Is there a contradiction in the Qur'an?

[Abaddon_ire]

Nope. They are directly contradictory and you cannot resolve them.

They're not, you didn't even point to a contradiction. Creating man from nothing, from blood of clot, from sperm, are just different aspects of creation. It's really moronic to think describing stuff in different, complementary ways is somewhat contradictory.

I pointed out a crapton of contradictions. And I have many more. But you cant even be honest with the first one. You are compelled to flat out lie.

You also failed to respond to your BS about the Council of Nicea, which means you are wrong and you know it.

The trinity doctrine was implemented and adopted in the council. The latter, as a result, clearly had a decisive impact on the present-day christian doctrine.

Roling, rolling, rolling see those goalposts rollint rawhide!!!!
The Nicean councils did not do that. Pretending they did is a lie.

Of course christian literature doesn't acknowledge this, they treat the origin of their gospels as a problem though. There are literally dozens of theories explaining their origin, attempting to solve what they refer to as the synoptic problem. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels#Theories

BS. You lied. Admit it. The canon was set in 382 CE at the council of Rome. You have not the foggiest clue what you are spouting on about.

This is enough for me to conclude there is no comparison between the reliability of the Qur'an and that of the O/NT. The former began virtually as an audio book, mouth to ear recitation of hundreds of companions of Muhammad. They heard every word of the Qur'an verbatim from their prophet. This is very very different from what christians face to back up the historicity of their holy book.

The christians cannot back up their holy book. The muslims cannot back up their holy book. Nobody can back up any holy book.

Except for Nay_Sayer, who can back up his holy book. Isn't that strange?

You also failed to respond to the fact that we already know that there was never an Adam. Because you were wrong and you know it.

How do you know that.. exactly?

That would be science. You know, the thing you reject while fucking using it to post right fucking here.

I know allah is not real so I can call him/her/it/housecat whatever I like and it matters not a whit.

It's really retarded to claim you know some god isn't real. At least say no evidence convinced you.

There is no evidence to convince me. You have none at all.

Has any deity been proven real? It is rather simple. I will believe pretty much anything given sufficient evidence. But you have none. If you were to prove allah the shit real, I would believe in him/her/it/housecat. But I guarantee I would spit on him/her/it/housecat, because as described it's a cunt.

Perhaps that offends you and your religious sensibilities? Tough. You do not have a right to be not offended. By anything.


I do believe in the right to free speech, which is why I am even responding to you. But clearly, you do not believe in free speech or the free exchange of ideas because you take offense at my use of the term "allah the shit". Free speech should not be allowed in your mad system. You take offence at the term "allah the shit". Why should I give a flying fuck about your offended sensibility about an imaginary sky fairy? Really. I am seriously asking the question. Why should I care about someone else's delusional magic friend?

Free speech isn't equivalent to being a provocative, impolite ass when discussing with a believer. You can express your disagreement without resorting to insults we regard as blasphemy.

Blasphemy. That is merely amusing. How can one give offence to an imaginary being?

I have no problem using the term "allah the shit" because I have freedom of speech. You want to stop that.

Why do you oppose freedom of speech?

Because you do not want freedom. Your imaginary god has told you it is wrong. But it wasn't your imaginary god. It was your very real imam who told you. Odd that, no?