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?
Monday, January 09, 2012
Thursday, January 05, 2012
The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - Saaib's Opening Statement
(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)
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.
(Link to comment repository post)
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
The Consistent Abolitionist: The Extreme Case of Dr Gisella Perl (Part 1)
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.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.
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.
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)Compare this carnage to Perl's statement:
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)
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.)
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - My Opening Statement
“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.
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?
How To Prove Me Wrong
Option 1 – The Internal Critique
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:
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.
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 1st 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.
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
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)
--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)
Sunday, January 01, 2012
BEAR 3.5 - Daniel Dennett on dysteleological arguments
(To BEAR 3)
Joe Holman:
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.
Friday, December 30, 2011
A dose of Calvinistic compatibilism for the day
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.
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.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Announcement: Upcoming formal debate with Muslim Saaib Ahmed
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, ofapyem.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.
Resolved: The Bible is the Word of God.
Denying the resolution is Saaib Ahmed, a Kashmiri Muslim, of
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.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
And the Word became flesh...
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!"
"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!"
Thursday, December 22, 2011
So, I'm a huge fan of Joel Osteen
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.
“@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.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
David learns about Jesus
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.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Ludicrous Islamic objections, part 2
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.
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.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Ludicrous Islamic objections, probably part 1
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!
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!
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Utilitarian ethics, abortion, and abolitionism
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?
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?
Thursday, December 01, 2011
Anti-anti-discrimination
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)