Rhoblogy

The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - Index

2012-02-01T06:50:00.000-06:00

Debate introduction

Rhology's opening statement

Saaib's 1st statement

Rhology's 1st rebuttal

Saaib's 2nd statement

Rhology's 2nd rebuttal

Rhology's 1st cross-examination question

Saaib's 1st cross-examination answer

Saaib's 1st cross-examination question

Rhology's 1st cross-examination answer

Rhology's 2nd cross-examination question

Saaib's 2nd cross-examination answer

Saaib's 2nd cross-examination question

Rhology's 2nd cross-examination answer

Rhology's closing statement

Saaib's closing statement

The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - Saaib's Closing Statement

2012-02-01T04:42:00.000-06:00

I am supposed to write the conclusion of the debate in 3000 words. The conclusion I draw from the debate is that Bible is not the word of God and it isn't even reliable as a historical document. Enough reasons have given to support the conclusion.

The reasons which "Rhoblogy" had given us in his opening statement have been dealt with comprehensively. An Argument from God's Self-Affirming Authority isn't enough to satisfy a seeker of truth. An Argument from Fulfilled Prophecy makes Nostadamus' book the best book to be called the word of God. An Argument from Jesus is not valid because we don't have his arguments nor do we know what he exactly said. The External Critique from Islam shows us that the earliest followers of Islam (i.e Muhammad (saw) and his companions) never considered Bible to be the word of God. This is how I sum up Rhoblogy's opening statement.

The question of the Donkey remains unanswered. "What has the poor donkey done?" The only answer we have from "Rhoblogy" is that we can't produce God in court, in other words there are no justifications for such actions. We are yet to know how exactly the Bible writers "tickled" to write what they wrote. We have also seen that it does not help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God because we don't have the words that God inerrantly inspired. What we have are the words copied by the scribes—sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) incorrectly. It doesn't help us to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired. We don't have the originals! We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.

To be frank enough I have nothing to say now as I feel the debate speaks by itself. No more comments need to be made. But I have 3000 words which I would like to utilize.

In his first rebuttal, "Rhoblogy" discussed Bart Erhman a lot, as if he was debating Erhman not me. I didn't make any comments on it because it was off the topic but now I would like make a few comments on it. I had quoted Erhman from his book "Misquoting Jesus":

How does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don't have the words that God inerrantly inspired but only the words copied by the scribes—sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) incorrectly? What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don't have the originals! We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.

Rhoblogy commented on this saying:

"....if Ehrman had the courage to apply his same methodology and presuppositions to the Qur'an, Ehrman would come to the same conclusion about the Qur'an, that it misquotes Mohammed....."

He tells us how exactly he could have reached such a conclusion:

"P1) No original NT MSS is extant.P2) The extant MSS copies of the NT differ from each other.P3) I presuppose without argument that differences in copies mean that God could NOT have superintended the process of copying such that the essential revelation He intended to communicate was in fact preserved, because that's what I believe and I don't examine my beliefs deeply.C) Therefore, differences in copies mean that God could NOT have superintended the process of copying such that the essential revelation He intended to communicate was in fact preserved."

Then "Rhoblogy" went on to say:

What if we apply the same reasoning to the Qur'an?

"P1) No original Qur'an MSS is extant.P2) The extant MSS copies of the Qur'an differ from each other. (Saaib will probably deny this, but that merely means he is ignorant.)P3) I presuppose that differences in copies mean that Allah could NOT have superintended the process of copying such that the essential revelation he intended to communicate was in fact preserved.C) Therefore, differences in copies mean that Allah could NOT have superintended the process of copying such that the essential revelation he intended to communicate was in fact preserved."

He went on to say:

"....it is implausible that chains of narration could preserve a long text like the Qur'an with 100% accuracy over the course of many years, therefore that didn't happen.... "

He continues further:

"......How does Saaib know for sure that Uthman didn't burn the most faithful MSS copies of the Qur'an? He doesn't. He has to trust his god....."

And he also went on to say:

"...If the fact that the majority of the MSS are "centuries removed" from the original writers, what does that tell us about the Qur'an, which is actually in a worse position in that respect?...."

Now let us see what actually happens if Bart Erhman's methodology is applied to Quran. We also need to check whether it is applicable to Quran on not.

P1) No original Qur'an MSS is extant.
Muhammad (saw) was not the writer of Quran thus there can never be an original manuscript. The very question of original manuscript starts from Uthman who made copies of Quran and sent them to foreign lands. The Quran in Muhammad's time wasn't compiled in one book. It was only under the Abu Bakr that such a thing happened. Finally under Uthman we had a second compilation which was found exactly the same as the first one.

“I compared the Mushaf with those manuscripts; they did not differ in anything.”(Mushkil al-Athar, Hadith 2645)

What has been written under Muhammad (saw) is collected and written down into a book. Uthman makes an independent compilation and this compilation is exactly same as earlier compilation. What does this mean? This means the text had no changes whatsoever. Further, the same committee made 8 copies of the Quran. Where are these copies today? There are at least two copies which are supposed to be one of these. Though there have been debates on this, but the thing that needs to be kept in mind is that there are manuscripts as early as this. I wont debate on the issue of authenticity of the manuscripts. Are they really Uthmanic copies or later copies? I wont comment on this. Let us take a +- 100 years time. Notice that I will do the same for the Bible also while the case is different for that. So what do find in these manuscripts? How much text of Quran can be confirmed within the first century. Would you believe it that it is more than 90%. Yes, more than 90% of the Quranic text can be confirmed within 100 years.

What about the Bible? (Note: The sequence I am giving is my own research, it can be debated upon. e.g A manuscript is dated as 1 Ce to 100 CE and other manuscript is dated as 40 CE to 70 CE, which one shoule be considered earlier one????) We have nothing from the first century. The earliest manuscript we have is Rylands Library Papyrus P52 (unless Rhoblogy can correct me). How much of the text does it give us? Ahem!!!!! It includes John 18:31-33 and John 18:37-38. I want "Rhoblogy" to work out the percentage. What we have next is Papyrus 32, it contains only Titus 1:11-15; 2:3-8. Rhoblogy will work out the percentage. Next we have P 64, it includes Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23, 31-33, Rhoblogy will calculate the percentage. (Note: We are already in second century. 100 % of Quranic Text can be confirmed withing first half of second century). Next we have is P 66, it includes John 1:1-6:11; 6:35-14:26, 29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7; 16:10-20:20, 22-23; 20:25-21:9, 12, 17. The manuscript does not include the pericope of the adulteress (7:53 - 8:11), making it the earliest witness not to include this spurious passage. Rhoblogy should comment on this. On and on and on. We have four more manuscripts which can be attributed to second century, but these also include one or two verses only. Thus within 200 years of writing we can confirm a poultry (Note: Saaib meant paltry) 1-2 %. It is not until 4th century that we can confirm the New Testament text. But when we try to do it we come across variant readings in the texts to the level that no two manuscripts are same. Most of these differences make less or no impact on doctrine but some do make. There is a clear cut corruption of text and there is no way of knowing the original.

Quran was supported by memorization also while NT didn't have this privilege.

P2) The extant MSS copies of the Qur'an differ from each other.

The first thing to be noticed is that there has been no authentic description on manuscript differences. The only sources which claim that such differences exist include Arthur Jeffery and John Gilchrist. If we agree to their findings, how many differences do we have? They are negligible and if taken into consideration they make no impacts on doctrines. This might have come as shock to many muslim readers that our manuscripts differ. No brothers, the claims are made with respect to two manuscripts (Samarkand/Topkapi manuscripts) only all other are in perfect harmony with each other. What about these differences? How are they present there? They are not unintentional changes or errors. Neither can they be attributed to carelessness. We confirm from Abu Ubaid's Fadail that all of these readings were authentic. He tells us on page 333 of Fadail (and same is repeated in ad-Dani's al-Muqni' page 118-9) that Zaid bin Thabit, in case of finding more than one reading to be authentic and of equal status, retained them in different copies (Note: Quran was revealed in seven aharuf). The inclusion of both side by side would only have brought confusion; alternatively, placing one of them in the margin would imply less authenticity. By placing them in different copies he accommodated them on equal terms. What do we conclude from this discussion. We see that only a few Christian Missionaries have claimed that manuscript differences exist. In her book The Rise of The North Arabic Script & Its Kur'ânic Development, Nabia Abbott presents some Qur'ân parchments and manuscripts dating from 1st, 2nd and 3rd century AH as well later ones. It is interesting to note that she did not mention any textual differences except for a scribal error in one of the manuscripts. When we look at the number of those differences, they are negligible. When we see the nature of these differences we find no change in meaning. When we see the cause of these differences we find that they are intentional. When we see the impact of variant reading on the textual integrity of Quran, it is zero. (Note: Writing was accompanied with Memorization, this means even if there are genuine differences in the manuscripts we need not worry).

What about the manuscripts differences of Bible? There are more differences in the manuscripts than there are words in the entire New Testament. Entire sets of verses are missing from some manuscripts. Some manuscripts have altogether different readings of the text. There are not less than five different endings to Mark's gospel. Note that these are not differences in words used. But these are differences in the length of text. Some manuscripts stop at a particular place, while others include a shorter ending, others include a longer ending, while others include both. Entire verse of 1 John 5:7 is a later insertion into the text. The famous passage about Jesus and the woman taken in adultery (Pericope) from verses 7:53-8:11 of the Gospel of John is among those which make Jesus “THE PRINCE OF PEACE”. The pericope is not found in its canonical place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The first surviving Greek manuscript to contain the periscope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae of the late 4th or Early 5th century. I am not talking about the variant readings, i am talking about verses which are altogether missing. To end this section I quote Eldon J. Epp:

Finally, to raise the question to its highest level and broadest range, what can "canonical" mean when each of our 5,300 Greek New Testament manuscripts and perhaps 9,000 versional manuscripts, as well as every one now lost, was considered authoritative - and therefore canonical - in worship and instruction in one or more of the thousands upon thousands of individual churches when no two manuscripts are exactly alike? A corollary heightens the force of the question: If no two manuscripts are alike, then no two collections of Gospels or Epistles are alike, and no two canons – no two "New Testaments" – are alike; therefore, are all canonical, or some, or only one? And if some or one, which?

So how many manuscript differences (textual variants) do we have finally (from small to large)? You need not count, many scholars have done it already. John Mill, a fellow of Queens College, Oxford devoted thirty years of his life to study one hundred Greek manuscripts only to discover 30,000 differences. As for now, we have 5700 Greek manuscripts cataloged. That's 57 times what Mill examined. With this abundance of evidence, what can we say about the total number of variants known today? Scholars differ significantly in their estimates - some say there are 200,000 variants known, some say 300,000, some say 400,000 or more! (Bart Erhman)

One can see how a scribe might inadvertently leave a word when copying a text (an accidental change), but it is hard to see how the last 12 verses of Mark could have been added by a slip of pen.

From this discussion we can conclude that "P3" (I presuppose that differences in copies mean that Allah could NOT have superintended the process of copying such that the essential revelation he intended to communicate was in fact preserved) and "C" (Therefore, differences in copies mean that Allah could NOT have superintended the process of copying such that the essential revelation he intended to communicate was in fact preserved) do not hold any water and need not be discussed. Thus if Ehrman had the courage to apply his same methodology and presuppositions to the Qur'an, he would have come up with different conclusions about the Qur'an. The conclusion which Sir William Muir had drawn:

"....Yet but ONE KORAN has always been current amongst them.... There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries (fourteen centuries now*) with so pure a text.....''

This is the same conclusion which Reverend Bosworth Smith had drawn:

“… we have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation, and in the chaos of its contents, but on the substantial authenticity of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt.”

They are supported by Adrian Brockett who in his "The Value of Hafs and Warsh Transmissions For The Textual History of The Qur'ân" has the following to say:

''.....The transmission of the Qur'ân after the death of Muhammad was essentially static, rather than organic. There was a single text, and nothing significant, not even allegedly abrogated material, could be taken out nor could anything be put in. This is applied even to the early Caliphs....."

As for Rhoblogy's argument that chains of narrations could not have been able to preserve such a long text the only thing one needs to do is to go to a mosque to find out a list of people who have memorized the complete Quran even in the present world. There are thousands, if not millions, in the current world who have memorized the Quran completely. It has been a custom in Islamic societies to rehearse whole of the Quran in the Namaz every year during Taraweeh in the month of Ramadhan. Even today this happens and Rhoblogy is not sure about the people who were masters in memorization. Pity the prejudice. Moreover memories were backed by written texts. To add to it, there were thousands of companions, if one erred there were thousands to correct him.

As for how do I know that Uthaman didn't burn the faith ful copies of Quran, I have already answered in earlier parts. Uthmanic commission made 8 copies of Quran burning all other copies without checking them. Thus the question doesn't arise.

Rhoblogy claimed that the manuscripts of Quran are centuries removed from originals, this only shows lack of knowledge. More than 90% of Quranic text can be confirmed from manuscripts within the first century of Hijrah (which means within 70 years of actual writing)

(I restricted mysellf to NT and Quran only, had I included OT Rhoblogy would have much more to worry about)

The final conclusion:

Bible is not the word of God, it is not even a reliable historic document. The documents we have are corrupted and we have no way of knowing the original text because we have only error ridden copies centuries removed from the text. To solve the problem we have a book unique in its origin, a book perfectly preserved. Even today if all of the Bible's of the world are thrown into seas and oceans and same is done with all the copies of Quran (for that matter any other text on earth), the only scripture that will survive is the Quran. As it remains preserved in the hearts of millions of believers.

With the end of this healthy debate, I don't expect a Christian to shun Bible and accept Quran. But the seeker of truth can himself search for truth.

I thank "Rhoblogy" for debating me on this topic. Thus giving me a chance to present my case. The best thing about the debate was that it started in good spirit and it has ended with good spirits. We learn a lot from such debates and there should be such debates regularly. Personally, this will be my last debate for a while. I will remain busy for three or four months during which I wont be in a position to debate. Thank you all for being a good audience for this debate.

Jazakallah for reading.

(Word Count: 3010)
(Link to comment repository post)

The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - My Closing Statement

2012-01-31T23:34:00.002-06:00

I'd like to thank Saaib again for participating in this debate, and the readers for reading. Please remember that our closing statements are to be posted more or less simultaneously, so no rebuttal to each others' closers will be possible.

Let's begin by revisiting:

Saaib's opening statement
His poor understanding of biblical history began to become clear therein:

This Bible came into being during the Reformation, nearly 900 years after the advent of Islam. One wonders how the Qur'an or the hadith literature can endorse a Bible that came some 900 years after them... The truth is that no one had defined the limits of the Bible until the (Catholic) Council of Trent, 1546.

Having read this statement the sixth time or so as I'm writing my final statement, I'm struck anew by its foolishness.
The various books of the NT existed from the time that the human author received the Holy Spirit's inspiration and put pen to paper. Then, as I've mentioned, the books were copied and distributed widely, only to be copied again and widely distributed again, etc. God subtly and gradually brought His people in all parts of the world to a consensus that was reached without a centralised authority structure mandating that the Canon of the New Testament be set in stone.
I've already refuted Saaib's allusion to the Council of Trent, but also, Trent's Canon of Scripture disagrees only with the Protestant Old Testament. Even Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy hold to the same NT Canon.

Saaib's statement even misunderstands the implications of the Qur'anic texts I quoted. If nobody knew the limits of the Bible until well after the Qur'an's writing, why would the author of the Qur'an to refer People of the Book to the Injeel or the Taurat? What is the meaning of the very appellation "People of the Book" if they didn't know what the Book was? How could the author of the Qur'an or ahadith know that corruption existed in the Bible's text if the limits were not known? If nobody knew whether the book of Isaiah was Scripture, why did they even pay attention to it any more than they paid attention to the textual history of their cookbook or a teenage novel?
Saaib shows no sign of having thought this objection through, and yet it is perhaps one of his two main objections to the resolution.

Later, he said:

as the individual books (Biblical Canon), their contents and their order vary among denominations.

Which books did he have in mind? Sure their order varies occasionally, I guess. But the individual books' contents vary? If he means that Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics accept a longer version of Daniel and Jeremiah, I suppose that's true, but there are numerous reasons to reject those longer versions, and weak reasons to accept them. Saaib's limited English may have prevented him from properly distinguishing between the words "denomination" and "religion", but in no way do I accept that Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy are different denominations. They are different churches, heterodox and heretical. They have no part with me and I none with them. Saaib needed to argue against my position, and find a Romanist later if he wants to debate about Rome.

Saaib goes on to say:

What Did The Bible Look Like In Arabia During The Advent Of Islam? No one can answer this question, and the fact remains that no one has ever.

This is completely untrue, however. Hundreds of MSS copies predate the rise of Islam. Three extremely important and extremely complete codices predate it by 300 years - Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus.

As for the Islamic sources, some interesting snap-shots of the contents of the Christian Bible are also seen in Ibn Hisham's Al-Sirah Al-Nabawiyyah.

Wait, didn't Saaib just finish telling us that no one knows the contents of the Bible at Mohammed's time? How can he contradict himself just a few sentences later, unless his objection is actually untenable?

The miracles of Jesus speaking in infancy and giving life to birds made out of clay are usually dismissed by the missionaries as "apocryphal" but these were perfectly acceptable to Christians in Arabia during the advent of Islam.

In reality, these are quotations from Gnostic works, not Christian at all. It may be true that some Christians ignorantly/naively accepted these works as canonical at that time, but it is demonstrably not true that all did. Why weren't any of these works included in the great codices I just mentioned? Why did early church writers such as Irenæus (2nd century AD) write long works such as Adversus Hæreses, which was written at least in large part to combat Gnosticism? Would anyone familiar with the NT's savage rebuttals of Gnosticism found in Colossians, 1 John, and the Corinthian epistles also go ahead and accept Gnostic works as seamlessly compatible with them?
It is ironic, I pause to note, that the majority of events from Jesus' life that the Qur'an mentions are derived from Gnostic works, and then it goes the exact opposite way of the clear teaching of all four Gospels regarding Christ's crucifixion, getting it totally backwards. It would be difficult to get any less accurate than the Qur'an gets it.

Finally, he cited "Rabbi Ben Abrahamson" in some article that I was never able to track down, making a vague allusion to how Mohammed is indeed prophesied in the book of Daniel. Saaib gave no argument, however, and so I don't know how that is supposed to help him. Mere appeals to authority seem to be Saaib's specialty, but in formal debate, arguments need to be substantiated.

My first rebuttal
-I refuted Ehrman, whom Saaib quoted approvingly to bolster his other main argument. Saaib responded by denying he was relying on Ehrman, only to repeat Ehrman's argument later.

-I turned the tables, indicating that the Muslim needs an argument to overturn Ehrman's contentions, given that the textual history of the Qur'an includes MSS copies that are not in 100% agreement, despite Uthman's purge. Saaib did not address this.

-I turned the tables in another way: Since the Qur'an teaches that the people of the Book are to judge the Qur'an by the Injeel and the Taurat, and since the Qur'an claims that it is a confirmation of those, and since none of us can know, even with our vast numbers of MSS discoveries from vastly varied geographical areas, what the Injeel said (per Ehrman), that means Mohammed couldn't know what the Injeel said, nor could the people of the Book at Mohammed's time. So Allah's command becomes meaningless and literally impossible to follow. Yet it's a central piece of Allah's argument with respect to persuading people of the Book to follow Islam.
Saaib never addressed this.

-I asked: If the fact that the majority of the MSS are "centuries removed" from the original writers, what does that tell us about the Qur'an, which is actually in a worse position in that respect?
Saaib never answered.

-Saaib insisted on the grossly unfair characterisation of the Holy Spirit's inspiration of the biblical writers as "tickled by Holy Spirit". Is this the action of a man who wants to know the truth and is willing to test the best his opponent's position has to offer?

-The fact that Allah swears by his creation in the Qur'an shows that Allah considers his word less important and authoritative than Yahweh considers His own word. How can the Qur'an have been existent from eternity past when Allah's oaths appeal to things that were created at a point in time, which didn't exist at times when the Qur'an did? Saaib never answered.

-Saaib judges Yahweh morally faulty for some of His activities. Though requested to, Saaib never let us know on what authority he throws God into court. Rather, he simply mocks the idea with a wave of the hand and a "Busted".

-Saaib fell into the warned-about pitfall of citing unfulfilled prophecy without giving, as stated, "proper exegesis to show why we should expect that prophecy should have already been fulfilled." I reminded him he needed to do so but he never did.

-Saaib said "history tells us". Does Saaib think we should trust "history" (whatever that means), or the Word of God? I don't know, for though I asked, he didn't answer.

Saaib's second statement
-He merely brushed aside my argument from the Qur'anic affirmation of the truth and divine origin of the Bible, without an argument as to why.

-He attempts to argue that the Injeel and Taurat that the Qur'an affirms are totally different documents than what we know today.
1) But we do know what each of them were in Mohammed's time.
2) If this is true, these books were lost to history. They are gone. Allah did not preserve his communication with mankind. If Allah is willing to let his previous revelations go thus, what makes Saaib think that Allah is faithful to preserve the Qur'an? Just because Allah said so? He said the same about the Injeel and Taurat, and look what supposedly happened.
3) Where is Saaib's evidence? Did nobody keep any record of these books such that we don't even have one single extant MSS copy today?

-He repeated his claim that Old Testament not known historically. Gets destroyed twice.
Refutations of this can be found above.

-He made several other bizarre and/or irrelevant arguments, as mentioned in my second rebuttal.

His answer to my first cross-examination question
I asked:

What parts of the Bible that we possess today (remember, I'm a Reformed Baptist; don't talk about Rome or other religions), if any, were originally sent down by God and from God, and how do you know?

He began by casting doubt on the concept of a Reformed Baptist. If he'd bothered to do any research other than quoting some pastor in Louisville I've never heard of, he'd know that it actually is very easy to distinguish Reformed Baptists. They hold to confessions of faith. I'm pretty partial to the London Baptist Confessions of Faith of 1646 and 1689.

He began to answer the question by simply assuming his idiosyncratic view of history is true, that Moses didn't write the Taurat, that David didn't write any of the Psalms, etc. His main justification for his denial of Mosaic authorship was: how could Moses have written his own Obituary.
Here is where Saaib argued like an atheist, about which I warned him earlier. Does he think that all Qur'anic revelation came through Mohammed's natural abilities, or does he think that many of them were obtained through supernatural revelation? Why couldn't God simply have Moses write prophetically about his death before it happened? What's so hard about that?

Saaib turned the whole thing into a bit of a laugher when he said:

The script of Pentateuch was lost which was was found by a priest called Hilkiah.

How does he know that? Because that's what the text of the OT says!
But I thought that he just told us that From historical point of view none of its part is from God.
So Saaib walked right into a trap there. Ouch.
Did Saaib give us a reason to think that it's untrue simply that the books of the OT, as they were inspired and written down, became part of Israel's deposit of faith and revelation, that the Torah was lost for a time because some copies were hidden in the wall of the temple whereas faithless Israel had otherwise forgotten about or destroyed many of its other copies? Until Hilkiah found the copy in the wall later?
How could Saaib possibly know this?

He went on:

this book was burnt along with its copies by Antiochus.

How does he know that all the copies were burnt? He didn't say.

the thir(d) person has been used for Moses at every place.

This author knows that it is possible to write consistently in the third person.

the majority of Psalms frequently different in the Masoretic and Septuagint traditions, or missing in one while present in the other.

That is simply untrue. The majority are numbered differently, sure, because the LXX divides one of them up into two, and that occurs fairly early on in the book. So what?
As for his implication that a large chunk are "missing"... I'd need to see some evidence.

Finally, he said:

As for us Muslims, whatever goes against Quran (and the authentic Hadith) is not from God, and whatever is confirmed by it could have been the word of God.

Oops. As we've seen above, the Qur'an actually does confirm that the OT and NT are from God, so Saaib's position is completely incoherent.

Our final two interactions
Saaib fixated on what he thought was a good point but what was actually yet another demonstration of his gross ignorance pertaining to textual criticism and how MSS are collated, compared and contrasted, and combined to form the standard text we use today to translate directly out of into the destination language, whether it be English, French, Urdu, Swahili, or Bambara. Since he never dealt with the point I made in my opening statement, that:

The presence of textual variants, while not to be ignored, does not impact the doctrinal presentation of the Bible. The vast majority of all variants in the New Testament, for example, are the presence o(r) absence of "movable nu"s, which are so insignificant as to be untranslatable into any other language;

he did not understand what I meant when I claimed that the NASB (among numerous other solid translations) is 100% the Word of God. I also pointed out that his use of the term "unaltered" needs extremely serious qualification, which I do not believe he is knowledgeable enough to make.

Finally on this point, notice that I was honest with you, the reader, and Saaib wasn't. My doubts about the proper transmission of the Qur'an and the point of my second cross-exam question were to provoke Saaib into revealing his faith commitments. Look at his answers. How does Saaib know:
1) Mohammed repeated it back to Jibril?
2) His companions recited it back to Mohammed?
3-5) Their memory was backed with writing?
6) No case of lost written documentation occurred?
etc? One word: Faith.

I have been and will be honest that my appeal is rooted in God, in faith that He preserves His Word. Saaib also has faith, but won't admit it. Further, Saaib's position's trustworthiness goes back to one single person - Mohammed. Mine goes back to the hundreds of people who heard Jesus and spoke and wrote about what they saw, heard, and touched.

Following Islam will lead nobody to eternal life. Islam says: "Live for God. Do not sin. Do good deeds. Allah might honor the balance of your good deeds unless he unilaterally decides to turn your heart from good to evil and damn you."
Yet the Injeel teaches:
Galatians 3:19Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made...21Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Romans 5:6For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

You can never do enough to be right with God. One sin will suffice to condemn you as a lawbreaker, as imperfect and unworthy to live forever in the presence of the holy, holy, holy God of the universe. Haven't you sinned even today? Always prayed when you were supposed to? Never lied? Never lusted after a woman, money, cars, toys? Always been 100% content with what God has given you?

Come clean - you have broken God's law. You need a Savior. The Injeel, which, as we've seen, you have no reason to distrust and every reason to believe came straight from God, tells us of that perfect Savior, Who can save and cleanse lawbreakers like you and me. God Himself exercised His power, took on flesh, and suffered for you and me.

1 Peter 2:24He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. 25For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.

Soli Deo Gloria. Amen.

(Word count: 2997)
(Link to comment repository post)

Men wearing briefs in public

2012-01-29T14:29:00.001-06:00

(Source)

This approach certainly has some merit.

I will also say that the next time I hear of a homosexual group going to a Christian event with signs saying I'm sorry for the way the gay agenda keeps wanting to expose your children to men wearing briefs and playing with sex toys in public will be the first time.
That said, I'm far more partial (as I think Pastor Dusman is) to a presentation of the Law and the Gospel. Mere apologies for how some churches and some church people, with whom I claim only peripheral fellowship if they're going around screaming at homosexuals and refusing to share the good news of forgiveness, new birth, washing, and renewal in Jesus Christ, have treated some homosexuals are not nearly as good as...sharing the good news of forgiveness, new birth, washing, and renewal in Jesus Christ.

(Please leave any comments at the Triablogue cross-post.)

The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - My Second Cross-Examination Answer

2012-01-27T05:14:00.002-06:00

Despite its popularity and prevalence in Islamic apologetics circles, Muslim critics of the Bible should really learn the ins and outs of textual criticism of the Bible before they speak with such confidence combined with ignorance. Because of his ignorance, this debate has been more of a seminar on biblical textual criticism and history than a debate.

It would also help Saaib if he'd done his due diligence and ensured that his presentations and arguments used consistent premises that wouldn't, if consistently applied, result in the destruction of his own position. Here again we see him relying on naturalistic premises and arguments when he is in fact a theist who has to place a great deal of trust in his god to preserve that god's revelation to mankind.

This is how it should be. We should and must place our trust in God; naturalism and paganism are irrational and impossible alternatives. And since by definition an omniscient, omnipotent God who never lies is a higher authority and a better source of truth than human historical recordings, which are certainly fallible and by necessity vastly incomplete, we have to figure out which God is the right one to follow. This is what Saaib has not yet grasped and thus has not engaged in his arguments.

Saaib finds it difficult to accept that the NASB is 100% the unaltered Word of God. A few clarifications:
1) I mentioned the NASB because it's my favorite, it takes few translational liberties (ie, it is a formally-equivalent translation), and it is based on the latest (more or less) MSS information.
2) There are of course textual variants whose original referents are mysterious and may very well never be known. I already mentioned this in my opening statement. Most are movable "nu"s and other untranslatable particles of Greek grammar.
3) None of these variants affect any doctrinal teaching of the Bible.
4) What does "100% unaltered" even mean? Does Saaib think today's written Qur'an is compiled in the exact order in which each Surah was revealed? It's a statement appealing to an imaginary ideal.
5) Requiring "100% unaltered" is an unreasonable standard, and one that the Qur'an can't meet. Just look at the way Saaib answered my 9 challenges in his last answer. Appeals to faith, every time. How does he know these things? When questioning the credibility of a man on one issue (whether "Mohammed correctly repeated what he heard from Jibril"), don't appeal to other statements he has made that have no other confirmatory evidence as confirmatory evidence of the first statement! That's merely begging the question.

Strictly speaking, "corruption" means that textual variants exist within the extant corpus of NT MSS, but it does not necessarily mean that this corruption is irreversible or that the authentic original reading is undiscoverable. Quite the contrary, and that's what textual criticism is all about. Broadly speaking, even if all 5000+ extant NT MSS agreed with each other, but one of them had a movable "nu" in a different spot, "corruption" would exist. The question is not whether corruption exists in ancient documents. The question is to what extent, and whether the resources are present to overcome it. With thousands and thousands of MSS to cross-reference, I'm afraid that Saaib's objection comes up empty. Saaib needs to give us a good reason to think that
1) God couldn't or wouldn't have used the process of copying that we see in the NT MSS history to preserve His Word,
2) there is good reason to think that some doctrines are placed in doubt and that these are serious, and
3) that he has a better alternative.

Think about it - the Apostle Paul writes a letter to a church. He sends it. It arrives and the church decides to send it out to all the churches they know. They copy it 15 times and send out those 15 copies. Those 15 churches want to send it to the 15 churches they know. Each makes 15 copies and sends it out. Etc. The copying causes the amount of MSS to grow exponentially, and the copies are dispersed all over the world. Thus nobody ever has centralised and final control over the text (unlike Islam) and contrary to what Saaib ignorantly asserted, it was possible back then to cross-reference copies of a given document, and it's possible (and common practice) now.

A few other tidbits:
-The NASB puts the pericope of the adulteress in brackets and leaves a footnote referencing the fact that many earlier MSS do not contain it. That's called full disclosure, and it's impossible on Islam, given the Uthmanic purging of Qur'anic MSS.
Of course it's an interpolation; the question is, was it in the original and removed, or was it added? More probably it was added later, for several reasons. Whether it belongs or not, it affects no doctrine. I personally do not hold it to be authentic.
-A few extant NT MSS are earlier than 200 years after Christ.
-Saaib asserted that the "Pauline epistles present...a problem" but didn't say why or what problem.
-I would never claim that the NASB translators were unbiased. I think it's easily demonstrated that they were fair.
-Saaib falsely claims I contradicted myself in my last cross-examination answer. He needs to read more carefully. "Not necessarily" and "all other things being equal. However, all other things are never equal" should have informed his thinking at that point.
-Memory was backed with writing." Exactly. Same with the NT. Be consistent.
-Saaib says "The companions of the prophet made written copies of Quran. Thus those who listened to the companions had a written book to correct them." Exactly. Same with the NT and Jesus and the apostles. Be consistent.
-Saaib's answer to challenge #6 is bizarre. That's the point: if something is lost, it's not found. This merely demonstrates that Saaib must trust his god completely at this point. Whether he'll admit it is another question.

(Word count: 995)
(Link to comment repository post)

The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - Saaib's Second Cross-Examination Question

2012-01-26T23:03:00.001-06:00

You made the following statement:

".....If I hold a copy of the NASB in my hand, I will have no problem in saying that this English text, in here, is 100% the unaltered, pure Word of God......"

We know that NASB is a product of 1900s. Does that mean that Christians have been using corrupted scriptures for almost 1800 years. If NASB is based on NA27 then I would say NASB is a product of 1500s, doesn't that mean Christians had been using corrupted scriptures for almost 1500 years. How are you so much sure that NASB is the "100% the unaltered, pure Word of God" when there is every possibility that it can be revised again (in fact it will be). NASB is based on Alexandrian Text (Correct me), whose manuscripts date from 200c (Pauline Epistles). These Pauline epistles present us with a problem, there isn’t enough space (we have 7 missing leaves) to accommodate 1 Timothy (estimated 8.25 pages), 2 Timothy (6 pages)and Titus (3.5 pages). The next manuscript we have is of Gospel of John, Papyrus 66 which lacks the periscope (Note: Saaib meant to say pericope) which, sorry to say, is present in NASB. Comment on this interpolation present in your "100% the unaltered, pure Word of God". Moreover this "100% the unaltered, pure Word of God" has a preface in which we read the "Fourfold Aim" that "They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; therefore, no work will ever be personalized." Keeping this in mind, how can you say that the work is an unbiased one when they themselves say something else?

(Word Count: ~300)
(Link to comment repository post)

The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - Saaib's Second Cross-Examination Answer

2012-01-26T16:59:00.001-06:00

The question is completely off the topic. Thus I take liberty to make some comments on Rhoblogy's answer to my earlier Question. Rhoblogy writes:

"....If I hold a copy of the NASB in my hand, I will have no problem in saying that this English text, in here, is 100% the unaltered, pure Word of God....."

1. None of the God's revelations were made in English.
2. "100% the unaltered, pure Word of God" is copyrighted to Lockman Foundation.
3. "100% the unaltered, pure Word of God" came into being in year 1971.
4. "100% the unaltered, pure Word of God" was edited in 1972.
5. "100% the unaltered, pure Word of God" has some modified versions (published: 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977).
6. "100% the unaltered, pure Word of God" was finally updated in 1995.

Google "NASB" and see the colorful history of the Bible (in their own words). Oopz, God's word has been renamed as "New American Standard Bible". The name speaks by itself. Moving ahead Rhoblogy said:

"....The quality and preferability of a given MSS copy depends on various factors, including its age. Older, ie, closer to the original writing is better, all other things being equal......"

Thus he contradics his earlier statement:

".......You said: "The closer the manuscript is to the source authentic is the manuscript". Not necessarily. You're showing your ignorance about textual criticism. No wonder you're failing to understand and making such basic errors....."

In his reply, "Rhoblogy", confidently, put forward 9 questions. He wants to know how am I confident that:

Q 1) Mohammed correctly repeated what he heard from Jibril?
A: Because he had to recite it back to Jibril. Muhammad (saw) recited the entire Quran in presence of Jibril every year. This was done twice in the last year of his life.

Q 2) Mohammed’s companions correctly heard him?
A: Because they had to recite it back to Muhammad (SAW). Moreover Muhammad (SAW) used to make them read what they had written. Note that there were not less than 42 scribes and remember that Quran used to be recited not less than 6 times a day in the Mosque (in Namaz). Every year Quran was and is being repeated in public in the month of Ramadhan in Taraweeh. This was (is) done in front of hundreds (millions today).

Q 3) These companions correctly remembered what they heard over the course of decades?
A: Memory was backed with writing. Note: There were thousands of companions who had it embedded inside their hearts, if one erred there were thousands to correct him. Read answer to Q 2 again, that will add to it.

Q 4) Those that listened to the companions correctly remembered?
A: The companions of the prophet made written copies of Quran. Thus those who listened to the companions had a written book to correct them. Note: Every copy of Quran was accompanied with a reciter. Even the pronunciation was thus preserved.

Q 5) These guys correctly wrote it all down?
A: It was already written down. And moreover whatever was in writing was cross-cheked with other copies, very unlike New Testament.

Q 6) Important parts of the written documentation wasn’t lost at some point?
A: Because no one had ever found such case. The reason being, writing was accompanied with memorizing and memorization had support of written mushafs.

Q 7) Satan didn’t influence one or more of those who wrote down what he remembered to write down some false things? (Indeed, Mohammed himself recited revelation from Satan and later recanted it.)
A: He didn't have only one to influence. He had to influence thousands, alas he wasn't even able to influence even one not even Muhammad (saw). I could have answered that God wouldn't allow it but that would make Rhoblogy say that same is the case with Bible. True, but I never talked about Satan influencing the corruption of Bible.

Q 8) Uthman didn’t have any evil ulterior motives when collecting all the Qur’anic MSS?
A: One, Quran was compiled under Abu Bakr not Uthman. Two, Uthman was only one out of the eight who made the second compilation. Note: When Uthman's commission finished the compilation, they compared it with the earlier compilation done under Abu Bakr and both the Mushaf's were exactly the same. The probability of such a miracle is equal to 1/No of words in the Quran (Factorial) which is equal to zero. Thus proving that the Quran was perfectly preserved.

Q 9) Uthman didn’t burn the wrong MSS? ("right" MSS)
A: Uthmanic commission made 8 copies of Quran burning all other copies without checking them. Thus the question doesn't arise.

Thus Rhoblogy's present question already stands answered. But some more things need to be cleared. Quran in the present form was present in Muhammad's (SAW) time. The companions of the prophet put it in one Mushaf. It was not done by those who had not directly heard it from the prophet. This written Mushaf helped Quran to remain preserved in the memories of those who'd heard Mohammed recite it to them, those who'd heard those who'd heard Mohammed, those who'd heard those who'd heard those who'd heard Mohammed, and those who'd heard those who'd heard those who'd heard those who'd heard those who'd heard Mohammed.

It is evident that not even a single error crept inside the text. The compilation made under Abu Bakr was exactly the same as that which was done under Uthman and I have already told you the probablity of such an occarance is zero. Read the answers to the 9 questions and you will see some more reasons that errors didn't creep in. Reverend Bosworth Smith had to recognize this great reality. He said:

“… we have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation, and in the chaos of its contents, but on the substantial authenticity of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt.”

(Mohammed and Mohammedanism, Darf Publishers, London 1986 pp. 14-15)
Other jaundiced Orientalists also accepted this great reality. Adrian Brockett in his "The Value of Hafs and Warsh Transmissions For The Textual History of The Qur'ân":

''.....The transmission of the Qur'ân after the death of Muhammad was essentially static, rather than organic. There was a single text, and nothing significant, not even allegedly abrogated material, could be taken out nor could anything be put in. This is applied even to the early Caliphs....."

Sir William Muir, echoed that the Bible hasn't remained pure. In fact he says no other scripture other that Quran has remained as pure as Quran.

"....Yet but ONE KORAN has always been current amongst them.... There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries (fourteen centuries now*) with so pure a text.....''

This fulfills Allah's (SWT) promise:

‘’Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Quran) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption).’’

I have exceeded the word limit by 110 words, the reason is that I had to copy Rhoblogy's 9 Question. I could have redirected my audience to his page but that would have been cumbersome.

(Rhology's note - actually copying and pasting my 9 questions probably accounted for ~110 words, so the excessive wordcount is of no importance.)
(Link to comment repository post)

The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - My Second Cross-Examination Question

2012-01-25T20:22:00.000-06:00

In between when Islam alleges that Allah revealed the Qur'an to Mohammed and the Qur'an's alleged collection and collation into one allegedly unified text by Caliph Uthman, some years, perhaps even decades, passed, during which the Qur'an was allegedly being preserved in the memories of those who'd heard Mohammed recite it to them, those who'd heard those who'd heard Mohammed, those who'd heard those who'd heard those who'd heard Mohammed, and those who'd heard those who'd heard those who'd heard those who'd heard those who'd heard Mohammed, etc. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

How do you know that not one single error entered into the remembrance of what would later become the written text of the Qur'an during this in-between time?

(Word count: 138)
(Link to comment repository post)

The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - My First Cross-Examination Answer

2012-01-25T20:17:00.000-06:00

Either Saaib doesn't really understand or is ignorant of what Ehrman says, he is being disingenuous, or we're having communication problems, but I don't understand his denial, from his first rebuttal:

He started refuting Bart Erhman and wrote an essay on it. What I made was an entirely different argument

Yet here he seems to circle right back to Ehrman's objections, which my first rebuttal wrecked, and Saaib has offered no counterargument.

If I hold a copy of the NASB in my hand, I will have no problem in saying that this English text, in here, is 100% the unaltered, pure Word of God. As for which language, the Word of God is meant to communicate to “a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues” (Revelation 7:9).
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and there exists a stream of MSS testimony in those languages. It was translated into Greek in the LXX in the 1st century BC and a separate but overlapping stream of MSS evidence exists for it.
The NT was written in Greek, and textual streams are in place for Greek and then translations later made into all sorts of languages like Latin, Coptic, Syriac, etc.
All of these MSS were taken into account when the NASB was translated into English. All of these MSS were collated, compared and contrasted, and combined to form the standard text we have today. In Greek, that’s the NA27. The NA27 might be hard to find in Pakistan, where Islam's dominance means free thought and exchange of ideas is suppressed, but it's readily available in the USA.

Saaib again demonstrates here his ignorance of textual criticism of the Bible and the history of biblical MSS. Sure, he can cite this or that person, a couple of whom are well-known and several of whom are random people. Sure, he can make arguments from authority without providing those authorities' substantiating argumentation. How does any of this help his case, though?

Thus, Saaib, I will be able to present to you a document which according to me is 100% the unaltered, pure Word of God. No matter whether you agree with me, I will be able to do it.
This turnabout should illustrate the double standards inherent in Saaib’s position. For his own part, he makes naked assertions that the biblical authors didn’t in fact write the books they purportedly wrote. Not that historical, traditional sourcing is inerrant or infallible, but should there not be some argument given to rebut that understanding? Simply arguing that it’s implausible that Moses wrote his own obituary because that would require supernatural intervention doesn’t help anyone, least of all Saaib. Why? Saaib is a theist, as I explained earlier. God can do that if He wants. Don't argue like an atheist.
How could a mere man remember so much? He was inspired by God, as explained earlier.
How could a man’s writing style differ during different parts of his life? The same way yours does when you write a letter to your mother when you’re 11 years old and when you write a theological debate entry when you’re 60.
So what else do these men have? We have yet to see any argument, just authorities.

As for how I know that the Bible is the Word of God, I presented several arguments in my opening statement. Saaib is running out of time to address them substantively. He has not done so; he has merely waved his hands and said “no, that’s not right” or in some cases offered incompetent arguments which he did not rescue from the defeaters I offered, even though he had the opportunity in his second statement.

Due to his ignorance of textual criticism, Saaib may have gotten lost on the idea of “a copy”, as he says in his question. Nobody is claiming that any one extant MSS copy is the Word of God. The quality and preferability of a given MSS copy depends on various factors, including its age. Older, ie, closer to the original writing is better, all other things being equal. However, all other things are never equal. What textual stream it comes from matters. Whether it contains unique or rare readings matters. Etc.
Textual criticism is complicated and I don’t pretend to be anything close to an expert, but I do know enough to know that Saaib is offering to us a line of double standards and poor thinking.

I’ve already done this, but in the hopes of getting through to Saaib, let me reiterate.
How does Saaib know that he has 100% the unaltered, pure Word of God? I know he thinks he does, but let’s discuss some points of doubt.

How does he know that:
1) Mohammed correctly repeated what he heard from Jibril?
2) Mohammed's companions correctly heard him?
3) These companions correctly remembered what they heard over the course of decades?
4) Those that listened to the companions correctly remembered?
5) These guys correctly wrote it all down?
6) Important parts of the written documentation wasn't lost at some point?
7) Satan didn't influence one or more of those who wrote down what he remembered to write down some false things? (Indeed, Mohammed himself recited revelation from Satan and later recanted it.)
8) Uthman didn't have any evil ulterior motives when collecting all the Qur'anic MSS?
9) Uthman didn't burn the wrong MSS?

There are all these places where any critic who took on naturalistic presuppositions could "destroy" the idea of Qur'anic reliability. The point is that Saaib has to trust God to preserve what he wanted to say, and I'd like to ask him, when he is arguing against the debate resolution, to stay consistent and allow me to trust God where we cannot speak from direct observation and evidence, about deep history.

(Word count: 996)
(Link to comment repository post)

The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - Saaib's 1st Cross-Examination Question

2012-01-25T17:07:00.000-06:00

What exactly is the word of God? If I hold a copy of Quran in my hand, I will have no problem in saying that this Arabic Text, in here, is 100 % the unaltered, pure Word of God (notice my words). No matter whose translation it is, I will be able to do it. Thus I will be able to present to you a document which according to me is 100% the unaltered, pure word of God. No matter you agree with me or not, but I will be able to do it. Can you do the same. Can you tell us that so and so Greek, or Hebrew, or Aramaic, or English is 100 % the unaltered, pure word of God. Can you please tell us exactly that this copy of the text is 100% the unaltered, pure word of God. While doing so, do give us a reason for the same. At the same time you should also be consistent with mainstream Christianity.

(Word count: 165)
(Link to comment repository post)

The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - Saaib's first cross-examination answer

2012-01-25T06:03:00.001-06:00

There couldn't have been a better question than this one. Before I answer I want make it clear that my answer won't be for a "Reformed Baptist" but for Christians as a whole. The reason:

"...It is difficult to answer, “What is a Reformed Baptist church?”. In the first place, it is difficult to answer because the terms Reformed and Baptists are often seen to be at odds with one another. Secondly, there exists an ever-widening gulf between churches that call themselves Reformed Baptists...."

Jim Savastio, PastorReformed Baptist Church of Louisville

What parts of the Bible that we have today were revealed by God?

From historical point of view none of its part is from God. As far as Islam is concerned, there are varying opinions. One is that it is a corrupted revealed scripture while the other opinion is that it is not a revealed scripture at all. I personally hold on to the second opinion.

How exactly do I know that this is the case?

What did God reveal?

The names of the four known scriptures are 'the Tawraat', 'the Zabur', 'the Injeel' and 'the Quran'. 'The Torah' was revealed to Prophet Moses (Peace be upon him) not that it was written by him. The Zabur was revealed to Prophet David (Peace be upon him), not that it was written by him. 'The Injeel' which Allah revealed to Prophet Jesus (Peace be upon him), not that it was written by him.

What do we have?

We have five books of Moses which are supposed to have been written by Moses. We have the Psalms which are again supposed to have been written by David while parts of it are from other authors. We have the NT which is, in no way, written by Jesus.

The Biblical books and the Islamic position:

The Five Books which are supposed to have been written by (not revealed to) Moses is not the Tawraat (which the Quran talks about) nor were they written by Moses nor were they revealed to Moses.
As for Psalms which are supposed to have been written by (not revealed to) David is not the Zabur (which the Quran talks about) nor were they written by David nor were they revealed to David.
NT according to Christians themselves has no book attributed to Jesus.

The Evidence:

Books of Moses: The script of Pentateuch was lost which was was found by a priest called Hilkiah. This is not to be believed solely on the grounds that it was found by a priest. Apart from this fact, it again disappeared before invasion of Jerusalem by Nebuchdbezzar. Some Christians have it that it was rewritten by Ezra (which proves that it is Pentateuch of Ezra, not Moses), this book was burnt along with its copies by Antiochus.
We do not find a single place in the Pentateuch which can indicate that the author of this book is Moses or that it was revealed to him. In fact the thirst person has been used for Moses at every place. Moreover, how could Moses have written his own Obituary.
Dr. Alexander Gides says in his introduction to the New Bible (Quoted in Volume 10 of Penny Encyclopedia, also produced in Khulasa Saiful-Muslimeen):

"....I have come to know three things beyond any doubt.......
1. The present Pentateuch is not the book of Mosses........"

Psalms: We do not find any documentary evidence to show a particular man to be its writer. The period of collection of Psalms is also debated (not known actually). Are the Psalms prophetic? Not known. Infact, ancient Christians themselves believed Psalms to have been a work of many hands (with some exceptions though). Writers like Origen believe that Psalms were written by David. Writers like Hilary, Athnasius, Jerome and Eusebius have refuted this view:

"....undoubtedly the former statement is altogether wrong....."

Psalms have a colorful history. One group has it that more than 30 Pslams are from unknown authors (Hilary, Anthasius). Some say that some of the Pslams are from Moses (Eusebius). Jerome has attributed Psalm 88 to Heman and Psalm 89 to Ethan (and none of them is David). Cornet tells us that not more 45 Pslams can be attributed to David. Horne tells us that Psalms have been written by not less than 11 people. Collins' R.S.V. 1971. Pages 12-17 confirms the above facts in the following words:

"....PSALMS: AUTHOR. Principally David, though there are other writers....."

NT: Nothing needed to be said about the books which NT contains because what we need is the Gospel which Jesus preached not what we have (i.e The Biographical accounts, The Acts of Apostles, Pauline Epistles etc.)

What about the truth in the Bible?

There are many verses in the Bible that can be attributed to God but one think that is to be remembered is that they weren't revealed to the particular author who wrote them. The author just put them in his writings. The Bible is actually a written account of Oral Traditions, some of which were right (and can be attributed to God) and some of which were wrong (which can't be attributed to God).

As for us Muslims, whatever goes against Quran (and the authentic Hadith) is not from God, and whatever is confirmed by it could have been the word of God.

Bible as a Historic Document:

Bible can't even be taken into consideration as a Historical document as to check what the earliest followers of the scripture believed. The reason is the corruption of the scripture. We have only error ridden copies (of the Bible), and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways. We don't have a possible way of knowing the originals (as a historian, as a theologian Quran can help us).

The problem within Christianity (and Judaism):

What exactly is your scripture. Example: the majority of Psalms frequently different in the Masoretic and Septuagint traditions, or missing in one while present in the other.

(Word Count: 995)
(Link to comment repository post)

Conversing with Roman Catholic Phillip Jude

2012-01-24T00:50:00.000-06:00

Some comments I left over at Triablogue.

RHOLOGY SAID:

It is totally licit for us to part ways on many subjects.

How do you know when it is licit to disagree with the Pope and when it is not?

what does it mean to "repent"? What is "baptism"?

Repent is "metanoia" in the Greek and signifies turning away. From sin and the old man, specifically.
Baptism is what an adult does upon repenting and putting his faith in Christ, and carries all sorts of other meaning.
I don't get it; what's so hard about these? I'm sure you've read the NT. Why didn't you look there to answer your question?

There is real disagreement among Christians.

What is the connection between this statement and the previous one? So what? Do you presume that some people don't get things wrong, or that disagreement necessarily leads to unclarity of explanation? If it does, what of the many internal divisions within RCC?

Who's to say that really constitutes baptism, repentance, belief, salvation, and so on?

The Holy Spirit, in the Bible.

The Roman hierarchy isn't necessary for communion with Christ.

That's not what Cyprian and Boniface said.
These propositions are not nearly as simple as you make them seem. There is real disagreement among Christians. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be dozens of non-Protestant sects. Who's to say that really constitutes submission to the Magisterium?

The Roman hierarchy...is merely a necessary evil

Wow, the only thing I'd change about that is to remove the "necessary". The rest is greatly appreciated.

God Himself could not prevent a monstrous bureaucracy, given the circumstances!

Why do you not have a problem with a "monstrous bureaucracy, given the circumstances" but do have a problem with some levels of disagreement among believers, given the circumstances?

If...the papacy was permanently and utterly erased, I believe the Church would remain united.

Could you please define "united"? Since you lack monolithic beliefs on many important doctrines, as you yourself have even illustrated here, what real meaning does that word have?

1/19/2012 10:46 AM

RHOLOGY SAID:

I put great trust in a man like Irenaeus

YOu mean you put great trust in what you think Irenaeus wrote and meant throughout his life. That's not the same thing.
You don't know that what Irenaeus said is what the church of his time believed.
You don't know how what Irenaeus wrote was received by other churches. Any mere claims to "we believe thus" are not necessarily true. Not without proof, and more proof than Irenaeus' say-so.
You don't know whether Irenaeus was held in the highest respect by his contemporaries. Maybe you're reading the Charles Stanley of their time - not really all that bad, but quite shallow compared to others, most of the time.
You don't know whether you have all Irenaeus' writings, or even what % his today-extant writings form of the total things he wrote over his lifetime. Thus you don't know if he ever took it all, or part of it, back.
You don't know whether what Irenaeus said in public or in private teachings actually comports with the extant writings you have.
You don't take everything that is extant from Irenaeus and believe it. You believe only the parts that the modern Roman Catholic Church has dogmatised and accepted for modern times. Why call him a "Church Father" at all? Seems to me a traditional nomenclature that fails to take the above into consideration, fails to think through the divide between what he believed and what modern Rome believes, and has served as a useful tool for you, so you decided to keep it. And it is useful - citing "Fathers" sounds so imperial, so high-fallootin', so mysteriously powerful, that often it causes a brain block within the mind of the Sola Scripturist. I myself have experienced this many times.

Hope you don't mind my input.
Peace,
Rhology

RHOLOGY SAID:

he was not the Pope when he wrote "Called to Communion"

Does becoming Pope somehow supernaturally grant that one's arguments become better?

the Church allows significant latitude except on issues that are de fide or ex cathedra.

How do you know? How do you know you haven't mistaken what "the Church" allows?
How do you know that the resource(s) you read that expressed that idea to you were not actually outside the pale of acceptable Roman orthodoxy?

The New Testament is not a theological handbook. It was clearly not intended to be an exhaustive explanation of doctrine and dogma.

And yet it pretty expressly lays out those topics. It's really not that hard.

The definitions you provided are still open to many questions.

So is the code of Canon Law, and it's many 1000s of pages. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

For instance, if the Bible is so clear on the matter of baptism, why can't Protestants settle on a single description of the sacrament?

1) B/c some people get it wrong. We just went over this.
2) If the Roman Magisterium is so clear on the matter of abortion, why can't RCs settle on a single position on it?
3) You were just a second ago telling me that the Church allows significant latitude except on issues that are de fide or ex cathedra. Why are you acting differently toward my position? Why can't you be consistent?

Get a Catholic, an Orthodox, a Lutheran, a Calvinist, and a Baptist in the same room and ask them about the Eucharist.

True (except that there are Calvinist Baptists. I'm one.)
The Baptist one is correct.
You were just a second ago telling me that the Church allows significant latitude except on issues that are de fide or ex cathedra. Why are you acting differently toward my position? Why can't you be consistent?

bureaucracy is one thing; disagreement -- often intense and stark disagreement -- is quite another. They're two entirely different problems.

Given that the NT expects disagreement (1 Cor 11:17-19) but knows nothing of a huge church bureaucracy, why wouldn't one be far more concerned about the latter?

We don't lack unity on the important questions

Who decides which questions are important?

Peace,
Rhology

1/19/2012 11:31 AM

RHOLOGY SAID:

Only when the Holy Spirit chooses to speak through him.

How can you distinguish between when the HS is and isn't speaking thru him?

Because honest debate has existed among Catholic scholars and theologians from the very start, genuine debate that nonetheless remained within the boundaries of orthodoxy.

Debate doesn't exist w/o controversy and disagreement, but you've been trying to criticise Prot-ism for having controversy and disagreement. I don't understand what you've been getting at.

***How do you know you haven't mistaken what "the Church" allows?
How do you know that the resource(s) you read that expressed that idea to you were not actually outside the pale of acceptable Roman orthodoxy?* ***

You're getting absurd here. This is common sense.

That will be my answer from now on whenever you ask me about disagreements between Prots about what the Bible teaches.
Until you provide a real answer, I figure yours is good enough for me.

**And yet it pretty expressly lays out those topics. It's really not that hard.***

Obviously not clear enough, or there would be no divisions among any Christians anywhere.

You're getting absurd here. This is common sense.

The Magisterium is crystal clear. Some Catholics simply choose to deny its plain and straightforward teaching. T

...and yet some RCs don't agree. Right?
Now, take that same reasoning, apply it to the Bible's teaching on Eucharist/baptism/repentance, and voilà! Your criticisms of Prot-ism are now neutered.

On such issues, the Church has established dogma, whereas Protestants cannot get on the same page whatsoever.

The Bible is crystal clear on these issues. Some Prots simply choose to deny its plain and straightforward teaching.
You're getting absurd here. This is common sense.

***Who decides which questions are important? ***

Scripture and Tradition, as read and interpreted by the Church Universal across space and time.

Those aren't "who"s; they're "what"s. Please answer the question.

This discussion is difficult because we have such intensely different paradigms

Your double standards don't help.

1/19/2012 11:58 AM

RHOLOGY SAID:

Hi Phillip,

Without a court of final appeal, how do Protestants settle disputes?

We do. In terms of truth, it's the Bible.
In terms of authority, it's the Bible and the local church. Interestingly, that's what Jesus told us to do and how He told us to do it in Matthew 18.

Why would God allow the potential for such ambiguity in His Church?

Maybe ask Him, but not before reading and meditating on 1 Cor 11:17-19, Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8, and the fact that you've admitted here that there exists plenty of ambiguity within the Roman communion.
So I don't know what you're getting at.

If I leave the Church, where do I go?

You're more than welcome at my Baptist church.

Why does the local Baptist church have greater legitimacy than the local Anglican church?

You're asking one question and implying another, so I'll answer both.
First, the Baptist church has more b/c its teaching is more in agreement with the Scripture.
Second, to say the Baptist church has more is not at all to say that it solely has legitimacy and the Anglican ch doesn't have any. If the local Anglican ch gets it mostly right and gets a few small matters wrong, it's acceptable. It's not all or nothing.

If they are equally legitimate, why do denominations exist at all?

There are many answers to this, and I'm sure you could do some reading in history to find out.
As far as why I persist in my denomination and don't decry their continued existence, tell me what's wrong with them first. Don't appeal to some ambiguous abstract "disunity"; tell me concretely what the problem is.
I am credobaptist. My brother John Bugay is pædobaptist. I think he's wrong in that view, but that's as far as I'm concerned a tertiary doctrine. I don't want to baptise my kids and so I am Baptist, but I wouldn't have any problem worshiping at his local ch if there weren't a decent credobap local ch that were accessible to me. We have unity in the principal things, and that's what matters.

Catholics have many opinions on many things, but the major issues (those relevant to salvation) are set in stone by twenty centuries of consistent teaching.

1) Sola Scripturists have many opinions on many things, but the major issues (those relevant to salvation) are set in stone by twenty centuries of consistent teaching.
2) The claim to "twenty centuries of consistent teaching" is only possible to make when you grossly cherry-pick teachings NOW, identify the ones you chose as "these are our Sacred Tradition, and those other parts aren't" NOW, and then look back and say "See? Consistent!"
That's hardly impressive. Anyone can cherry-pick.
Far better to choose a view like Sola Scripura wherein we recognise that the church throughout time has been variable, unstable at times, and full of disagreements. All things are to be judged by Scripture. Simple.

1/19/2012 12:55 PM

RHOLOGY SAID:

On the other hand, Protestants rage over matters big and small, issues irrelevant and relevant to salvation

So do Roman Catholics.
The ones that you disagree sufficiently with you'll simply write out of the Roman communion, but you don't have any authority to do that; only the Magisterium does, and the Mag doesn't do a whole lot of excommunicating and defining some really important doctrines infallibly.
So don't act like you're any better off. You're not.

And these fights are not just between denominations, but within them!

And these fights are not just between RCC and EOxy, but within Rome!

And, going back to the issue of authority, there is simply no genuine way of settling disputes except to beat one another over the head with the Bible.

And, going back to the issue of authority, there is simply no genuine way of settling disputes except to beat one another over the head with arcane Magisterial documents that often contradict each other.
Better to argue about the meaning of an infallible Scripture than about the fallible "clarifications" of evil men.

You simply cannot claim that the Bible is crystal clear. It contradicts reality.

You simply cannot claim that the Magisterium is crystal clear. It contradicts reality.
See how easy the naked assertion game is? Why don't you give us an argument and show your true colors a little more clearly? Namely, it's clear you're not a big fan of the Bible. You love the RCC more than God's Word. Typical, really, and typically sad.

As I see it, you're just functioning as your own Magisterium.

So are you; you have to interpret Magisterial pronouncements.
Phillip, do you realise that we've seen and dealt with these objections a thousand times? You're unfortunately not breaking any new ground here. I wonder when online RCs are going to come up with some progression in the debate.

What you're really saying is this: "My reading of the Bible is crystal clear. Some Prots simply choose to deny its plain and straightforward teaching."

What you're really saying is this: "My reading of the Magisterium is crystal clear. Some Roman Catholics simply choose to deny its plain and straightforward teaching."

If I need to choose between the Magisterium of Rhology and the ancient and venerable Magisterium of Rome

Thank God that's a false dilemma.
Thank God also that I haven't made any statement that would reasonably lead a person to that conclusion.

Peace,
Rhology

1/19/2012 12:55 PM

RHOLOGY SAID:

The Bible is very dear to me, but so is the Church. I do not think the two can or should be divided or pitted against each other.

Unfortunately, when the church we're talking about is the Roman church, conflict is unavoidable.
If RCC took more pains to make their dogma comport with Scripture, you could easily say what you say here. *I* can say it, talking about my local Baptist ch (for the most part; nobody's perfect), b/c my Baptist ch's doctrine is in line with Scripture.
Rome's is not, and that's perhaps no more clearly seen than when Roman apologists like yourself go to great trouble to deny the BIble's clarity when in fact the Bible claims clarity for itself.

I concede that a Catholic must "interpret" Magisterial teaching

Thus by your own yardstick, every RC is a Magisterium of one.
Or you could withdraw that silly "Magisterium of one" argument.

I do not think such teachings are nearly as complex or ambiguous as you make them seem. Most dissenting Catholics embrace heterodoxy out of willfulness, not confusion.

And aNOTHER double standard from you.
I do not think biblical teachings are nearly as complex or ambiguous as you make them seem. Most dissenting "Protestants" embrace heterodoxy out of willfulness, not confusion.

the Catholic system...while imperfect, is (a) Scripturally sanctioned

You haven't really argued that, at least not in this combox.

preferable to the typical Protestant situation, which is doctrinal anarchy of a million miniature magisteriums.

And you've just conceded a few sentences ago that this argument is untenable.
What else you got?

I have already admitted that I am uncertain about papal infallibility

Wait, I thought RCism was preferable to the typical Protestant situation, which is doctrinal anarchy of a million miniature magisteriums. And now you're telling me you're embracing heterodoxy out of willfulness, not confusion?

thus I also entertain doubts about the exact nature of the Magisterium

It's clear that the Magisterium is your final authority, and you don't know what it is?
That's one seriously messed up worldview, my friend.

I know a number of people who have gone to Rome to settle all manner of contested issues.

I've got a very long list of some other issues the Magisterium could settle but never does.

Protestantism is, to my eye, guilty of countless mistakes and errors.

So is Rome, and far worse actually. Nobody's claiming any church is perfect. The question is: Which one has it right?

1/20/2012 8:48 AM

RHOLOGY SAID:

Where can I go to receive the Body and Blood of Christ?

Since Christ meant that we eat and drink His body and blood by believing in HIm and coming to Him in John 6, Rome is one place where you CAN'T go for that.
Like I said, my church is always available to you.

? What other congregation shows proper reverence to the God-bearer, the very vessel that carried the Word of God?

Baptists (and Presbys) do. We show her PROPER reverence.
Rome, however, shows her undue and blasphemous reverence to her by elevating her at times above Jesus Himself and praying to her.

If that's what you think Catholicism comes down to, go spend a weekend at some lovely little rustic abbey chanting the liturgy of the hours with monks who have given their hearts, bodies, and minds fully to the Trinity.

It'd probably be easier (and more representative of practical RCism) to find a lovely little rustic abbey chanting the liturgy of the hours with monks who have given their hearts, bodies, and minds fully to Mary, Co-Redemptrix and Queen of Heaven, our savior from Jesus.

You are clearly more familiar with these apologetical debates than I am. I applaud your skill and erudition. Thank you for humoring me. This is not my turf. You have given me much to consider. Thank you again. God bless.

And thanks for coming by.
I encourage you to seek out answers to the challenges we've laid down here. I believe you'll find, if you search honestly and with a repentant heart, that these challenges have no answer in Rome, that you must come home to a church that loves and honors God's Word above its human reflection and puts its full faith in Christ alone to save.

1/20/2012 8:48 AM

The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - My 1st Cross-Examination Question

2012-01-23T07:13:00.001-06:00

Saaib, in your opening statement, you made the following statement:
We have only error ridden copies (of the Bible), and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.

What parts of the Bible that we possess today (remember, I'm a Reformed Baptist; don't talk about Rome or other religions), if any, were originally sent down by God and from God, and how do you know?

Or does it?

2012-01-23T03:15:00.000-06:00

After nineteen years on this planet, throughout which he endured shocking levels of ostracism, abuse and rejection, this week gay filmmaker Eric James Borges decided shit actually wasn't getting better and took his own life. In the It Gets Better video he shot one month ago, Borges describes his lifelong odyssey through various rings of hell-on-earth: he'd been teased since kindergarten, his parents tried to perform an exorcism on him when they learned he was gay, he was bullied throughout high school. (Source)

The "It Gets Better" crowd continues to act counterproductively, as they have increased the visibility of the gay agenda's campaign for super rights. When has anyone proclaimed "Heterosexual History Month"? If we are to celebrate historical achievements by remarkable people, why bring up their sexual orientation at all? What difference does one's sexual orientation make in a great invention or discovery? Who among us speaks in the following way: "Albert Einstein, a great mind and influential scientist, who was also heterosexual, is the originator of the theory of relativity"?

If people genuinely wish to discourage gay teen suicide, they very much need to rethink their basic assumptions concerning the subject and look at whether gay suicide has increased or decreased with its increased societal visibility and if there is even any direct relationship between the amount of bullying an individual receives and the likelihood that he will kill himself. While I'm sure it must feel very satisfying to blame everything on "homophobes" and insufficient societal admiration, the weight of observable evidence doesn't presently tend to indicate that they have much, if anything, to do with the actual problem.
In the meantime, whoever is behind the "It Gets Better" program should do a much more careful job vetting its spokesmen, since at the moment, it looks an awful lot like an inadvertant homosexual suicide campaign straight out of the movie Heathers. All they need is a video featuring a cheesy 80s band singing "Gay teen suicide, don't do it!" Recruiting unstable young men to lie to teenage boys simply isn't a long-term prescription for success.

(HT: Vox Day)

The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - My Second Rebuttal

2012-01-22T08:20:00.001-06:00

Saaib begins his rebuttal by disaffirming much reliance on Bart Ehrman's work on textual criticism, and then continues in the same paragraph to affirm that's precisely what he meant to say. Saaib may be a bit confused by Ehrman's contentions.

Saaib says:
I argued that we have copies which are separated from their sources by centuries, that for me means we don't know what exactly the words of God were

But what is the argument, if not Ehrman's? Saaib hasn't made any other argument really, so his denial makes little sense.

Saaib did not respond to the points I made about how Ehrman's argument, if true, destroys the foundations of any trust in the Qur'an as well as the Bible. What is Saaib's answer to Ehrman?

Saaib says:
The argument was on "canons" not what the content is.

A discussion of canon is precisely that - discussion about content.
Saaib needs to let us know why the fact that certain different religious groups accept different canons of Scripture leads necessarily to a conclusion that we don't know what the Bible should be.
After all, there are those who in the past accepted different versions of the Qur'an. Uthman destroyed the copies made by dissenters. So, since no ubiquitous biblical purge exists in Christian history, that's a black mark against the Bible's reliability? Doesn't that, rather, strengthen the Christian position, since we have wide competition and yet still have soberly-considered and scholarly reasons to accept the canon we do accept? No one person, not even one large organisation, has ever had even close-to-exclusive control over the biblical MSS. This independent dispersion of information into the world allows cross-examination of MSS one of another and precludes the possibility of collusion for altering all MSS copies.

I quoted 2 Peter to refute Saaib's tendentious characterisation of "tickled by Holy Spirit". I'm sorry he forgot what he originally said, but Saaib should remember that this is not merely Peter, but God Himself, speaking.

Saaib thinks that S2:75 refutes my point, but it does not. It says "while a **party of them** used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah".
Yes, exactly, I'm happy to concede that A PARTY distorted the Torah. Where's the specific identification of this group? Why does aya 76 set this group apart from "the men of Faith"?
If a Bukhari hadith explains that this does refer to Christians/Jews, how are we to understand the way the context teaches otherwise? And what of the other ayat I quoted in which Allah says that none can alter his words?
Saaib attempts to say that the words of Allah and the scripture of Ahlul Kitab are two different things, but that's not what the Qur'an says. I cited numerous ayat in my opening statement in which the Qur'anic teaching is that the People of the Book were to check the Qur'an in light of the Taurat and Injeel, that the Qur'an is a confirmation thereof. How can Saaib resolve this contradiction?
His later point about the Qur'an's not confirming LXX or the "Pope Damascus Canon" is quite obscure; I don't see the relevance.
Finally on this point, note the deep and profound faith that one must have to accept the Islamic position here. Saaib appeals to something that "Az-Zuhri said that `Ubadydullah bin `Abdullah narrated that Ibn `Abbas said". And this is better and more reliable than the thousands of biblical MSS to which we have access?

I do not understand Saaib's "argument" regarding the donkey. However, he seems to think that my argument that God does not answer to human criticism is "busted". He did not say how so.

He neither provides sound exegetical reasons to expect not-yet-fulfilled prophecies to be already fulfilled, nor correctly understands those that I explained, nor overturns my contention that we must trust God over "history", but merely asserts my position is wrong.

Saaib provides no alternative for what Jesus might have thought He was quoting when He quoted from and alluded to the OT.

In his 1st statement, Saaib quoted some guy asserting Mohammed is found in the Bible. However, naked assertions from obscure Internet personalities are not necessarily sound arguments. Where is Saaib's exegetical argument?

It's unclear how my argument that no one can change God's words is "busted".

Now, a few items to clean up from his first rebuttal:
-Apparently if Saaib were God, he wouldn't have inspired all 4 Evangelists to mention the donkey on which Jesus rode, but he doesn't tell us why or why that matters.

-Cain got his wife from others of Adam and Eve's children - Genesis 5:4.

-Saaib gives us no evidence that Cain stayed in the city he built after building it.

-Jeremiah 36:30 refers to God's promise to end Jehoiakim's royal line. Jehoiachin sat on the throne three months and Jehoiakim's brother took his place after Jehoiachin was captured.

-I and many others call Jesus "Immanuel". Seems like the prophecy was fulfilled just fine.

-God could easily inspire Moses to write about his own death before it happened. God sees the future as easily as the past and present. Or the passage could have been written by later prophets. Why would we think God could not do that?

-The Torah’s existence is not known historically before King Josiah if you beg the question by preemptively rejecting the veracity of the OT. Yet the OT makes numerous references to OT Israelites consulting the Law, knowing the Law, etc.

-Saaib claims the Torah was burned by Antiochus but doesn't give any evidence.

(Word count: 969)
(Link to comment repository post)

The Consistent Abolitionist: The Extreme Case of Dr Gisella Perl (Part 2)

2012-01-20T17:03:00.002-06:00

Having set the stage and described the context of Dr Gisella Perl's controversial actions in Part 1 of this series, let us proceed to their multifaceted analysis.

The Nazi butchers bear the most blame

Abolitionists of human abortion have made it clear from the beginning that the principal reason to oppose human abortion is that it is nothing less than an assault on the image of God in human beings. It is murder. It is a refusal to submit to God's commandments with respect to how we are to treat other humans; namely, to love them as we love ourselves. Murder is in fact the exact opposite of loving others as we love ourselves.

This is what makes the Nazis' actions so horribly detestable, and this is why modern abortionists' attitudes toward very young humans mirror so closely the Nazis' attitudes toward humans of Jewish ethnicity. (We are oversimplifying the scope of the "Final Solution" for the sake of argument. We are fully aware that other people-designations were singled out for elimination.)

The Nazis arbitrarily ruled out of full humanity a specific segment of human beings. Simply by virtue of their being Jewish, they were no longer to be considered human. Similarly, modern pro-choicers arbitrarily rule out of full humanity a specific segment of human beings. Simply by virtue of being very young and not looking like you and I do, they are not to be considered human. They are "clumps of cells", "products of conception", "uterus contents" etc.

The Nazis carried out an organised assault on the image of God in Jewish people on a scale and with a pointed ferocity that had never before been seen in human history. While modern abortionists have killed ten times that many human beings in the USA alone, it has also required a larger population and geographical area (and thus less population density) and around ten times as much time.

And even aside from the direct murders for which the Nazis are responsible, to reduce human beings made in the image of God to the point of basic survival mode, to withhold from them even the most basic decencies of human treatment, to surround them with death, decrepitude, and violent indifference, is to shoulder a great deal of the responsibility for whatever desperate measures those oppressed people might take. To oppress them for no other reason than their ethnicity is that much worse, in terms of the Nazis' own guilt as well as the provocation of what more "civilised" people (ie, people who have never been in that situation) might call sub-human behavior.

Dr Perl bears some blame

Step inside Dr Perl's shoes, living in Auschwitz, among squalor and death, having seen a terrible and nearly-infallible pattern emerge - pregnant women either burn to death or endure vivisection.
Perl's motivation is defensible - she knew with high probability that the babies and mothers would be experimented upon and the final outcome would be much worse than otherwise.
It was once rightly said of Perl and the situation: "Everyone did things that in normal situations they would never do."

Perl's nearly uniform experience was that pregnant women got especially brutal attention, such that their pregnant status meant their deaths were nearly certain. If they were not pregnant, their death probabilities returned to around the same level as the other death camp prisoners.
Thus, average death camp prisoner's probability of death = elevated.
Average pregnant death camp prisoner's probability of death = extremely high.

Balance that, however, against the fact that it is better to suffer evil than to do evil. The moral dilemma thus arises from the conflict of two prima facie moral duties:
D1: One ought to help those who are very likely to be killed in the near future, and take measures to prevent their death.
D2: One ought not to purposefully kill innocent human beings.

The dilemma in this context arises from the problem that to fulfill D1, Dr Perl had to purposefully kill innocent human beings, which violates D2. In order to fulfill D2, Dr Perl would have had to stand by and watch pregnant women be tortured and killed at the hands of Josef Mengele, which violates D1. Obviously, this is not an easy choice. This raises the question of whether or not a solution can be found to the dilemma, on the abolitionist position.

It is important to note that both D1 and D2 are predicated upon the value of human life, and the importance of preserving it. This is especially true in the context of Judeo-Christian ethics, which was a part of Perl's ethnic and cultural heritage. Thus, D1 and D2 are expressions of a more fundamental duty, D0.

D0: One ought to preserve innocent life.

However, it is a violation of D0 to attempt to fulfill D1 by purposefully taking an innocent life. Thus, the scope of D1, as stated, is too broad for D1 to be coherent with D0. If D1 is to be kept consistent with its fundamental life-honoring purpose, then it should be reformulated in a manner such as D1', to eliminate these kinds of self-defeating scenarios:

D1': One ought to help those who are very likely to be killed in the near future, and take measures to prevent their death, short of purposefully killing innocent human beings.

D1' and D2 are not in conflict in the Perl scenario, as D1' does not mandate an action that violates D2, and neither does D2 mandate an action that violates D1'. As holding D1' and D2 together would have resulted in Dr. Perl refusing to perform abortions, the combination of holding D1' and D2 as an expression of D0 is consistent with the abolitionist position.

One might complain, however, that this is unsatisfactory in the context of Auschwitz. After all, if Dr Perl had refused to perform abortions, what else could she have done? The answer is that she probably could not have done much. She certainly could have refused to tell the camp doctors that the women were pregnant, and perhaps tried to hide the signs of their pregnancy. But in an environment such as Auschwitz, there was not much that could be done to escape Nazi brutality.

This brings us back to the question of moral responsibility: would Dr Perl have been morally responsible (or culpable) in any sense, if she had refused to perform the abortions? If there had been no other means available to her (or to her knowledge), short of performing abortions, for sparing the pregnant women of Auschwitz horrific torture and death at the hands of Mengele, would she have been morally culpable to have refused to act (by performing abortions)? The answer is no. The moral responsibility of the deaths of both the mother and child lay solely at the hands of the Nazis. They were the ones seeking the deaths of these innocent Jews. They were the ones who had no respect for innocent life. To put it more generally:

C1: It is not a morally culpable act to refuse to purposefully kill an innocent person in order to try to prevent a murderer from murdering another innocent person.

The moral culpability for the deaths lies with the murderer intent on killing both, not the person who could try to foil the murderer's plans by killing one of them ahead of time. Thus, we conclude that Dr Perl was not morally obligated to perform the abortions.

This brings us to the other side of the issue: was Dr Perl morally culpable for performing the abortions? Was there any sense in which her actions were morally justified? To answer these questions, one must consider the intent of Dr Perl's actions, and then the actions themselves. Dr Perl is to be commended for her desire to save life and prevent the pregnant women of Auschwitz from experiencing further pain and suffering. While there is something in the intent of Dr Perl's actions that is commendable, that does not mean that the actions themselves are commendable. A particular type of act may be morally unjustified, but that does not mean that all instances of that type of act bear equal moral culpability.

For example, the legal system distinguishes between acts causing the death of human beings that are intentional and unintentional. In the case of unintentional deaths, the degree of negligence on the part of the defendant determines the degree of his culpability, and sentences are meted out accordingly. In the case of intentional deaths, the intent of the defendant determines his culpability, and sentences are meted out accordingly. Murder committed in the passion of the moment is considered a lesser offense than a premeditated murder committed in cold blood. So also would we consider that purposefully killing another human being out of a desire to save life (especially in an environment of such death and suffering, where thinking straight would have been practically impossible) bears less moral culpability than purposefully killing another human being out of a rage, or in cold blood.

Thus, there are strong mitigating circumstances that reduce Perl's culpability in performing these abortions, but that does not mean that the abortions themselves are morally justified. Inasmuch as D2 holds, then there is no circumstance in which abortion is justified. More generally:

C2: By D2, it is a morally unjustified and culpable act to purposefully kill innocent human beings.

In summary, C1 and C2 state the abolitionist position on the moral culpability of abortion in different contexts, and this is grounded on the combination of moral duties D0, D1', and D2. To recap:

1) There is no situation where abortion is morally obligatory, including Dr Perl’s situation in Auschwitz.
2) There is no situation where abortion is morally permissible, though there may be mitigating circumstances that reduce moral culpability in rare, extreme situations.

Principle (2) is especially applicable, as we observed in Part 1, when the surrounding environment is as bad as it was for Dr Perl. We balance the clarity of God's command not to murder against the unimaginable difficulty she must have undergone to think straight even about the most basic of issues when encircled by death and horror on every side.

Two analogies to consider

1) The example of a pregnancy that is extremely hazardous and is days from killing both the mother and the baby. In that case the surgery to save the mother's life is not an abortion; rather, it is a lifesaving procedure with the motivation of saving life. Cf Stand to Reason's excellent analysis.

2) A man hands you a loaded handgun and brings a person with a black bag over their head into the room. He instructs you to shoot this person. If you refuse, he informs you that he will kill not only that person but also that person's mother, and not quickly with a round to the head, but slowly with a knife and a blowtorch.

Some things to note:

-What if some of these babies were aborted mere days before the liberation of the death camp by Allied forces and the relief of these women's suffering? The problem with the business of predicting the future is that we humans cannot do so. How does the doctor know that the high-risk pregnancy will kill the mother and the child? And how did Dr Perl know that any individual pregnant woman would without question be put to death by the Nazis? She did not, and modern doctors do not know until much later than many would like to admit.

-One major difference between the two scenarios is the potential reaction time. In a high-risk pregnancy, a woman who is determined to do all she can to carry her baby to term and give him the best chance at life may put herself under close medical supervision. If the situation becomes unsustainably dangerous to the point that the mother's life will be lost within a matter of hours (or less) and an operation must be performed to save the mother's life, yet the life of the child cannot be preserved, then we would say it is justifiable to save the mother's life, and we mourn the loss of the child as a de facto miscarriage.

On the other hand, taking it upon oneself to commit the murder that another was going to carry out does not excuse the deed. Someone in Dr Perl's position must balance on the one hand:

the culpability of killing an innocent person to prevent the probable, more painful death of that person and another, versus, on the other hand:
the culpability of obeying God's command not to murder and thus doing nothing to prevent the probable two murders by someone else's hand and leaving the consequences to God.

-In #1 the motivation is the same as Dr Perl's - to save one life rather than seeing two lost. We must remember, however, that such a surgical procedure is not designed to purposefully kill the unborn baby (whose death is an undesired consequence), while the act of abortion is purposefully designed to kill the unborn child. Purposefully killing an innocent human being, even for such a noble end as saving human life, is something that is not morally justifiable (per the previous analysis).

Thus we conclude our analysis of the morality of Dr Perl’s actions. Yes, it is very complicated, and that’s part of the point. We have the benefit of the Internet, advanced education, email, cell phones, and freedom of movement and association with which to analyse in depth such questions as these. Dr Perl had some dirty towels and her bare hands.

Dr Perl's idea of God was faulty

That said, Dr Perl did not trust God to be sovereign, as He has revealed Himself to be.
One of the Ten Commandments is: Thou shalt not murder. No mitigating circumstances are named. No "...unless someone pushes you really, really hard".

Let's be honest - we here in the modern West, we modern Christians fail all the time. The tests and trials we experience are nothing like Dr Perl's trials. We fail to trust God.

Dr Perl also failed to trust God. Ultimately, we can trust God to do what brings Him glory, above anything else. Along the way, He will do and let happen many things that are difficult for us to understand. God knows everything. Even such evil as the Holocaust occurred for God's purposes, and will result in His glory. If we are inclined to argue, when we stop and soberly consider, what % of all knowledge do we possess? Can we hope to achieve 0.1% of all that there is to know?

Further, God is perfectly good and knows best what is perfectly good. We trust Him to define good for us. With what moral standard will we judge God? Can we talk back to Him, inform Him that He really didn't know how bad a situation we were in when we decided to violate the commandment not to murder (cf Job 38:1-7 and Job 40:7-14)?

God owes nothing to any of His creation. Yet in her post-Holocaust obstetrics career, Dr Perl made a habit of saying, as she prepared to deliver another baby: "God, you owe me a life - a living baby."

This is understandable, but it is wrong. The Bible clearly describes human beings as guilty, rebel sinners, who routinely spit in God's face and refuse to obey His law. Every second we live, every breath we draw, all is because of God's grace.

Rather, let us give thanks in all things to God for any blessing. What we fallen sinners actually deserve, outside of God's grace, is an eternity of Holocausts.

Dr Perl regretted the necessity of her actions, whereas most modern pro-choicers do not

The statements we have highlighted from her interviews illustrate the vast difference between her attitude toward what she thought she had to do and the general attitude of modern Western people toward abortion. Some are radically supportive of a "woman's right to choose" and celebrate it to a sickening degree. Some set their jaws and harden their gaze when the issue is brought up, ready to defend women from what they consider the oppression of carrying out one of their bodies' God-given, God-designed, and frankly quite amazing functions - that of assembling a new human inside their own bodies. Some shrug away the responsibility, figuring that women are going to have sex, and that it's probably better to go ahead and trim off some societal dead weight rather than allow everyone the chance to be born.

Dr Perl knew and confessed that the Nazis were ending two lives when they sent those pregnant women to the crematorium, and added:

No one will ever know what it meant to me to destroy those babies, but if I had not done it, both mother and child would have been cruelly murdered.

1) Dr Perl was aborting these babies before their mothers' pregnancies became visible, which means that Dr Perl believed that what some call "fetuses" or "products of conception" - very young babies at a very early stage of development - were babies, which she was destroying.
2) One does not murder an appendix, a part of the mother's body. Nor does one murder a non-person or a non-human.

65 years later, busy professionals earn $6-7 figures per year from women who, for the most part, don't want to alter their lifestyles just because they've gotten pregnant. Compare the environment of these women by looking around yourself right now. Is any element of your surrounding context comparable to Auschwitz?

The consistent abortionist's response

This question, while horrible to consider and yet important for a test for consistency, is quite answerable from within the abolitionist framework. The proponent of legalised baby murder, however, if s/he is to be consistent, should respond to this with a shrug. If the modern abortionist gets to arbitrarily choose to remove humanity from a given class of people (the very young), then so do the Nazis. What was so bad about the Holocaust, again? Those weren't humans in those death camps. Their society decided they weren't, so they weren't, just like those aren't humans inside the womb. Aborted babies' society has decided they aren't.

Nobody on the pro-choice side will accept this conclusion, but remember that this subsection is entitled "the consistent abortionists' response". The pro-choice position is fundamentally internally inconsistent.

The consistent abolitionist's response

When pushed to the extreme in probably the most awful, terrible situation that humanity has ever put itself outside the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, what what would any of us do? We'd like to think we would fulfill in our actions what we know to be right, but our own failings given far fewer challenges must give us pause and make as beg for God's mercy.

Yet we must not make hard and fast moral standards out of the most extreme cases. At most we can subject our moral compunctions to the scrutiny of an extreme situation and see if we are able to act our morality out consistently.

And the abolitionist position can do that, even in this case, which is thankfully exceedingly rare and extreme. We do not know how much suffering any life will hold in the future. We trust God to take care of that; we hold to and obey His command not to murder as well as His commands to love our neighbor as ourselves and to protect the weak and helpless.

What else can we learn?

That the exigencies of the 0.0001% of most extreme cases are not well-suited for creating normative ethics for the remaining 99.999% of cases.
That abortion is unjustifiable even if committed by someone many regard as a hero or angel. This is at its base nothing more than an argument from authority.

That the dissimilarities between Dr Perl's situation, motivations, and moral assessment of her actions versus that of the modern pro-abortion movement are so vast as to make her case far more powerful a defense of the abolitionist position than of modern abortioneering.

That a robust abolitionist position can deal consistently with the worst horrors of human existence and emerge with its moral authority and prophetic admonition intact.

(Please leave any comments at the cross-post at the Abolitionist Society blog.)

Bonus exchange with Saaib Ahmed on textual criticism

2012-01-19T16:49:00.003-06:00

This is an interaction that my debate opponent Saaib Ahmed and I had. It is separate from our formal debate and I tried to make sure not to rehash ground that is already being covered in our formal debate during this exchange.
Saaib began with:

Who is afraid of Textual Criticism?
The Christians or the Muslims. Who fails to pass the exam? The Bible or The Glorious Quran

Rhology: Is that why book after book comes out from Christian scholars about textual criticism, while Muslims ignorantly deny that there is any such thing as a Qur'anic textual variant?

Saaib Ahmed: Or is it that there really is some problem with Bible...

Rhology: Whether there is a problem with the Bible or not is irrelevant here. So let me ask you: Are you implying that Christians and not Muslims are afraid of textual criticism? What is your evidence? As for passing the exam, that's part of our debate so I'll leave it there.

Saaib Ahmed ‎Rhology, Rhology Rhology............ huh...... Answering Islam had published an article on this.... Thats why i wrote this......

Rhology So why are there tons of Christians who study textual criticism, while Muslims deny that any Qur'anic variants even exist?

Saaib Ahmed When variants don't exist we say variants don't exist (as in case of Quran) and when they exist we say they exist (as in case of Bible).... I hope you and I mean same by the term "variants"....

Rhology Here's a variant - http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2499

Saaib Ahmed ‎Rhology: Thanks for the link.... Before I answer I want to know what you understood from the article... Just two to three sentences...

Rhology Simply put, "(the palimpsest) gives the readings, showing how the original version of this text differed from the later standardized (i.e., called the "Uthmanic") text". So, you have to ask yourself whether any argument against the Bible from textual variants would allow you to be consistent.

Saaib Ahmed Suppose if I write on a leather sheet, "I am debating Rhoblogy".... Then you come across and tell me that it is not "Rhoblogy" but "Rhology" and I wash off the ink and write "I am debating Rhology". After 1000 years someone discovers the leather sheet and says that there exists a "variant", he is right but what does that variant prove. Absolutely nothing.

The leather shows that the original (wrong: Rhoblogy) text differed from the later (correct: Rhology) standardized text.... Wasn't it simple.... Same applies to above....

I based my reply on what you said. If you can please tell me the Manuscript number, i would have given a much better reply. Like if it was a Sana Manuscript then there are more possible explanations. like if it was a personal Mushaf of some companion then there are different explanations.... I hope this replies your query.... Your turn...

Rhology Yep, that 1st paragraph is right, and that is 90+% of all the textual variants in the Bible

I am bringing it up so you'll know not to use really stupid arguments like this one.

Saaib Ahmed: ‎Rhology: I accept that. And I have no hesitation is accepting that there are variants in NT (and OT) which have no impact (or effect) on the reading of scripture. But there are some (in fact many) which do have an effect and such cases are not to be found with Quran and if there are (which I do not know of) there will also be explanations for them. For me Textual Criticism of Quran and Bible is my favorite topic and I want this discussion to continue so that I publish it to other people for education.

Rhology That is actually incorrect. In the Bible, there are NONE that make any doctrinal impact. You need to present an argument for that.
And I don't know for sure whether the Qur'an has any, but I believe it does.
The problem is that most Muslims I have encountered say "The Bible has been changed", etc. You in fact made that argument in our debate, and you don't have evidence that you can consistently maintain.

Saaib Ahmed Rhology: I never wanted a word limit.

As for my statement. It is correct. There are hundreds of cases (if not thousands) where the scripture was altered deliberately. Take for example the following example.

The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" being is the verse of 1 John 5:7.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

However this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this?

This is one such example. Once you explain this to me then I will love to go ahead with a few. Once you reply to all of them. I will tell you "Gospel of Luke" is product of this editing by itself.

Most Muslims which you encountered know the above fact and many more like these. :D

Rhology:
‎;-) For the record, I am starting to think I made a mistake with the word counts I asked for. I should've asked for longer. LOL, too late now.

False about 1 Jn 5:7. The case for the Trinity is indubitable from the NT; we don't need 1 Jn 5:7 at all. And that's not a variant. It's not in the original text. There is no doubt of that. Choose one that actually matters.

Besides, I said "that make a doctrinal impact". If a variant proposes that a verse that TEACHES the Trinity, that doesn't impact doctrine, because the NT's doctrine is Trinitarian already. So try again.

Unfortunately, you haven't set yourself apart from most Muslims yet, b/c your arguments are so far garbage.

Saaib Ahmed ‎Rhology : Aaah.... U should have not set a word limit at all.... I have been debating the issue for long and I know how much it hurts to keep a word limit...

As for 1 John 5:7, it shows (delibrate) alteration of text at least on two occasions and that two by who were not eye witnesses. Let me show you how.

We have two possibilities. Either the verse was in the original text (which seems impossible), or the verse was not in the original text.

We know that the verse in missing in the earliest manuscripts we have.

If the verse was in original then someone altered the text and we don't have it in earliest texts (Alteration No. 1). Then someone put it back, because we have it in later texts (Alteration No. 2). Now Revisers have removed it again (Alteration No. 3).

If the verse was not in the originals then someone altered the text and put it in, because we have it in later texts (Alteration No. 1). Now the revisers have removed it again (Alteration No. 2).

Its like, heads I win, tails you loose.

As for doctrines, even a jaundiced eye can see that this verse is a clear cut deliberate insertion so as to support the trinitarian view of God.

NT is trinitarian, well it is debatable. You have to make Jehova's witnesses to understand who follow the same text. Anyways, you have to accept that there are plenty who follow the same text and yet remain unitarians. Therefore you don't need to lie to a person who already knows things (and sometimes better than you, with due respect though). Had this verse been in the original text, trinitarians had a really good argument. Anyways it is like, "....seeing you see not, hearing you hear not. neither will you understand."

Unfortunately, you Christians get offended with whatever arguments we have. Instead of clearing the douts you act like GrecopaganJesus (who called Jews some very good names and sometimes even his own followers). You call it garbage and the thing we are discussing is Bible. May be you think it is garbage but we Muslims do have faith in some part of it.

:D

Rhology:
Yes it shows deliberate addition by someone OVER 1000 YEARS AFTER JESUS. Why would anyone care about that?

And if you think it's possible it was in the original, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

If you want to say "debatable", strictly speaking EVERYTHING is debatable. But it's not REASONABLY debatable. The NT is Trinitarian, and it is easily proven. Very, very easily.

There are people (like me) who read the Qur'an and yet think that Islam is from the devil. Does that mean the Qur'anic teaching might be that Islam is from teh devil? No, it means that some ppl disagree with it, but that's no surprise. Be consistent, b/c your inconsistency is destroying you here.

I'm not offended. I'm actually laughing b/c you think you've made a good argument. You haven't.

Saaib Ahmed:

‎Rhology: You are an English speaking person but your comprehension skills seem very poor.

I said there are two possible "possibilities". I never said it was (or wasn't) in the originals....... You ought to read my comment again...

We have two possibilities. Either the verse was in the original text (which seems impossible), or the verse was not in the original text.

We know that the verse in missing in the earliest manuscripts we have.

If the verse was in original then someone altered the text and we don't have it in earliest texts (Alteration No. 1). Then someone put it back, because we have it in later texts (Alteration No. 2). Now Revisers have removed it again (Alteration No. 3).
If the verse was not in the originals then someone altered the text and put it in, because we have it in later texts (Alteration No. 1). Now the revisers have removed it again (Alteration No. 2).
Its like, heads I win, tails you loose.
You have to accept the interpolation in both cases....

Anyways the trinity of NT is like finding a dinosaurs egg.... You can find it but you need to search for it in down in the layers of the earth.... The simple prof is that the word itself isn't there.... Jehova's witnesses follow the same NT and yet remain unitarians... And one more example is Sir Isaac Newton, a firm bible believer, who was a unitarian. He, in fact, wrote a book on corruption of the Biblical scriptures. "A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture."....

Rhology:
Yes, and since it's not in the earliest MSS, to propose that it might be in the original is to go AGAINST the evidence. And since the verse does not appear in anything of note for such a long time, the evidence is stacked against. Thus, it's not even really a defensible conclusion that this was in the original. You're not catching my point.

The 2nd situation is what happened. It wasn't in the original. Someone added it into ONE copy, MANY MANY CENTURIES LATER. So what? There are thousands of others MSS. That's how we know that this verse was not in the original. I don't think you understand textual criticism.

And you are also ignorant of the NT if you think that the doctrine of the Trinity is "deep" in "layers". Tell you what - don't act like you're an authority in the NT and I won't act like I'm an authority in the Qur'an. Or better yet, GIVE AN ARGUMENT for your assertion. What is your argument against the dozens of passages that teach the Trinity, and the other mountain of passages that make no sense if the Trinity is untrue?

Isaac Newton was not a theologian.

I also don't accept arguments from authority. What is your ARGUMENT?

Saaib Ahmed ‎
As for the verse I quoted. One thing I just proved to you is a deliberate corruption of scripture. The issue is resolved now.
Next, Trinity in the new testament. (i won't debate the issue) As you said I should not try to be an authority on that. True that. But I was neither acting like one. I only had one argument and that argument is that many people interpret the same passages in different ways (e.g Jehova's witnesses).

Newton wasn't a theologian (We agree on this), neither am I. Therefor you won't see me having formal debates on these topics (unless I study them). I am a critique and I am concentrating on the textual integrity of Bible and The Quran. That is where Newton comes in. I didn't quote him as a theologian, but I quoted him as a textual critique who wrote on Biblical Corruption favoring the trinitarian position.

Rhology
Deliberate addition to ONE mss copy 1000 years later is not even close to the same thing as "corruption of Scripture". You need to make an argument, not only so you can prove your point, but so your point can make sense. Right now it makes no sense.

Yes, plenty of ppl are not Trinitarians. Now you need to make an argument as to why that matters.

Consider how many people can read the Qur'an and can be Shia. I guess this means, by YOUR logic, the Qur'an is actually a Shia book. Right?

You need to give us some reason to think that Newton had any knowledge of textual criticism. Also, you need to give us a reason to think that his knowledge THEN, when he lived, is relevant to today's situation, since today scholars have much, much more information available to them and many, many more MSS discoveries.

Saaib Ahmed
I showed you one deliberate addition that went unnoticed for years centuries) till we regained access to manuscripts which are closer to sources. The closer the manuscript is to the source authentic is the manuscript. But we are still centuries away from the source. The text you have is fluid even now. This Trinitarian statement in 1John is of immense theological significance; its interpolation into Greek manuscripts so late in history (during the Renaissance) is indicative of an alarming fluidity in the text. You can sense it from the changes you are making in it. Unintentional changes don't matter (As you had pointed out). We can explain the unintentional changes in various ways. But for the intentional corruptions you can't give me an explanation unless you accept the text has remained vulnerable. P.W.Confort (is not a textual critique but a believing Christian, so far as i know him) is one among the many who accept the deliberate alteration of the text even in earlier centuries (not thousands of years later). These include materials which were inserted into the text from oral traditions (John 7:53-8:11), additions due to the spread of asceticism (such as the insertion of 'and fasting' after 'prayer' in Mark 9:29), the tamperings of certain sects. (The Adoptionists for example, believing that Jesus became the Son of God at the moment of baptism,

changed Luke 3:22 from "this ismy beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" to "this is my Son; this day I have begotten you"). This corruption was also, sometimes (many times), done to suite a particular church position (See for such example the well celebrated book "The Orthodox Corruption of The Scripture").

More on the verse at discussion: I was reading about it yesterday. I came across the special name dedicated to the verse "Comma Johanneum". When it was removed from the Biblical texts (more recently) Bible revisers had to make changes in the verses before and after (which have absolutely no confirmation of manuscripts).

The Authorised Version © 1983 still contains this passage:

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Interestingly the Revised Standard Version (RSV) - which is the 1946 revision of the 1901 American version of the 1881 revised edition of the 1611 King James Version (KJV) - omits some crucial words:

6 This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood.
7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.

We can surmise that English translations of the Bible waited at least three centuries, if not more, before removing a spurious passage which had been inserted as late as the 16th century.

I also sense that your argument is also related to the contemporary critical revision of the text. The argument, as I interpret it, is that these successive editions are approaching closer to the original Biblical text, rather than moving away from it. Though I agree with you (as I mentioned above) but that is not universally the case. Every translation is the labour of a specific time and place, and will undoubtedly be affected by whatever social or political issues are current in the translator's psyche. Regardless of whether critical study of manuscripts is employed, concern over such issuesmay be sufficient to push the final product even further from the original text. The best example I can give you is of the Contemporary English Bible. Bible Review, vol. xii, no. 5, Oct. 1996, p. 42 tells us something about it, "The claim is presumably based on the retranslating, or in some cases the paraphrasing or simplyomitting, of certain prejudicial allusions toJews in the New Testament". Joseph Blenkinsopp (who wrote the above mentioned review) goes on to cite examples where 'theJews' has been changed to 'the people', 'a great crowd of the Jews' to 'a lot of people', and so on, as well as the watering down of 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!' to 'You Pharisees and teachers of the Law of Moses are in for trouble! You're nothing but show-oils'. The response comes from CEV's chief editor that they are translating "faithfully" the "intent" of the "earliest Greek Text". The gist of this discussion is that even if we are going closer to the source we still remain away from the actual text and to consolidate my position I will show you just one example. (Note both the translations are recent).

RSV John (9:22) [The blind man's] parents said this because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess [Jesus] to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue.

CEV (9:22-23) The man's parents said this because they were afraid of their leaders. The leaders had already agreed that no one was to have anything to do with anyone who saidJesus was the Messiah.

I can show u hundreds (millions in fact) of such deliberate alterations of the text even today.

Plenty are Unitarians who believe in the same scripture which you believe in. This means that same book has been interpreted as giving two different concept of God. As for Shia-Sunni differences, I don't know where is it related to your differences with Unitarians. Our problem is more POLITICAL than THEOLOGICAL. Your problem is the very base of your religion. To be frank enough Unitarians don't believe in 2/3rds of your God. The God of Shias and Sunnis is same. (Note: I admit that even the verses of Quran have been interpreted differently, but they are of little consequence as they don't deal with THEOLOGY. By this I mean every sect of Islam has the same concept of god, belief in prophets and books revealed to them, judgement day etc. But we are still in a better position because we were taught by Muhammad how to interpret Quran i.e We have a prophetic commentary, which sorry to say is not possible for your book. This means we have a possible way to check whose interpretation in correct while you miss this privilege)

Newton and his knowledge of textual criticism is evident from his well celebrated book which I already mentioned.

Rhology:

Right, and the point is that 1 Jn 5:7 is NOT IN MSS that are even close to the original.

You said:
--"The closer the manuscript is to the source authentic is the manuscript"

Not necessarily. You're showing your ignorance about textual criticism. No wonder you're failing to understand and making such basic errors.

You said:
--"The text you have is fluid even now."

What does that mean? Does it mean that people sometimes changed some MSS copies? Of course! That's why Christians are not afraid of textual criticism! We can detect those changes because we have 1000s of MSS.

And Muslims can't admit that the Qur'an has the same problem. It clearly does, and yet Muslims are afraid of textual criticism and so won't admit it.

Here, I will use YOUR logic: The Qur'anic palimpsest I showed you earlier means that the Qur'anic text is fluid.

You said:
--"This Trinitarian statement in 1John is of immense theological significance"

No, it is not.
If it was in the original, the NT teaches the Trinity.
If it was NOT in the original, the NT teaches the Trinity.

You said:
--"These include materials which were inserted into the text from oral traditions (John 7:53-8:11)"

1) Why do you, a Muslim who thinks that the Qur'an was transcribed from oral dictation many decades after Mohammed, have a problem with oral tradition?
2) What makes you think I consider John 7:53-8:11 an original text?

You said:
--" additions due to the spread of asceticism (such as the insertion of 'and fasting' after 'prayer' in Mark 9:29)"

You need to argue for this and not merely assert it.

You said:
--"Adoptionists for example, believing that Jesus became the Son of God at the moment of baptism, changed Luke 3:22 from "this ismy beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" to "this is my Son; this day I have begotten you""

Argument?
Are you aware that the 2nd phrase is merely an Old Testament quotation that is quoted in the Epistle to the Hebrews?

You said:
--"(See for such example the well celebrated book "The Orthodox Corruption of The Scripture")."

You mean the book which I destroyed in my recent rebuttal, and then you pretended that it wasn't part of your point?
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2012/01/bible-is-word-of-god-debate-my-first.html

You said:
--"We can surmise that English translations of the Bible waited at least three centuries, if not more, before removing a spurious passage which had been inserted as late as the 16th century."

Because of later discoveries of earlier, better MSS.
Why is this a problem?

You said:
--"I can show u hundreds (millions in fact) of such deliberate alterations of the text even today."

But of the text OF WHAT? That's the question.
And I can show you numerous "deliberate alterations" in the MSS tradition of the Qur'an.
So what?

You said:
--"Plenty are Unitarians who believe in the same scripture which you believe in."

And plenty are Shia who believe in the same scripture which you believe in.

They read the same book and come to (what you consider to be) the wrong conclusion. Why is this an argument against my understanding of the Bible when Shia beliefs are not an argument against YOUR understanding of the Qur'an? Be consistent.

You said:
--"Our problem is more POLITICAL than THEOLOGICAL."

Argument?
Are you saying there are no theological differences?

You said:
--"Your problem is the very base of your religion. "

Not really, since the Unitarians are simply wrong.
If people are wrong, why does that affect my position?

You said:
--" I admit that even the verses of Quran have been interpreted differently, but they are of little consequence as they don't deal with THEOLOGY."

Oh, so something in your holy book doesn't deal with THEOLOGY? Come on.

You said:
--"Newton and his knowledge of textual criticism is evident from his well celebrated book which I already mentioned."

So a bunch of people like it, therefore it's good?
A lot of people celebrate Robert Spencer's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam". I guess that means it's totally accurate and a great book, by your logic. Right?
You should stop. You're embarrassing yourself here.

Saaib Ahmed
It follows logic only, that earlier the manuscript more authentic it is.... Anyways if you don't agree with that then u have a problem to deal with.... The verse could well have been in the originals....
The text is fluid even now means that changes are being done in it even now i.e 2000 years after the text was originally written.

1 john 5:7 is theologically very important and this can be proved easily. One, had it not been that important why would anyone add it. Two, there isn't any verse in whole new testament which binds father, son and holy ghost as one. The nearest you can come to it is yet another interpolation (not found in manuscripts) when Jesus wants his followers to baptize in the name of father, son and holy ghost. Yet in this insertion they are not bound as one.

I don't have problems with oral traditions, (its your own deduction) the problem I have is when an oral tradition creeps into the written text. Oral tradition creeps into god's word (tickled). That Is the problem. ANYWAYS, EVEN IF IT DIDN'T COME FROM AN ORAL TRADITION, YET IT IS AN UNANSWERABLE INTERPOLATION.

HUh... Insertion of 'and fasting' after 'prayer' in Mark 9:29. I just gave u a possible explanation. I don't want you to take it down your throat as it is. You can surely argue. The point is that the words inserted are not in the manuscripts. You can give an explanation if you are not satisfied with "my" explanation (which is supported by Christian scholars ( P.W.Confort), Muslim scholars (MM Azami), Others (Bruce Metzger, Bart Ehrman)).

As for Luke 3:22, does it matter where it is from. no absolutely not. I am showing you changes in text. I gave you a possible explanation. You don't agree with the explanation, fine. But the argument still remains that the text has been corrupted at that very particular place.

He he, you destroyed the book. huh.. Rhology don't fly... Had it been the part of the debate I would surely have replied... Anyways, u should read that book...

I don't have problems with recent discoveries of the text, but you do have.... he he... Because you don't accept that earlier manuscripts are more authentic.

As for deliberate alterations of the Quranic Text you are most welcome to show us some... He he... Rhology Rhology Rhology come back to earth.... Anyways the deliberate alterations in The Quran will still not be sufficient to prove the validity of Bible.

Jehowas Witnesses differences with you and Shias differences with you have been listed above by me and the readers have can judge that you failed therein. I have made enough comments on that....

Yes, many things in Quran don't deal with theology. what about "Jesus wept" in the Bible..... OOpz... Matthew 1: Genealogy, Luke 3: Genealogy...Titus 3:9 "Avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, and fights about the Law, because they are useless and worthless" he he,.....

Robert Spencer does have knowledge about Islam.... Same applies to Newton... He he....

Rhology

‎--"It follows logic only, that earlier the manuscript more authentic it is"

Not necessarily.
There's quite a bit more to it than just age.

--"The text is fluid even now means that changes are being done in it even now"
But what is the text you're talking about?

Nobody is changing the MSS that have been found. Do you mean the final collated text that is arrived at thru textual criticism is still fluid? Oh, sort of, b/c when we find better MSS, we incorporate them and where their readings are better and more supported, we may change the collated text.

In other words, when we find improvements, we apply them. That's what it means not to be afraid of textual criticism.

--"1 john 5:7 is theologically very important and this can be proved easily. One, had it not been that important why would anyone add it."

That's a bad argument. They probably wanted the case for the TRinity to be more explicit, but that just means that person wasn't well educated in the NT.

--"Two, there isn't any verse in whole new testament which binds father, son and holy ghost as one."

I don't know what "binds" means. Probably it's an issue of English difficulty.
There are SO MANY verses that say there is one God. And SO MANY that say the Father is God. SO MANY saying Jesus the Son is God. Numerous saying the Holy Spirit is God. SO MANY that there is one God.
So no, it's not in question.
You, like the guy who added 1 J 5.7 to some MSS, are ignorant.

--"The nearest you can come to it is yet another interpolation (not found in manuscripts) when Jesus wants his followers to baptize in the name of father, son and holy ghost. "

??? You mean Matthew 28:19-20? Give me some evidence that that verse is "not found in manuscripts". You don't even know what you're talking about.

--"EVEN IF IT DIDN'T COME FROM AN ORAL TRADITION, YET IT IS AN UNANSWERABLE INTERPOLATION."

Gibberish.

--"Insertion of 'and fasting' after 'prayer' in Mark 9:29. I just gave u a possible explanation"

A bad one, yes.
Anything is "possible", strictly speaking.

--"The point is that the words inserted are not in the manuscripts"

??? No, the point is that those words *ARE* in *SOME* MSS. But not in THE BEST AND MOST RELIABLE MSS.
You don't know what you're talking about. Again.

--"As for Luke 3:22, does it matter where it is from"

That's part of our formal debate and I won't comment on it here.

--"Because you don't accept that earlier manuscripts are more authentic."

You are ignorant.

--"As for deliberate alterations of the Quranic Text you are most welcome to show us some"

I already did. It doesn't surprise me that you didn't read it. You don't seem to care about the truth.

Saaib Ahmed:

It seems like you want to have the last say... He he... its common with empty vessels.... Your wish comes true this time, this is my last comment on this as i have said what I had to say and my position is clear and I leave it up to the readers to judge on these irrefutable arguments..... Let them decide if it is enough to say "gibberish" and leave the argument or is it enough to call an explanation "...(a) bad one" while the argument still remains... Anyways, this is what we expect from Christians when we make them face some sound arguments.

Earlier the manuscript more is the authenticity, and I have shown you if it is not true then the verses can be in originals and you have no answers for that.

I would like to ask you what exactly is the "word of God" if we will keep on changing it... The truth is that no manuscript is the word of God, not even the present text because you will change it within a few years (again).... He he...Deal with the situation which is getting even worse.... Please tell us what exactly is the word of God if the current is going to be a history in future... Lol... Such a dynamic word of god... Hellelooya for this one.... Rhology Rhology Rhology, please stop insulting yourself...

Importance of 1 John 5:7 has been proven, "seeing you see not, hearing you hear not. Neither will you understand."

There are SO MANY verses that say there is one God. (True that) And SO MANY that say the Father is God. (oopz, of God is father, please clarify) SO MANY saying Jesus the Son is God. (Neither I nor Unitariantarian Christians nor any other Muslims find it) Numerous saying the Holy Spirit is God. (How many?) SO MANY that there is one God. (True that)....... But there isn't any verse which binds them as one... There isn't any verse which tells us that these three are one... The one which did so is an interpolation to which both of us agree.... The sole remaining Trinitarian passage of any clarity is Mathew 28:19 (which you pointed out).... This is an interpolation (as i pointed out earlier).... You want a proof, for which (all we need is to) refer to Biblical Scholars.... He he.... Oh, let us go to a Christian publications this time....

"....this (Mathew 28:19) late post-resurrection saying, not found any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by scholars as an interpolation into Mathew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of 'making disciples' is continued in 'teaching them,' so that the intervening reference to baptism with its trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying....."
(Dictionary of the Bible, page 1015)

Clinton D. Willis tells us, "If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism."

He is most probably copying from Encyclopedia of Religions and ethics.

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."

Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge page 435.:
"the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed..."

The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."

New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."

The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
"The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."

I hope this much is enough.... (Rhology join Moody Bible Institute, you need some serious studying)....

For the rest of arguments you are absolutely answer-less and this is clear from your replies... He he.... "Busted"...

The discussion is public to all.... I couldn't see any deliberate changes in the Quranic Manuscripts shown by you... hmmmm... let me see again... o.o o.O O.o O.O.... emmmmmm not found,, try again.....

No comments from me after this one... As soon as you comment I will add your comment to the note... Ba bye... Sayonara....

Rhology:

‎--"It seems like you want to have the last say... He he... its common with empty vessels"

1) Whether a vessel is empty or not depends on the substance and strength of the arguments.
2) This is an ironic statement, coming from someone who didn't want a word count on our debate.

--"Earlier the manuscript more is the authenticity"

If you mean that earlier MSS have a stronger case for authenticity, that is true. There are other factors that go into it.
You are now changing your position from earlier. Before, you were saying things that were flatly incorrect. Now you are closer to the truth. I congratulate you for refining your statements, and I encourage you to think through what you say in the future.

--"I have shown you if it is not true then the verses can be in originals and you have no answers for that."

This statement does not make any sense.

--"I would like to ask you what exactly is the "word of God" if we will keep on changing it."

Nobody is changing it. You seem to think that someone making a change to ONE COPY out of thousands is equal to "changing the Word of God", but this is another indication that you do not understand textual criticism.
Thus, your original contention about being afraid of textual criticism is actually unanswerable. You don't even know what textual criticism is, so we can't know whether you're afraid of it or not.

--"The truth is that no manuscript is the word of God, not even the present text because you will change it within a few years (again)"

I have never claimed that any manuscript copy is the Word of God.
The present text will only be slightly amended if better and earlier MSS are found so that we can get closer to what the originals said. The present text is of no importance. What matters is that we know what God originally said.
However, we can know what He said. Just b/c we might get a better understanding of one word here or there does not mean that the Word of God will be changed.

--"Please tell us what exactly is the word of God if the current is going to be a history in future"

The exact same question could be asked about the Qur'an, and if you're consistent, you'd give the same answer - you trust God and you go for now with the best evidence.

--"Importance of 1 John 5:7 has been proven, "seeing you see not, hearing you hear not. Neither will you understand.""

When did you prove it?

--"And SO MANY that say the Father is God. (oopz, of God is father, please clarify"

Both - God is our father, and the Father is God.
If you understood the doctrine of the Trinity, this would not be confusing to you.

--". But there isn't any verse which binds them as one"

Yes, there are lots.

--"The sole remaining Trinitarian passage of any clarity is Mathew 28:19 (which you pointed out).... This is an interpolation (as i pointed out earlier"

That is not the "sole remaining" passage.
And I asked you for evidence that it is an interpolation, and you didn't give any.

--"this (Mathew 28:19) late post-resurrection saying, not found any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by scholars as an interpolation into Mathew"

But WHY do they view it that way? Is it b/c there is MSS evidence, or is it b/c the theology of Matt 28:19 conflicts with what liberals prefer to believe? What is the evidence they bring forward?

--"Clinton D. Willis tells us, "If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism"

I don't believe him. What is his evidence?

--"The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:"

"Scholarly" doesn't mean anything without evidence.
And many many Roman Catholic scholars are liberals.
So... you've quoted numerous tertiary sources, but I want to know why I should believe that they are correct. What is the evidence they have?

--"I couldn't see any deliberate changes in the Quranic Manuscripts shown by you"

Then I guess you haven't been reading carefully.
Here it is again: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2499

Nice talking to you.

Saaib Ahmed:
Notice that the link he produced has already been discussed....

Rhology:
Yes, I noticed the fact that I'd already linked to that palimpsest but you appeared to have forgotten it, because you acted like you hadn't seen any evidence that one Qur'anic MSS copy is different from another. Yet that is exactly what you are claiming makes the Bible unreliable. You can't be consistent.

Facebook debate on Abolish Human Abortion

2012-01-18T18:10:00.000-06:00

Abolish Human Abortion Admin:
It is so annoying when abortion advocates lie about how al anti-abortionists could care less about children after they are born. This is simply not true and they know it.

On the fence Mark: Saucier Words are plentiful and cheap, but, where is the religious organizations helping to take care of those young babies who lives. Uhm, where is the money, beside our tax paying dollars?

Abolitionist Heather: I believe that some of them actually and truly believe this. But the fact is that they are wrong. There are many organizations such as crisis pregnancy clinics which help women not only before birth but after birth as well. I know that many crisis pregnancy clinics even train women in parenting skills and give them free clothing for the mother and for their baby(ies).

Abolitionist, Colbert: ‎@Mark
There are HUNDREDS of Christian charity organizations that support children and families in need. A simple Google search can point you in the right direction.

The only thing the pro-abortion side wants to do is sell abortions. :/

Katy: Religious organizations teach abstinence,,to not get pregnant and surely if you do not to kill your baby..

Bryce: Love is the key. Even non religious parents can love children.

Abolitionist Lise: ‎@Mark...if you cant find enough resources on the web...try checking with any local Bible believing church in your area. While there are some within those churches who hokd yoyr position (as not every church member is saved), you will find many more who do support women in a crisis pregnsncy, help out with needs, training and guidance...and even adopt the children who's birth moms so selfLESSly chose life. Not every crisis pregnancy results in a child on welfare....which is what you implicitely stated.

Abolitionist Heather: Mark the pregnancy resource centers aren't founded by tax dollars.

Abolitionist, Colbert: Let's also not forget the Christian-funded Crisis Pregnancy Centers that help pregnant women in need without killing children.

Sandy I know how y'all feel about facts, but regardless your's need to be checked. CPC's are funded by tax dollars: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/gops-plan-fund-anti-abortion-activists

Bryce: I only know of two cpcs in my homestate of mississippi that are taxpayer funded.

Abolitionist Lise: I know of none. Not saying there arent any, but of the 3000 + Carenet affilliated CPC's, I know of none. If tax dollars go to support death (abortion), and they do....yet you dont speak out to that, but do speak out about some (and I assert very few, if any) CPC's receiving tax dollars, and CPC's ONLY value and support the sanctity of life...you by your own standards are admitting you in fact are not "pro-choice", but PRO-DEATH.

Abolitionist Lise: ‎@Sandy...come up with a more reputable article to site please. This is so characteristic of Pro Death arguments...Please base your debate on Truth, instead of unsubstantiated rhetoric....
Oh wait...if you did that, you would be a Pro-Lifer!

Pro-Baby Murder Pinhead: How many children have you adopted?

Abolitionist Lise: Two...both special needs.

Rhology: Asking how many children an individual abolitionist has adopted is dangerously close to committing the genetic fallacy.

Bernie: We're looking for churches, organizations, and government programs to step up and take care of all this. Why? Where is the family? That's what was used to handle all these issues in the past, and because of that, they weren't issues. I say we strengthen the family unit first, then argue later.

Pro-Baby Murder Pinhead: ‎"Asking how many children an individual abolitionist has adopted is dangerously close to committing the genetic fallacy."

You care about children, do you not?

Rhology: Yes, I do care about them.
NOw you need to make an argument leading to your conclusion.

Specifically:
P1) every individual abolitionist does not adopt children.
P2) YOUR ARGUMENT HERE

C) Therefore, abolitionists in general do not care about children.

-Rhology

Laure: I love this poster. It's awesome. I have a handicapped brother who has brought joy, laughter and so many other lessons to our family. I don't understand why people think that the Special Needs population is something to get rid of. They are amazing children and wonderful additions to any family.

Pam: Its definatly insane, even those of use who cant currently adopt would love to adopt and even hope to be able to in the future. But even still in the meantime we give money, time and prayers to those organizations that r helping those children.

Abolish Human Abortion Admin: See the picture above "pro lifers are..." That is just a samplinh.of.the many abolitionisf families in our own church that have adopted numerous times. Many who have not adopted have.funded many of these adoptions.

Abolish Human Abortion Admin: How many run away slaves have you helped?

Abolitionist Alicia: Honestly, this is the most inane argument for why abortion should be allowed. Even if NO ONE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH ADOPTED ANYONE, how does it logically follow that someone can kill an innocent person based on the fact that they are not going to be adopted? Just because the system is broken does not lead to the conclusion that children should be killed. The children are not the problem, the system is. If I found out tomorrow that no one loved me, and no one had any interest in supporting or helping me, that doesn't give them the right to kill me. And whether you like the fact or not, every child is wanted by someone. Unfortunately, our adoption system is broken and not every child will be placed in a loving home that wants them forever. That doesn't and never will justify killing them. How stupid is that?

Weird Libertarian Guy?: OK, I'll bite. What WILL they do about abortion? What do they even WANT to do about it?

Rhology: Effect its immediate abolition.

Weird Libertarian Guy?: Abolition as in what? Who do you want to lock up? Abortion doctors? Women that get abortions? Both? Do you think this will reduce abortions?

Weird Libertarian Guy?: That's too much government CONTROL. Who is going to pay for all of this "abortion abolition"? You can't do this and RAISE taxes on the rich, or INCREASE the deficit. So, I'd like to know what you're really gonna do and how in the heck you plan to do it.

Rhology: Is it too much gov't control to outlaw 1st degree murder of adults? Or slavery?
What are you thinking would have to increase in terms of gov't spending? Maybe I'm not following.
And yes, I'd like to lock up all aborticians if they continue to murder children after abortion is outlawed. Women, it's a different matter.

So, what we're going to do is actually laid out in some detail at our site: abolishhumanabortion.com I don't want to retype it all here. -Rhology

Weird Libertarian Guy?: It's gonna cost a LOT in terms of government spending. This is why I can't vote for one of the fake "pro-life" Republicans. I mean, come on. Do you listen to Paul Ryan? As they say, the money has to come from SOMEWHERE. Do you know how much it costs to lock people up in prison? Costs even more to put 'em on death row! That's all coming from the tax payers, and possibly the one percent. We can't have that as good Republicans. Sorry, until you figure out a way to pay for it PRIVATELY via corporations ONLY, then it's status quo!

Rhology: Actually I would be in favor of executing the aborticians if they continue murdering after baby-murder is outlawed. And there aren't THAT many aborticians in the US, so no, it wouldn't cost a ton more.

Death row wouldn't cost so much if they'd execute ppl promptly.
Of course it'll cause problems to enforce the law, but that's not a reason not to enforce it.

I'm not a "good Republican", so what do I care about that?
Further, you haven't considered the other side of things. The 53 million taxpayers and wageearners who are dead b/c of abortion, and their lost ingenuity and working power.

Would you have opposed outlawing the murder of adults until someone could figure out how to fund its enforcement privately? -Rhology

Jamie: It is really stupid when pro-choicers ask "how many babies have you adopted?". Saying that if you save a babies life you should be adopting them is as ridiculous to say that firefighters should only rescue people from burning buildings if they intend to "adopt" the people they save.

Pro-Baby Murder Pinhead: ‎"Specifically:
P1) every individual abolitionist does not adopt children.
... P2) YOUR ARGUMENT HERE

C) Therefore, abolitionists in general do not care about children.

-Rhology"

Because pro-lifers are always talking about how awesome putting a baby up for adoption is. I hear it all the time: "Don't abort it, put it up for adoption!" You talk the talk and don't walk the walk. That's also known as being hypocrites.

Pro-Baby Murder Pinhead: ‎" How many run away slaves have you helped?"

I was unaware that slavery is still happening in my country, unless you count women and girls who are forced to stay pregnant because their state officials view them as slaves. In that case, I helped a runaway slave last year. You?

Pro-Baby Murder Pinhead: ‎" Honestly, this is the most inane argument for why abortion should be allowed."

I agree. The reason it should be allowed is something called bodily autonomy.

Rhology: You are overgeneralising w.r.t. adoption. Willful ignorance. And why didn't you actually make an argument? Ah, probably b/c you can't. You're a big talker with no substance.

As for bodily autonomy, what about the baby's? His body is not his mother's. -Rhology

Rhology: Obviously the point of the runaway slave question was to point out that whether or not one has actually adopted a child is immaterial to whether one can be morally justified in supporting and speaking in favor of a correct moral position. You, again, haven't made an argument. You're just sort of buzzing around and trying to lay guilt where no guilt is fairly placed, b/c you're a hater. -Rhology

Blitzer: There are millions of orphaned kids around the world that need a home, promoting adoption over parenting or abortion is ridiculous, and flat out evil.

Rhology: Did you mean promoting ABORTION over parenting and ADOPTION? I'm afraid I didn't follow... -Rhology

Blitzer: Not over parenting. Parenting is optional, and the best option for some, but abortion is the best option for even more. Adoption is pure evil and does nothing but harm others.

It causes short and long term emotional trauma to the mother, the child, complications for the adopting family, steals a home away from an orphan that needs it, etc.

Blitzer: Adoption isn't even close to an option compared to abortion. Abortion is ending the pregnancy, adoption and parenting both force a woman to go through the pregnancy which may be bad for her short or long term health, her mental and emotional well being, her social and educational well being, and her ability to perform her job/care for the family she already has.

Rhology: So since adoption is difficult, it's just better to kill the child before he can cause problems to others. Is that what you're saying?
Do you realise that there are 1000s of adoptive families around the world who would be shocked and, if honest, would want to tell you to shut your ignorant mouth at your statements about adoption?

-Rhology

Jamie: See thats the problen with you. You only care about the woman. We care for both. Abortions isnt simply ending a pregnancy. It is also ending the life of a human being. Aborion can and often is bad for a womans physical and mental health. Adoption is evil. I truly have heard it all now.

Blitzer: Plus I could point out (addressing your picture) that you guys lie about what "pro-choice" parents will and will not do.

How many times have I heard ppl imply that all pro choice parents will abort every pregnancy every time?
How many times have I heard anti abortion people (I refuse to call them pro-life, they are anything but.) claim the most horribly unscientific things and flat out lies? for example "it's a baby" (if it's a baby you aren't pregnant) "It's murder" (cause it's illegal, unlawful, and a person) "she should have used protection" (cause contraception is 100% effective) and "pro-choiceers will die off in a few decades due to all those abortions" (yes, cause everyone that believes in choice will have an abortion, and being for that is genetic, also anti abortion activists never have abortions http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html)

Pro-abort Kiran: I say that all women are smart enough to make the right choice for them and their bodys. I do not know one single woman who honestly dosent know that if she didnt have an abortion she would have had a baby. As a proud pro~choicer I find the argument of educating "women" about the fact that a fetus becomes a baby insulting. Call it what you will baby, fetus, clump of cells all girls who have an abortion know exactly what they have choosen. We are not cattle!

Jamie: I and 5 other siblings of mine were adopted. Its nice to know that you think we should have been killed because our mother had to carry us before we could make another woman happy

Jamie: Kiran that is not true. I have heard plenty of womeb say thEy wouldnt have aborted if someone had told them the truth about what was in her womb. Not to mention all the pro-choicers that are now against abortion because they realize what abortion really is and does.

Pro-abort Kiran: All women and girls know their choices be it becoming a parent, becoming a biological mom or having an abortion. please stop saying that women are stupid. we will choose what is right for our lives.

Rhology: Actually Kiran many women are lied to by their "clinics". Wanting to educate ppl shows respect, not contempt.

Fox, when is it morally wrong to kill a very young human being? And how do you know?

Pro-abort Kiran: of all the women I know who have had abortions not one has ever not known that if she continued the pregnancy she would have had a baby. please stop making women out to be stupid!
3 hours ago · Like

Pam: ‎"Adoption is pure evil and does nothing but harm others."

The absurdity of that statement is amazing. I have known of many cases in which adoption has done nothing but help others. Also i would argue that abortion is pure evil (the devil at his finest) and does nothing but kill unborn human life.

Do you honestly think if is better to be dead than to endure some suffering? Than y exactly do we have doctors who save lives who have been in accidents or even those who have inflicted the suffering upon themselves?

Pro-abort Kiran: Thats the whole point of having an abortion is not to have a baby. pregnate=baby. or abortion there is no other ending. even my 8 year old knows that when a woman is pregnant she will have a baby

Rhology: But the question is: IS THIS A BABY *NOW*?

-Rhology

Krauss: Go ahead...call us anti-abortion because most of us who ARE pro life ARE against abortion and pretty darn proud of it too! And asking us how many of these 'unwanted babies' have we adopted is stupid. Just because we cant adopt all the 'unwanted babies' we're suddenly not worthy of being pro life? Thats just a plain stupid argument. Ever heard of Crisis Pregnancy Centers? They not only help the woman BEFORE birth but after as well. They dont leave her hanging in limbo after she decided not to abort. Geez. Look up Crisis Pregnancy Centers and see for yourself.

Krauss: Awesome story Jamie! So glad your birth mother didnt have an abortion and that you could find a loving home. Sad to think that not all unborn babies are so lucky.

Pro-abort Kiran: I am all for education balanced fair education. all three choices given to a woman if she wants it. Sure educate about parenting, adoption and abortion. but be honest and keep god out of it!

Pam: At pro-life are hypocrits, if you really truly honestly believe that there are no forms of slavery happening in this country right now you r very very blind to the evils of this world. What exactly would you call it when 12 year old girls r sold for sex against their will, then become pregnant, and r then forced to have abortions against their will? This is happening here in the US today. Since Planned Parenthood knew this was happening and even helped the men doing this to get the girls abortions and then gave those girls right back to the men who r basically owning them as sex slaves i would argue that planned parenthood doesnt care one bit about women.

Blitzer: After it stops being a "parasite" (it's not because it's the same species, but if ppl can call it a baby and not be called out then w/e) in developed nations. When it wont cause other's to die in countries in China and poor nations that cannot afford to have more children, such as in Africa.

Because the lives of real people always trump those of fetuses and very young babies.

Here's a test:

There's a burning building.
Inside is an 8 year old girl, and fridge full of frozen embryos.
You can only save one, which would it be? Why?

Blitzer: If anti abortion ppl were pro life they wouldn't have killed Dr. Tiller, and after his death condemn him more than the murderer.

Blitzer: In fact if they were they wouldn't be debating on whether or not the murderer was in the wrong, nor trying to pass laws in which murdering doctors is considered "justified homicide"

Blitzer: Pam, where the **** is your source?
Planned Parenthood is a very good, caring organization, less than 3% of the services and costs are abortion related, most are helping to test and treat std's, cancer, and pregnancy related things excluding abortion.
In fact the one closest me told me it's not even allowed to talk about abortion at all when I asked about it for a school project.

Rhology: Why would we want to keep God out of it? He's the creator of all life and the lawgiver. We should listen to what He says.

And we don't allow ppl the option to murder their children. THat's kinda the point.
Fox, how do you know that "not being a parasite" means that the baby has the right to life?
Are you saying that very young babies are not real people? And are you aware that it's VERY rare that women have to end pregnancy b/c of risk to their life? 98%+ of abortions are for reasons other than that. So you need to rephrase, as you've made a poor analogy. DO you mean that the CONVENIENCE of OLDER people is of higher value than the LIVES of YOUNGER people?

Your bldg analogy is flawed. Abolishing abortion does not require that we choose to save a very young baby over an 8 year old. Try sthg else, please. -Rhology

Blitzer: Because:

1) this is not a christian nation
2) it's in your best interest seeing as how if god exists he is the most prolific abortionist in history, with 70% of pregnancies ending in spontaneous natural abortions, or by god giving them an abortion, most likely against their will.

Pro-abort Kiran: Maybe for you god plays a part but for me and many other strong itelligent women "god" has nothing to do with conception. For us it is simple biology. So to cram "god" and your interpretation of his wants really is insulting. I say all the power to you who are religious just dont expect us to give any credit to your thoughts on what god wants.

Blitzer: Young babies can live off of anyone, no one specific person is needed to let them live inside their body for them to live, and thus they have gained rights to their own body.
Just as how being 18 is arbitrary, but I will not be allowed to vote, smoke, move out, obtain abortions, or sign legally binding contracts such as marriage contracts until I am 18, 21 also is arbitrary but I will not be allowed to drink until that age.
Are you saying (my 18th bday is 2 days after the presidential election) that 2 days changes my decision making so dramatically that I shouldn't be allowed to vote? Or that we need real set in stone standards to go by, and that's why it's not up to interpretation or human emotion.

Rhology: The guy who murdered Tiller murdered a mass murderer. Obviously we'll condemn that guy less than the guy who killed 1000s of the most helpless of humans. I don't apologise for that one bit. Good riddance to that devil of a man, Tiller.
That said, "they" didn't kill TIller. One guy did. Be far more careful in your language if you want to be taken seriously, yeah?

Also I love how you uncritically swallow PP's number of 3% w/o looking into it. Seriously, do some reading on the other side of things. Surprise us all. -Rhology

Rhology: God ending someone's life is not the same as your ending it. He has the right and authority; you don't. You keep rehashing the same old tired arguments, Fox Wolf. Pro-aborts don't advance much. -Rhology

Blitzer: And no, those stats are exaggerated, most abortions occur because of an illness either in the child or the mother, because the mother cannot give an adequate life, because the mother is in a poor socio-economic status, etc.
Many go on to have children of their own at a time that they can actually provide for them.

very few are simply for convenience.

Pam: True pro-lifers do not support murder of any kind. I am truly and completely pro-life, no one gets to decide when another human life gets to live or die. Those who murdered that doctor were not truly pro-life, they may have been anti-abortion but they werent pro-life. I do not even support the death penalty, those people r Gods children as well, only he gets to decide whether they live or die. You r going to say something about how it costs a lot of money to keep those people fed, gaurded, ect. Can you put a price tag or a monetary value on a human life? I cannot, my life is not equal to any $ amount and no other human life is either.

Blitzer: many other stories on this site http://www.imnotsorry.net/2010/09/06/ruths-story-2/

Blitzer: Pam, the death penalty costs more than life in prison, it's a fact.

Pro-abort Kiran: I am 100% anti death penalty, however abortion is not murder, as for the vigilanty who murdered the doc he should be locked up forever and made a very good example of.

Pro-abort Kiran: Please google...."the only moral abortion is mine"

Blitzer: Well as soon as god starts living by example I'll listen.

Did you know I used to be jewish?
I know what god advocates, alot.
In fact he doesn't say anything against abortion, the only time he really mentioned it was that it is a sin that if a woman is at any kind of risk, to not end the pregnancy in any way possible, "rip it limb by limb as real life is far more important than potential life, always"

Pro-abort Kiran: I am so happy that I live in Canada where womens right to choose will NEVER be threatened. Nobody takes these rightwing fringe groups seriously here!

Rhology: Illness/hard to provide an "adequate" life (whatever that means"/difficult life circumstances are not the same as certain death.
You've conceded the point. Thank you for playing.

Seriously, what excuse will you offer God when He asks you why you stood by and cheered as His tiny creations were getting dismembered and burned to death? It can't be "the pro-choice arguments were better"; that much is glaringly obvious. You're stuck in the 1980s with your argumentation. -Rhology

Rhology: So... Blitzer when precisely is it no longer OK to dismember a baby inside the womb? Be specific, and let us know how you know.

Also, you think fetuses can live off anyone? Um, what in the world are you talking about? -Rhology

Pam: Oh okay, Blitzer but it still doesnt change my opinion of it. I am pro-life meaning i value all life from conception to natural death.

Pro-abort Kiran: God will never ask me those questions as he dosent exisit

Blitzer: There's no such thing as a baby in the womb.

Blitzer: And no, I think a born child can live off anyone

Blitzer: and it becomes wrong whenever the mother doesn't choose to allow it.

Blitzer: I oppose forced abortions, and I oppose making women into baby making factories against their will.

Abolish Human Abortion Admin: Do you also oppose manipulating women into getting abortions?

Rhology: Blitzer are you willing to be your life on that imagination of yours?

So what is the organism one minute BEFORE birth? Please let me know what word you use.
Is it OK to kill that organism with impunity? -Rhology

Pro-abort Kiran: My friend way back in hight school was forced by her parents to have an abortion. She was 15 and the father was a drug using, drunk unemployed 21 year old. She was heartbroken at the time. I asker her 1 marriage 2 children and 25years later how she felt about it and she said "Thank goodness my parents knew what was right for me"! "I sometimes think about what my life would have turned out like if I was aloud to have that baby and I am thankfull". TRUE Story!

Weird Libertarian Guy?: Look, the vast MAJORITY of pro-life people are REPUBLICANS. So, you can't be pro-life in this country because stopping abortion by turning it into a CRIME is going to cost MONEY. We are right wingers, so we do NOT DO THAT. Get it?! Put a CORK IN IT! Unless you got millions of dollars and are paying for this !@#$ yourselves, I don't wanna hear your whining.

Pro-abort Kiran: Allowed :)

Blitzer: Yes I do oppose manipulating women into getting abortions, forcing women of any age or nationality to get abortions, and oppose adoption agencies and "crisis pregnancy centers" that do the same. I oppose all laws restricting the right to choose, whether that choice is to abort, adopt, or parent.

Pam: Blitzer, did you miss that at every single time in the bible when they refer to a pregnant woman they say she is "with child"? When mary goes to visit the pregnant mother of john the baptist is says the "child" in her womb leapt for joy. Also there is this very signficant passage that say THOU SHALL NOT KILL, it is completely a fact that an abortion ends an unborn human life, that being the very definition of killing. I dont believe thats the calling that God has given you in life, you r not following Gods calling for your life, the devil has weaseled his way in and has convinced you that you r following God will when you r in fact following the will of the devil.

Blitzer: Before birth it is a fetus, before it's a fetus its an embryo, before that it's a zygote, and before then it's an egg that has not yet been fertilized.

Rhology: ‎Weird Libertarian Guy? you've left numerous challenges unanswered.

Pro-abort Kiran: Lol...dante created hell!

Rhology: I oppose all laws restricting the right to choose, whether that choice is to enslave Negros, drown Negros, or free Negros.
Hey look! You have sthg in common with 19th century rich white fat cat slaveowners!
-Rhology

Blitzer: Kiran, that's sad, but I will say that I would support everyone's right to choose. I understand that parents should be able to tell their kids what they want, but it should always be the choice of the person that is pregnant.
That is why I oppose the parental consent laws.

Weird Libertarian Guy?: Challenges? What challenges? You LIE. Of course, that's also a right wing trait ... but we're talking about BIG GOVERNMENT here! That's a big NO NO. Sorry! Whine about legalizing weed or something silly like that. This pro-life stuff is WAY too expensive. There is just no other way to dice it, which is probably why it never gets any traction with you right wing hypocrites. lol. Whenever you get your hands on a loaded gun, you tend to shoot yourselves in the foot because your so damn stupid and ineffective. If those fetuses DO want a chance at life, you're the last group of nitwits they need backing them up. I think we can ALL agree on that!

Pam: So a baby that was born at 24 weeks gestation is only a baby because it has passed through a birth canal where as a fetus that is 24 weeks along and still inside its mother is not a baby even thou it is developmentally the same age and physically looks the same just in a different location?

Blitzer: and yes, not very pro life to oppose abortion, also oppose comprehensive sex ed, access to birth control, and opposing helping to pay poor and disadvantaged women and families that have children.

Pro-abort Kiran: I am against forcing a woman to do anything against her will! when it comes to pregnat children the line becomes fuzzy for me. I will make sure my daughter is very educated when it comes to sex and will make sure she can talk to me about anything without judgment....sex included. If she becomes sexually active as a teenager I will take her to the doc and make sure she is educated on Birth control and we will together make the choice of a shot, pills or IUD

Pro-abort Kiran: ‎24 Weeks is to late to abort unless it is a health risk for mother and/or fetus.

Pam: how exactly is it "not very pro life to oppose abortion?"

Blitzer: IUD isn't available to ppl that haven't had kids yet, I don't think.

Pro-abort Kiran: In canada even though we have no time line laws on abortion 12 weeks is the accepted norm and it is very difficult to have an abortion after that. unless medically nessacery

Pro-abort Kiran: Blitzer it is here. not sure about there.
2 hours ago · Like

Pam: Kiran, A: that wasnt my point in asking that question, the point was that Fox said it isnt a baby until its been born and
B: if you really believe thats true, you r also blind to the evils of the world, abortions occur through all 40 weeks of pregnancy, they may not always be legal but they happen all the time.

Weird Libertarian Guy?: ‎8 years old is way TOO late for a coalition soldier to shoot in the head just because he's an Iraqi kid. I think we can all agree on that!

Pro-abort Kiran: Do you live in canada? Have you known anyone personally who has sought an abortion after 12 weeks here? and by the way i said it is very difficult not impossible. and it is legal here as there are no timelines

Abolish Human Abortion ‎Weird Libertarian Guy? Is your memory damaged? Read back thru the responses I've written to you, find the ones you haven't replied to, and reply to them. -Rhology

Weird Libertarian Guy?: ‎@Rhology: Tell me what's worse. A mother who chooses to abort a fetus, or a mother about to have a baby who is murdered along with her child by a United States Marine? Which one do we fight against, because we are really wasting money and lives now. On the one hand, we are fighting against abortion. On the other hand, we are supporting the military machine and wars.

Pro-abort Kiran: So happy i live in a country that is known as world peacekeepers not world police!

Abolish Human Abortion ‎Weird Libertarian Guy? and here you've mistakenly expressed the notion that one can only fight one evil at a time. Untrue. -Rhology (he who is not in favor of the war in Iraqghanistan)

Weird Libertarian Guy?: NO. I have not. Pro-life right wingers are by in LARGE pro-war. These sick bastards routinely post up pro-life stuff , while simultaneously praising war and its horror. In fact, that's EXACTLY how I got the link to your pro-life tripe. From a right winger who does exactly what I just described! Again, you better just shut your yap, step back, and regroup. You aren't getting anywhere with pro-life because pro-life is backed by a bunch of right wing hypocrites.

On the fence Mandy: So here's the deal - I would absolutely never have an abortion because I feel that it is against my personal belief and relationship with God. However, I do not feel it is my right to force those beliefs on other people or insist that people have the same exact religious beliefs as me. In response to the ad, it isn't right for either camp pro-life or pro-abortion to attack the other side. It is just petty and convinces no one that their point of view is perhaps better.

Pro-abort Kiran: Mandy I respect that. That for me is exactly what it means to be prochoice. I salute your choice to personally be prolife and politically prochoice

Abolitionist, Colbert: ‎@Mandy and Kiran
So, you don't like the idea of the government imposing a law that would make it illegal to impose death upon another human being?

Try THINKING about what you're supporting. What if I were to say that I'm personally anti-rape, but think it's wrong to tell a man what he can and can't do with his penis?

Abolitionist, Colbert: ‎@WLG?
So... Since you're OK with slaughtering innocent children, then you have no problem with dropping bombs on innocent civilians in other countries?

Isn't that how your slippery slope works?
Try THINKING.

Pro-abort Kiran: I dont need to think about it. In Canada we abolished the deathpenalty. We now have less crime. Proven fact!

Abolitionist Alisha: Hey Mandy. Your reasoning for why you would never have an abortion is religiously motivated, is it not? That's your basis for being politically pro-choice? I mean no disrespect, but it's still logically consistent to be pro-life based on secular and human rights reasons, which is why I am pro-life, and NOT pro-choice politically. I am not imposing my "religious" beliefs on anyone to tell them that by having an abortion, a woman is killing what science proves to be a human being, and that it is legally inconsistent to allow this since the preborn human being is denied the right to due process as we know it in this country. While I may or may not have religious convictions that do or do not line up with my secular thought processes, the characterization of the pro-life/pro-choice divide is not strictly along religious lines. Supporting the "right" to abortion for others is supporting the "right" to kill human beings that would not be in that position of dependence without the voluntary actions of their parents.

Pro-abort Kiran: Still pro~choice! call it a baby a fetus a potential human being..still pro~choice

Pro-abort Kiran: Women have the right to choose to become a parent or not! right up until that fetus can survive outside the womb on their own. 12weeks unless special circumstances.

Rhology: ‎On the fence Mandy, consider this aside from what Abolitionist, Colbert said: I would absolutely never own a slave because I feel that it is against my personal belief and relationship with God. However, I do not feel it is my right to force those beliefs on other people or insist that people have the same exact religious beliefs as me. -Rhology

Rhology: ‎Pro-abort Kiran: Women have the right to choose to become a parent or not! We agree. That right is in play before sex. After a baby comes into being, that right has been given up, and the baby's right to life supersedes the mother's privileges of convenience. -Rhology

The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - Saaib's Second Statement

2012-01-13T17:18:00.004-06:00

My opening statement
Saaib's opening statement/rebuttal
My first rebuttal
Now, Saaib's second statement, originally posted here:

"Rhoblogy", has published his "rebuttal". I was wondering what will he respond to, as what I had presented were facts, facts and facts. Denying the facts could have been a choice. Oh my God!!! This is exactly what he exactly did. (See his last paragraph, "history tells us")

What exactly did Rhoblogy do to evade a possible humiliation?

Rhoblogy dedicated more than 1000 words (1085?) to refute what I never said. He started refuting Bart Erhman and wrote an essay on it. What I made was an entirely different argument, and to make it factual I quoted a scholar. I argued that we have copies which are separated from their sources by centuries, that for me means we don't know what exactly the words of God were. Its like I say 1+1=2, prove me wrong and you reply 3+3 is not equal to 5 therefore you are proven wrong.

Thus my first argument still stands valid.

I have fallen in a pit fall (according to "Rhoblogy") by talking about textual variants but he didn't bother to bring me out of it, so I still remain there. Anyways what exactly was I talking about, "There is no common version of Bible, as the individual books (Biblical Canon), their contents and their order vary among denominations. Main stream Judaism divided the Tanakh into 24 Books while the Samaritans accept only five. 19 are thrown out." The argument was on "canons" not what the content is. He started talking about content throwing all of us in the pit and covering the pit with his breath taking English.

Myy second (?) argument still stands.

Then "Rhoblogy" quotes us from "Peter" which happens to be the sixth last book of the New Testament. Do the verses prove anything, no absolutely not. "Peter" was written by some "xyz" who was not speaking on behalf of others. The authors of different Books of Bible are different. How do you know who is "xyz" talking about. Do the Gospels claim to be the word of God and how exactly where they "tickled" to write the words. We are still to get an answer for this.

The Quran talks about the Jews and the Christians corrupting their scripture at 2:79. Rhoblogy wants to know why exactly didn't I quote the context and he also wants to know how I concluded that it refers to Ahlul Kitab. (I had already written it in my first paper). Anyways you have quoted the context Mr. "Rhoblogy" but I want my readers to read them after they read verse 75.

75. Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were knowing?

So you have the context and it proves nothing and I know that it refers to Christians and Jews because “Az-Zuhri said that `Ubadydullah bin `Abdullah narrated that Ibn `Abbas said, "O Muslims! How could you ask the People of the Book about anything, while the Book of Allah (Qur'an) that He revealed to His Prophet is the most recent Book from Him and you still read it fresh and young Allah told you that the People of the Book altered the Book of Allah, changed it and wrote another book with their own hands. They then said, `This book is from Allah,' so that they acquired a small profit by it. Hasn't the knowledge that came to you prohibited you from asking them By Allah! We have not seen any of them asking you about what was revealed to you.'' This Hadith was also collected by Al-Bukhari.” So unless Mr. "Rhoblogy", can explicitly and demonstrably display where exactly, I misquoted or incorrectly applied this ayah of the Qur’an, I suggest that he brushes up on his trade of deceit.

More proof that Islamic position on Bible is that it was faked and corrupted. Ibn Abi Daud writes in his book, Al-Masahif, quoting Yazid ibn Muawiyah Nakhai who passed on the following (interesting) comment from Huzayfa:
“Those before you (people of the book) differed just like this. By God, I will go riding to the leader of the believers, Uthman, the third caliph.”

Huzayfa was a military officer posted in Armenia and Azerbaijan, and had just come back from doing battle. But when he reached Madina, and witnessed the scene in the Prophet’s mosque, instead of going straight home, he went directly to the third caliph and addressed him thus: “O Leader of the believers! Take care of the people, before they fall victim to the differences regarding the book of God just as the Jews and the Christians did.”

Stop begging Islam, it wont help Mr. Rhoblogy.

Yes, even Quran 18:27 wont help. Not even 6:115.

The Qur’an claims that no one can change the Word of God. (Surah 6:115/116; 10:64; 18:27/28; 48:23; 50:28-29).

Now, in as much as I am sure he can read, this really made me change my mind. We have something which we (the educated people) call contextual analysis or literary analysis. Meaning, we do not appeal to the fallacy of reading between the lines, nor do we isolate any verses for our own prejudices. To answer this rather absurd claim, all we must do is lay forth three premises:

1. The Qur’an says the Kalamullah cannot be altered.
2. The Qur'an says that the scripture the Ahlul Kitab have is corrupted.
3. The Qur’an says that Allah’s word was not changed.

So how do we reconcile these three premises? Simple! The Qur’an says quite clearly that Allah’s word cannot be changed, it then goes on to say that the scripture of the Ahlul Kitab was fraudulent, therefore implying that the words of Allah and the scripture of Ahlul Kitab are two different things. This is confirmed in the first ayah which I quoted, of Qur’an Surah 2, Ayah 79. As in lieu of the Ayah "rhoblogy" quoted, it means that Ahlul Kitab wrote words and claimed it to be from God! Simple!

Under the heading "Other Tidbits" Rhoblogy again denies the facts again keeping me in the same pit which I had fallen into (according to him).

God is more reliable than History. (True) But that is what we are debating. "Is the Bible God's word?"

Anyways the question remains, "WHAT HAD THE POOR DONKEY DONE?"

Let me summarize:

Argument 1: The problem of what exactly did God reveal.
Me: What did god actually reveal and how.
Rhoblogy: No answers
Verdict: Busted.

Argument 2: Scripture is self-affirming.
Rhoblogy: Scripture is self affirming.
Me: Not really.
Rhoblogy: No answers.
Status: Refuted.

Argument 3: God's actions that can never be explained.
Me: Mass murder, killing of donkeys etc.
Rhoblogy: God does whatever he wishes.
Status: Busted.

Argument4: What has the poor donkey done?
Me: What has the poor donkey done that he should be hanged till death.
Replies: God cant be produced in court.
Status: Busted

Argument 5: Unfulfilled prophecies.
Rhoblogy: Bible has many fulfilled prophecies.
Me. 1. Nostadamus’ book should be the best book to be called the word of God.
2. Prophecy related to Cain. Unfulfilled.
3. Prophecy related to David. Unfulfilled.
4. Prophecy related to Tyrus. Unfulfilled.
5. Forced unfulfilled prophecy of Jesus.
Rhoblogy: No answers for 1, 2, 3, 5. 4: Deny the fact.
Me: Lol.
Status: Busted

Argument 6: Isaiah prophecy about Jesus.
Me: On one end, the Christian Greek Old Testament places divinity on a child, while the Hebrew Old Testament places divinity on God.
Rhoblogy: Keep mum.
Status: Busted.

Argument 7: "An argument from Jesus".
Rhoblogy: Jesus confirms the OT.
Me: Only if we know what Jesus confirmed was OT.
Rhoblogy: No answers.
Status: Busted.

Argument 8: Quran on Bible.
Rhoblogy: Quran affirms that Bible is the word of God.
Me: Quran affirms that Bible is a forged scripture an some parts are corrupted.
Rhoblogy: Skips a few points and replies to a few.
Me: remove any further doubts.
Status: Pending.

Argument 9: Versions of Bible and What exactly did Muhammad confirm.
Me: Different versions of the Bible, Muhamamd confirmed none.
Rhoblogy: No answers.
Status: Busted.

Argument 10: Bible in Muhammad's time.
Me: Bible is Muhammad's time was different and very unlike today's.
Rhoblogy: No answers.
Status: Busted

Argument 11: Quran confirms previous scriptures.
Rhoblogy: Surah 2:86, Surah 2:89, Surah 2:91, Surah 3:84, Surah 4:136, Surah 5:45 confirm the Bible.
Me: No buddy, not really. The don't confirm LXX or Pope Damuscus Canon. Only because it confirms the previous scriptures do we Muslims believe that there were scriptures revealed to other prophets.
Rhoblogy: No answers.
Status: Busted.

Argument 12: Old Testament existence in history.
Me: Old Testament not known historically. Gets destroyed twice.
Rhoblogy: No answers.
Status: Busted.

Argument 13: Muhammad in The Bible. (Off the topic)
Rhoblogy: Muhammad not found in Bible.
Me: Found indeed.
Rhoblogy: No replies.
Status: Busted.

Argument 14: No one can change God's words.
Rhoblogy: Quran says no one can change God's words.
Me: Yes exactly.
Status: Busted.

I didn't talk about Bart Erhman's methodology and Quran's authenticity because it is not part of the debate. What we are debating is Bible not Quran. So we can't conclude Quran is not the word of God unless we debate the issue.

(Word count [as in Wordpress]: 1500)
(Link to comment repository post)

The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - My First Rebuttal

2012-01-12T21:56:00.000-06:00

Saaib's opening statement/rebuttal was a bit of a mishmash. I have tried to weave the incoherent pieces together to create a cohesive position to rebut.

Bart Ehrman, mercenary
It seems that the main thrust of his argument is contained in:

true but when we have them but when we don't have them we can't say "God's" word.

I presume he meant to say "true when we have them", and this amounts to nothing more than the tired old canard championed by Bart Ehrman, to whom Saaib directly alludes approvingly.
The problems with Saaib's appeal to Ehrman's argument are numerous, but most importantly, if Ehrman had the courage to apply his same methodology and presuppositions to the Qur'an, Ehrman would come to the same conclusion about the Qur'an, that it misquotes Mohammed. How do we know this?
First, a brief excursus on the problem Ehrman poses. No original manuscript (hereafter, MSS) of the New Testament (hereafter, NT) is yet found. We have many copies of MSS and copies of copies of MSS and copies of copies of copies of...etc. These copies differ from each other; no two are identical. Ehrman then applies his presupposition to this situation. Ehrman's argument is as follows:
P1) No original NT MSS is extant.
P2) The extant MSS copies of the NT differ from each other.
P3) I presuppose without argument that differences in copies mean that God could NOT have superintended the process of copying such that the essential revelation He intended to communicate was in fact preserved, because that's what I believe and I don't examine my beliefs deeply.
C) Therefore, differences in copies mean that God could NOT have superintended the process of copying such that the essential revelation He intended to communicate was in fact preserved.

Hopefully, everyone can see the problem - one premise is identical to the conclusion, and that's Ehrman's problem, yet he weasels out of debating people such as Dr James R White on that very presupposition. (Yes, he debated White, but weaseled out of debating that question.) Substantiating that presupposition is absolutely crucial to his argument, but he won't defend it. He merely disingenuously states it as "this is only what I think" and moves on, but then treats it as a fact. I challenge anyone, most importantly Saaib, to listen to an Ehrman lecture or debate (I've listened to many, and attended one in person) and identify the argument he uses to defend that presupposition. So far I've not even heard him try.
What if we apply the same reasoning to the Qur'an?

P1) No original Qur'an MSS is extant.
P2) The extant MSS copies of the Qur'an differ from each other. (Saaib will probably deny this, but that merely means he is ignorant.)
P3) I presuppose that differences in copies mean that Allah could NOT have superintended the process of copying such that the essential revelation he intended to communicate was in fact preserved.
C) Therefore, differences in copies mean that Allah could NOT have superintended the process of copying such that the essential revelation he intended to communicate was in fact preserved.

See how easy that is, and how lazy?

Or what if we make P1 and P2 relate to the chain of narration of the Qur'an, and then simply presuppose that no reliable chains of narration can exist. Sure, sure, Saaib can assert that human memory could accomplish such a task, and maybe it could, but if we get to act like Ehrman and presuppose (without argument) that:
-God is not in charge, and/or
-God didn't care enough to make the process simple, clean, and straightforward (ie, God didn't provide the companions of the prophets in the Qur'an's case, or the prophets and apostles in the Bible's case, with photocopiers and digital voice recorders with redundant backups), and/or
-it is implausible that chains of narration could preserve a long text like the Qur'an with 100% accuracy over the course of many years, therefore that didn't happen,

then we can simply conclude à la Ehrman that the Qur'an misquotes Mohammed. Sorry, we don't know what Mohammed said. If Allah wanted us to know what he said, why didn't he preserve the MSS so that we could?

Or what if we make P1 and P2 relate to Uthman and the burning of all Qur'anic MSS that he did not approve? How does Saaib know for sure that Uthman didn't burn the most faithful MSS copies of the Qur'an? He doesn't. He has to trust his god.

As Ehrman said at minute 7:10 of the first cross-examination during his debate with James White:

The New Testament, we have much earlier attestation than for any other book from antiquity. What you can't do is then say "well, then you can't trust any book from antiquity". OK... yes, right, that's right.

Ehrman is confused. Either his view leads to a complete and opaque agnosticism about history, which would include impenetrable darkness about the reliability of the Qur'an and ahadith, or we should reject this poor presupposition and look for one that is consistent with itself, one that allows us to study history reasonably and carefully.

Saaib needs to be consistent and allow me the basic courtesy of trusting God to be able to make His Word known to His people. Otherwise, we would know nothing about Him.

Ironically, Ehrman's argument also destroys Saaib's position in another way. Since the Qur'an teaches that the people of the Book are to judge the Qur'an by the Injeel and the Taurat, and since the Qur'an claims that it is a confirmation of those, and since none of us can know, even with our vast numbers of MSS discoveries from vastly varied geographical areas, what the Injeel said (per Ehrman), that means Mohammed couldn't know what the Injeel said, nor could the people of the Book at Mohammed's time. So Allah's command becomes meaningless and literally impossible to follow. Yet it's a central piece of Allah's argument with respect to persuading people of the Book to follow Islam.

If the fact that the majority of the MSS are "centuries removed" from the original writers, what does that tell us about the Qur'an, which is actually in a worse position in that respect?

Saaib fell into a pitfall about which I warned him - he didn't analyse the situation but just gave an argument from authority. The vast majority of textual variants are non-meaningful, misspellings, and transpositions of words, lines, etc. Saaib has not taken into account the fact that less than 1% of all textual variants are non-meaningful and viable. Uncritically citing agnostics criticising theistic doctrine or materials is a dangerous occupation.

More inconsistency
Saaib says:
Muhammad (saw) was clear with what he was saying. These are God's words and these are mine and God's words come into my knowledge through Archangel Gabriel and I pass them onto you.

This is not an argument, but rather simply an assertion. The Bible claims the same thing numerous times.
2 Peter 1:19So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Not "tickled by". Is Saaib taking this debate seriously? The Greek word for "moved" in v20 refers to a boat's sail, caught full by the wind. The sail retains its identity and yet is flexed and moved by the wind.

The Qur'an can't get its story straight

But woe to them who fake the Scriptures and say: "This is from God," so that they might earn some profit thereby; and woe to them for what they fake, and woe to them for what they earn from it! Q2:79

A common objection.
Why didn't Saaib include the context?

76Behold! when they meet the men of Faith, they say: "We believe": But when they meet each other in private, they say: "Shall you tell them what Allah hath revealed to you, that they may engage you in argument about it before your Lord?"- Do ye not understand (their aim)?
77Know they not that Allah knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal?
78And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.

How does Saaib know that this refers to Christians who were committed to preserving and faithfully copying the NT?
How does Saaib know to believe the Qur'an when it says that Scriptures were "faked" but not when it tells him to check the Qur'an by what has already been revealed? Remember, this faking would have had to occur before the Qur'an was written.

Q18:27 - And recite (and teach) what has been revealed to thee of the Book of thy Lord: none can change His Words, and none wilt thou find as a refuge other than Him.
Q6:115 - The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all.

The Qur'an is contradictory when it deals with the Bible. Whatever else may come of this debate, we can know for certain that we must reject the Qur'an as the word of God.

A little more on Bible history
If one small local church in the 4th century had only a couple of MSS, then what other Word of God did they know? Today, we are not in that situation at all; we have MSS from all over the place, a wide variety of time periods and languages, and can check each against all the others.

The people of God had no real means of "officially" defining the Canon of the NT for centuries, and yet for the most part they came to the proper conclusion, independent of each other. Besides, we trust God to bring His people to an understanding of His Word's extent just as Saaib probably trusts Allah to aid in proper narration chains and correctly identity the number of Surat. Non-Christians adding books to the Old Testament (which is what happened at the non-Christian Council of Trent) has nothing to do with my position.

Other tidbits
-Luke 3:23's "(as was supposed)" is an English translation of what is in the Greek - ὡς ἐνομίζετο (hōs nomizō). The parenthetical is included to clarify in English.

-The fact that Allah swears by his creation in the Qur'an shows that Allah considers his word less important and authoritative than Yahweh considers His own word. How can the Qur'an have been existent from eternity past when Allah's oaths appeal to things that were created at a point in time, which didn't exist at times when the Qur'an did?

-Saaib judges Yahweh morally faulty for some of His activities. Saaib needs to let us know on what authority he throws God into court.

-Saaib falls into the warned-about pitfall of citing unfulfilled prophecy without giving, as stated, "proper exegesis to show why we should expect that prophecy should have already been fulfilled."

-Saaib says "history tells us". Does Saaib think we should trust "history" (whatever that means), or the Word of God?

The rest are minor matters I might mention later.

(Word count: 1995)

(Link to comment repository)

Facebook conversation with Muslims

2012-01-09T16:18:00.002-06:00

A recent Facebook conversation.
Note that I never get an answer to my principal question as well as the numerous bizarre and frankly irrelevant questions posed to me.
Also, I don't know why these guys write English the way they do, but it's apparently a pattern among Africans.

Khan:
TO THE DISBELIEVERS.

Each time we tell you that Islam is the solution to your problem, WHY DO YOU DISAGREE?
But we found that you are the largest patronizers of islamic banks (in Nigeria).
Without islam you would have no choice but to patronize those heartless banks you set up. They don't care about you, they can't wait to see you go bankrupt.
BUT ALLAH WANTS EASE FOR YOU.

Rhology
My biggest problem is sin. How does Islam solve that for me?

Khan
Rhology, islam absolves you of sin the same way jesus foretold in the parable of the prodigal son.
When you repent and turn away from sin you will find Allah oft forgiving, most merciful.
When you repent and turn to Allah, its like a baby spreading its arms to its mother to be lifted. And we know mothers are merciful, but Allah is more merciful.

Rhology
So Allah will ignore my sin if I stop sinning?
What if I can't stop sinning? What if I realise that I will never be as good as God?

Khan
If you stop sinning, Not only will Allah ignore your sins, "ALLAH WILL CHANGE THEIR SINS INTO GOOD DEEDS..." Q25:70.

WHAT IF I CAN'T STOP SINNING?

He (Allah) has created DEATH and LIFE that He may test which of you is best in deed. And he is the All-Mighty, the Oft-Forgiving. Q67:2.

Our life is a test, to see how much good we can do. Allah knew man would not stop sinning, that is why He opened the gates of Repentance till when the sun rises from the east and sets in the west (the last day).

As for being as good as Allah, know that Allah says: THERE IS NOTHING LIKE HIM (Allah), and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer.
Allah is perfect, but man is susceptible to mistakes.

And Allah's aid is sought.

Khan
I meant Allah would leave the gates of repentance open till when the sun will rise from the WEST and set in EAST.

Rhology
But you're pretty confident you've done enough good to counterbalance your evil? How do you know?

Khan
Rhology.
When a student goes to school, he does some tests where he got good grades before the real exam. Tell me pls, if this student relents in his efforts and grows complacent with his efforts, what will happen to the final result after exam? FAILURE?

That is the case of the muslim, he is never satisfied with the little good deeds he has performed, he keeps trying and striving to do more, and he remains in that state till his death. Another benefit of this is that, the whole world would benefit if we could all be in this state and keep striving to do good.

My nxt comment explains another scenario.

Khan
If a student goes to school and he knows that no matter what he does, he will come out with beautiful result. Don't you think this will lead to d student being complacent and lazy? This will also lead to producing students undeserving of their results, mediocres and a nation will be adversely affected.

Likewise, if we all believed that jesus died for our sins, and no matter what we do (steal, kill, fornicate, lie e.t.c) we would still get God's pleasure, what do u think the world will be like.

That is why Allah the All-Wise says in the last verse of Q15,
AND WORSHIP YOUR LORD TILL THERE COMES TO YOU THE CERTAINTY (death).

Lastly, the muslim is never satisfied with the good he does, he continue to do good and repent from evil till he breathes his last.
All praise belongs to Allah.

Rhology
Khan, If the teacher at the school requires a PERFECT GRADE, then yes, the student will fail for missing on question. You seem to think that breaking God's law is no big deal.

Are you sure? You're NEVER satisfied? NEVER lazy? I don't believe that. I believe you're just like the rest of humanity - a sinner. You're not ALWAYS attuned to God. Not ALWAYS seeking him. You sometimes don't care enough to resist temptation.

Your second image is not how it is with Jesus, not at all. I'm sorry you're so ignorant of the Bible, but maybe you could read it some time.
Human nature begins corrupted, enemies of God. We break God's law. We love the world and don't love God.
When Jesus rescues us, He gives us a new heart that loves to serve Him and hates sin. Thus we serve Him because we have love for Him. We are now adopted children and no longer enemies. We serve Him out of gratitude.

However, we are warned over and over that the redeemed heart WILL love holiness and hate sin, so if we engage in unrepentant and consistent sin, it shows us that our hearts are not repentant after all, and that we are still lost, in sin, and enemies of God. Not saved after all. We are to test ourselves all the time to make sure that we are in the faith. God's declaration of salvation of a specific individual is not necessarily known infallibly by that individual.

So, if the Muslim repents of evil, Allah just ignores the lawbreaking? Does a just judge ignore lawbreaking when rendering judgment? Or if he ignores sin, is he not UNjust?

Khan
Rhology, the teacher does not require a perfect grade, he only require that you make an effort. He requires that each time you stumble, you pick yourself up and never give up.

Khan
Is a student who is preparing for an exam ever satisfied with his preparation? Rather he continue his preparation till the last minute.
So Allah says, in the Quran,
~ Help one another in virtue, righteousness and piety. Q5:2.
~ Hasten towards all that is good. Q2:148.
~ Race (compete) with one another towards forgiveness of your Lord and Paradise... Q57:21.

Competitiveness does not make one lazy, tired, satisfied or complacent.

Khan
You claim that human nature begins with corruption.
But islam teaches that it is from human nature to choose and love what is good. But along the line, an individual could choose to corrupt himself.
Ask anyone to choose between,
honey&fire, love&hate, happiness& sorrow. If you choose that which is good then it shows that your human nature is not yet corrupted. But some humans can decide to be a source of sorrow to others even though they know joy is better. These ones have corrupted their own good nature.

Khan
So if you still need to evaluate yourselves after jesus died, then it means you are still responsible for your sins and jesus did not die for your sin. And he did not want to die anyway.
But it is a common claim amongst christians that they now live in a period of grace, so they can do as they wish.

There are two types of sins that the muslim should repent of:
1. The one that involves the right of a fellow human: if i wrongly slap or abuse a person, then i have to ask the person to either take revenge or forgive me.
2. The one that involves the right of Allah alone: such as worshipping idols or disobedience to Him. if a muslim repents from this, Allah says, "I will accept their repentance. And I am the One who accepts repentance, the Most Merciful." Q2:160.

Rhology
So the teacher does not require perfection? That means that imperfection and sin can enter Paradise. How precisely does Allah guarantee that Paradise won't end up like Earth - full of sin and disobedience to Allah?

Yes, I know Islam teaches that man is born good. That is part of Islam's great deception. The Taurat and Zabbour teach the opposite. So does the Injeel. Are you comfortable with the fact that the Qur'an appeals to those books for its confirmation, yet teaches contrary to what they teach?

How many murders must one commit to be a murderer?

You said:
--"So if you still need to evaluate yourselves after jesus died, then it means you are still responsible for your sins and jesus did not die for your sin"

What is your argument for this statement? You simply asserted it but did not prove it.
Specifically, the evaluation is, as the Bible says:
2 Corinthians 13:5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test? 6But I trust that you will realize that we ourselves do not fail the test.

Faith is a SIGN OF one's sins being forgiven and one's heart being transformed, and good works are a sign of that faith. So you really still don't understand.

You said:
--"And he did not want to die anyway."

That is only half the truth. Just as humans are complex creatures and can have varied emotions, so Jesus, being God and human both, does.
The same Jesus who cried out to the Father "IF IT BE YOUR WILL, IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, let this cup pass from Me" (even though He knew the cup could not pass), these things are ALSO true of Him:
Luke 9:51 - 51When the days were approaching for His ascension, He was determined to go to Jerusalem
Matthew 17:22And while they were gathering together in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men; 23and they will kill Him, and He will be raised on the third day.” And they were deeply grieved.
Matthew 20:28 whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.
Luke 19:10“For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

So, Khan, please answer my question. Does Allah simply ignore sin?

Khan
God has not created man to be perfect. But a repenting soul will enter paradise.
Allah will forgive and overlook the sins of whomsoever he wills. Just like teachers overlook their students errors when marking their scripts.

Khan
Quran does not require any book for its authenticity, but the earlier books depend on the Quran which confirms what is true in them as well as distinguishes what is false, " And when there came to them a book (Quran) CONFIRMING that which is with them..." Q2:89.
So it is the Quran that authenticates the previous books, not the other way round.

Khan
If you still need to evaluate yourself, then it clearly shows that jesus did not die to save even a rat.
You have done nothing do dispel my assertion.
Your bible says, the son shall not bear the iniquities of the father and vice versa, did God contradict the rule later on by making jesus die for a sin he was innocent of? THIS IS REAL INJUSTICE.

I said, jesus did not want to die and this has not been denied by the verses you quoted. If jesus wanted to die, why did he cry out:
1. O lord, why hast thou forsaken me?
2. Let this cup (of death) pass away from me, not as i will. But as you will.
Do these sound like he wanted to die?

Akim
‎@Rhology in order make dis argueement easier 4 u, pls try and get translation version of only QURA'N and authentic BIBLE version and read both. I know dat at end u will embrace ISLAM inshaallah.

Rhology
Akim, I have already read the Bible many times, and I have also read the Muhsin Khan version of the Qur'an and taken copious notes. The Qur'an is a mess of inconsistencies, stupid arguments, and random stream-of-consciousness rambling. I need a Savior from sin. Islam says "do better!" Jesus says "I did it perfectly and give righteousness as a gift for those who recognise they can never be perfect on their own."

I'm sticking with Jesus.

Khan
Have a nice day.

Rhology
‎Khan
So a judge who ignores lawbreaking is a good and just judge? Isn't it true that a just judge must PUNISH all lawbreaking?

It sounds like you don't think the law is a very big deal. Which means that sin is not a very big deal.
Is sin a big deal, or is it insignificant? If Allah overlooks sin, why doesn't he just overlook shirk too?

You didn't quote the right passage from the Qur'an.
Surah 5:45 If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.*** Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein.***

But even what you said destroys your case. The Qur'an does not CONFIRM what came before it, since it teaches the exact opposite in many ways. "Confirm" does not mean "contradict fundamentally".

You said:
--" the son shall not bear the iniquities of the father and vice versa"

Where does anyone claim that Jesus bears the iniquity of His Father? I don't get it. Or that the Father bears the iniquity of Jesus? Since neither sinned, how is this passage relevant? Did you even study the passage you're quoting and view the context? Probably not, since you have a very poor understanding of the Bible.

Rhology
You said:
--"I said, jesus did not want to die and this has not been denied by the verses you quoted."

You must have a short memory, because I clearly said that Jesus experienced BOTH OF THOSE EMOTIONS. Look, I know it's hard when your arguments are wrecked, but if you want to be honest, you have to learn when to stop using terrible arguments.

Khan
I never said jesus bore the iniquity of d father.
Chk eze18:20.

Q5:45 only states that the revelation to jesus (not matt, mark, luke, john, paul) confirmed the previous revelation of moses.

Akim
‎@Rhology Remember dat there no other punishment more severe in front OF ALLAH dan his hellfire,u read QURA'N and u said d holy book his full of rubbish,arguement etc .Stop ur stubboness and listen 2 d only way 2 salvation b4 it's 2 late 4 u.Remember again dat d most painfull punishment in front ALLAH is his hellfire.

Khan
The judge sentences the criminal to jail but releases him when he serves his term.
When a muslim commits a sin he is like a prisoner but when he repents he is discharged and acquitted and Allah will never ask him about the sin he repented of again.

You are still yet to produce proof that jesus wanted to die.
If jesus wanted to die, why did he ask God to save him.

Rhology
Akim, have you read the Injeel?

Khan
Rhology, i wonder if u wld know that the injil existed without the Quran?
If u agree that the NT is the injil wc d Quran mentions, then you would agree with what the Quran says about the injil:
1. That it was revealed or inspired to jesus not matt, mark, luke e.t.c
2. That the followers of jesus differed and changed the word of God to suit their desires.

Rhology
Khan, so Allah allowed Jesus' revelation to be lost, and His followers/companions got it completely wrong? What's your evidence of that? Why did Allah allow that?

Ezek 18 is referring to God's refusal to punish heinous sins committed by a father to someone else in his family, like his son. If it meant that everyone who ever sins will die, nobody would ever go to Heaven to be with God.
God always knew that He would send the Messiah, the Savior.

So what is the sentence for sin that you will have served if you make it to Paradise? You've sinned, haven't you?
If you repent and Allah forgives, it sounds like NO justice has been served. NO sentence, NO punishment. Just repent and you're OK. Allah doesn't care about sin enough to punish it. Is that right?

Yes, actually I have produced numerous verses that say Jesus intended to die, that it was His mission. Did you not even read them?

Rhology
Yes, the Injeel existed a long time before the Qur'an. What does that even mean?

Khan
How did you know the injeel existed long before the Quran if not through the Quran.

Khan
Allah gave the responsibility of guarding and spreading the information in the injil, as a test to them, but they failed.

Q2:101. And when there came to them a messenger from Allah (Muhammad) confirming what was with them, a party of those given the scripture THREW AWAY THE BOOK OF ALLAH behind their backs as if they did not know.

Khan
You still have not mentioned a single verse where jesus wanted to die.
According to the bible, jesus was not the only messiah.
Allah will however punish the sinners except those who repent.

Omar
‎@Rhology,u said jesus is u savior.is he God or son of God?

Rhology
Khan, yes, A PARTY OF THEM did so. Nobody's arguing with that. How do you know who they were?

Doesn't it say in Surah 3:52
But when Jesus felt [persistence in] disbelief from them, he said, "Who are my supporters for [the cause of] Allah ?" The disciples said," We are supporters for Allah . We have believed in Allah and testify that we are Muslims [submitting to Him].
Our Lord, we have believed in what You revealed and have followed the messenger Jesus, so register us among the witnesses [to truth]."

That doesn't sound at all like what you said.
You're confused.

Or Surah 61:14
O you who have believed, be supporters of Allah , as when Jesus, the son of Mary, said to the disciples, "Who are my supporters for Allah ?" The disciples said, "We are supporters of Allah ." And a faction of the Children of Israel believed and a faction disbelieved. So We supported those who believed against their enemy, and they became dominant.

If Allah supported those who believed and they became dominant, why was their Injeel lost? Where did they go?

How could Allah tell Mohammed Surah 10:94?
So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.

It sounds like you don't know your Qur'an very well either, at least as it pertains to the Injeel. You need to give up this failed religion, Khan, and repent before Jesus.

And you say Allah will not punish the repentant?
If I commit a murder and go before the judge, and he judges me guilty, if I tell him that I'm sorry and I really am sorry, is he just if he releases me without passing judgment on me? Without putting me in prison?

Rhology
Omar, the Injeel describes Jesus as both God Himself and the Son of God. God is a triune God. This is a mystery, but we submit to what God has revealed about Himself even if it is too high for us to fully understand.

Rafi
‎@ Rhology, what really caused confussion now it is just the liars who translated original text of bible into english.
But something really baffle me how can a book could be given a title (bible) in the original text but all the context in thesame was written in another different languages entirely?
So who gave bible it's title?

Rhology
Rafi, that is simply untrue. We know what the Greek and Hebrew say, and they say what the English says. You need to give some evidence to support this assertion.

And what does this mean?
"how can a book could be given a title (bible) in the original text"

I think you don't really know what you're talking about. Stop listening to Ahmed Deedat, try some reasonable Christians.

Rafi
What I meant by that is Why bible was named as the title and the contents is englush & why can't we have the original langusge of Jesus as Bible Text?

Then what is the meaning of BIBLE & from which language?
What did Jesus mean by RABI & from which language?
'ABBA FATHER' what jesus mean by these words & what is the origin of these words?

Rhology
We DO have the original language of Jesus - the Greek is widely and publicly available.
I don't read Greek, though, so I read the English translation. Give me a reason why I should distrust the English translation.

RABBI and ABBA FATHER are Aramaic. Jesus possibly spoke in at least partly Aramaic.

Omar
‎@accordng 2 d bible verse u qouted,jesus called himself son of man,nt son of God or God.did jesus named any religion christainity?

Rafi
Is Jesus a GREEK MAN OR JEW?

Omar
‎@Rhology.is it ur revised nd edited new testament u call injeel?jesus is nt God but a prophet from God.nt son

Rhology
Jesus called Himself the Son of Man AND the Son of God, and accepted worship as God, called Himself one with the Father. He claimed to be God. There's no denying it. What you do with that is the question.

Jesus was a Jew. Who spoke Greek, like most Jews of that time and place.

Omar, do you think Allah allowed his words to be corrupted by his enemies?

Rafi
Which means Jesus didn't know his specific statue.
Also Romans self are GREEK

Rhology
Rafi, that didn't make any sense. Could you please try again, and be careful to write in English?

Afo
‎@Rhology. Where did jesus accept to be worship as God?

Rafi
Yo can write also in english, since the you don't even knowtje original text/meaning of the word bible.
And your god jesus who was the Director, Chairman, Manager, Massanger & Gateman, which means he was MR FORMAN.

Omar
‎@Rafi.rmemba dat jesus is our prophet,b mindful of wat u say about him.

Rhology
John 20:26After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” 27Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

Rafi
They all denied him (jesus), because he lost his legitimacy.

Rhology Who denied Him? Have you read the book of Acts?

The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - Saaib's Opening Statement

2012-01-05T16:43:00.001-06:00

(Originally found here)

Time for another debate. Many of you might be knowing that I have debated the same topic for more than five times, why a need for another debate. Actually each time I debated on this topic I used offensive approach, but this time I will be using a defensive one. I would love to see someone doing a good job. Vinod, James, Albel and Bappi left the debate in the middle and Antonio Santana never touched the topic. Its an amazing situation whosoever you debate you get one answer "SAME AGE OLD ARGUMENTS" but no one bothers to answer those arguments. I was expecting some change this time but "Rhoblogy" also used the same sentence in one of his comments on facebook. When a Christian tells me "bible" is the word of God, believe me I feel like laughing. Not that he cracked a joke but the reason is that they themselves know that it is not. To start with we have a unique way in which the book is revealed, the truth is that I am still to understand how the scripture was revealed. Muhammad (saw) was clear with what he was saying. These are God's words and these are mine and God's words come into my knowledge through Archangel Gabriel and I pass them onto you. This is how Muhammad (saw) would have explained the situation, but what about the Bible authors. They where tickled by holy spirit. They wrote out of their own but Holy Spirit was tickling them to write so and so. Now whose words are they, are they the author's or God's. Luke 3:23 presents an amazing situation. "And Jesus himself was about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli," The problem I have with this verse is the phrase in the brackets. Holy Spirit went out of his way to inspire "Luke" to give a father to Jesus who didn't have any father (as is believed). And the translators added AS WAS SUPPOSED to tell us Holy Spirit was going out of his way. There are cases in Quran where we need to add such phrases and the simple explanation is that the Quran is like a dictation very unlike Bible. May be this also is an AGE OLD ARGUMENT but who cares. When we finish with this we are presented with other problem. How does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don't have the words that God inerrantly inspired but only the words copied by the scribes—sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) incorrectly? What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don't have the originals! We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways. (Bart Ehrman -Misquoting Jesus)

"Rhoblogy" has made an "amazing opening statement". "God's word is self affirming", true but when we have them but when we don't have them we can't say "God's" word. God swearing by his creation and God swearing by himself, I don't know what it proves but one thing is for sure if God in bible swore by his creation we Muslims would have to tackle another argument where Christians would say "see how much does God love his creation". Anyways this love is only important when it is shown by biblical god. Does he really show love? No, the truth is that the Old Testament violence is more than what you can find in any book and those Palestinians are there to be killed. Smashing Babies is his favorite (Rhoblogy will tell you the references and the context). Killing entire towns is his second favorite. The Bible presents us with a Horrible God which full of hate who will never swear by his creation, believe me he doesn't love his creation as much Allah (swt) does that Allah (swt) swears by his creation. "....the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!"......" Amazing command which the "loving" biblical God gives. (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT) " Rhoblogy was actually trying to prove to us that the God of Bible and God of Quran are not the same. Anyways there isn't any need for this debate then, the reason is that the Biblical God commands "Rhoblogy" to do something else. Read Deuteronomy 13:13-19. "Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."" So if we follow the "word of god" we are left with 2.2 billion people on earth. Anyways who needs people, let them die. But we do need donkeys in rural areas. Ahem, donkey is so special that it was "Lord God's" personal drive. But not so special when we read 1 Samuel 15:3 which reads, “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” Forget about the cattle, forget the sheep, forget the camels too but I want to know what the poor donkey has done. This is when you already have applied Deut 13:13-19. Where are the animal right activists. Believe me such a God will be sued if presented before a Qazi in a Shariah court. These donkeys are more than special creatures, not because Jesus chose a donkey to travel into Jerusalem when his mission was drawing towards its end but because Holy Ghost inspired all the Gospel writers to write it down in their Gospels.

“…and they sat him thereon.”(The Donkey) (Matt. 21:7)

“…and he sat upon him.”(The Donkey) (Mark 11:7)

“…and they set Jesus thereon.”(The Donkey) (Luke. 19:35)

“…Jesus…sat thereon:”(The Donkey) (John 12:14)

Could God Almighty have been the author of this incongruous situation – going out of His Way to see that all the Gospel writers did not miss their recording of His “son’s” donkey-ride into the Holy City – and yet “inspiring” them to black out the news about His “son’s” heavenly flight on the wings of angels?

An Argument from Fulfilled Prophecy:

What has prophecy to do with the topic. For each fulfilled prophecy in the Bible I can bring two unfulfilled prophecies and believe me there are tons of them. If prophecy is the test then Nostadamus' book should be the best book to be called the word of God.

As a punishment for killing Abel, God says Cain will be "a fugitive and a vagabond." Yet in just a few verses (Genesis 4:16-17) Cain will settle down, marry, have a son, and build a city. This is not the activity one would expect from a fugitive and a vagabond. (Genisis 4:12). (These verses also tell us that "Cain knew his wife". That is good. But where the hell did he get his wife from).

Jeremiah 36:30 says no one will be able to sit on David's throne after Jehoiakim but 2 Kings 21:6 it tells us Johiachin sat on the throne. Unfulfilled prophecy.

Ezekiel 26 tells us that Nebuchadrezzar will destroy Tyrus. But history tells us that Alexander destroyed Tyrus.

Isaiah 7:14 according to Christians refers to Jesus, but Jesus was never called Immaneul thus forcing an unfulfilled prophecy.

We often see the Old Testament prophecies getting fulfilled in the Gospels. John Dominic Crossan, a scholar, gives us a simple answer. He says that the Gospels are not history memorized but prophecy historicized, i.e. the NT writers took OT texts and wrote a historical setting whereby they made it seem that Jesus fulfilled prophecy. This can be illustrated by a simple fact. The LXX which the gospel writers tried to historicize reads in Isaiah 9:6, "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." At first glance, to the untrained eye, this seems like a miracle of a verse. It is allegedly clearly stating that God will have a son who will also be God. Thus it is for that very reason, that Christendom flocks to this verse to prove the validity of their beliefs. But what does the Hebrew Old Testament actually say? Book of Yeshayahu (Isaiah), Chapter 9, Verse 6: "That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts doth perform this." So where is Isaiah 9:6 of the Greek Septuagint located in the Hebrew Old Testament? Isaiah 9:5, one verse down. It is said that in the Book of Isaiah (Yeshayahu), Chapter 9, Verse 5:

For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

Look at the vast difference.

The Christian Greek Septuagint says that God will have a son who will be called, "wonderful counselor", "mighty God", "everlasting Father" and "prince of peace".

The Hebrew Masoretic Text says that a child will be born whom God, the wonderful counselor, might God, everlasting Father will call the son, a prince of peace.

An Argument from Jesus:

Argument of Jesus doesn't hold any weight because we don't know what Jesus said. We don't have eye witness accounts. When he confirms the Old Testament it is simply a case of historicizing what never happened. My learned opponent needs to prove to us that the New Testament is inspired then only can we use it to prove the inspiration of the old testament. "Rhoblogy" is just working on a false assumption that the NT is inspired and therefore when it copies from Old Testament it proves that the OT is also inspired. Anyways I would also like to know what exactly was Jesus copying from, The LXX or The Masoretic Text.

Quran on Bible:

Whenever a Muslim tries to debate a Christian the Christian will always appeal to Quran to help his case. What we are discussing is Bible not Quran or Islam. Therefore what Quran says about the Bible doesn't matter to us. But what exactly does the Quran then say.

The Qur’an says:

“But woe to them who fake the Scriptures and say: "This is from God," so that they might earn some profit thereby; and woe to them for what they fake, and woe to them for what they earn from it!” - Ahmed Ali’s Translation Surah 2, Ayah 79.

We confirm that this refers to Ahlul Kitab from Tafsir ibn Kathir:

“Az-Zuhri said that `Ubadydullah bin `Abdullah narrated that Ibn `Abbas said, "O Muslims! How could you ask the People of the Book about anything, while the Book of Allah (Qur'an) that He revealed to His Prophet is the most recent Book from Him and you still read it fresh and young Allah told you that the People of the Book altered the Book of Allah, changed it and wrote another book with their own hands. They then said, `This book is from Allah,' so that they acquired a small profit by it. Hasn't the knowledge that came to you prohibited you from asking them By Allah! We have not seen any of them asking you about what was revealed to you.'' This Hadith was also collected by Al-Bukhari.”

Though I need not clarify the Islamic position on the topic but I feel like seeing someone win an argument that is why I will like to comment on the biggest paragraph which "Rhoblogy" wrote. He keeps on begging the Quran in his "Option 2 – The External Critique from Islam ".

So, Is the Bible in our hands the same as what Muhammad's contemporaries where having. I don't know which one was it, The Protestant Bible or the Catholic. Bible just refers to a set of the collections of the primary religious texts of Judaism and Christianity. There is no common version of Bible, as the individual books (Biblical Canon), their contents and their order vary among denominations. Main stream Judaism divided the Tanakh into 24 Books while the Samaritans accept only five. 19 are thrown out. Ba boom. These 24 books are divided into 39 books by the Christian Old Testament, and complete Christian Bibles range from 66 Books of the Protestant canon to 81 books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Bible. I request my fellow Christians to tell us what actually did Muhammad confirm. Perhaps, "Rhoblogy" thinks that it is his scripture, i.e., the Protestant Bible which Muhammad allegedly confirmed. The Protestant Bible has a rather colourful history. This Bible came into being during the Reformation, nearly 900 years after the advent of Islam. One wonders how the Qur'an or the hadith literature can endorse a Bible that came some 900 years after them. Sounds silly... well it is! The truth is that no one had defined the limits of the Bible until the (Catholic) Council of Trent, 1546. So, even 900 years after the advent of Islam, the Christians were bickering about which books should go into the canon. Eldon J. Epp (a scholar) raises an important point - which manuscript is canonical?

"Finally, to raise the question to its highest level and broadest range, what can "canonical" mean when each of our 5,300 Greek New Testament manuscripts and perhaps 9,000 versional manuscripts, as well as every one now lost, was considered authoritative - and therefore canonical - in worship and instruction in one or more of the thousands upon thousands of individual churches when no two manuscripts are exactly alike? A corollary heightens the force of the question: If no two manuscripts are alike, then no two collections of Gospels or Epistles are alike, and no two canons – no two "New Testaments" – are alike; therefore, are all canonical, or some, or only one? And if some or one, which?"

So, What Did The Bible Look Like In Arabia During The Advent Of Islam? No one can answer this question, and the fact remains that no one has ever. The non-Islamic sources suggest the presence of the Syriac Church (and its various sectarian off-shoots such as Jacobite, Nestorian, Monophysite Churches, etc.) in certain areas of Arabia and that the Church service used to be in Syriac. The Syriac Churches used the Diatessaron, the four-in-one Gospel, introduced by Tatian, and was read in the Syriac. As for the Islamic sources, some interesting snap-shots of the contents of the Christian Bible are also seen in Ibn Hisham's Al-Sirah Al-Nabawiyyah. He mentions some of the beliefs of the Christians who talked to Prophet Muhammad (saw):

"[Those who talked to Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, were Abu Haritha Ibn `Alqama, Al-`Aqib `Abdul-Masih and Al-Ayham al-Sa`id.] They were Christians according to the faith of the king with differences between them; they say: He is Allah, and say: He is Son of Allah, and say: He is the third of three[i.e., part of Trinity] and these are the claims of Christianity. [They use as evidence for their claim that He is Allah the argument that] he used to raise the dead, cure the sick, create from clay bird-like structure then breathe into it to make it a [living] bird. All this was by the leave of Allah, the Praiseworthy the Exalted {to appoint him as a sign for men} (Maryam:21).

They also argue for saying that he is Son of Allah by saying he had no known father and spoke in infancy which is something never done by any human being.They use as evidence for their claim that He is the third of three [i.e., part of Trinity] the argument that Allah says: We did, We commanded, We created and We judged [i.e., by using the plural for Himself], and whereas if He was one, He would say: I did, I judged, I commanded and I created; but it is He, Jesus and Maryam. The Qur'an was revealed addressing all these arguments." (Al-Sirah Al-Nabawiyyah, 1998, Volume II, Dar al-Hadith: Cairo (Egypt), pp. 181-182.)

The miracles of Jesus speaking in infancy and giving life to birds made out of clay are usually dismissed by the missionaries as "apocryphal" but these were perfectly acceptable to Christians in Arabia during the advent of Islam. This only provides us a snap-shot of the kind of "scripture" the Christians were using during the advent of Islam. Moreover, the disagreement of Jews and Christians among themselves about their own scriptures was well-known during the advent of Islam and that also gave an impetus for `Uthman to collect the Qur'an.

Hudhaifa bin al-Yaman came to `Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Armenia and Azerbaijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to `Uthman, "O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before."

So what about Surah 2:86 where Allah (swt) says that he gave Moses The Book. Yes he gave Moses the book and we Muslims accept it as an article of fact but we don't have those books. Was Deut. 34:5-10 also revealed to Moses, "So Moses . . . DIED . . . And he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses) ... he was 120 years old when he DIED ... And there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses …" The internal evidence of the first five books of the Bible clearly proves that neither God nor Moses could have been the author. Actually it is a third person narrative. No wonder we find statements like ‘’God said unto Moses’’ and ‘’Moses said unto God’’ not less than 700 times in the bible. Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, but the books are in fact anonymous and look back on Moses as a figure from the distant past. The existence of the Torah, Pentateuch, is not historically known before King Josiah, the son of Amon. The script of the Pentateuch which was found by a priest called Hilkiah 18 years after Josiah`s ascension to throne is not believable solely on the grounds that it was found by a priest Apart from this obvious fact, this book had again disappeared before the invasion of Jerusalem by Nebuchdnezzar Not only the Pentateuch, but also all the books of the Old Testament were destroyed in this historical calamity. History does not evince any evidence of the existence of these books after this invasion. According to the Christians the Pentateuch might have been rewritten by the Prophet Ezra. This book along with its copies were again destroyed and burnt by Antiochus at the time of his invasion of Jerusalem.

What about Surah 2:89, which confirms the previous scriptures? Yes, only because it confirms the previous scriptures do we Muslims believe that there were scriptures revealed to other prophets. It is not that what you have presented to us is what Quran confirms. Same is the case with Surah 2:91, Surah 3:84, Surah 4:136, Surah 5:45.

"The Qur'an also incorrectly asserts in Surah 7:157 that the Bible mentions Mohammed."

No the Quran is correct. This was confirmed by Rabbi Ben Abrahamson, that Muhammad {saw} can indeed be found in their scriptures:

“An exploration of the Jewish prophecies and expectations concerning the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as "Ish Hammudot", the man greatly valued, beloved, referred to in the book of Daniel. According to some Islamic, as well as Jewish tradition, the original meeting of "Maseeh" and "Madhi" was the meeting of the Jewish Exilarch Salmaan Farsi with the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The close relationship between the descendant of King David and the Prophet (pbuh) or his replacement (Caliph) was a prototype of events that would only reach their consummation at the end of days.” - Rabbi Ben Abrahamson, “The Weeks of Daniel and the Jewish Mahdi”.

(Saaib's Word count: 3499.
~~My own word count comes out to 3564, but I'm not inclined to quibble.~~Saaib stopped by to clarify the disparity in word counts. I have no argument.)

(Link to comment repository post)

The Consistent Abolitionist: The Extreme Case of Dr Gisella Perl (Part 1)

2012-01-04T17:03:00.002-06:00

Having been asked about a very difficult topic by a commenter, we at the Abolitionist Society would like to offer our thoughts. Specifically, that which follows is a collaborative effort of Matthew Martellus, Ian John Philoponus, and Rhology.

We invite you to steel yourself and read the heart-rending and amazingly horrible story of Dr Gisella Perl, the "Angel of Auschwitz".

When Dr. Perl first arrived in Auschwitz, the fate of all pregnant women entering the camp was the same - an immediate trip to the gas chambers. Later, the fate of some became even more horrific: the women were subjected to gruesome medical experiments before being killed, or worse, burned alive without being murdered first.

In an interview with Nadine Brozan for the New York Times in 1982, Dr. Perl recalled her initial experiences with Dr. Mengele's "cure" for pregnancy in Auschwitz. "Dr. Mengele told me that it was my duty to report every pregnant woman to him," Dr. Perl said. "He said that they would go to another camp for better nutrition, even for milk. So women began to run directly to him, telling him, 'I am pregnant.' I learned that they were all taken to the research block to be used as guinea pigs, and then two lives would be thrown into the crematorium. I decided that never again would there be a pregnant woman in Auschwitz."

After Dr. Perl's startling realization of the fates of the pregnant women discovered by Dr. Mengele, she began to perform surgeries that before the war she would have believed herself incapable of - abortions.

The most important factor in this story is the surrounding context - Dr Perl was living and working in a Nazi death camp. This is perhaps the single most terrible environment in which anyone has ever found him/herself, perhaps the single darkest page of human history. This is as bad as it gets, and Dr Perl lived and worked there from March 1944 until she was transferred to Bergen-Belsen (an even worse death camp than Auschwitz, if that were possible) and was kept there until its liberation in late 1945.

We invite you to consider the worst experience you have ever undergone. How long did it last? One of the authors of this article has had food poisoning and been in agony a few days, has lost a child, has been betrayed by a loved one. In the days following, would he have been entirely within his rational faculties' powers, such that he would be assured of making close to fully reasonable decisions? That is doubtful.

Dr Perl lived in a far worse situation than you have ever even glimpsed, for far longer than you have lived it. Our inquirer may be wondering to what extent we abolitionists will be willing to judge Dr Perl or criticise her, and the answer is: To a very small extent.

The question here surrounds the justifiable actions that someone in Dr Perl's situation could have taken. Let's consider the environment for the pregnant women Dr Perl encountered.

Extremely unhealthy, dirty, dangerous conditions
Perl and her fellow doctors were given virtually no medical instruments, no bandages, no clean water or any disinfectants, no medicine apart from a few aspirin, no clean linens or sheets.
One public latrine for 30,000+ women meant that one either had to wade through knee-deep sewage to add to the pile or to soil oneself and remain that way.
Death was an everyday occurrence, disease a constant reality. Beyond that, there were injuries to deal with and to try to keep from getting infected - from fights over food, from guards' whips, boots, and fists, from falls or other accidents sustained during manual labor, from debris on the ground, etc.
Here in the modern West, we're a bit put out if we cut our finger cooking and don't have a Band-Aid handy.

Insufficient caloric intake

The exact daily caloric intake of prisoners ranges between sources, with some estimating as low as 700 calories per day, while others estimate closer to 1,300-1,700 calories (1,300 for prisoners doing light labor and 1,700 calories for prisoners doing heavy labor).

Given this factor alone, these pregnant women's hopes of carrying their babies to term were dim. Their babies' hopes of surviving on so little nourishment were perhaps dimmer still.

Born babies' destiny

In Auschwitz, infants were immediately killed through a variety of methods, both by Nazi and Jewish medical staff by 'pinch(ing) and clos(ing)' the newborn's nostrils and when it opened its mouth to breathe... gave it a dose of lethal product, or drowning it in a pail of whatever liquid was available. The staff preferred this death to watching the child starve to death, according to Mengele's orders.

This is, in fact, the modern abortician.

(Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams) alleged (abortician Kermit) Gosnell would induce labour in his patients and the babies would be born ‘squirming and crying’ before having their spines cut. Some of the filthy operation rooms had litter boxes and animals present at the times of the operations, according to court documents. (Source)

Gosnell "induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord," Williams said. (Source)

Prosecutors estimated Gosnell ended hundreds of pregnancies by cutting the spinal cords, but they said they couldn't prosecute more cases because he destroyed files...Gosnell sometimes joked about the babies, saying one was so large he could 'walk me to the bus stop,' according to the report." (Source)

Compare this carnage to Perl's statement:

I learned that they were all taken to the research block to be used as guinea pigs, and then two lives would be thrown into the crematorium. I decided that never again would there be a pregnant woman in Auschwitz.
(Emphasis ours)

Perl believed that the unborn baby, even a very young one, was a human life: "No one will ever know what it meant to me to destroy those babies, but if I had not done it, both mother and child would have been cruelly murdered."

Are these the words of someone who gleefully engaged in "upholding a woman's right to choose"?

Dr Perl's example during the Holocaust and her stated motivations are far closer to that of a modern abolitionist than that of a modern pro-choicer, for she respected the life of the baby as worthy of protection.

See Part 2 for the rundown of blame, the abolitionist's response, and the solution to this seeming no-win situation.

(Please leave any comments at the Abolitionist Society blog.)

The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - My Opening Statement

2012-01-03T17:00:00.004-06:00

“Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 3:20-21), “who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 9:6).

As the affirmer of the resolution, I will present a positive case, and then I will attempt to head off some of Saaib's arguments at the pass. Then, in my first rebuttal, we will take stock of whether he has avoided the pitfalls about which I warned him.

If God has spoken, this affects literally everything. It all matters. If God has not spoken clearly, sufficiently, and in a way understandable to people, then let us eat, drink, and be merry, for neither today nor tomorrow do we know anything about so much; I'd argue we have no basis for ANY objective epistemology or metaphysics.

God and His Word need no defense. This debate is a privilege, blessing for the believer, an opportunity to sharpen our own love for and acquaintance with God Himself and to share the blessings of the truth with others.

An Argument from God's Self-Affirming Authority
God's Word is self-affirming and true by definition because God is God and there is no higher standard of authority. There is only one God and He answers to no one. There is no one beside or above Him.
Hebrews 6:13 - "For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself..." Contrast that and other biblical occurrences (such as Genesis 22:16, Isaiah 62:8, and Jeremiah 22:5 and 44:26) with Allah's swearing by the Qur'an (Surah 36:2, 38:1, 43:2, 44:2, 50:1), by the wind (Surah 51:1), by the heaven (S 51:7), and by the mountain (S 52:1), to name a few.
Who knows more or sees farther than God or can stop Him? Nobody; God is the final arbiter, judge, and lawgiver. What He says, goes. We are obligated to live and abide by God's revelation. Inasmuch as reliable eyewitness testimony is solid evidence in court, so an infallible, all-seeing, all-knowing, always-truthful eyewitness to an event is to be considered foremost in credibility. Further, God is the very basis for and necessary precondition of knowledge, reason, and intelligibility. Thus, without God, as I have argued elsewhere, we cannot know anything.
To demand evidence for one's precondition for reason and intelligibility is to ask for evidence of the very ground underneath one's feet. If it were not there, we could not even ask the question.

An Argument from Fulfilled Prophecy
Predictive prophecies abound in the Bible, and are part of God's testing of false gods, such as in Isaiah 41:21-24. A few examples of already-fulfilled prophecies are found in Daniel 9:25-26, Micah 5:2, Psalm 22 and 34:20, and Zechariah 12:10.
By no means have all the prophecies in the Bible yet been fulfilled, but many have been, and quite specifically. God knows the future and reveals it so that we may know He is the Lord of all.

An Argument from Jesus
The Lord Jesus quoted incessantly from the Old Testament Scriptures throughout His ministry, even when facing diabolical temptation (Matthew 4:4), and usually precedes His quotations with a reverential formula indicating the divine nature of the words He's quoting. Such statements as Matt 5:17-18, Matt 23:23, or "…have you not read what was spoken to you by God: 'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM…?'" (Matt 22:31, emph. mine) indicate Jesus' regard for and opinion of the Scripture. As Saaib holds to the prophethood of Jesus and the Qur'an teaches that, at minimum, He was righteous (Surah 3:46, 6:86, 19:19), Saaib must give us a really good reason to overcome Jesus' opinion of the Bible.

But, the Evidence?

The say-so of the highest authority and truth in the universe, the affirmation of the unchanging and always-truthful God of the universe – there is no higher standard of knowledge or evidence. Compared with that, what good will mentioning archaeological findings of a man dated from the 1^st century who was also crucified, or noting that the Evangelist Luke showed remarkably accurate understanding and familiarity of the socio-political geography of his time, etc. do? If the omniscient God has spoken and it seems incorrect to us, mere creatures of terribly limited knowledge, vision, foresight, wisdom, understanding, powers of observation, and instrumentation, are we not in the wrong, every time? Who will be so arrogant as to question God, to put the judge of the universe in the dock as though to judge Him? Will He not rebuke us with explosive power, as in Job 38:1-7 and Job 40:7-14? And can we have any other response than Job's in Job 42:2-6?

How To Prove Me Wrong

The matter before us is about ultimate authorities. God is my ultimate authority, and He has communicated in the Bible. Saaib, as a Muslim, believes that his ultimate authority is God's revelation in the Qur'an and authentic ahadith. Either of us can evaluate the other's worldview based on our own worldview, but what would that tell anyone, but that the one thinks his worldview is incompatible with the other's and he thinks his is correct?

Further, Saaib is not an atheist, or a Hindu, or a Mormon. He is a Muslim, and Islam is, as our Muslim friends so delight in telling us, a detailed and full worldview system. Therefore, Saaib needs to deny the resolution as a Muslim and remain consistent with his worldview. Would not arguing against my position as if he were atheist/agnostic/Pastafarian/Rastafarian serve as tacit concession that his own Islamic worldview is not sufficient for the task before him? Thus, he has two options:

Option 1 – The Internal Critique

Saaib may take on, for the sake of argument, the Christian worldview with all its included presuppositions and beliefs, and from there attempt to demonstrate one or more fatal inconsistencies. This may include attempted demonstrations of contradictions between biblical teachings/passages. Saaib must be careful not to import any external beliefs when taking this route, engage my position (Reformed Baptist-ism, if you will) and not another, and demonstrate adequate and competent exegesis.

Option 2 – The External Critique from Islam
Saaib may simply let us know that Islam judges the Bible as not-the-Word-of-God, and thus leave it at that. To do so, he will need to inoculate his position against foundational and crippling internal critiques that others might offer, show that Islam is indeed internally consistent, and thus give us a reason to examine Islam very fully, as a standalone consistent worldview.
In this particular case, Saaib will need to give us a reason to think that Islam itself does not teach that the Bible is indeed the Word of God, If it could be shown that the Qur'an, for example, teaches that the Bible came from God, Saaib's case will collapse. Here is why.
The Qur'an says the Bible is God's revelation and indeed appeals to it to confirm its own message, thus proposing that it agrees with the Bible. The Bible's teaching differs, however, from the Qur'an's teaching in many fundamental ways. Muslims often propose that the Qur'an was saying that it agreed with the Bible as it existed at the time of Mohammed's ministry and that the Bible was corrupted since then. The problem with this attempted solution is that we know exactly what the Bible said at the time of Mohammed, and indeed well before that, so this solution is untenable. (The presence of textual variants, while not to be ignored, does not impact the doctrinal presentation of the Bible. The vast majority of all variants in the New Testament, for example, are the presence of absence of “movable nu”s, which are so insignificant as to be untranslatable into any other language.)
Since we know what the Bible said at the time of Mohammed, Saaib must show us why the following Qur'anic passages do not lead his position into fatal inconsistency:

Surah 2:86 ...We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of apostles; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit...
Surah 2:89 And when there comes to them a Book from Allah, confirming what is with them...
Surah 2:91 ...humiliating is the punishment of those who reject Faith. When it is said to them, “Believe in what Allah Hath sent down,” they say, “We believe in what was sent down to us:” yet they reject all besides, even if it be Truth confirming what is with them. Say: “Why then have ye slain the prophets of Allah in times gone by, if ye did indeed believe?”
Surah 3:84 Say: ‘We believe in...what has been revealed to us...in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord:'”
Surah 4:136 O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Apostle, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Apostle and the scripture which He sent to those before (him).
Surah 5:45 If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein.

If Saaib challenges the equation of “Injil/Injeel” with the New Testament and/or the “Taurat” as the Old Testament or at least the Torah/Pentateuch, he must give us a reason why, from Islamic sources, and not merely his own or someone else's ad hoc imagination, we should think that these refer to something else, and he must tell us what those things are.

Saaib must also solve the problem of Allah's swearing by things inferior to himself, as mentioned above. How is this “Allah” supposed to be taken seriously?

The Qur'an also incorrectly asserts in Surah 7:157 that the Bible mentions Mohammed. It does not. If Allah is all-knowing, why couldn't he read the Bible to know what it actually says?

Pitfalls to Avoid

--Complaints that I have produced no evidence. God's Word is itself of the highest evidentiary value and authority.
--Imputation of positions to me that I don’t hold, such as tritheism, or that “a man became God”, or that “God had sex with Mary”, or that I worship the Bible.
--Irrelevancies such as whether celebrating Christmas on 25 December is of pagan origin, or that we should believe the Qur’an is from God because Mohammed was illiterate.
--Citing prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled as evidence of the failure of biblical prophecy. Nobody is claiming that ALL prophecies ever given have already been fulfilled; some remain still in the future. Saaib would need to perform proper exegesis to show why we should expect that prophecy should have already been fulfilled.
--Trying to convince us that the Qur'an is the Word of God without resolving the aforementioned reliance on the Bible for confirmation of its message, by appeal to such things as the scientific accuracy of the Qur'an.
--Citing instances of Qur'anic scientific accuracy without dealing with the well-known instances of Qur'anic scientific bungling, such as the sun's setting “in a pool of murky water” far to the west, the origin of human embryos as clots of blood, the origin of human semen between the backbone and the ribs, and the classification of meteors as missiles Allah uses to shoot evil jinn.
--Trying to prove lack of clarity in the Bible by appeal to the various sects/denominations in Christianity, as if Sufi, Sunni, Shia, and Druze don't also read the same Qur'an.

(Word count: 1985)
(Link to comment repository post)

The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - comments

2012-01-03T16:59:00.000-06:00

This comment box will have normal moderation terms.

BEAR 3.5 - Daniel Dennett on dysteleological arguments

2012-01-01T08:38:00.000-06:00

(To BEAR 3)

There is simply no denying the breathtaking brilliance of the designs to be found in nature. Time and again, biologists baffled by some apparently futile of maladroit bit of bad design in nature have eventually come to see that they have underestimated the ingenuity, the sheer brilliance, the depth of insight to be discovered in one of Mother Nature's creations.

Dennett, Daniel. Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Simon and Schuster, 1995. Print.

Joe Holman:

our token Christian debater... made the remark that God wasn’t responsible for making bad human bodies because he only “made” Adam and Eve in a perfect state. I love it when Christians make this statement. It’s the ultimate pass-off for the poor design of our bodies. Adam and Eve were perfect. The rest of us just weren’t fortunate enough to be Adam or Eve.

A dose of Calvinistic compatibilism for the day

2011-12-30T02:55:00.000-06:00

1 Chronicles 10:
1Now the Philistines fought against Israel, and the men of Israel fled before the Philistines and fell slain on Mount Gilboa. 2And the Philistines overtook Saul and his sons, and the Philistines struck down Jonathan and Abinadab and Malchi-shua, the sons of Saul. 3The battle pressed hard against Saul, and the archers found him, and he was wounded by the archers. 4Then Saul said to his armor-bearer, “Draw your sword and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and mistreat me.” But his armor-bearer would not, for he feared greatly. Therefore Saul took his own sword and fell upon it. 5And when his armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell upon his sword and died. 6Thus Saul died; he and his three sons and all his house died together. 7And when all the men of Israel who were in the valley saw that the army had fled and that Saul and his sons were dead, they abandoned their cities and fled, and the Philistines came and lived in them.

13So Saul died for his breach of faith. He broke faith with the LORD in that he did not keep the command of the LORD, and also consulted a medium, seeking guidance. 14He did not seek guidance from the LORD. Therefore the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse.

Announcement: Upcoming formal debate with Muslim Saaib Ahmed

2011-12-29T13:54:00.002-06:00

It is my pleasure to introduce my second formal debate, in which I will affirm, defend, and conclusively demonstrate the resolution, namely:

Resolved: The Bible is the Word of God.

Denying the resolution is Saaib Ahmed, a Kashmiri Muslim, of ~~apyem.blogspot.com~~ ~~(edit: That blog is defunct as of 01Jan2012, and his blog can be found at http://ssaaib.blogspot.com/ as of 03Jan2012)~~ (2nd edit: Saaib apparently is having trouble deciding which blog he wants to use. apyem.blogspot.com is now valid again, and the other one is defunct). I would like to thank Saaib for challenging me to a debate and appreciate his willingness and courage to engage. Debating in other than one’s native tongue is a challenge in and of itself, so I invite our readers to take that into account and to extend him grace if his English expression should lack clarity or precision. Hopefully, such instances will be few.
The structure is a little unusual in my experience, but it is a result of extensive negotiation.

My opening: 2000 words maximum, due 03 Jan 2012.
Saaib's rebuttal/opening: 3500 max, due 08 Jan 2012.
My rebuttal: 2000 max, due 13 Jan 2012.
Saaib's rebuttal: 1500 max, due 17 Jan 2012.
My rebuttal: 1000 max, due 22 Jan 2012.

I will ask Saaib the first cross-examination question 23 Jan, and he answers 24 Jan.
Saaib asks me his first cross-examination question 24 Jan, and I answer 25 Jan.
Then I ask 25 Jan and he answers 26 Jan.
Then he asks 26 Jan and I answer 27 Jan.
Each question must be framed in 300 words max and each answer in 1000 maximum.

Final statements: 3000 words max. Posted simultaneously 31 Jan.

I plan to post all the content here, and I believe he will be posting his on his Facebook page, though I am unsure which. Given that Facebook sometimes suffers from limited profile visibility, I will post all the content here.
Comments will be disabled for all the debate posts, but each will contain a link to one single comment thread where anyone may comment on the thread. Do not expect me to re-debate the topics of the debate in that thread, however.

Thank you, and may the Lord Jesus Christ bless this debate and use it for His glory in every way.

And the Word became flesh...

2011-12-25T00:01:00.001-06:00

Hark the herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!
Peace on earth and mercy mild
God and sinners reconciled"
Joyful, all ye nations rise
Join the triumph of the skies
With the angelic host proclaim:
"Christ is born in Bethlehem"
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"

Christ by highest heav'n adored
Christ the everlasting Lord!
Late in time behold Him come
Offspring of a Virgin's womb
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
Hail the incarnate Deity
Pleased as man with man to dwell
Jesus, our Emmanuel
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"

Hail the heav'n-born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Son of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings
Ris'n with healing in His wings
Mild He lays His glory by
Born that man no more may die
Born to raise the sons of earth
Born to give them second birth
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"

So, I'm a huge fan of Joel Osteen

2011-12-22T17:27:00.001-06:00

A FB friend and acquaintance tweeted this status:
“@JoelOsteen: You are God’s most prized possession. When He made you He stepped back and said, “That was good.” He made you the way you are on purpose.”

Our conversation follows:

Me: He made us good, yes, but we're not any good now b/c of the Fall and our massive sin. Let's not forget that.

Chad: So the ultimate price paid by Jesus Christ has no value in the equation?

Me: Of course! Didn't He die BECAUSE of our sin? BECAUSE we are no good?

Me: Rom 4:25He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

Chad: Rhology doesn't that sacrifice make us good in Gods eyes?

Chad: Your views come across very negative and pessimistic and legalistic. More in similarity to those of the pharisees of Jesus' day and not of Jesus himself.

Me: No, His sacrifice JUSTIFIES us. We remain evil on the inside though our hearts are new creations. Our sin natures remain.
So, when God made *Adam*, yes, He stepped back and said "Very good." None of us are Adam, however. Our hearts are, as Jeremiah said:
Jer 17:9“The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?

Is it *I* who am being negative and pessimistic? Or is it God Himself? This is something you have to ask yourself, and I pray you will do so with consideration and prayer.
There is a reason why God revealed the Law, isn't there?
Didn't He do it to reveal sin?
Romans 3:10as it is written,
“THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”
13“THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE,
WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,”
“THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS”;
14“WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS”;
15“THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.”
18“THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.”
19Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

Look especially at v20!

Romans 5:18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The Gospel is great because our sin is great.
If our sin is negligible, why did Jesus die on the Cross? Joel Osteen eviscerates the Gospel. He makes it into a small life upgrade. He deceives those who need to know the Gospel!

And as for legalistic, the Pharisees added humans tradition (Mark 7) to the Word of God, in order to lay heavy burdens on men (Matthew 23) and appear more righteous than they really were. It doesn't mean "negative" or "remembering the right place of the Law".
Rather, it would seem that maybe you need to be reminded of the Law's proper place?

I pray you will accept this as not the word of Rhology, but as the Word of God, which I've merely quoted here.

Me: Why did Jesus, then, say in Luke 13:
1Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2And Jesus said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? 3“I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4“Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? 5“I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”
6And He began telling this parable: “A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. 7“And he said to the vineyard-keeper, ‘Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?’ 8“And he answered and said to him, ‘Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; 9and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.’”

Or, again, in Luke 18:19:
Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

Jesus knew well the heart of men - it is evil. He came to seek and save that which is lost, and that's us. It's barely half the truth to say that "God made you good!" That's far from the most important part of what we need to tell people.

Chad: Wow. You are really well versed on the condemning scriptures. That's where I am going to leave this conversation. Jesus did not come to condemn but to save. And he fulfilled the law in the way that it was truly designed to be.

Chad: Sure we all still have to decide daily to die to ourselves and pick up our cross daily.

Me: Those "condemning Scriptures" exist for a reason. Do you deal with them? I don't know, so I'm asking. What role do they play in your theology, and in your evangelism?

The same Jesus Who said John 3:16 also said John 3:17“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21“But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

The same Jesus Who came to save also warns: John 3:36“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

Wrath. For what? For sin. Joel Osteen has forgotten the main part of the Gospel - why Jesus had to die and what our problem is. Without that, the Gospel is meaningless. Which means Osteen's Gospel is meaningless and we must reject him for what he is - a non-pastor teaching meaningless fluff.

If you disagree, please tell me why. I have no desire to win a debate. I want you to come into the fullness of what it means to be a servant of Jesus.

David learns about Jesus

2011-12-21T18:13:00.000-06:00

Rhology said...

There are material bodies in heaven?

No. At this time there is A material body, singular, in heaven.

So there’s an actual, human-shaped body named “Jesus” somewhere in heaven?

No. There's an actual being who is 100% God and 100% man named Jesus somewhere in heaven.

It has flesh and blood and a penis?

He has flesh and bones and a penis, yes. Don't know about the blood part.

How does this work?

It is supernatural. I don't know how it works, but God is all-powerful.

Where is this physical body hanging out?

Heaven. Didn't you just ask that?

How is this body kept alive?

Jesus' body is immortal.

What does it eat?

Nothing.

Men die. Human bodies die

What experience do you have with immortal resurrected bodies, such that you can make such confident assertions on the topic?

If the physical body known as Jesus is still alive after 2000 years, then this ain’t a man.

Please let me know how you know this, and why anyone should believe you and not Jesus.

Wed Dec 21, 01:13:00 PM CST

Ludicrous Islamic objections, part 2

2011-12-16T17:09:00.000-06:00

Shantal:
Loool! Is jesus is the beginning and is the end? I dnt think so!
bcoz if jesus propesied to die for the sin of mankind, since in the beggining, why that jesus cried and shows his little disappointment! MY GOD! MY GOD WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME? If a son and the father had an agreement that jesus, will come to die for the sins of mankind since the creation of the world. Why jesus didnt come b4 the prophets, noah or moses? Why it wasn't jesus who bring the law? Why moses?

Me:
All these "why" questions show that you are a man-centered idolater, Shantal. You think God has some obligation to explain Himself to you?

Shantal:
lol hahaha! God and jesus made an agreement since the beggining that jesus will come to die for the sin of mankind. when the time came, jesus cried out with aloud voices saying MY GOD, MY GOD WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME? He is disappointed. Hahaha Rhology he dont need to explain himself to me, i know already that jesus was'nt God. Bcoz God would never forsaked His chosen one. God would never let His chosen one to hurt or even died without glory. Remember moses? How God protect Him and people of israel from the wickedness of pharaoh. Then now u r telling me that jesus is God? Or son of God to die for the sinners, who disbelieve him, who mocked him, and killed him. Where in OT that God humble Himself? Clearly we see that God would never humble himself, to kill himself for the sinners. Read again Exodus God said, "FOR I, THE LORD YOUR GOD, AM A JEALOUS GOD, PUNISHING THE OFFSPRING OF THOSE WHO HATE ME, AND SHOWING MERCY TO THOUSANDS OF THOSE LOVE ME AND KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS. is this God and jesus r one?

Me:
Do you mean *The Father* and Jesus? If so, that's correct.
I know that you don't really care about the truth, Shantal, but for the benefit of others, when Jesus cried out on the cross, He was quoting Psalm 22. Read it, I recommend it. It's a messianic psalm. He was expressing that His mission was complete, that He had atoned for the sin of His people.
And if God doesn't forsake his holy ones in Islam, why did he let Mohammed die from poison from a Jewish woman? Your arguments are foolish. I hope you will repent someday soon.

God did not humble HImself in the OT, that's the point. He did in the NEW Testament - read Philippians 2.

And yes, Jesus is God. He punishes ALL sin. The question is simple: Will Jesus bear your punishment and atone for your sin, or will YOU bear your punishment?
We've alraedy talked about that. You think Allah ignores sin. I'm telling you God does not ignore even one sin, not even the smallest. It will ALL be punished.

Shantal:
so why then he dies for forgiveness of sin? Lol! U all confusing ur ownself, and just pretending, and accept to be hypocrite!!! Lol and for ur info, he didn't die same time the woman give him poison unless the revelation finished and then he died natural death. Moses died natural death. And only jesus not! And dnt u not understand the verse? I will repeat it for you, "For I, the Lord your God, am a JEALOUS GOD, PUNISHING THE OFFSPRING OF THOSE WHO HATE ME, and showing MERCY to thousands of those that love me and KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS. Meaning GOD SHOWS HIS MERCY ONLY TO THOSE WHO LOVE GOD AND FOR THOSE WHO OBEY THE COMMANDMENTS in other words the believers, the obedient. He will punish the nonbelievers, and the disobedient..
but NT God is not like that! NT GOD forgive people sin, He ignore the sinners, those who disbelieve, and those who disobeyed... in other words christianity is giving the sinners the chance to commit more sin as long as people believe that jesus died for them.

Me:
You might have a point if there weren't thousands of other verses in the Bible, Shantal. As it is, you pose a very shallow objection. Would it be so hard to think a little?

The OT God forgave ppl too. Because of the atonement. You are quite ignorant of the Bible. I recommend you read it

Shantal:
Thats it! Rhology, u get the point. OT God forgive individual people, he forgive those who r sincirely repented, those who ask for forgiveness. Not to those who disbelieve or who disobeyed... but NT God forgive all the world sin. Means whether obeyers and disobeyers, believers and disbelievers(idolaters) r forgiven. Is'nt it unfair for those who Godfearing people those who obey God to forgive those who intentionally did sin?

Me:
God in the OT forgave ppl BECAUSE OF FUTURE ATONEMENT. Read Hebrews.
And in the NT God specifies that He will forgive THE REPENTANT. Those who do not repent will have zero forgiveness. They will have wrath and anger.

Christopher Hitchens is no longer an atheist

2011-12-16T07:54:00.000-06:00

Story here.

In related news, Jesus Christ is alive.

Ludicrous Islamic objections, probably part 1

2011-12-15T17:56:00.000-06:00

I am part of a Facebook group involving numerous Muslims, and sometimes their objections are just so amazing that I have to tell someone about them.

Khan:

LETS ASSUME THAT JESUS IS GOD.

Luke3:23. And Jesus (God) happened to be about 30 years when he began his ministry to preach. Who being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli.

1. So does it mean that some men knew when God clocked 30?
2. If the holy ghost inspired luke (the writer), he didn't know the exact age of God. Yet the holy ghost is God, jesus is God, the father is God.
3. God (jesus) waited for billions of years before coming to earth, and he waited for 30 years after getting to earth before he preached a single word. For the first 30 years of God's life, what was he doing? Nothing.

Me:

‎1. Some men knew when JESUS turned 30 years of age.
2. Or His exact age is irrelevant. If He'd provided the age in microseconds, you'd complain that He was too specific and it's suspicious. Your problem is that your heart is corrupt.
3. Prove Jesus was doing nothing those 1st 30 years. Good luck!

Utilitarian ethics, abortion, and abolitionism

2011-12-14T17:35:00.001-06:00

Frequent commenter AD Graham on the Abolitionist Society blog left some interesting comments on a post that deals with the question of the justifiability of aborting babies that have Downs Syndrome.
They begin here.
I respond:

With respect to AD Graham's system here:

Section 1:
my system takes into account is whether a decision a) is done with consideration of utilitarian consequences and b) is done with reasonable consideration of the relevant information.

I have a few objections. How much is reasonable? Does his system define it? If so, is that not circular? If not, how is his system helpful?
How is it possible to define the good/bad value of the consequences without a circular appeal to his ethical system?

the goal of utilitarian ethics is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain in order to obtain lives with more pleasure than pain.

How does he know that maximising pleasure and minimising pain are good things?

if a disease is awful enough to preclude any possibility of a pleasurable life

How does anyone have any "relevant information", as he put it, about the future of a given human being? Citing averages and previous occurrences does nothing to inform us about the future.

While Down syndrome children do not live a life of anguish, they may still be candidates for abortion in a utilitarian system

Candidates for abortion. He makes it sound like they're lining up to sign up to be forcibly dismembered.
Speaking for myself, I don't appreciate his treating me like I'm a child. I recommend he tell it like it is so we can all be assured he is actually giving this issue the consideration it merits.

Utilitarian ethics require the practitioner

I pause here to note that "utilitarian ethics" don't 'require' anything. They have no authority; one can choose to accept them as DESCRIPTIVE...or not. Without any consequence.
Contrast that with the God of the universe creating all that exists, with moral laws and their due punishments in place and clearly communicated to mankind. All that, versus AD Graham and his sort of obscure ethical hypothesising, talking about 'requirements' without authority.

While giving birth to a baby with Down does not harm anyone, it does curb the parents ability to care for others.

A naked assertion, bereft of argument.
And even with an argument, AD Graham would still need to let us know how he knows that's a bad thing. How he measures pain and pleasure such that we can know they're being maximised and minimised. What instrumentation he uses to perform the analysis. How he makes sure his analyses have statistical significance.
Yes, that would require omniscience, so that puts him in a difficult spot. How can he know that he has sufficient relevant information so as to enable him to perform the "reasonable consideration" he recommends?

People with Down’s are not able to reciprocate this level of care.

A cold, heartless statement if ever there were one. AD Graham has committed a Freudian slip. It's doubtful whether he really cares about maximising pleasure/minimising pain. He really just wants it to be OK to put people to death that he thinks it's OK to put to death. Where is his detailed analysis of the question to demonstrate that he's got this nailed down?

I am saying that they are not able to provide support to the lives of others in the same way.

AD Graham needs to clarify here. How does he know that reciprocation of love and help must be of exactly the same kind? What is his argument to that effect? Does he consistently apply this argumentation to all other arenas, not just Downs syndrome people?

people with Down syndrome often provide an inefficient benefit to society

It should be coming clear to anyone that AD Graham has a very physicalistic view of the value of people. People have value insofar as they can do tasks that AD Graham finds valuable.
What's to stop AD Graham from taking that even further and attempting to create the ubermensch, the perfect superman? I mean, if it's ethically justified, we shouldn't even ask "why not?"; we should do it. By his ethic, why would we not be led to precisely that conclusion? Is not efficient benefit to society a virtue? If one is not efficient, AD Graham says other more efficient benefiters are justified in killing them.

(i)f the opportunity arose in which one could painlessly terminate this life in favor of a more efficient life

Another example demonstrating that AD Graham is so far not engaging the topic seriously enough.
1) A huge number, if not the majority, if not the vast majority, of abortions are performed without anesthesia.
2) And they're carried out in violent ways. We put dogs down with sedative injections. Human babies get their heads ripped off by scissors, or their skin scalded by chemical weapons.
3) Even if anesthesia were applied, how could we know that it worked on the babies? We can't ask them. Probably better off not killing them, no?
4) Since abortions are very, very rarely painless, wouldn't that mean that killing 53 million babies would be MAXIMISING PAIN? And that AD Graham should thus be an abolitionist?

How does AD Graham know that the pain of the death of the child does not outweigh the avoidance of pain from his life lived with Downs?
Does AD Graham take into account the large number of women who experience difficult psychological and emotional problems post-abortion b/c of their abortions in judging his maximise pleasure/minimise pain matrix? How, where, and when?

Anti-anti-discrimination

2011-12-01T16:52:00.000-06:00

David said:
there is a need for legislation to protect gays from discrimination

I'm doubtful of this; that's the thing.
To be clear, if I meet a gay person dressed -ahem- flamboyantly, I have every desire to treat them with the love of Christ. Violence is not an option, and it's not attractive to me either.
That said, if a person were to come to an interview for a serious job dressed flamboyantly, I'd treat that the same way as I'd treat someone who came in with a T-shirt and sandals - this person isn't treating the interview or opportunity seriously. S/he better be WAY more qualified than any other applicant if s/he wants to be considered for the hire.

That's why I've been asking "How would the interviewer know to ask?" about the interviewEE's preferred manner of sex? Was it b/c the homosexual person dressed in such a way as to warrant the asking? I've been in many job interviews and not once has any question ever approached a question about sexual preference. Don't know if I've even been asked if I'm married.

As for the legislation you claim is necessary, it seems to me the inverse is also necessary but I don't see anyone clamoring for it. It's far more politically correct to be loud-and-proud homosexual than to be loud-and-proud hetero. When's the last Hetero Pride March you heard of? When's the last time anyone suggested proclaiming "Heterosexual History Month"? If we are to celebrate historical achievements by remarkable people, why bring up their sexual orientation at all? What difference does one's sexual orientation make in a great invention or discovery? Who among us speaks in the following way: "Albert Einstein, a great mind and influential scientist, who was also heterosexual, is the originator of the theory of relativity"?

We don't need anti-discrimination legislation to protect gay people. We need regular laws to protect them from unprovoked violence just like everyone else is protected from unprovoked violence. If gays are targeted by people for violence, from where I stand there's at least a solid argument to be made that some of that is due to homosexuals' demanding super rights and that they not only be tolerated but fully accepted for whatever perverse things they want to do in public, such as parade down a street naked and wave sex toys around.
Where is the "Missionary Position Pride Parade" where people who prefer missionary position sex march around proclaiming their preferred manner of sexual expression? It's not there. So many of the most visible homosexuals are most visible b/c they insist on flaunting their sexual preferences in public, and not everyone is OK with that. Not everyone prefers to peacefully share the Good News of Jesus with homosexuals like I do. Some prefer violence against the Other. In that case, the answer for the Other is to prioritise carefully. For what reason is s/he spending all this time and energy flaunting his/her sexual preference all over the place?

Do you have any problem with protecting against discrimination after the hiring?

Is open discussion of whether employees prefer to watch porn during sex or prefer sex doggie-style acceptable within the workplace?
How precisely would it become known that the hypothetical homosexual person is in fact homosexual? Are you asking what if s/he flaunts it? Should we also introduce anti-discrimination legislation that guarantees that anyone can talk about anything at any time in any workplace without any adverse consequences?

If he can do the job, then hire him. This seems like a trivial reason to deny employment.

Precisely my point. His preferred manner of sexual expression shouldn't enter into the question at all, and that includes both sides of the equation. Why would the prospective employer ask? Why would the prospective employee tell?

Ethics: Pastor Admits to Homosexual Orientation

2011-11-30T08:57:00.002-06:00

My friend JohnMark runs hereiblog.com and hosts a weekly feature called Ethics/What-Would-You-Do Wednesday.

I emailed him an idea I had and he graciously put it up on his site today, as follows:

Your main preaching pastor is about to offer a Sunday morning pastoral prayer. Before praying one of your associate pastors steps up to the pulpit to make an important announcement and asks everyone for prayers on the issue.

He begins.

As you all know I’ve served as a pastor here for several years. You also know that I have remained single the whole time. What I am about to tell you is not easy to openly admit. The fact is that my sexual orientation...is...homosexual.

But please hear me out. I am fully convinced, and profess to you now, that the only justifiable and acceptable sexual expression is heterosexuality within a heterosexual marriage, one man and one woman committed for life.

I have put specific guidelines in place to protect myself and the whole congregation. For example, I always leave the door open when counseling people. I am accountable to other pastors about this issue and I even have internet filtering software on my computer.

Finally, it is important for you all to know that I have not engaged in any illicit sex and have no plans to. I also meet with a Christian counselor about the same-sex attractions.

Please stand with me in prayer on this issue. Thank you.

This pastor serves the church faithfully and has a great relationship with everyone.

What would you do?

(Please leave any comments at hereiblog.com)

Action vs orientation

2011-11-23T11:53:00.004-06:00

I used to be oriented away from enjoying coffee. Now I'm oriented toward coffee. My orientation and preferences changed, and it was a complex process because human psychology is complex.

However, every time I drink a cup of coffee, I choose to drink it.

Similarly, every time someone engages in a consensual sexual act, one has chosen to do so (by definition).

A Reply to a Rape Victim

2011-11-17T10:31:00.000-06:00

A woman and rape victim left a heartbreaking comment in one of the Abolitionist Society's older posts. I would like to post a reply here:

My heart breaks to hear about the horror you have undergone, and yet I am thankful to hear that your child lives, that you chose life when you were not legally required to, and that you are not writing from a position of regret about a choice to abort that can never be undone.

I know that these may just seem to be words on a page, but I hate what has happened to you. At the same time, I stand in horror of the darkness that lives inside of me. I have been rescued from that darkness by someone who hates it far more than even you hate it. That someone is Jesus. He hates sin so much that He was willing to leave the glory of Heaven, walk streets crusted with dust, thorns, and camel manure in order to share a message that most people would reject, show great love to people who hated Him, and then be put to death in a horrible way on the cross by those very same people He came to save. He did all this so that we all could have forgiveness for the dark things we have done, and so we could have eternal life with Him in Heaven.

Yet because of His great generosity and love, He offers us as this forgiveness and eternal life as a free gift. I urge you to examine your life in light of God's law. Have you ever lied to someone? If you have, are you not a liar? Have you ever been greedy or selfish, wanted something that doesn't belong to you? Then you are a thief at heart, malcontent with the many blessings God has given you. We have all broken God's law. I have broken God's law. We are all guilty. You are guilty. I would like to ask you to consider that you can not live a good enough life to please God. Fall on Jesus, beg Him to forgive you and give you eternal life, turn from your lawbreaking. He will give you a new heart with new desires. Then read the Bible and obey what you read.

The day is coming when Jesus will redeem everything and will wipe away every tear from the eye of every one of His people. I pray you will be among His people, because then you will experience full healing and redemption of the horror you have undergone. You will even be given vision to see how even the worst of experiences was woven seamlessly into His plan, and you will rejoice. Imagine rejoicing!

If you are not among His people, you will experience total loss. It doesn't matter whether you are rapist or victim, in that case. Nothing will be redeemed for you. No comfort will you know. No joy, no peace, no love.

Please, consider the two options. Choose life.

As for the issue of abortion after rape, we have discussed that at length already, and I would like to ask you to read what has been written with consideration and open-mindedness.
Let me reply to a few specifics in your comment (which I thank you for posting):

You all speak. About this topic with such passion, as if you really know what you are talking about.

I'd like to ask you not to generalise. You think no abolitionist has ever been raped? Think again.
There are also among us those who are survivors of abortion.
There are among us those who adopt previously-unwanted children.
Many of us have given money and dozens of man-hours toward helping pregnant women in difficult circumstances.
Also, whether any of us have ever experienced difficulty in this life or whether we have all had silver spoons in our mouths our whole lives, this is irrelevant to whether we are correct in our arguments and position, that human abortion must be abolished.
Please reconsider.

the emotionally hell that comes with looking back and wondering if it would've been better for your child if they had been aborted.

Could I ask you to consider this?
The way it went, your child has life, opportunity, breath. Yes, there is struggle. Yes, there is difficulty. Yes, there is pain in this life, but that is life.
You don't get to make the decision "yes, this person should live" or "no, this person should not live". That's not your prerogative. Of course it is better to live!

I am now struggling...financially

We are willing and perhaps able to help you.
Please contact me. Click on my profile page and email me.
Also, Jesus taught us that sometimes we undergo financial hardship and difficulty so that we may learn to depend fully on Him, and not on ourselves, our earning power, or our savings accounts. Life comes from Him, in all aspects.

You have no right to tell a woman that she HAS to watch her belly grow and cry every night knowing how she got in that position

It may surprise you to learn that I agree. I do not have the right to tell anyone what to do.
I am, however, commanded and responsible to tell you that Jesus does have the right to tell you what to do. He created you. He is your Master. He is far more intelligent and far wiser than any of us. We must listen to Him and obey Him, for He knows what is best.

It is her choice which decision is right for her

Let's think about this on your terms. I'm sure you would also argue that it is my choice to do with my body more or less what I want, unless and until I decide to do something that injures someone else, right?
That is precisely what you are proposing here. Just saying for the sake of argument that the woman does have the right to do with her own body what she wants, if she chooses abortion, she is infringing on the most fundamental right of her child - the right to life. The mother's rights stop at the baby's body. The baby's life must be respected, because just as I would not act to stop or infringe upon, for example, the rights of a group of Muslims or Satanists to assemble peaceably (for their right to assemble is my right to assemble), so is the baby's right to life identical to your right to life.

Jesus has commanded us not to murder, and to take care of the weakest and most neglected members of society. How great a sin we commit if we ignore the very weakest! Shall we walk around and kick beggars in the face too?
Abortion is a violent act of murder in which the abortive woman generally participates at some level. The solution to victimhood is healing and redemption in Jesus, not becoming complicit in violence herself.
The rapist is the guilty party in rape. The baby is innocent. Please consider - we must not apply the death penalty to the innocent child of a criminal!

unless you are going to help us raise these children

We are. We are abolitionists.
We are not anti-women or anti-women’s rights. We are pro-life, pro-women, pro-family, pro-adoption, anti-death, anti-destitution, anti-dissolution, anti-abortion. We desire to abolish the legal practice of human abortion, not punish the women already abused by its legality. We desire to confront and destroy the entire system of female subjugation and objectification which slyly encourages and often attends abortion's unbridled occurrence (Eph 4:14).

You are obviously hurting, and my heart goes out to you, as do the hearts of my fellow abolitionists. I am posting this publicly, but I invite you to talk to us privately. Let us seek the Lord Jesus together and let us wait patiently for His healing, both in the now and in eternity.

(Please leave any comments at the cross post at the Abolitionist Society blog.)

Incommunicado

2011-10-28T17:51:00.000-05:00

Going out of the country.
That's why I'm not talking to anyone, in case you're wondering.

A potpourri on homosexuality

2011-10-20T17:26:00.000-05:00

A Facebook friend posted the graphic that appears to the left. I commented and a mêlée ensued.

Me
Clever, though hetero cousins still anatomically fit together.

JT
So do gay men... They just have to flip each other around. So if we go by what fits gay women are out but gay men are in? Rhology you have turned a new leaf of acceptance!

Me
Ah, the disconnect here is that you apparently think that delicate membranes, easily torn, thus introducing fecal matter into the bloodstream = "anatomically fit". That's an interesting opinion.

Cason
Use a condom

Me
Ah, right, b/c that'll fix the tissue tearing. Great idea.
Better one - stick with God's design.

Cason
‎**rools eyes** God designed me too.....

Cason
Here is something for you to go do in your spare time Rhology (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/westboro-announces-protest-steve-jobs-funeral-iphone-141530936.html)

Me
Do you really think that anyone who believes that God designed us to be heterosexual is automatically equivalent to Westboro? Do you know that Westboro picketed my church?
Do you realise how offensive your ignorant comparison is?

Me
And yes, God designed you. If you're saying "God made me gay", you're leaving out a really big part of what the Bible teaches, and that is that we all break God's law.
You have just now broken God's law by comparing someone you don't know to a group of extremely hateful people, just b/c I said something you don't like. What do you think you'll have to say to God when you stand before Him on your day of judgment? Have you ever considered that?

Cason
I'll pray for you. God Bless

Me
Cason, please believe that I harbor zero hatred for you but rather compassion and love. But you have to be told the truth.
"He who turns away his ear from listening to the law, Even his prayer is an abomination." - Proverbs 28:9

JT
Rhology and how will you explain yourself, may take a while. Rhology, how can you misconsture my trachings so bad he will ask... What will your answer be? Anyways back to the tearing issue. Women tear also Rhology. It happens.

BF
Sometimes people are unaware of how they come across to others. It happens. Perhaps you failed to realize that your words come out more like Westboro and less like Jesus. Just a thought.

Me
I'd take such criticisms more seriously if they demonstrated any recognition of the vast difference between how I speak and how Westboro speaks. You guys just sound like bigots, I'm sorry.

BF
Case in point.

Me
Indeed it is. Maybe you could point out precisely where I sound like WBC, and point out where WBC speaks in the same way. Make sure you're making selections that are relevant.
Does WBC ask questions like I did?

JT
Its not what you say, Its the fact that everyone is wrong and you are right and you then talk down to people. Rhology, its scary you cant see that. Plus back to the original debate.. Women tear during sex so your point is irrelevant

BF
I didn't say you sound like them. I said you are received like them, primarily for the reason JT stated. It's the belittling of others' opinions that gets to people. It's putting your opinion out there, with a provocative edge (perhaps to get people's attention) that matches their style. I'm not saying that Christians should never be provocative. I'm not saying that Christians should never point out the wrongs of others. I'm mostly wondering how it's working out for you. Are you reaching a lot of homosexuals? Have you seen a lot of conversions with your approach? Does what you are offering to others sound as gracious as it really is? Of course grace is not extended without justice, judgment or sacrifice on our part but are you effectively presenting the full package or just the judgment part?

Me
I suppose that you don't think you're right and I'm wrong? Come on, JT.
And women tear rarely, whereas the anal tissue is much more fragile AND ALWAYS IS NEAR FECAL MATTER.

Me
So you think I'm wrong but you're not belittling my opinion? You exhibit a double standard, probably for the simple fact that you don't like what I say. It's not that I say it badly or with hate, but you don't like it so you rip me. You can have that hypocrisy.
BTW, who posted this photo? Is this my photo?
You know nothing about my approach, BF. You don't talk to me about this, but you apparently feel qualified to judge me? OK.

Me
Anyway, as for "reaching" them, you can either feed them a line of lies and they'll be happy (until they go to Hell) or you can tell the truth. YOu can't demonstrate that I trade in hate, so I don't know what you're mad about.

Me
Finally, the proud and the unrepentant willl not listen to grace; they need to be convicted of sin first.

BF
You and I can agree 100% on your last statement. I feel that it's best to rest on that. Hopefully I will be stripped of my pride before have to answer for it. I can only hope for the same or better for others.

Me
It's our job to bring blessing to others by showing them their guilt before the Law of God before we extend to them the unspeakably amazing grace of Jesus.

JT
What does fecal matter have to do with it. What about Urine. And does the tearing only occue less because of the freequencey and the body coping witht he situation. Much like a man on man. So all of my gay friends are going to hell? Because they cant choose who they like or are attracted to? Sounds like a design issue, might want to talk to the big guy on that one. God made us all in his image. So what does that say about God? Rhology when is the last time you ever thought you were wrong and maybe someone else was right. Oh wait you interpert the bible how you interpert it. Its not fact but interpertation after interpuertation!

Cason
Any sins you care to confess Rhology?

Cason
When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7 NIV)

Me
JT,
The anus is for elimination of waste, not for sexual contact. That's what it was designed for.
I already told you what fecal matter has to do with it. Are you paying attention or just arguing b/c you have emotional reactions to what the Bible says?

Tell you what, about your question "are all of my gay friends going to hell?" We've talked about these things numerous times. I don't care to repeat myself so many times, so let me ask you: what do you think I'll say in response to this question? Please surprise me by letting me know you actually do pay attention instead of just rail against God's law.

Let's say Jimmy were to come along and ask, "Hmm, what does JT's last comment mean?"
And Chris said, "It means he is eating tortillas and guacamole."

JT might later object and say "No, I was discussing homosexuality."
But that = "your specific interpretation of your comment". There are many, many readers who don't share your specific interpretation of your comment, and there is precisely no reason why I should accept your interpretation over theirs.

Your only defense at this point is to claim that they are wrong, and you are right, because your understanding of your comment is accurate and theirs is not. Unfortunately that isn't actually a reason to accept your interpretation over theirs; it's just your opinion.

Me
Cason, yes, I am a great sinner. I am a lustful and thus adulterous man. I covet things that aren't mine. I lie to my own advantage. I steal from others. I have been unjustifiably angry and thus am a murderer at heart. I am an idolater because I put things before God Almighty. I fail to honor my parents as I should, so I am a parricide.

Jesus has saved me because He is my only hope.

What are you trusting in? Are you better than I? Jesus said "Be perfect as My Father is perfect." Are you perfect? WHat will you tell God when you stand before Him to be judged?

Cason
So, help me understand..... Do all sinners go to hell or just gay ones

Me
All. Jesus is the only hope for anyone.

Cason
None of us are without sin..... At least that's what I believe. If all this world has to do is worry about what Jim and Joe are doing in the bedroom then God help us all.

JT
So fluids and urine in the bloodstream is ok but not fecal matter... Check! Ok so what if I cut myself and dirt gets in the blood stream. Is your only argument that fecal matter gets in the blodd stream? I bet a lof things get in the blood stream. My reaction is to how ridiclious some people are. How judging people who love everyone are. How a loving God is sending so many people to hell. Doenst sound very loving. You seem to be a homophob who thinks he is the end all be all when it comes to what God and Jesus want. Kinda Scary...

JF
This is a disgusting post... not because of homosexuality, but because of the intolerance thereof.

Cason
So Anyone include "Rhology".....right?

JT
Cason, its just the gay ones, your room is in the back witht he disco ball and the village people.

JF
BF -- I'm disappointed in your early dismissal!

Me
This is a disgusting post... not because of intolerance of homosexuality, but because of the intolerance of intolerance.

Me
Cason, I believe I just explained what I meant. Are you reading or just trying to play a game?

JF
oh... well touche Rhology. ha.

Cason
Shiny disco balls!

JT
Intolerance becasue we dont drop eveything and follow Rhology. You are one year away from having people drink Kool-Aid as the commet passes over... Seriously your not but your reaction to everyone else says that. No one is right but you

Me
So, you can be intolerant but I can't. OK. Double standard again.

Me
JT, that is false. You should be ashamed of yourself to talk that way.

JT
Rhology, Do you think they choose to be or are they born that way

Me
That question is unimportant and uninteresting. We are all sinners and we must all repent and belong to Jesus.

JF
That question is unimportant and uninteresting.... to you.

JT
I apologize Rhology, point is you act like you know it all and we are all wrong. You have never thought about what we say you just spew off what you heard in Church or read in a book..... Oh it is very important;

Me
Why is it important?

JT
Answer and you will see why

Me
Read in "a" book? Is it just "a book", JT?

JT
Well I want talking about just the Bible but yes it is just a book...Just like words are just words...

JT
So Rhology answer my question please

Cason
I was born this way...... I also have brown skin and brown eyes.... Nothing that I can change. I have a relationship with my God whom I call Jesus Christ. I have learned from my understanding that he loves all with an unimaginable measurement of love but hates all sin. "Love the sinner not the sin"

JT
Rhology wont answer becasue if he does he knows the outcome.

Cason
This is the written account of Adam's family line.
When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. (Genesis 5:1 NIV)

Me
Cason,
What happened in between then and now? Specifically, Genesis 3.
Why did Jesus come to Earth?
ANd how do you know what you think you know about Jesus?

Me
JT, if the BIble is just a book, how do know what you think you know about God and about humankind?

JT
Rhology, Anser my question please. The bible is just a book. It does nothing. Its the words... The longest game of telephone ever...

Me
JT, if the BIble is just a book, how do know what you think you know about God and about humankind?

JT
So wait if it wasnt for the bible we wouldnt know anything about God and humankind. So before the bible what did they do

Cason
It was breathed into me at the moment of my conception Along with my brown hair, skin, Gay ways. My life story along with my trials, tribulations, and the Facebook thread were already known from beginning to end. Jesus was sent to die for all sins up to and include homosexuality, murder, lieing, stealing, lustfull thoughts. His blood was shed for the sins of the world that include Cason, Rhology, JT, Neal, or Bob. I don't question your strong faith or your relationship with God. I do question why you think I am condemned to hell for my sins but you are not.

Cason
What makes your Church and it's members any better than Westbrook, me, my church, or my beliefs?

Cason
What makes you better than me?

Cason
‎"If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. (Matthew 18:6 NIV) ***Please don't cause me to stumble because I am a child of God.

BF
‎JF, I threw the towel in because Rhology is not going to stop just because I make valid points. He seems to be committed to a Crusade style of evangelism. It's unfortunate that people choose that style. It embarrasses me to be a Christian.

JF
BF, I agree. 100%.

Me
Cason, yes, Jesus died for sins. What did He say about how someone can benefit from that death?
And I have never said, nor implied, that I am better than you.
My church follows what the bible says. If yours does not, it does make my church better than yours, but that is by God's grace and not because of the people in it.

JF and BF, I am glad you enjoy your mutual back-patting. Maybe you could consider how different from Jesus and the apostles you are.

Me
Cason, you said Jesus died for sin. How do you know what sin is? How do you think Jesus knew what sin was? How did he define it?

Me
Finally, Cason, do you hate sin? Is homosexual sex a sin?

JT
LOL Rhology why wont you answer my question? You know you will be backed in a corner. You follow your interpertation of the bible. You dont follow the bible. Jesus still loves you though. Homosexual sex is love between two people. Is all straight sex a sin? Once again we are back to who are you to judge, why cant you let people love each other the way they want to? I wish I could watch your life everyday and critize you as you critize and cast stones. Are you a homophobic? Or maybe you have feelings that scare you.

Me
Told you why, JT. Why won't you answer mine?

JT
Rhology I clearly asked you first... You ignore questions and ask questions... So are they born that way or is it a choice?