Sunday, July 31, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Answering Muslims: Is Anders Behring Breivik a Christian?
Answering Muslims: Is Anders Behring Breivik a Christian?
FacePalm of the Day #115 - Debunking Christianity: Morality Without God
The video starts out with positing a leader who want to implement morally corrupt laws and tries to draw a parallel with God's laws. The narrator argues that we know what "unjust laws" are. He further argues that God's laws are perfect because God is perfect and therefore they should make sense to us. There are several problems with the arguments.
The narrators assumes that we know what is fair and consistent laws and are capable of deciding what those rules should be and why. He argues "that we know better." The narrator accuses the God of the Bible of punishing the innocent and punishing the guilty disproportionately and placing it up against the characterization of God being perfectly morally. The Narrator says that he is aware of the Bible's teaching that all humans are sinners but doesn't seem to know what the consequences of that are. He most undoubtedly thinks that it is a disproportionate to eternally punish people for finite sins but doesn't realize that none of us is innocent or just how bad those sins are! Also for those who are saved God disproportionately gifts us with eternal life. IT should be obvious that though we deserve hell, heaven isn't based on what we deserve.
Also given that God created us and we didn't create ourselves or anything, why would any of us think that we know better that He does about what is right and what is wrong? Consider it. His argument is that there is no God because such a God would not allow anything like what the Bible says. How does he know that? He is arguing for a moral law greater than God and I would say that is wrong. If God made everything that would include moral imperatives and laws also. We also have to agree that God knows what those are and we don't. For example Jesus said lusting after a person you are not married to is just as bad as doing the act of adultery. Last I checked, Psychology agreed. Emotional infidelity can be worse than physical acts.
The narrator then goes on to try to bring up scriptures to show how corrupt the Bible's morality is.by trying to say that the atrocities in the Bible were perpetrated against innocent people. Again no one has never been innocent, we all deserve death. Rather than running through the scriptures he twists out of context we need to remember that these examples is not God command or condoning evil. These ar all examples of God punishing sin. Just because you don't think that sin warrants punishments such as these says more about our finiteness than it does about God's character. You must remember, the God does not cause people to do evil. God restrains us from doing evil! And when God allows people to do what they want to do these the consequences. I see no inconsistency of God punishing sin by allowing people to suffer its consequences or allowing us to get the consequences of other people's sins. Don't like it? We aren't supposed to like it. God has no problem with discussing it. It's discussed several times in the Bible. However, God does whatever God wants and how and when. God will always does what is best.
This really comes down to trust. Can you really trust God that the way God has decreed things to work really is best for us and takes into account our choices and what is best for us? Yes. IT does require us to align ourselves with God's will, purposes, and plans. It like flying. Birds, airplanes, and anything that flies does so not by breaking the laws of Gravity, but uses them. It's the same if you want success in life here and now and eternal life after this one is over.
Debunking Christianity: Morality Without God
SDCC 2011 Tribute to Dwayne McDuffie
The Black Panel: Celebration of Dwayne McDuffie
CCI: Creators and Fans Honor Dwayne McDuffie
S.D. Comic-Con News: The Dwayne McDuffie Tribute That Wasn’t
The Comic Con Shuffle Part 3, by Michael Davis – Straight No Chaser #227 | MICHAEL DAVIS WORLD
Infographic: The Evolution of the Geek | Crushable
I think the truth is that most people fit multiple categories.
Infographic: The Evolution of the Geek | Crushable
Friday, July 29, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Molinism from the Horse's Mouth: Reviewing Craig's "Only Wise God" - Part 4
Molinism from the Horse's Mouth: Reviewing Craig's "Only Wise God" - Part 4
Confident Christianity: The Jesus Myth Theory: Investigating Claims of Copying
Confident Christianity: The Jesus Myth Theory: Investigating Claims of Copying
FacePalm of the Day #114 - Debunking Christianity: Want To Know What Blind Faith Is?
At my recent talk in Indy a Christian named Phil heard it and said that given how passionate I am I'll come back around to Christianity. He also said the atheist movement was from God, presumably God's judgment on America in the last days before Jesus comes back. Jerry Wilson was there and shouted, "How do you know that?" That's a great question! There is no evidence leading Phil to believe what he said, none. Which reminds me, Bill Craig said there is still hope for me too! Yep, and that's why I reject faith. It can and does lead people to believe almost anything. Who in their right mind would say such things? If I haven't committed the unforgivable sin then no one has.
I think Loftus completely misses Phil's point. The point is that no one is born-again without the power of God. Phil thought that Loftus' passion shows that at one time hed was born again. Given that, you can't become unborn again this means that God will at some point in the future claim Loftus for His own again. We know this because Jesus said it. Phil happens to be more optimistic about Loftus' spiritual state than I am. Neither one of us knows for sure about Loftus Salvation. I hope that either he truly had been born again or that God will truly save him. As long as any one of us are alive, there is still hope. My question is, how does John, or anyone who has left Christianity know that they used to believe? How do they know what they are talking about? Does Loftus really know what the unforgivable sin is? I doubt it.
Debunking Christianity: Want To Know What Blind Faith Is?
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day on Hitler, by Richard Carrier
Even if Hitler had to pretend to be a Christian to get people behind his program against the Jews (and it was a public program, as Mein Kampf makes clear, and of course the fact that thousands of Germans happily carried it out), then the idea that atheism caused the holocaust is clearly refuted. [via email]
So if a man was not really a Christian and he lead thousands away from following Christian principles, then how can Christianity be at fault for the Holocaust? Hmmm. Does the Bible explain what happened? Yes it does.
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. - 2 Timothy 4:3
Even if Hitler was not an atheist he sure was not a Christian.
Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day on Hitler, by Richard Carrier
Captain America and Superhero Worldviews, Part 1 | Reflections
Image via WikipediaKenneth Samples has started a series of post regarding Captain America and what the movie and superhero characters have to say about worldviews. I'm really looking forward to reading the rest of his series!Captain America and Superhero Worldviews, Part 1 | Reflections
Anders Behring Breivik, Richard Dawkins and Timothy McVeigh | True Freethinker
Anders Behring Breivik, Richard Dawkins and Timothy McVeigh | True Freethinker
FacePalm of the Day #113 - John Lofus Delivers Double!
As an ex-Christian you've heard the same spiel, "You were never a Christian." How do you respond?
I often make this argument because I think it carries weight because it forces the issue as to what a Christian is. Let's keep it simple. A Christian does the following:
23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.- John 14:23-24
And
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. - Romans 10:9-10
And
3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. - John 3:3
I respond in four ways:]
I have never spoken to an apostate who understood what Jesus meant about being "born again". They had head knowledge (most of the time faulty if it was anything like what they think the Bible says now) but no change of heart and mind. No humble admission of sin or the need to submit all they are to God. Let's look at Loftus' "responses".
1) That's just one of your delusions. There are many more;
What about the apostates' delusions? If Loftus is saying that a believer is delusional then does that mean he was delusional when he believed? If so, how does he know he didn't trade one delusion for another? How does he know that he's not still delusional? Or that he used to see things clearly but now deluded? He offers no proof. No evidence. He just tosses it out there and doesn't seem to think it needs to be defended. But it does. There is no reason to accept it anymore then one needs to accept another's Christianity because they say they are or were a Christian. This is a much better explanation.
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. - 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12
2) Your God promised that if I believed he would save me. I believed, so why didn't he keep his promise?;
One of two things is true. Either the Bible is wrong or Loftus (or any Apostate) didn't believe.Given that the Bible is infallible and true that would make apostates at least mistaken if not lying if they claim they really believed the message. The gospel changes you in such ways that can't be be undone. Just like a person can't be unborn once he/she is born, you can't undue the spiritual birth. Today, many apostates not only claim that they used to believe but they say now that they have no sin. Accepting your status as a sinner is the first step in salvation. Denying that makes me wonder if the apostate ever really began to understand the depths of their own sin.
3) I don't care what you think. Deal with my arguments;
This is the best response Loftus offers but he and other open themselves up to having their "Christian experience" scrutinized because they make it part of their argument. Loftus and Dan Barker and others say, "See, I used to be like, but now I know better and you should join me in my way of thinking." Anyone who uses that has got to know that people are gonna wanna know if you were truly like them. I have not met or heard a single apostate be able to prove it.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ - Matthew 7:21-23
4) You're right, because there isn't any truth to Christianity. I was never saved because Jesus doesn't save anyone and that includes you.
So option 4 is to contradict every one of the other responses and hope that no one notices the baseless assumption that no one could ever provide evidence for. What is this? A playground? I have one thing to say to apostates who would argue in this manner: "Inconsistent much?"
Debunking Christianity: My Responses to "You Were Never a Christian"
The second post deals with the disunity among Christians.
With over 30,000 different denominations and sects to choose from, Christianity bears no orthodoxy, no consistency and no authority whatsoever. It has hundreds of 'official' denominations who disagree, sometime violently on all foundational tenets of the religion. Given the general level of ignorance people have about the religion they adopt and their propensity for moulding it to be what they want it to be, one could argue that each Christian has their own denomination. We can state confidently, with evidence and reason that Christianity hasn't a clue what it believes or why. Until the Christianity’s can actually internally agree and harmonise what they believe and state why, they all remain a laughably absurd and unsubstantiated proposition to those who do not believe. Your argument is not with atheists, it's with the other 29,999 sects who view your Christianity as a joke. Link.
Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: A very simple question for Christians. (In What Sense Is God One?)
In what sense is God one? (Scriptural references are appreciated).
Let's take a moment and look at the whole passage:
Let's take a moment and look at the whole passage:
4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.[a] 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. - Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (NIV)
- Deuteronomy 6:4 Or The LORD our God is one LORD; or The LORD is our God, the LORD is one; or The LORD is our God, the LORD alone
4Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: 5And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. - Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (KJV)
For example if I am part of the tribes of Israel and I hear it said to me 'Hear oh Israel the Lord your God the Lord is One'. (Deuteronomy 6:4)
What would I take away from that message? Would I have to have deep knowledge of theological and philosophy to understand this?
What if I was just a simple shepherd tending to my sheep?
So what does it say? Let us just ask what does the just plain person who was sitting in front of Moses, what did they hear? What did they understand? The Lord our God is one what? The Septuagint is of great help here. Recall Exodus 3:14
And God said (8799) unto Moses, I AM (8799) THAT I AM (8799) : and he said (8799) , Thus shalt thou say (8799) unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent (8804) me unto you.
kai eipen o qeov prov Mwushn egw eimi o wn kai eipen outwv ereiv toiv uioiv Israhl o wn apestalken me prov umav
And now compare John 8:58
Jesus said (5627) unto them, Verily, verily, I say (5719) unto you, Before Abraham was (5635) , I am (5748) .
Egw eimi? In both Old and New Testament. Jesus is claiming to be the same being who spoke to Moses from the Burning Bush. Would someone from Moses time get that? I don't think so because it wasn't revealed until Jesus did it almost 1500 years later. What the Hebrews at the time of Moses understood was that God is one being. Jesus revealed more light as to who and what God is. Did Jesus reveal more info? Yup.
I and my Father are (5748) one.Hmmmm. Jesus used the same terminology for "oneness" as in Deuteronomy 6:4. Jesus makes a distinction between His person and the Father's person, but He makes not distinction in God's being or essence.
Cf. D. Block, has a book "How Many Is God: An Investigation into the Meaning of Deuteronomy 6:4-5," I thought this was a curious title for a book. A bit presumptuous. For example why not title the book 'How Many Beings is God: An Investigation into the Meaning of Deuteronomy 6:4-5."
After all if the Tri-Theist are going to keep coining new phrases, employing sophistry and clever semantics why presume anything?
Again with the Tri-Theist. We Christians - all of us - whether you accepts the distinction of person in the Godhead or ignore it - we all agree that God is one being. The Muslims are correct on that point.
Why presume that God's being is 'one'? I really want to know on what basis do Christians say that God's being is one?
Why presume that God's person is :"one" as thegrandverbalizer does? The Bible doesn't. Yet the Qur'an and the Bible agree that God is one in being.
Why presume that God's person is :"one" as thegrandverbalizer does? The Bible doesn't. Yet the Qur'an and the Bible agree that God is one in being.
If words have meaning what do they mean by that? Curious Muslims (and those searching for truth) want to know.
I want to know why thgrandverbalizer thinks that Christians are twisting words. We all instinctively make a distinction between "being" and "person". No one answers the questions "What are you?" the same as the question "Who are you?" They are different categories and not the same. Here is another important point. I think that the Trinity is important but it's not a litmus test for orthodoxy. I mean there will be countless people in heaven who put their faith in what God revealed to them and not have as much of the big picture as we have today. For example, Neither Abraham, Moses, nor David knew that the Messiah's name would be Jesus, but they knew that God would provide such salvation and they trusted God for that. Neither did they know about God being triune in person. Yet we'd be stupid to think they didn't make it into heaven.
39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.- Hebrews 11:39-40
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: A very simple question for Christians. (In What Sense Is God One?)
Septuagint Info
StudyLight.org
Scripture4All - Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament
Sunday, July 24, 2011
TOYSREVILs *I Like Toys* Blog: The Avengers Character Posters from Marvel Studios Is Now Complete
TOYSREVILs *I Like Toys* Blog: The Avengers Character Posters from Marvel Studios Is Now Complete
FacePalm of the Day #112 - Debunking Christianity: A glimpse into the deranged mind of mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik
Tell y'all what: We'll accept responsibility for Breivik if you take Stalin. No? I've seen people avoid this by trying to say blame Stalin's religious upbringing and not his atheism. So what about Breivik's atheism?
I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person as that would be a lie. I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment. In the past, I remember I used to think;
"Religion is a crutch for weak people. What is the point in believing in a higher power if you have confidence in yourself!? Pathetic."
Perhaps this is true for many cases. Religion is a crutch for many weak people and many embrace religion for self serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state f example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I'll say directly that this is my agenda as well.
If you will not accept Breivik's atheism, how can you accept Stalin's Christianity? Anyone who claims to follow Christ and murders other people is just as hypocritical as one who would think that Biblical Christianity is anything prescriptive about what Breivik did. Truly pathetic on both counts.
Debunking Christianity: A glimpse into the deranged mind of mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik
“Are there Good Reasons for Abortion?” Wendy Savage and Madeleine Flannagan Debate on Unbelievable? | MandM
“Are there Good Reasons for Abortion?” Wendy Savage and Madeleine Flannagan Debate on Unbelievable? | MandM
Christopher Hitchens on Good Samaritan and god-free morality | True Freethinker
Christopher Hitchens on Good Samaritan and god-free morality | True Freethinker
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Debunking Christianity: "Anders Behring Breivik Doesn't Represent True Christianity"
So say various Christians about right-wing fundamentalist Anders Behring Breivik, suspected of the bombings in Norway that killed more than 90 people. Naw, of course not. Your Christianity is the true one. You have evidence for your faith. He does not. And surely everyone knows there is no precedent for this in the Bible or in the history of the church. So Christians one and all, come here and tell us which Christianity is the true one. We're all ears. But you can't come to a consensus because you have no better evidence than he does for his type of Christianity. Faith is the problem, which can and does lead to fanaticism. Admit it you schmucks, or stay in denial. ;-)The thing is "Faith" as John Loftus defines it is not how the Bible defines it and Loftus is complaining (rightly so) about how Christianity is lived out. What we have is precedents in the Bible and church history that match up with what Anders Behring Brejvik did. However it doesn't match up with the Bible. The Bible defines what true religion is.
26 Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. 27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. James 1:26-27
It's not about your denomination or traditions. Anders Behring Breivik seems to have not been religiously motivated but politically motivated and I can't find anything showing him to be a Christian or how that has anything to do with what he did,
Debunking Christianity: "Anders Behring Breivik Doesn't Represent True Christianity"
Breaking: Name Of Utoya Shooter Released… Anders Behring Breivik… Photos
High Five of the Day: Faithful Thinkers: Multiverse and Rationality
The less and less probable something is to happen, the fact that it did happen points more and more towards its happening being the product of a mind, not chance. Since we do not have evidence that necessarily demands the existence of these multiverses, the only consistent and rational explanation is still a Designer. If that conclusion is actually false, then that is a continued reason why we should still not trust our own minds to ever discover the truth of naturalism, and the multiverse provides exponentially less hope that we ever will. Ironically, if naturalism is true, God is still the best explanation for all the facts we have.
Faithful Thinkers: Multiverse and Rationality
My Common Sense is Tingling: Debunking Christianity: Once Again, Atheism is Not a Belief Nor a Religion
There are a myriad number of dead religions that we don't bother with because they are dead. We simply say we don't believe them, and yet somehow that is supposed to be a belief? How can the statement, "I don't believe you," be considered a belief? In what sense?
Just because you don't believe a proposition doesn't mean the propositions is not true. A dead religion is not unworthy of belief just because no one practices it anymore. The reason why people don't follow dead religions is because they no long believe in it.
If I say I levitated and you do not believe me because I cannot produce the evidence, then what you are saying is that the evidence does not support my claim. You don't have a belief. You have evidence. And the evidence is against that belief. That's the reasoning process. Reason tells you to reject my claim. You have knowledge. You would be saying that it's probable I did not levitate.
The problem with that is just because I don't think the evidence supports such a claim does not mean that the claim is false. You don't have complete knowledge. Here is why this a silly example: what is the consequence of coming to the wrong conclusion about Loftus' claim to levitate? Nothing. What about the claims of Christianity? The state of your soul is at stake. One should be sure - very sure - which ever decision you come to.
That's why atheists are non-believers in the same sense as Christians who do not believe in Zeus. So is not believing in Zeus or Odin or Thor or Baal or Marduk a religion? If so then everyone is religious by default since these religions are basically dead ones. At that point the word "religion" has lost its meaning. Meaningless words cannot refer to anything.
I think what Loftus is missing is that an atheist does not have a nonbelief. An atheist has come to conclusion and lives his/her life in light of that decision. That is a belief about the nature of reality. It is either true or false. What one cannot do is pretend that one is not making a decision as to what to believe behind the decision to reject other people's beliefs. Be honest.
A religion by definition must be about supernatural beings and/or forces. Atheism therefore is not a belief nor a religion. I really don't know how much plainer I can get.
"Religion" is not just about supernatural beings and/or forces. It is a set of beliefs about how reality works. Atheism is a belief that there is no God. The atheist is wrong about that conclusion but it is a conclusion nonetheless. Let's look at something really important: How does a person become a Christian? A person does not become a Christian by being born into a Christian household. The Bible says that everyone is a sinner and unable to come God on our own. See John 6. Hell is default. If God does nothing to regenerate us, hell is where we will end up. Since no one is born a Christian it is silly to think that Christianity rises and falls based on the number of adherents it has. Even if every Christian became apostates, Christianity will still be true.
Debunking Christianity: Once Again, Atheism is Not a Belief Nor a Religion
Friday, July 22, 2011
FacePalm of the Day #111 - Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Christian apologist admits New Testament contains fabrications and weak chains of narration!
People this is why I do what I do! Every year more and more conservative Christians are letting the cat out of the bag in subtle and profound ways! I knew it was a matter of time. I have been saying it for a long time now. Mash'Allah James White brings Christianity closer to Islam in subtle yet profound ways!
Read on...
Not that he answered my question.
Recently on an internet basement pod cast Christian apologist James White admitted that the New Testament contains the following:
1) That which we know is said about Jesus without doubt.
2) That which we know is said about Jesus but there is some doubt.
3) That which is attributed to Jesus but is extremely weak.
4) That which is attributed to Jesus but is an outright fabrication.
Praise be to Allah! Thank you James for your honesty at last!
Listen for yourself! I have saved this program as well in case James White has it removed.
http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4721
I listened to that broadcast myself when it was done live and Dr James White did not say that the New Testament was errant. He was referring to textual variants. He was in now way saying that we don't know what text says.
I listened to that broadcast myself when it was done live and Dr James White did not say that the New Testament was errant. He was referring to textual variants. He was in now way saying that we don't know what text says.
Christian Apologist James White Admits New Testament contains fabrications and weak chains of narration!
No He didn't.
No He didn't.
At 43:25 minutes into the dividing line program he says,
"as soon as you start taking for example the various stories of the companions of things that happened in Muhammad's life outside of the Qur'an you immediately see what you actually have with the New Testament!"
I wonder if thegrandverbalizer listened to the 43:25 minutes that went before? Because if he had he would have realized that Dr White was referring to the fact that there would be textual variants of the Qur'an.
That is a most fascinating claim on behalf of James White! It deserves considerable attention!
If you ask any Sunni Muslim about 'the various stories of the companions of things that happened in Muhammad's life outside of the Qur'an' or simply called the Hadith you will find out the following:
What about Muslims that aren't Sunnis would they agree?
Hadith means story. Hadith in Islam mean a written body of literature that is a record of statements, contracts and actions of the Prophet Muhammad otherwise called 'Sunnah'.
Now what you will also find out is that this body of literature 'the hadith' contains the following.
1) That which we know that Muhammad said without a doubt.
2) That which we know that Muhammad said with some doubt.
3) That which is attributed to the Prophet Muhammad but it is weak.
4) That which is attributed to the Prophet Muhammad but it is in outright fabrication.
This was very good of James White to admit this. I have to say that my level of respect for him has honestly not been very high at all. However, after James White has said this I can now take this quote of his to his peers and colleges whom admire him and say, "Look even James White whom you say has more knowledge than you do and whom you look up to said this!"
He said that about the Hadith containing fabrication not the New Testament.
He said that about the Hadith containing fabrication not the New Testament.
Now since James has said that 'what you actually have with the New Testament' is the same as the Hadith literature I would like for James to now explain to his listeners how this effects the doctrine of inspiration.
For example since now the New Testament is simply just a collection of oral traditions that are attributed to Prophet Jesus (Esau) than does this clash with the doctrine that the 'writers' of the New Testament were inspired by the Holy Spirit to pen down revelation?
He never said that the New Testament "is simply just a collection of oral traditions that are attributed to Prophet Jesus (Esau)". It's statements like this that make me wonder if thegrandverbalizer ever read the New Testament because only four of the 27 books of the New Testament narrate the life of Jesus.
In fact is it even appropriate to speak of 'writers' of the New Testament now?
Huh?
On what basis does James determine what statements attributed to Jesus, Peter, Paul and others are true, sound, weak and fabricated?
He never said he had to. thegrandverbalixer is making the assertion that one has to.
He never said he had to. thegrandverbalixer is making the assertion that one has to.
This I tell you friends is fascinating! We are living in fascinating times! James White if your findings take you to the logical conclusion you are always welcome as a brother in Islam! :)
thegrandverbalizer's post is not the best example of logic.
thegrandverbalizer's post is not the best example of logic.
Now you will understand how we use as presupposition the basis of the Qur'an to determine what anyone who came prior to Muhammad said. After all Allah keeps perfect record of what his prophets did or did not say. You will also now understand more fully why Muslims may incline towards some statements in the New Testament and stir clear of others.
Translation: Only the parts of the New Testament that agrees with thegrandverbalizer's misunderstanding of the Bible and his understanding of Islam are correct.That mean you have to be really sure you can know if the Bible, Qur'an, or the Hadith are right or wrong. And thegrandverbalizer often gets things wrong in the Old and New Testaments.
Translation: Only the parts of the New Testament that agrees with thegrandverbalizer's misunderstanding of the Bible and his understanding of Islam are correct.That mean you have to be really sure you can know if the Bible, Qur'an, or the Hadith are right or wrong. And thegrandverbalizer often gets things wrong in the Old and New Testaments.
Very very good James!
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Christian apologist admits New Testament contains fabrications and weak chains of narration!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)