Answering Muslims: Does the Bible foretell the coming of Muhammad?

A debate between Mustafa Arja and Samuel Green. December 2011. The Debate topic: Does the Bible prophesy about Muhammad?





Answering Muslims: Does the Bible foretell the coming of Muhammad?

Related articles

• You cannot 'Convert' to Islaam! (muslimfaith.wordpress.com)
• Why every Christian Should accept Islaam Again? (muslimfaith.wordpress.com)
• Muhammad's Marriage to Young Aa'ishah (muslimfaith.wordpress.com)
• Where is the name Muhammad mentioned in the Bible (wiki.answers.com)
• All-American Muslim Imam Melts Down On Hannity, 2007 (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)

Biblical Condemnation of Rape and other Acts of Misogyny

I recently posted a link to a video playlist by Mariano Grinbank regarding Atheism and Rape (the link is at the end of this post). A reader, named Mark, began asking some interesting questions but he is more concerned with how Christians understand how the Bible condemns misogyny and rape. He has been very cordial and respectful so I think his  latest comment deserves a post of it's own since it's not really on topic with the original post. I've taken his last comment and will respond. My words are in red and his are in black. And quoted scriptures will be bolded black font.

I'm going to break my response into two parts; one to examin the notion that the Bible provides a workable moral system that prohibits rape and FGM, and a second to examine wether secular haumanism provides a system.

Fair enough. 

I've challenged many apologists to provide a biblical basis for why rape/FGM should be considered wrong, and so far none have done so. The most common replies have been evasive responses like yours, i.e the "biblical-silence-equals-prohibition" response or the "against-the-vibe-of-the-bible" response.

I'm going to just assume that Mark has simply not been exposed to such evidence for how we know that the Bible condemns and does not condone rape and just provide some helpful resources. I wrote a summary post of resources called Does the Bible Condone Rape? and one of the links on it that I must point out is Mariano Grinbank's parsed essay, Atheism, the Bible, Rape, EvilBible.com and Dan Barker. Mark has brought up specific scriptures and although Mariano addresses these, I will address them here too. 

Firstly the "no passages saying it is a good idea" defence. I agree nowhere does the bible state a position on FGM (although, as seen below, in many verses the bible gives a thumbs-up to rape). However, neither does the bible say that it's a good idea to shave, drive a car, exercise, get an education or wash your hands after defecating. Because there are no passages saying it's a bad idea, would you say they are wrong.

Pointing out that God does not mention Female Genital Mutilation does not equate with saying it is right. The Bible also doesn't say "Don't stand underneath a tree when it falls", but I am confident that we shouldn't. Instead of looking at what the Bible does not say about FGM or what the Bible records what happened to women, why not look at what it says about how women should be treated!

Ultimately, you are making a claim that Christianity provides a framework for superior objective values. To back that up, you need to show that show that the bible provides unambiguous guidance in cases of rape/FGM, otherwise you are just using your subjective moral opinion. Where do you get these subjective opinions from. From secular hyumanism, which is informed by principles of the Enlightenment.

Before Mark goes as far as saying that the Bible does not provide a framework for  repudiating rape, Female Genital Mutilation,  or misogyny, let's look at the scriptures he uses and I will later give the reasons why I know the Bible is against such behavior and attitudes.

Secondly, it is not at all obvious from biblical teachings on the treatment of women that rape is wrong. To put it mildly, the bible is a cesspit of nauseating misogyny.

 Actually, I think that was quite blunt..

Briefly, the bible describes women as unclean (Lev 15:19),

Does it really? In context?

¹⁹ “‘When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.- Lev 15:19

"Unclean" in this context is talking about ceremonial uncleanness - not worthless or bad.

haughty (Isiah 3:16)

Is Mark, thinking that Isaiah is saying that all women are haughty?

 ¹⁶ The LORD says,
   “The women of Zion are haughty,
walking along with outstretched necks,
   flirting with their eyes,
strutting along with swaying hips,
   with ornaments jingling on their ankles. - Isaiah 3:16

Nope. Not all women - he is referring to the women contemporaneous to him  who live in Jerusalem.

and untrustworthy (Numbers 30:1),

 ¹ Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: “This is what the LORD commands: ² When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.
 ³ “When a young woman still living in her father’s household makes a vow to the LORD or obligates herself by a pledge ⁴ and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. ⁵ But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her.
 ⁶ “If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself ⁷ and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. ⁸ But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.
 ⁹ “Any vow or obligation taken by a widow or divorced woman will be binding on her.
 ¹⁰ “If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath ¹¹ and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then all her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. ¹² But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the LORD will release her. ¹³ Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself. ¹⁴ But if her husband says nothing to her about it from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or the pledges binding on her. He confirms them by saying nothing to her when he hears about them. ¹⁵ If, however, he nullifies them some time after he hears about them, then he must bear the consequences of her wrongdoing.”
 ¹⁶ These are the regulations the LORD gave Moses concerning relationships between a man and his wife, and between a father and his young daughter still living at home.- Numbers 30

So is there anything in the text that says  women can't make a vow or an oath because women can't be trusted? No - not one word. So why is it possible for a husband to nullify an oath made by his wife or for a father for her daughter? Simple. Because of verse 1. The man is responsible. His wife is his responsibility and his unmarried daughter living in his household is his responsibility..  This was how the society at the time - in theocratic Israel -  was set up. Most women did not have the economic resources or means to fulfill the type of vows in view here - it was up to the man who was responsible for her. This had nothing to do with her moral purity nor cognitive powers.

and should aim to be submissive (1 Tim 2:12)

 ¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.- 1 Timothy 2:12

I find it amazing that Mark would use this verse to discuss women and the command to submit. If you look up the other passages about women submitting you would find that it is in context to submitting to her husband and that male and female children should submit their mother and father (such as Ephesians 5:21-33). As for 1 Timothy 2:12 it is context of a church organizational structure - not on a job or in all interaction. I've written quite a bit on this at An "Evil of Christianity.

and hate sex (Ezekiel 23).

 What?!!!!!

 What scares me the most is that such an accusation is really seriously leveled against God! I mean the whole chapter is about Israel and Judah, personified as a parallel. Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah are showing  that living as prostitutes is just like how Israel and Judah turned their backs on YHWH and began worshiping idols. We might as well put our name in there instead of theirs because when we follow anything else other than God we are like the prostitute who cheats on her husband - who adores her and does all she needs. The book of Hosea makes the same point. Besides anyone who thinks the Bible condemns sex and enjoying sex within a monogamous, heterosexual marriage must have never read Song of Songs (aka Song of Solomon) or is reading it wrong.

Most rapists share these views of women. Incidentally, I felt like I needed a showed after fact-checking those referecnes.

I agree that many rapist think that women as unclean , haughty  and untrustworthy, and should aim to be submissive and hate sex. Fortunately, the Bible disagrees.[See the picture on the right because it shows the stupidity of some people regardless to what their religion is]

So, once again I'm going to ask you to provide bible-based reasoning on why rape and FGM is wrong.

 Mark provides a hypothetical example in a few lines and I will answer there - specific to the hypothetical conversation. .

In return, I'll provide secular-based reasoning on why rape/FGM is wrong. Keeping in mind that I've provided detailed multi-paragraph reasoning on why stance, perhaps you could provide more than the cursory two lines above.

Fair enough. I look forward to Mark providing a secular-based reasoning for why rape and Female Gentile Mutilation (FMG) is wrong. 

A suggestion: Perhaps you could provide the answer as a response to the following hypothetical:

You have two new co-workers, called Bob and Cindy. Over lunchbreak, you find that you are all christians, and start to bond. then Bob offhandedly mentions that he raped his promiscious neighbour the night before.
"Bob, that's terrible" you say. What a wrong, immoral thing to do!"
Bob replies "Mr. McElhaney, you have no right to say such a thing. I am a godly man, and as such am following his laws. If god wanted women to have a say in sex, then he would not have let righteous men rape the women dancers of Shiloh (Judges 21:10), or given Midianite virgins to Moses soldiers, given Oholah to the Syrians or given David's wifes to his neighbours for sex (2 Samuel 12:11)"

Challenge 1: Use bible-based reasoning to show Bob why his actions are immoral.

"Bob, where does the Bible say that the Benjamites in  Judges 21 are "righteous" men? Hint: It doesn't. Oholah being given to the Syrians in  Ezekiel 23 mirrors the way God allowed Israel and Judah to fall to their enemies. Oholah deserved punishment for her prostitution and so did Israel and Judah. We deserve hell for our sins. The Midianite virgins does not apply to what you did. Were you in a war? No. You just said she wasn't a virgin. And no where does the text say they were raped and forced to do anything. As for David, his wives were not given to his son in public not his neighbors. And why did this come on David - because he committed adultery and tried to cover it up by murdering her husband. What you have done is no better than what David did or any of the reference to rape you mentioned. It also does not matter what evils and sins the woman you raped was guilty of. Not only were you wrong to rape her but even if she wanted it - that makes you a fornicator. Remember what  1 Corinthians 6:18 says. Brother, you need to beg God for mercy and forgiveness and repent of this horrible sin. You can start with the police. I'll call them for you. . You are being just like the people described in Judges 21:25

²⁵In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

And you are supposed to be saved and not living for yourself. We are supposed to be doing what is right in God's eyes.

Then Cindy says that she is taking her 12 year old daughter back to Africa next week for genital circumcision. You reply "Cindy, how immoral! You can't do that to a young girl!"
"But Mr. McElhaney, such is our custom. And the bible does not say it is immoral, so who are you to say it is immoral?"

Challenge 2 : Use Bible based reasoning to show Cindy why FGM is wrong.

Cindy, I know western culture has labeled such practices as  Female Genital Mutilation, but I am aware that many cultures that practice it refer to it as "female circumcision". There is not a single case or example of God requiring a woman to be circumcised. For what God glorifying purpose would you circumcise a female? Set aside for a moment the cultural reasons - like discouraging adultery,  and  the medical risks, and even the fact that it must have been horrible and painful for you personally and let's look at why God  commanded circumcision in the first place. Here, get your Bible. When God gave Abraham the sign of circumcison he said:

⁹ Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. ¹⁰ This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. ¹¹ You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. ¹² For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. ¹³ Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. ¹⁴ Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”- Genesis 17:9-14

Do you see anything even resembling female circumcision? No. Only males. And it is to be sign between God and Abraham (and his descendants). And before you start thinking that I am arguing that only the circumcised can be righteous, you need to remember what Paul wrote in Romans. 

 ⁹ Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. ¹⁰ Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! ¹¹ And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. ¹² And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
 ¹³ It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. ¹⁴ For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, ¹⁵ because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.- Romans 4:9-15

So make sure you daughter is circumcised in her heart and not in her flesh.

I look forward to Mark providing his secular-based reasons to the same challenges. And while he's at it, I'd like to know how does he account the fact that no one has to be taught how to lie. How to steal? How to dislike others? How to mock others? How to be arrogant?

What had happen' was.....: Atheism and Rape - YouTube

Related articles

• Atheist Group to Rip Out 'Immoral' Bible Pages (newser.com)
• My Take: 3 big biblical misconceptions (religion.blogs.cnn.com)
• Jack's Immoral God (godless.biz)
• Why the Bible Cannot Be the Word of God: A Review (arizonaatheist.blogspot.com)
• The Biblical concept of days (taholtorf.wordpress.com)
• Atheist Group To Publicly Destroy 'Immoral' Pages of the Bible (inquisitr.com)
• The Bible in the New Year (joyofthemaster.wordpress.com)
• Sophisticated theologians circumvent Bible's condemnation of homosexuality (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)

Answering Muslims: Somalia Sees Alarming Increase in Rapes

With things like this going on, I find it impossible to argue with the a straight face that the human race is advancing morally.

The Shabab militant group, which presents itself as a morally righteous rebel force and the defender of pure Islam, is seizing women and girls as spoils of war, gang-raping and abusing them as part of its reign of terror in southern Somalia, according to victims, aid workers and United Nations officials. Short of cash and losing ground, the militants are also forcing families to hand over girls for arranged marriages that often last no more than a few weeks and are essentially sexual slavery, a cheap way to bolster their ranks’ flagging morale.

Answering Muslims: Somalia Sees Alarming Increase in Rapes

Related articles

• Aid Worker Killed in Mogadishu, Somalia (nytimes.com)
• 2 Doctors Without Borders Workers Shot in Somalia (newser.com)
• Somalia Faces Alarming Rise in Rapes of Women and Girls (nytimes.com)
• A rape victim in Mogadishu hid her identity. (somaliswisstv.com)
• 2 Doctors Without Borders workers shot in Somalia (ctv.ca)
• Somali staff member kills 2 MSF aid workers in Mogadishu Somalia. (somaliswisstv.com)
• 2 Doctors Without Borders Workers Shot in Somalia (abcnews.go.com)

The United States Government Debates Whether the X-Men Are Human Beings... In Real Life - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Okay, here is a great example for why I like to read Comics Alliance. They just posted a story that I had not heard about where the US Government wanted to tax toys based on the X-Men franchise differently from other toys based on whether or not they represented human beings or not. There was a whole podcast on this by RadioLab and in addition to posting the podcast there were great comments made in the Comics Alliance post.

You can listen to the fascinating story above -- including a few thoughts on the case from X-Men movie director Bryan Singer -- and it's well worth 18 minutes of your time. The short version is that tariff law classifies toys into two different categories. Anything that's brought into the country for a kid to play with is either a doll, which includes anything that represents a human being, or a toy, which covers anything that's not. It might seem like a small distinction -- especially when I'm sure some of you are out there shouting "they're action figures!" -- but the fact is that the import tax on dolls is twice what it is for toys.

Back in the '90s, when Toy Biz was making so much money off of X-Men action figures that it was able to actually buy Marvel comics at one point, this was a pretty big deal. But the thing about those lucrative X-Men toys is that they're not based on "humans" -- or at least, they're not based on homo sapiens. So armed with that distinction, trade lawyers Sherry Singer and Indie Singh went to the customs office to take up the proud tradition of Bolivar Trask and argue that mutants are not, in fact, human beings, and should not be treated as such.

Magneto was right, y'all. About international trade taxes, at least.

Read More: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/12/29/xmen-human-real-life-radiolab/#ixzz1hyLjzzEK

The United States Government Debates Whether the X-Men Are Human Beings... In Real Life - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Alan Moore Talks Science, Imagination, Other Trippy Stuff [Video] - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

I think Alan Moore is a genius in many ways. I agreed with some of what he said and disagrees with other things, but one thing is for sure as someone who has influenced mass media since the 1980's  he can't be ignored. Somethings he's right about others I'd take issue with. Take a listen and see what you think.




Alan Moore Talks Science, Imagination, Other Trippy Stuff [Video] - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Rethinking Kwanzaa

Image by universalhiphopparade via Flickr

Sometimes God allows you to learn information that you can't ignore but you wish you could. I had one of those mornings. I was listening to James White's Tuesday's webcast (link here) and in the beginning he was discussing information about the origins of Kwanzaa - stuff I didn't know and had not considered. I've heard the cleaned up version of the story but not the information Dr White was bringing up. Dr White got the information from Pastor Eric Redmond's blog A Man from Issachar at the following link: Repost: (Against) Kwanzaa Resource: Sharing the Gospel With Your Kwanzaa Celebrating Friend. The post calls attention to the work by Carlotta Morrow’s research and book Kwanzaa: Cultural or Cultic. Her book traces the origins of Kwanzaa and points out just how incompatible it is with Christianity. Just the little bit I have heard and read so far, has made me have to rethink celebrating this holiday more and more.I've purchased the book and I am planning a more comprehensive review but for now just visiting her blog will give you much to consider. Read it at this link. Kwanzaa: Cultural or Cultic?

Related articles

• Kwanzaa - Day 1 (thesynergisticpen.com)
• Culture : Kwanzaa : African-American culture and heritage (ancientindians.wordpress.com)
• Kwanzaa - It's A Black Thang But Some Want No Parts Of It (nachalooman.wordpress.com)
• President and Mrs. Obama Issue a Statement about Kwanzaa (wtpdiaries.wordpress.com)
• Daily Benefactor News - Obama Skipped Christmas Statement But Issued Statement For Fake Holiday Kwanzaa (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)

Faceplant of the Day: The Christian Faith Makes a Person Stupid | Debunking Christianity

John Loftus posted the following quote and comment recently.

How many people have claimed to have finally debunked God? Way too many, This has been going on for centuries and someone is always popping up claiming to “Finally debunk God. If God wasn’t real then why did it take over 2000 years to “Finally Debunk” Christianity? I call this “The Finally Debunk Crew” Link

The reason dimwit, is because Christianity is like a chameleon, ever changing in response to its culture, our criticisms, and science. The Christianities of yesteryear have been debunked. That’s why you hold to the one you do today. And your type of Christianity will be replaced slowly into the future as well.

I have often read Loftus and others make this point but I've never actually seen any evidence that this is true. In fact none of these atheistic attempts to prove Christianity wrong has ever succeeded. None of their arguments are new nor persuasive. It's just one failure after another. I mean really think about it...does anyone really think that it took 2000 yrs for someone smart enough to come along and show that Christianity is wrong? Or do they really expect us to think that they've managed to raise an objection that not only has not been raised before and (on top of that) no one has ever answered them? It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

The Christian Faith Makes a Person Stupid | Debunking Christianity

Infographic: Looking for Life on Mars

Infographic: Looking for Life on Mars

Bill Maher: Jesus Just F*cked Tim Tebow Bad

It's an amazing thing. Tim Tebow has continued to give God glory even when his team looses.

I think that this very commendable and teaches us all a very important lesson. Bill Maher on the other hand illustrates how bad and ignorant people can be about who God is and what a proper relationship with God should look like.

Bill Maher: Jesus Just F*cked Tim Tebow Bad

Faceplant of the Day - Confusing Body Parts With Value of Religion

So how does the picture below perfectly illustrate what a faceplant looks like?  Comparing religion to a penis is really sad especially tying it to the way  some men misuse that part of their body to abuse others. Here is one of the issues that really make the comparison stupid: does the fact that women don't have penises mean that they can't have a religion or be proud of  their religion? Obviously they can. Also men who would misuse their bodies to abuse others do so for their own gratification. If someone shares their religion with you for their own gratification, they are doing it wrong.

Atheism and Rape - YouTube

Mariano Grinbank has posted a video trilogy about what various atheists and otherwise evolutionists have to say about rape, morality, etc. I think that the subject, while uncomfortable, is vitally important. Many atheists do and everyone should deplore rape and not do it. That's not the issue. The problem comes from the idea that there are some morons who still choose to rape others and society should catch these people, punish them, and protect the rest of society from them. I think most people [normal] agree that this must be done but how do you substantiate the right to do it? Why is rape wrong if there is no standard? The truth is that the way people try to answer questions like these without God not only surprises me but disgusts me. Watch the video playlist, but prepare to see a lot of fail.






Atheism and Rape - YouTube

Related articles

• Atheism-ism (thesituationist.wordpress.com)
• Letters: Atheism (independent.co.uk)
• Bill Maher Is A Rapist? By Mike Gold - Brainiac On Banjo #253 (mdwp.malibulist.com)
• Would and atheist teacher steal the cash? (mojoey.blogspot.com)
• Atheism and Popular Atheist Books (aboutpopularbooks.wordpress.com)

the a-atheism blog: Christopher Hitchens & Stagecoach Humiliate Richard Dawkins

Image via Wikipedia

I've been looking and exploring the much material that has been posted about Christopher Hitchens upon his passing and I think thank at the article I've linked to this post deserves much attention. It underscores many differences between Christopher Hitchens and Dr Richard Dawkins. The other thing that appears in this article is a post to a video of Dr William Lane Craig commenting on Hitchens. I think that the fact that people disagreed with Hitchens yet respected him and they him says a lot about the man - much good things. The important thing to remember is that Hitchens has gone to where he belongs and one day we will all go to where we belong - with God or apart from God. Personally I want to be with God.




the a-atheism blog: Christopher Hitchens & Stagecoach Humiliate Richard Dawkins

Related articles

• The Four Horsemen (dead-logic.blogspot.com)
• Goodbye Christopher Hitchens .... Welcome to Hell. (mackquigley.wordpress.com)
• Twitter Remembers Christopher Hitchens (thedailybeast.com)
• Christopher Hitchens Leaves the Party (mraybould.wordpress.com)
• New Statesman Interview Preview: Richard Dawkins Interviews Christopher Hitchens (alwaysquestionauthority.wordpress.com)

Faithful Thinkers: Cartoons, Animal Death, and Theology

What does one of the Looney Tunes episodes tell us about "the challenge of so much animal death in God's creation"? How does this affect theology regarding death before sin? Quite a bit. Just read Luke Nix'as article!





Faithful Thinkers: Cartoons, Animal Death, and Theology

Related articles

• Systematic Theology (paintrockmbc.wordpress.com)
• My Theology of Effects (nickispies.wordpress.com)
• Biblical Theology (paintrockmbc.wordpress.com)
• Without the Holy Night, there is No Theology (frstephensmuts.wordpress.com)

Answering Muslims: James White vs. Abdullah Kunde: "Can God Become a Man?"

The video for the debate on the incarnation between James White and Abdullah Kunde is now posted!!!




Answering Muslims: James White vs. Abdullah Kunde: "Can God Become a Man?"

Battles For E-Supremacy [infographic]

Battles For E-Supremacy [infographic]

Truthbomb Apologetics: Counterpoints: John Loftus and Frank Turek on the Death of Christopher Hitchens

Over on Truthbomb Apologetics, Chad posted two comments regarding the death of Christopher Hitchens. I think he did something amazing: allowing us to see how one of Hitchens' fellow atheists looks at this and how a Christian - one of Hitchen's debate opponents - view the same man.

John Loftus: "Many Christians are thinking he’s burning in hell. Some others may even say this. But it is a disgrace to humanity to even think this abhorrent thought about such a brilliantly good man...this statement burns me up to no end. It is more repulsive than any thought I can conceive...may his memory live on. He has changed the world for the better." [1]

Frank Turek: "There is no one with whom I disagreed more who I admired so much. I don’t see how anyone who knew Christopher Hitchens could think that a man with such admirable qualities and talents was nothing more than a collection of chemicals– the product of unexplained random processes. Christopher’s intellect, wit, courage, and passion are evidence to me of a Divine Being– a Divine Being who loves human freedom so much that He would even allow the gifts He bestows to be used against Him." [2]

1. http://freethoughtblogs.com/loftus/2011/12/16/christopher-hitchens-is-now-burning-in-hell/
2. http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=258

I usually follow Loftus' blog Debunking Christianity, but he seems to have abandoned it for another site (see the reference note from Chad below), but it's interesting that to Loftus, Hitchens was too good to burn in hell. I'd like to see his reasoning for that. But be that as it may, Frank Turek's comments show how Hitchen's death should be looked on and brings up a great point - God blesses us despite ourselves. Not because we deserve it - but because He is soo good. It's a striking contrast. Loftus is fixated on his perception of God's goodness (none of us are good enough to stand before a holy God), while Turek is focused on God's goodness. Notice how although he and Hitchens disagreed on a lot of things, Turek says nothing mean or derogatory. In the quote there isn't even speculation on Hitchen's eternal destiny. I think Turek's attitude, like Peter Hitchens' attitude, is the one we should have when looking at the life and legacy of Christopher Hitchens.

Truthbomb Apologetics: Counterpoints: John Loftus and Frank Turek on the Death of Christopher Hitchens

Related articles

• Christopher Hitchens: From Quote to Quote (manonmona.wordpress.com)
• CFI Mourns the Death of Christopher Hitchens (secularnewsdaily.com)
• Humanists Mourn Christopher Hitchens: Stalwart for Atheism (secularnewsdaily.com)
• Christopher Hitchens (geoffarnold.com)

Answering Muslims: Abu Mussab Wajdi Akkari Condemns Freedom of Speech

David Wood asked a great question:

But what happens when Muslims themselves say that Islam doesn't allow Freedom of Speech? Should we call these Muslims "racists" or "Islamophobes"?

In my Opinion Freedom of Speech means that we protect everyone's right to say or write anything they want whether or not we agree with them - no matter how stupid it is. But that means that anyone else has the right to point out why it is stupid.

Answering Muslims: Abu Mussab Wajdi Akkari Condemns Freedom of Speech

Answering Muslims: Pakistani Christians Face Alienation, Discrimination

It is good to remember that we have many Christians in the world today suffering because they refuse to give up Jesus.



Answering Muslims: Pakistani Christians Face Alienation, Discrimination

Related articles

• Pakistani Christians Face Alienation, Discrimination This Christmas (foxnews.com)
• Pakistani Muslims attack Christians in attempt to force them to convert to Islam (via ANS News) (via The Christian Gazette) (wdednh.wordpress.com)
• Muslim groups see "minorities" quota as a googly (thehindu.com)
• Megachurch rises in Pakistani city of Karachi (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Radio Free Geneva! An Examination of James McCarthy's Sermon on Calvinism

Okay, I admit it. I really like the "Radio Free Geneva" programs on Dr James White's Dividing Line webcast. Here is the latest!

Radio Free Geneva! An Examination of James McCarthy's Sermon on Calvinism

Infographic: The State of Muslim America - News - GOOD

Here is an infographic about Muslims in America. Follow the link to see it and interact with it.

Infographic: The State of Muslim America - News - GOOD

Related articles

• Muslims Are Just As Boring As The Rest Of Us (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)
• Excellent Discussion with Dr. Ingrid Mattson (Professor of Islamic Studies at Hartford Seminary, USA) about Women in Islam (syayidss.wordpress.com)