A Muslim argues with Europeans that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all originate from the one God.

追加: 2026-06-02

[00:00:00]All I can offer is my time, a discussion to answer your questions, maybe learn about God.

[00:00:06]>> See with me?

[00:00:06]>> Yeah.

[00:00:07]>> I don't know enough about Islam for me to be able to debate and question it, >> if you see what I'm trying to say. So, anything you tell me >> would be highly subjective to me, if that makes sense. Because I wouldn't understand enough about the objective facts behind it for me to be able to give you a clear enough to debate it or to challenge to challenge your opinion.

[00:00:26]But I'm really happy to listen to see what you've got to say. And that's respectable. I'm going to be honest. If I spoke to say a Jan, >> a person who believes in the Jan faith, >> I would ask questions and just listen to what they've got to say. Maybe challenge a few things that I think are illogical.

[00:00:42]>> Yeah. Exactly.

[00:00:43]>> Because logic is something we all have, right?

[00:00:44]>> What's something that gets challenged in Islam a lot that people find illogical in your opinion, in your experience?

[00:00:49]>> To to be fair, >> I would say that there's nothing substantial in Islam that people have an issue with. I would say that it's just ignorance. That's that's my claim. And that's why I say that if you ask anything, I'm sure I'd be able to give you a logical coherent answer. But just out of interest, because obviously we all do re and we've learned about religions when we were in secondary school. You know what I mean? We got basic understanding. So >> what's your basic understanding of the concept of God in Islam?

[00:01:21]>> In Islam?

[00:01:22]>> Yeah. Like of Islam? after >> the basic concept and understanding of God in Islam. So we start with the basics. You refer to God as Allah, right? And I don't know if I'm correct in this, but my interpretation from what I see is it's approached as like a masculine presence like it's approached as a as a he rather than a neutrality or a feminine energy. Is that right?

[00:01:47]>> That's a good question. But the he and she is purely based on the grammatical aspect of the Arabic language. Even it predates even the coming of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. So that's just the way for example son will be regarded as she. It doesn't necessarily mean that >> son regarded as she. The son is technically a he.

[00:02:08]>> Yeah. So it depends on the it depends on the language and the masculine and and feminine um characterization like what is a car? What is the aeroplane? What's Allah? So, it doesn't necessarily mean that he is a masculine or a feminine.

[00:02:23]Theologically, we believe Allah to be non-gender. Yeah. He's not gender because he's in the Arabic means there's none like him.

[00:02:38]>> Yeah. Does that answer your question?

[00:02:41]>> I think you're saying that for the sake of ease and language, you refer >> it's literally just language. Yeah.

[00:02:46]rather than the real fantastic >> my understanding is that Allah is this uh correct me if I'm wrong I believe that I think I say I believe I understand that Muhammad is a prophet Jesus is a prophet >> um whereas Christianity they believe that Jesus was God in human form yeah >> came down from heaven or come down from somewhere to die for sins on the cross etc so al is this energy maybe Christians this energy I believe or something like this. He's not he's not human, is he?

[00:03:19]>> Yeah, he's not human.

[00:03:19]>> God is not human, is he?

[00:03:20]>> No.

[00:03:21]>> So, Christians actually believe Jesus was 100% God and 100% man.

[00:03:28]>> I know it's difficult to grasp, but that's the grasp at all.

[00:03:31]>> Yeah. 100% God and 100% man.

[00:03:34]>> Okay. So, one thing that I would say or when I discuss with Christians, what I struggle with is when you say this thing is 100% something, there's no room for something else.

[00:03:45]Do you see >> why isn't that >> because in mathematics physics and mathematics if you consider mathematics and physics is like absolute for science thus far >> 100% of this bottle means that you can't if I fill this 100% you can't fit any more right >> so therefore if Jesus is 100% human how can he be 100% God if he's 100% God but basically that >> I could challenge that I could challenge that so do you believe you have a soul in your body >> you So when you die, where does the soul go?

[00:04:16]>> So when I die, my body disintegrates >> and the soul goes to the grave.

[00:04:24]>> It just sits in a grave.

[00:04:25]>> No, we This is something as we believe in a realm in the grave called the realm of the bzak. So if you were to dig somebody up, you wouldn't be able to see them. But there is a realm that that takes their soul.

[00:04:39]>> So the soul goes through the soil.

[00:04:41]The soul leaves the body and goes into this realm >> and it goes somewhere >> into this realm. Yeah.

[00:04:47]>> So that could happen to Jesus too. So say God God for example the soul went into this human body went into your human body. You you passed away sadly or died on the cross for the sins. Then all of a sudden the soul is then it's gone back into into this realm isn't it?

[00:05:03]>> But here's the thing.

[00:05:04]>> So so why why couldn't it actually happen? I know it's a subjective debate but why couldn't it happen? No, it's a you're more than welcome to that because when they say Jesus died on the cross and they're saying he's 100% God and 100% man, that means God died on the cross.

[00:05:17]>> Yeah.

[00:05:18]>> God can't die.

[00:05:19]>> Absolutely.

[00:05:20]>> Then it's a predicament dying on a tricky one.

[00:05:23]>> I don't think that challenges 100% thing because that's that's mathematics. It's physics, right? So the soul the soul must the soul must represent a certain percentage of something because it's inside you. Your finger is say your finger is 2 to 3% of your body.

[00:05:38]>> But bear in mind, it's always going to be less than 100% though, right?

[00:05:41]>> Yes, that's true. But we don't know what number that is, >> though. But Jesus is supposed to be 100% God and 100% man.

[00:05:47]>> But this is this is an uneducated statement. And this is how we know that religion comes from a man's interpretation of consciousness concept.

[00:05:56]>> It's a everything's a concept.

[00:05:57]Everything that we believe is a concept.

[00:05:59]So the thing is is that if you think about the journey of the soul, the journey of the soul, if you talk about when the soul leaves the body, there was actually an experiment done, don't try and quote me on who because I can't remember now. There was an experiment done where they had people that were ready to die, like old people, and they had them on a weight like sorry scale where they could weigh the body and at the precise moment the human being stopped being alive, 0.01 of a gram left every single body.

[00:06:26]And there is a theory that some scientists believe that that is the soul leaving the physical body.

[00:06:32]>> We we'd agree with you on that. We also believe there is a soul.

[00:06:35]>> But do you see when it comes to this notion of 100% God and 100% man? How >> that's just a mathematical dilemma.

[00:06:42]That's literally just an uneducated statement that someone is making. I don't think that really needs to be debated.

[00:06:46]>> Yeah. For the certain debate that is actually let me the soul does need to represent some sort of percentage of the body because we're consciously aware now. Does it?

[00:06:55]>> Well, well, think of it.

[00:06:57]>> Surely it would be less than 100% though, right?

[00:06:59]>> Think about it. If there wasn't such thing as consciousness, if the soul didn't exist to some level of percentage inside the body, you got the body, you've got the mind, and there's me and you. This conscious being, this the only present moment there is is this presence right now. But what is this presence?

[00:07:15]And this presence must be bigger than everything, bigger than the body, bigger than anything.

[00:07:20]I think we're in agreement because you're saying the soul has to be a lesser percentage and I don't have an issue with that.

[00:07:26]>> I can't I couldn't Yeah, I couldn't say I don't have an issue with that.

[00:07:28]>> I couldn't say what percentage it is.

[00:07:30]>> But what was the original question?

[00:07:31]Going back to the original question, you're saying that >> Jesus could not exist as 100% as a man.

[00:07:39]Allah has never been.

[00:07:41]>> He can't be 100% God and 100% man is what he's saying. If someone's 100% on one thing, they're 100% that. He could be 100% he could be 99% man and 1% gods.

[00:07:49]But what we're debating now isn't religion. We're debating somebody that's unintellectual >> concept of God.

[00:07:54]>> Now, now here's the the thing. What we say is that the essential attributes of God because we're all going to be judged by that. It has to be something that is intelligible.

[00:08:06]>> God doesn't judge.

[00:08:07]>> No, but for us, but according to the Christian, they would >> judges. The weak human ego is what needs labels for the concept which is why we have religion, why we have laws, why we have politics, why that person, >> we would say, we would say for God to be just, we would say for God to be just, he has to judge. Because without judgment, there is no justice. Just like if something was to happen, if there's no judgment taking place that you don't go to court, there's no police involved, there's no >> it's a similar concept like when someone's done something bad, there has to be a way that they there is justice taking place. There is recompense.

[00:08:47]>> This is still human ego though, right?

[00:08:49]So the human ego, right? I can be non-judgmental. Let's say there's a man that's doing crap right there. I can recognize as a non-judgmental human being. I don't think you're a bad or a good human being because you're doing crack okay. I just recognize you're doing crack okay. I have to make a my ego has to make a judgment that man is doing crack okay. And then my judgment is I either want to be near that or I don't. It either aligns with my purpose, my experience or it doesn't. Let me finish.

[00:09:15]>> And so that's my human ego making a judgment. God's consciousness, divinity does not judge. What what you're talking about is the human ego needs to put a label on what human beings are doing.

[00:09:27]All human beings are just doing what they're doing. And some of us think that's bad. So someone over there's raping a child, that's bad. It's actually divine and full of consciousness. That person over there is doing drugs, that's also divine and full of consciousness. That's part of their human experience. The human experience is the spiritual experience that is in alignment with God. God is in that tree.

[00:09:48]>> You're conflating two things. Yeah. So on the one aspect, I see where you're coming from. So you're coming from a human perception and a perspective which is that you're trying to make sense of things without um without revelation and without revelation I can understand that perspective. However when a person accepts that there is a god obviously evidentially and there is scripture then of course we get the just let me finish we get the scripture from God and morality comes from that scripture then you can't separate the two. You can't >> say that scripture is right.

[00:10:22]>> That's what I'm saying. That's why I said evidentially like you can then ask me that what's the evidence that your scripture is from God and said scripture isn't. That would be a different categorization. Just one second. Yeah.

[00:10:34]Yeah. But but even that that we can get into but once we accept that scripture comes from God then it's like okay how do we decide and what's the criteria? I understand what uh what's your name?

[00:10:46]>> Yasmin.

[00:10:46]>> Yasmin. I understand what Yas has been saying from a human pers um perspective.

[00:10:51]Yeah. That that's why a lot of people do think like that. However, when a person accepts that there is a God, there is scripture, this scripture, it makes the most sense, then from there there's a different level of argumentation that takes place.

[00:11:05]>> The problem you got with this is though if you take a scripture for example.

[00:11:08]>> Yeah.

[00:11:09]>> Like let's say I don't know if it's in the Quran I for two for example, right?

[00:11:13]I know I know it's in the Bible, >> but like >> I could take an interpret interpretate that scripture and say, "Right, he stole my phone, so I'm going to steal his phone."

[00:11:22]>> But because scripture says I have for an eye for a two, it means I might just have to take his eye out. So our interpretation is different, human to human and such as well. So you know how if we both believe in the same faith, how do we take that interpretation of scripture and ensure that that has actually happened?

[00:11:40]>> That's a that's a very um It's hard to take scripture as a matter of fact because everyone's interpretation actions will be different.

[00:11:47]>> That's that's a very good point. Uh it seems like you've really put thought into it. Now the thing is that I can't speak for Christianity because I've studied Christianity and their their preservation of meaning and their preservation of exigesis which is interpretation. It's very it's >> but it's not a hypothetical example. You could give me something from the Quran.

[00:12:08]This is I'm not don't know. No, but this is this is what I'm saying. The concept in Islam, we have something called the chain of narration. That if there is a saying of an interpretation that's come from the prophet, if there's an interpretation that has come from exugesus, i.e. the explanation of said verse in Islam, things are more contained and things can be checked and verified with a more precise nature than say Christianity which would be right.

[00:12:34]For example, if I give you a saying of the prophet peace be upon him that he said and this is why there was a Gallup poll done a there's a poll in 2011 that people of different faiths were asked is it ever okay to kill innocent civilians.

[00:12:49]The highest percentage that said no it's never okay were Muslims with a whopping 70 80%. Why? Because they're referring to a teaching of the prophet peace be upon him in which he said don't kill women and children. Yeah. referring to battle. Now if you ask a Muslim where is this said? The Muslim will be able to say it's quoted in Imam Malik's m. Okay.

[00:13:11]What's the chain? The chain is we get it from Imam Malik. He gets it from Nafi.

[00:13:18]He gets it from Abdullah bin Omar. He gets it from the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. So we've got the chain.

[00:13:24]There are books in which you can check each individual person in this chain. Is it verified? Is it just hearsay? Is it authentic? And those individual people, we have knowledge of their name, family, tribe, where they were, if they were truthful, if they were not truthful. So this is called the isnad, the science of testimony in hadith. So that's how we're different to say Christianity that don't have chains of narration. Like even when you look at the Bible, there's a study done by EG Edwards. She quoted and they they highlighted different verses of the Bible to see how certain we are of their authenticity. And they said only 10% of the Bible we're certain of. 90% the certainty is less.

[00:14:14]>> This could be made up, couldn't they?

[00:14:15]>> No, that's why I'm I'm giving you names.

[00:14:17]EG Edwards, you can check. It's an academic paper that she's done and I can give you the reference. You can check it up yourself. You've got scholars like David Trobish who says in the manuscripts, no two sentences of the manuscripts are the same, identical.

[00:14:34]However, you compare that with the Quran, the oldest manuscript that we have is in the University of Birmingham and it's exactly it's dated to the time of the prophet and it's identical to the Quran that we have today. So the criteria in terms of manuscripts, terms of chains of narration, in terms of intelligibility of God, for example, we believe God is one. Yeah. Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, peace be upon them, all they were prophets of God. No one is fully this and fully that. They were simply prophets and they were there for their people. And the scripture of the Quran is preserved.

[00:15:08]That's why it's massmemorized.

[00:15:11]People simply cannot say that for the Bible, old or new testament. You can't say that for the Vedas of the Hindus.

[00:15:17]You simply cannot say that. So what I'm saying is that any criteria you want to use, be it manuscript evidence, be it logical evidence, I'm saying Islam has a more cogent and logical criteria.

[00:15:31]>> This is where this is where I couldn't challenge this for the cameras because my lack of knowledge in this area. I wouldn't be able to look at this and to be able to challenge it. I just have to take your word as word, right? But obviously you I would say you've probably done your research, right?

[00:15:45]>> So So here's what I would say and this is where it's good you guys are doing this on camera. Like anything that I've mentioned you guys can check cross reference when you go home >> cuz I think this would be for for atheists and people that are agnostic and don't believe in a religion or struggle to believe in religion. I know one question that always gets always gets surfaced in the pups. If there was a God and this God was almighty and in control of everything, it's quite a controversial question, but why would we have fight break out behind us there?

[00:16:12]Why don't God why don't God intervene these things? I just want to see what he says because there's a lot of people that struggle. There's a lot of suffering. Why is there so many bad things that happen? You know, if God was so mighty and so powerful, why wouldn't you take control of these things?

[00:16:26]>> You're definitely right. It is a very often asked question and a lot of people um they they struggle with it. Our answer is very simple because of free will. God has given us free will and one of the consequences of free will is these things are going to happen. The alternative to free will would be God controlling everything like puppets on a string which we don't believe. If we were puppets on a string, how can God judge us? How can God then give us paradise and hellfire? Make sense? Yeah.

[00:16:57]Yes. It's it's logical.

[00:16:58]>> Yeah. Because we got given with free will and choice and that's what gives me and you the opportunity to speak like gentleman right ab and fro. So what you're saying is God won't come to intervene these situations although God can.

[00:17:13]>> Yeah of course God can in these situations. I do believe in some essence that there is spirit in in everybody's bodies and people's bodies are being used as vessels to be able to carry actions and messages. Just something that I internally believe. It could be it could be right. It could be wrong.

[00:17:27]It's just something that I hold for you.

[00:17:29]It resonates for you to me. So there's there's an individual called Justin Barrett of Oxford University. He looked at 20 countries. Yeah. And 20 countries.

[00:17:41]He did studies to look at the innate disposition of believing in a god. And he concluded that people have an innate disposition to believe in a god. We have an innate disposition to you know do good. That's why when we smoke we cough first.

[00:17:59]>> You have a pen. Pen >> pen. No sorry brother that you know alcohol you know the first time someone drinks it they start coughing wheezing.

[00:18:08]Same with a cigarette. First time you take someone's life. All of these things are abhorrent to the human nature of the individual.

[00:18:16]>> Yeah. And that's why I absolutely agree with you that there has to be a certain kind of drive from society. Like if you look even on social media, you look how people are acting. You look what people are doing to their parents. You look at what people are doing just because they're intoxicated. It's aborant. It's wrong. And we do believe that these things are within us. However, when it comes to more detail, more detail can be given and must be given through revelation. Otherwise, human beings are just to be left in the lurch because we believe God is wise.

[00:18:48]>> It doesn't make sense for God to leave us in the lurch.

[00:18:50]>> Scripture is guidance, isn't it really?

[00:18:52]Essentially, the scripture and I mean, this is why I think there's a slight crosspollination in somewhat cuz even though you read some things in the Bible, I read some things in the Bible.

[00:19:00]I don't know a lot about it. I know obviously there's there's certain there's books of wisdom like um proverbs for example some of them things when you read the proverbs some of these scriptures they do they do resemble wisdom because if you was to carry these things out in life you know like me and you having a conversation without having conflict behind us for example >> yeah been able to carry this message and have this conversation I think I'm agnostic person but I do believe these these scriptures >> they do they do carry some good message but you have choice this is where the freedom of will comes into Yeah, which every we can either do what it says in scripture. It's just guidance, isn't it?

[00:19:36]Or we can go against it. But it's the freedom of choice.

[00:19:39]>> Not every person in this world can be controlled under one religion or under one set.

[00:19:43]>> So here's something that a lot of people may or may not know, which is that as Muslims, we accept Jesus, Moses, and the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon them.

[00:19:54]>> Yeah.

[00:19:55]>> Uh Christians don't accept the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. And Jews don't.

[00:20:01]>> That's right. Why? Why? Because because that's true about Prophet Muhammad. So what is there? What why don't they accept Prophet Muhammad? What is that?

[00:20:08]>> So I mean they don't believe about >> So So Paul Williams, I mean he was here, he was with me and he's he used to be a Catholic before. He's saying that he's spoken to the um the seniors in the church and they in their heart of hearts do actually he said I think he was speaking to Keith Ward. I think that's his name. He's saying they actually do accept. However, due to the way they've been raised and due to the backlash that they would receive, it's very difficult for them to say it >> aloud. And again, >> ego involved.

[00:20:41]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's why we we weren't that far off.

[00:20:44]>> People at the top of the church have got a lot of ego. Huh. There you go.

[00:20:46]>> Can we backtrack to something you spoke about?

[00:20:48]>> Just one second. Have I answered your question or is there something lacking?

[00:20:50]>> That's good. No, it's good.

[00:20:51]>> Okay. Fantastic. So when you were speaking, so I got the impression, please correct me if I'm wrong, that your narrative, your point is more that uh Islam, obviously in the beginning you were saying you want to clear up like misconception and how it's got like a little bit of a bad reputation because of propaganda and whatnot and the way the world is. Um but that your narration and the direction you're going it comes across a little bit forgive me if I'm incorrect like uh Islam is superior or like the correct faith.

[00:21:24]>> So what we believe that's why I mentioned that point maybe I need to elaborate a bit more that we accept Jesus and Moses. We accept that if we were alive at the time of Jesus we'd be following Jesus as a prophet. Yeah. If we were alive at the time of Moses, we would be cast as Muslims following Moses. Yeah. However, after Moses, because Moses was sent to the people, his people, Jesus said, for example, I've only been sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Yeah. He didn't claim to be sent for everybody. However, after Jesus went and I mentioned a bit about scripture and how even biblical scholars claim that the Bible has been changed. Yeah. Compared to the Quran, which is unchanged. So our narrative is that once upon a time >> no according to biblical scholarship.

[00:22:13]>> Yeah. As far as we know.

[00:22:15]>> Sure. Sure. Like if you look at Bruce Meza, you look at Bartman, David Troish, and all of these scholars that they're masters in their field, they say no two manuscripts of the Bible are the same.

[00:22:28]So um bearing all of that in mind, >> that part I really accept. I was challenging the part about the Quran being the same from the first time it was written. We don't know that for facts.

[00:22:38]>> Yeah, we do.

[00:22:39]>> We don't We don't know anything that happened before we died for facts about anything. We don't know for facts anything about World War get lost in translation because language changes over time. For example, slang now which wasn't probably around in 15th century.

[00:22:54]>> What do you what the point I'm trying to make is I'm not trying to be um too particular.

[00:23:00]>> No, that's fine. Be particular. What I'm trying to say is is that we need to as human beings aware of our ego. We need to be aware that there is always room for error because we could have a piece of CCTV that demonstrates that somebody's committing a crime, but that person could have gone to have plastic surgery to look like somebody else to get somebody else in trouble. So it looks like it looks like that person committed a crime, but it's an illusion.

[00:23:26]So, so what I'm trying to say is in our debate, I think it's really important for us to keep an air of anything that we say is not absolute.

[00:23:33]>> Okay. So, just like you're being a bit particular, I'll I'll be a bit particular as well. So, >> yeah. No, please. I like I love to be open about it. Just just get it out.

[00:23:43]>> So, the word in technical discussions that's used, you're kind of right actually. It's called the inference to the best explanation. That's the technical term if I'm to be a bit pedantic with words. That means according to the available data this seems to be the most logical option. Now what you mentioned about the Quran if we take if we're to take the inference to the best explanation is I mentioned a manuscript. Yeah. In the University of Birmingham do you remember?

[00:24:09]>> So that's the oldest manuscript that we have and according to the empirical standards that we have it's been carbon dated. Now carbon dating is a way for us to know which time period it's from. So according to the carbon dating of that manuscript is dated to the time of the prophet Muhammad to the third califf Osman.

[00:24:29]>> Where did they get the manuscript from?

[00:24:30]>> So it was excavated and it was filed in the University of Birmingham under the Mingana collection.

[00:24:37]>> And how did they verify that that is the true?

[00:24:41]>> Yeah.

[00:24:41]>> So what they did >> how did they know this was it? So for you to know what how old that material is, >> the best science can give us is something called carbon dating.

[00:24:51]>> Okay.

[00:24:52]>> So through carbon dating you can tell from what time period said document is from.

[00:24:57]>> Approximately. Yeah.

[00:24:58]>> Yeah. Approximately within like say 100 100 years.

[00:25:01]>> And then when translating this um of an Arabic language at the time they they they they could see that this was all to do with the Quran for example. This was >> that's what I'm going to get to. Yes.

[00:25:12]Yeah. So there were four folios, four sheets that were discovered. Okay.

[00:25:17]>> Yeah. Those four folios were measured with the Quran that we have today and they concluded there was a 100% word accuracy. They were four segments from four different chapters of the Quran. So it's not even like four consecutive bits. It's four different chapters. And they were able to verify >> the rest of the chapters. So we have >> we've only found four sheets.

[00:25:43]>> Yeah, four sheets.

[00:25:44]>> So what about the rest of the book?

[00:25:45]>> We can't say that's objective, can we?

[00:25:47]>> So now here's basing this thing in mind that those four sheets are those four sheets in agreement with what the Quran is today. The answer is according to that particular study, yes.

[00:26:01]>> Okay.

[00:26:01]>> Now according to another criteria, if you say no, I want more.

[00:26:05]>> Yes.

[00:26:05]>> Yeah. Then we have to look into the most complete manuscript that we have which is top capy manuscript which is in Turkey and that's within one century of the prophet peace be upon him.

[00:26:16]>> The full Quran >> this is the full Quran. Yes.

[00:26:18]>> And where does that date to?

[00:26:19]>> That dates to within to within one century which is his his period. Yeah.

[00:26:25]Once which in historical kind of classifications is brilliant because the earliest of the Bible is 300 years after Jesus. That's the complete one. And it's very different to or incredibly different to what we have today. So when you're looking at these two criterias and looking at the historical method, the Quran is preserved more specifically.

[00:26:48]>> Is this is this objective fact that you say this is what I believe to be a Muslim and not a Christian. For example, this is the only belief.

[00:26:54]>> This is not the only belief. No. This is this is a belief that say I would use for an atheist or an agnostic or somebody that says, you know what, don't give me religious. You're trying to you're trying to you're trying to bait this on objective fact is what you're saying.

[00:27:06]>> Normally when I start a discussion I know people won't really believe in the Quran. So I will use say logic, empirical evidence, philosophy, rationality >> say philosophical understanding of exactly what scriptur is telling you.

[00:27:20]Some people might read the Quran and say I don't think this is the way of life.

[00:27:24]Whereas I read the Bible and say I think the Bible is the way of life because say we read scripture to scripture. I just believe that this narrative is telling me a better story to live as a human being than the Quran for example.

[00:27:34]>> But bear in mind moralitywise for you to extrapolate morality from said scripture you have to first accept if that scripture is authentic or not. That's what I'm establishing first to me to you. Yeah.

[00:27:47]>> Because what Okay. So think about the book and there's >> Have I answered your point? I didn't want to cut you off.

[00:27:52]>> You didn't answer my point and I've got a few points.

[00:27:54]>> Sorry. Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead.

[00:27:56]>> My first point. We make we not ours.