The Narrow Path Ministries

What would be the chance for a Steve Gregg vs Shabir Ally debate over the founding documents of each faith?
I've watched this video debate and was dissapointed by the famous christian appopogist Dave Hunt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YPVfqCZHsk

It would be interesting to have also a debate that explores the views and differences of the three "Abrahamic" faiths on eschatology.

From my side, chances are good. However, I never make the arrangements for a debate. Someone else always has to do the legwork.

James White has debated him..

http://contendearnestly.blogspot.com/20 ... ebate.html

http://answeringmissionaries.wordpress. ... arguments/

With such defenders of Christianity no wonder Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.... just teasing
The problem that I see with the two on the Christian side is that they are rather stuck in their theological systems which
prevents them from accepting the flexibilities (limitations in the sense of lack of information provided) of the Scripture which
in turn makes them seem insincere, at least to me.

Dave Hunt seems to accept with no problem the violence of his dispensational ideas but vilifies the opponent's view by misrepresenting it.
Shabir seems more knowledgable in the Bible than Dave in the Koran. Dave said that there is no need for him to cite scholars, Bible should speak for itself,
but then he is quick to quote newspaper stories for supporting his arguments, which makes him be percieved as less knowledgeable to say the least.

I didn't listen or read James White in debate with Shabir yet, but I listen to the debate he had with Steve Gregg a while ago so I'm familiar with his style.
Based on that, I don't see James White as a good debater as he seems rather arrogant and that all he wants to accomplish in a debate is to dominate his opponent by whatever means possible, which in turn works against him as being percieved as a narrowminded bully and not to be easily trusted.

Shabir Ally seems civilized and respectful in spite of his appearance His arguments against Bible or Christianity are rather weak and easily disprovable. They are basically the same arguments an atheist or a Jew would have against Christianity. I'm amazed he would use the same arguments an atheist would use as they can be applied as easily to Islam and Koran.

I'm a Christian, don't know too much about Islam exept from the news (which I deem untrustworthy) but I think Steve would do a good job in debating a muslim as he is more sincere and willing to listen before he talks than debaters that seem more in love with their theological systems than the truth. Maybe the persons who are involved in the arrangement of the debates would look into this in near future.

[dalibor quote]I'm a Christian, don't know too much about Islam exept from the news (which I deem untrustworthy) but I think Steve would do a good job in debating a muslim as he is more sincere and willing to listen before he talks than debaters that seem more in love with their theological systems than the truth. Maybe the persons who are involved in the arrangement of the debates would look into this in near future.

I agree with dalibor. Is someone setting this debate up? I sure would like to listen to it. Thanks!

Hello everyone.. It's been 4 years+ since the last post.
I hope somebody can help arrange this debate. Dr. Shabir is a very respectful Muslim debater and it would be great if Steve could have this debate with him..all in the spirit of truth search.

Mark me down. That would be an event not to miss.

One weakness I would share with Dave Hunt would be my general ignorance of the Koran. Though I would expect to know the Bible better than Shabir does, he would, doubtless, know the Bible better than I know the Koran. When in dialogue with people of other faiths, whose official books I have not read or mastered, I generally count on my opponent to inform me of his beliefs, and I respond honestly to the points he makes—whether points against the Bible or points favoring his view.

In this respect, I usually have what I consider to be fruitful discussions, and often think I came out with the better and more persuasive case, but I probably disappoint Christian listeners who want their guy to have all his arguments planned before he shows up. I think, in a formal debate, Christians are generally looking for a "champion" to aggressively confront Goliath and chopping off his head. I don't show up with any intention of slaying my opponent. I prefer to reason with people and understand what the basis for their thinking is. Having discovered what they believe, I have no objection to refuting any part of their thinking that calls for such a response.

This is, I think, one reason that many people were nonplussed with my showing in the discussion with James White (though I was well familiar with his views before the debate): I had not prepared any particular arguments, because I expected a more conversational exchange. He had other ideas about what we were there to do, and (I felt) we never really "met" or connected in the dialogue.