven out, the women that are being driven out, they're all collectively responsible for some that are doing child sacrifice in this amongst these people, but they're all being driven out, right? By Jesus, why doesn't He tolerate? Where's the tolerance there? Yeah, you're thinking I'm saying something I'm not, I'm not. You're thinking I'm saying never punish anyone. I mean, I said it very clearly in my opening statement, have no problem with proper authorities punishing people. I have no problem with with God wiping us out if we want. That was not the point of anything I'm saying here. What I'm saying here is that the commands to wipe people out are used interchangeably with drive them off the land and all of the groups, all of the groups that are supposedly wiped out. So that's the Canaanites, the Midianites, and the Amalekites, all the groups that are supposedly wiped out are all there afterwards. And so the way scholars interpret this is they're using language in a very different way from what we're using it at. Again, I have no problem with scholars. I mean, I'm citing all these scholars who say that it means wiping out. Look at, you know, all Western scholars, they say Philip Jenkins, for example, Lingdomsford, they all say that this means genocide. Not on this issue. Yeah, on the Amalek, on the Canaanites, on these tribes that are mentioned in those verses that we keep citing, those are all about genocide. According to these Western scholars, there's an entire book by Paul Copan called The God Command Genocide, where he goes through the issue. So the issue number one, which I mentioned, the command to completely exterminate are used interchangeably with commands to drive people off the land. So that should send up a flag. Wait a minute. Driving someone off the land is completely different from exterminating someone, and yet the Bible is using them interchangeably. That should make us think, hey, maybe there's something, maybe there's something going on here. But then we see this other issue where the people, the people who all the groups that are supposedly wiped out are there later. And sometimes it's in the same chapter, like Joshua goes up, he conquers Jerusalem, he wipes out the Canaanites, and then the Canaanites are there later in the same chapter. The Amalekites are supposedly wiped out. I mean, you quoted first Samuel. The Amalekites are supposedly wiped out by Saul. They were down to the last Amalekite. You're saying that there's no killing involved in this. They're just not driven off the land mean. I mean, this is such a ridiculous interpretation. There's so many, look at Numbers 21. The destruction of Kinsaion and King Og. So they smote and his son. Not saying there's no killing. I'm not saying there's no killing. So if you're saying there's killing, yes. As far as these groups being completely exterminated and all their children killed, I'm saying the Bible refutes that interpretation because the groups are still there later. I didn't make that interpretation. I didn't use the word genocide. All I'm just pointing out is that there's mass violence, there's mass killing of children and infants. That's where I'm having the problem. There's nothing there in Islam, by the way. There's no command in Islam. Except your God says that this is the inspired word of God. I mean, even the Quran I defend everything in the Quran. I defend everything and stand by everything, every letter, every word in the Quran. No, you don't, because you said that Jesus came and because these problems arise when the Quran says Jesus affirmed the Torah that was bina yadahi. That means between his hands. So he's affirming the Torah between his hands. This doesn't sound like he's coming to correct it. When Muhammad says... Bina yadahi is not a literal expression. This is an expression that means what's with him. So he's bringing the Torah, he's bringing the reaffirmation of the true Torah that had been corrupted over time. Doesn't Allah say that no one can change his words? No one can change this final revelation. He doesn't say that. No one can change his words. Do you know what the preserved tablet is, David? Do you know loh al-ma'footh in Islam? Like you need to understand the Islamic theology. He doesn't say no one can change the preserved tablet because no one can change his words. The preserved tablet is his words. That's where the Quran is from. Is the Torah his words? Yes, the Torah is his words. On the preserved tablet. The Torah is his words. In the heavens, it is preserved. No one can change his words. On the preserved, loh al-ma'footh, ma'footh in Arabic means preserved. That's where the Quran is from. That's where the Torah is from. That's where the injil, the revelation to Jesus Christ, may Allah peace and blessings be upon Jesus Christ. Those are all on the preserved tablet. Yes, they've been preserved by God Almighty and angels. No devil, no Satan can go and change his words. On earth, though, on pages, on material things, yes, those can be corrupted. In fact, it happens all the time. Christians are constantly, I'm sure you have your disagreements with many Christian denominations. Don't you think that they've corrupted the Word of God because they are prosperity gospel or Joel, allsteen or some of these guys? You think those guys haven't corrupted the Word of God? The text? No. Your God didn't believe that either. Muhammad tells the Jews. So when Muhammad said, told the Jews, bring me a copy of the Torah and they bring it out. You're saying they brought him the preserved tablet. And he said to the preserved tablet in heaven, even though he's pointing to the copy that they brought him, he says, I believe in you and in the one who revealed you. And then in sort of five verse 43 of the Quran, when the Jews come to Muhammad to settle a dispute and Allah says, why do they need you when they have the Torah? I mean, obviously, if the Torah has been corrupted, they do need Muhammad. Muhammad would need to correct the errors. And then just a few verses later, let the people of the gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. And then in 568, where Allah says, you have no ground to stand upon unless you stand upon the Torah, the gospel and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord. Very strange if he's talking about standing upon the preserved tablet that you no longer have access to because it's been corrupted. And then in sort of 10 verse 94 of the Quran, when Muhammad is told if you have doubts about what we have revealed to you, ask those who read the book before you. So that makes no sense if he's telling people to go to, I mean, if he's telling Muhammad himself that he can only confirm his revelations by going to the Jews, Muhammad again, pointing to a copy that they have. And then when Muhammad, intermitting, when Muhammad is said that knowledge is going to depart from his people, and the response was, what are you talking about? We have the Torah. How can knowledge depart from us? And Muhammad says, what are you talking about? The Jews and Christians have the Torah in the gospel, don't they? That makes no sense if we've had corrupt books because he's saying knowledge is going to depart from you even though you have the inspired preserved authoritative word of God. And so if he's saying, well, the Jews have it, knowledge has departed from them. That means they've got the Torah. So to look at all of this and say, nope, it's been corrupted. Daniel, I mean, I've had a lot of respect for you from you not denying what Islam says about beating women and such. I appreciate that. I appreciate that. But there's a difference. Your whole problem, David, is I thank you for the respect. But your whole problem is that you don't understand figurative language. I mean, these are not contradictions. This is, I believe in you and in the one who revealed you, that's figurative. Yeah, the Torah is referring to the Torah, not literally this book, a copy. Yeah, a copy that could be corrupted. And your whole argument is moot because you don't know what was in that copy. So it's just common. Okay, just a couple more minutes later, 2000 years after the revelation, 2000 years after the revelation, and the Jews still had a reliable copy. And yet others have somehow been corrupted. Very, very, very strange. I didn't say that that's what has that's a possibility. The other more likely possibility is that this is figurative language. The Prophet, peace be upon him, is referring to the preserved Torah, the original Torah that was revealed, not literally that one copy that he didn't even open. I mean, he says, bring me a copy and then and then talks to the copy and says, I believe in you and in the one who revealed you. I'll just say this. It's a profound statement from the Prophet to confirm his belief and his allegiance to the Torah and all the other revelations from God. That's a strong, powerful statement. But you're bringing it in the most uncharitable way and trying to make a big deal about it. I'm assuming he needs what he says. This is a huge contradiction. I'm assuming he needs what he says. Yeah, but there's something called figurative language. There's something called in human language, David. There's something called figurative language, where it doesn't mean literally this and that. I have a very charitable interpretation of the verses that I'm reading from you. When you say that, oh, it's not referring to children, it means driving them out. I conceded many of those points and showed like it's still a problem. It's still a contradiction. But I was charitable with your citing of the verses of the Bible because you know more about the Bible than I do. But I know more about the Quran than you do. So be charitable likewise. Stop bringing these Christian sound bites that we've heard a million times and that no Muslim takes seriously and no scholar of Islamic studies takes seriously, by the way. No, there are scholars of Islamic studies who take this very seriously if you want to take a look. But no, I agree with you about figurative language and I'm open to it, but there has to be a good reason to accept the figurative language. Like when we read, hey, this group was exterminated and then the group is there later, then we might want to try and figure out something that's going on here. And scholars actually say that this was a common form of hyperbole, hyperbolic language in the ancient world. It's not just from the Jews. It's all of those cultures around there who are writing about their victories. They described a military victory or something of pushing someone off the land or dethroning a king. They described it in the writings as the complete extermination of civilization. They're even writings that describe a victory over the children of Israel. In the Q&A. Pardon my interruption. We've got to jump into the Q&A. Can I just finish that point real quick? I'll be sure. I'll be super quick. I'll be super quick. So I'm open to figurative language. The problem I was pointing out with the Quran is everything I see from the Quran insist upon the inspiration, preservation, and authority of the Quran. And everything I see in the hadith that actually comes from Muhammad insist upon the inspiration, preservation authority of not just the Quran, but also the Torah and the gospel. And so I have no reason to take it as figurative. If it is figurative, I'd have to say Alayne Muhammad were very bad communicators, just as if I went with your interpretation of Jesus and Moses and so on, I'd have to conclude that they were very bad communicators. We've got to jump into the Q&A. But do want to mention, folks, a couple of things. First, our guests are linked in the description. We are going to go through as many questions as we possibly can. We have occasionally a comment in there as well. But do you want to remind you, hit that like button if you've enjoyed it so much as I've got to tell you, David and Daniel, this has been such a huge response from the audience in terms of questions, as well as just enjoyment and likes. I don't know if we've ever had this many likes so far in a live debate. But anyway, we're going to jump into it. Thanks very much for your first one. When we're sorry to interrupt you. Go ahead. I want to make a request if it's okay with David. Can we like have just five minutes, like a closing statement before we get into the questions that like for each of us just to wrap up? I'm okay with that. It sounds like David is as well. So let's do that. I'll start the timer for five minutes. And let's see if I remember right. Oh, you mean now? Yeah, before the Q&A, if that's okay with you, David, I can go first or you can go first. Go ahead. I was not anticipating a five minute. Go ahead, Daniel. Four is all yours for five minutes. Okay. So I want to say look at the cops in Egypt. Cops are Christians in Egypt. They have been practicing Christianity for 1400 years under Muslim rule. Look at the Christian Palestinians. Look at the Christians in Lebanon. Look at Christians throughout the Muslim world. I'm not going to say that Islamic law gives full religious freedom to these Christians because that's not true. There are restrictions and there are good reasons for them. Again, we do not believe in this liberalized individualistic notion of tolerance. But the point being after 1400 years, cops in Egypt still believe in Jesus as God. They still have their religious rituals. They still have their community. They still have their traditional families. Compare that with Christians in the US and Europe under secular rule. Thousands of churches are closing permanently. There's unprecedented mass apostasy. Christian schools are being forced to teach their kids in LGBT and all matter of things that fundamentally contradict Christian values. Christianity is not going to survive in any recognizable form under liberal secular rule, the same kind of values that David has been preaching. And it's only been 200 years of dominant liberal secularism. Whereas under Islam, in contrast, Christians and others lived and thrived for 1400 years. How ironic that some Christians like David would believe Islam to be their biggest threat when in reality it is human rights liberalism that's destroying their religion right in front of them, destroying their communities, destroying generation after generation and their entire way of life. And unfortunately it's doing this to Muslims as well. So I want to first and foremost invite Christians to Islam. Let's fight this monster together. As Muslims, we have our criticisms of Christian theology, but we love Jesus Christ more than life itself. We recognize that he is the Messiah, which means that his time for establishing God's rule on earth was not in the past, but in the future when he will return with great wrath and fury to kill the Antichrist and once and for all, stamp out rebellion and disbelief in God Almighty. Jesus will have the final victory over the enemies of God. And as Muslims, we are eagerly awaiting his triumphant return so that we can join him and we can support him. So I invite Christians to become Muslim, but if Christians don't want to do that, then at least let's be allies or at least recognize the bigger threat to all of humanity, which is liberal secularism. I also want to say that David, on a more personal note, in one of your videos you mentioned that you have some of your sons have certain disabilities. And that really hit me hard because I have sons as well. And I know that one of the most difficult pains we can experience in this life is our children being ill. So I really lift my hands in prayer sincerely to pray to God Almighty to heal and protect your sons, David, and also to make them a source of guidance for you and your family. And I pray that that guidance will be the gate for all of you to paradise, to be in eternal paradise together. That's my sincere hope for all Christians. Amen. Amen. You got it. Thank you very much for that closing statement. We'll kick it over to David for his as well. All right. Well, thank you for the kind thoughts there, Daniel. And I do have to say, I know there are lots of people who think of Daniel as this horrible monster. And I do really, really disagree with some of Daniel's views on, you know, beating wives into submission and, you know, the various reasons for fighting people and so on. I disagree with them on those. But I meant what I said in my introduction that as long as we're trying to be truthful and not lying about things and we're trying to get to the bottom of things, you can disagree with me widely on a lot of issues. And again, my view is that you're created in the image of God. You're all worthy of a certain degree of respect. And that provides the foundation, the basis for any conversations we might want to have. You did say that Christianity will not survive what's been going on here. Historically, this is called the pendulum. There's the idea that a pendulum swings way out in one direction and then things swing back. I just want to say, Daniel, if you're worried about, you know, the threat of liberalism, there are certain things that liberalism gets right. And like any good thing, you could have too much of it. But each century has its problems that it has to deal with. And each century looks at the problems that it's dealing with. They say, ah, this is going to destroy everything. This is the end of the world. And it just doesn't. It just doesn't. And so once things tend to start going too bad for society because it has some sort of bad ideas, things start swinging in the other direction. So I don't believe that Christianity is going to end anytime soon. You said we believe that Islam is the biggest threat. Actually, I just wanted to correct. No, I don't believe that Islam is the biggest threat anymore. There was a time when I did, I'm much more concerned about things like big tech right now. And so I actually have more concerns about some other things than Islam. But when it comes to Islam, I do have my objections. Muhammad did call for the violent subjugation of the world. Muhammad did command his followers to kill apostates, to kill critics. And it is my view as a Christian, this is Old Testament and New Testament, that human beings are created in the image of God. I'm commanded as a Christian to love everyone, even my enemies, even people who hate me, even people who despise me. As I pointed out, this doesn't, this doesn't rule out judgment from proper authorities. And as I've, as I've stated, I believe that God has the authority to give life and take life. So problem is not with God killing people or executing people or things like that is how do you know you're actually hearing from God? I've never seen any reason to think that Muhammad was speaking for God. So this isn't simply liberalism versus Islam. This is a Judeo-Christian perspective on not listening to false prophets. I see no reason to believe in Muhammad at all and therefore no reason to accept his commands about beating women, about enslaving people, about taking sex slaves, about violently subjugating the world. And it's just dangerous to have someone who claims that he's been commanded to subjugate the world. And there's no reason to believe, you can't do that. You just can't, you just can't accept what someone says because they say, hey, look at my lovely Arabic prose. And so I just wanted to say, your overall argument was that Christians are inconsistent from criticizing Muhammad for violence. I doubly reject that. On the one hand, we're not inconsistent because even the situation, the Old Testament is very different from the situation in Islam. Moses came accompanied by miracles. It wasn't just the Jews who were aware of the miracles. The unbelievers were aware of the miracles. And so anyone who's rebelling is rebelling against the Almighty. Very different situation from what we have with Muhammad. And the other reason I'm not consistent is, I have to go with the commands of Jesus that are directed towards me, Jesus and the apostles. I'm committed to love everyone, to do good to everyone, to live in peace with everyone. And so when someone comes along and claims to be in the same line with that and doesn't give some very, very good evidence, but he's contradicting the commands in every possible way, I have to say, no, sorry, you're a false prophet. We'll jump into the Q&A. But do and remind you, folks, couple of things. One, our guests are linked in the description. We highly encourage you to click on their links if you'd like to hear more and also have to let you know we cannot take any more new questions, folks. We do have to get the Q&A wrapped up by a decent time. And so just warning you that any questions that come into the live chat at this point, there's just no way that we can get to them. In fact, I don't think we can get to all the questions that we have in the list. So we're going to start right now. Here we go with, appreciate it. Sugarcoat says, pardon me, there was, first one was Adam Yamau says, David, why did God instruct the Israelites to stone apostates to death? They suspected we're serving other gods in Deuteronomy 17. I smell hypocrisy. Not hypocrisy, not hypocrisy at all. You would have to interpret me as saying that God has no right to execute apostates or something like that. Not what I'm saying. If you look at that situation, if you are taken out of the land of slavery, you're taken through the Red Sea, God sends food from heaven upon you to sustain you. You are guided by a pillar of cloud by day, a pillar of fire by night. You're led into the Promised Land. And even after you build the temple, God descends upon the temple, fills it with His presence. God is performing ongoing miracles. God is sending prophets. If that's happening, if you're an atheist, you don't believe that that stuff happened. But if you're taking the Scripture as what happened, then there's no excuse. There's no excuse. In other words, it's this idea that your responsibility is proportional to the clearness of the revelation that you've been given. If a pillar of fire is standing there saying, do not speak in the name of other gods, do not do that sort of thing, do not go around promoting apostasy here. Again, if you didn't want to follow the revelations, the border was right over there. Go somewhere else. But if you're there and you're staying there, and it's clear where these revelations are coming from, and it's indisputable that this is from the Almighty, and you say, I don't care, I'm okay with God, God giving harsh judgments. I don't see that in Islam. And fortunately for everyone who's concerned, you don't see that a lot. You don't see that in the world today. I believe that God has given us plenty of evidence that He exists. I believe that we've got plenty of evidence that Christianity is true. But you don't have that sort of immediate presence of God clearly as a warning that you'd better not disobey Him there. If God were here in all His glory and told us to do something, and you said no, I believe that God has the right to take you out. You got it. This next one coming in. By the way, we have an occasional comment in here too. But this one for Daniel says, if you had to choose between supporting Al-Qaeda and supporting the secular liberal USA, which one would you choose? Please answer honestly. These are both terrorist actions. We'll look at all the destruction that the US has caused, killing millions of people around the world throughout its history, much more than terrorist groups. I denounced Al-Qaeda. I denounced ISIS. These are terror groups. There's arguably a lot of evidence to show that they are actually working for certain intelligence agencies from Western countries. I denounce all of these groups. This is a false choice. It's like saying, do you prefer one type of poison or another? I don't have to address a false choice like that. You got it. This one coming in from, do you appreciate this one? A comment says, Aftab Khan says, Daniel, for the win, and I don't know if I'm pronouncing this right, it says inshallah. What does inshallah mean? If God wills. You got it. And thank you very much for this one. And on, oh, we got that one. The super destroyer says, apostasy law isn't a divine law. A lot of scholars like Sufyan Al-Thari didn't think apostates should be given capital punishment. There is a lot of nuances to it. Don't you know that, David? I'm assuming Daniel would actually agree with me on this one. But yeah, Mohammed said, if anyone leaves his Islamic religion, kill him. You have, you know, like Mohammed, his job says, maybe it means, you know, you can exile them or, you know, maybe that would be an alternative. And you have, I've seen Muslims who say that this only refers to you, if you're sort of publicly going around spreading your apostasy. But yeah, I interpret it. I interpret Mohammed's words as meaning at the very least in an Islamic state that you would be executed for apostasy, whether you could do it on a personal level. Hey, that guy just left Islam. Let me go chop him up. I'm not sure about that one. But yeah, again, I'm assuming Daniel would agree with me on this one. Yeah, I agree. Like there's no difference of opinion. The only difference of opinion on apostasy is some claim that you have you would be imprisoned for life. So if someone apostates, it doesn't matter if it's public or if it's private, if someone hears you, then you've left the religion, then you have three days basically to repent. If you if you don't do so, then it's capital punishment. That's the majority of Islamic scholars throughout history have said that the only difference of opinion is some minority said it's life in prison for the apostate. And I have videos explaining the moral justification of this type of command from God. Got you on this one coming in from Jonathan Valentine. Thank you very much as Daniel mentioned a Quran verse or a Hadith that says kill all the men. What about Sinan ibn Maja 2541, where it was commanded to check boys for pubic hair? Isn't that killing all men by Islamic standards? Also, is it okay to look at children, private parts, if you want to decide to kill them? No, this is referring to Daniel. So this was the Jewish tribe that when the Quraysh, basically the polytheists were invading and sieging the Muslims and surrounding them at all sides, there was this plan and agreement with the Jewish tribes, specifically Banu Qurayda, to hold the flank basically or hold the rear and not allow the enemies to get through the rear to attack the Muslims, surround them and annihilate Muslims. And Banu Qurayda basically reneged and they committed this kind of treason, which put the Muslim nation, the early Ummah in existential threat where they're going to be annihilated. So the punishment for treason in all legal systems actually, not only Islam but also in Judaism and Christianity, is execution. So the males were executed. It wasn't the children, children, the point of checking if they had reached puberty is so that they wouldn't kill the children. And the Prophet, peace be upon him, asked one of the Jewish soldiers, what is the appropriate punishment according to the Old Testament? And this person said that it would be execution for all and so that's what happened. Punishment fits the crime. Got you. And this one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Q. Maltehi says, for David, you're on record cross dressing because you misinterpreted a hadith. Are you actually a closeted cross dresser? I mean, that was supposed to be a comedy video, but I don't know if you mean, I don't know what you mean with closeted cross dresser. I did it in video. If you mean do I do it in private? No, I don't. If you're talking about will I publicly make fun of something going to some extreme methods? Yes, I'm happy to when I'm trying to make some kind of point. And for the record, I'm kind of joking in that situation. There are these passages that talk about Muhammad and it'll say that he was in Aisha's mert or Thalb. Mert does mean dress. Thalb just means garments. Then there are Muslims who say this means in this situation means blanket or maybe she had her garment wrapped around him or something like that. I'm fine with any of that. It is consistent to say, I mean, you could interpret it to mean that he was actually prancing around in her nightly. But again, I'm not glued to that interpretation. I'm just kind of, I'm kind of joking. And this is a situation when people constantly send you messages saying they're going to, you know, slaughter you, they're going to rape your wife, they're going to rape your mother, they're going to kill your kids. Sometimes you just kind of, you got to lighten up and kind of make fun of them. You got it. And this one coming in from, do appreciate it. This is a two-parter in a row for you, David. Rum runner says Jesus himself committed violence in John 215 and then O'Flamio follows up by saying, was it wrong for Jesus to beat the money changers? I don't think he actually beat the money changers. If you have multiple passages on Jesus cleansing the temple, but it says he made a whip and drove them out. But if you look, apparently the whip was to drive out the animals. He wasn't just driving out the people. He was driving out the animals as well. But you have to line up the various passages in the Gospels to see, to see what's going on. You got it. And this one from Asri. Schizophrenia says, for Daniel, if people are punished for insulting Muhammad, then do you agree people should be punished for being, let me know if I pronounce this right. Muserik, M-U-S. Mushrik? That's right. Thank you. Okay. Wait, they're sorry. They're punished for being, insulting Muhammad or being Mushrik? No, they said if people are punished for, if they are punished for insulting Muhammad, then do you agree people should also be punished for being Muzerik? I don't know what that's referring to. But I just stated the position, Islamic position on apostasy, the Islamic position on blasphemy. And this is critical. If you let blasphemy run rampant in your society, also if you let pagan idol worship run rampant in your society, then this is something that will take faith out of your society. It will create a nation of apostates. It'll create a nation of evildoers and the wicked as it says in the Old Testament. And so you have to have strong deterrence against those kinds of acts of disbelief. And Islam does have strict regulations on this, including capital punishment. And there's very good reason for this. We want to preserve people's faith in God. That is something the most valuable thing in existence is your faith in God Almighty and the Creator and not associating partners with Him. So Islam as a complete system that is meant to last the test of time until the anti-Christ is allowed to come by God, it has these kinds of rules of preservation. Christians also understood the Bible as giving them the authority to kill blasphemers, to attack the pagans offensively and to wipe out their altars, to wipe out their symbols. This is attested to in the Old Testament and the Christians throughout history up until the modern period for 1700 years, arguably even longer, interpreted these verses of the Bible as meaning to preserve faith by attacking paganism and blasphemy. And they didn't see any contradiction between that interpretation and what they read in the New Testament from Jesus. Because after all, Jesus says that he affirms the Old Testament and he's not there to abrogate the law. He's there to confirm the law, as is mentioned in the Bible. They didn't see a contradiction with that. It's only David Wood and liberalized modern Christians who have this bizarre interpretation that throws the Old Testament under the bus, throws all of this Christian history under the bus. If Christians are okay with that and adopting this kind of pacifist, non-interventionist kind of position towards blasphemy, then that just means the Christian nation cannot exist and it will be exterminated. And unfortunately that is what's happening. Must move. This one comes in from Ananya Maus for David says, why does the Bible say that Dawood as a prophet had relations with a married woman? Why then was he not killed as per Leviticus 20? You're assuming that they always followed the laws and that they always carried out the punishments and so on. They didn't. And there's a mistake here that Muslims often make and I think it's related to just taking everything Muhammad did and assuming that it's all good and so on and defending everything Muhammad did and assuming that Muhammad was right and all these whatever he did. That's not the biblical perspective of a prophet, the biblical perspective of prophets is that they are fallen sometimes messed up human beings that God uses anyway in spite of themselves to get a message across to people. And so they can be praised for certain aspects of their lives like David has praised for being a man after God's own heart. You see this especially when he's young but over and over and over again we see even good kings being corrupted over time. Unfortunately someone like David, he repents, he repents afterwards. But it's common in Islam to look at bad stories about prophets doing something bad and say, why would they make this sort of thing up? They're not. And in fact that's a testament to the trustworthiness of the authors of Scripture that they're writing down even the faults and the misdeeds and the sins of even their heroes and exposing them. And so you can be like David in terms of being a man after God's own heart but you need to watch out that if you get in a position of power you don't abuse that and that's something you can see in both Christianity and Islam because we both see our religious leaders and preachers and so on fall into horrible sin and that would be the takeaway message of David falling into sin. You got it Anne. Stop scamming man says to Daniel women are only 10% of the world's prisons populations yet in so many hadiths it says the majority in jahanam are women. Why is this? The majority of the prison population or 10% women's prison population is 10%. So how does that relate to jahanam? I think I think I'm not going to comment. I'm just going to pick I think what I think what he's saying is if according to Muhammad most of the inhabitants of hell are women why is only 10% of the prison population women doesn't that suggest that women are actually better better behaved than men? So I think that's the point that the person is trying to get to. You know the questioner David or this is not no idea that you heard this question before. I've never heard this question before. I guess we'll give you a chance to respond Daniel. Yeah so I mean I don't see the connection these you can have you know a lot of people getting away with all kinds of crimes according to the secular legal system that's created the secular legal system doesn't punish all kinds of behaviors that are terrible and normities in the eyes of God. And so what God punishes in the afterlife is a separate question than what secular authorities punish in this worldly life especially in a secular liberal country. But as for the majority of women being a part of the hell fire there's a lot of different interpretations of this hadith. I think that even if we take the you know literal interpretation of the hadith it's not a problem because there could be many reasons why one sex is committing more problematic things and sins and disbelief and the other sect. There could also be one interpretation of there's just more women in the world. Women are the majority in many countries historically I don't know if there's been more women than men but it can also just be a simple matter of population discrepancy between males and females. This is one amongst many other different interpretations that can be given but it's there's no contradiction I don't feel any kind of you know problem with that hadith. Next one from the super destroyer says David why when you add the passages in Genesis you get that Rebecca was three when she got married and this is the opinion of scholars for centuries even today Rabbi Chaim Minz acknowledges that she was three. He would have to be an idiot to conclude that. I would want to see evidence that that's not a fabricated person because there's no way you would read Genesis and conclude that. She's working when Abraham's servant actually gets out there she's actually you know she's a she's a shepherdess on her own if she's three years old that makes no sense. The mistake that anyone who makes this argument makes is there's a verse which says and they heard that Abraham had a relative named Rebecca born and so the argument is well right when Abraham heard it that means that that's when she was born right there and then they start doing math. Now the ridiculousness of this is Abraham is a far a long long way away from his relatives they don't have the internet they don't have a telephone so to conclude that as soon as she's born that's when he hears it is ridiculous you can hear it I mean if you think about when you'd get messages from so far away from home you'd get messages every several years when the travelers coming through and says here's a message here here's the news from back home so it's a silly argument and the the the real reason for it is there are people who don't like criticisms against Muhammad for having sex with a nine-year-old girl and so they try to to argue that the bible teaches that Rebecca was three even again there's no reason based on the passage to conclude that when Abraham heard about Rebecca that's right when she was born like that day that's that's ridiculous she could have been 10 she could have been 15 when Abraham finally heard news from back home and but unfortunately you have to make that assumption in order to get this to work the problem is given the description of of Rebecca and her interaction with people she would have to be the most precocious three-year-old in all of human history if she's if she's three and she's already working and she's talking to her family and having the kind of discussions that she's having she would have to be the most precocious three-year-old in history so so guys stop using this this really bad argument if you want to if you want to attack the bible then attack the bible but but don't be dishonest when you do it this one from friendly ex-muslim with a comment saying epileptic epileptic prophet series explains Muhammad's strange behavior thanks for that and then has hey see a test quit out us thank you for your question says Daniel are you confident enough in your belief to be willing to have another debate with David on a topic like quote was Muhammad a true prophet well we'll see I don't know if David is interested we can talk about future debates this one coming yeah I mean this debate that we had I don't think we David addressed many of the points that I made he didn't address the questions or answer the questions we didn't even get to the Christian governance question or the politics of Jesus question we touched on them but I still don't have answers so we'll see what future debates will hold this one from Abu Mahannan thank you very much says for David you speak of the image of God but in first Corinthians 11 Paul claims only men are created in the image of God and women are subjugates of men so does this apply or does this only apply for men uh no absolutely no no he doesn't um Paul says that that Adam was created first and so on things like that but I mean Paul's not going to go against Genesis chapter one which is that God created men in his image male and female he created them so no uh men and women are created in the image of God you got it and this one coming in from stop scamming man says hello Daniel in your estimation should Abu Bakr is it Bakir BAKR have been impeached for burning gay people to death I'm not aware of any narration that mentions that in fact burning people to death is not a punishment within Sharia it's not an acceptable punishment within Sharia so I'm not even aware of what that is referring to got you the super destroyer strikes again says why did Jesus in Matthew 1526 call a woman a dog based on her ethnicity because she's not a Jew is that the sinless tolerant Jesus Jesus healing her later is irrelevant Jesus healing uh healing her later is irrelevant uh no it's not um if you look if you look at what's going on the this this goes back to the Old Testament and it's the this was a Canaanite woman so the Canaanites who are supposedly wiped out became servants in Israel and this woman is a descendant from them um Jesus it's actually puppy right you like that okay you're you're you're you're their puppy um but yeah he's pointing out hey your official status is is as a puppy and so why should I be giving you the blessing and she says yeah but even the puppies get get the crumbs from their master's table and this is part if you actually look at the broader context of what Jesus keeps doing he keeps showing that the non-Jewish the Gentiles have greater faith than a lot of the a lot of the Jews he'll show that there are certain there there are Roman leaders who have greater faith than some of the Jews that there are you know pagan Canaanites who have greater faith than some of the Jews so there are people who are rejecting him and yet these these pagans are these pagans these polytheists um are coming to the Messiah because they understand that he's uh he's performing miracles and so on so um yeah Jesus does this over and over he'll say something that that is offensive to someone he gets the reaction and then he turns out he's actually making a point to the people around him you got it and Greg Kanowitz thanks for your question said what did your Sharia law say to do to LGBTQ how is that for violence disgusting I'll give you a chance to answer yeah we have the same position as found in the Old Testament regarding same-sex behavior just refer to Leviticus refer to Deuteronomy and you'll see exactly what Islam Islam the Sharia's position is on same-sex behavior yeah it's an intolerant position you know we can call it intolerant but it's you know this is exactly what we learn from Sodom and Gomorrah this is exactly what we learned in the Quran about Sodom and Gomorrah the story is repeated in um in the final revelation of the Quran and this is something that you know all god-fearing Christians really should reflect on what have you done to resist what has become modern Sodom and Gomorrah in the world today and are you not afraid that God will bring down a tremendous calamity like he did on Sodom and Gomorrah for our tolerance of this kind of behavior that has has spread and is now in your schools it is in your home it is on your TV it is on the internet everywhere Sodom and Gomorrah is is there and you have allowed it unfortunately Christians I'm talking to you you're the majority you have the moral authority within these western nations but you conceded all of that unfortunately to liberal secularism and part of it is because of guys like David Wood who just roll over and you know basically say we're we're the real human rights defenders as Christians like this is what has caused the earth to now become Sodom and Gomorrah Muslims on the other hand we've been trying to resist this we've been trying to prevent the world falling into this pit of vice and sin but I'm not like David Wood I actually think that we are in the end of times I think that the emergence of the antichrist is eminent and it's because of these things that have been allowed to happen by the secular liberal monster that's consuming the entire world I just wish that okay Christianity Christians let's you know not forget about the past now it's time to really step up and stand for true values true family values true values of marriage because we have temperance and propriety why are you attacking Muslims on this issue why it's in your Bible you got it this one from Zach hello Vic thank you very much says for David could you clarify how Christian tradition laid out a system of governance to deal with problems such as violence and intolerance based off of the biblical verses if it is not clear isn't that a problem um no again it's it's not uh it's it's not the same as the mindset in Islam where you get this set of rules that you are supposed to impose on a society um Christians spread their their ideas about other human beings and how we're supposed to uh treat other human beings and how we're supposed to have love and have concern and seek peace with other people and they spread the ideas and these things influence the government uh and eventually you get governments that uh that have more respect for human life and so on and again the examples I gave in my opening statement this happened over and over and over again even in the Roman Empire I mean their their the the main form of entertainment in the Roman Empire was watching people hack each other up and Christians thought this is this is disgusting these are people who are created in the image of God God loves these people and you're making them hack each other up and so that happened um again infanticide things like that and so you do see how it's how it's influencing the entire it's and it's influenced the entire world because everyone pretty much everyone agrees with this now um that that would be bad it would be bad to have people uh hacking each other up for entertainment almost everyone agrees with that now where did that come from how did it go from being the favorite form of entertainment right you I mean men women and children all cheering as people are hacking each other up to something that would be disgusting to almost anyone nowadays I mean we have you know MMA fights and stuff like that but they're not they're not brutally hacking people up or having animals fight with people and having the animals eat the people and so on so uh the idea here is these ideas spread to everyone whether you're Christian or not and so that's again it's not going out and conquering and subjugating the world um the Jesus came and he establishes the church and the church has its rules that people are supposed to follow as far as the rest of the world uh you you you want them to get some points about loving other people even if they reject the message and that's that's exactly what happened you got it this one from apostate prophet says for Daniel if you had to donate $1,000 to either David Wood or Osama bin Laden whom would you choose hey you said apostate prophet yeah this is your your old buddy uh oh these people I didn't take my anxiety medication oh man sorry apus I got an anxiety attack right then and there so I don't know if I can answer your stupid question okay well I think let me actually say one thing uh I looked up the reference about Abu Bakr and the burning of uh Murtaddin uh so this I think that's in term I mean uh in Tabari I've seen it in Tabari okay so there there might be a reference there I don't know if it's authentic but the reference that I look that I'm looking up here says that this is a response because this was in the Rida wars and these were apostates and they had actually attacked Muslims and had burned some Muslims alive so this was like a fitting punishment but usually there's no burning people alive as a as a Sharia punishment now I know that you and apostate prophet have a history so but I that I don't know much about it but I know you do but I do have to say I just ask you the question though in terms of taking a crack at it oh you're actually making it you're making him answer the David Wood or Osama bin Laden that question yeah I'm pressing you a little bit Osama bin Laden is dead so I don't even understand the premise of the question yeah pick someone who's alive AP this one coming in from stop scamming man says hello hello Daniel given that the hypocrites that pretend to be Muslim burn in the worst of hell isn't the apostasy law going to coerce people into this it's not going to coerce people into hypocrisy like people have the choice to believe in God or not and reject it so yeah there are hypocrites in a healthy society because a healthy society that's based on God's vision means that there will be people who will secretly hate God and will be evil people but they have to manifest goodness in society as a whole and that's a good thing we want people to be good on the outside because the outside affects the inside and the hope is that if people are acting good and they are abiding by Islamic practices and values they're going to the mosques they're worshiping even if they don't believe at first that faith will grow in their hearts faith will grow and they will become strong true believers and that's the hope when you inculcate a society that abides by Islamic values whereas if you have a society that does not establish God's vision on earth and people are allowed to blaspheme and commit all kinds of godless acts that's going to take down the value of society the character of society that's going to spoil society and create a hell on earth so of course Islam says it's better to have a society of goodness outwardly and yes there will be some hypocrites but the sin is on them that's better than a society where there is no hypocrisy because all the evil people can manifest they're vile and they're they're they're venom they're vile venom out in public you got it thank you very much and this one coming in from shama aha it says david you can this is kind of a two parter so they said david do you consider prophet david a prophet because he didn't perform any miracles and then they have one for you let's see they said Muhammad poba i don't know if there's a typo is that no peace that stands for peace be upon oh got you okay said it did many historically recorded why don't you research it first wait what well what was the second part i didn't hear you got it they said Muhammad peace be upon him did many historically recorded why don't you research first um yeah so date my claim is not that's a prophet has to perform miracles um my claim is that if someone's coming along bringing a law and it it's about slaughtering people and what people you're gonna kill and so on and about fighting wars uh that should generally have some maybe a pretty good idea to have some good evidence because otherwise you get people who are just saying hey god sent me and now i have now you all have to go out and slaughter in my name and that's i mean that's what you have in the bible when there's when there's a law coming out and uh there are things like death penalties and so on god makes it very clear where that's coming from as for the miracles of Muhammad again as i stated i know and i i said this earlier i know that there are later sources that talk about Muhammad's miracles so you have this in the syrah you have this in the hadith those contradict the Quran because over and over and over and over again in the Quran the unbelievers are challenging Muhammad why he wasn't performing why he wasn't sent with signs like earlier prophets and i believe daniel responded that the Quran is just recording the accusations of these people who are criticizing Muhammad but you also have Allah's responses to them and if Muhammad was known for performing all these miracles then when it says you know the unbelievers say hey why was not a sign sent with him the response should have been wait what are you talking about he split the moon what are you talking about he shoots water out of his fingers what are you talking about he does all these things instead over and over and over again the Quran gives excuses for why Muhammad uh wasn't sent with any miracles and so it's it's it's basically i mean just think about it i i understand if you're a muslim and you believe that Muhammad performed miracles why you're we're not on the same page here but just think about it from my perspective i've got the Quran it repeatedly tries to explain why Muhammad's not performing miracles and we see over and over again the unbelievers are constantly pestering the muslims why isn't your guy sent with miracles why isn't your guy sent with miracles why isn't he sent with miracles and we know that this would continue afterwards so even later when muslims are going out when you have this expansion and people are saying hey why you know uh Muhammad is a prophet in line with the other prophets jews and christians would have been continuing to ask where's that where's his miracles where are his miracles where are his miracles and suddenly over a century later you get miracles in ibn asaq and two centuries later in sahih el bukhari you get miracles and so on look at it from our perspective your earliest source explains why he didn't perform miracles sources that come much later say he performed all these miracles what these later sources say doesn't line up at all with with what the Quran saying that the response in the Quran should have been what are you talking about he performs miracles all the time and it's not and so do we have good evidence that Muhammad performed miracles uh i'd say no can i just say something and then david can respond have the final word on it if it's super short and petty yeah super short like according yeah the thing david though think about it if this is such like a defeater of islam and this is like so embarrassing that all these disbelievers are saying hey Muhammad's life time you don't have miracles why according to you Muhammad wrote the Quran so why would he repeatedly mentioned this in these verses as you cited why would he keep drawing attention to that fact if this is Muhammad who's writing the Quran according to you it seems like he would not want to mention that at all why even raise the issue uh Muhammad over Muhammad throughout the Quran is responding to accusations and by the way i don't have a position on whether Muhammad is deliberately uh fabricating the Quran and claiming that it's from god or if he actually was a person who sincerely believed he was a prophet and is just you know getting his revelations from somewhere else or from from his own head or something like that i don't really have a position i can see arguments for various positions but as far as Muhammad bringing this up i mean the unbelievers are constantly coming up with these uh criticisms against Muhammad and it's not just that he can't perform miracles it's that he's a madman it's uh so he's a madman there are multiple accusations that he's a plagiarist and Muhammad it if we go with what you're saying and he's actually coming up with responses to their objections that's what he's doing right i mean his followers are then uh hearing these verses that he's revealing and what are what are what are the revelations that he's revealing their responses to these critics who who come up to him so that the muslims now memorize these responses and so the next time someone comes up and says hey Muhammad why didn't you get any revelation i mean why didn't you get any uh why don't you perform miracles like other prophets and then the muslim can respond ah it's because previous generations you know they they they didn't pay too much attention to miracles and so Muhammad has the Quran and that's that's his miracle so that would be my take on that you got to thank you very much this one coming in from do appreciate your question greg canowitz says why is daniel conflating a religious society with a society that simply has laws you don't need religion to have laws daniel why can't you see this well if you want to have a society that has laws that are just if you want to have a society because who defines justice i'm muslim i believe and i maintain that justice is based on what god says is good and evil what god says is just and unjust i assume that christians share this understanding of justice and goodness so if you want to have laws that are good and just then they have to be tied to your religious beliefs because your religion expresses your deepest or or the deepest truths about right and wrong good and evil so of course as a as a muslim and as you know you're a christian or a jew if you want a society run by just laws of course it has to be religious i mean this is the sad thing that christians in the modern period have separated law from religion and this is exactly what secularism is and therefore they've allowed this kind of atheistic understanding of the world atheistic understanding of right and wrong to be imposed through a secular system to be imposed on all people in a way that actually destroys faith in a way that actually destroys family destroys marriage this has has happened because of this separating the laws from religion i personally okay if here's here's a choice that's given if i were given a choice to live in an atheistic society with atheistic laws versus a christian society and christian laws i always choose the christian society every single time why because those laws at least are abrahamic they're based on revelation christians are people of the book they love god they care about family these are important values that i as a muslim share and i was born and raised in texas texas is a very conservative christian state and i have you know loved and enjoyed my interaction with my christian neighbors and christian community and unfortunately i'm seeing christians especially this new generation that's abandoning christianity that's abandoning traditional values and it's because of this adoption of secular liberalism and this idea that no laws shouldn't be based on religion so this is something that's traumatic for me personally i would wish that christians would wake up from this and realize this and see that muslims are not the enemy islam is not the enemy turn off the tv turn off all this garbage against muslims and see for yourself what's really happening the actual antichrist system the satanic system that's being used to wipe out humanity wipe out belief in god this is a huge problem and we have to address it you got it thank you very much and appreciate this question from youth of rhodalama you guys might have to help me decode this they said question for david ask an atheist daniel is presenting divine command theory if allah was a real prophet are all commandments under allah permissible also both of you name one act that is immoral if god ordered it um i didn't catch the first part because you read through that again slowly you bet it's basically trying to give us the youth of rhodalama okay is he trying well i understand the youth of rhodalama it's not it's not relevant to the topic at hand we don't need to get into a philosophy discussion about plato and greek philosophy well i could you read it again though just because i didn't uh i didn't catch the first part and i might i might agree with daniel and say it has nothing to do with what we're talking about but yeah i i don't i didn't actually detect that youth throw in it but maybe it is like they said question for david ask an atheist daniel is you guys folks you got to use periods or commas here sometimes like so they said if allah was a real prophet from if allah was a real prophet yeah they said is our all commandments under allah permissible i i think yeah i just don't understand i think we're both confused he it does look like he's going trying to go somewhere with the youth of rhodalama but uh we need a clearer statement of what he's saying you got it and notion slave says why is wood stuck on tiny details of the way of life and ignoring the other 99 percent of the teachings just the same way that your parents share their way of life with you so does muhammad out of love and care is love strange to you if he's talking about how i pointed out that muhammad had all these little tiny details for how to live and so on i'm not saying hey muhammad had all these rules that seem really strange to me about you know wiping with an uneven number of stones and so on or you know plucking every so often and and so on it's it's not that is i'm looking at kind of the the entire picture right what reason do i have to believe this guy what reason do i have to take this guy seriously as someone who's speaking on behalf of god because as far as i can tell he's contradicting the old testament and he's contradicting the new testament he's claiming to be in the same line with these these earlier prophets and yet he seems to be contradicting them um that's it could be that i'm misinterpreting something and i'm misinterpreting and thinking that he's he's contradicting them when he really isn't but what is the evidence that he's actually speaking from god and and every i mean every argument i get it turns out to be completely bogus right i mean the perfect preservation of the Quran no it's not uh the miracles in the Quran i mean the Quran says that the sun sets in a muddy pool so so the arguments that i'm given turn out to be complete nonsense then there are problems like muhammad affirms the inspiration preservation authority of the earlier scriptures and yet contradicts them so i'm looking at this and saying problems and then i'm looking at his life with him thinking that he's uh him thinking that he's demon possessed and needing to be talked out of that him being suicidal him thinking that uh that he's a victim of black magic and then all the moral issues and so on and then it's it's kind of assessing his his personality and when i see him making all these little these little rules that that sounds like obsessive compulsive disorders i'm trying to put together a like a like a psychological uh profile here and again the point is not oh he's got all these little rules that's a that's this huge problem it's that it's something that kind of helps us understand who we're dealing with and it just i see nothing here but i think shorter than you short and david sure sure yeah very short so if uh muhammad sallallam was obsessive compulsive he has these psychological problems as as you're characterizing him how was he so successful how was he so successful in bringing all of arabia into islam then successfully defeating the biggest superpower of the time which was the persian empire and almost defeating the roman empire and at least bringing it to its knees and and really spreading the rule of islam uh as far west as uh morocco and as far east as uh india the subcontinent like this is proof of of the divine favor on muhammad that he was so successful and to characterize him as having psychological problems like none of this would have been possible he couldn't have inspired all of these people and this is this is historical right he's the most influential person there's you know the debate about jesus versus muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam peace be upon them both but you can't just characterize him with these cheap missionary arguments david to be clear you can be obsessive compulsive and be massively successful so just to be clear on that as far as how muhammad was successful it's actually i think pretty pretty straightforward when muhammad came out with his early arguments it was things like um you know my my revelations are so amazing in whatever way you you know different muslims describe it in different ways but no one can imitate my revelation so they must be from god uh and he is actually found in the earlier scriptures things like that and he didn't win a ton of converts like that it was it was a slow it was a slow process um later the message kind of changed to hey let's go out and fight people and take all their stuff and subjugate the world join me and if you uh if you if we win and you survive then we divide up the spoils of war and if you die you go to paradise where you'll you know get your your hoodies and so on your virgins and that was massively successful and uh if it's just going to be hey how could it spread so fast unless it's true i mean gosh communism spread rapidly coronavirus spread rapidly there are all kinds of rapidly spreading things but i think we have a pretty good idea of how a slum spread rapidly this one coming in from do appreciate your question nada verse says question for daniel biblical violence tends to be descriptive while chronic violence tends toward the prescriptive do you not see the difference no i fundamentally disagree and all of these christian scholars that i cited all the christian emperors all of the uh jewish scholars um memonides which i've been pronouncing as maemonites this whole time they all agree that this is prescriptive that the oldest testament is giving prescriptive instruction for uh and commands from god in order to conquer the entire globe in expansionist war in order to spread the word of god and to and to spread the justice of god um that is something that's consistent in the abrahamic faiths it is prescriptive and if you're a christian then you should expect this from jesus christ himself as well because if he didn't practice this kind of expansionism in his own lifetime that's fine that's because that was not his aim uh that was not his mission given to him by god uh when he was on earth but when he returns from heaven to earth to defeat the antichrist he will be an expansionist he will be a violent expansionist and this is very clear in the islamic tradition and it's very clear in uh as i mentioned the apocalyptic traditions within the new testament so there's i don't see how you can be a christian and have a problem with this and logically makes sense the united states and the un is the united nations they're expansionists how because they say the entire world has to abide by this human rights directive that we are imposing and if you do not abide by human rights we will attack you and we will subjugate you we will sanction you and we will bring you to heal if you do not abide by our dictates our vision of right and wrong and what is good and bad except the un and the united states have this secular godless atheistic moral system that they're imposing violently brutally across the entire globe in this kind of expansionist way uh whereas the Abrahamic faiths including Judaism and Christianity and Islam we are trying to spread the word of god we're trying to spread the justice that can only come from the creator so logically think christians please stop rehashing these old tired liberal arguments don't be liberal secular people when i say liberal i don't mean like don't be a democrat uh because republicans democrats conservative they all like the same liberal political garbage i'm talking about a higher level philosophical liberalism with these ideals of separation of church and state and individual rights this is what you need to reject so stop co-opting these stupid arguments just to score cheap points against Islam look to your own tradition look to your own pre-modern scholars and what they say about the word of god and the justice of god and then you'll realize that muslims have the same message about justice they have the same love for god they have the same love for establishing truth and justice on the earth and then you'll see that muslims are not the enemy and some of you many of you i pray and i hope that many of you will become muslim and see that the prophet muhammad is the final prophet and jesus christ peace be upon him is the messiah and he will return with wrath and fury to kill the antichrist notion slave thanks for your question as well says a laisha in the bible prayed to god to curse a group of 42 men calling for him for calling him baldy and two bears were sent by god to tear them apart so no i think this is for you david i think that they're only saying that violence is uh you could say endorsed or condoned or i've never denied that there's a violence and i mean i i think i literally started my i mean in my opening statement i mentioned old testament uh violence uh but the debate is about christian perspective on violence and what i said was that christians um we have to go with the the commands that are actually directed towards us there is is a series of covenants in the bible um there's a series of covenants in the bible and the covenant that we're actually under and you see the early you see the earlier covenants it talks about who those covenants are directed towards who are the people by the way i don't know how someone doesn't know the language we're using here a covenant is an agreement between god and a person or god in a particular group so uh and a covenant is god says i'm going to do this and here's what you need to do in response and what you have uh in the bible you have these different covenants and you have the covenant with the children of isreal you know the covenant with the children of isreal um and that's a good part of what we know as the old testament but the old testament also talks about a new covenant coming that's not just for the children of israel that's not tied to a particular piece of land um a covenant that's meant to be a light around the world a light to the gentiles it's meant to go around the world the news of the messiah this is the covenant through jesus christ and jesus christ gives commands to the people who are part of this covenant and so it's pretty straightforward um situation if i'm under a covenant with god and god tells me the obligations of the covenant that i'm under it makes no sense to say hey i'm going to go follow the commands of a different covenant if they seem to be in conflict with the commands of the the current covenant and the main difference there is um the the old covenants tied to a particular piece of land the jews are surrounded on all sides by people who want to rip them apart and destroy them and destroy their religion destroy their their people group and so it's uh they they will they can only be sustained in that environment if they have god's uh constant protection and god says hey you want protection here is the agreement if you don't if you don't if you don't you can you can leave but uh if you want this ongoing protection then here's what you have he gives laws that they have to follow they understand who they're rebelling against if they rebel but that is a very different covenant than the covenant we have uh with jesus christ uh that is not it's not tied to a land we're not in the same situation where um there are all these people just constantly trying to physically destroy our our entire country and so on and the covenant that we're under the covenant that is meant to be spread around the world um jesus died on the cross for sins and that's a simple message that uh if you want to be right with god if you want to know god if you want to spend eternity with god guess what you're not good enough you are not good enough to live in the presence of god and you can't you can't come up with a you you can't live a righteous enough life to really please god the only way you can actually live in the presence of god is if you get a righteousness that comes from him and the gospel is a message about how god gives us the righteousness of christ the righteousness of jesus and so if you accept it then you're under that covenant and that covenant tells you to love everyone you got it thank you very much and this question coming in for daniel xx wlz xx thanks so much says daniel is literally advocating for persecuting anyone who doesn't agree with his religion what are your thoughts daniel uh no as i've said before there's not this command for just um indiscriminate killing um an expansionist war in islam expansion can be used it's in the discretion of the amir the leader of muslims so if there is a need to expand or there's opportunity to to expand the rule of islam then that can happen and it doesn't involve just massacring people as described in in the old testament and affirmed by orthodox jewish law and christian authorities it involves establishing the sharia and people become ahl adhima basically the protected people who have to pay you know the jizya have to pay a certain tax but they're protected and they're under the control of of the sharia and i already addressed that there's not exactly equal rights because there's an incentive for people to become muslim they're not eradicated but this islamic society provides incentives so that people can accept islam and be muslims but if people choose not to do that they can continue to practice um christianity practice judiism according to some interpretations even hinduism that can be practiced under the islamic rule and i think that's a better system of tolerance this is the traditional tolerance that i was explaining before it's much better than the quote-unquote liberal tolerance that atomizes society and creates all of this um individualism gone awry you know we give in islam individual rights but there's a limit if you maximize individual rights without limit that causes the destruction of family that causes the destruction of community and marriage and and everything all the problems that we see with the modern world but islam's understanding of tolerance is that yes the ahlu dhimma the people of the book they practice their religious rituals they maintain their family law their inheritance law they maintain their rules of commercial transaction amongst themselves and islam protects them and yes i conceded that it's not a perfectly equal system between muslims and non-muslims because there's the incentive to convert but that i would argue that christians living under that rule of law jews living under that rule of law despite it not being liberally tolerant would prefer that much more than the destruction of their customs their traditions and their entire religions under the secular modern regime and again the proof is in the pudding because we see christians who have maintained their religion for 1400 years under sharia law this supposedly terrible barbaric intolerant law they've preserved it for 1400 years whereas christians are dying off basically becoming apostates their churches shuddering throughout the western secular world that is supposedly so much more tolerant islam is the only religion unfortunately that's standing up against this secular liberal behemoth this monster i wish that christians would wake up and also stand against this but right now islam is the only religion that's standing up for these abrahamic values i feel like i've defended the old testament more in this debate the bible more in this debate than david has i mean what does that tell you this one coming in from do appreciate your question zagros ascan says daniel and david first david would you guys sacrifice your first borns if your god commanded it to you like he did with abraham i can say yes god commands me and i'm a prophet of god like abraham yes of course i obey god saman al waqana we hear and we obey and uh i'm a diagnosed psychopath so i i have i have to i have to say there's um yeah that is something i could i would have a problem in that i would i would not believe that it's from god given the revelations that have been handed to me but if if i knew that it were from god fortunately never in this situation i've been commanded to love everyone to harm no one and so on um but yeah i have to say that uh i had this sort of personality that i would obey god again come on come on david if it were me come on just defend abraham just tell them when they ask when these liberals just say yes god commands it i will do that don't just like give this long explanation let's say yes be a chad david be a chad yo yo yo i know from experience as soon as you say i would yes i i would kill my son if i were ordered to or something like that they'll run with that and say he's he's going to kill his son as soon as he hears a voice or something like that and he's already crazy so he's going to hear a voice and so i'm pointing out i'm pointing out that let these losers say whatever they want uh defend abraham this is northern abraham be proud david it's normally it's normally muslim saying it i just know how could muslim say it because muslims believe in this uh that abraham was commanded and he was going to do it he was going to sacrifice his son that's that's what we believe so how can they accuse you forget about these looter losers david i think you need to give a strong answer be a chad you can do it i believe in you yeah and by the way in the in the just so everyone knows in the bible uh god had made promises to abraham about his son and about the covenant coming through his son so the bible also says that as far as abraham's reasoning it was god made these promises about this son and he's commanding me to kill him therefore even if i kill him god is going to raise him from the dead that those are abraham's thought processes and then when he's ready to do it uh what's really cool is he's he's willing to do it and if you look this is not a message about hey everyone should uh should always be ready to kill their kids in the surrounding culture the highest form of worship according to some of these weird groups was child sacrifice right and so the the takeaway message from that situation is god is saying hey you know abraham you all have this test about the the greatest thing someone can do is to sacrifice their child uh abraham is just as devout and obedient as any of the rest of you the difference between you and abraham is you have a different god your god requires that child sacrifice abraham's god doesn't require that sacrifice abraham's god provides his own sacrifice and notice what uh abraham abraham even said god will provide the sacrifice god will provide the lamb and if you look what abraham said let me finish i'm almost done abraham said uh abraham said when he was asked by isaac hey you know where's the sacrifice abraham said god will provide the lamb for sacrifice if you look then god provided a ram what happened to the lamb well very interesting that whole situation was on mount mariah that's where jerusalem is and that's where the lamb of god became the sacrifice of uh of god so interesting how all this if you're tied together you're just you're just liberal explaining look you're getting the gospel you're getting the bring a sword this is how you answer you just flash this sword and say yes i would bring a sword to all of these debates and conversations david and prove that you're a chad you're not embarrassed about your scripture yes i would yes i'm just trying i'm just trying to give a complete picture there because everyone's gonna i'm again they're gonna they're talking about killing kids what's up with these guys they're talking about let them let them shout make them look like fools make them look like fools we're gonna jump we're gonna jump into the next one do want to say thanks we got to wrap up in just a few minutes folks as our guests have been we've already gone over time for the q&a but want to say thank you so much we have we're gonna maybe go with one or two more questions and thank you huge thank you to our guests who have been so i'm like look at you guys and you look like you could go for another two hours you look high energy and i'm like wow anyway the only thing the only problem is uh i've had uh two and a half leaders of water water here so that is the only thing holding me back right now why has this debate revolved around urine so much more on that later but muzzy muzzy buzz says can david give us an example of a peaceful christian empire in history why is every example for christian dumb been one of extreme violence and subjugation um yeah i'm not i'm not sure what what what you mean here i mean if you if you look there there are plenty of christian nations down through history that yes they they fight um but i mean gosh how many christian nations are there in the world how many of them are going out trying to subjugate the world there there aren't a lot they'll they'll fight if they if they need to but um it's just a it's kind of a modern it's kind of a modern problem and that you and you see it you see it largely from atheists like sam harris talked about something like the vast majority of histories wars were fought in the name of religion and it actually wasn't something like six percent of histories wars were fought in the name of religion but we tend to look back at every christian country and you know muslim countries and so on and think that these these wars they're they're fighting are all over religion they did sometimes have some wars over religion especially you know especially in islam but you know the the wars would generally be over it would be over territory or it would be over who's the appropriate king and so on and so yeah the vast majority of histories wars had nothing to do with uh with religion so don't think oh here's a christian country and it's at a war with another christian country they're fighting over jesus and usually they're not you got it and want to let you know folks we've got to let these guys get to sleep we've got to let david go to the bathroom but i want to let you know they're linked in the description we really do appreciate david and daniel it has been a true pleasure to host you guys this is honestly been i this will be like one of the best we've had i think on moderated debate all the while that it's existed so i want to say thank you so much this has been tremendous yeah i'd like to thank you james for organizing and moderating i appreciate all your help you know it takes a lot of time to do these and i also thank david for taking the time and i appreciated talking to you and hearing your perspective and what i said about you and your family i really didn't mean that so thank you yep and thanks to you both and thanks everyone for watching 100 percent the pleasure is all ours and folks i'll be back in just a moment with updates on future debates coming up here so if you haven't yet hit that subscribe button and i'll be back in just a moment with that post credit scene on upcoming debates so stick around and be right back