Monday, July 26, 2010

David Wood and Mayor John C. O'Reilly on the Bob Siegel Show

If you missed my discussion with the mayor, you can listen to it here. (It's also available elsewhere thanks to some of our readers.)

The mayor claims that we were indeed blocking the tent entrance and causing traffic problems. Please watch the following two videos to see people freely entering and exiting the tent. As for a crowd behind me, you can clearly see people walking behind me.





Interestingly, the mayor seems to think that the police officers who told us we didn't need to move simply weren't familiar with the law. Yet the mayor constantly insists that we knew we were breaking the law. Really? Two people from out of state were supposed to know the law better than police officers who told us we didn't need to move? Here's the footage of police telling us that we were fine right where we were:



The mayor also seems to understand that we weren't pretending to be arrested, as Nabeel pointed out here:



There is, of course, a far more massive problem with the mayor's version of events. He's claiming that police arrested us for blocking traffic and gathering a crowd. But Negeen was arrested well before us. Since we hadn't yet caused any of the problems we were supposedly arrested for, why were police already coming after us? This strongly supports our version of events--that security and police were targeting us, and that they're now grasping at straws in order to justify their violations of our rights.

Due to time constraints on the show, several questions remain unanswered. Here are a few questions I would like the mayor to answer.

(1) The mayor continues to refer to "free speech zones." But as Nabeel pointed out, in the very cases the mayor appeals to, the courts ruled that people are free to walk around holding discussions (as we were doing). Does the mayor have a court case where a court ruled that people are not allowed to hold a dialogue in public?

(2) The mayor acknowledges that security last year was poorly trained, and that additional training was needed for this year. But the point of our video last year was that security was harassing Christians and attacking us for asking a question at a booth. If the mayor admits that they behaved poorly due to insufficient training, why demonize us for making this public? The fact is that the additional training was required specifically because we drew attention to injustice. Shouldn't the mayor be thanking us for making the festival a better, safer place?

(3) The mayor says that the sidewalk and street are no longer public sites during the Arab Festival. Is a site no longer a public site, even if it's a public event on public property?

(4) If the mayor really thinks that people can't have an open, honest discussion on camera, why does he keep going on television and radio programs?

(5) Why does the mayor think that Muslims are incapable of having a discussion when cameras are involved? Why do Dearborn leaders think that having a public discussion with Muslims is equivalent to inciting a riot? It seems that the mayor and the police department have a lower view of Muslims than we do. We've had open dialogues and debates with Muslims in numerous places, and we've never had a problem. We believe that Muslims are quite capable of public dialogue, even on camera. But as soon as we get to Dearborn, we find police intervening to prevent a riot as soon as dialogue starts. Do they believe that Muslims, by nature, will respond violently when someone answers their questions? Isn't this an insult to Muslims?

(6) If the problem is that we were supposedly blocking a tent entrance, why not arrest the Muslims who approached us? (We don't advocate arresting people for having discussions, but given the mayor's comments about the presence of a crowd violating festival rules, this question obviously arises.) We were on our way out of the festival so that Nabeel could eat his falafel. If people form a crowd around us, and a crowd is illegal, shouldn't the crowd have been arrested, rather than the people who were peacefully responding to questions and recording the dialogue? Or was there a fear that arresting these Muslims (who, according to Dearborn leaders, are too violent for dialogue and prone to riot) would lead to a riot, and that the peaceful Christians should instead be targeted (to the cheers of Muslims)?

(7) If it's illegal to draw a crowd, and celebrities draw crowds, is it illegal for celebrities to attend the Dearborn Arab Festival? Would Rima Fakih be arrested if she showed up? Would she be stripped down to a tank-top and tossed in a jail cell, the way Negeen was?

(8) The mayor says that the letter he wrote was nothing more than his personal opinion. Does the mayor believe that it is permissible for the leader of a city to favor one side and spread bias against the other when a court case is pending? Is it even possible to get an unbiased jury in Dearborn now?

(9) In his final remarks, the mayor says that there were no problems until Acts 17 showed up. But we know that rights were routinely being violated last year. Christians were being harassed. Double standards have been in place for years. We're just the ones who catch these things on tape and expose what's going on in Dearborn. Does the mayor think that harassing Christians isn't a problem, and that it only becomes a problem when the harassment is exposed by Acts 17 and the city starts receiving complaints?

Since the mayor is so quick to give his thoughts about our intentions and motives, let me give you my outline of what I think led to our arrests.

(1) The city of Dearborn was terribly embarrassed by the negative publicity from last year's Arab Festival.

(2) Police were looking for an excuse to arrest us, so that they could portray us in a negative light.

(3) After receiving some bogus complaints from people who didn't want us dialoguing with Muslims, police saw their opportunity and decided to move in.

(4) They went after Negeen first, in order to keep her from filming our arrests.

(5) Since police can only charge someone with a misdemeanor if they witness the person breaking the law, police stood close to us and looked for a reason to arrest us.

(6) We weren't doing anything wrong, and they had no reason to arrest us.

(7) Police couldn't let us leave the festival, because they had already arrested Negeen. Unless they could justify the arrest by claiming that Negeen was part of a group that was causing problems, police were in trouble for violating her rights.

(8) Knowing that they had to justify Negeen's arrest, police were forced to arrest us, even though we hadn't done anything wrong.

(9) Since they had no evidence against us, police illegally seized our cameras, hoping that they would find some evidence against us in the footage.

(10) After reviewing the footage, they realized that we did absolutely nothing against festival rules or city, state, or federal laws.

(11) In order to defend the arrests, police and the mayor were forced to invent all kinds of stories about us screaming into the crowd, blocking a tent entrance, inciting a riot, etc.

(12) Although video evidence conclusively disproves these stories, the mayor and police department now have to defend them, for the only alternative is to acknowledge repeated violations of our Constitutional rights, targeting Christians in order to please Muslims, and lying in police reports and television interviews.

After watching the videos and listening to the interview, which version of events seems more plausible?

57 comments:

Hemel Hossain said...

Hmmm...deep problem.Future of USA is dark and they deserve it as they have forgotten the gospel..their foundation.If the foundation of a building is damaged the building is bound to fall.So the fall of america is to be expected.

Lydia McGrew said...

Excellent points, David. And here's another: Why summarily arrest people (as you point out, arbitrarily choosing to arrest Acts 17 rather than other members of the crowd) on the highly dubious grounds that a crowd is "illegal"? Why not instead ask the group to disperse, stating to Acts 17 and the others that this is too many people congregated in one place for the police's comfort, the movement of traffic, etc.? This is absolutely obvious.

The police didn't go around the festival just randomly putting cuffs on people and charging them with breach of the peace any time a larger crowd than X number of people gathered. That would be ridiculous. Instead, if this was their concern, they kept an eye on things and asked people to disperse if they thought that too many people were gathered in one place for the sake of movement, safety, etc. Josh McDowell expressly states that this happened to his co-workers at the festival! They went outside, he said, and got talking to some people and pretty soon there were fourteen people around them, at which point the police told the group to break up because of the level of traffic at the festival! They didn't just walk up out of the blue and put cuffs on McDowell's workers. Wonder why not?

Well, obviously, one reason is that even if police do have crowd concerns, just picking out somebody and arresting him for the "crime" of being part of a crowd isn't the normal way to proceed! Presumably, "being one member of a group of more than X people" isn't in itself a crime! And they had no grudge against McDowell's group, so if they ended up being at the center of a group of people having a conversation, a group larger than the police were comfortable with, they were given the opportunity to move away rather than simply being arrested. But they did have a grudge against Acts 17, so they just arrested Acts 17 out of the blue without even saying anything to them.

Hiwot said...

1, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Boggs is a man not a woman (should I say that I doubt you indeed read his articles)
2, Mr. Mayor, you are so amazing that you accused your own policemen for not following the rules – but wasn’t one of the charges “not following police order?” Then if your policemen don’t know your own rules, how come others should listen to them.
3, Mr. Mayor, it seems that you watched Nabeel’s response to your letter but not the actual footage that the police has copies but you still speak as if you watched them.

Christie said...

I would hate to be in their shoes...any way they slice it they are facing a civil lawsuit. However, perhaps other police departments will be watching and take note that false arrest does not pay in the end. They just get worse publicity than they had in the first place.

Glenn Hendrickson said...

Good reply David! I'm praying for this situation every day. You asked some really good questions which will, hopefully, be answered by Mayor O'Reilly.

Glenn Hendrickson
eyeonapologetics.com/blog

Osama Abdallah said...

I listened to the whole conversation, and here are my UNBIASED points:

1- David Wood continues to fail to see, or deceptively trying to dance around, the fact that the street that he was preaching on was no longer a public street during the time of that event.

2- ****** Daivd Wood LIED when he said that the Muslims were ok with the cameras in their face at the booth last year. Even Wood's own footage shows how obnoxious Nabeel was to the people at the booth when they refused to answer him on camera.

3- Wood and his blogers call the American Dearborn Police as the Sharia police. And some of them even called Dearborn as Dearbornistan.

4- ******** WOOD ALSO LIED WHEN HE SAID THAT NO INTENTION OF BEING ARRESTED WAS THERE BY HIS CREW. His footage of Antonio, Nageen and Paul all declaring to BE HERE TO "GET ARRESTED" shows how David Wood is a liar.

HERE IS THE BOTTOM LINE:

This event is a private event, paid for and sponsored by certain organizations. The police has certain rules to be followed. The point is not how polite you want to appear on footage at a particular minute so you can fool people with it later on. The point is rather that the festival is privately held, and you should respect the rules. If the police says you can not go around distributing pamphlets and video-recording people, then this rule has to be followed.

Personally Wood and Qureshi, I very much look forward to reading about your arrests next year. It's getting boring on the internet, and we certainly have a great need for weasels to entertain us.

And yes, my points and comments above are unbiased, because I personally have no problem with Christians preaching to us. When I was single and living by myself in my house, I USED TO INVITE YOUR MISSIONARIES TO LUNCH AND/OR COFFEE OR TEA FOR dialogue. Like I mentioned earlier, this is not about Islam or Christianity. It is rather about brainless weasels who want to be heroic. Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeee, show us your faces next year at the festival so we can enjoy your humiliation on the internet again and again.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

MaMiKiKeYu said...

Download Link:

http://bobsiegel.net/radio/BOB%20SEIGEL%20072510.mp3

Rafik Responde ao Isla said...

I heard the RADIO SHOW and really, the Mayor had no clue what he was talking about.

I am quite sure that he himself, NEVER saw any VIDEO footage. He needs to keep saying the same nonsenses, to avoid a BIGGER embarrassment.

The TRUTH is that Dearborn is a MUSLIM TOWN, where the laws must be approved by the "Islamic religious courts" and only then the MAYOR is informed about the news laws.

He only needs to resigned for showing FAVORITISM and using his attributions to BEND the facts.

Haecceitas said...

Osama, your points are not only "unbiased" but most of all un-informed. You're confusing the friday incident with what happened on sunday and you are somehow operating under the misconception that police can just order people to stop recording with no valid reason, etc.

Rafik Responde ao Isla said...

Certain things NEVER CHANGE ...

Acts 6:13 ... and they set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law ... (sharia)

As it was in the past, we must follow the footsteps of Jesus and the Apostles ....

Take courage my brothers, we are together against INJUSTICE and EVIL.

aussie christian said...

Good to see you back osama.

You fail as per usual to see the odvious points, all the charged brought forward by police have by video evidence been proven to be false.

When this goes to trial and Act 17 are proven inocent of all charges in a nice infidel court where women have an equal say, not like your good honest sharia courts which treat women as 1/2 the value of men. I hope that Act 17 sues the city police and the islamic supremists that conspired to frame these lovely people.

The Fat Man said...

Osama "Put a mic in front of him and throw him on stage" Abdullah said...

Naa not going to repeat it. Osama your making it to easy to make fun of you. I feel like I'm picking on a mentally challenged child who is flying 30,000 feet above the ground with out a plane or parachute.

Pat said...

Osama Abdallah,

Don't bother saying your response is "unbiased" as it is meaningless to whether the analysis is true or not. Let others judge whether it is unbiased or not.

Personally, I find it to be a very poor defense of the DPD. Would you like to cite some sources for these rules that were broken?

Your arguments here are almost as bad as the arguments I've read over on your answering-christianity website (and I mean they were rediculously flawed but I can save an analysis of some of them for another day). Here's some quick counterpoints to your claims thus far:

You said, "1.)1- David Wood continues to fail to see, or deceptively trying to dance around, the fact that the street that he was preaching on was no longer a public street during the time of that event."

Response: Certain rules can apply at this event, but it is different than a private event. It is an event open to the public. Certain rules still apply even in this context. Furthermore, US Court Cases have even upheld the handing out of literature at this event (though this isn't even a real issue in this circumstance)

You said, "2- ****** Daivd Wood LIED when he said that the Muslims were ok with the cameras in their face at the booth last year. Even Wood's own footage shows how obnoxious Nabeel was to the people at the booth when they refused to answer him on camera."

Response: "Where is Nabeel being obnoxious??? How hard are you grasping for straws? I believe they made it clear that the men at the booth were alright with it and then changed their minds. They appear perfectly fine with the questions the first time around. It was the security that grabbed at the cameras not the men at the booth.

You said, "3- Wood and his blogers call the American Dearborn Police as the Sharia police. And some of them even called Dearborn as Dearbornistan."

Response: What in the world does this have to do with the justification of the arrests?

You said, "4- ******** WOOD ALSO LIED WHEN HE SAID THAT NO INTENTION OF BEING ARRESTED WAS THERE BY HIS CREW. His footage of Antonio, Nageen and Paul all declaring to BE HERE TO "GET ARRESTED" shows how David Wood is a liar."

Response: Are you honestly serious with this comment? That video with Antonio, Nageen and Paul is AFTER they were arrested. If you check out the timeline they posted (7/23) it shows that the video was "two days after."

Would you like to retract your statements that David is a liar? If not, do know that it is you misrepresenting the facts. If it is a mistake then correct yourself, otherwise you will be continuing to lie about David willingly.

The Fat Man said...

Paul Williams responded to a comment I made on his blog...

I suspect that unlike you I have actually met Wood and Nabeel several times in London and based on my experience of them I can quite believe the acccusations leveled against them by the Chef of Ploice, the Mayoir and other Christian leaders.

We will let the American courts decide the issue what really hapened….

One word of advise thuogh, dont put your faith in men, no matter how loudly thay claim to be godly, for some a wolves in shhes skin prolong around for weak folk to devour.

Zack_Tiang said...

And here I was gonna stress how critics against the Acts17 team were nowhere to be found... but we have Osama. Thank God for honest and daring individuals like him. =)

Osama... the only reason those are 'unbiased' comments is because you're misrepresenting the situation, which allows you to find reasons to go against the Acts17 team.
So yes, please admit that you're mistaken and correct yourself and try again to have a crack at the Acts17 team.

Anthony Rogers said...

Osama said: "When I was single and living by myself in my house, I USED TO INVITE YOUR MISSIONARIES TO LUNCH AND/OR COFFEE OR TEA FOR dialogue."

Yeah, now that he is married he doesn't need to go out for lunch, coffee or tea, he just slaps his wife around and tells her to make it.

He reminds me of the old joke:

Question: "What do you do when your dishwasher is broken?"

Answer: "You slap her and tell her to get back to work."

minoria said...

Hello Fatman:

Just read your comment in Paul William's Blogging Theology and his response:

"your paranoid anti-Muslim rant is just the sort of thing we have come to expect from supporters of Acts 17 ministries. Be that as it may, I suspect that, unlike you, I have actually met Wood and Nabeel several times (in London) and based on my experience of them I can quite believe the accusations levelled against them by the Chief of Police, the Mayor and a number of other Christian leaders. It fits their characters.

We will let the American courts decide what really happened….

One word of advise though: don’t put your faith in men, no matter how loudly they claim to be godly, for some are wolves in sheep’s clothing prowling around for weak folk to devour."

After ALL THE EVIDENCE that Acts17 did NO wrong,he,Paul Willams,still refuses to acknowledge he was wrong ,shows the man is NOT well in the head,a NORMAL person doesn't make such comments.Islam has really destroyed his reasoning.Will Paul Williams ever change?The truth is no,that is the reality,so be it.At least we tried to convince him,it didn't work,so be it.Nothing else can bdone.

BESIDES
Very sad.Besides,I remember DAVID said ANDALUSI had conspired to have debates with David canceled.Did ANDALUSI DENY it?Never,not at all(I was surprised).
Then Paul Williams made only one comment,it was that ANSALUSI would still continue to be a leader in the Muslim Debate Initiative.He never even denied Andalusi was NOT responsible.So goes the world.

Zack_Tiang said...

minoria said...
"Will Paul Williams ever change?The truth is no,that is the reality,so be it.At least we tried to convince him,it didn't work,so be it. Nothing else can be done."

Don't be dismayed, my friend. That's exactly what the Devil wants to happen... That we give up trying to save those that God love.

Despite how difficult or how hard-headed they may be... we must do what we are supposed to do and pray for God to do the saving/convicting.
It is not our place to judge or decide who is still 'save-able' or otherwise. =)

minoria said...

Hello Zack:
Thank you for your words of encouragement.Theologically,I believe Paul Williams is still saved since he had accepted Jesus as savior before and was a believer for some time,so salvation can't be lost.

It seems to me that if your salvation DEPENDS on your FAITHFULNESS then it becomes a GOOD WORK,and you know it is written salvation has no connection with good works.

Maybe I am wrong but it makes logical sense.I am back to participating in the Spanish-language forum(I was away for 3 weeks,tired of it all)and try to be as concise as possible.I have told them about Nabeel and David's debates on youtube and I know at least one Muslim,called Yuzu,knows English,so he can listen to them.

Osama Abdallah said...

"Yeah, now that he is married he doesn't need to go out for lunch, coffee or tea, he just slaps his wife around and tells her to make it.

He reminds me of the old joke:

Question: "What do you do when your dishwasher is broken?"

Answer: "You slap her and tell her to get back to work.""

That American joke that came about during your father's or grandfather's days was created by Christians, and not Muslims. In Islam, we **** DO NOT SLAP OUR WIVES AROUND ****. In fact, in Islam striking on the face is forbidden. That is by boxing is forbidden in Islam. Also, wife beating is only allowed after the third warning of a very disobedient and/or flirting wife, and after that, if she does it again, it is time to speak about divorce in front of a group of wise men from her family and his family. Read the Glorious Quran and educate yourself.

Also, where in your bible is wife-beating forbidden? Give me one verse.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Chad Groenhout said...

Ephesians 5:22-33

"22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

Pretty clear.

Traeh said...

Osama,
Qur'an 4:34 doesn't command Muslims to beat "disobedient" wives. It commands Muslims to beat wives from whom a Muslim "fears" disobedience.

So the disobedience need not even be certain. A Muslim need only fear or suspect disobedience.

Jesus never said anything even remotely like this.

Also, there is this canonical hadith,
Abu Dawud, Book 11, #2142:
Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.

The Fat Man said...

My response to Paul Williams.

I have never had the pleasure of meeting Nabeel, but I did meet David Wood a few weeks ago in Chicago. From my two day personal experience I can believe alot of things about David Wood. I personally saw acts of kindness, and generosity. A soft spoken man who is not timid when it comes to sharing the gospel. He was laid back soft spoken never raising his voice to shouting or screaming, never returning insults, and always demonstrated a good sense of humor.

Although I have never met Nabeel I can see from video and written correspondence with the man that he shares some if not all and probably exceeds in all these great traits.

Either way I have never seen David Wood personally raise his voice, say inflammatory or insulting things and likewise from the video that was released I never saw Nabeel do such things.

For instance in the video that has been released you never see Nabeel or David "Shouting into the crowd". Oh I'm sorry Nabeel voice did raise a few decibels when he said "I LOVE MUSLIMS". I know that''s so wrong he should not of done that.

From the video they never "aggressively" or otherwise engaged anyone in any form. It was others who engaged them.

They never insulted, unless you consider Nabeel saying he loves Muslims or that Jesus loves them is offensive or inflammatory to Muslims.

None of the things that the Mayor accused Nabeel, David and crew of doing can be seen in any of the video's that have been released.

Now what I find interesting about you and others, is that with out any evidence you where quick to jump on the "Condemn David and Nabeel and Acts17 Apologetics" ban wagon. Quickly siding with the mayor of Dearborn. You even stated in your response to me that you could see David and Nabeel doing the things they are accused of.

However now that evidence is coming out that completely refute the mayor and police version of events. All of a sudden you and others say "We will let the American courts decide what really happened…."

Interesting with out evidence you decided what happed, now that there is evidence you will let the courts decide.

Lupus el Lobo said...

Reply to Chad:
The bible has been used by christians and is used by christians to legitimize wife-beating. You know as well as everybody else that there are different interpretations of the bible.
The reason why some Christians now all of a sudden claim that they are opposed to wife-beating is simply because they have been bitch-slapped by the contemporary society which upholds values such as feminism etc.
The same way you sucked up to the romans by adopting heathen practices you are doing the same thing now only to a different master.
Well, I must give you credit for one thing. Your approach finally led to the romans adopting christianity.

The Fat Man said...

Osama "Put a mic in front of him and throw him on stage" Abdullah asked.

"Also, where in your bible is wife-beating forbidden? Give me one verse."

Here is one....

Colossians 3:19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

I'm sure others will post a lot more. But I really think its a waist of time.

Traeh said...

Hi Chad Groenhout,
I suppose you'll agree that it may be important that the words in the passage you quote were not said by Jesus. Nowhere does Jesus himself say that wives should "submit" to husbands. (Or have I forgotten a passage where Jesus did say that?)

The passage you quoted from Paul could perhaps even be considered self-contradictory when we consider that Jesus told the disciples that those who would be greatest among them would not lord over them (or be their head or have them submit to him) but rather would serve them and wash their feet, as Jesus washed the disciples feet.

Therefore, even if the mortal and fallible Paul was correct in what he says in the passage you quoted that a husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, does Christ want to be "head" of the church? Does Christ want the church to "submit" to Him? Obviously Christ is central, but is he the "head" or the "master"? That seems out of line with what I understand of Christ's words and actions. Christ in the end called the disciples "friends" and washed their feet. That does not sound like Christ was wanting to be the "head" of anything, certainly not in the sense of the earthly authority often traditionally ascribed to a husband over a wife, and backed by physical force. Rather, Jesus was, in some important sense, opening up a relation of equality with Himself. Perhaps a relation of potential equality, as that between a child and its parents.

Thus Paul's passage may be wrong on two counts:

1. Christ never said that the husband is the head of the wife.

2. Even if, as Paul claims, the husband is to the wife as Christ is to the church, it's not at all clear that Christ wanted to be the "head" of the church, or wanted the church to be a hierarchy with himself as "master." He washed the disciples feet and called them "friends". Is that a "head" or a "master"? Jesus' message seems to be about a divine gift of love, responsibility, and freedom. Not about earthly hierarchies based on any kind of "head" and "subordinate" relation, such as the old traditional relation of husband to wife.

I am no expert in Christian texts. I'm just giving some impressions.

Anthony Rogers said...

Osama,

I don’t know if the joke came about during my grandfather’s day or even if you can prove that, but I am relatively certain that you can’t demonstrate that it was created by Christians. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, I am prepared to grant your assertions and point to the obvious contrast that this generates: What our grandparents told as a joke, Allah tells with a straight face. And, I dare say, while most women could laugh at this joke in America (with obvious exceptions, such as women whose husbands have unknowingly borrowed a play from Muhammad’s book), virtually no woman in the Muslim world would find such a joke to be funny, especially when the joke really is on them.

When you ask where wife beating is forbidden in the Bible, you are asking the wrong question. What you should ask is: Where is wife beating commanded or permitted in the Bible? Where does God give husbands the authority to put the smack down on their wives? And to this, the answer is as obvious as the reason you asked the question in the way that you did: namely, because you know no such command is to be found; no authority for such is ever given.

Zack_Tiang said...

Minoria,

As much as I like to believe he is saved due to that, I fear it is not supportable by scripture.
Let me share the scariest verse in my opinion.. it always reminds me to be extra sure of what I'm doing is right in God's eye.
Matthew 7:21-23
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'"

It is true that salvation has nothing to do with works, but by our faith..
But what is the proof of our faith as taught in the bible?
James 2:14-26 - Faith without works is dead.

This verse is not saying works are necessary for salvation.. but that works are the proof that we truly have that faith in Christ and truly believe in Christ and His teachings.
If we truly believe in Christ and say that He is Lord, then the result will be that our lives will change to become more Christ-like..

We're not doing the good work to be saved, but instead, BECAUSE we're saved. Praise God. =)

Suzanne said...

Did the police EVER ask you to move away or break up the crowd before arresting you? If the jugde does not see through this, then he/she doesn't want too. God give truth and courage to the judge.

Hemel Hossain said...

Osama,here even from Bangladesh I feel you are a clown.I left your clown religion 4 years ago.There is no sharia in Bangladesh still I get insulted and receive threats from muslims .Why dont you come here in Bangladesh and help your brethren where they are struggling with hunger.Christian NGO's provides poor ppl with food,shelter ,job.Why dont your brother the arab sheikhs invest multi-million dollars here to get ppl out of this tragedy.Instead they are busy to give another clown Zakir Naik to run clown TV programs.Muslims are suffering from hunger,and it is christian organisations who are helping them.Some ppl accepts Christ,some dont among those ppl.But still the organisations are vowed for development.

hugh watt said...

1.

Here is a Hadith from Bukhari[8], vol. 7, # 715, that details Islamic wife beating:

"Narrated Ikrima: 'Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's messenger came, Aisha said, "I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY WOMAN SUFFERING AS MUCH AS THE BELIEVING WOMEN. Look! HER SKIN IS GREENER THAN HER CLOTHES! When Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him, but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment. Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's messenger! She has told a lie. I am very strong and can satisfy her, but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifaa." Allah's messenger said to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifaa unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." The prophet saw two boys with Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that Abdur-Rahman said, "Yes." The prophet said, "You claim what you claim (that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow".
What would cause such marks and remarks by Aisha, a LIGHT beating!!? Can women divorce just as easily as men? What would she have to do to get back with him if they wanted to re-marry? Would the same standard be applied to him?

hugh watt said...

2-2.

Abu Dawud (2141) - "Iyas bin ‘Abd Allah bin Abi Dhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when ‘Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) said : Many women have gone round Muhammad’s family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you."

A "light tap?"

Zack_Tiang said...

Traeh,

I'll have to correct you there.. based on the grounds of logic. Need not quote scripture (though I could if I were better with my memory verses).

How can you say Christ 'did not want' to have the the church submit to Him?
That's equivalent to saying God does not want Jesus to submit to Him... or Israel and the Jews to submit to Him.
That's just plain illogically and contradictory.

Yes, we're all equal in God's eyes... but there's still difference in position when it comes to the roles we have to play. The husband is the head of the household, the wife his second in command (sort to speak), followed by his children, his heirs.
Just as Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal in the Trinity, but they have different rankings and position. The Father is the greater than Jesus the Son, and Jesus sends the Holy Spirit.

Paul is amongst the greatest teachers in the NT. Most of the NT is written by him, if you have forgotten or haven't realized. If he was incorrect or uninspired by the Holy Spirit, I doubt God would have allowed his writings to be canonized.

When he taught that wives submit to their husbands, it is in terms of ranking within the household. The husband is to be the leader in the household. It does NOT mean the wife becomes a slave or a lowly servant to her husband.
And the husband, in turn, is to treat his wife with as much love as he can and more, and keep her righteous. The husband is held accountable by God to keep his wife righteous before Him.

So, I see absolutely no problem with Paul's writing, Traeh.
We, as the church, are the Body of Christ... and Christ is the Head of our Church.
We do the will of God, but ultimately Christ is in-charged and sovereign over all of us.

Zack_Tiang said...

Traeh,
"2. Even if, as Paul claims, the husband is to the wife as Christ is to the church, it's not at all clear that Christ wanted to be the "head" of the church, or wanted the church to be a hierarchy with himself as "master." He washed the disciples feet and called them "friends". Is that a "head" or a "master"? Jesus' message seems to be about a divine gift of love, responsibility, and freedom. Not about earthly hierarchies based on any kind of "head" and "subordinate" relation, such as the old traditional relation of husband to wife. "

You're misunderstanding what Christ was trying to teach by 'washing the feet' of His disciples. are you trying to imply Christ wants to be a slave to us all?? Or become a slave amongst us?

He was showing the greatest example of leadership. He was teaching that we as leader must serve those that may be under our leadership.. But we are still the leader, we do not become the slave of the followers or the follower amongst the followers.

Just the same, Christ is our shepherd. Yet, He loves us dearly enough that He is willing to get his hands dirty to care for us, and even willing to lay down His life to defend/save us. That doesn't mean He is the servant of the sheeps.. not does He Himself is reduced to being a sheep.

Thus, there IS a sort of hierarchy or ranking in the order of things. We do not become equal with Jesus, nor did He remain equal to us as a man.

I hope I spoke truthfully, and if I have not, please correct me as well. Thank you and may God bless us all with the right understanding.

Chad Groenhout said...

"The bible has been used by christians and is used by christians to legitimize wife-beating."

Lupas,

Where, when, how? If you are gonna make blanket statements, back them up please. Evidence.

minoria said...

Hello Fatman:

You quoted COLOSS 3:19:"Husbands, LOVE your wives and do NOT be HARSH with them."

It is true,it goes against wife-beating.

WHAT IS HARSH?

You can be HARSH by words,saying unkind things,so if THAT counts as HARSH then of course hitting her does also.

Hello Zack:
The verse you quoted(MATT 7:21-23)has always intrigued me.It could e as you say,referring to those who accepted Jesus as savior and later left.
Though it could also just refer to the idea of many Christians who believe that you actually get salvation BASED on WORKS,they do good works specifically because they want to have more good works than bad(like the Muslims),one sees THAT alot in liberal Churches (like UNITED CHURCH)where the emphasis is on good works.

minoria said...

GETTING MORE INFO

I like to get as much info as possible from reliable sources.I recently discovered that:

According to CRAIG EVANS(Christian scholar,reliable),in youtube,that:

1.King David had Solomon enter Jerusalem on a MULE,to confirm him as the next king.
SO when Jesus entered Jerusalem on a DONKEY everybody knew he was saying he was the Messiah(in reference to a ZECHARIAH prophecy about the Messiah entering Jerusalem on a DONKEY).

2.That the MESSIAH had the AUTHORITY to purify the Temple.Jesus did it.You can say he was wrong,but AS THE MESSIAH he had the AUTHORITY to do it.It is a good detail to use in an argument.

MICHAEL LICONA(another Christian scholar,reliable)said that we have 30,000 quotations of the NT within 300 years by the Church Fathers,so even if we did NOT have the NT it could be reconstructed.

That is info from a scholar,it can be used in a valid argument in favor of Christianity.They should teach all this in Sunday School really AND in WEEKLY BIBLE STUDIES in Churches.

Traeh said...

Zack_Tiang,
In spiritual things there is a kind of hierarchy, but it is utterly different from earthly hierarchy, and I would suggest that in the passage Chad quoted, Paul, unlike Jesus, does not adequately distinguish the two kinds of hierarchy. But perhaps Paul does adequately distinguish, and I'm mistaken.

I suggest Paul does not adequately distinguish, because in Paul's statement that Chad quoted, one can too easily confuse the often-all-too-earthly, archaic, force-based hierarchy of husband over wife -- with spiritual hierarchy. Have a look at the entertaining Ralph Kramden (start about 35 seconds into the video), to get a humorous hint of the force-backed behavior of the traditional husband. Ralph is above that, but one clearly sees in his behavior a vestige of what I mean.

Nowhere does Jesus say that the husband is the head of the wife. Does he?

I suggest that spiritual hierarchy does not work by force, and that makes it utterly different from all too many traditional husband-wife relationships.

Force can be used between two entities that are external to each other. But when Jesus speaks to us, we sometimes hear his voice from within us, as if he were our very own truest self. Jesus/God seems to be simultaneously our own core being, and yet also above us and utterly transcendent. The Kingdom of Heaven is within us. Therefore, when it "commands" us, the "command" comes from our own inmost core, from a place closer to us than we are to ourselves. Thus it feels in one sense as if we have "commanded" ourselves. But that is a very strange kind of command, where in a sense I am both the commander and the obeyer. In a way, that is not a command at all. It certainly is utterly different from any earthly kind of command, such as a husband, with his greater physical strength, might issue to a wife.

And anyway, I think since the time of Jesus, heavenly guidance is usually not in the form of command. With the coming of Jesus, love becomes paramount. And love means responsibility/freedom. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to "command" love. You can command someone to carry a load of bricks. But love comes from the innermost core of a person, and can only be freely given. In the words of a popular song, "I can't make you love me if you don't. I can't make your heart...do somethin' it won't."

Because I am in God, and God is in me, spiritual hierarchy is utterly different from earthly hierarchy. Spiritual hierarchy can begin to be better understood if we think of the "hierarchy" in a living body. I have heard the archangel Michael referred to as the "countenance" of the Christ. Does one's face "obey" one's "commands"? Does Michael "obey" Christ's "commands"? I am more than my face, but is my face merely my puppet? Or is my face an important addition to my innermost being, is my face potentially an aspect of the flowering and fulfillment of my being? I am more than my face, and yet I am partly dependent on my face for my own fulfillment, my own self-realization. My face is in one sense me, yet is also independent of me. Michael is in one sense Jesus, yet is independent of Jesus. There is a kind of hierarchy involved, Jesus is more than Michael, yet the spiritual relations are utterly different from earthly hierarchy.

In spiritual hierarchy, the greater and the lesser are one with each other, each is in the other, each is the other, and yet they are also distinct. Whereas in earthly hierarchy, the greater and the lesser are merely distinct.

David Wood said...

The Fat Man said to MDI's Paul Williams: "Interesting with out evidence you decided what happed, now that there is evidence you will let the courts decide."

Yes, that's the difference between us and the Muslim Debate Initiative. If they were arrested for having a dialogue with Christians, we would be horrified. But when we're arrested for having a dialogue with Muslims, MDI thinks it's the greatest thing in the world.

This should be evidence that Muhammad's command to subjugate non-Muslims can have an awful impact on Muslims (even converts to Islam).

Paul is quick to throw around terms like "fundamentalist" and "extremist," but it's obvious that he's filled with more hatred than almost anyone I know. What sort of person takes delight in oppressing members of another religion? Why is it so common among MDI members? Even the liberal MDI member Farhan Qureshi (a pantheist who doesn't believe in miracles, but believes Jesus was nailed to a cross) called our arrests "the icing on the cake." They're hatred is shocking. (But more on MDI after we've dealt with more pressing issues.)

Zack_Tiang said...

Hi, minoria.

Yes, you are correct with that understanding. (Ref: Letter to Church of Ephesus in Revelation 2)
But it also includes false Christs and false gospels.

The main point Jesus was making was "I did not know you"; there was no (close/intimate) relationship He had with them.

If you had a very dear, close friend and someday, he/she decides to no longer keep in touch with you (and for a long time); is there still a relationship (a bridge of communication?) between the two of you?

Zack_Tiang said...

Traeh,

First of all, where in that passage Paul teaches the husband to force his wife to submit to him? With his 'greater physical strength'? Now you're reading/putting words into the text.
You're misunderstanding and even distorting Paul's writing. In no way in that passage was Paul telling husbands to 'command love/respect' from their wives. Read the passage carefully and notice who the passage is talking to.
"Wives, submit to your husband. Husbands, love your wife."
NOT "Husbands, make your wives submit to you. Wives, your husbands love you no matter what."

I'm now really troubled by your mis/understanding, Traeh.

You worry me, regarding 'Jesus/God being simultaneously our core being and above us', because the way you put it, it is reminding me of Witness Lee's teaching (of the Local Church / Recovery movement; considered a cult for wrongful teachings, especially regarding the Trinity).

And I disagree that we are both 'commander' and 'obeyer'. we are the 'obeyer' through and through. We never command ourselves, nor do we have the same authority as Christ, let alone, God.

I'm troubled by your statement, "anyway, I think since the time of Jesus, heavenly guidance is usually not in the form of command."
That's like saying a father never commands his child/ren to do anything; i.e. 'do your homework', 'go to your room'.


I doubt Paul ever spoke of earthly things without a sense of 'spiritualism'. He does teach using earthly examples or metaphors.. but that's just like Jesus explaining spiritual matters (i.e. Heaven, Kingdom of God) through earthly examples (i.e. parables).

I implore you that you be careful to assume Paul was incorrect or uninspired when he wrote whatever in the NT. (Like I said, he wrote over half of the NT!)
If you truly believe in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through the writers of the bible, you shouldn't be having any problem with Paul's writing (otherwise you'll have trouble with a alrge portion of the NT; i.e. being slaves/servants/living sacrifices to God)

The absence of Jesus explicitly talking about a teaching does not mean it was never taught in the bible. Jesus never spoke explicitly about/against homosexuality either, or bisexuality or transexuality, or even cross-dressing, for that matter. Does it mean He has decided that those things are not wrong?

Paul has incredible insight/knowledge regarding 'the mystery of Christ'. And God has honored him with the honor of revealing a lot of these spiritual insights regarding Christ.

[Eph 5:32] This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

[Eph 3:3,4] How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

[Rom 16:25] Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began..

[Col 1:26,27] Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory..

Zack_Tiang said...

Traeh,

First of all, where in that passage Paul teaches the husband to force his wife to submit to him? With his 'greater physical strength'? Now you're reading/putting words into the text.
You're misunderstanding and even distorting Paul's writing. In no way in that passage was Paul telling husbands to 'command love/respect' from their wives. Read the passage carefully and notice who the passage is talking to.
"Wives, submit to your husband. Husbands, love your wife."
NOT "Husbands, make your wives submit to you. Wives, your husbands love you no matter what."

I'm now really troubled by your mis/understanding, Traeh.

You worry me, regarding 'Jesus/God being simultaneously our core being and above us', because the way you put it, it is reminding me of Witness Lee's teaching (of the Local Church / Recovery movement; considered a cult for wrongful teachings, especially regarding the Trinity).

And I disagree that we are both 'commander' and 'obeyer'. we are the 'obeyer' through and through. We never command ourselves, nor do we have the same authority as Christ, let alone, God.

I'm troubled by your statement, "anyway, I think since the time of Jesus, heavenly guidance is usually not in the form of command."
That's like saying a father never commands his child/ren to do anything; i.e. 'do your homework', 'go to your room'.

Zack_Tiang said...

I doubt Paul ever spoke of earthly things without a sense of 'spiritualism'. He does teach using earthly examples or metaphors.. but that's just like Jesus explaining spiritual matters (i.e. Heaven, Kingdom of God) through earthly examples (i.e. parables).

I implore you that you be careful to assume Paul was incorrect or uninspired when he wrote whatever in the NT. (Like I said, he wrote over half of the NT!)
If you truly believe in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through the writers of the bible, you shouldn't be having any problem with Paul's writing (otherwise you'll have trouble with a alrge portion of the NT; i.e. being slaves/servants/living sacrifices to God)

The absence of Jesus explicitly talking about a teaching does not mean it was never taught in the bible. Jesus never spoke explicitly about/against homosexuality either, or bisexuality or transexuality, or even cross-dressing, for that matter. Does it mean He has decided that those things are not wrong?

Paul has incredible insight/knowledge regarding 'the mystery of Christ'. And God has honored him with the honor of revealing a lot of these spiritual insights regarding Christ.

[Eph 5:32] This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

[Eph 3:3,4] How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

[Rom 16:25] Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began..

[Col 1:26,27] Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory..

Traeh said...

Hi Zack_Tiang:

I appreciate your humility about the possibility of your making mistakes. So I'll emulate you and acknowledge the obvious: I might be mistaken in this reply.

You said

First of all, where in that passage Paul teaches the husband to force his wife to submit to him? With his 'greater physical strength'? Now you're reading/putting words into the text.
You're misunderstanding and even distorting Paul's writing. In no way in that passage was Paul telling husbands to 'command love/respect' from their wives...
"Wives, submit to your husband. Husbands, love your wife."
NOT "Husbands, make your wives submit to you. Wives, your husbands love you no matter what.


Zack, the key passage on which you and I perhaps disagree is this one from Paul:

Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

To me, that gives way too much power to obviously fallible husbands and men. Do you think, Zack, that wives should consider their husbands as like God/Christ? Surely that's wrong? But that's what Paul's sentence above says to me. To me it suggests Paul has granted too much to a very earthly and traditional perspective on the husband-wife relation. I think it's important to point out that Paul, not Christ, said the statement in question. You are correct, of course, Zack, that the mere fact that Christ did not say "wives should submit in everything to their husbands" does not mean Christ disagreed with it. Nor does it mean he agreed with it. But I don't think we should take Paul's words as being on the same plane as the words of Jesus. I don't think we should assume that every single thing that Paul said was absolutely accurate.

One must make a clear distinction between earthly and spiritual hierarchy, but I don't see you doing that, Zack. Paul's statement, Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything, to me strongly suggests Paul has confused earthly hierarchy with spiritual hierarchy.

Zack, you said,
You worry me, regarding 'Jesus/God being simultaneously our core being and above us', because the way you put it, it is reminding me of Witness Lee's teaching (of the Local Church / Recovery movement; considered a cult for wrongful teachings, especially regarding the Trinity).

I know nothing about "Witness Lee's" teaching, and I don't really care if it "is considered a cult for wrongful teachings." Why should I judge things according to what "is considered" wrong by some external authority or other? It's more important what you, Zack, have discovered to be wrongful. Not what "is considered" by some external authority to be so. What do you know, Zack, what do you think? You seem to have surrendered some of your soul's autonomy to some external authority. Why? Truth has an inner sound, an inner character, that each of us must hear inwardly or futilely try not to hear. In the end, each of us is responsible for what we acknowledged as truth.

Zack, you said,
And I disagree that we are both 'commander' and 'obeyer'. we are the 'obeyer' through and through. We never command ourselves, nor do we have the same authority as Christ, let alone, God.

For you then, there appears to be no difference between spiritual hierarchy and earthly hierarchy. No difference between Christ's kingdom and the kingdoms of this world.

(response to Zack continued below)

Traeh said...

(response to Zack continued from above comment)

Your responses obviously do not deny, Zack, that God and Christ are outside us. But you seem to deny the implications of the fact that they are within us, too. God and Jesus are within us as well as outside us. Being within us, their "commands" to us are perceived by us as coming from our own truest part. Do you see that if God is within us, we are going to feel His being to be the most real part of us? And yet God is clearly above us and spiritually outside us. And I grant you, Zack, that that is the larger truth. God is larger than we are, and outside us. Yet the other side, God's inwardness to us, which Christian mystics have spoken of, has some portion of the truth, a very important portion. Now since God's "commands" come from our own highest being -- because Jesus, let us say, is our own truest reality -- there is a sense in which we won't perceive them as commands coming from without, but as our own highest desire issuing from within. Yet from another perspective, perhaps the "big picture" perspective, Christ is simply above us and infinitely greater than us. So I yield a little to you on this Zack, but not entirely. There is a mystery of immanence, not just of transcendence. God is within us, not just without.

But your responses so far, Zack, suggest to me that you do not disagree with me. To disagree with someone, you have to have entered into the specific warp and woof of what they've said and shown the person specifically where you think the specific weave has gone wrong.

It's an exaggeration, but not totally, if I say that you merely repeat with a kind of horror that we must all submit submit submit, nothing else! The difference between your theology and the Islamic one is, in that one respect, a little too small. The spirit of Christianity is responsibility and freedom, and "submission" in that sense is so different from the ordinary concept of submission as to be in an almost entirely new category. There is not enough in your presentation of things, Zack, acknowledging the difference between spiritual and earthly hierarchy, and too much that makes you seem unaware of it. But in that you are like many others.

Zack, you said:
"I'm troubled by your statement, "anyway, I think since the time of Jesus, heavenly guidance is usually not in the form of command."
That's like saying a father never commands his child/ren to do anything; i.e. 'do your homework', 'go to your room'."


I said "usually." You turned that into "never." You want things cut-and-dried. That has its virtues, no doubt. The only problem is that I did not say "never." But you do tend to say "always." Yes, you want things cut and dried. You want to force the truth into a Procrustean bed. That makes things easier in the short run, I suppose.

(response to Zack continued in next comment)

Traeh said...

(response to Zack continued from above comment)

Zack, you said,
"I implore you that you be careful to assume Paul was incorrect or uninspired when he wrote whatever in the NT. (Like I said, he wrote over half of the NT!)
If you truly believe in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through the writers of the bible, you shouldn't be having any problem with Paul's writing (otherwise you'll have trouble with a alrge portion of the NT; i.e. being slaves/servants/living sacrifices to God)"


Inspiration, as I understand it, means that God's voice is mediated through a fallible human witness. It is not the verbatim dictation of "Gabriel" to Muhammad. In the case of the Bible, many people judge it inspired, judge that a good deal of it comes from God. But the meaning of inspiration is that what comes from God and what comes from imperfect humanity are blended. In inspiration, if it really is inspiration, there is a high "percentage" of God-derived content in the mix. But it is a mix. So each of us is thrown back on ourselves to try to discern where the truth is in what is said, and what part is from the fallible human mediator. Otherwise, Zack, you are taking an easy road, rejecting the difficult responsibility to think for yourself the question of exactly what is true at each point. It's much easier to pretend that some external authority is endowed with infallibility, of course. Then you can simply turn off your own mind and if you have any questions, it's all decided for you by the external infallible authority. Nothing is unknown, all uncertainty is banished. How comfortable.

Zack, you said,
"Paul has incredible insight/knowledge regarding 'the mystery of Christ'. And God has honored him with the honor of revealing a lot of these spiritual insights regarding Christ."

I agree. What Paul has to say about love is astounding. That he lived it is astounding. Truly astounding.

But that does not mean every single thing Paul said is correct. Anyway, Zack, suppose every single thing Paul said was correct. How could you, Zack, possibly know that? The only way you would know is that you would assess the evidence, right? Then you would make a decision, along these lines: "I read his words, I look at my experiences, I look at the whole bible, I look at what my revered teachers say, and I try to consider everything," and on that basis, you might conclude: "yes, I think Paul is infallible." Ultimately you are depending on your own judgment, whether you recognize that or not. If you claim that Paul was infallible, what that means is that you think you know what infallible is. How else could you authoritatively claim to know Paul is infallible, if you don't claim to know what infallible is? But how can you know what infallible is, unless you have in some sense or degree experienced infallibility yourself? "I know what infallible is, and Paul is infallible." By putting yourself in that position, you are saying that you are somehow privy to infallibility, though you cloak it in the form of "Paul is inspired and infallible." But it's ridiculous to think oneself infallible, and therefore to pretend to know that someone else is infallible, isn't it? One might, perhaps, suspect that some amazingly revelatory person is infallible, though it might or might not really hold up under the light of clear thinking to consider anyone infallible. Yet there might be some sort of truth in the claim. But usually the assertion of an infallible external authority arises because you cannot stand to accept your God-given independence to have your own direct relation with truth and God, and you insist on have an absolute infallible external authority over you. That's not for me, Zack. I'm trying my feeble best to concern myself with truth and reality, not with any kind of submission to arbitrarily chosen external forces.

Pat said...

Traeh,

In response to your bit on inerrancy. An infallible God can more than effectively mediate an infallible message using fallible men in an infallible way. I believe the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy said it well. If you want to check it out, here's a link: http://www.churchcouncil.org/Reformation_net/COR_Docs/01_Inerrancy_Christian_Worldview.pdf

Trusting in an infallible source is not the same as shutting off your brain. To the contrary, it drives me to ponder why God would have me to live in this way. Often the more I ponder the issues the greater understanding I gain and am amazed by the wisdom of God. I feel as though I am much more prone to shut my brain off and go with my gut feelings, disregarding passages that have divine motive, because my culture cries out against them.

Your view of inspirations appears to drastically diminish the transcultural power of the Word of God.

God has shown time and time again that He uses men to communicate His message. This isolated search for truth through a relationship with God, apart from a communal source of infallible knowledge, seems to lead to every man creating a god in their own image and a "truth" that fits them best.

Zack_Tiang said...

Traeh,

I try my best to be humble, cause I know I am not the very knowledgeable or even a reasonbly good debater.

"Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

If you take ONLY that verse, then yes, Paul is advocating a wrong teaching.
But what else did he say? Read the next few verse immediately after that.

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church"

Seems like Paul is putting more stress on the husbands here. Who's the 'lower' one here in the husband-wife relationship?

My understanding of the passage here is that wives entrust themselves to their husbands.. just like how the church entrusts herself to Christ in all things (regardless of circumstances, good or terrible). For if her husband loves her as much (or even as close) as Christ loves the church, then she has no need to fear or worry of being mistreated or misled by her husband, right?

Do you entrust yourself and submit to Christ 100%?

Even if Paul was talking of 'earthly hierarchy' (which I doubt he was inspired to that extent only), he made very clear criterias that BOTH husband and wife need to follow. It's a win-win situation. If one side is neglected/abused, it isn't Paul's fault.

"I don't think we should assume that every single thing that Paul said was absolutely accurate."
"to me strongly suggests Paul has confused earthly hierarchy with spiritual hierarchy."

Then I submit to you a question that is often ask to our Muslim friends...
"Then how do you know which is and which is not? Which part of the NT was Paul confused and which part was he not? Why would God allow a 'confused' letter like this be accepted as His Word, without correcting/rebuking it as He did with all His prophets in OT that got something wrong?"

Zack_Tiang said...

Traeh,

I try my best to be humble, cause I know I am not the very knowledgeable or even a reasonbly good debater.

"Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

If you take ONLY that verse, then yes, Paul is advocating a wrong teaching.
But what else did he say? Read the next few verse immediately after that.

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church"

Seems like Paul is putting more stress on the husbands here. Who's the 'lower' one here in the husband-wife relationship?

My understanding of the passage here is that wives entrust themselves to their husbands.. just like how the church entrusts herself to Christ in all things (regardless of circumstances, good or terrible). For if her husband loves her as much (or even as close) as Christ loves the church, then she has no need to fear or worry of being mistreated or misled by her husband, right?

Do you entrust yourself and submit to Christ 100%?

Even if Paul was talking of 'earthly hierarchy' (which I doubt he was inspired to that extent only), he made very clear criterias that BOTH husband and wife need to follow. It's a win-win situation. If one side is neglected/abused, it isn't Paul's fault.

Zack_Tiang said...

"I don't think we should assume that every single thing that Paul said was absolutely accurate."
"to me strongly suggests Paul has confused earthly hierarchy with spiritual hierarchy."

Then I submit to you a question that is often ask to our Muslim friends...
"Then how do you know which is and which is not? Which part of the NT was Paul confused and which part was he not? Why would God allow a 'confused' letter like this be accepted as His Word, without correcting/rebuking it as He did with all His prophets in OT that got something wrong?"


Re: Witness Lee and his Local Church/Recovery movement

I have encountered some in that group before... I have looked up the information regarding what they teach and what others say regarding their teachings (compared to scripture, of course; that's where my ultimate source of truth is).
You should have a look at how Witness Lee describes the Trinity (and other doctrines). It was the first time I came to realize that there was such a difference and how this particular one is very much incorrect. (Jesus = Father = Holy Spirit; but equally exist at the same time, in us and out)


"Zack, you said,
And I disagree that we are both 'commander' and 'obeyer'. we are the 'obeyer' through and through. We never command ourselves, nor do we have the same authority as Christ, let alone, God.

Traeh,
For you then, there appears to be no difference between spiritual hierarchy and earthly hierarchy. "

Uhhh... I have no idea how you came to such a conclusion based on that statement you quoted of me.
What does earthly hierarchy have to do with being a 'commander'/'obeyer' of yourself? Sounds like a spiritual matter to me... or a case of multiple personalities.
And thus, we're only the 'obeyer', never the 'commander'.

Zack_Tiang said...

"God and Jesus are within us as well as outside us."

You are in slight error there, Traeh. It is the Holy Spirit that is within us. Father and Christ are in heaven. Christ himself said that He will be preparing a place for us in His Father's house. Now, are you saying the Father's house is within ourselves?
I know God is omnipresent, but does that mean He is residing in Heaven and at the same time, within each and every one of ourselves?

And hence why I worry about your understanding cause this is practically Witness Lee's teaching regarding the Trinity... that God and Jesus are above us as well as within us.. (He described Jesus on earth praying to the Father as "The Son who prays is the Father who listens".)
And then ultimately, we will literally become part of God ourselves (indirectly claiming that we will assimilate and become God).

"God and Jesus are within us as well as outside us. Being within us, their "commands" to us are perceived by us as coming from our own truest part."

Are you claiming exactly what Witness Lee taught? That God/Jesus is part of us, our individual self? Part of our soul and spirit? Or at least, that God has become a part of us??

I submit to you that you are clearly mistaken with your understanding, or at least, with your explanation, Traeh.

Zack_Tiang said...

"Christianity is responsibility and freedom, and "submission" in that sense is so different from the ordinary concept of submission as to be in an almost entirely new category."

I am rather confused by your explanation surrounding this passage, so I'll just respond as best as I can. I won't bother commenting on this particular statement... why?
Because obviously my comments so far are barely 5% of my understanding regarding Christianity. So thus, you don't know if indeed I can't differentiate spiritual vs earthly hierarchy or don't understand what you're claiming I am not understanding.
Frankly, I think you're too focused on arguing the 'earthly' side of my argument, when I was more focused on the spiritual side of the matter (regarding the wife submitting = submission to Christ).

"I said "usually." You turned that into "never.""

I know I did. So if that statement of mine is inaccurate. Is it more accurate to say it this way..
"That's like saying a father RARELY commands his child/ren to do anything; i.e. 'do your homework', 'go to your room'.""
I think it still holds as much water as my 'never' statement, cause undoubtedly, God NEVER 'rarely' commanded His people/prophets to do somethng for Him; e.g. Moses, Elijah, Jesus, etc.

"Otherwise, Zack, you are taking an easy road, rejecting the difficult responsibility to think for yourself the question of exactly what is true at each point."

Sigh... and thus you are claiming that God's word was altered by man (through the original writer himself) and was accepted as truth.
I'm sure the Muslims are jumping for joy at that admission (which will turn to become their horror later on, haha).

Zack_Tiang said...

"Then you can simply turn off your own mind and if you have any questions, it's all decided for you by the external infallible authority."

And you're assuming alot regarding how I study the bible. But I'll just let this slide.

"But that does not mean every single thing Paul said is correct. ... How could you, Zack, possibly know that?"

Let's see... How about we gather everything Paul ever said in the NT, and then see what are just sayings and what are teachings....
I believe you'll find that everything Paul wrote/said ARE teachings. (Obviously from his conversion onwards...)
And thus you are concluding that the NT has errors in doctrine in it. I fear you are required by Scripture to be rebuked and corrected.

"yes, I think Paul is infallible."

I don't believe the person Paul was infallible. I believe what he wrote through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (that is now in our bible) is.

"...what that means is that you think you know what infallible is."

You mean you don't?? What about the Word of God? Is that not infallible??

"I'm trying my feeble best to concern myself with truth and reality..."

Truth is infallible, agreed? Allow me to borrow a sentence from you..
"How can you know what TRUTH is, unless you have in some sense or degree experienced TRUTH yourself?"
What is TRUTH?

My truth is in the bible. Even when it records a lie spoken by someone, it is clearly explained to be false by someone else somewhere the bible, although it may not be explained immediately (and some cases, require some extra study).


(I agree with Pat. Thank you for your assertion into our 'discussion'. =) )

Traeh said...

Pat,
Thank you, I'll certainly take a look at that link on inerrancy.

You said,
Your view of inspirations appears to drastically diminish the transcultural power of the Word of God.

Mircea Eliade, one of the greatest historians of religion of the twentieth century, spoke frequently of the transhistorical meaning of experiences of the sacred. He didn't require any notion of inerrancy. He used intellect, erudition, and spiritual experience to analyze world religions, including the way in which the whole structure of Judeo-Christian consciousness represents a profound transformation of all prior religion. Eliade finds a unique and essential relationship between Christianity and human freedom. I'm thinking of his book The Eternal Return (Cosmos and History).

Peter Berger (the Peter Berger who wrote The Heretical Imperative, not the other well-known author of the same name) is one of the great American Protestant theologians. He transcends the conflict between secular relativists and traditional absolutists, and out of that transcendence Berger develops a concept he calls "mellow certainty" in relation to his commitment to Christianity. His mellow certainty is based on judgment, direct experience, and ongoing research, not on some arbitrary decision that a tradition shall be invested with some supposedly unquestionable authority and "inerrancy."

You said:

God has shown time and time again that He uses men to communicate His message. This isolated search for truth through a relationship with God, apart from a communal source of infallible knowledge, seems to lead to every man creating a god in their own image and a "truth" that fits them best.

The search for truth and God should be communal as well as individual. But it should be a search. It's the infallible part I don't see a justification for. It seems to me perhaps blasphemous.

Anyway, if science doesn't require an infallible external authority to avoid every scientist spinning off into a different purely subjective world, then do religious seekers need an infallible external authority? Scientists work communally toward a common objective truth. To communally seek the actual God, it is not necessary to rely on the fiction of the infallibility of some tradition. Some disagreement about the divine need not be a problem and comes with the territory of communal search by free individuals. Disagreement is sometimes a phase on the way to increasing convergence. Many people who think Jesus was divine get by quite well without any notion that Paul or some other human being was infallible in what he wrote and said.

Of course when you give up the idea that there is an infallible and unquestionable external authority, there is a danger -- not that every person will create a god in his own image, and spin into subjectivity, but that some people will do that. Responsibility and freedom entail risks. People may misuse freedom. They may get hurt. But is that a reason to reject freedom and responsibility? Freedom and responsibility are important in the Judeo-Christian tradition as in no other! The fact that Jews and Christians have often not seen that doesn't change the essential fact. It's absurd to reject freedom and responsibility as a Christian. Absolutely absurd. But that's what the notion of external infallibility does.

I am going to look at the link you gave, Pat.

Traeh said...

Zack, you win!
(Just kidding. But I do give up. For now.)

Zack_Tiang said...

I give up too, Traeh..
I can't fully understand your concept or understanding of 'infallible external authority'.

Sounds to me like you're saying God is not such a thing... neither is the bible, since you're willing to say that even the bible has wrong doctrines in it.

If the Word of God is no infallible.. then none of us have any form of truth, whatsoever.

Science has no infallible external authority? That's the reason why we get all sorts of subjective 'theories' and even some absurd ones that are obviously false/disproved over and over.

If religion is supposed to be the same... then there's no telling which religion is true and which is false.
Science touches on the physical (the earthly) matters of this world..
Religion is supposed to touch upon the spiritual matters... HOW can you equate the two?

One can be tested and experimented over and over..
The other has only one way to be proven absolutely as such.... and that is to die.

Good luck with your truth seeking with an 'infallible external authority'.. which means you're counting on an 'infallible internal' something... your heart?

Jeremiah 17:9 - "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?"

donna60 said...

Just for the record Osama, I don't believe you hit your wife. Hitting your wife is demonic, and I don't believe you are demonic.

I hope you don't suggest that anyone hit their wife for disobedience of flirting though. God-fearing men come up with better solutions than brute violence.