Tuesday, September 23, 2008

David Wood vs. Sami Zaatari: "Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?"

In our debate on whether Islam is a religion of peace, Sami had to radically reinterpret the Qur'an and the Hadith, cling to an abrogated verse, reject the claims of Abu Bakr, throw out the interpretations of Ibn Kathir and al-Qurtubi, and call Aisha and Ali "bad Muslims." In the following debate on whether Christianity is a religion of peace, Sami can't show a single situation where Christians would be called to violence. Yet he argues that Christianity is a religion of violence because God judged people in the past and will judge people in the future!!! (Notice the inconsistency, since Sami would never apply this reasoning to Islam.)

DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT


SAMI'S OPENING STATEMENT


1ST REBUTTALS


2ND REBUTTALS/CONCLUSIONS
Posted by David Wood at 10:19 PM
Labels: , ,

13 comments:

Martyr Maker said...

David
The First and Second rebuttle video are the same video's

September 24, 2008 6:41 AM
Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

David,

Did Nadir debate Pastor Scott as well or was that cancelled?

September 24, 2008 9:29 AM
David Wood said...

MM,

It should be fixed now.

Yahya,

Yes, Pastor Scot debated Nadir. I wasn't there to see it though. I hear Nadir pulled one of his "everyone is running from me/everyone is terrified of my arguments" stunts.

September 24, 2008 12:40 PM
LouisJ-B said...

Actually David,

Up is left and down is green Jell-O.Good debates.;-)

September 24, 2008 6:38 PM
David Wood said...

Oh yeah! I forgot about my "opposite world" comment. That was funny.

September 24, 2008 7:19 PM
Dk said...

LOL @ "debating whether Christianity is a religion of PEACE is like debating whether a Zebra has stripes"

Ironically I used the exact same illustration but as an objection to Christianity. LOL I love it.

September 24, 2008 9:12 PM
David Wood said...

Dk,

So your position would be that a zebra doesn't have stripes?

September 24, 2008 10:10 PM
Dk said...

David I don't take the black/white approach to this complex topic/question, since Zebras can have WHITE and BLACK stripes, we can see Christianity could have some grey areas where confusing things occur.

Firstly. The topic name "Is Christianity a religion of peace?" pressuposes Christianity has something to say on the matter, but here are some other options 1) Christianity has nothing to say about peace (depending on the definition) 2) Christianity may not have a consistant message about peace.

Here are atleast two different propositions from the two argued for by the gentlemen.

The word "peace" in and of itself is insufficent to tell us whether "Christianity" is "Peace" and in WHAT sense it does this. Also a religion is not "peace" itself they are not synomomous, so the question is wrong, the question should be "Does Christianity (a religion) teach to its adherents (followers of the religion) to live in peace with all humankind (including those who are non-adherents)"?

I'm not giving the ideal topic question, but the topic does need to be coherent and specific.

Furthermore the debaters need to state what there methodology for coming to there own conclussions are.

For example why does David only quote the Bible the entire time to prove his contention that Christianity is a religion teaching peace? How can we know for a fact that the resources he relies on are the sole sources of "christian teachings on peacefulness"? And how do we know All Christians agree with Davids intepretation of the passages he cites? Obviously this is far from the case considering the earliest Christians had no such conception as sola scriptura, and there definiately was no unanimious intepretation of passages in the NT (thus the rise of what is deemed "heresy" and also differences on "non-essentials").

It is suprising that no common ground is shown and no terms are defined, this happened in the nadir/shamoun debate aswell, this is problematic where we just say "peace" however the audience and each particular person may have a different intepretation or understanding in mind other than the one the debater(s) intended.

There atleast seems to be three kinds of peace (I can currently think of):

1) Internal(Self) Peace:

"the absence of mental stress or anxiety, Inner contentment; serenity: peace of mind, tranquillity etc."

2) Social Peace:

"a state of mutual harmony between people or groups, esp. in personal relations: Try to live in peace with your neighbors."

or

"harmonious relations; freedom from disputes; "the roommates lived in peace together"

3) National Peace:

"an agreement or treaty between warring or antagonistic nations, groups, etc., to end hostilities and abstain from further fighting or antagonism"

Commenting on the first definition provided, Christianity does teach it's adherents will have inner-peace. Regarding the second definition I see the relevance of proposition two (internal confliction) emerging. The Third definition is highly irrelevant for atleast NT Christianity, since the NT encourages Christians to even suffer through the most horrible circumstances, so national securtiy and peace are not what the Christian are commanded to be concerned with, quite the opposite, long-sufering is recommended in the face of religious persecusion caused by governments and human authorities.

However the returning of Jesus will result in the eradication of all human governments and of course Jesus will punish and burn those who refused to "hear the truth/believe the Gospel" leaving the earth in the state of only believing Christians, so while it maybe peaceful for these Christians this definition of peace can certainly not include for example:

"the harmonious co-existance of atleast two different groups of people the differences may include beliefs, race, gender, religion, philosphy etc"

Atleast eventually Jesus is not interested in dialogue and peaceful co-existance with those who disagree with him, Jesus will destroy those who oppose his authority and message, an Ideal theocracy could be internally peaceful but really the third definition of "peace" is no longer required because there is no longer a different form of government existing.

September 24, 2008 11:08 PM
David Wood said...

dk,

You said that the topic presupposes that Christianity has something to say on the matter. Well, as I showed in my opening statement, Christianity has a lot to say on the matter, so I'm not sure where the presupposition lies.

You said it's possible that Christianity has an inconsistent message. But my opponent had ample opportunity to show us a place where Christians are called to be violent. He couldn't show any such thing. So the passages I quoted are the rule, and they are perfectly consistent.

You ask why I only quoted the Bible, when some Christians may look to additional sources for their views. But surely all Christians would agree that the Bible is the primary source when it comes to the teachings of Christianity. And since I showed that Christianity calls us to live in peace with everyone, I don't see how you could propose that any other authority might overrule this.

You ask how I know that all Christians would agree with my interpretation of these passages. Well, if you'd like to propose an alternative interpretation of these passages that accounts for all of them, be my guest. But if you were listening, you know that the only plausible interpretation of passages that call us to love everyone and to live in peace with everyone is that we're supposed to love everyone and live in peace with everyone.

Hence, I think that most of your comments are out of place.

More relevant here is your discussion of different types of peace. It is clear that Christianity promotes peace in manners (1) and (2). (3) would be left to governments. But if those governments have been influenced by Christianity, they should promote peace as well.

It seems that, like Sami, the only way you can criticize Christianity as non-peaceful is by pointing to the coming judgment. But at least you can be consistent when making this objection. Sami calls Islam a religion of peace (and has to massacre his early sources in order to do so), and then attacks Christianity because of God's judgment!

If all we mean by the question "Is Christianity a religion of peace?" is "Will God allow everyone to continue in rebellion against Him forever?" then I agree that it's not a religion of peace in this sense. But you know as well as I do what we mean when we ask whether Islam or Christianity is a religion of peace. We're asking whether these religions promote violence or peace towards others. Islam clearly calls for violence. Christianity clearly calls for peace.

September 25, 2008 10:52 AM
Dk said...

David said:

"You said it's possible that Christianity has an inconsistent message. But my opponent had ample opportunity to show us a place where Christians are called to be violent. He couldn't show any such thing."

I believe I already pointed out Sami was not arguing my offered propositions. He was arguing Christianity is not a peaceful religion, you are arguing it is, i'm arguing you are both wrong since it could be internally inconsistant, and therefore people depending on there circumstances can use it for either intepretation.

David said:

"But if you were listening, you know that the only plausible interpretation of passages that call us to love everyone and to live in peace with everyone is that we're supposed to love everyone and live in peace with everyone."

And:

"More relevant here is your discussion of different types of peace. It is clear that Christianity promotes peace in manners (1) and (2)."

This is fallacious reasoning, specifically an anachronistic fallacy, eqivocating our understanding of love and peace with the NTs conception, also this assumes that the NT conception of Love and Peace must also be given to non-believers (and thus the silly argument that goes with it "everyone means everyone"). The NT's (collectively speaking) conception of love and peace (if we assume the second sense) however is different from todays standards in the following passages:

James 4

1 What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? 2You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. 3When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with "wrong motives", "that you may spend what you get on your pleasures".
4You adulterous people!, don't you know that FRIENDSHIP WITH THE WORLD IS HATRED TOWARD GOD? ANYONE WHO CHOOSES TO BE A FRIEND OF THE WORLD BECOMES AN ENEMY OF GOD. 5Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely? 6But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the Humble."

Here we have clear evidence that those who have selfish desires and who want to obtain profit and assets for their own pleasure are not to be befriended, James go far as to call those who in the Church who do this "adulterous people", and he likens his brethren to the people of the world who hate God and are his enemies who do exact the same actions.

Also contrast this with the rest of James 4 which tells the brothers how to treat one another, which is completely different when we see Christians are not to associate with these "self-seeking" kinds.

These passages also seems to agree with Jesus approach to certain situations where aslong as people do not accept the faith of Christ they are to be ignored, dismissed and the Christians are to move on:

Matthew 10

11"Whatever town or village you enter, search for some WORTHY PERSON there and stay at his house UNTIL YOU LEAVE. 12As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14If anyone will not welcome you OR LISTEN TO YOUR WORDS, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment THAN FOR THAT TOWN.

Several notable observations here: The disciples must stay with a "worthy" person, not just anyone, similar to James, Jesus clearly has religious/moral standards of "what" people to live and associate yourself with. The residents (and consequently the entire town/village) who reject the message of Christ are not to be befriended, but Christians are to avoid these people until judgement where God will handle them.

Thus the Bible clearly teaches christians are not to have and make friends with all sorts of non-believers! This is atleast according to Jesus and James. What about John?:

2 John 1

7Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, DO NOT TAKE HIM INTO YOUR HOUSE OR WELCOME HIM. 11Anyone who welcomes him SHARES IN HIS WICKED WORK.

Again those who have a different teaching/faith you are not to even temporarily allow them in your house or even be polite and greet them!

Contrast this with the internal relationships of the Christians, where the brethren friends are greeting one another, something perfectly acceptable:

3 John 1:14 Peace to you. The friends here send their greetings.
Greet the friends there by name.

Thus the supposed "Love and Peace" in the context of social relationships in the NT period is vastly different from the application of "Love and Peace" that many of todays Christians adhere to. The believers are an isolated group staying away from sin, the unbelievers are sinners!

These kinds of unpeaceful, unfriendly practises can create unwarranted hostitlies between groups of people, this combined with the constant disparagement that is made against non-believers is hardly peaceful in the second sense defined:

1 John 2:22 WHO IS THE LIAR but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the ANTICHRIST, even he that denieth the Father and the Son.

2 John 1: 7 Many DECEIVERS, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person IS THE DECEIVER AND THE ANTICHRIST.

1 Thessolians 2: 14For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They DISPLEASE GOD and are HOSTILE TO ALL MEN. 16in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way THEY ALWAYS HEAP UP THEIR SINS TO THE LIMIT. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.

Here Paul thought of all the dirt he had on the Jews and threw it out reminding his brethren as his way of saying "don't be like those evil Judeans".

David:

"It seems that, like Sami, the only way you can criticize Christianity as non-peaceful is by pointing to the coming judgment."

Again Sami is arguing Christianity is violent, i'm arguing that it is just inconsistant and thus followers of the Religion can use it to whatever the need there circumstances require at the time.

"If all we mean by the question "Is Christianity a religion of peace?" is "Will God allow everyone to continue in rebellion against Him forever?" then I agree that it's not a religion of peace in this sense."

I agree, the tolerance and co-operation on God's part is lacking. What Christians have here is a "temporal peace", but the intention of course is Christians must surrender vengance unto the big guy himself so he can wipe the floor with the supposed bad guys. Thus it is not really peaceful at all when we look at it through the eyes of "intention" wise it is a pseudo-peace.

David said:

"We're asking whether these religions promote violence or peace towards others. Islam clearly calls for violence. Christianity clearly calls for peace."

These are not monolithic religions the body of believers in each are various and dynamic, the religions can be used for many purposes.

However essentially it seems to me you are arguing Salafi Islam is the correct and only true form of Islam and your peaceful intepretation of the NT is the only true form of Christianity.

Furthermore to some degree it seems you are comparing apples and oranges.

If Christianity is not a theocracy and a complete system of living (contrary to Islam) then atleast in Islam we would expect to see (in the state of theocracy) the implementation of Sharia Law and the barbaric savagery that goes with it.

Contrast this with the NT which simply gives no restrictions on the age of marriage or the number of wives and husbands, no punishment for rape and homosexuality, beastiality or pedophila nor orgies is prescribed, in fact God has been said to "give up" on such sexually disgusting people.

Jesus also teaches divorce is only acceptable in unfaithful circumstances which shows how naive he may have been, not understanding the wives potentially can be beaten by there husbands, raped, abused etc, the NT doesn't even touch upon many of these issues because it is not designed to, where as Islam began political and will no doubt keep striving to be political.

So why compare the two?

If you want to be consistant compare the Israelite Theocracy with Islam, then we will see some interesting observations.

Cheers David,

Dk

September 30, 2008 5:56 AM
MoMo said...

After watching that, I don't see any way I could EVER take anything Sami has to say seriously.

Not one substantive argument he raised fails to condemn Islam. Not one.

The fact that he based the bulk of his argument on God instructing violence (in light of the many appearances of the command to 'Qatiloo' [kill] in the Quran), or on disbelievers being punished on judgement day (which exists in Islam, and people drink boiling water, have ever-replacing skin roasted off them, etc) shows that Sami has no integrity at all.

October 14, 2008 6:00 AM
Rockford said...

Answer to Sami - THE ENTIRE BOOK OF GALATIONS says WE LOSE OUR SALVATION if we FOLLOW THE OLD TESTAMENT LAWS. Paul calls those old laws comparatively weak miserable and useless compared to the grace found in Christ. Christ nailed the old law to the cross and we died to the law. Even a baby Christian could make mince meat of Sami's assertion.

Galatians 5:1-4 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. 2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

Love! FireLightChurch . c o m

June 4, 2010 6:04 AM
Rockford said...

THE ENTIRE BOOK OF PHILEMON IS A TREATISE AGAINST SLAVERY. 1 Corinthians 7:21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you-- although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Galatians 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. NO WAY IN HELL God used Moses to free millions of slaves but then starts advocating it in the NT? Don't let the world lie to you! 1Tim6.1 describes slavery as a yoke - not of God but of Man!!! As it says, it is for FREEDOM that Christ SET US FREE.

June 4, 2010 6:28 AM

Post a Comment