Christianity is more likely to be true than Islam

Sura 18:86. Hatta itha balagha maghriba alshshamsi wajadaha taghrubu fee AAaynin hami-atin wawajada AAindaha qawman qulna ya tha alqarnayni imma an tuAAaththiba wa-imma an tattakhitha feehim husnan 86. Until, when he reached The setting of the sun, He found it set In a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O N26;ul-qarnain! (Thou hast authority,) either To punish them, or To treat them with kindness." http://www.sacred-texts.com... The Quar'an describes Zulquarin as actually reaching the place where the sun sets. It says "WHEN HE REACHED the setting of the sun;" it does not say that it seemed to him that he had reached this place, and indeed, it could never SEEM to anybody that they had reached this place because no matter how far we travel towards the sun it will always appear to be far ahead on the horizon. So how could this REACHING the place of the sun set be written from a human standpoint as Con suggests? More embarrassing to Islam, not only does it say that he REACHED the place where the sun sets, but hat "he FOUND IT;" found what? The sun! How could it even APPEAR, even from a human standpoint, that one had FOUND the sun? It doesn't say that it appeared as though the sun was setting in water on the horizon, but that this dude went on a journey to find the spot where the sun sets, and he FOUND THE SUN in a spring of murky water! How could it even appear to a man that he had found the sun when the sun isn't on the earth? What's more, it couldn't be that the sun appeared to him to be setting in a spring of water for two reasons: (1) the horizon is too far away to see a spring. The ocean, yes, but a spring of murky water would be invisible from so far on the horizon. So Zulquarin needed to be very close to that spring, close enough to see it, but at this close distance the sun would not even appear to be going down into the spring, because it would either still be far ahead on the horizon, or, it would have already set and it would be night. (2) The account does not picture him as seeing this sun setting in the spring of murky water from a great distance away, but rather, it tells us that he went and FOUND the spot where the sun sets, and THERE he FOUND IT set in a spring of murky water. Not only did he FIND the sun set in this murky water, but NEAR IT (near the sun) he found a people. A people living NEAR THE SUN? This is unscientific and silly. If this was written from a human point of view, then the author must have been delusional. Con makes a desperate attempt to find parallels to this nonsense in the Bible, so he came up with Deuteronomy 11:30. Sure, it seems like the sun goes down on the other side of the Jordan, but surely they never claimed they FOUND the sun there, least of all in spring of murky water! That's not possible, even from a human point of view, unless one is mentally challenged or on hallucinogenic drugs. As for the woman clothed with the sun in Revelation 12, John says these were symbolic visions at the very beginning of Revelation (1:1), so Con is simply ignorant of Scripture. Con says that Zulquarin arrived at the time of sunset, but that's not what the text says. It says "he reached THE SETTING OF THE SUN, he FOUND IT SET in a spring of murky water." It was, not the time, but the SUN itself that he found SET at a specific PLACE in murky water. What was in the water, Con? Con is denying what his own holy book says because its so ridiculous. This seems to presuppose a flat earth, otherwise how can there be an extreme point in the East? It does not say, he went as far as possible on land in these directions and then observed the sun-rise or sun-set while standing at this shore. A sunrise there would be basically just the same as at any other place on this earth, at land or sea. It would still look as if it is setting "far away". It does say, that he reached THE PLACE where the sun sets I argued that the God of the Bible loves all mankind. His love isn't reserved only for those who do good. "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom 5:8) "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:10) "For God loved THE WORLD" (John 3:16)...In contrast, the Quar'an is clear that God DOES NOT LOVE sinners! Con tried to find parallels to this in the Bible by giving a list of verses that deal with our relationships to each other, such as Lot and his daughters having sex, and Jesus telling us to hate our family, but in not a single on of these does it say that God himself doesn't love us! Surely we humans make make mistakes, but God's love is supposed to be perfect, and infinite. Allah's love is limited, the love of our God is not. And all these examples are simply red herrings where I doubt Con even understands the Christian view of them, because Christians do read the account of Lot's daughters having sex with him to their children, just as they read every other Biblical text. But we don't teach them that these actions were right. Even the most holy men of God in the Bible were guilty of sin at some point, and because God is so loving he forgave them and helped them to change. Those who refuse to repent and turn around he punished. But this doesn't mean he doesn't love them. Con brings up Exodus 32:26-27 to prove the God of the Bible doesn't love everyone. Well, compare this with one of the more striking contradictions found in the Quran concerning freedom of worship. On the one hand there are a number of expressions favoring religious liberty, such as, "Let there be no compulsion in religion." And on the other hand, time and again expressions appear that indicate the direct opposite: "When the sacred months are passed, kill those that join other gods to God wherever ye find them; and seize them, besiege them, lie in wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way for God is gracious." And again: "Fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: Kill them wherever you find them. .".". Fight therefore until there be no more civil discord, and until the only worship be that of God," or "until the temptation stops.""Sura 2:186-190, 212, 213; 8:12; 9:5, 124, Rodwell. Modern Muslims claim that the Quran teaches freedom of religion and advocates only defensive warfare, but can such expressions as "kill those that join other gods to God wherever you find them," "but if they convert .".". let them go their way," and "kill them .".". until the temptation stops" be construed as either defensive warfare or permitting freedom of religion? The very Arabic word jihad disproves such a contention, for it means, "A religious war against infidels or Mohammedan heretics." (Webster) Many, many Muslims were slain by other Muslims because of religious differences. Certainly that does not spell out freedom of religion. As for Jesus saying 'hate' your family, the Greek word for "hate" at that time simply meant to 'love less.' We are not to love anyone more than God, not even our relatives. Con obviously doesn't know Jesus, for he taught the second greatest commandment was to love your neighbor as yourself. (Mark 12:31) At least Jesus had miracles to prove he was the Messiah, Muhammad did not! I challenged him to name one miracle Muhammad performed and show us proof, he didn't do it. He has on round left but sorry I won't get to rebut him. The Bible warns God's creation as well against sinning in all forms, but it does so without making the claim that God does not love those whom he created! (Deu 19:1-4) The Quar'an can't even agree on who was the first Muslim, so Con needs to deal with the Quaran's problems before he attachs the Bible. http://answering-islam.org... I'm out of space, thanks for a great debate.