Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Interview with Robert Spencer

David and I recently attended the "Rally for Rifqa" in Columbus, Ohio. While there, we met with Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch. Aside from being truly affable, he also had some great insight into the current state of affairs concerning Islam and international politics. Enjoy!

53 comments:

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

For those who are really interested in seeing a good debate and let's hope that Jay Smith is an inspiration to many of you. Why not post the recent debate/dialouge between Shabir Ally and John Gilchrist? Is it because Gilchrist actually tries to eveangelize? Is it because Gilchrist shows a peaceful side of Christianity that's not angry bitter and internally agitated to the extreme?

Is is that Muslims are not allowed to see a well poised, calm, rational Christian give his points in a way that is not angry bitter and agitated?

Is it because we would rather not have Shabir Ally who comes off as polished, poised, well prepared, calm and able to answer questions being shown to the audience that visits this web site?

Well in the end I guess it doesn't really matter does it?

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Grand Verbalizer--

Are you saying none of our debates are "poised, calm, and rational?"

Or are you saying that all the Muslims we debated are not "polished, poised, well prepared, or calm?"

Just wondering who exactly you're attacking in the name of poise and rationality.

David Wood said...

GrandTaqiyyaMaster,

We know you're a Muslim pretending to be a Christian. If you want to practice Taqiyya, do it somewhere else (or at least make it more difficult to investigate your claims about your beliefs).

minoria said...

I do not see anything wrong with what Robert Spencer says,grandverbalizer.Have you seen the movie 2012?

Notice in the film ST.PETER's CHURCH falls crumbling to the ground with people in it on Dec 21,2012.Also the gigantic statue of JESUS on CORCOVADO hill in RIO DE JANEIRO crumbles to pieces.Hmmm.

The DIRECTOR HIMSELF of the movie said he originally intended to have the KAABA in MECCA also crumble in the movie.Then he decided not to because he was afraid a Muslim would kill him.Hmmm.

That shows the Islamification of the West,fear of reprisals by Muslims,it is not complete but it is there.Now would the majority of Muslims agree with the freedom of speech right of the film director to show the Kaaba being destroyed or would they be for jailing him for "Islamophobia","incitement to hatred","hurting their religious feelings."?I think they would be for throwing him in jail.

Bryant said...

I keep hearing Christians say all the time that radical Muslims like Barack Obama. I'm wondering if this is true though because every time I hear radical Muslims speak, they seem to either insult or condemn Obama.

Al-zawahiri, revolution Muslim, Sami Zaatari, etc. have all condemned Obama.

Despite Obama's attempts to reconcile the middle east with the west, I think the vast majority of Muslims consider him a traitor.


Just my thoughts.

WomanForTruth101 said...

It becomes clearer to me everday how the laughable Robert Spencer is loved by christians.
30+ years of studying islam, nothing for 23. Absolutely nothing.
Funny how his 6-7 claims seem to be direct copy and pastings from the serval sites targeting us.
Of course, all christians tell the "truths" about Islam. Which is why we should ditch scholors who actually study and know a thing or two.

Christianity=Speaking for Islam

I'd love to see how christians would react when a scientist speaks for them.

Brianman said...

You're not a good scholar if you don't assess, analyse and understand the Islamic teachings, but rather quote things out of context and make them absolute statements.

I was analysing trinitarian arguments for a long time, they are all weak.

The last thing I was counting on for the trinity was john 1:1...even that one let me down...By Biblical unitarian christians. Has anyone got a response to this article made by biblical unitarian, or do you have your view, and they have theirs, both are fully established, so it is up to the "truth searcher" to choose?

Brianman said...

I guess that is who I am right now, a unitarian christian who does not believe in the blood atonement of Jesus and the resurrection.

Brianman said...

Don't abuse me, or throw patronising comments at me. The people (not scholars in my view) who post on this site (the trinitarians) write with hostility, then they write something like "dear brother" and "May God bless you" after patronising me. It just makes no sense whatsoever. This is not how Jesus would act.
Jesus would not allow someone to laugh about someone elses religion like the man in the video who is not what I personally call a scholar.

Nakdimon said...

Grandverbalizer

My guess why the debate between Gilchrist and Ally is not posted is because Gilchrist let Ally get away with all kinds of distortions of Islamic sources to make Islam seem peaceful. Shabir knows full well that the battle of Bard wasn’t an attack by the Meccans, but nonetheless he twisted it into making it an attack on the Muslims. It was the other way around. Shabir knows that the Meccans didn’t break the treaty of Hudaybiya, but that the Muslims broke it, yet he twisted the story in order to make the Meccans look like the aggressors. Shabir knows that the wars of Muhammad weren’t defensive but that they were overwhelmingly offensive, but he twists the stories to make it look as though the Muslims were the victim of the attacks of the pagans.

Now I expected this of Shabir Ally. I really did. Because that is what Muslims always do. They are revisionists. Everything that is historically true they claim to be a lie and everything that Muhammad did that was morally bad they make morally good. But I can’t come to grips with Gilchrist’s pacifistic attitude in allowing to let Ally make those fundamental distortions of Islamic historical sources and his failure to challenge Shabir on anything he said.

It was not a good debate. It was a debate where one side (Shabir) twisted it’s sources to look good and the other side (Gilchrist) failed to correct the distorted accounts of his opponent. Not to mention Gilchrist’s complete negligence in highlighting the teachings of the New Testament to contrast it with the violence in the history of our faith which he mentioned in his presentation. Having read reviews of Gilchrist’s debate with Deedat decades ago and having listened to his debate with Buchus, I expected more from him in the debate with Ally. It is as if Gilchrist has given up the good fight.

Nakidmon

Fernando said...

Hi thegrandverbalizer19... How are you? When will you start to show your're a «well poised, calm, rational» muslim thate knows whate he's speaking aboutt? so far you did no such thing...

Perhaps, iff you allow me to quotte your supposed prophet, you have a head thate «looks like a raisin» (Sahih Bukhari 9:89:256)... see how easy is to say and do the same things you muslims are obliged to say and do? Perhaps the main point is thate muslims habe a different meaning aboutt whate it means being «well poised, calm, rational»... I woulde say these woulde be "insulting, menacing, threatening, lying, killing, and so on"...

Oh... just for a thought... Although I'm not an Afro-AMerican (whenwill we see people calling themselfes Euro-American or Ocean-American?...) I'm, white a great humble pride in it, eben darker than you...

May God, the Only true God, the God off the Bible, the Holy Trinity, bless you and your familie...

Simon said...

bryant

first of all Obama is a muslim and second hes trying to keep peace around the world and if he turns against the american people u will c riots and wut not in the country. so hes some wut doing wut the american people want. im not a political person but obama is a snake. he doesnt knw his stuff. ya hes agood guy and all but thats just a face america wants to c. nobody likes to hear or see the truth. i think obama is a good guy but i dont like his political views sepecially the worldly issues.

IslamSINS said...

thegrandverbalizer19 isn't quite so grand, is he? Stringing words together that result in stupidity might impress his ummah, but we all know Muslims use a different standard for assessing everything on the planet.

An "allah" who thinks sperm becomes a blood clot, the sun sets in a mud puddle, etc., is "all knowing". I won't even address allah's apparent dementia, nor question which Koran he keeps on his nightstand, nor why he turns sin into sunnah, accepting all filth as acts of worship.

TGV, no matter you oil your way with a proper subject and predicate, you obviously, being Muhammadan, cannot "see" anything.

This site is host to many poised, calm, rational Christian debates. What we non-Muhammadans are looking for is a Muslim with a brain. Oh, wait, allah's slaves who find their brains are called, "apostates".

In case you haven't noticed, TGV, Shabir isn't a bit prepared to defend your feculent Koran; he can only question true Holy Scripture, but I see it doesn't take much for you to be impressed with a Muhammadan who doesn't resort to threats and name-calling. You haven't even noticed that he can't/won't try to defend the "many discrepancies" in your book.

I think you're more "grunt" than "grand". Maybe you should offer your blather to a Muslim audience. If they're impressed with Naik, they'll be impressed with anything.

Apollos26 said...

It is very good to see that many christian brothers standing up and confronting the false and unsustainable claims of islam.

I think every country should have some apologists who aren't afraid of telling the truth.

How many persons who are born into islam, really know what islam is all about? I know so many that never have heard of the "satanic verses", never heard of the hadith where killing of apostates is ordered, or the drinking of camel urin etc.


The more I get to know islam, the more it makes me wonder and sad how people can believe in those things.

I think this heretic believesystem doesn't allow intelligent thoughts or thinking in general. Had many discussions with muslims attacking christianity and they come forth with the most stupid arguments I have ever heard. Not even atheists come up with such made up misinterpretations and taking verses out of context.

We christians always have to realize, that WE are the salt of the earth and the light of the world.

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven."

God bless and helps us to live this.

Sunil said...

Minora,

>> That shows the Islamification of the West,fear of reprisals by Muslims,it is not complete but it is there.Now would the majority of Muslims agree with the freedom of speech right of the film director to show the Kaaba being destroyed or would they be for jailing him for "Islamophobia","incitement to hatred","hurting their religious feelings."?I think they would be for throwing him in jail.

I am not sure, if we as Christians need to worry too much about the political aspects like Isamization, loss of freedom of speech etc. Of course we can talk about what is right/wrong in politics, the importance of freedom of speech etc. But I am not sure, if that is the most important/significant part which is addressed in engagement with Muslims/Islam. I think our single most important concern has to be spiritual in nature, reaching out to the people for true God/Christ, as led and willed by God.

In Luke 13, we see some people coming to Jesus to tell about a incident about some Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices! A very provocative incident. But Jesus did not respond about how to fight against political injustice, freedom etc. Instead, he said – ‘unless you repent, you too will all perish’. In other words, the focus is on matters that are spiritual and not political. (One of the reasons I am not a big fan of Robert Spenser is his focus on the political rather than spiritual). The ministry for Christ is not to fight to save our freedom of speech/religion etc. Many Christians have lived under very oppressive conditions and we also can live if called upon by God to do so (like, if God allows a Islamist takeover, like how God allowed Assyrians/Babylonians to takeover Jews). Again, I am not saying that political aspect is not important, but the primary concern has to be spiritual as followers of Jesus. If not, we end up doing the same mistake that some Jews of Jesus' time did by rejecting Jesus, as they were expecting a political Messiah. They could not digest/understand that the ultimate kingdom of God is not of this world.

I would like to know what other posters think about this.

Fernando said...

Womenfortruth (or Ali) saide: «I'd love to see how christians would react when a scientist speaks for them»...

so whate? would thate be a problem? Iff he got his things correct from true and consubstanciated Christian sources why should anyone be impeded to talk aboutt anything? Why are you so afraide off someone who only speaks from true and consubstanciated islamic sources?

That's not, nontheless, the case of islam tahte from its start started sayieng, withoute any real knowledge off whate is Christianity, aboutt Christian faithe...

Shame on you Womenfortruth (or Ali)... the lie, hipocrisy and inconstancy that is deeply rroted in islam is getting rooted in you...

Fernando said...

Brainman = t_a_s = ashraf (tahte is now a Jehowas Witness) saide: «Jesus would not allow someone to laugh about someone elses religion»...

well, tahts the evidence off your totallky lack off knowlege off the Holy Bible... false religions thate distorte willingly the true one do deserv being laughed at... nott the person who folloow them, butt the intself...

may God, the Holy Trinity, bless you and your familie...

Fernando said...

I made a mistake thate could make my statement seem not understandeble...

I saide: «I'm, white a great humble pride in it, eben darker than you...»

I meant, obviouslie: «I'm, withe a great humble pride in it, eben darker than you...»

ubiquitouserendipity said...

david and/or nabeel,,, please capture this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGeFwC4Eaxo

G_d bless you. Peace, in His love, papajoe

Leonard said...

@Bryant:

They like him for playing in their hands, but he is, of course, still their enemy.

@Brianman:
"I guess that is who I am right now, a unitarian christian who does not believe in the blood atonement of Jesus and the resurrection."

It seems to me that you are no christian then.

GreekAsianPanda said...

Fernando, exactly how are you making all these connections between people, like Brianman, t_a_s, and ashraf being the same person? Just wondering....

Fernando said...

Hi brother Sunil...

I understand whate you mean. Nontheless I do think thate proclaiming God (a spiritual realitty) is inseperable from helpping Him creatting and recreating a society where love/charity can exist, and I think you woulde agree thate true love onlie can existe where there's true freedom and true dignity in all off its aspects... its not a "or"/"or" situation, rather a "and"/"and" situation...

Christianity is not an des-incarnated religion likke some branches off budahism, neither an political ideologyy likke islam (and thate must be denounced politequely so others tahte are non religious persons can grasp this realitty), butt standes in a dinamic equilibrium in being spiritual, and, as God Himself (thate gave His Son so He coulde save it), loving this World...

yes, tahts true thate Christians can existe under harsh conditions, butt I, as a Christian, do not only want freedom and dignity for Christians butt for all persons... muslims included: thates why I do point the lack off coherence in muslims arguments... anounce and denounce...

May God bless you and your familie...

Simon said...

im sorry but my stomach cant take peoples head being cut off. and i cant stand these muslims and there sick act cause of their religion. if i was in the army. i wud be in the special task force especially for taking out these radical muslims terrorists people like osama bin laden and these mullahs who teach and preach this hatred. my stomach turns when i c something gorey and sick. islam with NEVER conquer this world.

Fernando said...

Hi GreekAsianPanda...

brianman is t_a_s as himself acknowledged... aboutte brianman being ashraf, just four hints:

#1: I was debatting brianman aboutte an natural example for the Trinity in a long last thread (more than a month ago) and ashraf gave the answer insted off brianman... coincidence thate he appeared there , in thate long lost thread, out off nowhere?

#2: ashraf is blocked and who does appear? brianman...

#3: habe you noticed thate all off us habe some peculliar way off writting? Brother minoria, for instance, do not place "space" after a final point (for example: «the qur'an do not say thate.The Bible does»)... others habe other peculliara spects, and iff you take notice ashraf and brianman do not place "space" after three points (for example, and from one off brianman's texts in this thread: «john 1:1...even»);

#4: (this one is secrett)...

butt I can bee wrongue... I ounce identified Yahya Seymour as being Ibn...

God bless...

WomanForTruth101 said...

Yes it would Fernando christians always get upset when the word "Darwin" appears.
Isn't that Darwin movie, i dont know if it's out yet, being a concern to Christians? I read an article how some church leaders didn't want that to be played in America.
Sorry Bryant, but Christians here are well educated, they know on judgement day their deeds will come directly from this blog.
I'd hate to see any god, that approves what Christians love to do.

Nakdimon, the Quresh tribe was very violent to the Muslims. Their leader humiliated and critisized any convert to islam (some sources say even tortured or killed). Meccan's had a habit of attacking muslims. I dont think who started the war matters, since the Quresh were a major threat.

And Fernando, my name's Amy, not Ali.

Bryant said...

WomanForTruth101:

Make no mistake. I am a Christian, and I approve of everything Robert Spencer had to say in his video.

I'm just not sure that Obama is the Muslim enemy we paint him to be. I think radical Muslims are afraid that he will make the west more attractive to moderate Muslims. The same moderate Muslims that Al-Qaeda and Revolution Muslim are trying to recruit.

Letitia (The Damsel) said...

thegrandverbalizer said:
Is is that Muslims are not allowed to see a well poised, calm, rational Christian give his points in a way that is not angry bitter and agitated?

Well, in this I think you have spoken truly. If it were not for the internet, then no Muslim would be allowed to see any Christian speak at all against the beliefs and doctrines of Islam. There is no such thing as freedom of speech in Sharia law, especially for the non-Muslim. Isn't that right?

Sunil said:
The ministry for Christ is not to fight to save our freedom of speech/religion etc. Many Christians have lived under very oppressive conditions and we also can live if called upon by God to do so (like, if God allows a Islamist takeover, like how God allowed Assyrians/Babylonians to takeover Jews). Again, I am not saying that political aspect is not important, but the primary concern has to be spiritual as followers of Jesus. If not, we end up doing the same mistake that some Jews of Jesus' time did by rejecting Jesus, as they were expecting a political Messiah. They could not digest/understand that the ultimate kingdom of God is not of this world.

I would like to know what other posters think about this.


Sunil, you raise a good point about the nature of the relationship between the spiritual mission and the earthly mission of the Christian in this world. I think the short answer is the both/and. We have the kingdom of God within us AND we are to exhibit the grace and justice of that kingdom on earth wherever we are. For some who are burdened and called for political action, such is needed (as in the case of Rifqa Bary). Thank God Rifqa lives here in the US where help is possible--it is a blessing absent in countries of persecution, as you have mentioned yourself.

I believe the kingdom of God should be evident in all aspects of life, not just the spiritual. Christians take their cues from James 2, where the injustice of personal favortism is considered a sin. This teaching naturally extends itself outward to injustices experienced by our neighbors at the hands of other people. It's a matter of consistency.

minoria said...

I do not really think Obama is a Christian according to the NT definition.I mean,let's get real,he was going to a RACIST church for 20 years,where the white man is the devil,and he never left.It seems Obama has never heard of the Golden Rule by Jesus in MATT 7:12.I think if I asked him a few simple questions about the NT he would not be able to answer them.

ABOUT ISLAM

What non-Muslims have to learn quickly is that most Muslims approve of Islamic-Sharia Law and that that law violates human rights.You don't have to be a genius to see it.It can not be denied.

Now if Womanfortruth and Ali and the other Muslim people want that for their own people,then so be it.But I have noticed Muslim clerics TRY to CONVINCE non-Muslims Islamic law is COMPATIBLE with the West,human rights as in the 1947 UN Declaration,modernity.
It is not.It is THAT that ROBERT SPENCER points out.For example:

CUT OFF HANDS OF THIEVES(male and female)

It is in the Koran.A good Muslim can not say "throw it away."

100 LASHES FOR ADULTERERS

It is also in the Koran

ALLOWANCE FOR SEX SLAVES

SURAS 23:5 and 70:29-30 say a man has to "guard his private parts/chastity" except for his WIVES and "the ones your right hand possess"(female slaves).

Notice we have 2 DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.And the slave is NOT a wife yet he can still sleep with her.And there is NO limit,technically speaking.There is for the number of WIVES (sura 4:3)of up to 4,but not for slave girls.

minoria said...

Now some Muslims point to 4:3 and 4:24 as proof that a Muslim has to MARRY a slave girl before he can sleep with her.

SURA 4:3 just says to marry only 1 woman if he can not treat 4,3,2 women fairly,or " a slave girl".At the most it says to marry a slave girl to count as your ONE WIFE,but remember 23:5/70:29-30 also CLEARLY authorizes a man to sleep with women who are NOT his wives,as long as they are his slaves.

In other words, 4:3 can be easily reconciled with 23:5/70:29-30.

SURA 4:24

It says a Muslim can NOT marry MARRIED women EXCEPT if the MARRIED WOMAN is a slave girl.A strange law,but again,he can NOT surpass 4 wives and again it can easily be reconciled with 23:5/70:29-30.

WHAT WOULD A FEMINIST SAY?

Now a Western feminist who is really honest about feminism would have to condemn the religion itself,for 100 lashes for adultery and other things.But you read them and their comments about Islam and you are shocked by their lack of intelligence in making claims about a religion which they have NOT really analyzed.They are supposed to be intelligent and they are not.

Again,if a Muslim person wishes to accept it,then so be it,but to say "Islam treats women BETTER than any other religion" is incorrect and Robert Spencer points it out.

minoria said...

AGAIN

Now it is important for non-Muslims to know about these strange doctrines-ideas that are in the Koran,not to ridicule Muslims,but because it is the reality of things.Or take:

SURA 16:106

Where we have TAKIYA.It says not to deny Allah "EXCEPT under COMPULSION","or if you are FORCED".

What is compulsion?Under WHAT circumstances are you being forced?SUNNI Muslims say it is when your LIFE is in DANGER,you can be KILLED.

THE TEXT DOES NOT SAY THAT

It is too general.I believe many Muslim clerics see the obvious and that compulsion can mean other things than danger to one's life.The way they HIDE parts of the Koran in their presentation to Westerners(like saying it treats women the best and hiding about sex slaves)shows they practice 16:106.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE

Or when a MUSLIM says the Koran forbids suicide(sura 2:195,true) so the suicide bombers are anti-Islam,yet does NOT say 9:111 says if you kill for Allah or are killed fighting for him you go to heaven,and that it is even found "in the TORAH and GOSPEL".That is hiding info and is takiya.And the journalists who never investigate and check the accuracy.

minoria said...

JESUS SAID:

"Be as INNOCENT as DOVES and as SLY as SEPENTS"(translated:be GOOD but do not be STUPID)

That is why we non-Muslims have to really find out about Islam,not to ridicule the Muslims but to know reality.

EXAMPLE

A last example.Sometimes a Muslim points to SURA 8:61:"If the ENEMY inclines to PEACE,then incline to PEACE and trust in God."

Noble words.But it would be CONDITIONAL because we have SURA 47:35:

"Do NOT be LAZY and CRY for PEACE when YOU have the ADVANTAGE and God is with you and he will not bring your deeds to nothing."

So if the Muslim is WEAK,he can be peaceful with the non-Muslim but what if he is strong,like in Egypt,Lebanon,Pakistan,Iran?

Again,non-Muslims in Europe who live in PREDOMINANTLY Muslim areas all say they are not free to speak out as they wish and there are many fanatics in the population who are violent if they say negative things about Islam.

Nakdimon said...

Womenfortruth: Nakdimon, the Quresh tribe was very violent to the Muslims. Their leader humiliated and critisized any convert to islam (some sources say even tortured or killed). Meccan's had a habit of attacking muslims. I dont think who started the war matters, since the Quresh were a major threat.


Amy, you are again saying things that are contrary to your sources. Your sources say that the Meccans didn’t mind Muhammad’s preaching as long as he didn’t attack their gods, their forefathers and their traditions. But Muhammad kept doing just that. It was Muhammad that promised the Meccans that he would bring them slaughter. It is also reported in your sources that Muhammad’s uncle Hamza drew first blood and NOT the Meccans. The Meccans were not a threat, the Muslims were a threat. If the Meccans were such a threat then how come that Muhammad could preach his message for 13 years in Mecca of which a long period was without persecution? Unlike when one preaching against Islam, that would get you killed in a second in an Islamic society.

Fernando said...

WomenforTruth (or Ali... since we habe seen in somme off the latter threads some off you using ythe other supposed name) saide: «Yes it would Fernando christians always get upset when the word "Darwin" appears»...

well, I do not know where you got thate idea... perhaps from a psychological deficiency derived from progecting one's believes into others... perhaps your're a friend off Nuh Ha Mim Keller who saide: «As for claim that man has evolved from a non-human species, this is unbelief (kufr) no matter if we ascribe the process to Allah or to "nature," because it negates the truth of Adam's special creation that Allah has revealed in the Qur'an»...

or, perhaps, from all those muslim countries thate forbadis the teaching off evolutionism in schools...

ohhh... I see, I'm not talking off madrassas where children onlie learn how to recite the qur'an in a language thate they do not understand and do not eben know how to writte theire names or make simple mats (those obviously beliebe in evoluciounism), butt from proper schools...

As for me, a normal Christian, I do nott habe a single problem withe interconecting, on one hand, mie believe in God, the Bible and, in the other one, the scientific evidence thate the material support for the human being (not his soul) derives from an evolution from not-yet-human forms... butt then itt occured an onthological jump when thate support was prepared to become a spiritual being... in this case I do believe in some sort off an anthopic process thate states thate the Universe in witch we leave in, with all its compexity, is intrinsequely structured to developp human beings...

more: we Christians, on the contrary to the muslim obcession to the (false) miracle evidences in teh qur'an (in whitch that The Osama The Great Abdallah is your top exponent... and thate sayes all... bie the way: hi Osama; may God, the Blessed Trinity, bless you...), do nott think thate the Holy Bible is a book off science... our faithe is upon the live, dead and ressurection off Jesus, nott upon the false kwoledge thate muhammad borrowed from pagan sources... hey, the Sun layes down in brown watter; the semen comes from in between the blackbonne and the ribs; the eart as being egg-shapped... buttocks...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Brian wrote:

I guess that is who I am right now, a unitarian christian who does not believe in the blood atonement of Jesus and the resurrection.

Elijah replies:

Brian,

You are not a Christian at all. The term Christians was first used of the Christians in Antioch being those who followed Jesus, or followed 'the way' the Christians followed.

To be a Christian you need to follow Jesus and believe in his teaching. His teaching includes his death and resurrection.

Brianman said...

Well actually I confessed that I am t_a_s pretending to be a muslim because there are muslim arguments that I wanted you to answer (because that is my religion of interest, although right now I am more or less a unitarian christian).

I swear on my life, I am not ashraf hahaha

But honestly, please please please give me your best interpretation of john 1:1 and rebuttal to unitarianchristian explanation of john 1:1.

One more, please give me your interpretation of:
Psalms 146:

1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise the LORD, O my soul.
2 While I live will I praise the LORD: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being.
3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

Because Jesus is a 'son of man'.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Brian wrote:

I guess that is who I am right now, a unitarian christian who does not believe in the blood atonement of Jesus and the resurrection.

I say:

I’m a Trinitarian Muslim who does not believe that Muhammad is a Prophet or that the Quran is the word of God.

Glad to meet you Brian

peace

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Brian,

What exactly is the problem you have with John 1: 1, what Unitarian article are you referring to??

However, let me also point out that this thread is about Spencer in connectino with Rifqa not the Trinity.

It is amazing how muslims manage to divert a topic.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Good one, Fifth Monarcy Man

aussie christian said...

I was watching a video from the rifqa rally on the 16th and heard a wonderful analogy of what islam is.

Islam is not a religeon, it is a 1 party totalatarium system. Very apt in my humble opinion.

Don't ask questions, just do what we tell you to, if anyone asks, lie or kill them. yep islam completes all the nessessary requirements to be a cult and a fascist system alrighty. Criminalise islam, arrest and deport all clerics and muslims who go against the laws of the land, problem solved.

And to our Muslim "friends" please stick to the topic at hand, instead of constantly throwing in subjects which have nothing to do with the thread. If you have no REAL comments, then close thy mouth, lay thy hands off the keyboard, and sit quietly. the more you bluster and blow, the more you show yourselves to be a waste of space.

And before you jump up and down yelling, islamaphobe, hate writing, etc etc, I am just calling it as I see it. So either be on subject, or be silent.

Peace and Love.

minoria said...

Reflecting on what Sunil said one's interaction with Muslims has to be respectful but also firm.I mean if a Muslim does not want to stay on topic then it should be pointed out.How can I explain myself?One should ask for a yes or no response:

Yes or no,do you believe Islamic law oppresses non-Muslims?

If no,then if I showed you Islamic laws that do,would YOU reject Islamic law?Yes or no?

You see an avoidance of saying yes or no among Muslim clerics in the West.Now if the typical Muslim wants to continue to believe in all that then so be it,but he or she should know non-Muslims are not to be fooled by word-games from their spokesmen.I think there is enough to prove that we have a real "clash of civilizations".It is not a myth and many Muslims have finally realized alot of non-Muslims have noticed it,and know alot about Islam.

How do you DEFEAT an IDEA,asked JOSE MARTI,one of Latin America's greatest writers,and the hero of Cuban Independence.He said:"You DEFAT it with ANOTHER IDEA."

aussie christian said...

Thegrandverbalizer made a comment that it is bad to debate certain islamic appologists, normal statement from islam when said appologist loses debate.

Here is the simple reason Christians debate all muslims who ask for debate.

1. If we do not debate (insert name of muslim), then the catchcry of "this is islams newest greatest debater, because Christians have no answer to them and are running and hiding".

2. We have blown their arguments out the window cause they cant answer (insert name of muslim).

3. If we do not keep answering the same sad arguments over and over, time and again, islam yells, "see they know we have them on the ropes cause they cant answer this simple question".

So no matter how you word your "arguments" we just keep answering the same back, why you ask, because the truth never changes no matter how you change the wording of the same sad incomplete arguments against Jesus Christ.

Also, please keep your "arguments" to doctrine instead of basing Christianity on some persons personality. It is becoming sad.

Peace and Love

Dragostea said...

Brian man...

You keep hearing us talking about Jamies White...he has a good talent at explaining very simply john 1:1, i just watched it some time ago..here is the link about what you asked: A GOOD EXPLANATION OF JOHN 1:1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M812Fzv3L3g

hope you'll watch it...

God's blessings be with you...

Paul Guralivu said...

To Brainman:

"I was analysing trinitarian arguments for a long time, they are all weak. ".

"Well actually I confessed that I am t_a_s pretending to be a muslim because there are muslim arguments that I wanted you to answer (because that is my religion of interest, although right now I am more or less a unitarian christian)."

Didn't I showed a clear argument from Qur'an and arabic for Jesus divinity&eternity and I challanged you Brainman which you are a muslim to answer that challange ?

Here's the challange again.
BUT THIS TIME PLEASE ANSWER ME:

In Surah 4:171 Muhammad is calling Jesus "Kalimatuhu"(Word of Allah). We also know that Kalimatuhu is uncreated therefore eternal=>Jesus is eternal.

More to the matter, let's analize the text from Surah 4:171:

‘Alqaa’ means “to throw, cast, fling, offer, commit, or convey”. This meaning of the physical throwing or casting of an object is strongly reflected in the story of
Moses when he threw a rod “Then (Moses) threw[alqa] his rod[‘asa], and behold! it was a serpent, plain (for all to see)! [Faalqa AAasahu fa-itha hiya thuAAbanun mubeenun]” Surah 7:107 “(God) said, `Throw[alqi] it, O Moses!’ [Qala alqiha ya moosa] He threw[alqa] it, and behold! It was a snake, active in motion. [Faalqaha fa-itha hiya hayyatun tasAAa].” Surah 20:20,21 “So (Moses) threw[alqa] his rod [‘asa], and behold, it was a serpent, plain (for all to see)! [Faalqa AAasahu fa-itha hiya thuAAbanun mubeenun] “ Surah 26:32 “Moses said to them:`Throw[alqoo] ye - that which ye are about to throw!’ [Qala lahum moosa alqoo ma antum mulqoona] Then Moses threw[alqa] his rod[asa], when, behold, it straightway swallows up all the falsehoods which they fake! [Faalqa moosa AAasahu fa-itha hiya talqafu ma ya/fikoona] “ Surah 26:44.45

Before one can throw an object, that object must have existed in the first place. Hence, His Word[Kalimatuhu] and also called Spirit[Ruhu min hu] must also be in existence before Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb. Jesus as Kalimat and Ruh existed with God before he was born !

Surah 4:171
Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa innama almaseehu AAeesa ibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqaha ila maryama waroohun minhu faaminoo biAllahi warusulihi wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidun subhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun lahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee al-ardi wakafa biAllahi wakeelan.

This is my argument against Muslim argument that Jesus was created when God said "Be!".

Please refute it.

Paul.

Brianman said...

Thanks a lot Dragostea :)

I'll watch it now.

leviMichael said...

thegrandverbalizer19, now that u mentioned John Gilchrist...

i would like to ask u the same question...

why don't islamic channels show the debate he had with deedat? or the debate deedat had with josh mcdowell?

why r debates that deedat had with jimmy swaggart and co. still shown?

Apollos26 said...

@WomanForTruth101:


you know, it is incredibble easy to get into discussion with a peson of the islamic believe, cause everything we christians use, are just the islamic ressources all the muslim sheiks, imams, professors etc. are using.

That is the BIIIIIIIIG difference to muslims who want to atack christianity. They make things up, they come with ditorted out of context uotations, they use always the OT and want to proof that we christians have to kill - why doing this? Well, you need this kind of silly argumentation to justify the unchristian atrocities made by your prophet.

I am still waiting for he proof that our holy scriptures are corrupted. Stil waiting for this and you know what, my waiting will be in vain, cause you never will have a single proof for that, and please don't come up with scriptural variants, cause that is no corruption. Don't come up with John 8, that is an addition, that might be very justified to be added to the Holy Bible. Why it was added, we only can speculate. And what if will be taken ut from the Gospel of John, will this in any way change christian theology? Will it shake the foundations of Jesus divinity? - NOPE!!!!


WomanOfTruth, he only thing that you have to do is just read your islamic sources if you don't beliebe the apologists that are doing there work greatly.

If you want to debate, be fare and the most important thing, be courageous! Don't defend islam in advance before not checking up what is written in your sources.

You say that christianity is the wrong path. Do you really have reasons for this? You are a muslim because you don't understand the concept of the holy trinity? You believe in your arabian prophet because he proclaimed the quran to be a miracle (which by no way can be proven) and that he was foretold in the OT and NT (that cannot be proven too)? You are a muslim because you have checked all the ressources, you investigated christianity and finally came to the conclusion that christianity can't be true?


Jesus said:

I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH and THE LIFE, nobody comes to the FATHER but through ME. THE TRUTH will make you free, that means JESUS will make you free. If you follow your dead arabian prophet, you will be lost in eternity.



May the mercy of our LORD and GOD Jesus come upon you and open your heart and eyes.


Apollos

Brianman said...

Such disrespect on this forum on behalf of the trinitarians. They all act cold yet say things like "Dear brother" "May God bless you at the end".. then they say things in a harsh TONE such as "your dead arabian prophet"...such split personality behaviour.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

You say:

Such disrespect on this forum on behalf of the trinitarians.

I respond:

Let us review shall we….

So far

You have blasphemed my Lord and savior by calling him a mere mortal.
You have belittled my scriptures picking and choosing those parts you like and ignoring the rest .
You have discounted my only hope for salvation with a wave of the hand.

And now you accuse others of being disrespectful. How Ironic

You say:


They all act cold yet say things like "Dear brother" "May God bless you at the end".. then they say things in a harsh TONE such as "your dead arabian prophet"...such split personality behaviour.

I respond:

Everyone agrees that Mohamed is a dead Arabian. Why is speaking the universally accepted truth so objectionable to you?

Is it because of the obvious contrast between a dead “prophet” and a living Christ?

peace

Brianman said...

Oh Hi paul.

IT would take forever to refute it, I have a great refutation for it. But I really can't be bothered WRITING IT ALL UP.
How can you accept the trinity based on the Gospel of John (the most trinitarian gospel according to Christians). I have read it so many times. It is all about the controversy of him being the Christ and not God.

Fernando said...

The SOA Brianman said: «the Gospel of John (the most trinitarian gospel according to Christians)»...

whate Christians? Oh, I see, ounce againe you cant be bothered... perhaps you'll, next, as you did withe me in a previous threat, will start menacing and demanding people not to writte back to you... to sad...

Paul Guralivu said...

Hi Brianman,

I don't mind your refutation to my "Jesus Divinity in Qur'an". Please give it to me. It's not enough to say that you have it. Share it with me.

And I don;t accept divinity of Christ based on Gospel of John alone. I accept it based on a few facts that are in both Old & New Testament:

a)God is the only savior and only forgiver of sins, giver of the peace. Yet both in the Old & New Testament there is an other one that does the same. One that must be born from a virgin and have no sin and suffer for mankind.
In the new testament it's revealed that Jesus Christ was the one. Don't think of Jesus as Created, but rather as his body as created, but the Spirit as God.

b)The son must be honored as the Father there for He must be God.
The son and Father are one.

c)The amount of evidence for His divinity in Gospel of Matthew&Mark&Luke is overwhelming: Jesus forgives sins, gives peace, stays with the believers to the very end. Only God does that. Only God can do this.

d)the body of believers belongs to God, yet from the very first century the testimony of the church was that every follower of Christ belongs to Christ. Therefore He must be God.

e)The testimony of first leaders that had to deal with christians had to deal with the fact that they were denying emporer divinity and attribute it to an other(in their mind they fought He was a man)-Plinius the Young to Traian- around 112. That shows us that nothing changes since the church of the first century.

The Bible(BOTH Old & New Testament), the History, the archeology(the caves of persecuted christians shows God coming in flesh-pictures on the walls) is overwhelming.

Jesus Christ is LORD(Creator of Universe), GOD and SAVIOR(of humankind from the sin).

Brainman I know that many times the muslims can;t understand why christian worship a man or a flesh God. I do believe that you believe the same. But what I'm saying to you is this: the body was created, the SPIRIT WAS GOD.

Paul.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Brian:

You said:

How can you accept the trinity based on the Gospel of John

I respond


Who accepts the trinity based on the Gospel of John?

Christians accept the trinity based on the self revelation of Jesus Christ the risen Son of God . This revelation is found all through the Bible from Genesis through Revelation.

Christians know this Bible is the Revelation of God based on the testimony of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit.

In practical terms the doctrine of the trinity is grounded in the claims and promises of Jesus. These promises and claims find their grounding in the resurrection.

Here are some of the ways this plays out


1)The OT Claimed that the messiah is God and Jesus proved he is that messiah by rising from the dead.

2)In his incarnation Jesus claimed to be God and proved it by rising from the dead.

4) The entire New Testament claims that Jesus is God and offers as proof his resurrection.

3)The Holy Spirit testifies to the believer today that Jesus is God and proves this by pointing to his resurrection.



If you want to disprove the Trinity you are looking in the wrong place. You should start by looking at the empty tomb.

If you deny the resurrection you will reject the Trinity if you accept the resurrection and are consistent you will accept it. It’s that simple


peace

Paul Guralivu said...

To brainman:

Still waiting for the refutation on Jesus divinity in Quran.

Paul.