Thursday, October 25, 2012

Laugh at Donald Trump's Insanity, But Call it What it Is: Racism | News on GOOD


Donald Trump has lost it. Officially. This is what he announced:











I wonder if Donald Trump accept Stephen Colbert's counter offer







Laugh at Donald Trump's Insanity, But Call it What it Is: Racism | News on GOOD

107 comments:

  1. You'll probably be more at peace if you learn to understand that not everything that every stupid person does is due to racism. Although a lot of it is...

    In any case, Trump's conspiracy theory is no different from a lot of the crap you believe. These people simply cherry pick their evidence and then hold an uneven standard for what is true vs. what is false. Exactly like you've done so many times here on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You'll probably be more at peace if you learn to understand that not everything that every stupid person does is due to racism. Although a lot of it is...

    Peace? I am at peace because I have come to expect such stupidity from people like you and Trump. And you have never failed disappoint. You give with one hand but take with two. You agree that Trump is being stupid, but feel the need to insult me. Again exactly what I've come to expect from you.

    In any case, Trump's conspiracy theory is no different from a lot of the crap you believe. These people simply cherry pick their evidence and then hold an uneven standard for what is true vs. what is false. Exactly like you've done so many times here on this blog.

    That's some accusation against me. Proof? Evidence? Oh...that's right! You get to say whatever you want without backing it up with facts no matter how stupid it is! Free Speech and all. Your standards are very uneven because you borrow from Christianity when you like and claim that there is no standard when you do don't. That is what you have demonstrated. If you want me to back up that accusation, back up yours.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You give with one hand but take with two.

    How many hands do you think I have?

    You agree that Trump is being stupid, but feel the need to insult me.

    You need to learn how to discern the difference between an insult and an observation.

    That's some accusation against me. Proof?

    Structurally, it's identical to your Peleg idiocy. Go review...

    ReplyDelete

  5. How many hands do you think I have?


    Why are you dumb enough to think I was describing simultaneous actions?

    You need to learn how to discern the difference between an insult and an observation.

    You said These people simply cherry pick their evidence and then hold an uneven standard for what is true vs. what is false. Exactly like you've done so many times here on this blog.

    Yet you didn't give a single example and equating anything I have written with Trump's stupidity is definitely insulting.

    Structurally, it's identical to your Peleg idiocy. Go review...

    I get it: you don't believe that the continents broke up during Peleg's time in Genesis 10! So what. What difference does it make? I might be wrong but you yourself said that it was a possibility you just don't think the evidence supports it. This is different than Trump's stupidity as is your naive notion that racism is not a motivation for his actions. Oh and about Peleg: I can be wrong but that doesn't make you right in your atheism or the Bible incorrect in anyway. If you don't get right, you will die in your sins and go to hell. Maybe you need to find out what you are going to do about that...unless of course eternal damnation is what you want.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yet you didn't give a single example...

    And yet you then quote an example I gave in the very next sentence. You don't really think ahead do you?

    I get it: you don't believe that the continents broke up during Peleg's time in Genesis 10!

    No, I don't. But you don't get it, not at all, you've completely missed the point.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You do have a problem with context don't you? When I stated that you have provided no examples I was referring to your initial comments not the one which you attempted but failed to offer a relevant example.

    You are the one missing the point. Let's review:

    This post was about Donal Trump's infantile challenge to President Obama being motivated by racism. You offered two ideas that add nothing of value -
    A. Not all stupidity is motivated by racism as if this move by Trump is not motivated by Racism. If you wanted to demonstrate that you could have provided evidence that Trump has pulled this crap on white Presidents of the United States. Oh,,,wait...he hasn't.

    B. you really only looking for some thing to argue with me about, Really stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This post was about Donal [sic] Trump's infantile challenge...

    Right and you claiming that he's "lost it". I merely pointed out that many of the same cognitive cheats used by him (and all conspiracy theorists) are the same as what you use to support your faith.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I merely pointed out that many of the same cognitive cheats used by him (and all conspiracy theorists) are the same as what you use to support your faith.

    Prove it

    ReplyDelete
  10. um... peleg.

    You use lack of evidence as evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  11. No I did not. You need to go back and read it.

    1. There used to be only one continent that split into the 7 we have now - Pangea.
    2. Genesis says that the land was split during Peleg's time.

    I specifically suggested that the flood covered Pangea and it was split during Pelag's time.

    You countered that the events of Genesis could not have happened that long ago because there is no evidence of human being living at that time.

    You forget as few things.

    1. We don't know how long ago the stories in Genesis happened
    2. I'm not arguing on the lack of evidence as evidence. I never said that we have evidence of human life at the the Pangea began to break apart.
    3. The Bible does not tell us if this was the point that Pangea finally broke up or began to break up. Neither does the Bible nor Geology tells us that the break was instantaneous.

    Further...you are a moron [insult intended because you talk like you should know better]. You said that I use cognitive cheats to support my belief while my suggestion relating Peleg and Panga has nothing to do with if the Bible is true or not. Has nothing to do with proving or disproving that without Jesus Christ you are hellbound sinner deserving eternal separation from God. I can be wrong or right about Peleg and it does nothing to support Christianity.
    I asked you for evidence of my using the same kind of stupid logic Donald Trump against Barack Obama to support Christianity. You keep pointing this idea of Peleg out because you are desperate to deny the truth of God. You really need to wise up.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ...go back and read it.

    Yes, that plus your 3 points below exactly prove my point.

    We don't know how long ago...
    I never said that we have evidence...
    The Bible does not tell us...
    Neither does the Bible nor Geology tells us that ...

    Lack of evidence as evidence...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Still wrong. I also argued based on what the Bible does say and all those other "lack of evidences" are against your presuppositions that you can't prove are true. Please try to find a better consistence example about something that matters towards the truth of the Bible. Which you can't, but it'll be funny watching your failure.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ...that you can't prove are true....

    ...which you can't...

    So much failure to see the point...

    ReplyDelete
  15. I understand your point. You are saying:

    Sure Trump is an idiot and so are you because you are using the same thought process to support your Christian Beliefs

    I disagree that you have succeeded in providing a single example of my Christian faith resting on such illogical rhetoric equivalent to Trump's "birther" nonsense. You have failed. My Christian belief is true whether or not not Pangea broke up (to any degree) during Peleg's lifetime. Truth is that it's still breaking farther and farther apart.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I disagree that you have succeeded in providing a single example of...

    Marcus, just about every conversation we've had about a christian truth claim has devolved into you saying "you can't prove it's not true!!!!1!?"

    ReplyDelete
  17. That is true - not every time or even most of the time. Since you can't demonstrate that Christianity is not true you have chosen to reject it because you want to. Good luck with that.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It is strange to me how you can reject something knowing that you are not really sure it is not true - and the consequences if you are wrong. And if you think that all truth claims of Christianity are defended by my just pointing out that you can't prove it is wrong, then your reading comprehension is much worse than I thought or you are way more dishonest than I thought.

    ReplyDelete
  19. It is strange to me how you can reject something knowing that you are not really sure it is not true

    That's what we do every day, yourself included. And "reject" may not be the right word, when one has an (practically) un-falsifiable claim, like unicorns live in the heart of Jupiter, Barack Obama was born in Kenya and all evidence to the contrary has been fabricated or Jesus rose from the dead, and there simply isn't enough evidence to move from "knowing that you are not really sure it is not true", in these cases, rational people operates on the assumption that the claim is false, but would change their minds if more evidence is brought to light.

    and the consequences if you are wrong.

    Would be the same if we are both wrong about Islam. Classic risk/reward decisioning...

    And if you think that all truth claims of Christianity are defended by my just pointing out that you can't prove it is wrong

    Not all claims, you'll note I said "just about every...". And that certainly isn't all you do, I've got to give you points for trying, but when pressed, your arguments ultimately and consistently devolve to that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Not all claims, you'll note I said "just about every...". And that certainly isn't all you do, I've got to give you points for trying, but when pressed, your arguments ultimately and consistently devolve to that.

    Let's test that. You wrote

    And "reject" may not be the right word, when one has an (practically) un-falsifiable claim, like unicorns live in the heart of Jupiter, Barack Obama was born in Kenya and all evidence to the contrary has been fabricated or Jesus rose from the dead, and there simply isn't enough evidence to move from "knowing that you are not really sure it is not true", in these cases, rational people operates on the assumption that the claim is false, but would change their minds if more evidence is brought to light.

    Do you think that it's unfalsifiable that "Unicorns live in the hear of Jupiter"? I don't. All we have to do is look. I don't really care. Why should you?

    Do you think it is unfalsifiable that "Barack Obama was born in Kenya"? I don't. Either he was or he was not. We can know that for sure. Birthers blind themselves to the contrary evidence because they want to find a reason why Barack Obama is not fit to be President of the United states...beyond being black.

    As for whether Jesus rose from the Dead, either he did or he didn't. This isn't like the quantum mechanically cat in the box. It is falsifiable. Jesus made a lot of claims. Are they true. Will he never leave or forsake you? I can tell you Jesus was telling the truth because He has never failed me nor anyone else I know who put their trust in Him. Did Jesus bodily get up out of that Tomb? Yes he did. You have to go through a lot of contortions and ignore evidence to conclude he probably didn't. Notice the word "probably". Do you really want to go to hell because of "probably" when you can know for sure by knowing God for yourself? I don't. I can't because I know God and you say never experienced it. So that means I have evidence you don't have. But you can have it.

    [Consequences of rejecting Christianity] Would be the same if we are both wrong about Islam. Classic risk/reward decisioning...

    Nope. Islam is falsifiable. It makes claims that we can demonstrate that are not true. While according to you Christians truth claims are "unfalsifiable". It's you that has the sucker's bet.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Do you think that it's unfalsifiable that "Unicorns live in the hear of Jupiter"? I don't.

    Of course it's not, but can you get to the heart of Jupiter right now and let me know what you find? Note I said "a practically un-falsifiable claim"

    We can know that for sure.

    Not really. Can you know for sure where you were born? You have to trust the claims of others, which, at least hypothetically, could be fabricated.

    As for whether Jesus rose from the Dead, either he did or he didn't.

    True but irrelevant. What is relevant is our ability to know if he did or didn't.

    It makes claims that we can demonstrate that are not true....

    I'm going to regret this, but I'll go ahead and bite. Examples? I'm going to bet that any claim you consider to be demonstrated to not be true would fall into the same category of Christian claim that I would consider to be adequately demonstrated to not be true, but believers, yourself or muslims have a tendency to create mental wiggle room to ensure they can continue to believe what they want to believe. But we'll see...

    ReplyDelete
  22. but can you get to the heart of Jupiter right now and let me know what you find? Note I said "a practically un-falsifiable claim"

    What difference does it make to me if unicorns are in the heart of Jupiter?

    Can you know for sure where you were born? You have to trust the claims of others, which, at least hypothetically, could be fabricated.

    Really?! For what reason would your parents lie to you? I mean is that really credible? No. It isn't.

    I'm going to regret this, but I'll go ahead and bite. Examples?

    Yes, you are because there are several examples. Your thought process is a problem If you can't falsify Islam, then why are you not a Muslim? Here is a start that should help you out:

    http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2012/10/answering-muslims-jesus-owns-muhammad.html

    http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2012/10/answering-muslims-sami-zaatari-vs-james.html

    ReplyDelete
  23. Really?! For what reason would your parents lie to you?

    Um... "at least hypothetically"

    Yes, you are because there are several examples

    Right, I figured you'd go there. You can't assume something is true that hasn't been proven true to show something else is false by way of contradiction. Best you can say here is that "if Christianity is true, then Islam is false". And that's fine, but it's a long, long way from "making claims that we can demonstrate that are not true". Further, on the other hand it does demonstrate that "if Islam is true, then Christianity is false", at least if you are bound to inerrancy, so you're not really in any better position then when you started.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Right, I figured you'd go there. You can't assume something is true that hasn't been proven true to show something else is false by way of contradiction. Best you can say here is that "if Christianity is true, then Islam is false". And that's fine, but it's a long, long way from "making claims that we can demonstrate that are not true". Further, on the other hand it does demonstrate that "if Islam is true, then Christianity is false", at least if you are bound to inerrancy, so you're not really in any better position then when you started.

    Here is the problem with your "logic". Yes, if Islams is true then Christianity is false! But we know that Islam is false. You don't have to wonder about it. There is no possibility that it's true even if you don't even compare it to Christianity. IT's demonstrably false apart from Christianity and in it's contradiction of Christianity. I'm comfortable with Bible being inerrant because the Bible is right. Everything and everyone contrary to the Bible is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yes, if Islams is true then Christianity is false! But we know that Islam is false.

    Yes, but the logical inverse is not true. It doesn't become "If Islam is false then Christianity is true" or vice versa.

    IT's demonstrably false apart from Christianity and in it's contradiction of Christianity.

    I would agree, but you've personally not demonstrated that, expect in that you fallaciously use the inverse argument mentioned above.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I would agree, but you've personally not demonstrated that,

    Huh? I gave you two examples. No need to restate what has already been done. What? Can you not follow David Wood or Jame White? I realize it is a stretch for you, but I mean come on, it really isn't that difficult.

    expect in that you fallaciously use the inverse argument mentioned above.

    No way did I say or argue "If Islam is false then Christianity is true" or vice versa.

    I'm stating (pay attention this time) no matter what you say about Christian truth claims, the truth claims of Islam fall. Islam being false does not mean Christianity is true, but if Islam is true (and it's not) then Christianity is false. This does not mean that Christianity is true but it does mean I don't want to be a Muslim. I want to be a Christian for many other reasons other than Islam being false.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm stating (pay attention this time) no matter what you say about Christian truth claims, the truth claims of Islam fall.

    And I'm stating (pay attention this time) that you've not done that except to show that it can't be true if Christianity is true, which doesn't help you.

    I want to be a Christian for many other reasons...

    Right, that's what I've been saying all along.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

  29. And I'm stating (pay attention this time) that you've not done that except to show that it can't be true if Christianity is true, which doesn't help you.

    You said you agreed that Islam falls because not all of it's truth claims are correct. And I've provided two such examples that even you should be able to follow. I think I have all the help I need in making my point, and all thanks to you. I am not arguing that Christianity is true because Islam is false. You and your red herrings and straw men. Just trying to get out from under the fact that you said you can't conclusively demonstrate that Christianity is false. I'd argue that have nothing at all in that regard. I am saying that I am a Christian for several other reasons in addition to Islam being false. Namely, i find it to bear up under the weight of scrutiny and Islam does not even if evaluated and contrasted with Christian claims. If Islam were true, I'd be a Muslim, but it's not.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Marcus; try to follow, the two examples you provided are irrelevant to why I think Islam is false.    The two examples you provide ONLY show that Islam is false IF Christianity is true, they do not demonstrate that Islam actually is false.  One cannot demonstrate (prove) that, just like one cannot demonstrate Christianity is false, because both are, for all practical purposes, unfalsifiable.   
     

    ReplyDelete
  31. Marcus; try to follow, the two examples you provided are irrelevant to why I think Islam is false. The two examples you provide ONLY show that Islam is false IF Christianity is true, they do not demonstrate that Islam actually is false. One cannot demonstrate (prove) that, just like one cannot demonstrate Christianity is false, because both are, for all practical purposes, unfalsifiable.


    Either you didn't watch the videos and follow the arguments or you can't understand them. Wood argued that Islam simultaneously affirms the Bible and contradicts it - invalidating it's claims. White was arguing against the Islamic proposition that Jesus was not crucified against all of history that we know - also invalidating it. If you can't see that as well as other evidences against Islam, then why are you not a Muslim?

    ReplyDelete
  32. White was arguing against the Islamic proposition that Jesus was not crucified against all of history that we know
     
    If I recall, Islam doesn’t claim that a crucifixion didn’t take place, just that there was some sort of bizarre (and of course unfalsifiable) switcheroo that took place.  “All of history that we know” cannot tell us if this secret and supernatural switcheroo did or did not actually occur.   
     
    And of course Wood assumes inerrancy (for both systems), basically if any claim is false then all claims are false, which clearly doesn’t have to be the case. 
     
    If you can't see that as well as other evidences against Islam, then why are you not a Muslim?
     
    This is perhaps the stupidest thing you’ve written, and I really am begging to question your mental facilities. 

    ReplyDelete
  33. If I recall, Islam doesn’t claim that a crucifixion didn’t take place, just that there was some sort of bizarre (and of course unfalsifiable) switcheroo that took place. “All of history that we know” cannot tell us if this secret and supernatural switcheroo did or did not actually occur.

    Looks like you need to go back read that Sura because it says Jesus was not crucified. And if you really believe that a supernatural switcheroo is a plausible alternative to Jesus being crucified given all the historical evidence, I fear for your sanity. Maybe you should tell Dr. John Dominic Crossan, Dr Marcus Borg and all the scholars who think that the historical weight is on the side of Jesus really being crucified and really dying


    And of course Wood assumes inerrancy (for both systems),


    And where did you get such an unsupportable presupposition? He said no such thing. His argument does not depend on the Bible being inerrant. He is taking Islam for what it claims to be.

    basically if any claim is false then all claims are false, which clearly doesn’t have to be the case.

    Yes it does, if you are Muslim. It means Muhammad was wrong and he was not a prophet.

    This is perhaps the stupidest thing you’ve written, and I really am begging to question your mental facilities.

    You are the one who thinks that there is not enough historical evidence to dismiss Islam's claim that Jesus did not die on the cross. Now that is a stupid and as silly as still claiming that the earth is flat. I think it is your mental faculties that are in question here.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Looks like you need to go back read that Sura...

    Not really, but I did, and it says what I said it says, turns out I have a fairly good memory. It doesn't explicitly say there was a magical switcheroo, just that "it was made to appear to them [that he was crucified]" which could mean any number of things, but it doesn't rule out the supernatural switcheroo...

    And if you really believe that a supernatural switcheroo is a plausible alternative...

    Of course I don't, don't be stupid. However, most Muslims do believe that. You also believe that a supernatural resurrection is a plausible alternative to any number of naturalistic scenarios, so don't be so quick to judge your coreligionists.

    And where did you get such an unsupportable presupposition?

    What he said was that Matthew 11:27, John 16:15 and Sura 5 ayat 47, all taken as true (you know, inerrant) mean that Jesus owns Muhammad. But Jesus can't own Muhammad because Jesus is just a prophet (Sura 5 ayat 46-47 for example), but Jesus is not just a prophet, he's the Son of God, if you take the gospel as true (you know, inerrant).

    So yes, he did say such a thing.

    It means Muhammad was wrong and he was not a prophet.

    I see no reason why, assuming for the sake of argument that revelation from god is a real thing, that a "prophet" could be wrong about many things in normal day to day life, but correct about the things that have been "revealed" to him or her.

    You are the one who thinks that there is not enough historical evidence to dismiss Islam's claim that Jesus did not die on the cross.

    I take it back, this compounds the stupidity of your last comment making it actually the stupidest thing you've written. You've completely failed to see the point here. If you want to get into it further, I'll clarify, but I feel like you are purposefully missing the point, so I don't see much point in following this path.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Of course I don't, don't be stupid. However, most Muslims do believe that. You also believe that a supernatural resurrection is a plausible alternative to any number of naturalistic scenarios, so don't be so quick to judge your coreligionists.

    There is what people believe and then there is what the Quran actually says. It says that Jesus was not crucified, but history and scholarship says he was - even those who deny that Jesus was Resurrected from the dead. Unless you want to argue that your experts are wrong, I think you are just wasting time claiming that Islam is unfalsifiable.

    So yes, he did say such a thing.

    The fact is that if Islam is correct it's conflicting with itself. David Wood is not making a claim based on the Bible being right. His claim is that Islam can't be because it claims that the Bible is correct and then simultaneously contradicts it. Although the Bible is inerrant, you don't need it's inerrancy to show that Islam is inconsistent and therefore errant.

    I see no reason why,

    That's because you don't know what you are talking about.

    assuming for the sake of argument that revelation from god is a real thing, that a "prophet" could be wrong about many things in normal day to day life, but correct about the things that have been "revealed" to him or her.

    I'm not claiming that Muhammad was not a prophet because he was wrong about things in normal everyday life but because he got things wrong about what he claimed God revealed to him. Look, you can't claim that the Bible is right and correct and that you should follow it, and then say God revealed contradictory things to you. That doesn't make sense. They both can't be right.

    ReplyDelete

  36. I take it back, this compounds the stupidity of your last comment making it actually the stupidest thing you've written. You've completely failed to see the point here. If you want to get into it further, I'll clarify, but I feel like you are purposefully missing the point, so I don't see much point in following this path.


    I wouldn't dignify it as a "point". Your delusion hings on the presupposition that both Islam and Christianity are unfalsifiable and you are wrong. It's your security blanket so that you can pretend your atheism is warranted and justified. Here is a hint: It's not.

    ReplyDelete
  37. There is what people believe and then there is what the Quran actually says. It says that Jesus was not crucified...

    Read the sura. It also says he appeared to have been crucified. Which means you could theoretically reconcile the two accounts.

    The fact is that if Islam is correct it's conflicting with itself

    Only if the Bible is taken to be inerrant.

    They both can't be right.

    They can both be wrong. Part of both of them can be right, and part of both of them can be wrong, etc...

    Your delusion hings [sic] on the presupposition that both Islam and Christianity are unfalsifiable and you are wrong.

    I do not think you know what is meant by unfalsifiable. In any case, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone reading this blog is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may Dog have mercy on your soul.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Read the sura. It also says he appeared to have been crucified. Which means you could theoretically reconcile the two accounts.

    So history is wrong. Right.


    Only if the Bible is taken to be inerrant


    No. Even if Bible is wrong and Jesus doesn't own everything that does not mean that Islam is clear. It says two contradictory things.Islam invalidates itself. Keep up.

    I do not think you know what is meant by unfalsifiable. In any case, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone reading this blog is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may Dog have mercy on your soul.

    So what part offended you? That I said you said that Islam and Christianity are unfalsifiable? Why? You said that they were unfalsifiable. Is it that I said that you were wrong and deluded? Truth stings don't it.


    Rational? You just argued that the most sure thing we know about the first century - the crucifixion of Jesus - could be wrong. That's pathetic. All I see is your desperate attempt to avoid that there is good reason to believe what the Bible says - so much so that it is you trying to defend the undefendable. Any one reading this blog has just realized that you really are dumb. God has had mercy on my soul. You should be concerned about your own.

    ReplyDelete
  39. So history is wrong.

    It's been known to happen. But in this case, at least according to the Muslim, history, at least western Christian history, is "incomplete"...

    Also, the crucifixion of Jesus is not the "most sure thing" we know from the first century.

    ReplyDelete

  40. It's been known to happen. But in this case, at least according to the Muslim, history, at least western Christian history, is "incomplete"...


    So you would dismiss me because I think that Noah's flood may have covered Pangea and I believe that Jesus was Resurrected from the dead but you are willing to argue that Western History is "incomplete"? LOL. Well you are just layman/ Most Scholars would not consider Jesus' Crucifixion as just part of "Christian" history but a fact.


    Also, the crucifixion of Jesus is not the "most sure thing" we know from the first century.

    Name another event that you think is more assured because Dr John Dominic Crossan disagrees with you.

    ReplyDelete
  41. ...but you are willing to argue that Western History is "incomplete"?

    Holy crap you can't follow a thought can you. History as a rule is incomplete. But no, I wasn't arguing that, I was arguing that the Muslim narrative can be reconciled with the christian narrative by assuming the Muslim narrative has information that the Christian narrative does not have

    Note; this is exactly the same way you reconcile the empty tomb narratives from the four gospels, and (for the love of pete!!!) in no way endorses the truthiness of either narrative on my part!!!...

    ReplyDelete
  42. Holy crap you can't follow a thought can you. History as a rule is incomplete. But no, I wasn't arguing that, I was arguing that the Muslim narrative can be reconciled with the christian narrative by assuming the Muslim narrative has information that the Christian narrative does not have

    I see no reason at all to think that the Quran has anything to add to the historical record. Why would you argue such a thing since no professional historian is making the same argument?

    Note; this is exactly the same way you reconcile the empty tomb narratives from the four gospels, and (for the love of pete!!!) in no way endorses the truthiness of either narrative on my part!!!...

    It's not anything like reconciling the Gospels. Where is your honesty. Plenty of atheist scholars believe that Jesus was indeed crucified and died. Are you claiming that they are wrong. If you agree then you are saying that the Quran is wrong. Either way you are guilty of the same faulty logic that David Wood is accusing of Muslims if you want to claim that Islam is unfalsifiable.

    ReplyDelete
  43. why would you argue such a thing since no professional historian is making the same argument?

    No western professional historian. But I'm arguing it so you can maybe see some of your own cognitive biases. You know I don't believe any of this crap.

    Where is your honesty. Plenty of atheist scholars believe that Jesus was indeed crucified and died.

    Nice sleight of hand there Marcus. Plenty of atheist scholars believe that Jesus was indeed crucified and died, but we were talking about who was present at the empty tomb...

    ReplyDelete
  44. No western professional historian. But I'm arguing it so you can maybe see some of your own cognitive biases. You know I don't believe any of this crap.

    Name a nonwestern professional historian who does not hold that Jesus was really crucified and really died. The cognitive bias is yours. The point of discussion is whether or not Islam is falsifiable or not.

    Nice sleight of hand there Marcus. Plenty of atheist scholars believe that Jesus was indeed crucified and died, but we were talking about who was present at the empty tomb...

    Nope. You were talking about who was present at the empty tomb. I was talking about the crucifixion not the Resurrection. That is an entirely different topic. Important but not relevant.You are the one trying to change the ground under discussion because you can't defend it any better than Muslims can. It's entertaining watching you flounder and fail. Professional historians accept the historicity of Jesus' crucifixion. Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Name a nonwestern professional historian who does not hold that Jesus was really crucified...

    Dr. Hussain Kassim.

    You were talking about who was present at the empty tomb. I was talking about the crucifixion not the Resurrection.

    Actually, we were talking about reconciling the Islamic account of the crucifixion with the Christian account. Since the crucifixion in and of itself doesn't need reconciliation across the gospels (unless you want to talk about what Jesus' last words were...), then it's sort of pointless to discuss it. However, the tomb narrative does require quite a bit of reconciliation, which you've tried mightily to do in previous posts. In the same way a Muslim would reconcile the crucifixion accounts...

    Professional historians accept the historicity of Jesus' crucifixion. Deal with it.

    Of course they do, and no one is arguing that they don't, but like I said previously, historians can't speak to Jesus' being supernaturally substituted. You seem to be struggling with that.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Actually, we were talking about reconciling the Islamic account of the crucifixion with the Christian account.

    You keep bringing up the Resurrection. I did not. You don't need to discuss the Resurrection to discuss Jesus' Crucifixion.

    Since the crucifixion in and of itself doesn't need reconciliation across the gospels (unless you want to talk about what Jesus' last words were...), then it's sort of pointless to discuss it.

    Yet you keep bringing it up and tried to accuse me of trying to be tricky.

    However, the tomb narrative does require quite a bit of reconciliation, which you've tried mightily to do in previous posts. In the same way a Muslim would reconcile the crucifixion accounts...

    Easily and successfully, you can see how Matthew , Mark, and Luke, and John agree and don't disagree - period. And if you want to discuss that...fine by me. But not on this post because we were talking about Jesus' Crucifixion. You cannot make what Islam says about Jesus' death square with secular history - unless you are saying you can ignore secular history. This isn't about cognitive bias against Islam...it's about being honest. And so far you have not been.


    Of course they do, and no one is arguing that they don't, but like I said previously, historians can't speak to Jesus' being supernaturally substituted. You seem to be struggling with that.


    1. As you said earlier, it is a Muslim interpretation to employ a supernatural substitution to explain what the Quran indeed does day. It does not say there was a substitution. It does not say how Allah made it to appear that Jesus was on the cross but that he was not. So bringing it up again is pointless. The majority of Professional secular historians do not speak of the ideas of Jesus being supernaturally substituted or that Jesus was not crucified is because they reject it on historical facts and evidence. Which means Islam has a major fact incorrect and should be rejected. Unfalsifiable? Yeah right.

    Regarding Dr. Hussain Kassim:
    1. What books has he written?
    2. Is he a Muslim?
    3. Where does he teach?
    4. What degrees does he hold and from where?
    5. How do you know he does not have a cognitive bias against Christianity?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Easily and successfully, you can see how Matthew , Mark, and Luke, and John agree and don't disagree...

    They can be read in a way that shows them to disagree. Or you can read them in a way that shows them to agree. This is the same thing a Muslim would do with the crucifixion and how their theology of magical substitution doesn't "disagree" with the historical record.

    You cannot make what Islam says about Jesus' death square with secular history

    You cannot make what Christianity says about Jesus' resurrection square with secular history. History cannot speak to supernatural events. Try to follow, it's key...

    Unfalsifiable? Yeah right.

    Wait, before we go further here, please tell us what you think unfalsifiable means.

    PS: 2. Is he a Muslim? Yes, I picked a Muslim historian out of a hat, per your request.

    ReplyDelete

  48. They can be read in a way that shows them to disagree. Or you can read them in a way that shows them to agree. This is the same thing a Muslim would do with the crucifixion and how their theology of magical substitution doesn't "disagree" with the historical record.


    Honesty please. Either that was Jesus of Nazareth nailed to that cross, naked, and suffering or it was not. That is the Bottom line. No wiggle room. The Historical Record says That was was Jesus on that cross. The Quran says that it was not. Which are you agreeing with? If your argument is that secular history is correct than the Quran is wrong and you have found Islam false. Are you paying attention?

    You cannot make what Christianity says about Jesus' resurrection square with secular history. History cannot speak to supernatural events. Try to follow, it's key...

    Strike 2. You can rationally defend and hold the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, but that does not matter for the purpose of discussing the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ it is irrelevant. Are you lost?

    PS: 2. Is he a Muslim? Yes, I picked a Muslim historian out of a hat, per your request.

    Strike 3. I didn't ask for a Muslim scholar. I asked for a " nonwestern professional historian". Are all nonwestern historians who deny Jesus' crucifixion muslims? I don't think so, but there are so few historians who think that I'm not even sure why you think it's worth trying to argue that the Quran is not wrong on this point. And if you are not arguing that it is right, then you are agreeing that the Quran can be demonstrated to be in error and therefore it is not unfalsifiable and you are really wasting time.

    ReplyDelete
  49. So you don't know what unfalsifiable means?

    Either that was Jesus of Nazareth nailed to that cross, naked, and suffering or it was not.

    Sure, that's true, but history can't tell us if there was a magical, indiscernible substitution that was only revealed by God 600 years later or not, that my friend is theology, not history. History can only tell us that it appeared to whoever was reporting the event to be Jesus on the cross the entire time, and this happens to be consistent with that Muslims believe... Simply put, theology is an unfalsifiableness enabler.

    You can rationally defend and hold the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

    I agree with this, but you can't do it using just history...

    I didn't ask for a Muslim scholar...

    LOL, no of course not, you asked for a "nonwestern professional historian", of which Dr. Kassim is one.

    ...but there are so few historians who think...

    There are 1.3 billion Muslims. So I'm not sure you are right about that.

    And if you are not arguing that it is right, then you are agreeing that the Quran can be demonstrated to be in error and therefore it is not unfalsifiable and you are really wasting time.

    This thought is so confused but it perfectly illustrates where you are getting short circuited, so let's dig into it. Plus, you might learn what unfalsifiable means if you try to follow along with an open mind.
    1) And if you are not arguing that it is right...
    I am not arguing that it is right or wrong. I am arguing that there is no historical evidence available to us that can be used to determine if a magical, indiscernible substitution did or did not take place.
    2) ...then you are agreeing that the Quran can be demonstrated to be in error...
    I am not agreeing to that. As you can see above, it may conflict theologically with the Bible, but it cannot be shown to be in error historically.
    3)...therefore it is not unfalsifiable...
    This particular episode is the very definition of unfalsifiable. It is something that cannot be proven one way or another because there is no evidence, positive or negative besides the mere assertion of a holy book.

    ReplyDelete
  50. So you don't know what unfalsifiable means?

    Our contention is not what "unfalsifiable" means. I agree that something is "unfalsifiable" if it

    is something that cannot be proven one way or another because there is no evidence, positive or negative...

    The disagreement is on your delusion that Islamic teachings about Jesus' crucifixion is unfalsifiable despite its contradiction with secular history. And rather than accepting the error you would rather counter with "you can't prove Jesus's Resurrection through history either!" Besides being wrong about that it's not relevant and we don't have secular history saying that Jesus was not raised from the dead (be clear: sane historians don't argue that history negates the resurrection but instead argue against it other ways) but we do have secular history in outright contradiction with Islam.

    I'm still waiting for you to answer these:

    Regarding Dr. Hussain Kassim:
    1. What books has he written?
    2. Is he a Muslim?
    3. Where does he teach?
    4. What degrees does he hold and from where?
    5. How do you know he does not have a cognitive bias against Christianity?

    ReplyDelete
  51. The disagreement is on your delusion that Islamic teachings about Jesus' crucifixion is unfalsifiable despite its contradiction with secular history.

    I addressed this above. You may be able paste my definition for "unfalsifiable", but you don't understand it. You can listen to Jimi Hendrix, but you can't hear Jimi Hendrix.

    "you can't prove Jesus's Resurrection through history either!"

    I didn't say this, why the quotes?

    ReplyDelete
  52. You did not address anything. You tap danced around the main issue! Was Jesus crucified or not! That is the point. You can tap dance all around trying to pretend what Christianity and Islam and Secular History says about Jesus' Crucifixion can all simultaneously be true or you can finally be honest.

    I didn't say this, why the quotes?

    The quotes are there because it boils down your argument. Unless you want to argue that Jesus' resurrection can be argued historically, although you've already said it can't.

    I had said:

    You cannot make what Islam says about Jesus' death square with secular history

    To which you replied:

    You cannot make what Christianity says about Jesus' resurrection square with secular history. History cannot speak to supernatural events.

    Care to retract?

    ReplyDelete
  53. ...although you've already said it can't.

    Nope. Reread and pay special attention to modifier words...

    ReplyDelete
  54. Re-Read your error? I'd say you were being dishonest, but the sad thing I think you really believe that you can reject Christianity and Islam because you think they are unfalsifiable and you can ignore reality and truth.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Re-Read your error?

    Yes, and a couple other comments on the subject because you keep either misrepresenting or misunderstanding my position.

    but the sad thing I think you really believe that you can reject Christianity and Islam because you think they are unfalsifiable...

    I still don't think you understand what unfalsifiable means, but no, that is not the main reason I believe both systems are ultimately false, but it certainly doesn't work in their favor...

    ReplyDelete
  56. Look. You said that you can't argue that history cannot contradict Islam because Islam is unfalsifiable. You are wrong because you have not demonstrated that Islam is unfalsifiable. Asserting it ain't the same thing. Either Jesus was crucified or he was not. You claim that you are not arguing that Islam is correct and secular history is wrong (got to make a decision because they disagree) therefore I think you are wasting time.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Either Jesus was crucified or he was not

    Sure, that's true, but history can't tell us if there was a magical, indiscernible substitution that was only revealed by God 600 years later or not, that my friend is theology, not history. History can only tell us that it appeared to whoever was reporting the event to be Jesus on the cross the entire time, and this happens to be consistent with that Muslims believe... Simply put, theology is an unfalsifiableness enabler.

    ReplyDelete
  58. History can only tell us that it appeared to whoever was reporting the event to be Jesus on the cross the entire time, and this happens to be consistent with that Muslims believe... Simply put, theology is an unfalsifiableness enabler.

    Then you are saying that history can't tell us anything about the past and it is a waste of time if you really want to know what happened in the past. Good luck with that.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Then you are saying that history can't tell us anything about the past...

    No. Your head has a shell on it.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Nope just following your "logic" which goes against most secular scholarship. You are saying that history can't reliably tell us that Jesus died on a
    Roman Cross. And Most professional secular historians disagree with that. Why would you even suggest that?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Nope just following your "logic"...

    I'm sorry, but I really don't think you are. I understand why though, assuming you are even capable of following it.

    ReplyDelete
  62. You are all assertion and no logic. Give me something to follow.

    ReplyDelete
  63. history can't tell us if there was a magical, indiscernible substitution that was only revealed by God 600 years later or not, that my friend is theology, not history. History can only tell us that it appeared to whoever was reporting the event to be Jesus on the cross the entire time, and this happens to be consistent with that Muslims believe... Simply put, theology is an unfalsifiableness enabler.

    ReplyDelete
  64. In other words you just said that secular history is wrong because it says that Jesus was Crucified. Other than the Quran there is no reason at all to assume that it could have been someone else and no professional secular historian does. And if you raise one who does, provide a link (bibliographical) to where he or she argued for it.

    ReplyDelete
  65. In other words you just said that secular history is wrong because it says that Jesus was Crucified...

    Wow, simply wow.

    No. What I said was history only tells us what people see. If god substituted Jesus on the cross in a magical way that no one could see (surely you believe god to be capable of such), then history couldn't tell us about it. Such an event could only be related via revelation.

    Why is this so difficult for you?

    And out of curiosity, are you saying history cannot be incorrect?

    ReplyDelete
  66. A revelation that conflicts with a known historical fact is wrong.

    History is not wrong. Historians can be mistaken but that does not mean history is wrong. A historical event is either true or it isn't.

    So you are left with this fundamental question: Did Jesus die on a Roman Cross or not? Which is it?

    ReplyDelete
  67. I am calling you out. Was Jesus crucified? If not how do you know he wasn't. If you can't say, then you have one less a reason not to be a Muslim or Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  68. A revelation that conflicts with a known historical fact is wrong.

    I guess you are saying history cannot be incorrect.

    Historians can be mistaken but that does not mean history is wrong.

    How is it we know history?

    ReplyDelete
  69. I guess you didn't read my answers. Maybe you can answer your own question. How do you know when history is correct? How do you know when it is wrong. If some information about the past is false or wrong, then it's not history. I think you are going off subject because you don't want to answer the question: Was Jesus Crucified? The can only be one right answer and heaven forbid if you have to agree that I have something right.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Seriously, what answer?

    How do you know when history is correct?

    I don't.

    If some information about the past is false or wrong, then it's not history.

    What else could it possibly be? So now, besides unfalsifiability, you also don't know what history is.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I don't [know when history is correct].

    Maybe that is because you don't know what history is. Thank God you are not a professional historian. You have no idea what you are talking about. Please keep your day job.

    ReplyDelete
  72. How about you define what you think history is?

    Since you are flat out wrong ("What actually happened"), I suggest you read What Is History? by Carr and report back.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Who says Carr was correct, layman? The same majority of scholars who think that Jesus really was crucified. hmmm....fancy that. Oh and Carr is hardly the last word or only opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  74. What's Carr's conclusion? Do you know?

    ReplyDelete
  75. What was Carr's conclusion about what? Jesus' Crucifixion? or What the nature of history is? Do try to be clearer when you show what you are ignorant about.

    ReplyDelete
  76. What was Carr's conclusion about what? Jesus' Crucifixion? or What the nature of history is?

    Try to guess based on the title of the book.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I will answer you if you tell me if you read Geoffrey Elton's The Practice of History and why you think Carr's ideas and opinions carry more weight than Elton's.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I have and you should read them both. Because even though they had disagreements about the historical method, they would both be in total agreement about how wrongly you defined history above.

    ReplyDelete
  79. That really doesn't matter. What I care about is what really happened: Was it Jesus that died on that Cross or not? Bottom line. You don't want to define that as "history"...I don't care. Here is how it lays out.

    1. Most professional Historians (whom you must agree are experts and know more than you), secular and not, agree that Jesus was crucified on a Roman cross and died
    2. You do not disagree with them.
    3. You disagree with Islam.
    4. Islam says that Jesus not crucified.
    5. There is no historical reason or fact to discount that Jesus did die on the cross.

    Leads me to these conclusions.

    1. Islam is wrong about what happened to Jesus.
    2. You have no real point and just pontificating.
    3. If you had reasons outside of the Quran for suggesting that it really was not Jesus who was crucified you would have presented it.
    4. Your claim that history can't tell you if there was or was not a switcheroo says more about the faultiness of your historical method than it does about what history is - which is the point. You need a better historical method.
    5. You need prayer.

    ReplyDelete
  80. What I care about is what really happened...

    And that's what history tries to tell us, but if god interferes with the events in such a way that no one is aware of the interference, then history would have no way of knowing that and we would be forced to rely on "revelation" to know "what really happened".

    3. If you had reasons outside of the Quran for suggesting that it really was not Jesus who was crucified you would have presented it.

    Of course I don't!!! That's the whole point!!!

    ReplyDelete
  81. 4. Your claim that history can't tell you if there was or was not a switcheroo says more about the faultiness of your historical method than it does about what history is - which is the point. You need a better historical method.

    So much error here.

    ReplyDelete


  82. That is a copout.You seem to think that there is such thing as an event that God did not interfere with or influence in some way. God controls what happens. It's just not about omniscience but that God is in control. I'm not not an open theist. God not only know the future but orchestrates it. Therefore arguing that God might have monkeyed around with something means we can't know what happened is pretty stupid because God is in control of everything.


    Of course I don't!!! [have any reason for suggesting that it was not Jesus who was crucified outside of the Quran] That's the whole point!!!



    But you have every reason to think that it was Jesus on that cross and you don't need the Bible to conclude that.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Your entire last post was a copout. Simple yes or no question; is god capable of "monkeying around with something" so that we can't know what actually happened?

    But you have every reason to think that it was Jesus on that cross and you don't need the Bible to conclude that.

    Huh? If god fooled the Jews present at the event, why do you think Tacitus and Josephus would know any better? And I certainly don't know any better than they did...

    ReplyDelete
  84. Simple yes or no question; is god capable of "monkeying around with something" so that we can't know what actually happened?

    Yes. But that is the wrong question making you and the question irrelevant.

    The question is: Did God change events so that we don't know if Jesus was crucified or not? No God did not. And we are back to David Wood's argument. The Quran says believe the injeel but the injeel says that Jesus died on the cross, but the Quran says he did not.

    The Quran. One source. Coming several hundred years later, another language, and no cultural or social connection. Yup, that's credible.

    Tacitus and Josephus are way more credible.

    And why do you think that we know anything unless God allows us to find out? We don't.



    ReplyDelete
  85. No God did not.

    You wouldn't know.

    ReplyDelete
  86. You wouldn't know

    In the case of Jesus being crucified I know. Just because you DON'T doesn't mean no one else does! I mean the preponderance of evidence points to it and secular scholarship is on my side. What That? Oh yes, the sound of your failure.

    ReplyDelete
  87. In the case of Jesus being crucified I know

    No. If god had secretly pulled the old switcheroo, you wouldn't know (unless you accepted the revelation of Islam over the revelation of the Gospels). So let me ask, how do you know?

    ReplyDelete
  88. So let me ask, how do you know?

    Because I know Jesus. He Lives. And you never knew Him.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Ah, so revelation. See the problem?

    ReplyDelete
  90. No problem. Unless you want to argue that God doesn;t want anyone to know what happened. You like talking about what is more probable. You tell me what is more probable:

    God would revel to Muhammad a single verse (with no supporting evidence and Muslims can't agree on what it means) contradicting the whole new Testament which he reveled and all the secular sources of information we have. If s. Why or what reason? In effect Allah would have purposely lead multitudes of people astray for 600 years in hell because Allah allowed them to believe a lie - including people like the apostles (ie Peter and John) which Muslims hold in high regard.

    Or Muhammad was wrong and God said nothing to him about it regarding the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

    Think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Unless you want to argue that God doesn;t [sic] want anyone to know what happened.

    There are a number of passages in the OT where this is the case, at least where he (it?) doesn't want one group of people, or an individual, to know what happened. As it works out in this example, the Muslims do know what happened, but you don't (since you are asserting revelation, I feel I can assert whatever I want too!)

    You tell me what is more probable:

    Probability goes out the window when you are talking about miracles.

    God would revel [sic] to Muhammad a single verse

    God works in mysterious ways.

    contradicting the whole new Testament

    No, just one part (told 4 slightly different ways).

    Why or what reason?

    God works in mysterious ways.

    In effect Allah would have purposely lead multitudes of people astray for 600 years in hell because Allah allowed them to believe a lie

    Three completely made up answers for this 1) the catholic church created out of whole cloth the doctrine of invincible ignorance, so that would work here. 2) Perhaps knowing who actually died on the cross is not a "salvation" issue in pre-revelation Islam. In short, who cares, it's all made up post hoc rationalization.

    Or Muhammad was wrong and God said nothing to him about it regarding the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

    Or they're both wrong.

    ReplyDelete

  92. No, just one part (told 4 slightly different ways).


    Which of the four Gospels says that Jesus wasn't crucified? The entirety of the NT? None. The whole NT tells us that Jesus died on the Cross. You need to go back and read the text.

    Three completely made up answers for this 1) the catholic church created out of whole cloth the doctrine of invincible ignorance, so that would work here.

    No it does not. As you said the catholic church made it up. I see no reason to really even think this as a viable answer. Strike 1.

    2) Perhaps knowing who actually died on the cross is not a "salvation" issue in pre-revelation Islam.

    Wrong. According to the New Testament, Salvation is dependent of accepting Christ's propitiatory sacrifice on the Cross. Strike 2

    In short, who cares, it's all made up post hoc rationalization.

    Exactly so you can't answer this. Strike 3.

    There are a number of passages in the OT where this is the case, at least where he (it?) doesn't want one group of people, or an individual, to know what happened. As it works out in this example, the Muslims do know what happened, but you don't (since you are asserting revelation, I feel I can assert whatever I want too!)

    Cite a passage saying that God does not want anyone to know what He is doing. The point of relationship with God is that God clues you in on what he is doing. Given you don't know anything about God you are forced to baseless assertion.


    Or they're both wrong.


    Not about Jesus' Crucifixion. Do try to stay on topic. Only one is right. Either Jesus died on that cross or he didn't. You are just wasting time and have no meaningful argument.

    ReplyDelete
  93. The whole NT tells us that Jesus died on the Cross.

    Story of the pig daemon talks about the crucifixion? No, you need to go back and read the text, or figure out just what it is you are actually talking about.

    Three completely made up answers for this 1) the catholic church created out of whole cloth the doctrine of invincible ignorance, so that would work here.

    As you said the catholic church made it up...

    You've all made a lot of stuff up after the fact to make it all work. Pentecostals are not immune.

    According to the New Testament, Salvation is dependent of accepting Christ's propitiatory sacrifice on the Cross

    Wow, remember where I wasn't talking about Christian salvation requirements? Islam. Focus.

    Cite a passage saying that God does not want anyone to know what He is doing.

    You have a nack for making a demand that is completely off topic from the original point. I'd ask you to reread, but don't really see the point.

    Either Jesus died on that cross or he didn't.

    Islam can still be wrong if the Christian story is wrong. Let's say whoever it was that the Jesus of the Gospels was based on was actually stoned and then hung, as mentioned in the Talmud. Then it would be a true statement that "either Jesus died on that cross or he didn't, but both the Gospels and the Qur'an are wrong". I don't understand how your brain works.

    And for the record, the Donald is a complete lunatic, but he's always been thus. And you still don't have enough information to call him a racist.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Story of the pig daemon talks about the crucifixion? No, you need to go back and read the text, or figure out just what it is you are actually talking about.

    You seem to either have an honesty problem or just not sophisticated enough to communicate with. Obviously "The whole NT tells us that Jesus died on the Cross." does not mean that every single page and word is about the crucifixion. Obviously, I need to break it down into smaller steps that you might understand. i doubt it, but here goes: The gospels and the NEW Testament are centered around the life, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ, as well as how we should live in light of it. Get a clue.

    Wow, remember where I wasn't talking about Christian salvation requirements? Islam. Focus.

    Context. Focus. Salvation being dependent on Jesus was revealed centuries before Islam. Islam claims to be drawing on the same authority yet contradicts it. That's why I brought it up. Keep up.

    Three completely made up answers for this 1) the catholic church created out of whole cloth the doctrine of invincible ignorance, so that would work here.

    No they don't. I reject them. Try an answer you don't reject.


    You've all made a lot of stuff up after the fact to make it all work. Pentecostals are not immune.


    Making up answers is all you have done here. As for Pentecostal's answers: do you even know what they are and can articulate why they are wrong? I guess you will just make them up.

    You have a nack for making a demand that is completely off topic from the original point. I'd ask you to reread, but don't really see the point.

    You are the one who said that there were Old Testament passages telling us that God doesn't want anyone to know what He is doing. If you can't back up an assertion, don't make it. It's on topic because you based an argument on it.

    Islam can still be wrong if the Christian story is wrong.

    So what? The point is they are both wrong or one is wrong. If either of them are correct you are wrong.

    Let's say whoever it was that the Jesus of the Gospels was based on was actually stoned and then hung, as mentioned in the Talmud.

    The Talmud is a medieval work. You accuse me of going off topic. LOL

    Then it would be a true statement that "either Jesus died on that cross or he didn't, but both the Gospels and the Qur'an are wrong". I don't understand how your brain works.

    You would have to prove that the Talmud is correct. And that "hung" does not mean hung of a cross. And you still have the problem of Tacitus and Josephus and all the other evidence secular scholars use to arrive at the point that it really was Jesus of Nazareth that was crucified. History is against you here.

    And for the record, the Donald is a complete lunatic, but he's always been thus. And you still don't have enough information to call him a racist.

    True you can be a lunatic and not be a racist, but all racists are lunatics. I think you are in denial. If Obama was not black, do you really think Trump would be actions the way he is? I don't. I am not the only one who see the hypocrisy and racism, just because you do not, but there is a lot of things you miss that others do not. Wake up.

    ReplyDelete
  95. I bet you didn't even read the link this post is pointing to about why Trump is being racist and the other people who have come to that conclusion and why. Open your eyes, they are closed.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I need to break it down into smaller steps that you might understand.

    Once you do that, you'll see you (should) agree with my original statement.

    You are the one who said that there were Old Testament passages telling us that God doesn't want anyone to know what He is doing.

    OK, I didn't say that. Reread.

    The Talmud is a medieval work.

    No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud

    You may be getting confused because the oldest full manuscript is from the 13th c. But going by that standard, you'd have to say the New Testament is a 4th c. work. There's evidence the stuff about Jesus goes back the 2nd c. Not that ANY OF THAT IS IMPORTANT because you've missed (or avoided more likely) the point as usual. I said "let's say..." "...like in the Talmud", I didn't say "The Talmud proves Jesus was stoned and hung".

    If Obama was not black, do you really think Trump would be actions the way he is?

    What rock have you been living under? I assume you were alive for the Carter, Regan, Bush, Clinton and GW Bush years??? One thing you can always count on is people being irrational about politics and politicians (and religion).

    I bet you didn't even read...

    I wouldn't make that bet if I were you...

    ReplyDelete
  97. I said: Unless you want to argue that God doesn;t [sic] want anyone to know what happened.

    You said
    There are a number of passages in the OT where this is the case, at least where he (it?) doesn't want one group of people, or an individual, to know what happened.


    You said that there are cases in which God doesn't want anyone to know what happened in the Old Testament and then you tried to qualify your terms. So I'll give you that and apologize. You really didn't mean to imply that the Old testament says that God doesn't want anyone to know what He is doing (even though you said "that is the case").

    I didn't say "The Talmud proves Jesus was stoned and hung".

    No you raised the Talmad as a third source and tired to set it against Christianity and Islam without committing to truth of any. Epic fail....and a dishonest one.


    What rock have you been living under? I assume you were alive for the Carter, Regan, Bush, Clinton and GW Bush years??? One thing you can always count on is people being irrational about politics and politicians (and religion).


    So which of Carter, Regan, Bush, Clinton or GW Bush had their education called into question where it was literally "Show me your report cards"? Or accused of their achievements being due to affirmative action? Or were asked for their birth certificate because they weren't American? Where? By whom?

    I wouldn't make that bet if I were you...

    Then you disagree that Trump has racist motivations ad must know that I am not the only one who disagrees with you.

    ReplyDelete
  98. No you raised the Talmad [sic?] as a third source and tired to set it against Christianity and Islam without committing to truth of any.

    No, I mentioned the Talmud as a third hypothetical situation of many.

    So which of...

    Reagan and GW Bush's intelligence was constantly called into question. There were even demands for Bush's "report cards", which he rightly declined, but someone leaked them.

    And the whole GHW Bush and GW Bush nepotism thing is basically accusing GW's achievements of being due to a form of "affirmative action".

    Did Trump ever accuse Obama's achievements being due to affirmative action? I honestly don't know, but suspect you are losing focus on Trump and are just throwing out everything including the kitchen sink...

    I understand your emotional investiture in this issue, so I'll drop it. But you're wrong. Trump is just a clown.

    ReplyDelete
  99. No, I mentioned the Talmud as a third hypothetical situation of many.

    And what was the purpose of raising a third situation that is not ascribed to to the majority of scholars?
    Are you saying that they are wrong?

    And the whole GHW Bush and GW Bush nepotism thing is basically accusing GW's achievements of being due to a form of "affirmative action".

    Nepotism cannot be equated with affirmative action. You are desperate.



    I understand your emotional investiture in this issue, so I'll drop it. But you're wrong. Trump is just a clown.


    I've had to deal with racism my entire life. I'm not wrong. I know it when I see it. As for Trump being a clown at least we agree on that. Why are you so emotionally invested in trying to get me to agree with you on why he is wrong.

    I honestly don't know, but suspect you are losing focus on Trump and are just throwing out everything including the kitchen sink...

    You brought up all the past Presidents since Carter. Obviously Trump did not attack all of them as he has Obama. You can't argue that the past Presidents have been mistreated the same as Obama, and then when I point out a way that they have not, you can't fall back and say I can only use examples of what Trump has done.

    Bottom line: you can't say that Obama's Presidency has not been tainted with racism directed against him.

    ReplyDelete
  100. And what was the purpose of raising a third situation...

    Because you claimed it was either or.

    Nepotism cannot be equated with affirmative action.

    Yeah, it's worse.

    You are desperate.

    Amused, not desperate.

    I've had to deal...

    Like I said, I get it.

    you can't say that Obama's Presidency has not been tainted with racism directed against him.

    I cannot, this is just not an example of it.

    Also, god doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Because you claimed it was either or.

    It is either or. Either Jesus was Crucified or he was not. The Talmud does not change that. Neither do your delusions.

    I cannot, this is just not an example of it.

    You do not know what you are talking about.

    Also, god doesn't exist.

    Ignorance and delusion meet in you.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Ignorance and delusion meet in you.

    You too buddy.

    ReplyDelete
  103. That is why we both need Jesus! oh...wait...that's right You are in trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Those two letters are as "not so much" convincing as everything you've said thus far.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Well, I guess even sarcasm is lost on you just like an honest use of historical data.

    ReplyDelete