FacePalm of the Day #144 - Islam and Christianity A Common Word: "Kick Em When Their Down" James White attacks Robert Morey.

Well, thegrandverbalizer has been missing from the blogosphere for a while. I have not seen many posts in a few months. But he's back to bringing facepalms with him, God bless him.

Not only is James White a narcissist it is clear as day to me that the man is an opportunist as well.

hmmm...must be thegrandverbalizer. I have never gotten that vibe from Dr James White at all. Sure would like to hear thegrandverbalizer call the Dividing Line and demonstrate his claims. But he won't. Even if he did call, he couldn't do it.

Is it not interesting that back when I started to post the video debates between Robert Morey and Jamal Badawi (whom both Christian and Muslim) were with-holding from the general public that Mr. White suddenly goes on a tirade against Robert Morey.

Oh yes, I'm sure there is a connection....right.

So finally it dawns on James White that the ministry of Robert Morey is through. When White was doing the rounds with Oneness Pentecostals, Catholics and Mormons it was Robert Morey who was stepping up to the plate to debate with the Muslims.

So let's get this straight: Thegrandverbalizer agrees with James White that Robert Morey is wrong about the things he has said about Islam, but he is angry that James White did not say something sooner? I think thegrandverbalizer is just fishing for something to complain about.

So after I release the debates on my blog site here I can tell you what happened.
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/05/dr-robert-morey-fleeing-legal.html (In fact look at the month of May and you will see many entries concerning Robert Morey).

And what does that have to do with the truth of Christianity? Nothing. The integrity of James White's ministry? Nada.

The man who absolutely dotes on White (Sam Shamoun) got on the horn (called up White) and said hey look thegrandverbalizer19 has the debates up at his blog! So notice that White's remarks come up in June. (A little late to the party eh White?)

I wonder if thegrandverbalizer can prove that? I doubt it.

White didn't pay it any attention at first. However, he was curious what Morey was up to. After realizing that it is true that Robert Morey's ministry is finished and he is wanted by the State of California for questioning by authorities White (being the opportunist that he is) jumped all over the opportunity.

I wonder why thegrandverbalizer thinks that Morey's legal issues mean the end of Morey's ministry? He doesn't explain why he thinks that. And just because he hadn't commented on Morey does not mean that James White was not aware of him. Seriously?

I mean after all isn't White a whistle blower of sorts against Ergun Caner? Wrong!

I have never heard James White ever take credit for that.

It was Muslims who that Ergun Caner's story didn't hold up. The Christians started to catch on and the SBC when it to cover up mode.

I agree, but James White has never said anything contrary to that.

After all wasn't it White who took Walid Shoebat to task for saying 666 = Allah? (an absurd claim to rest assure). [You mean like thegrandverbalizer claiming "Jesus" means "earth pig" link (surprise the original link is missing]
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3664 <="">

Which is why he was holding Ergun Caner to the same standard.

So in order to look relevant and to look as if he is the no.1 Christian apologist debating Muslims White just couldn't help him self.

When ever has James White said that was his goal? He hasn't.

After smacking his chops in the most unsavory manner Mr. White went after the scraps of Robert Morey that were left.

I bet that made Mr. White feel really tall.

So here is the source: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&archive=2011-06&catid=12

Under the title:

Yesterday on the Dividing Line: The Dumbest Thing Ever Said about Islam, and Calls

06/24/2011 - James White

I had not intended, at all, to discuss it, but I got into the following quotation:

First, as I wrote in my book, How to Win the War Against Radical Islam, the war against the Muslim Jihadists will be long and costly and will not be won until we bomb the Kabah in Mecca. Islam is based on a brick and mortar building that can be destroyed. They pray to that building five times a day, make a pilgrimage to it, run around it, kiss a black rock on the wall, then run between two hills and finally throw rocks at a pillar. What if that building, the Kabah, was destroyed? They could not pray to it or make a pilgrimage to it. The old pagan temple of the moon-god, al-ilah, is the Achilles' heel of Islam. Destroy it and you destroy Islam's soul. [ Reference ]

I discussed how I had been twice asked about this viewpoint while traveling and speaking, and how it had struck me as the single stupidest suggestion I had ever heard. I had shown it no mercy when asked, and honestly in the five minutes before the program started I happened across an article in my RSS feeds that identified its source: Robert Morey. Well, as little as I want conflict with Bob Morey, I could not help but point out the quote and express my ardent feelings about it. At least I'm consistent. So I gave a little background on the reasons why I have never read a Bob Morey book on Islam (I read his much older book on death and the afterlife, and parts of his book on atheism as well) and why I have never used him as a source. I discussed the "Moon God" theory a bit as well, and then took calls, the first of which was on what "moderate Islam" is, the second on Shai Linne's song on particular redemption:

Atleast Mr. White 'is consistent'!

Yes, he is consistent. Thegrandverbalizer disagree that James White is consistent, but he doesn't seem to be able to demonstrate that Dr White is not consistent.

Is that the same Mr. White who argued during a debate that 'Allah repents'?

I think it was his argument that the Qur'an says Allah repents. Where is thegrandverbalizer's rebuttal proving Dr White wrong? Just because you don't like it or him, doesn't make him wrong.

The same Mr. White who is cohort Sam Shamoun grossly misrepresents Islam on a daily basis while White does little to nothing to take him to task?

Proof? Evidence? Hear that? Nothing.

Ladies and Gentleman this is simply a case of 'Kick Em When There Down!'. White will do anything and exploit any opportunity (even fellow Christians) to try and prop his own ministry and image up.

I don't think the grandverbalizer has proven his case at all. The only thing that has been proven is that he doesn't like James White.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: "Kick Em When Their Down" James White attacks Robert Morey.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: A very simple question for Christians. (In What Sense Is God One?)

thegrandverbalizer refuses to accept Christian understanding of Christian doctrine. Instead, he prefers his straw men.

In what sense is God one? (Scriptural references are appreciated).

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)

1. 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)

kai tauta ta dikaiwmata kai ta krimata osa eneteilato kuriov toiv uioiv Israhl en th erhmw ecelqontwn autwn ek ghv Aiguptou akoue Israhl kuriov o qeov hmwn kuriov eiv estin

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) .

eipen (5627) autoiv Ihsouv, Amhn amhn legw (5719) umin, prin Abraam genesqai (5635) egw eimi. (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.

egw kai o pathr en esmen. (5748) - John 10:30

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. 

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

Related articles

• Humility Like Moses' (delooo.wordpress.com)
• "What Jesus Does" ( Jude 9, HCSB ) by Carley Evans (via Grace Partakers) (thechristiangazette.wordpress.com)
• Assurance, Examination, and Community (apologus.wordpress.com)
• This Weeks Torah Portion - Matot (Tribes) (terri0729.wordpress.com)

FacePalm of the Day #111 - Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Christian apologist admits New Testament contains fabrications and weak chains of narration!

I don't know exactly what thegrandverbalizer has against James White but I have rarely seen worse characterization and twisting done of someone else's words. Reading this left me wondering if we heard the same podcast!

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!

I don't understand. How does thegrandverbalizer's work relate to the conservative Christians bringing Christianity closer to Islam (which I don't see happening either)?

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.

Christian Apologist James White Admits New Testament contains fabrications and weak chains of narration!

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. 

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.

thegrabdverablizer clearly did not understand what Dr. White said.

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. 

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.

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.

Very very good James!

Dr James White did a really good podcast that day for sure. As for thegrandverbalizer's post - not so much.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Christian apologist admits New Testament contains fabrications and weak chains of narration!

Responding to: Allah is uniquely one (refutation of the Trinity) Part 2

Thegrandvebalizer triumphantly posted the following video




Wait a cotton-pickin' minute! Did anyone notice that the above video doesn't contain everything Dr Craig said.


He makes the argument that if William Lane Craig says that you can't find the Trinity in the Old Testament then you can't find it and therefore the Trinity should be rejected. I think anyone interested in this should hear the whole conversation. Here is the entire conversation:








I don't agree with William Lane Craig on everything. This is an example. There are good examples of the Trinity in the Old Testament. Here are two!

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them. Genesis 1:26,27

Verse 26 has "us" and "our" and then verse 27 has "his". Why? God is tri-unity not tri-thesim.

22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” - Genesis 3:22

Look "us" again.  Why?  Trinity. I already hear the objection. "Not all Christians see it that way." Okay Watch this.debate Walter Martin did on the John Ankerberg show.


http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBFE9FAD0A6FA53C6

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Dr. William Lane Craig admits that the Trinity is NOT FOUND in the Old Testament !!

Responding to: Allah is uniquely one (refutation of the Trinity) Part 1

Today thegrandverbalizer  posted two blog posts on the Trinity today. The amazing thing is that he doesn't seem to recognize how he is mis-stating what Christians believe. If I did the same with Islam he'd be livid but he can't seem to be bothered to see how inconsistent he's being in his arguments.. He seems to think that he has listened to Dr. James White's presentation yet he persists in getting the Bible's teachings wrong. I have little change in explaining it to him so that he will understand but I'll try anyway.

Recently while talking to a believer in Tri-theism (the belief in three all powerful gods that join together and work as a unified team) other wise known as 'Trinity' something also occurred to me.

One more time. Say it with me slowly: "Trinity" does not equal "Tri-thesism".  Tri-theism is just polytheism and no Christian is into polytheism.

One of the glaring and obvious things one notices about the Trinity is that God is not a singular being that has something that no one or nothing else shares.

God is a singular Being.  Given that "Being" and "person" are not the same thing. It's possible to have more than one person in the same being.  One person does not have to mean one person.

The doctrine of the Trinity is that God is One Team ( a group of three that co exist together). Of course this is a philosophical presupposition about the creator that does not have CLEAR revelation to back it up. It is the product of theological debates and musings about the divine.

Again with the "Team". There is no CLEAR revelation to back up the notion that God is "ONE TEAM" because that is not what Christians are arguing in favor of. We don't believe that either. Do you know what it's called when you are argue against a position that is not being claimed and then pretend to win the argument? It's call a "straw man" and thegrandverbalizer just showed a perfect example.

In the Trinity doctrine God is not singularly unique. In fact it makes little sense to speak about 'God' when talking to Trinitarians. They believe in gods. God the Son and God the Holy Spirit and God the Father.

No we don't. The Bible tells us there is only one God. It also tells us the Father is God. The son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. This is 1 X 1 X 1 =1 not 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.   1 + 1 + 1 = 1  is stupid and not what Trinitarians are saying!

The problem with their theological presupposition is saying that God is One Team (a group comprising of three gods that co exist together) is that you could say based upon that same presupposition that God is One Team (comprising a hundred gods that co exist together).

Not three gods. You can't split up the God into components then cry out "It doesn't make sense!" thegrandverbalizers and those who don't understand what we are saying think that. No one is saying anything about a team, but thegrandverbalizer.

In the Trinity God is not Singularly Unique. In fact there is nothing singularly unique about the creator. The Creator is not allowed to have a unique oneness that is not shared.

One can argue with another human being all one likes. The bottom line is that God is that God is bigger and more complex than just our simple understanding of what being and personhood are.  In Christian Trinity, God is not a team of God but  a single being such that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God at the same time  and neither one is more or less God than the other at any time.  It's a unique oneness that can't be duplicated nor experienced completely. Marriage - the union of a man and a woman - is the only thing anywhere close to that sort of union we can experience in the here and now and that more closely mirrors Jesus and the Church .  See Ephesians 5:22-24

²² Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. ²³ For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. ²⁴ Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

What ever the Father has the Son also has. What ever the Son has is also shared by the Holy Spirit.

and 1 Corinthians 11:3

But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

For example you could have two black shoe boxes. They could be exactly identical in shape and volume. However, the only thing that makes one unique from the other is the space that the other occupies. That would be 'unique' to it as a shoe box.

Bad analogy. Jesus said

²¹ “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. ²² You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. ²³ Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. ²⁴ God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

Just how much space do you think God takes up?

However, with in the Trinity there is no way to define God as one without immediately bringing another number into the picture; the number three.

Not an issue as long as remember the distinction between "being" and "person".

Philosophical jargon is quick to enter into the picture in a discussion with even the most astute Trinitarian. They will tell you that they believe that God is one sure; but they will quantify what they mean by saying 'We believe God is one in essence but is comprised of Three persons'.

So if thegrandverbalizer hears what Christians are saying why does he go after straw men?

When asked to define what they mean by persons more philosophical jargon enters and one is hard pressed to get a proper definition of person.

Rather nice assertion. Like the way he just throws that out there and doesn't substantiate it. In a previous thread he remarked that an understand of what "being" and "person"  mean in Hebrew, Aramaic, Kione Greek, English, and Arabic is in order to really get at the heart of the discussion. I agree. I'm preparing such a discussion even now.

So what you end up with is Tri-theism that tries to mask itself as monotheism and tries to distance itself from modalism.

So does Islam embrace modalism. I'm not a Muslim and I freely admit that I am not qualified to make a judgment on that.  However, equating Tri-thesim with the Trinity when one knows that is not what we are saying is just dishonest.

The Qur'an lays down the truth

Say: Allah is One (Absolute)

Allah is Unique.

Allah begots not

nor is Allah begotten.

And there is NOTHING LIKE unto Allah.

(Holy Qur'an chapter 112:1-4)\

More assertion. "begotten" and "begot:" is thought of as the way people procreate and that is not what Christians believe about Jesus. 

As to Allah's nature Allah's being (dhat) or essence is One. The Trinitarians can make such a claim They may say, "We believe God's essence (being) is One" However it is a fallacious claim.

No it's not. We can't help it if one cannot see a difference between "being" and "person". God is indeed unique. There is nothing or anything like God anywhere.

They do not believe that God's essence is One, because God's essence is SHARED. They believe that God's essence (being) is shared by THREE. 

It is not UNIQUE TO ONE. It is SHARED by THREE.

Thegrandverbalizer would have a point if God's being was shared by more than one being.  No Christian would argue that each person in the Trinity is a separate being. 

Note for example what Protestant Christian apologist James White says here: http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.html

It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person." It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference? We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognizewhat something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of the "being" of man---human being. A rock has "being"---the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person.

Amen. He's quoting Dr. James White.

The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings---God, man, and angels. What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.

Yup! 

Note the philosophical jargon. When White says above "It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person." what White does not tell you is that it is not a contradiction to say "there are three beings that share one being, or three persons that share one person."

Dr White didn't say that because those are indeed contradictions and not what we believe.  Back of the rails thegrandverbalizer goes! 

Also the last sentence something he left out. "Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.

What White didn't tell you is "One what, three who's that share FULLY and COMPLETELY One What"

No, he is saying three who's that share FULLY and COMPLETELY One What.

They therefore in reality do not believe that God's essence is One. If they truly believe that than God's essence is one what?

It can't be ONE if it is SHARED by THREE. The being cannot be Unique to One if it is also SHARED by THREE.

Three what? Again he's right if we are saying the one being is  shared by three beings but  we are not saying that!

Now I can claim that a rock has being fair enough. However, if I claim that rock and it's being (time and place everything about it) is shared FULLY and EQUALLY by atleast two other rocks I cannot in all honestly look you straight in the face and than claim I believe in a rock that is Unique in it's being.

No one is saying that we are talking about time and place when talking about the nature of God. God is timeless and omnipresent. There is no place or Time God is not. I thought that Muslims agreed with that. You can't get any more unique than that. 

If we start to take this approach we have already left the pure and safe road. We have left the creed of safety. Allah no longer has that which no one or nothing else has because Allah's being is not unique. Allah's being is shared. Than to turn around and couch this in philosophical language and claim to the people of La Ilaha illa lah (there is no God except God) that you worship the God of Abraham and that you are monotheistic is frankly insulting. You insult yourselves, and when you look into your own hearts you will come face to face with the monstrosity of that doctrine which was forged and formulated in Church councils and couched in Greek Philosophical verbiage.

Insulting? I'm still waiting for an apology for butchering what I believe and saying that I believe things that I don't as a Trinitarian.

May Allah protect us and keep us on the way that is straight! I call all the Christians who believe in Trinity (Tri-theism) back to the worship of the One True God.

Heaping insult on top of insult. One last time Tri-theism does not equal Trinity. 

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Allah is uniquely one (refutation of the Trinity)
 

FacePalm of the Day #102 - Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Orthodox Christians Beating The Holy Hell Out of Each Other!

thegrandverbalizer has written a post containing videos of Christians fighting one another. He attempts to make the application that Islam is better because Muslims are peaceful.

So what actually happens when you run out of cheeks? These Christians show the world the power that Christ wrought effectual in them by beating the holy crap out of one another in Jerusalem.

These Muslims show the world the power that Christ wrought effectual in them by beating the holy crap out of one another in America!

So don't let anyone fool you that Muslims are the trouble makers! Watch for yourself as Muslims beat the living day lights out of one another.

Punches Thrown in Minneapolis Mosque: MyFoxTWINCITIES.com

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword instead!" (Matthew 10:34)

Qur'an 4:34—Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/07/female-mps-get-into-cat-fight-on-floor.html


AND THE CHRISTIAN VIOLENCE CONTINUES...








AND MORE MUSLIM VIOLENCE..






http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/04/thirteen-muslims-acquitted-of-publicly.html



THE GREEK SIDE OF THE STORY AND THE ARMENIAN SIDE OF THE STORY.







THE GOALS OF SOME MUSLIME.

My Point

In case the point has not been made clear. My argument is that people are sinner and do all kinds of evil! You, me, and everyone you know is guilty of some sin. It doesn't matter if you claim to be a Christian, Muslim, or anything else - you have the propensity to sin. What do you do about that? How do you curtail it? How do you atone for it? You can't. FacePalm worthy arguments are not going to cut it. Only Jesus can do it for you and through you. If you want to be free from your sin - it will only be by Jesus. When Christians are behaving badly (sin) it is no more the fault of Christianity than it is the fault of Islam when Muslims do the same (sin).

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Orthodox Christians Beating The Holy Hell Out of Each Other!

Related articles

• Malaysia: Islam's Persecution of Christians (teaandpolitics.wordpress.com)
• Allah by Mirolsav Volf -- A Review (pastorbobcornwall.blogspot.com)
• Egypt: Christians registered as Muslims can change their status (onecatholicnews.wordpress.com)
• The Reformed Islamic Movement- Part Two (savoringscripture.wordpress.com)

FacePalm of the Day #101 - Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Sex, Sensuality in the Christian Heaven.

thegrandverbalizer is at it again. This time he attacks what Christianity has to say about human sexuality and instead of showing what the Bible actually says, he twists scripture into a pretzel  to get what he wants out of the text.

It truly is unfortunate when one reflects upon early Christian attitudes towards sexuality. It reflects an almost Gnostic (anti-human) and (pro being) stance.

I'd be one of the first to admit that the Christian church has historically done a poor job in it's attitude towards sexuality. I find little of the idea that something is wrong with sexuality in the Bible but it's all over church history. Sexuality is a gift from God to humanity. And like any gift it's awesome when properly used and respected. Too bad we, as people, have really screwed that up

Islam is a reflection of the reality of what the Creator actually made. Allah has made us as Human/Beings.

We are animals (human) with a soul (being). In Islam you do not nurture or neglect one aspect of your reality to the detriment of the other.

Um, denying sexual feelings and desire is not a part of what the Bible teaches either. The Bible does not say we are animals either. Animals don't have souls. Animals have spirits. I realize that some people a long time ago got it into their heads that denying themselves the joy of sex within marriage somehow brought them closer to God. They didn't get this idea from the Bible so basing a polemic on it is dishonest.

The Noble Prophet Muhammed said, "Who ever does not marry is not of us." He is talking about people who have taken upon themselves monasticism; of which Allah says was never ordained for human beings.

"Whomever marries has completed half their faith now let them complete the other half by fearing Allah and doing what is right" -Noble Prophet Muhammed.

"Then We caused Our Messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him. But monasticism they invented-We ordained it not for them-only seeking Allah's pleasure, and they observed it not with right observance. So We give those of them who believe their reward, but many of them are evil-doers." ( Holy Qur'an 57:27)

Notice the difference between what God inspired Muhammad to say and what He inspired Paul to say:

²⁶ Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. ²⁷ Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. ²⁸ But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
 ²⁹ What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; ³⁰ those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; ³¹ those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
 ³² I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. ³³ But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— ³⁴ and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. ³⁵ I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

 ³⁶ If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. ³⁷ But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. ³⁸ So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better. - 1 Corinthians 7:26-38 

The Bible says that you can be married or not be married and still be righteous in the eyes of God. Now grant it, if you ain't married you will be celibate, but that does not make one better worse than the other. Look at how thegrandverbalizer twists Jesus' words.

"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:12)

No doubt this is a continuation of an earlier admonishment reported to have been given by Jesus where he is to have said,

If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:29-30)

Um, no. And these are in two different contexts at two different times. 
Matthew 5 came before Matthew 19. The quotation in Matthew 19, Jesus was talking about why you should not divorce your wife for any reason other than adultery. Beats "hitting her lightly in the face" like Muhammad commanded right? Matthew 5: 29-30 is about avoiding sin.

"If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. (Matthew 18:18)

Matthew 18:18 is  the wrong reference. Matthew 18:8-9 is what was quoted and it is in reference to avoiding sin..

So we can see here it was not necessary for Jesus to say "If your penis offends you, if your ears offend you etc... people pretty much got the ideal.
 
 I find it hard to believe that Jesus would say the same thing in two different passages in the same book, by the same author but  means something different. IT's not at all obvious that Jesus is expecting anyone to castrate themselves either physically, emotionally, or in anyway. Jesus came to make us whole. I don't think anyone who was listening to Jesus at the time got that idea. Can anyone name a single follower who knew Jesus personally do that?.

Of course this can become quite morbid when one reflects upon 'The City of God' -Augustine. I mean after all didn't God say to Adam and Eve: "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Genesis 1:28)

 Which is why the Bible can't mean thegrandverbalizer thinks that the Bible is saying.

Now it should be clear that NO WHERE is there an explicit text in the Bible that says 'There will be NO SEX' in heaven! Again your going to have to go into the warped thinking of Augustine to come up with this kind of nonsense. Even though the Creator says that the creation 'is good' these people can only see it as evil! A legacy from earlier gnostic influence rest assured.

Before we move further through thegrandverbalizer's "argument" it would make sense that he would want to prove that there is sex in heaven because many Muslims believe heaven is a place were pious men get 70 virgins

So let us look at the text that are most often used to try and conclude that there is no sex in marriage.

23That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24“Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”

29Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. (Matthew 22:23-30)

Note the above says absolutely nothing about sex. It simply says that people will not marry and they will not be given in marriage. 

 In order for the argument to fly, we have to ask: "Do angels have sex?" Jesus tells us that we will be like the angels and angels do not get married. By in large, I have no problem with sex being in heaven, but if sex outside of marriage is a sin on earth, I don't know why it'll be okay in the afterlife.


Remember asking your Priest/Deacon/Pastor/Bishop how Adam and Eve were married? Remember hearing those cool little stories about how they were 'married in the sight of God'?

Alright, here comes the Nephilim. 

"and sons of God see the daughters of men that they are fair, and they take to themselves women of all whom they have chosen."(Genesis 6:2 Young's Literal Translation).

"the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose."(Genesis 6:2 New International Version)

Now notice that the Young's Literal Translation basically says that the Sons of God 'took the women'. While the other translations say that the 'married' the women. So how actually did they get married? Was it in the 'sight of God' as well? If these beings 'angels' are law breakers and transgressors why get married?

Looks like someone has been reading the Book of Enoch! Easy the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 were not supernatural angels they were men.  Much has been written about who these "sons of God" were but  given that we see no other examples of angels taking human form  apart from doing God's business and we don't see any demons in the Bible doing it either I don't think it's plausible to think that that angles married women.  Nice try though. .

Furthermore note that it says 'SONS of God' and I already mentioned the Christian heaven is not for FEMALES! It is for men only, any woman deemed worthy enough will be turned into a SON OF GOD. Never ever a daughter of God! Note it doesn't say 'The Daughters of God' saw the sons of men were beautiful. (http://www.acommonword.net/2011/01/does-christian-heaven-have-place-for.html) < Article entitled "Does the Christian Heaven Have A Place For Women"?

And I completely disagreed with him.  http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/01/facepalm-of-day-52-islam-and.html


Mark 12 and Luke 20 basically have the same story as the one above.

Remember in the Bible resurrected beings enjoy all kinds of sensual pleasure!

"And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have you here any meat? And they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. (Luke 24:41-43) Apparently Jesus was able to eat some tasty tidbits as the 'firstborn' of the resurrection.

Eating fish and honeycomb is not the same thing as having sex.  Of course we will be able to eat in heaven. Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree to that. 

We also have this curious vision.

"On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine--the best of meats and the finest of wines." (Isaiah 25:6)

So move over Augustine looks like fine dining and great wine will be on the menu in heaven but no sex!

And what is so unbelievable about that? You can sin using food just as well as you can via sex. Sex isn't a sin.. Squandering sex is a sin - abusing the gifts God gave us.

Now even though the passages in Matthew 22, Mark 12 and Luke 20 do not explicitly say there is no sex in heaven some Christians reason that only by way of analogical deduction. They don't stop and ponder that maybe the whole idea of marriage (with it's laws and ordinances) will no longer be a necessity in heaven.

Why does thegrandverbalizer think that sex will be a necessity in heaven? Near as we can tell, no one will be born and no one will ever die.

Another passage that Christians especially those who have an Augustine slant could use is the following:

"Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads." (Revelation 14:1)

"No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins (parthenos). They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb. (Revelation 14:3-5)

Now this text is probably the strongest AGAINST the idea of having sex in heaven. Because if the translation is rendered correct these men remained VIRGINS and they did not DEFILE themselves with women (outside of marriage or INSIDE of marriage). Now think about that for a moment especially if your a woman! Also it's quite sad that not a single woman out of all of Earth's women will be singled out to be among the privileged 144,000 that get to learn this special song! 

Only if you are Jehovah's Witness would you even consider such an argument  as strong. 

I guess there will be no sex in heaven after all, in fact it's kind of hard for that to happen when THERE ARE ONLY MEN IN HEAVEN.. (http://www.acommonword.net/2011/01/does-christian-heaven-have-place-for.html)....unless...wait... I better not go there!

Good news is thegrandverbalizer is wrong. http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/01/facepalm-of-day-52-islam-and.html


Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Sex, Sensuality in the Christian Heaven.