There is no point dragging this matter with Yahya Snow on, let me just conclude with this thread (unless of course something comes up in the near future).
Since Yahya Snow has not welcomed my rebuttals of his youtube video, in which he criticises my comments made on http://www.answeringmuslims.com/ that Islam is demonic (see link: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/01/pakistan-twelve-year-old-christian-girl.html ), and since Yahya has even removed the comment section on his blog to prevent the links and my responses to his youtube video (read his explanation: http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/02/comment-section.html ), all I am going to do now is to ask Yahya to edit his own post and to provide the links to my blogs under the video.
My rebuttals can be read here:
This should be fair and honest toward me and the issue that has been brought up.
So far Yahya's readers and viewers are only introduced to his side of the matter and his refutation, which I have refuted into pieces (check the links to my rebuttals).
Other Christian apologists such as Semper Paratus have experienced a similar treatment doing dialogue with Yahya Snow:
So far Yahya Snow has been permitted to post freely on my blogs and the blog of Semper Paratus and he is still free to post there. Yet we do not share in this privilege when entering the blog of Yahya, which is slightly complicated when engaging in a dialogue.
I can only conclude so far that Yahya is probably being afraid of being exposed.
Yahya has contacted me urging me to be patient, however, this is not a matter of being patient, the issue concerns the basic and simple honesty of providing the full picture of our dialogue to the readers; that simply cannot demand all this time.
I will be patient and wait as long as it takes for his next rebuttal of my refutations of his video, but at least I expect him to share with his readers the full scale of this dialogue.
So what is the problem? Why is it so difficult for Yahya to provide the links to my rebuttals on Yahay's blog?
Why is Yahya afraid of comments? He claims that unmoderated comments are chaotic, and I can only say: good grief. I run three blogs and contribute to a fourth, I have never had that problem. But now Yahya states that even moderating the comment sections is an impossible task, mainly due to blasphemous statements (I guess my honest rebuttals) and dubious links (my blogs). Due to this he closed down the comment sections.
See his reason for removing the comment section here below:
'It has been removed. A moderated comment section was in vogue, however seen as I am being further pressed for time I cannot commit to moderated comments...which does require time and effort as many comments contain blasphemy and dubious links.
An unmoderated comment section does notwork...it has been tried in the past and has failed pretty miserably :(
So, for those who wish to interact or have suggestions then please contact me via YouTube.'
See the link below:
Obviously the blasphemy are my rebuttals and the dubious links, the links I linked to my rebuttals on his comment section.
All I am asking Yahya to do is to present his rebuttal against me in full context and to allow his readers to know that Hogan has defended himself: that Hogan does not perceive himself as misbehaving nor does he perceive himself as being unwise. Furthermore, his readers and viewers ought to know that Hogan has defended himself against several remarks in the video in which Yahya states that Hogan must know otherwise and that Hogan has not read the Bible. Also the readers and viewers of Yahya should be introduced to the real matter, that is: what Hogan originally reacted to.
I expect therefore Yahya Snow to show honesty in this matter and edit his video or original post on his blog and on the youtube and provide the links to my rebuttals and the original issue I reacted to when I made the comment.
No offence bro, I respect you and I hope we can keep up the dialogue.
I'm habbing a long debate with our good friend in humanity Chaud in a previous threath thate is getting almost lost in time... so: I ask my beloved brother in Christ (and the other owners off this blogg) permition to place my answers here... thanks (and feel free to enter in this good debate)...
I was wondering iff you woulde be polite to waitte me to answer your previous comments before you presented others… you were nott…
10) You saide: «As if translations and commentaries don’t exist!»… I neber claimed they did not exist, I just claimed thate 90% off muslims do not habe access to a qur’an thate they can read…
11) You can say whatever you wantte aboute whate this or thate major scholar (bt the way: can you presentte a single evidence thate shows this? Thankes…) says, the reality persists: muslims do nott habe acces to a qur’an in a language they can understand it…
12) You saide: «contradictions, no! you are confusing the Quran with the bible»… no Chaud… that’s eben why the author off the qur’an invented the notion off obrogarion… eben he acknowledged thate the qur’an has contradictions… now aboutte the bible: can you present one single contradiction? And pleas: take in accountte the different meaning thate muslims and Christians habe abboutte revelation and inspiration in your acessement…
13) Chaud, Chaud… whate kind off person are you for providing ebidence from Youtube? I’ll skip thate since that’s not a truly scholar thing to do… you can presentte them here iff you which… So: the qur’an has warnings and rewards… so: for some questions we habe warnings, to others we habe rewards… can you presente one and other? And who determines, according to your falty interpretation off the qur’anic text I presented, when to stop the “infinite loop”, and when this or thate question is “absurd”… iff one startes by the “reason of revelation” then I suppose, like muslims do say, there is no need to make questions… that’s precisely my point: hey: the qur’an is from allah, do you not eben dare to make some questions unless you will lose your faithe…
(end part 1)
14) You saide: «they need to read the qur’an and realize that what some of their leaders preach is not islam… great Chaud… why is this persinting? hummm… I guess this is due to the fact this is being like thate since islam is islam, butt now, Chaud is tryingue to upgrade islam 1.0 (the true one) to islam 2.0 (the aparentely true one)… good job on thate…
15) You saide: «I truly believe you were a stupid muslim«… yes I was a normal and common muslim… iff you want to call all your brothers who were, and are, like whate I was as “stupids”, feel free to do so… I had to read off the net off the “don’t ask, don’t tell” in order to learn about true islam… I left islam after two years studing, while still in my madrassa, its story and theology also in contact withe former muslims tahte had converted to Christianity… I left islam after learning aboutte islam in its core while being still in contact whithe it…
16) Chaud, Chaud… don’t play arounde with words… the greatest type off jihad is not «a word of truth in the presence of a tyrant»… this does not eben desearve a refute… your taqiyya is clear to all to see… the hadeed do not speak off “the greatest type of jihad”, butt off “one off the greatest forms of jihad”… And see Bukhari 2:26:594: «Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet was asked, "Which is the best deed?" He said, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle." He was then asked, "Which is the next (in goodness)?" He said, "To participate in jihad in allah's Cause." He was then asked, "Which is the next?" He said, "To perform Hajj-Mabrur."»… do you mean thate this kind off jihad thate is presented as being the 2nd greatest thing a muslim can do is «a word of truth in the presence of a tyrant»? Whate I’ll say to you next will depend on you answer…
17) so, according to you, someone thate does not know thate the earth orbits the sun because his teachers tell him otherwise (eben when they now they are lying) is as guilty off ignorance as them… hummm… another X-ray into the barbaric muslim mentality…
19) ok… any word you do not understand, please tell me so and I’ll writte it as better than I can in arabic…
20) Chaud… Chaud… I stande by wahte I saide: you showed (as in the comment thate motivated this one…) utter ignorance about whate you were talking… how can you deny this evidence… the sequence off events thate made me tell this is clearly present above so all can see it…
21) You saide: «and once you seize being ignorant, you will leave Christianity»… no Chaud… my ignorance stared seixing when I discovered Christianity and started leaving islam… it was a long process thate makes me recognize thate I was no more a muslim longue before I left islam… Christianity is not based upon the example off someone thate himself lied… Jesus neber lied, on the other hand muhammad clearly did so and encouraged others to do so…
22) You asked: «If Jesus is a man that never seized to be God, why doesn't he know that last hour?»… this is a good and, I imagine, honest question from you… Jesus is nott an human person: He’s only a divine upostasis (the prexistent one according, v.g., to John and Paul), butt when assuming his human nature (nott an human person) the operative faculties off thate person were somehow limited (I’ll explain this below) to whate his human nature coulde support… obviously the divine upostasis knew the last hour, butt his human nature could nott process thate information thate He had since it was nott relevant to whate He was sent, by the Father, to do… I do nott know whate my beloved Christian brother Abdullah told aboutte this subject… can you explain me?
23) You also asked: «and How does God (the infinite) becomes man (finite), while staying infinite and no changing his nature?»… We Christians believe thate man is whate God is ehen He enters in his creation… that’s whi the Book of Genesis says man was created at the image and likeness off God… the core biblical teaching is nott thate God is infinite, rather than God is love… infinite is nott, de per se, an predicate off God, butt off whate God is: love… so: God is infinite love and not, de per se, an infinite being… butt let’s skip the essential biblical notion off God and start by where you standed… the Infinite, to eb infinite, has in itself the finite, so: from all the eternity, the “future” finite structure off creation, and the incarnation (and for thate being off human resurrection into even), was inscribed into the proper infinite nature off God… so: when incarnating there was no change in God's nature…
I would answer why Jesus didn't know the last hour was because he had limited himself(like the CARMEN CHRISTI states).God the Son that is.So he didn't know everything at that precise moment.He was always God however because he always had the ESSENCE/NATURE of God:uncreated/undestroyable.The infinite can become finite and still remain God since the nature of God always is the same.
Why not a debate in a neutral forum with access to both sites?
That way Mr. Snow can link to the third site without feeling responsible for comments he doesn't approve of.
I think it is clear Yahya has chosen a monologue.
He is, however, following the typical Islamic method: The Muslim gets to speak to followers of all other beliefs, while simultaneously doing everything possible to make sure the members of the "umma" only hear the Islamic position.
Hi brother minoria... yes... absolutelly thate... God the Son limited Himself... he accepted thate His divine faculties woulde bee limited to the human capacities...
in my cathequesis I gibe this example to explaine this: imagine 1 litre off water placed uppon a flatte plane perfectelly plane... whatte woulde happen? the water would, theoretequelly, expand itself withoutte limit until the infinitum... then take thate 1 litre off water and place in a bottle...
has the water suffered any change in its nature? no... can it move until the infinitum? no...
well... this is just an analogy...
" I would answer why Jesus didn't know the last hour was because he had limited himself".
Philippians 2v6-11 answers why. See also John 17v5, where He receives His glory back.
For the record, I think Jeff is a pseudonym for Jon the Apostate. He's posing as a Christian and is only doing a slightly better job than Muslims pulling it off.
It isn't just Muslims whose theology justifies lying: the morally bankrupt worldview of atheism also provides no standards that rule out lying. As different as atheists and Muslims might appear, "like Samson's foxes they are knit together by the tail of consent and jointly endeavor to consume the standing corn of the Church of God."
Brother Semper... I noticed thate (Jef/Jon) earlier in the day when I placed a small question in a previous thread... lets waitte and see...
Semper Paratus, how did you come to that conclusion? (That Jeff is Jon.) Just wondering.
How are you? still always wthe the same sort off questions as you placed here when we identified t_a_s as brianman?
I'll leave the answer to our brother Semper...
Thank you for the input.I had not known of JOHN 17:5(Jesus got his glory back):"Father,glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."I have added it to my notes.The PHILIP passage you alluded to is also known as the CARMEN CHRISTI hymn-creed("Song of the Messiah"),perhaps written only 10 years after Jesus' death.
I have been reading a bit about her.She is a legend in Germany with 200 SCHOOLS named after her.In one poll she was even named the greatest German woman in all history.She was the only female member of the WHITE ROSE.They were a group of young Germans who actively distributed and mailed tracts against Hitler and telling of the extermination of the Jews in 1943.They were around 20,except for one.She was 21.
To my utter surprise I found out they were devout Christians,some Protestant(Sophie and her brother),some Catholic.In one of the tracts they even mention God several times.After 10 years of NAZIFICATION of German youth it is surprising they had not been brainwashed.They were caught and executed in 1943.In the last day of her life Sophie was allowed to see her parents,who approved of her and her mother said:"Sophie,REMEMBER JESUS".And she said:"YES,but YOU too."Then she was killed.
I have already recounted the case of DANIEL ZION,the Messianic Jewish rabbi of Bulgaria who helped save the 50,000 Jews there.And ARISTIDES MENDES SOUSA,the Portuguese aristocrat and consul who in 1940 gave 30,000 visas(though he had been ordered not to) which saved the lives of those people(of which 10,000 were Jews).Or HANS FRANK,the Nazi ruler of Poland who in the end repented and came to believe in Jesus and pleaded guilty,saying he deserved to die.And he was condemend in the Nuremberg trial.He was the only one accused who pleaded guilty.
Hahaha! You internet people are so funny...
No, I'm Jeff in Gaithersburg Maryland.
I COULD be some lying apostate named John or I could be Simon Magus reincarnate or anybody..and if it pleases you to think so, go right ahead, with my blessing... :)
But for whatever it's worth to you: I'm not. I'm Jeff who loves the Lord Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of God, with all his unworthy heart and spends lots of time explaining Him to Muslims.
Okay, I'll give you that: you COULD just as well be Jon the Apostate or Simon Magus reincarnate or just a garden variety pagan. My thought that you were Jon was not settled in stone. I was open to a better suggestion, and yours is just as good as any. Simon it is then.
Don't worry. Just like you have persuaded yourself and seek to persuade others to believe that Islam is just a little blooper rather than a devilish lie, it shouldn't be too hard for you to deceive yourself into believing that Simon was a sincere seeker after truth rather than someone guilty of great wickedeness, full of bitterness and captive to sin.
Since you said you love the Lord Jesus, the eternal Son of God, do you think it a devilish lie to say he isn't the Son of God? Is it a Satanically inspired lie for someone to proclaim himself a prophet and an apostle of God while denying the Son? Or is it just a slight theological indiscretion that can be all the more trivialized and overlooked provided that the same mouth that says it also tells people to be faithful to their many wives and slave girls and not to kill off the next crop of sex toys before they reach maturity?
One of the Internet People
I think it can be a devilish lie to say that Christ is not the Son of God. Or it can be mistake--the result of ignorance or self-deception.
I suppose in SOME sense of the word, the Devil is behind every falsehood, intentional or not.
It's true that I am Jeff and not any of these other characters. Does that mean that the Devil has inspired you to believe I am not because you are wrong? Maybe in some indirect sense he has a role in it. But I figure the main responsibility for your mistake lies in you and your background and experiences in life and on the net...and maybe in something I have done or some way I have expressed myself.
I won't let you say, "the Devil made me do it!" nor will I accuse you of being directed by Satanic power just because you're not convinced I'm Jeff, the Christian. :p
I think there are lots of reasons to proclaim yourself a prophet...including wishful thinking and being a bit of nut. Or hearing voices.
Or wanting power.
Or: being possessed or directly inspired by the Devil.
People are a mixed bag with lots of influence and reasons and self-explanations and justifications sloughing around inside of them.
I think the true motivations of Mohammed are lost in time. We can't reach back and reconstruct them with any certainty.k
Maybe he started out as an honest admirer of monotheism and went with the flow of acceptance. Even one of the main debaters here says that he really likes the early stages of the prophet Mohammed. When according to you, he was devil directed.
So, I suppose it's a possibility. But I find it unlikely.
But after all, that's because I'm Simon Magus and I've cast a wicked spell on you! :p
We've made some progress. You've now conceded that Satan is at least a remote cause of Muhammad's pretensions to prophethood and his attack on the deity, crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. I would also say that Satan is at least a remote cause of clouding people's minds, turning them into "Simple Simon's" and getting them to betray their professed loyalties by engaging them in foolhardy projects like defending something as pernicious and insidious as Islam.
As for your false antithesis - i.e., either Islam is Satanic in origin or it is the result of self-deception and wishful thinking - I demur. Wishful thinking, sin and other factors could have played a role in Muhammad arrogating the title "prophet" to himself. Unfortunately for your thesis, it was wishful thinking that got Muhammad over the hump of believing himself to be demon possessed, and it is wishful thinking to believe that that little tid-bit has been lost to history.
BTW, only someone as arrogant as Simon Magus would put the person identifying him to possibly be one of the many pretenders who come here under a pseudonym (based on his penchant for taking jabs at Christianity and whitewashing the true nature of Islam) in the same category as a man who says, in the name of "God", that Jesus is not the Son of God come in the flesh. The former could be a mistake, even though based on a measure of available evidence, but the latter couldn't be anything other than a lie from the pit itself.
And just because "Simon Says" we shouldn't believe Islam to be Satanic in origin doesn't mean we shouldn't. No matter how unlikely it seems to you, most of us prefer what John says:
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood. (1 John 4)
I wasn't making the antithesis and I'm glad you demur. I demur too. That's my point.
I don't think it's necessary to insist on something we don't know: that Islam is simply of the Devil in a direct and total sense.
Or to insist that someone you might not know on the internet is not Jeff the Christian because it tickles you to imagine him an atheist or an evil spirit incarnate or something else.
I still don't see that you've confronted the central point: granted that Satan is in some sense a remote cause of every mistake and sin no matter how venial, when is it helpful and meaningful to point to him?
How do we know when a religious error is simply a mistake or a result of foolish pride and when it's a direct result of a plan hatched by the Evil One himself?
I don't know and don't pretend to know. I don't know whether Satan whispered in Mohammed's ear or whether he made it all up for fun. Or any of a lot of other possibilities.
And neither do you.
But if we are both avoiding the false antithesis, maybe we actually agree. If all you mean is that Islam is Satan inspired or influenced in the same sense that every false doctrine, teaching, vain imagination, etc.k is Satan inspired, then we agree after all.
Jeff said: I wasn't making the antithesis and I'm glad you demur.
Jeff said: I think it can be a devilish lie to say that Christ is not the Son of God. Or it can be mistake--the result of ignorance or self-deception.
That's what we call a false antithesis, Jeff. But you are free to offer up a revisionistic understanding of the term. You've already proven your knack for it in the realm of history, arbitrarily rejecting what Muslim sources themselves tell us about the origin of Muhammad's prophetic pretensions (and given its embarassing nature, we wouldn't expect Muslims to make it up), which begs for an application of passages such as the one I cited from 1 John.
In any event, since you have started to lose your entertainment value, since your responses are becoming increasingly inept - something I didn't think possible after your first defense of Islam - and since you are of the opinion that we are saying the same thing, a mistake very few others are likely to make, I'll let the matter rest here for now.
I'll let you have the last word in this post, provided you don't bring up another Islamic doctrine or practice to defend to go along with your attempted defense of Islamic polygamy, the practice of concubinage and Mutah, plural words in the Qur'an, etc.
Post a Comment