Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Good Shot from the Arab Festival

Brother Ed Overton sent me this picture. You can see Nabeel's "Jesus Always Loves You" shirt (a strange message for someone who, according to Muslims, was spreading racism and intolerance while mercilessly harassing Muslim children). Nabeel is standing with Pastor George Saieg, who is still involved in a civil case against Dearborn for denying his Constitutional rights to freedom of speech and free expression of religion. Then there's me in the background, somehow brutally harassing Muslims by filming Nabeel. If the Dearborn Police Department ever returns our illegally seized video cameras (it's been twelve days and counting), I'll be able to post video of whatever Nabeel was saying here (surely something racist and Islamophobic, if Muslim comments and videos are accurate). BTW, several Muslims at the festival were taking pictures of us and recording us. I'm waiting for all the footage of us supposedly harassing people!

52 comments:

Rafik Responde ao Isla said...

Hopefully the police department will not "accidentally" erase the videos or "miraculously" lose it.

yohannes said...

David, are you sure, you not holding a bazooka in your hand, rather than a camera, why would you aim it at the helpless onlookers?

Haecceitas said...

yohannes, I think you're right. David is a terrorist. He's shooting in the picture! And apparently Nabeel couldn't just approach the Muslims with bare hands either.

GreekAsianPanda said...

You Islamophobes!! =)

Can't wait for the videos. I hope you guys get them back, because that would be great.

David Wood said...

Yes, Nabeel is obviously holding a club in his hand. He must be using it to beat Muslims.

mirele said...

I guess you didn't read the article on Charisma magazine's website, David. It's not awfully flattering when some of your co-religionists (still a very good dictionary word) are down on your alleged "evangelism." Indeed, there's quite a different view on what happened just prior to you being taken off to jail by a fellow Christian:

http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/news/28835-charismatic-pastor-says-michigan-muslims-open-to-gospel-

See, it's not just the eeevuulll Moooslims who object to your tactics.

David Wood said...

Mirele,

I did read some of that article. I wish the author had checked out Haytham a bit more carefully (or had bothered to contact us to check his accuracy) before going to him as a source. Haytham is a complete liar. I hate to have to expose a fellow Christian, but when I get my footage back from the police, a few Christians are going to be exposed along with the Muslims. I'll never figure out why people assume they can get away with lying when indisputable video footage will prove they're lying, but for some reason, Dearborn has that effect on people.

Anthony Rogers said...

Mirele,

Pointing to the example of a Christian acting like a Dhimmi does not exhonerate the actions of "eeevuulll Moooslims" or prove that David and the others did anything either immoral or illegal.

In fact, Haytham's (unproven) claim about David and the others being confrontational actually reflects both the evil of at least some of the Muslims there and also his dhimmi status: "If he [David] thinks that's how to reach out to people and that's how to dialogue with people, I think they are endangering their own lives for no reason." (source)

In other words, Haytham doesn't confront eeevulll Moooslims because he realizes he would be endangering his own life. Why does he speak that way if not for the fact that he knows that Islam inclines people to violence? As well, his statements reflect that his choice to minister one way is determined by fear of the Muslim response. What a good little dhimmi.

Methinks Haytham needs to repent and quit attacking and lying about people who aren't intimidated and who have not chosen the path of dhimmitude. And if he doesn't repent, then Muslims need to get their dhimmi in line so he doesn't continue to make unwitting remarks in the future that, as much as he may intend otherwise, still end up making Muslims look bad.

John Lollard said...

I don't think dismissing Haytham as a dhimmi is really particularly honest of us, and seems kind of belittling to the Christians in the world who are subjected to dhimmitude, dealing with the constant abduction and rape of their daughters (our sisters).

I think it'd be a lot better to note that Haytham is one witness who has an interest in being on Muslims' good sides, apparently to better reach them with the Gospel more efficiently, and that he is mainly expressing concern with the Muslim perception of Acts 17's approach. He seems to imply a lot of stuff, but I don't see him actually providing a testimony to anything in particular Nabeel said, just the Muslim response to it.

I think it'd be better to counter this testimony (which doesn't appear very detailed or that the witness was particularly involved in the events) with the eyewitness testimony of others, in particular those who have posted their testimony on this board, which are much more detailed. And of course, point to the existence of video evidence that will settle the dispute finally (as we all did).

By the way, David, apparently even after the video is posted, Muslims are going to continue to accuse you by stating that you edited the videos to make yourself look good. As such, you may want to consider finding a way to demonstrate the truthfulness of the video after you upload it.

I hope my suggestion sounds reasonable. If not, then I apologize for any appearance of disagreement.

Love in Christ,
JL

David Wood said...

Hi John,

We've been condemned by a number of Christians, and we have not responded, mostly because we think they've got a mistaken perception of what happened, which can be corrected later.

Haytham, however, is a different story. He has made numerous specific and false statements about what we did. Since he condemned us last year and we did not respond, it seems he thinks we won't respond again this year. But this year is different, and lies will be exposed.

Anthony Rogers said...

Hi John,

My remarks do not belittle Christians who have been forcefully reduced to dhimmi status in Muslim controlled lands, something that is far from true in Hytham's case. And rather than see my remarks as belittling Hytham, who has a track record for this sort of thing, you should see them as a call to repentance. Just imagine Christians like Hytham publicly opposing the apostles when their methods got them jailed for their obedience to Christ, and also imagine how their sin would be aggravated if they were doing this in a land where Christianity was not a religio illicita. Our freedoms were hard won and are not easily kept; it is shameful that Hytham is so willing to give them away for a pot of food from Muslims. In fact, it seems to me that Hytham's actions are far more belittling to those Christians who have been subjected to dhimmitude. His actions slight their plight by making dhimmitude look like a desirable thing and also pave the way for the kind of full fledged dhimmitude that you speak of where people are enslaved and women are raped.

For the love of Christ and Freedom,

Tony

John Lollard said...

Thanks David, I was unaware of that history.

I support you guys (and Nageen) completely and believe the videos will show the innocence of your behavior, I am just striving very hard to be sober in my support, and also to make sure the facts and testimonies stay as objective as possible.

I apologize if I seem to be scrutinizing you or distrustful of you in anyway in my attempts to do so. I support your work in your debates, your work in exposing Islam, and I trust that your behavior at the festival was honorable.

Until very recently, were I to hear of four Christian missionaries being expelled from an Arabic festival for allegedly being offensive and inflammatory and upsetting Muslims, I myself would have reacted strongly in opposition to "your actions" (really the Muslim and media report of your actions). Images of Westboro Baptists and campus preachers come to mind instantly, and no information is presented in the article of what your actual conduct was at the festival. I would have been very frustrated at you for "stifling" the attempts of others there to proclaim the Good News and asked for a more embracive approach. That said, I can understand the response of many Christians, though at the same time I believe their responses unfounded.

Was Haytham actually present as a witness to what occurred? I can't tell if he is relating hearsay, official reports, things he noticed in passing while at the festival, or if he actually monitored you the whole time you were there. From the article mirele posted, it seems he wasn't paying attention to you or made his statements based on hearsay.

I tend to talk too much, so I'll just say that I hope you guys get the video back, and keep up the good work!

Love in Christ,
JL

Anthony Rogers said...

By the way, John, your charges of dishonesty aside, I hope you don't take my reply as an indication that I don't think you are trying to honestly evaluate all of this. I do believe you have said some good things on this whole debacle in other places, and also think that even your last bit of commentary, wrong as it was, was meant in all sincerity and love for Christ and His people.

Regards,

John Lollard said...

Tony,

I agree with what you have said, that the actions of everyone in Acts 17 (which I think includes you?) to expose Islamic corruption in Dearborn, as well as the violence and oppression inherent in the Islamic system, is very much a service to our brethren who are forced to the yoke of dhimmitude.

Your comments seem to present a "dhimmi" to be, as opposed to a victim of a tyrannical system, someone who sides with Muslims in everything and can't think for themselves. Or at least that's how I read comments like "Pointing to the example of a Christian acting like a Dhimmi". I know that was not your intention, but I just thought I'd point it out.

I agree with you completely about the riots and arrests of the Apostles all throughout the book of Acts, and it is shameful that apparently Christians have never read this book. However, I think it is also shameful how credible it is to believe that a Christian street preacher was being offensive and inflammatory given the track record of street preachers, and while Christians should actually investigate the behavior of street preachers who are arrested, I can understand assuming that they will also fit the mould.

You are much further educated than I am in issues like this, however, and definitely older than I am, and so I ultimately acknowledge you as wiser council on the issue. I apologize if you took my comments as offense or doubt.

Love in Christ,
JL

Anthony Rogers said...

John,

Acts17 is a ministry of David and Nabeel. I am simply a contributor on this blog. My opinions may or may not always reflect those of David and Nabeel, though I think we are generally like minded.

While I am at it, let me say that while I can sometimes be sarcastic, David is a model of level-headed consistency, and Nabeel is incredibly irenic and good natured. I am inspired by their example. It is that example from them in everything I have seen them do that prevents me from holding any other position regarding their innocence in advance of a fair trial. It also helps a great deal that what evidence we have been able to see so far points in that direction as well.

minoria said...

As somebody who has experienced the strange way of thinking of the terrorists-are-not-terrorists Muslims I tell you:

1.The Muslims who disagree with them won't confront them.

2.Those who agree with them but are ashamed of saying it won't do anything.

3.So the only ones who are going to help us non-Muslims are....WE NON-MUSLIMS.

Mirele,look,the 3 videos are still confiscated,if Nabeel and David did anything wrong the police would have said so a long time ago.I believe Haytham is lying due to pressure...very pathetic.

Now Muslims can not stand to have Mohammed criticized,WHY?They have a INSECURITY complex,it's so obvious.If you REALLY think Mohammed was the greatest then you wouldn't be so fragile.It shows you don't really believe it.

Mirele,you STILL haven't answered me,do YOU condemn Hamas,Hizbula?Yes or no?
I think you are like the Muslims in the forum in Spain,with them.Please prove me wrong.

Mike said...

David, I really hope your video gets released, and released soon. As you can tell, I'm not a big fan of evangelism for any religion, BUT, in America you are supposed to be protected by the constitution, as long as you are evangelizing in a peaceful and non-disruptive way.

mirele said...

David:

Let me mock you first: You read "some" of that article. This was not such a long article, and not a very complicated article, especially for someone who teaches philosophy at a university. (I have a Juris Doctor; reading that article was almost as easy and quick as inhaling.)

Then you proceed to trash Haytham and call him a complete liar and you'll fix him when you get your footage back from the police. What about now? What about Scott Cherry and (to a lesser extent) Barbara Yoder? Seriously, the article was pretty damning.

I have to wonder if your visceral reaction to Haytham is due to something else--like a religious difference. I'm aware that Charisma is the magazine for the speaking-in-tongues crowd, and I also know that some Christians really dislike that whole scene.

And putting your faith in your camera footage is also misplaced. Perhaps you're aware of the Johannes Mehserle trial now going on in Los Angeles? There's cellphone video evidence in that case. But it's not clear-cut, at least if you believe Mehserle's attorney.

Really, you need to come up with a better response to such a critical article than "I read some of it" and "Haytham is a liar." But I'm not surprised by your response, not at all.

John Lollard said...

"As you can tell, I'm not a big fan of evangelism for any religion"

I couldn't tell, but I'm kind of curious. Would you say there is any sense in which your previous understanding of Christianity has flavored your current understanding of things like evangelism?

For instance, I noticed earlier that when Hugh began speaking to you, you assumed from the beginning that hugh was just going to condemn you to Hell. I ask this not knowing, but when you were a Christian, was that how you interacted with people? Was that how people at your church interacted with others?

Not trying to imply anything with my questions.

What would you say it is that makes you disagree with evangelism?

And expect me to continue bothering you :P

Love in Christ,
JL

Besmikov Lenko said...

I'm eagerly waiting for the 'lies' to be exposed!

hugh watt said...

mirele, i've noticed how you've taken to believing Haytham's account of what allegedly happened at Dearborn, even before seeing the video evidence. It reminds of the statement: 'Don't confuse me with the facts, i've already made up my mind!'

hugh watt said...

Mike,

I can't quite figure you out. JL's asking what i'm asking also. Let me put it this way. What happened to you? Why have you decided Christianity is not for you? So far you've said; "As you can tell, I'm not a big fan of evangelism for any religion," why?

Mike said...

John, the last church I was a a member of was an evangelical church that unfortunately bordered on being a cult. It encouraged an extremely legalistic mindset and definitely discouraged one from expanding his or her intellect. In case anyone is tempted to think that I am just bitter and didn't want to submit to authority, I will assure you that I left that church/cult gradually and quietly. I made sure that I didn't cause disruption or divisiveness, because I hate drawing attention to myself in situations like that and I didn't want people calling me left and right making me explain why I left.

Hugh, I wouldn't know where to begin regarding why I left Christianity. There are some good reasons, in my opinion, and there are probably some not so good reasons. For now I'll say this: The quaint and easy answers that Christianity, especially evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity , tends to provide for theological matters and the problems of life, whether they're from the Bible or not, stopped satisfying me intellectually and spiritually. By saying this, I'm not saying that I'm an an intellectual and that Christians are stupid. Absolutely not! Every day I realize just how ignorant I am and that I do not have all the answers.

In addition to what I just said, constantly seeing the meanest and cruelest behavior by people who are supposed to be salt of the earth really turned me off and caused me to be disillusioned with the whole thing.

hugh watt said...

Mike:

I can only speak in general terms here, as this is not the place to go into such matters.
I'm not judging you in what I say, I don't know you. I've some Q's to ask which do not necessarily require A's from you. Firstly, I know there are bad things done 'in the name of Christianity,' I've seen it, (too much to go into). Having said that, I never took it out on Christ, I never walked away from Him, I ran to Him. So this leads me to ask;

1) Are you sure you became a Christian?
2) If you did, were you going out witnessing strongly?
3) If so, did you know Satan targets you and wants "to sift you" because you're a danger to him? John Bunyan put it into classical form in "The Pilgrims Progress."
4) Satan will use those nearest and dearest to you to try to destroy you? He prefers family feuds amongst fellow believers, it's Satan's delight.

"In addition to what I just said, constantly seeing the meanest and cruelest behavior by people who are supposed to be salt of the earth really turned me off and caused me to be disillusioned with the whole thing."

5) Have you met your own personal Judas? Christ had His, I've had several, you will either have had one or been one. No one is above his Master!
6) Ever read Ephesians 6? We're in a war here, don't you know?
7) If "the quaint and easy answers Christianity provide" bother you, ask, do you know better? That, of course is if the A's were biblical.

Whichever way I look at it, Satan has you where he wants you; denying Christ and attacking Him. However, am I beginning to see green shoots of recovery?
Yes my little "agnostic theist" friend, me thinks something is turning, prodigal, umm!

hugh watt said...

Mike:

I can only speak in general terms here, as this is not the place to go into such matters.
I'm not judging you in what I say, I don't know you. I've some Q's to ask which do not necessarily require A's from you. Firstly, I know there are bad things done 'in the name of Christianity,' I've seen it, (too much to go into). Having said that, I never took it out on Christ, I never walked away from Him, I ran to Him. So this leads me to ask;

1) Are you sure you became a Christian?
2) If you did, were you going out witnessing strongly?
3) If so, did you know Satan targets you and wants "to sift you" because you're a danger to him? John Bunyan put it into classical form in "The Pilgrims Progress."
4) Satan will use those nearest and dearest to you to try to destroy you? He prefers family feuds amongst fellow believers, it's Satan's delight.

"In addition to what I just said, constantly seeing the meanest and cruelest behavior by people who are supposed to be salt of the earth really turned me off and caused me to be disillusioned with the whole thing."

5) Have you met your own personal Judas? Christ had His, I've had several, you will either have had one or been one. No one is above his Master!
6) Ever read Ephesians 6? We're in a war here, don't you know?
7) If "the quaint and easy answers Christianity provide" bother you, ask, do you know better? That, of course is if the A's were biblical.

Whichever way I look at it, Satan has you where he wants you; denying Christ and attacking Him. However, am I beginning to see green shoots of recovery?
Yes my little "agnostic theist" friend, me thinks something is turning, prodigal, umm!

hugh watt said...

Mike:

I can only speak in general terms here, as this is not the place to go into such matters.
I'm not judging you in what I say, I don't know you. I've some Q's to ask which do not necessarily require A's from you. Firstly, I know there are bad things done 'in the name of Christianity,' I've seen it, (too much to go into). Having said that, I never took it out on Christ, I never walked away from Him, I ran to Him. So this leads me to ask;

1) Are you sure you became a Christian?
2) If you did, were you going out witnessing strongly?
3) If so, did you know Satan targets you and wants "to sift you" because you're a danger to him? John Bunyan put it into classical form in "The Pilgrims Progress."
4) Satan will use those nearest and dearest to you to try to destroy you? He prefers family feuds amongst fellow believers, it's Satan's delight.

"In addition to what I just said, constantly seeing the meanest and cruelest behavior by people who are supposed to be salt of the earth really turned me off and caused me to be disillusioned with the whole thing."

5) Have you met your own personal Judas? Christ had His, I've had several, you will either have had one or been one. No one is above his Master!
6) Ever read Ephesians 6? We're in a war here, don't you know?
7) If "the quaint and easy answers Christianity provide" bother you, ask, do you know better? That, of course is if the A's were biblical.

Whichever way I look at it, Satan has you where he wants you; denying Christ and attacking Him. However, am I beginning to see green shoots of recovery?
Yes my little "agnostic theist" friend, me thinks something is turning, prodigal, umm!

hugh watt said...

2.

"In addition to what I just said, constantly seeing the meanest and cruelest behavior by people who are supposed to be salt of the earth really turned me off and caused me to be disillusioned with the whole thing."

5) Have you met your own personal Judas? Christ had His, I've had several, you will either have had one or been one. No one is above his Master!
6) Ever read Ephesians 6? We're in a war here, don't you know?
7) If "the quaint and easy answers Christianity provide" bother you, ask, do you know better? That, of course is if the A's were biblical.

Whichever way I look at it, Satan has you where he wants you; denying Christ and attacking Him. However, am I beginning to see green shoots of recovery?
Yes my little "agnostic theist" friend, me thinks something is turning, prodigal, umm!

hugh watt said...

1-2 Mike:

I can only speak in general terms here, as this is not the place to go into such matters.
I'm not judging you in what I say, I don't know you. I've some Q's to ask which do not necessarily require A's from you. Firstly, I know there are bad things done 'in the name of Christianity,' I've seen it, (too much to go into). Having said that, I never took it out on Christ, I never walked away from Him, I ran to Him. So this leads me to ask;

1) Are you sure you became a Christian?
2) If you did, were you going out witnessing strongly?
3) If so, did you know Satan targets you and wants "to sift you" because you're a danger to him? John Bunyan put it into classical form in "The Pilgrims Progress."
4) Satan will use those nearest and dearest to you to try to destroy you? He prefers family feuds amongst fellow believers, it's Satan's delight.

hugh watt said...

Besmikov said:

"I'm eagerly waiting for the 'lies' to be exposed!"

I'm still waiting for answers to my Q's.

1-2 Besmikov said:

"The current demographics show that Muslims cannot be in majority and therefore the city's judicial system was only acting in accordance with the law on the day of David's and Nabeel's arrest."

How so?

"First thing to note is that David makes the bold statement that, 'Muslims wont hesitate to lie about us in an effort to get rid of us.' Two stereotypical assertions are made: 1) Muslims are liars. 2) Muslims don't like Christians (within context)"

1) What does 'taqiyya' mean?
2) S:98.6. Those who reject (Truth),
Among the People of the Book
And among the Polytheists,
Will be in hell-fire,
To dwell therein (for aye).
They are the worst
Of creatures.

7. Those who have faith
And do righteous deeds,—
They are the best
Of creatures.

Yeah, they like the 'Christians' who accept Muhammad's claim of prophethood. Those who do not are the "worst of creatures."

"Secondly he says that, "our cameras vindicated us last year..." The question then arises who were they exactly vindicated from? The Muslims of Dearborn? He further goes on to say, "and proved that security was persecuting Christians." Astounding! What a childish claim to accuse the security for persecution and discrimination, considering that many Arabs, especially the Lebanese, are Christian folk - who were largely present at the Arab Festival 2009. David also claims that security had been 'harassing Christians all weekend" - slightly disconcerting considering that Acts 17 Apologetics was the only ministry to report the persecution and on tape. I smell a rat, do you? What grabbed my attention was the following quote, "Can anyone seriously object to the cameras, given the fact that people have tried to get us into trouble through deception two years running?" This then begs the question how could people have used deception 'two years running' when David just mentioned that they were able to catch the persecution on tape."

Try reading-up on what happened last year, it may clarify a few things for you.

hugh watt said...

Besmikov said:

"I'm eagerly waiting for the 'lies' to be exposed!"

I'm still waiting for answers to my Q's.

1-2 Besmikov said:

"The current demographics show that Muslims cannot be in majority and therefore the city's judicial system was only acting in accordance with the law on the day of David's and Nabeel's arrest."

How so?

"First thing to note is that David makes the bold statement that, 'Muslims wont hesitate to lie about us in an effort to get rid of us.' Two stereotypical assertions are made: 1) Muslims are liars. 2) Muslims don't like Christians (within context)"

1) What does 'taqiyya' mean?
2) S:98.6. Those who reject (Truth),
Among the People of the Book
And among the Polytheists,
Will be in hell-fire,
To dwell therein (for aye).
They are the worst
Of creatures.

7. Those who have faith
And do righteous deeds,—
They are the best
Of creatures.

Yeah, they like the 'Christians' who accept Muhammad's claim of prophethood. Those who do not are the "worst of creatures."

"Secondly he says that, "our cameras vindicated us last year..." The question then arises who were they exactly vindicated from? The Muslims of Dearborn? He further goes on to say, "and proved that security was persecuting Christians." Astounding! What a childish claim to accuse the security for persecution and discrimination, considering that many Arabs, especially the Lebanese, are Christian folk - who were largely present at the Arab Festival 2009. David also claims that security had been 'harassing Christians all weekend" - slightly disconcerting considering that Acts 17 Apologetics was the only ministry to report the persecution and on tape. I smell a rat, do you? What grabbed my attention was the following quote, "Can anyone seriously object to the cameras, given the fact that people have tried to get us into trouble through deception two years running?" This then begs the question how could people have used deception 'two years running' when David just mentioned that they were able to catch the persecution on tape."

Please explain.

hugh watt said...

Besmikov,

I'm eagerly waiting for the A's to my Q's.

1-2 Besmikov said:

"The current demographics show that Muslims cannot be in majority and therefore the city's judicial system was only acting in accordance with the law on the day of David's and Nabeel's arrest."

How so?

"First thing to note is that David makes the bold statement that, 'Muslims wont hesitate to lie about us in an effort to get rid of us.' Two stereotypical assertions are made: 1) Muslims are liars. 2) Muslims don't like Christians (within context)"

1) What does 'taqiyya' mean?
2) S:98.6. Those who reject (Truth),
Among the People of the Book
And among the Polytheists,
Will be in hell-fire,
To dwell therein (for aye).
They are the worst
Of creatures.

7. Those who have faith
And do righteous deeds,—
They are the best
Of creatures.

Yeah, they like the 'Christians' who accept Muhammad's claim of prophethood. Those who do not are the "worst of creatures."

"Secondly he says that, "our cameras vindicated us last year..." The question then arises who were they exactly vindicated from? The Muslims of Dearborn? He further goes on to say, "and proved that security was persecuting Christians." Astounding! What a childish claim to accuse the security for persecution and discrimination, considering that many Arabs, especially the Lebanese, are Christian folk - who were largely present at the Arab Festival 2009. David also claims that security had been 'harassing Christians all weekend" - slightly disconcerting considering that Acts 17 Apologetics was the only ministry to report the persecution and on tape. I smell a rat, do you? What grabbed my attention was the following quote, "Can anyone seriously object to the cameras, given the fact that people have tried to get us into trouble through deception two years running?" This then begs the question how could people have used deception 'two years running' when David just mentioned that they were able to catch the persecution on tape."

Please explain.

hugh watt said...

1-2 Besmikov,

I'm eagerly waiting for the A's to my Q's.

"The current demographics show that Muslims cannot be in majority and therefore the city's judicial system was only acting in accordance with the law on the day of David's and Nabeel's arrest."

How so?

"First thing to note is that David makes the bold statement that, 'Muslims wont hesitate to lie about us in an effort to get rid of us.' Two stereotypical assertions are made: 1) Muslims are liars. 2) Muslims don't like Christians (within context)"

1) What does 'taqiyya' mean?
2) S:98.6. Those who reject (Truth),
Among the People of the Book
And among the Polytheists,
Will be in hell-fire,
To dwell therein (for aye).
They are the worst
Of creatures.

7. Those who have faith
And do righteous deeds,—
They are the best
Of creatures.

Yeah, they like the 'Christians' who accept Muhammad's claim of prophethood. Those who do not are the "worst of creatures."

"Secondly he says that, "our cameras vindicated us last year..." The question then arises who were they exactly vindicated from? The Muslims of Dearborn? He further goes on to say, "and proved that security was persecuting Christians." Astounding! What a childish claim to accuse the security for persecution and discrimination, considering that many Arabs, especially the Lebanese, are Christian folk - who were largely present at the Arab Festival 2009. David also claims that security had been 'harassing Christians all weekend" - slightly disconcerting considering that Acts 17 Apologetics was the only ministry to report the persecution and on tape. I smell a rat, do you? What grabbed my attention was the following quote, "Can anyone seriously object to the cameras, given the fact that people have tried to get us into trouble through deception two years running?" This then begs the question how could people have used deception 'two years running' when David just mentioned that they were able to catch the persecution on tape."

Please explain.

hugh watt said...

Besmikov,

I'm eagerly waiting for the A's to my Q's on, "Support Acts 17 Trip to ISNA!" You know the 2 I posted near the end.

David. Have you changed the length of allowable words on posts? I'm getting a message that suggests this.

John Lollard said...

Hey Mike,

Actually, I was just asking why you disagree with evangelism :P Since you had mentioned belonging to a fundie church, I figured you may have encountered a particularly rude and unbiblical approach to evangelism, which might account for it. I also figured you would have encountered a particularly close-minded understanding of things like science.

I'm sorry to hear about the behavior of people at your church. I hope I didn't put you on the spot here, either!

This is strictly a point of interest for me and has nothing to do with me trying to wrangle you back in, but would you say that your dissatisfaction with the intellectual explanations happened before or after your emotional dissatisfaction with the behavior of Christians around you? I don't think an order or emotional then intellectual will somehow demand that you made the wrong decision (even though you did :P), I just wanted to know out of personal curiosity.

Love in Christ,
JL

Mike said...

Hugh, I used to get offended when people would assert that I must not have been a "'True" Christian in the first place. Actually, the only people who do this are the Once-saved-always-saved or eternal security crowd. People like me are a living example that their theology is totally wrong. That being said, I do acknowledge the possibility that you may be right. IF you are right, then that was the cruelest con job that God could allow to happen. And, if someone like me truly wasn't saved in the first place, then how do you know you truly are? I say this because there was a time when I acknowledged that I was a sinner (still do, by the way), believed and trusted in the the death and resurrection of Christ to take away my sins and give me eternal life and adhered to the other "essential" Christian doctrine. I also handed out gospel tracts all the time, went up to muslims at Walmart and witnessed to them, led the young adult Bible study at my church, and led a Bible study at a nearby county jail. That should give you an idea of how devoted I was to the Christian faith.l

Also, I hate to rain on your parade, but I don't see myself ever returning to Christianity, at least the evangelical/fundamentalist brand of it. Even Christianity itself is complicated and hopelessly divided. But to address your point, I can no longer view the world in the box to which I was forced to view it under the evangelical/fundamentalist mindset. I've seen too much, thought too much, and read too much to return to that way of thinking. Don't mistake my presence here as a sign that I'm a prodigal on his way home. I spend time at all kinds of websites and blogs having to do with theology, including atheist websites and blogs to extremely conservative evangelical/fundamentalist blogs and websites. I'm still very much interested in the subject of religion, even if it's from a more academic, sociological and skeptical viewpoint. I also acknowledge truth can come from all kinds or sources, from Christian to atheist. I've said several times that David and Nabeel do a great job at exposing the true nature of Islam.
My stance towards this site is softening a little bit, but not for theological reasons. The reasons are that I'm not so sure David is a such a fundie after all considering he likes the movie, "The Boondock Saints." I also had a real nice interaction with Nabeel on Facebook.

minoria said...

Hello Mike:

I think you are unfamiliar with the theology on once-saved,always-saved.It means the person never loses their salvation even if they leave Jesus.

That position is made 100% clear in Charles Stanley's book Eternal Security.

Many think it means you say you believe in the resurrection of Jesus and then you can sin all yo like.The Greek word for repentance simply means "to change your opinion".
If you REALLY change your opinion about X things(drugs are no longer good,nor lying,nor hating others,etc)and believe Jesus was the savior then you are saved.

If you REALLY change your opinion then you at least try to be better because you think those things are bad.Many times people fail.
Some stop believing Jesus was the savior,like you.

But since salvation is based on true faith which naturally leads to some effort at being good,and the NT says clearly it has NOTHING to do with good works then those who stop believing would still be saved.
If you make salvation depend on continuous belief then it becomes a GOOD WORK.

The fact that the people here are TAKING THEIR TIME to convince non-Christians,by information,debates,etc shows they are saved.Otherwise we would all,and I include myself,just do nothing to convince others,no research,no acquisition of new knowledge,one is ok,as for the others,that is THEIR problem.
If in the future David or Nabeel or Sam stop believing they would still be saved because they had actually repented"changed opinion" about X things,believed Jesus was the savior....and in a natural way it made them act in X ways(by taking the time to debate Muslims),set up a blog,research,write,make videos,etc.

hugh watt said...

Mike.

Me:

"I can only speak in general terms here, as this is not the place to go into such matters.
I'm not judging you in what I say, I don't know you."


Re-read my 2 posts; I'm not sure you grasped what I'm saying.

"People like me are a living example that their theology is totally wrong."

Explain. I reckon you're not sure what that means; eternal security.

"I do acknowledge the possibility that you may be right. IF you are right, then that was the cruelest con job that God could allow to happen."

Why does God get the blame? You seem ok with your new ism.

"And, if someone like me truly wasn't saved in the first place, then how do you know you truly are?"

Briefly: Rom.8:16 "The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God."

John 8:32 "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

"I say this because there was a time when I acknowledged that I was a sinner.."

At this point, re-read my 2 posts, points 1-5.

"Also, I hate to rain on your parade, but I don't see myself ever returning to Christianity, at least the evangelical/
fundamentalist brand of it."


"I know there are bad things done 'in the name of Christianity,' I've seen it, (too much to go into). Having said that, I never took it out on Christ, I never walked away from Him, I ran to Him."

It sounds like you 'believed' in Christianity, but not in Christ!

"Don't mistake my presence here as a sign that I'm a prodigal on his way home."

Hence my #1 Q. See, prodigal came back because he was his Father's son. Read Matt.7:21-27.

"I also acknowledge truth can come from all kinds or sources, from Christian to atheist."

Gen.3:1 "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, 'Yea, hath God said,'" knowing full well what God said!

"I'm not so sure David is a such a fundie."

Define "fundie."

John Lollard said...

Hugh,

I'm curious as to what you're implying with your quote of Genesis. Are you implying that atheists are incapable of speaking the truth? I don't think that makes any sense at all, as all truth is God's truth and an unbeliever necessarily must understand some amount of truth to be able to merely function in the universe. Or maybe you meant something else, but if so, then it was unclear.

Love in Christ,
JL

The Fat Man said...

I went to the arab fest,
the way I always do
How was I to know,
the cops were with the muslims too

l I was only talking to some muslims
I know it was a risk.
Send lawyers guns and money
Dad get me out of this.

I’m a inocent bystander
Some how I got stuck
For saying Jesus loves you
That’s how I got cuffed

Now Im sitting in a dearborn jail
Rejoicing in the son of man.
Send lawyers guns and money
The sharia has hit the fan

hugh watt said...

JL.

S:29.46 "..Our God and your God
Is One; and it is to Him
We bow (in Islam)."

How do think people are deceived into believing this ayah? Now read Gen 3:1-5, in that context.

S:5.72 ".. But said Christ:
"O Children of Israel!
Worship God, my Lord
And your Lord."

Read this ayah in full. Satan uses half-truths to deceive people. Christ does say to the children of Israel to worship God; but Allah!? Satan is capable of telling the truth, but in what context? Gen.3:1-5 is the oldest trick in the book! I referred to Gen.3 in response to Mike's statement.

John Lollard said...

Hey Hugh,

Now I'm afraid that I'm slightly more confused :/

The Quran is adored by millions because of the legitimately true things that it says, which lures people into believing the false things that it says. Granted.

I'm not sure how to apply that to lack of belief.

I'm going out on a limb here and guessing, but wouldn't you also say that Mike doesn't believe because God never granted him belief?

Or if you're not talking about saving faith, but just an intellectual assent to the truth of Christianity, then I can honestly understand why someone from a fundamentalist background with an intellectual assent to Christianity in childhood would grow up to see it as ridiculous just because a lot of Christian teachers out there, fundamentalist especially, are ridiculous. We have a very serious problem with confirmation bias, twice a decade someone discovers the mathematical code that unlocks the book of Revelation, and we treat our (allegedly) fallible understandings of God's word as if they are in fact holy writ. By and large I think we're a rather ridiculous lot and I'm not sure why anyone would take us seriously if it weren't for the Grace of God
and the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives. And sadly, the work of the Holy Spirit ain't all that visible in some of us.

That was sort of a rant. I apologize.

God alone is the source of all truth. I think there are some half-truths that atheists push that are only effective because Christians only have the other half and deny the whole thing. If atheists not only can say something true, but fundamentalist Christians reject and deny what that truthful atheist is saying, then that makes for a big intellectual problem.

Sorry for talking so much. I still don't understand your bible quote. Could you be specific?

Love in Christ,
JL

hugh watt said...

JL

"The Quran is adored by millions because of the legitimately true things that it says, which lures people into believing the false things that it says. Granted."

I don't know about the people you've met, but I 've met some who believe even the false things it says and were lured in. Islam is very attractive to the carnal nature/human reasoning.

"I'm not sure how to apply that to lack of belief."

They do believe; but what? Adam & Eve believed the serpent, there was no lack of belief there, but what did they believe? Their actions showed their lack of belief in God's word, but belief in Satan's!

I'm not going to answer for Mike. Read the 7 points I put to him.

"God alone is the source of all truth."

Satan can tell the truth. Read Gen.3:1-5. Pay attention to what the serpent says first.
What do you think was going on in Gen.3:1-5? Forget what I said. What do you think was going on?
Re-read the ayahs in full. Part truth+part lie= Deception!

John Lollard said...

Hugh,

I had written a lot in response to you, but I'd rather not be divisive, so I deleted it all.

Let me just ask a simple question: I learned statistics from an avowed atheist. Can I expect the statistics that my atheist professor taught me to be accurate, or deceptive half-truths? In other words, was my atheist professor a source of truth in statistics, or was he more crafty than any of the math professors? If you answer the former, then forget that I even said anything.

If the latter, then I may need to redo undergrad :/

I apologize also for causing dissension.

Love in Christ,
JL

hugh watt said...

JL.

The Gen.3 text needs to be understood in its own context. I can't see how your professor's right or wrong stats' are connected. I also am not aware of ever meeting him. Sorry, can't help you there.

Mike said...

Hugh, John, Minoria, sorry it's been forever. I've been really busy. Hugh, I really wouldn't know where to begin answering you because it seems no matter what I say, you will think I was never a Christian in the first place, which is fine because you are entitled to you opinion. I will just say that I know that I believed in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, and not just the religion of Christianity. Jesus was everything to me. 2nd Timothy 1:12 applied to me, as I'm sure it applies to you now. By the way, even if I was truly a believer, but have lost my salvation, that doesn't disprove Christianity. It would just disprove eternal security, which is the idea that God will cause the true believer to persevere in faith. Besides, there are Bible versed that could easily lead one to believe that one can lose their salvation. I never understood how people could be so dogmatic by saying that the Bible is crystal-clear that a believer can't lose their salvation. From my reading of the Bible, it seems to be sending mixed messages, but that's just me.


Hugh, I have no desire to argue with you about whether I was truly a believer, because you know what? You may be right. But if so, I would ask you the question I asked earlier. I was a huge Bible-thumping, tract-passing, gospel-preaching, evangelical/fundamentalist Christian who accepted Jesus not only as savior, but LORD. If someone like me wasn't truly saved, how do you know you are? How does anyone know they are? And no, I wasn't trusting in my works for salvation. I was trusting in the death and resurrection of Jesus ALONE.

John Lollard said...

Hey Mike,

I'm sorry that you've been put on a defensive. I honestly just wanted to hear from you about the conditions surrounding your apostasy. It is unfortunate that you don't feel safe to discuss that openly without needing to defend yourself. I partially blame my brothers and sisters and myself for not being willing to listen to people. I really had no intention of clubbing you over the head with any sort of psychogenetic guilt trip. I can only wonder if this real or perceived inability to express doubts contributed to what you perceived as a close-mindedness?

If it's a personal issue that you don't feel comfortable discussing here or anywhere, then I perfectly understand and I'll drop the conversation altogether. If you'd be willing to simply tell me the emotional and intellectual progression that led you from fundamentalism, then I'd like to hear it here or anywhere. And I promise to offer no rejoinders or counter-arguments unless you would like to hear them.

Is that an okay deal? That was my whole purpose in asking you questions.

Love in Christ,
JL

Mike said...

John, it's too long of a story/explanation to cover here on a blog commentary. If you want to, click on my name and it will show you my profile. Click on the option to email me. If you email me, I'll give you my phone number. For things like this, it's easier for me to talk about it than to write about it. Thanks-Mike.

hugh watt said...

Mike:

3x now I've said this: "I can only speak in general terms here, as this is not the place to go into such matters.
I'm not judging you in what I say, I don't know you."


I also said: "Re-read my 2 posts; I'm not sure you grasped what I'm saying."

"..it seems no matter what I say, you will think I was never a Christian in the first place,"

Not sure you've grasped what i'm saying! JL asked a good Q; what happened to you? It's one thing to knock people, yet could it have been you who was at fault? I put 7 points to you; what do you say about them?

2 Tim.1:12: "By the way, even if I was truly a believer, but have lost my salvation, that doesn't disprove Christianity. It would just disprove eternal security,"

No it doesn't! Using your experiences to judge a doctrine by is wrong. Where do you get that from? If anything 2 Tim.1:12 shows you were not a believer: read the whole chapter.

"Hugh, I have no desire to argue with you about whether I was truly a believer, because you know what? You may be right."

Hence my 7 points!

"If someone like me wasn't truly saved, how do you know you are? How does anyone know they are?"

I quoted some texts on this. You've also made the mistake of viewing/questioning others through your experiences. You either overlooked the texts or do not understand them personally.

"I was a huge Bible-thumping, tract-passing, gospel-preaching, evangelical/fundamentalist Christian who accepted Jesus not only as savior, but LORD."

Read back what you've been saying about Christianity since you came here. Now ask yourself; did you really accept Christ as Lord? Matt.7:22 tells us doing things in Christ's name is no proof of ever having been saved. Your above quote does suggest you think works a sign of salvation.
Read the 7 points and address the Q's put here and by JL. This may help to clarify things.

Mike said...

Hugh, I'll say the same thing to you that I said to John: I'm very busy right now. I really don't have time to write long and detailed explanations to your questions. However, I would be open to possibly talking on the phone. Click on my name and you will have the option of sending me an email. Then I can give you my phone #. Sorry if you don't want to do this, but it would be very difficult to answer your question this kind of setting.

Zack_Tiang said...

Mike,

I do not know what's your story... or why you left Christ... but you remind of the "rocky places" where the seeds (God's truth) fell and grew... but the seeds died when difficulties come.

Ref: Parable of the Sower, Mark 4:3-8
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+4&version=NIV

Mike said...

Zack, nice judgement about someone you've never even met or know any thing about. But of course, in your mindset, you don't need to, because I fit your nice little biblical category or label from my posts. I can't say I'm disappointed, because I've come to expect this kind of behavior from people like you.

Hugh, again, feel free to email me, and then I'd be happy to talk over the phone and answer your questions.

Zack_Tiang said...

Mike said...
"Zack, nice judgement about someone you've never even met or know any thing about. But of course, in your mindset, you don't need to, because I fit your nice little biblical category or label from my posts. I can't say I'm disappointed, because I've come to expect this kind of behavior from people like you."

Strange... was I pronouncing judgment? I thought I was just sharing an opinion.. "you remind me of...." I said. Not "You are..."

Well... nvm. There's everyone else who are willing to reason with you.
All the best and may God bless you, Mike.