I have scoured through your posts again, since I remember discussing with you last time.
You're either a troll, or you're so wrapped up in your own delusions that you can't see the right from the left.
I don't understand how you discuss salvation when basic facts such as Jesus never claiming to be divine haven't registered to you.
I don't see the association between the two. I can discuss soteriology just as much as I can discuss Christ's supposed divinity. The way I discuss soteriology -- what salvation entails, and what the consequences of being saved is, and who will be saved -- is not the way you think it is. If, however, I wish to discuss the discourse behind Christ's divinity, then I can still do so. Regardless, considering that thousands of traditional Christians -- who know a lot more about Christian discourse than you or almost 100% of the Muslim population, past and current do -- who are capable of believing in the divinity of Christ and still have the capacity to discuss salvation, then I'm not sure how your stance towards them can fit in. I suggest not reducing statements to pure, uncensored, conjecture in order to be taken seriously. Secondly, I'm a agnostic atheist, I don't believe in a God. But I would consider myself as a Christian moralist, where
Until you can come to grips with the existence of a metaphysical reality that includes Satanic forces
I will happily go through Yasir's poor discourse on the unfounded basis for the "realities" of jinn. Conversely, may I also introduce you to the realities of naturalism and evidence.
tryig to push people toward evil (albeit at their own free will whatever that means) you won't realize that there is a particular path to achieve good behavior.
There is a particular path to achieving good behaviour? Are you sure? Define for me "good" behaviour? I can define "good" behaviour using Islam, but I can also claim that Muhammad and God do not demonstrate good behaviour, on the exact foundation you would use to say what is "good" and what isn't. For instance, is it good behaviour to throw people into a pit of fire -- whether metaphorical or not -- on the basis of rejecting the Prophet (Q72:23)? Was Muhammad demonstrating "good" behaviour when he showed little mercy towards the criminals who killed the shepherd; cutting the criminals' hands and feet off, branding their eyes with an iron-heated rod, and left them out in the sun to die of thirsty as they called for water? Do not talk to me about doing good behaviour - as guided by some non-evidential entity - when you have no idea what good behaviour is.
Lastly, until you come to grips that christian doctrine aren't rooted in reality
And Islam is? Explain to me the Calvinesque statement in the following... Q7:179 "And We have certainly created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind. They have hearts with which they do not understand, they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear. Those are like livestock; rather, they are more astray. It is they who are the heedless". Justice is an objective reality, everything else is subjective conjecture. God's self-described attributes in the Qur'ān are just that, baseless, and rather superficial, conjecture. The same can be said within Judeo-Christianity; the only fruition, or salvation of the Abrahamic faiths, would be the supposed Incarnation of Christ, his ministry, and the Crucifixion of the Incarnate. Secondly, in regard to Islamic salvation, why are the Prophets placed on the same pedestal as Allah, in order to receive that salvation? Islam, as introduced to people, is no longer the religion about tawhid, but the religion of Muhammad's Allah -- where messengers are a necessity to be allowed to have a positive eschatological outcome, and I would even assert it to being a form of minor shirk.
And finally, you're not a Biblical scholar. Fine, there are amateurs, but you consistently get things wrong on the whims of having partially read a blurb/tumblr/wordpress/blog post/wiki page.
I will go through the embryology, Yasir's content, etc,. not for my sake, as the outcome is known. But for yours. You're like a yapping dog, seeking the attention of those around you; what you're saying doesn't really have much substance, but at least it will satisfy your yapping.