Innerancy.

[One Bad Pig]

Based on what I've seen here and elsewhere on the Internet, I can't help but wonder if this is really the best Muslim apologetics has to offer.

(I mean, I honestly think Mormonism is patent nonsense, but it has a share of people who can try to defend it without being complete idiots.)

This is sadly better than what I've encountered in real life. Ran into a Muslim proselytizer on the Metro last week. Didn't help his case that he was talking to himself for like 10 minutes before he said anything to me.

[rogue06]

Based on what I've seen here and elsewhere on the Internet, I can't help but wonder if this is really the best Muslim apologetics has to offer.

(I mean, I honestly think Mormonism is patent nonsense, but it has a share of people who can try to defend it without being complete idiots.)

For the most part Mormons have at least read their Book of Mormon whereas it surely appears that the lion's share of Muslim apologists have never looked inside the Qur'an or the Hadiths. Many are genuinely flummoxed when you start pointing out what the texts actually say.

[Sparko]

This is sadly better than what I've encountered in real life. Ran into a Muslim proselytizer on the Metro last week. Didn't help his case that he was talking to himself for like 10 minutes before he said anything to me.

Did he threaten to blow you up if you didn't convert?

[One Bad Pig]

Did he threaten to blow you up if you didn't convert?

No, when I refused to take his assertions as gospel, he said, "This conversation is over."

[Cow Poke]

No, when I refused to take his assertions as gospel, he said, "This conversation is over."

That's when I smile and say "this conversation has just begun!"

(unless, of course, he appears to be wearing a bulky coat or vest - then the next stop is mine!)

[Same Hakeem]

God sent His son to die for us so that we may have eternal life.
Allah demands his followers send their own sons to die for him.

Talk about a theological conflict! And - Infants: The New Terrorist Weapon?

Rocks and glass houses, Hakeem.

Your statement, "God sent His son to die for us" conflicts with God's command that "each is to die for his own sin" in 2 Kings 14:6.

[tabibito]

Your statement, "God sent His son to die for us" conflicts with God's command that "each is to die for his own sin" in 2 Kings 14:6.

God sent his son so that whosoever might believe on him should not die, but could instead be granted life eternal. (The death of Christ made eternal life possible for people who meet a particular requirement)
When the points are viewed on the basis of what they actually say, "God sent his son to die for us" is valid, and is not in conflict with the claim that "each will die for his own sin." To anyone who believes in Christ, God grants a pardon for past sins.
A key component of "believing in Christ" is believing what he said.

[Cow Poke]

Your statement, "God sent His son to die for us" conflicts with God's command that "each is to die for his own sin" in 2 Kings 14:6.

A) You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the context of the OT passage.
2) You have fundamental ignorance of the Old Testament and the New Testament Covenants.

The two examples are not even talking about the same thing.

[ReformedApologist]

If this is the state of Islamic apologetics it is really sad.

[ReformedApologist]

And it seems he thinks the passage in Jeremiah 31:30 itself refutes the atonement. Yes apart from Christ we will die for our sins as even Christ says in John 8:24. This is called a false dilemma.

[rogue06]

If this is the state of Islamic apologetics it is really sad.

Yup. When you convert through coercion your ability to rationally defend your view tends to atrophy.

[Cow Poke]

Yup. When you convert through coercion your ability to rationally defend your view tends to atrophy.

IF that ability even existed pre-conversion.

[rogue06]

IF that ability even existed pre-conversion.

When your ability to persuade primarily revolves on a threat of convert or die why bother with things like logic and facts.

[Cow Poke]

God sent his son so that whosoever might believe on him should not die, but could instead be granted life eternal. (The death of Christ made eternal life possible for people who meet a particular requirement)
When the points are viewed on the basis of what they actually say, "God sent his son to die for us" is valid, and is not in conflict with the claim that "each will die for his own sin." To anyone who believes in Christ, God grants a pardon for past sins.
A key component of "believing in Christ" is believing what he said.

The "each will die for his own sin" was actually a clarification of the principle of capital punishment regarding the assassination of Amaziah's own father. - IN CONTEXT, and in a simpler to understand version....

Scripture Verse: 2 Kings 14 (NLT)

5 When Amaziah was well established as king, he executed the officials who had assassinated his father. 6 However, he did not kill the children of the assassins, for he obeyed the command of the Lord as written by Moses in the Book of the Law: “Parents must not be put to death for the sins of their children, nor children for the sins of their parents. Those deserving to die must be put to death for their own crimes.”

© Copyright Original Source

"Those deserving to die" is a reference to those who would be put to death under capital punishment.

Or, the CEV....

Scripture Verse:

5 As soon as Amaziah had control of Judah, he arrested and killed the officers who had murdered his father. 6 But the children of those officers were not killed. The Lord had commanded in the Law of Moses that only the people who sinned were to be punished, not their parents or children.

© Copyright Original Source

Amaziah was showing restraint.

[tabibito]

The "each will die for his own sin" was actually a clarification of the principle of capital punishment regarding the assassination of Amaziah's own father. - IN CONTEXT, and in a simpler to understand version....

Scripture Verse: 2 Kings 14 (NLT)

5 When Amaziah was well established as king, he executed the officials who had assassinated his father. 6 However, he did not kill the children of the assassins, for he obeyed the command of the Lord as written by Moses in the Book of the Law: “Parents must not be put to death for the sins of their children, nor children for the sins of their parents. Those deserving to die must be put to death for their own crimes.”

© Copyright Original Source

"Those deserving to die" is a reference to those who would be put to death under capital punishment.

Or, the CEV....

Scripture Verse:

5 As soon as Amaziah had control of Judah, he arrested and killed the officers who had murdered his father. 6 But the children of those officers were not killed. The Lord had commanded in the Law of Moses that only the people who sinned were to be punished, not their parents or children.

© Copyright Original Source

Amaziah was showing restraint.

I had mistaken the reference for something from the record at Ezekiel 18: 1-21 - should have looked up the reference provided.

However, the correct reference does show that Amaziah had acted in accord with the law:

6 But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Something from Leviticus, perhaps?

Even so - the reference would be a law applying for human dealings with humans, not God's dealings with humans. Your objection to Same's post stands.