Saturday, November 26, 2011

Book Projects, Support Needed

December through March would be an excellent time for Sam and me to work on some books, but we can't do it without support.






137 comments:

Deleting said...

David, how much are you trying to raise? At the time ofthis posting, I saw the donate button but not the chip in counter i normally see when you went to las vegas or when you asked for donations to print tracks.

David Wood said...

"Chip In" charges a percentage of all donations just to use their little widget, but it's handy if you need to raise a specific amount.

We don't have any specific amount we need to raise. However much we raise, we're going to use it to cover costs while we work on books.

Victor said...

David, will the book have any kind of promotion of Christianity? I admire your videos and the fact that you don't promote Christianity in them. This appeals to all those opposing to Islam.

Galafrin said...

Hello David,
Thanks for the videos, they diffuse the sense of listening to my own thoughts or a wary and reasonably articulate non-muslim's about Islam.

Counter-Djihadists to call them in a way will certainly gather support from any society whose lifestyle does not please Islam. Let's hope non-muslims would massively jump in the bandwagon. Not always the same people are to save the world.

The Church of Rational Thinking said...

Dave,

I've been studying Islam for over 7 years. In my analysis of the Islamic scriptures I've collected over 2,000 Quranic verses and Hadith that describe issues ranging from treatment of women to killings and Jihad.

I was putting a book together, but could not complete it because of the time constraints (it was in excess of 200,000 words even in half-completed form) and personal considerations. I will be happy to share my findings with you - both sources and analysis, if they are of any use to you. Let me know where I can email the working table of context for you to see if there is any value in it.

cheryl_maree said...

I would like everyone to know the hearts of David Wood and Sam Shamoun. I contacted David and told him of my daughter converting to Islam and asked him what to do. He asked me if she would speak with him. He came to our state with Sam and for 2 days they met and spoke with her. That is how much they care she is only 1 person but they took the time to care. I wish I would have had a book that would have had the info in it, but I did not know what to do. Yes I am Grateful and Thankful to you both and will help you guys all I can, and I can't wait for your books, you bet I will be getting them!

D335 said...

David's logic about the birthrate is the exact thinking that I've been for long feared.

Vangelia Gushterova predicted that by 2043, Europe will be dominated by muslims. Not that I believe Vanga's prediction to be accurate as the bible, but knowing how many children will be raised without a civilized rationalization, the youth always falls first to the cultist religion.

To win the war of converts, Christianity is at lost compared to religion who FORCE to convert. So the smallest balance in the conversion scale like writing a book, is for me an honorable and a great thing to do.

Sam and David, we'll try to help you both as possible as I can.

Kim said...

So basically you're going to gather together all of your articles from answeringislam into a book and waste money on publishing them or something. Good idea.

Western Muslims are deceived and brainwashed by these other liberal Muslims on Islam's teachings but they aren't that big of misconceptions as the ones you introduce such as raping of wives or female captives, or all the other contradiction bogus.

It's funny how the people here are brainwashed by answeringislam into thinking that they have a proper understanding of Islam. Far, far from it.


Anyways, I'm looking forward to your book.
Peace :)

Unknown said...

So, what donation amount gets us a free copy of the book/books?

simple_truth said...

Kim said...

" So basically you're going to gather together all of your articles from answeringislam into a book and waste money on publishing them or something. Good idea.

Western Muslims are deceived and brainwashed by these other liberal Muslims on Islam's teachings but they aren't that big of misconceptions as the ones you introduce such as raping of wives or female captives, or all the other contradiction bogus.

It's funny how the people here are brainwashed by answeringislam into thinking that they have a proper understanding of Islam. Far, far from it.


Anyways, I'm looking forward to your book.
Peace :)"

I don't use answering-islam.com as my primary source. I use the Qu'ran, Sunnah, and hadiths which tell me that your religion is not a continuation of the Bible. Your religion doesn't meet Biblical standards. I am afraid that you are stuck in the mindset that only the sources that you approve are truthful. Never mind the fact that there are tons of pro Islamic sites that mislead both Muslims and non-Muslims astray about what the historical Islam is all about.

Galafrin said...

@Kim
Knowledge of Coran should not be mandatory to understand how Islam confront non-muslims, as this scriptures might be understood according to everyone's convenience.
When it calls the killing of non-muslims, some will say it relates to one restricted historical context, while others would claims it
defines the core of Djihad.

In some place Islam would be peaceful, while a few miles away it would be threatening. Soudan might be the perfect place to witness this.

For instance in Western Europe newly implanted Islam had been quiet and peaceful until it was not the case anymore.

There nowaday a non-muslim would only neigbour that cult to experience a threat that stems from it.

Nevertheless the individuals at this site undertook the painful task of investigating the boring Coran to voice their findings with contemporary tools.

I keep in mind their country suffered on 9/11/2001 one of the numerous harsh blows inflicted in the name of Coran for centuries, joining the ever-expanding list of victims.

Then we might take no chance with Islam, answering in kind to any attack waged on non-muslim while staying prophylactic.

I am confident many non-muslims would think alike.

The spaniards, due to their proximity with the battlefield, had implemented a prophylaxy largely of their own against any islam spilling.
Every citizen would be a member of the parish's cofradìa or hermandad (spanish for brotherhood or fraternity), and would defile on several occasions his statue carefully walked out of the church for a short time.

Seamingly, it's what it takes for the average citizen beside supporting a credible navy, to keep Islam at bay while leaving 15 miles off its coast.

David, what are those few valuable books on Islam refered to in this video?

KeithTruth said...

Kim has probably never read an answering-islam article.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey David,

Good luck with the books but I think you have an outdated and unduly pessimistic perspective on the future.

The fact is that according to demographers Islam has already lost the “race of civilizations” due to the rapidly plunging birthrates in Islamic countries and the explosion of the Gospel in Asia and Africa. The danger is not in a Islamic dominance but in an increasingly desperate Islam as they realize that they are on the losing side of history.

If the past is any guide we can expect that this ideology will not go quietly. Its my hope that things like this blog and your books will insure that the coming battle will be won our terms and not theirs.



For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,
(2 Corinthians 10:4-5 ESV)



Peace

birdman said...

with all due respect, I get scared when religion asks for money....AGAIN

betwixt said...

OUT OF TOPIC but relative to an ongoing discussion in the comments about crimes against Muslims (for being Muslims):

Hate Crimes: Muslims No Worse Off Than Jews, Gays, or Blacks

According to newly released FBI statistics for 2010, anti-Islamic hate crimes in the U.S. rose by almost 50% last year (160 incidents, 186 offenses, and 197 victims in 2010, compared to 107 incidents, 128 offenses, and 132 victims in 2009). Those who push the "Islamophobia" narrative to muzzle critics of Islamism are touting the report as proof that Muslims face unique perils at the hands of American bigots. Yet proper context, found primarily in this table, reveals that criminal acts of hate against Muslims fall far short of an epidemic: ...

CristoTeAma said...

Birdman said..

"with all due respect, I get scared when religion asks for money....AGAIN"

Asking money to give useful info to the ppl is wrong for u? it makes no sense to me, but i also respect your opinion. Peace.!

CristoTeAma said...

Kim said...

"blah blah, false hadiths, blah blaah ignorant christians, blah blah" the same she always says but just like always with no suport of any source of their own religion but her own "understanding of the Islam" which is different from the most respected Schollars, and also different from what her religion's sources say.

CristoTeAma said...

To David.

I will try my best tu support you guys with some Euros :P, i have been spending a lot of money in house stuffs lately, but i think what you are doing is great! I have some Muslims friend i they have started to doubt about their "peaceful" religion when i show them what their Prophet/God and followers commanded, i still remeber a friend's face when i showed her that Muhammad hit Aisha, or what the Taffsir and Schollars say about Sura 4:34.. etc. God Bless You all!

CristoTeAma said...

@cheryl_maree

Nice to hear your testimony sister, i hope your daughter desisted in converting to such a terrible belief, but in case she did not you must have faith and pray to God that she may one day before the ending repent and believe in the true God of the Bible and be saved trought our Lord Jesus Christ. God Bless You.

simple_truth said...

birdman said...

"with all due respect, I get scared when religion asks for money....AGAIN"

Well, don't pay your taxes again.

Name something that comes free and without toil?

simple_truth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cheryl_maree said...

@Kim , Listen to me Miss Kim, I read the site all the time and as much of their papers as I can. YES, I would LOVE for them to put all the information into a book to have at my fingertips. I am so excited that they are doing this, I have actually thought to ask David and Sam why they have not done this, but now I have the answer to that! I would contribute just for the lives that could be saved! Thanks David and Sam!!

cheryl_maree said...

@ Sam and David my question is could you call the book PROVING Islam False!!! LOL

Samatar Mohamed said...

@cheryl meree

Rather they should call the book "Proving Islam False: Mission Impossible".

Koala Bear said...

@Samatar - Rather they should call the book "Proving Islam False: Mission Impossible".

God warned you about islam:

Galatians 1 - No Other Gospel
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Colossians 2:1-6
I want you to know how much I am struggling for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not met me personally. My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I tell you this SO THAT NO-ONE MAY DECEIVE YOU BY FINE SOUNDING ARGUMENTS. For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how orderly you are and how firm your faith in Christ is.

Islam is false.

cheryl_maree said...

@Samatar Mohamed, If you read the Koran and hadiths it proves itself false!!

minoria said...

Great idea,David.

As for me I think one has to have VERY GOOD ARGUMENTS about the KORAN to show that ISLAM IS ISLAM.

OK,did you know MUSLIMS use 2 or 3 arguments to say the Koran is only for beating women lightly/is against raping a wife/slave girl?

I have heard them,after much thought, I concluded they were not 1OO% convincing.

Muslims will tell you those arguments,know what to answer

http://www.antisharia.com/2011/11/27/the-very-bad-thing-that-occurs-when-a-muslim-man-divorces-the-same-wife-3-times/

taomeano said...

A great project, I will definitely contribute, because with that knowledge aggregated in a book form, I can have that as my reference material to teach our church.

I pray that the book will be the christian's manual to counter the bogus arguments of moslems. It almost sounds like a physician's desk top reference material. I have been looking forward to something like this for the longest time.

Praise the LORD for His servants David and Sam, and may the LORD give you the wisdom to put this project together for His glory.

Baron Eddie said...

How about we call it as the book series "Islam for Dummies"

Neverrepayevilwithevil said...

This video shows that the quran is not from God Almighty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Zsh1ZyXnMT4

Neverrepayevilwithevil said...

I found this interesting article on the human origin of the Koran. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Koran_Really_Says

minoria said...

Guys,I often go everywhere looking for new ideas for articles.Recently Sami Zaatari answered an article I wrote on an article I had written.

His reaction was,I dont like to say it,but it was at times hysterical.I had received some such comments before but never in an article.

Now recently also Adnan wrote an article about the Muslim conquest and a man called Francisco wrote corrections in the comment section,he had asked a historian,and the historian corrected the ideas in the article.

Now aul Williams,the one who is in charge of The Blogging Theology,would not agree the article was flawed.He never said anything really that Muslims ENSLAVED TENS OF THOUSANDDS innocent civilians in their early 7th CENTURY conquests,so there is no real dialogue there.

And there is also another article against David Wood.In all they are not able to reason maturely,it is astonishing, the ideas of the Muslim Debate Initiative.

There is a lack of ability to SELF-CRITICIZE their religion and history,it is shocking.Islam had a a weird ability to twist the LOGIC of CONVERTS,some of the Muslim Debate Initiative guys are converts,like Andalusi,Seymour,Williams,they should have LEFT ISLAM a LONG TIME AGO,like Farhan.

Neverrepayevilwithevil said...

More articles on problems with the quran.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2000/aug/08/highereducation.theguardian

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

@cheryl meree

" Rather they should call the book "Proving Islam False: Mission Impossible". "

Just the mistakes about Christianity alone are enough to prove it is false. We don't worship 3 gods. Mary is not part of the Trinity. Jesus was indeed crucified and died on a cross. He did resurrect to life. There are several other issues about Christianity and history that are indeed wrong; and, that is before we have addressed the problems that we have with Mohammad.

You are in denial, Samatar. I really feel sorry for you because you can overlook some very easy to prove errors in the Qu'ran and hadiths that even a little kid could recognize.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@simple truth

"Just the mistakes about Christianity alone are enough to prove it is false. We don't worship 3 gods. Mary is not part of the Trinity. Jesus was indeed crucified and died on a cross. He did resurrect to life. There are several other issues about Christianity and history that are indeed wrong; and, that is before we have addressed the problems that we have with Mohammad."

First off, I agree tha a lot of my muslim brothers and sisters are ignorant of the concept of the trinity, but I must also add that even many christians make gross misinterpretations about islam such as we worshiping a black box in the desert. Also, the concept of trinity is impossible to fathom because you are saying that there is only One God, the three persons are all fully God, If they are all fully God and are distinct from eachother, than how is there only one God. Also, John 17:3 to me destroys the concept of the trinity because Jesus (pbuh) says that the father is the only true God. I understand that the Father is distinct from the son, therefore if the father is the only true God, that excludes the son and the Holy spirit by default. On your point about mary, rather the Quran does not actually say that the concept of the trinity is Mary, Jesus (pbuh), and Allah (swt), but rather there are people who do make Mary a somewhat divine figure such as the catholics who the Quran might be condemning. Also, I am sure you have heard of the maryamites, who took Mary as a God, and God might be rebuking them. I recommmend you watch the bassam zawadi vs james white debate where the topic is "Has islam misunderstood christianity". As for the ressurection of Jesus (pbuh), I am sure you have heard that when Jesus (pbuh) rose to them, some actually doubted, and Jesus (pbuh) had to tell them that spirit has no flesh and bone. What confuses me is that how did they doubt it was Jesus (pbuh) if he looked like Jesus (pbuh) in the first place. And even more confusing is that the New testament shows Jesus (pbuh) telling them that he would be crusified and rise from the dead. If they knew Jesus (pbuh) was going to rise. Why the surprise and doubt. So to me, your points are not that convincing.

Orange Mask said...

@Kim,
Hi Kim
I just wanted to say that this site merely supplemented what I already knew about Islam. I started doing research on my own and came to many, if not most of the conclusions by myself. It really doesn't take a long time, to find the many fallacies in Islam. I had already been researching for about a year and a half, then I stumbled upon this site by accident. Imagine my surprise and validation upon knowing that David, Sam and Nabeel had donated an entire site to things I had already found in the Qur'an and Hadith, confirming every feeling that I had that "something with the religion is not right". Not everyone will take initiative to find out about Islam on their own... many of the comments you make on this site prove that. In the face of facts, you often offer conjecture and when asked for a rebuttal, you usually redirect to veiled insults of Christians or simply ignore the request altogether. In other words, you act as one either too proud, or too stubborn to reason with intelligence and accept correction. You don't seek to be knowledgeable... you seek to "beat David". If David and his staff are willing to take some of this information here and provide it to an audience that needs to read it, I am happy to help them! One more thing, too. You said, David was wasting money on this venture. You are happy to come to his site daily and insult him (and Christians in general). Perhaps you can get started on a venture of your own? A site? A book? A youtube channel? Some place where you can organize your thoughts and intellectually challenge this site. Or have you realized the folly yet of trying to rationalize the irrationality of Muhammad and have instead decided that insulting David was much easier to do?

Chessie L said...

@ Kim & Sam

" Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged,” and there can be pressure or social punishment when there is disagreement with the “boss.” Those who disagree are made to feel as though they are stupid or inept. They are brainwashed with the notion that they do not have the knowledge or experience to question the leader."

'Members are taught to “rationalize” the conduct of the leader in matters they have always “considered unethical before,” under the guise that the “end justifies the means.”

Taken from "How to Identify a Cult"

Chessie L said...

@ Samatar Mohamed

The mistake you are making is you are equating what The doctrine of the trinity says God is One in and what it says He is Three in. Something can be one in one aspect and more then one in another, without there being nay logical contradiction. It would only be a logical contradiction if the doctrine say God is one and three in the say exact way at the same exact time.

Example: If I say you are one human being with one human nature and you are a physical body, a mental personality ,and a living spirit, and these three aspects are separate and distinct from each other, and yet you are one human being not three human beings...have I stated a logical contradiction?

http://www.callingmuslims.com/2011/11/is-trinity-logical-contradiction.html

Chessie L said...

@ Samatar Mohamed

"John 17:3 to me destroys the concept of the trinity because Jesus (pbuh) says that the father is the only true God."

I had to chuckle to myself about this, seeing I am sitting in a hermeneutics class as I write this. So again you are yet another Muslim who disregards pesky little things like authorial intent,and context and rips out a verse or two from a book and invent your own private personal exegesis that just so happens to confirm to your Islamic notions about God. I guess John forgot the first verse He wrote in this book about the Word being with God and being God, he forgot he already said The Word who is with God and is God has the attribute of being a Creator and Originator in John 1:3, He forgets he write Jesus says he is THE Nur Sirat and Haqq in John 14:6. Yes he forget all that and in a moment turns into a Unitarian who only believes Jesus was a mere Messenger like you(how convenient for you). Oh yea all the Church elders and after them the Church fathers who all are reported as worshiping Christ as a god by their Pagan Roman enemies didn't seem to notice this verse that "destroys the concept of the trinity", I guess the great Pauline Christian conspiracy was being sloppy here.

Chessie L said...

@Samatar Mohamed

I know you are pretty set in your methodology but take the following for consideration regrading John 17:3

http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-173-only-true-god

minoria said...

part 1

Hello Samatar Mohammed:

In the avraidire.com/dieucafe.com blog I answered the questions you wrote about:

They are in French but you can translate by coying-pasting into GOOGLE TRANSLATE

You said:

"Also, the concept of trinity is impossible to fathom because you are saying:

1.That there is only One God, the three persons are all fully God, If they are all fully God and are distinct from eachother, than how is there only one God.

2.Also, John 17:3 to me destroys the concept of the trinity because Jesus"

In the following article I answered both questions using MATHEMATICAL and CHEMISTRY facts:

http://www.dieucafe.com/2011/10/14/la-trinite-expliquee-par-la-mathematiquela-chimiepar-jesus-dans-une-vision-et-par-le-triangle/

minoria said...

section 2

You also said:

"What confuses me is that how did they doubt it was Jesus (pbuh) if he looked like Jesus (pbuh) in the first place."

http://www.avraidire.com/2011/03/le-pourquoi-les-pretres-juifs-nont-pas-cru-en-jesus-meme-avec-levidence-de-la-resurrection/

minoria said...

section 3

You said:

"And even more confusing is that the New testament shows Jesus (pbuh) telling them that he would be crusified and rise from the dead. If they knew Jesus (pbuh) was going to rise. Why the surprise and doubt. So to me, your points are not that convincing."

Did you know the JESUS SEMINAR,the MOST LIBERAL NT grou of scholars, agrees that it is highly likely the HISTORICAL JESUS,based on their use of the HISTORICAL METHOD,said he would be KILLED?

http://www.avraidire.com/2011/02/la-prediction-de-jesus-sur-sa-mort-violente-montre-que-le-coran-est-faux/

http://www.avraidire.com/2011/05/plus-sur-lattestation-multiple-que-jesus-a-predit-sa-mort-violente-et-que-paul-croyait-que-jesus-etait-dieu/


http://www.avraidire.com/2011/09/autre-article-sur-la-prediction-de-jesusdans-les-evangilesde-sa-mort-violente/

minoria said...

section four

Now the JESUS SEMINAR says the historical Jesus said or most likely said he would die.

THAT was what had he followers of Jesus astonished,the MESSIAH was not to have died according to the belief of the time.

So of course his declaration he would rise had them in confusion.That was WHY they didnt believe at once,it made no sense for them for the Messiah to die in the first case.

minoria said...

section 5

I forgot to add that the VARIOUS times the FOLLOWERES of Jesus are said NOT to understand him when he said he would be killed and later resurrect are taken as EVIDENCE that he said something to that effect.

WHY?

Because they fit in with:

1.Criterion of MULTLE ATTESTATION

2.Criterion of EARLY ATTESTATION

3.Criterion of EMBARASSMENT

You say you find the statement the FOLLOWERS of Jesus did NOT believe he rose from the dead as NOT convincing.
SCHOLARS do believe THAT it is true,they didnt believe, because of the criterion of multile attestation,early attestation and embarassment.Why invent someting so COUNTER to convincing others?

minoria said...

I recently saw a debate between Sami Zaatari and a Christian called Michael and the debate format is not good in the sense you cant give the best answer for lack of time or lack of chance to intervene.

I like a short introduction of main ideas and then a REAL discussion between the two sides,a FREE DISCUSSION,with NO moderator to cut you off and change the subject.

It was done like that in the last debate between Carrier and Licona in 2O1O on the resurrection of Jesus and it was like hearing a friendly conversation and not a debate.Watch:

http://youtu.be/_1_GYR3xjPQ

If a Christian debater really knows the historical method material,etc he can show a Muslim like Shabir Ally,Sami Zaatari,etc in a real free discussion,why many of their affirmations are rejected by sketical scholars.

Now,if after that they still continue to say it again in debate after debate then you know they are not serious about seeing what the truth is,they are only wasting one's time.

Like in the Blogging Theology article where a man called Francisco had contacted the author Adnan about his article that Islam was great in its conquests in the first 1OO years.

Francisco had sent Adnan real,serious information that went against the article.Adnan was not willing to accet the view of recent scholars.So if in a debate on Islam Adnan says the same information in his article then we know it is not do to ignorance of authentic info that goes against his ideas,it is deliberate.No seeker of truth and accuracy.

minoria said...

To Kim and Samatar Moh:

You are familiar with the Muslim claim in debate after debate with Muslim debater this and that that nowhere in the NT does Jesus say he is God.

Ouf.

In a French debate between Tariq Ramadan and Tunisian atheist Abdelwahab Meddeb,for some reason Meddeb mentioned a historical figure and said "He said he was God".

Ramadan said no,but Meddeb said,"He did,he said,I am AL-HAQ.That is saying one is God."

Al-Haq means "The Truth".

Shabir Ally,and Deedat also, seems to be insistant that NOWHERE in the NT does Jesus say in a SAYING ATTRIBUTED to Jesus,that he was God,NOT EVEN in JOHN,

FALSE

Not from a JEWISH or CHRISTIAN view but from a MUSLIM view,he does say it,he said "I am THE TRUTH" in John.Read:

http://www.avraidire.com/2011/02/jesus-affirme-etre-dieu-selon-la-perspective-musulmane-dans-levangile-de-jean/

SO?

If a Muslim debater is shown that conclusive information which would take 3O minutes to show clearly in a debate,and still in later debates says that Jesus never,in a statement of his,says he is God,then the guy is not serious.

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

" @simple truth

First off, I agree tha a lot of my muslim brothers and sisters are ignorant of the concept of the trinity, but I must also add that even many christians make gross misinterpretations about islam such as we worshiping a black box in the desert."

I don't totally agree because the Bible doesn't make the claims that the Qu'ran does by coming to confirm previous scriptures. There is nothing to loose from a Christian perspective since the Bible doesn't come to confirm the Qu'ran. The burden is on the Qu'ran to evidence that its claims about Christianity are correct. Can't you see that?

I do think that kissing and revering a stone is a form of idolatry. The reason that Muslims kiss and revere it is because Mohammad did it. Some Muslims say that their sins are washed away if they kiss it while others say that it gives them some kind of favor with God. Putting your faith in a stone is surely idolatry. Even if not everyone believes those things, those that do are in fact committing idolatry.

"Also, the concept of trinity is impossible to fathom because you are saying that there is only One God, the three persons are all fully God,"

The term persons is not a perfect description since it alludes to people who are distinct entities and have limitations. However, the term person is appropriate in the sense that it relates to the fact that we are made in God's image. Person-hood denotes essence, being, nature, etc. That is where we get the concept of personality and persona. A person (of the Trinity) can think, hear, discern, create, see, etc., without taking on the exact attributes that humans do. For example, God can hear, but He doesn't hear in the same sense that we do since He doesn't have ears. He can see, but not in the same sense that we do since He doesn't have eyes. Does that make sense?

So, a person, as it relates to God, is not a separate essence for each person; therefore, it doesn't make sense to think of 3 gods like Islam teaches. Three essences would imply three distinct beings, which is not one God at all.

.....to be continued

simple_truth said...

.....continued

"If they are all fully God and are distinct from eachother, than how is there only one God."

They are distinct in person-hood; but the same in essence. That is why they are not 3 separate entities like one would think of three separate gods.

"Also, John 17:3 to me destroys the concept of the trinity because Jesus (pbuh) says that the father is the only true God. I understand that the Father is distinct from the son, therefore if the father is the only true God, that excludes the son and the Holy spirit by default."

Are you sure that you want to defend this? Throughout the NT, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are seen as having the same attributes and are all persons. They can hear, see, discern, create, think, reason, will, etc. Each person is God while being distinct persons. In other words, the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. What we don't say is that God is Jesus, God is the Father, and God is the Holy Spirit as if the other two persons are not God too. Do you understand what I am saying?

Joh 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
Joh 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Joh 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.


How do you explain verse 5? How is it that a mere man can have glory alongside God before the world was? Do you even read and study for context and meaning when you quote verses? Even a little kid could have understood this text if it were read in its fuller context. The only way that Jesus could share in God's glory is to have been with God and not apart from God. The only way that Jesus could have such a status was to actually have been God incarnate and to have existed from the beginning. Will you allow your Islamic mind to take a back seat to sound reasoning and logic so that you can properly understand the text?

"On your point about mary, rather the Quran does not actually say that the concept of the trinity is Mary, Jesus (pbuh), and Allah (swt), but rather there are people who do make Mary a somewhat divine figure such as the catholics who the Quran might be condemning."

In one place it does give that allusion and in another, it tells us to desist in saying three. The last statement is just conjecture on your part. Surely at some point in the past, some people revered Mary somewhere on this earth; but, that doesn't help the Qu'ran since it speaks of this as some normative act. Isolated incidences do not make norms.

You position about Catholics possibly being the ones condemned is not likely a possibility since there were no records of Catholics or any heretical offshoot of them in Arabia at the time of Mohammad. The RCC was well established in the Roman Empire--not Arabia.

simple_truth said...

.....continued

"Also, I am sure you have heard of the maryamites, who took Mary as a God, and God might be rebuking them."

Even if so, then the Qu'ran is speaking of an small group that could not be thought of as normative by any stretch of the imagination. Why would the Qu'ran point out a very small group and make it appear that they were somehow normative of Christianity? You have the same problem still as you did earlier in realizing that the Qu'ran is just wrong about many things of Christianity that were considered normative.

Also, if what you say is true, then explain how Roman Catholics would have put Mary and Jesus as gods beside Allah? Both are mentioned being beside Allah. The Catholics never had such a view of Mary and Jesus as gods beside Allah; for, they have always seen Jesus as God; so, at most, you would have The Father and The Son (Jesus) as God and Mary elevated along side the two. That is not at all how Catholics see it.

"I recommmend you watch the bassam zawadi vs james white debate where the topic is "Has islam misunderstood christianity"."

I don't recall, but I may have already seen that one.

"As for the ressurection of Jesus (pbuh), I am sure you have heard that when Jesus (pbuh) rose to them, some actually doubted, and Jesus (pbuh) had to tell them that spirit has no flesh and bone."

Luk 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
Luk 24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
Luk 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Luk 24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
Luk 24:41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
Luk 24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
Luk 24:43 And he took it, and did eat before them.


When Jesus approach some of His followers, they doubted that He had risen and thought that He was a spirit; so, He told them that He could not be spirit since spirits don't have flesh and bones. He even ate before them to prove that He was the risen Christ.

"What confuses me is that how did they doubt it was Jesus (pbuh) if he looked like Jesus (pbuh) in the first place."

It is not confusing if you try to read for context. The passage I gave above should be easily understood by anyone. It is not cryptic or mystical. Sometimes words mean exactly what they state.

"And even more confusing is that the New testament shows Jesus (pbuh) telling them that he would be crusified and rise from the dead. If they knew Jesus (pbuh) was going to rise. Why the surprise and doubt."

Because they didn't expect Him to rise. They have the same doubt that all humans have about the things of God. It is no different than the doubts that you and I have about certain things that we should be assured of. If you take the time and read earlier parts of the account, you may get your questions answered. It appears to me that you are just parroting things that other Muslims have told you. Believe it or not, a lot of questions that you have can be answered by yourself if you take the correct approach to the Bible and try to read it in its own context. Sometimes you may need to read an entire chapter, several chapters, or even an entire book before some of the details are illuminated for you to properly understand. It is no different than how you would approach most other pieces of literature.

simple_truth said...

......continued

"So to me, your points are not that convincing."

Well, that is proof in the pudding that you don't have a true interest in learning and understanding or that you just are too lazy and trust what other Muslims feed you as gospel. I just quoted you a passage that illustrates that with a little time spent reading the passage and its surrounding context, one can eventually come to understand quite a bit and get the answers. Of course, not every passage is that easy to grasp; but many of the essential elements of Christianity are fairly easy to grasp, but maybe not so easily understood.

I do hope that you do consider changing the way that you study so that you won't remain so ignorant and misinformed about a text that you reject without even knowing about it. You gather bits and pieces of information and often the context and application of that text has been either removed or Islamicized for gullible Muslims who are often taught not to read and/or trust the Bible. Your Muslims brothers and sisters are leading you to a false understanding of Christianity. Please reconsider how you approach the Bible and Christianity in general.

Since the topic has swayed way off its intended course, I simply answered you to give you no good reason to reject what I earlier discussed with you. I don't intend to continue answering these off topic subjects. I only gave you those examples as a means to illustrate the ineptness at studying and searching for answers. The fact still remains that the Bible is misreprestented by Islam. Even a little kid could see that. That alone is enough to show that it is in error. We don't need to even consider any teachings that Mohammad gave to dispell him as a false prophet.

aaron said...

David will you include in your book on common arguments of muslims? Because we need to also show the problems with their arguments if we show it to them.

Sam said...

Since Samatar had the nerve to refer to Bassam Zawadi's debate with White here are my responses to Zawadi's lies, distortions and gross misrepresentations of Islam, Christianity and logic:

http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/white_debate1.html

http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/allah_shakhs.html

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_incarnation.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_trinity1_john17_3.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_trinity2.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_trinity_r2_1.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_trinity_r2_2.htm

http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/pulliam.html

http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/allah_humanized.html

http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/allah_of_meccans.html

http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/allah_of_meccans_ps.html

The debate with White was an embarrassment for Zawadi since Zawadi did his best to prove that the Quran is basically incoherent since you can't tell who it is referring to, whereas White who is a Christian did his best to prove that the Quran is coherent enough to understand who its intended audience is!

Nitemere6 said...

Sam Shamoun and David Wood coming out with a book, lol too funny Shamoun and Wood have the worst arguements I have ever heard. And yes this is coming from an athiest

Nitemere6 said...

And also I want to indicate to the blog that both Mr Wood nor Sam Shamoun would respond to any of my future objections regarding how inconsistent they are and their methods, so if you are looking foward to it dont because Sam wants to play hiding and david wood rather save face

Sam said...

Hahahaha, here we got an atheist who talks about inconsistent arguments when he can't even explain the existence or the valid use of rational, logical thought and discourse in his naturalistic, materialistic worldview!!!!

This is why these atheists will never answer such questions, but make excuses to tap dance around these objections which obliterate their atheistic worldview, proving just how inconsistent and dishonest they are.

BTW, good luck getting nightmare to account for honesty and consistency in his worldview which says we are nothing more than chemical reactions, molecules in motions, and evolved animals. Yet try to have sex with his wife or steal his wallet and see how he starts sounding like a Christian theist by presupposing that these acts are morally wrong!!!!

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Sam

I would be very interested in seeing you have a debate with Bassam Zawadi. You have not debated him as of yet, and I think he would perform very well against you. And don't forget that during the Bassam-White debate, that you where actually giving full page notes to White to read and refute Bassam. If White was doing well on his own, then what is the point of giving him large amounts of information during the debate.

Mike A Robinson said...

Looks like David hit another tender nerve with this very educational vid; the truth can do that to those who desire to hold onto error and deceit.

Sam said...

Samatar, don't kid yourself. Zawadi would get humiliated in a debate with me, which is why he won't do it even though I have practically begged him to take me on. All he can come up with are lame excuses why he won't do so.

And as far me giving notes to White is concerned, this is another lie from the followers of Muhammad. I tried to email White comments during his debate which he didn't get in time. I guarantee you that if he did it would have been an utter nightmare and total humiliation for Zawadi.

Not that White didn't embarrass Zawadi since he clearly did. After all, when is the last time you saw a Christian trying to convince his Muslim opponent that the statements of the Quran regarding what Christians supposedly believe are clear enough to understand whereas the Muslim did his best to prove that the Quran is actually an incoherent book whose verses are not so clear as to know for certain its intended meanings?

What is sad is that you are not embarrassed by Zawadi's assault on the Quran's clarity since you Muslims could care less about truth and consistency. All you care about is covering over the Quran's gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding of what groups such as Christians truly believe.

It seems that you Muslims know a lot more than Allah or his messenger ever did.

WhatsUpDoc said...

As a member of the family I made a donation for this great cause.

@David keep us posted on the progress perhaps we can make monthly donations-Thanks

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Sam

" I tried to email White comments during his debate which he didn't get in time. I guarantee you that if he did it would have been an utter nightmare and total humiliation for Zawadi."

Which is my point. If James white was destroying Bassam Zawadi, then why send him notes on email (which by the way did reach james white but was so long that James did not havee the time to read it all). And I find it funny when you say that Bassam is afraid to debate you when he has already debated noted people like Tony Costa, David Wood, James White, Thabiti, Nabeel Qureshi.

VJ said...

@samatar
although bassam has debated and got defeated by dr wood.nabeel,tony costa and dr white ,Sam would be his ultimate nightmare, that's why even zakir naik is running away from him for a decade

Sam said...

Samatar, what I find funny is how you try to make up excuses for your idol's reluctance to debate me. I have the emails where he refuses to do so. Can you provide any proof that he does want to debate me?

Let me put an end to your fantasies. Contact Zawadi and tell him Shamoun is calling you out to debate him. See the response you get.

I guess I have to repeat myself again concerning the White issue. To anyone who can think logically White clearly won the exchange. However, White is unlike me in that he doesn't want to go for the jugular and decimate his opponents unless he has to. The problem with that approach is that it gives Muslims like you a chance to boast about how well your guy did since you guys have been trained not to think logically or consistently, otherwise if you did then you would cease following your false prophet.

What I find even more hilarious is that you didn't even bother commenting on the fact that your Muslim taghut did his best to convince the audience that the Quran is incoherent and its verses really make no sense, whereas it was the Christian who was arguing that the verses in the Quran regarding Christians are clear and understandable. Talk about a huge embarrassment for the Muslims.

Care to comment on this instead of avoiding it like a plague?

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Sam

"What I find even more hilarious is that you didn't even bother commenting on the fact that your Muslim taghut did his best to convince the audience that the Quran is incoherent and its verses really make no sense, whereas it was the Christian who was arguing that the verses in the Quran regarding Christians are clear and understandable. Talk about a huge embarrassment for the Muslims."

Actually sam, Bassam's point in the debate was to show the coherency of the Quran when you let it speak for itself. The Quran says desist from saying three, I think it is very clear in describing anyone who has their own form of a trinity such as the maryamites, the trinitarian christians like you. In the othe verse, Allah (swt) asked Jesus (pbuh), if he commanded the people to worship himself and his mother beside him. Now a trinitarian like you would assume it is mistaking the trinity, however can't the verse be read for what it says not by reinterpreting it with your beliefs about God (swt). And from history we know that there are those who did take Mary as a God beside Allah (swt). Than how is the Quran unclear in that sense. Now, if there were no group in the world that did take Mary as a God in history, than I would agree that it would be incoherent or unclear, but we know from history that there were those who did worship mary to an extent and pray to her. Even the catholics in this day and age make her much more than she really is, and i am sure you will agree to that. Lastly, God has clearly rebuked you christains by saying "desist from saying three", and do not worship anyone besides him, along with the verses clearly mentioning that Jesus (pbuh) was a prophet and not God. I mean what more do you need than that. Anyways, i agree that you are a great debater who goes for the kill, but stop acting like Bassam was blown out of the water when it was a very good debate on both ends. Thanks.

Chessie L said...

@ Sam Samatar

"I think it is very clear in describing anyone who has their own form of a trinity such as the maryamites, the trinitarian christians"

So in other words Tritheism, Arianism and other such heresies are just "forms" of the Trinity and orthodoxy doesn't really exist. I hope you apply that same logic to Islam and welcome the Shia, Khawarij, Mutazilah, Qadiyani's, all of ahlul bid'ah into Ahlus sunnah wal jamaa'ah because there is not innovation, they are all just "forms" of each other.

Sam said...

Samatar, the fact that you actually thought that Zawadi proved his point not only disturbs me but confirms what I said about Islam producing human beings who can no longer think rationally or consistently.

You actually think that Zawadi proved that the Quran is coherent if you let it speak for yourself? Which debate were you even watching? More importantly, what in the world are you smoking my friend? I sure hope not that hashish which your ikhwaan in Afghanistan are producing (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2010/March/afghanistan-leads-in-hashish-production-says-unodc.html)? ☺

Even your comments prove that Zawadi made an embarrassment of the Quran since they highlight just how incoherent your scripture truly is. You say that the reference to "three" may have the Maryamites and Trinitarian Christians in view. You also try to lump those who worship Mary as a god along with those Catholics who venerate of Mary in order to somehow connect Q. 5:116 with some identifiable group.

Now let me show you why your claims are full of problems.

First, If you claim that Q. 5:116 is referring to the Maryamites then you are basically proving that the Quran does not address the historic Christian belief in the Trinity.

Second, the Maryamites did not take Jesus to be another god besides the one God, so the Quran is still wrong at this point.

Third, the problem with trying to tie Q. 5:116 with the Catholics is that Catholics have never called or worshiped Mary as a god besides God, nor do they worship Jesus as a god besides the one true God.

Continued in the next post.

Sam said...

This is my 2nd reply to Samatar. I continue from where I left off.

Fourth, the fact that Jesus and Mary are mentioned together in Q. 5:116 rules out your attempt of trying to connect this with the veneration of Mary, e.g. the assertion that the Quran is not necessarily saying that the people called Mary a god, but that their veneration of her was/is an act of deification which is equivalent to making or taking her as another god besides Allah.

In order to show you why this view is simply nonsense, I am going to ask you a few questions. Is the Quran accusing the Christians of taking and confessing Jesus to be God or not? If you say yes then this means that you are interpreting the word ilah (‘god’) in Q. 5:116 in two different senses without any justification.

After all, the verse says that people took Jesus and Mary as two gods (ilahayn) besides Allah. This means that the word ilah must have the same meaning when it is applied to both of them seeing that it is used in the very same context. Thus, if the Quran is saying that the people were taking Jesus as an ilah in the sense that they truly believed and confessed him to be G/god then this means that the Quran must be saying the same exact thing about Mary. Your scripture must be referring to people who actually thought and believed that Mary was truly a goddess, with her son being another god.

But if you say that ilah doesn’t mean that the Quran is accusing people of actually confessing Mary as a goddess then consistency demands that you also interpret ilah in the same way in respect to Jesus. This means that you must also deny the fact that the Quran is referring to people who actually believed and called Jesus God or a god.

Continued in the next post.

Sam said...

This is my 3rd reply to Samatar.

Now getting to the problem of the use of ‘three’ in the Quran and your interpretation. If, as you say, that this is referring to the Maryamites then you prove that it cannot be referring to the Trinity and here is the reason why. The Maryamites didn’t believe Mary was another member of the one true God, but actually believed she was ANOTHER god/goddess besides God. This proves that by ‘three’ the Quran is condemning three separate gods, not the belief in one eternal God existing in three eternally distinct Persons.

The second problem with your assertion is that the Quran itself provides enough clues to prove that by three it means Allah, Mary, and Jesus. Note, carefully the following passages:

THEY are unbelievers who say, 'Allah is the Third of Three. No god is there but One God. If THEY refrain not from what THEY say, there shall afflict THOSE OF THEM that disbelieve a painful chastisement. Will THEY not turn to God and pray His forgiveness? God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger; Messengers before him passed away; his mother was a just woman; they both ate food. Behold, how We make clear the signs to THEM; then behold, how THEY perverted are! Say: 'Do YOU serve, apart from God, that which cannot hurt or profit YOU? Allah is the All-hearing, the All-knowing.' S. 5:73-76

It is clear if you follow the pronouns that the context is referring to the same group of Christians who claimed that Allah is the third of three and who also needed to be reminded that Jesus and Mary ate food as clear proof that they are not divine in any sense. Therefore, you cannot escape the fact that by third of three the Quran is referring to some alleged Christian group who viewed Allah, Mary, and Jesus as three gods, a point which is confirmed later on in the same sura at Q. 5:116

Continued in the next post.

Sam said...

This is now my 4th reply to Samatar.

Continuing where I left off from the last post, this leads me to the other problem you face, namely, the Quran in the above references describes Christians as believing that Allah or God is the THIRD of three, which is not only grossly mistaken, but once again proves that it is not addressing or condemning the historic Christian belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. After all, if by Allah you mean the One who sent Jesus, which would be the Father according to Christian theology, then no Christians have ever taught that God is the third of three Persons. Rather, the Church historically has affirmed that the Father is the first of the three divine Persons.

However, if by God you are referring to the Godhead worshiped by Christians then this is also mistaken since in Christian theology the Godhead refers to the entire Trinity. To, therefore, say that God is the third of three is the same as saying that the Trinity is the third of three!

And now come to the issue of the Quran supposedly saying that Jesus was a prophet and not God. Actually, the Quran nowhere says that Jesus was not God in those exact words. What it does say again distorts what Christians believe.

First, Q. 5:116 is referring to people who supposedly viewed Jesus as ANOTHER god besides God, which is not what Trinitarians have historically believed.

Second, in Q. 5:17 and 72 Christians are accused of disbelief for saying that Allah or God is Christ the Son of Mary. Again, this is a gross mistake for at least two reasons.

A. To say that Allah is Christ in Quranic terminology is to say that Jesus is the same Person as the God who sent him since, in the Quran, Allah always refers to the entity that supposedly sent Jesus. And according to Muslims Allah is supposed to be equivalent to the One whom Christians call the Father. The problem, however, is that no orthodox Trinitarian would ever say that God the Father is Jesus Christ, which is a heresy that the early Church had long condemned before the birth of Muhammad.

B. Christians have historically been hesitant to use the formulation “God is Christ” since this gives the misleading impression that Jesus is all that there is to God, being the only Person within the Godhead. This is why they settled on the formulation “The Son/Christ/Jesus is God.”

In my next post I will provide quotation from both ancient and modern authorities who actually make this very point. I will also quote Christians who accused the Quran of distorting their beliefs.

Sam said...

Quotations for Samatar Pt. 1

As I promised, here are the quotes proving that Christians have never expressed their beliefs in the way that the Quran accuses them of, and that there were early Christian groups that actually spoke out against the Quran's gross distortions of their beliefs.

‘Abd al-Jabbar focuses in particular on those Qur'anic statements THAT CHRISTIANS IN HIS DAY DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE, for example that they consider Jesus to be a separate God (Q 5:72), or consider God to be third of three (Q. 5:73), or even consider Mary to be a God (Q 5:116). ‘Abd al-Jabbar contends that Muhammad was right to attribute these statements to Christians: (Critique of Christian Origins, a parallel English-Arabic text, edited, translated, and annotated by Gabriel Said Reynolds & Samir Khalil Samir [Brigham Young University Press, Provo, Utah 2010], p. xlvi; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Thus [Muhammad] related their statement that Christ is God, and “God is the third of three.” These are their essential teachings, but they barely express them clearly. Instead, THEY RESIST THE ESSENCE OF THEM AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, so that their principal authors and their writers who are devoted to this barely summarize their teachings. You will find that if you asked the disputants and debaters among them about their statement on Christ, they would say, “Our statement is that he is the Spirit of God and His Word, just like the statement of Muslims. We say, ‘God is one.’”…

For the most part you will encounter among them who says: “We did not say God is Christ. We did not say ‘God is the third of three.’ Whoever related this about us HAS ERRED AND LIED.” Know, then, that Muhammad's position on this... is from God, Mighty and Exalted, and that this is one of his signs. (Ibid., pp. 2-3; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Now someone might say: “By my life it is demonstrated that the Christians have said that Jesus, the son of Mary, is neither a prophet nor a Messenger of God nor a righteous servant, but rather that he is a god, Lord, Creator, and Provider, that God is the third of three, and that he was killed and crucified. Yet your master has said in your book, ‘Did you say unto men, “Take me and my mother as two gods, apart from God?”’ The Christians say, ‘This is a lie. For although we said about [Christ] that he is a god, we did not say about his mother that she is a god.’” (Ibid., pp. 80-81)

Sam said...

Quotations for Samatar Pt. 2

Here are some more nuggets:

“… The second way is to qualify the affirmation ‘Jesus is God’ by observing that this is a nonreciprocating proposition. While Jesus is God, it is not true that God is Jesus. There are others of whom the predicate ‘God’ may be rightfully used. The person we call Jesus does not exhaust the category of Deity.” (Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus [Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI, Paperback edition 1998], XIII. Conclusions: Theos as a Christological Title, K. “Jesus is God” as a Theological Formulation in English, p. 297; bold emphasis ours)

“To recognize that the godhood of the Son is indistinguishable from the godhood of the Father is not, of course, to jeopardize the personal distinction between Son and Father. Jesus is totus deus but not totum dei. He is all that God is without being all there is of God. There is a numerical unity of essence but not a numerical identity of person. Although Jesus shares the divine essence fully and personally, he does not exhaust the category of Deity of the being of God. To use the distinction made in the Johannine Prologue, ho logos was theos (1:1c) but ho theos was not ho logos (cf. 1:1b). (Ibid., J. The Significance of the Christological Use of Theos, 2. Theos is a Christological Title That Explicitly Affirms the Deity of Christ, p. 293; bold emphasis ours)

4. Objection: God cannot be "Christ, the son of Mary," because then God would be a creature, in need of food and shelter, not the sovereign creator of heaven and earth, beyond all needs.

Response: Christians generally do not say that God was Christ; I know of no significant classical theologian who makes that claim. Instead, Christians say that “Christ was God” (or, to use New Testament phrases, “God was in Christ” [see 2 Cor. 5:19] or the eternal “Word became flesh” [John 1:14]). The two claims–that God was Christ, and Christ was God–seem similar, but are in fact very different. Christians believe that Christ was fully human, and therefore in need of food and shelter, as well as fully divine, and therefore of one undivided essence with God. (Miroslav Volf, Allah: A Christian Response [HarperOne, 2011], Part III: Critical Themes: The Trinity and Love, Chapter 7. The One God and the Holy Trinity, p. 134; bold emphasis ours)


Christians do not say that ‘Allah is Christ, the son of Mary’ as the Qur'an alleges they do (innallaaha huwal Masiihubnu Maryam - Sura al-Ma'ida 5:72), that is, that God is Jesus. We believe that God is a Supreme Being in a threefold unity of persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that the Son alone took human form as the man Christ Jesus.” (Gilchrist, Christ in Islam and Christianity: A comparative study of the Christian and Muslim attitudes to the person of Jesus Christ: http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/christ.html#2.0)

I have a few more in the next post.

Sam said...

Quotes for Samatar pt. 3

Here are the final quotes which expose the Quran's gross error in incorrectly representing and formulating what Christians have always believed.

Third, to distinguish between person and nature, we must keep in mind two ways to use “is”–identity versus predication. Mark Twain is the pen name for Samuel Langhorne Clemens, the 26-cigars-a-day smoker and author of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Twain does not have characteristics that Clemens does not have. In other words, when we say, “Samuel Langhorne Clemens is Mark Twain,” we can just as easily reverse the names: “Mark Twain is Samuel Langhorne Clemens.” Each of those statements indicates identity: Mark Twain = Samuel Langhorne Clemens (and vice versa). The names, which refer to the same person, are fully interchangeable and thus identical.

When it comes to the Trinity, to say “Jesus is God” isn’t identical to “God is Jesus.” Unlike the Mark Twain example, “Jesus” doesn’t exhaust what it means to speak of “God.” Jesus and God are not identical. According to the Bible, Father and the Spirit are called divine, just as Jesus. In the statement “Jesus is God,” we use is to describe or predicate, not to identify or equate: Jesus is God in that He shares in the nature that only two other persons share; so there isn’t just one person who can properly be called God. (Paul Copan, “Is The Trinity A Logical Blunder? God As Three And One”, in Contending With Christianity’s Critics: Answering New Atheists & Other Objectors, ed. Paul Copan & William Lane Craig [B&H Publishing Group, 2009], Part Three. The Coherence of Christian Doctrine, p. 212; bold emphasis ours)

Just in case Samatar thinks these are modern innovations, Muslim author Muslim author Neal Robinson mentions an ancient Nestorian Christian reference to prove that such formulations predate Muhammad himself:

"… The text which dates from around 550 CE. concludes a discussion of the Trinity with the words ‘The Messiah is God but God is not the Messiah’. The Qur'an echoes ONLY the latter half of the statement." C. Schedl, Muhammad and Jesus (Vienna: Herder, 1978), p. 531. (Neal Robinson, Christ In Islam and Christianity [State University of New York Press, Albany 1991], p. 197; capital and underline emphasis mine)

So Samatar please do enjoy all these posts which I wrote in your honor!

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

" Actually sam, Bassam's point in the debate was to show the coherency of the Quran when you let it speak for itself. The Quran says desist from saying three, I think it is very clear in describing anyone who has their own form of a trinity such as the maryamites, the trinitarian christians like you."

Let's take a look at 5:73.

----------------------

5:72 Sahih International

They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary" while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord." Indeed, he who associates others with Allah - Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.

5:73

They have certainly disbelieved who say, " Allah is the third of three." And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.

5:74

So will they not repent to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

5:75

The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.

-----------------

It should be obvious that the topic is Christians. In fact, most of the context for surah 5 is the People of the Book. I didn't see any references to people other than those of the Book, Sabians, and of course Muslims. Most of the surah is basically condemning People of the Book for some reason or another. Therefore, it is not talking about Maryamites. The only way that you can place them in this verse is if you try to extend the application to them from outside the intended context. Yes, the Maryamites may be guilty too; but, you can't and shouldn't assert that somehow they are automatically being spoken of in that verse.

"In the othe verse, Allah (swt) asked Jesus (pbuh), if he commanded the people to worship himself and his mother beside him. Now a trinitarian like you would assume it is mistaking the trinity, however can't the verse be read for what it says not by reinterpreting it with your beliefs about God (swt)."

Well, you just did the same thing by interpreting the Maryamites into 5:73.

Let's take a look at 5:116.

----------------

5:116 Sahih International

And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

5:117

I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness.

----------------

You have a dilemma on your hands since the subject is still the same: the Trinity (5:73) or Tritheism (5:116). Pick your poison since either representation is still incorrect.

Speaking of reinterpreting: it is your scholars who had to figure out that the passage was talking about the Trinity since it was the only logical conclusion, given Orthodox Christianity.

to be continued.........

simple_truth said...

continued........

"And from history we know that there are those who did take Mary as a God beside Allah (swt). Than how is the Quran unclear in that sense."

Surah 5 is targeting People of the Book in those places where it isn't speaking of Muslims. I only recalled the Sabians being mentioned outside of those groups. If you want to try to reinterpret it to be all inclusive, they you are in error.

"Now, if there were no group in the world that did take Mary as a God in history, than I would agree that it would be incoherent or unclear, but we know from history that there were those who did worship mary to an extent and pray to her."

That doesn't work since 5:73 and 5:116 have specific audiences, Christians. That is simple to see if you just read 2 or 3 verses before and after the quoted ones. I already quoted them above for context and clarity.

"Even the catholics in this day and age make her much more than she really is, and i am sure you will agree to that."

Now you are grasping for straws. The Catholics never took Mary alongside Jesus as God or gods. Mary was never a deity to them.

"Lastly, God has clearly rebuked you christains by saying "desist from saying three", and do not worship anyone besides him, along with the verses clearly mentioning that Jesus (pbuh) was a prophet and not God. I mean what more do you need than that."

I need some honesty from you and your fellow coreligionists. I just quoted context to those verses to point out your error. How are you going to deal with it? Are you going to make more explanations? Or, are you going to admit your error?

Arno said...

Hi David, a bit of the topic. I love to watch the video's but I don't really read books (a picture's worth a...)
Anyways, I was thinking, could you not author a video, a short and to the point series.
Short 4-5Mb at most per video.
Bigger than that becomes an issue to mail. People will generally not watch something longer than a few minutes, less they are into it.

The purpose would be quick concise thought provoking, with a reference to general vids for in-depth analysis.

But for an ignorant person to watch 10minutes+ of a dude talking about, who cares what, does not help.

I suggest, animation, perhaps something like stop-start animation with coffee beans, or whatever, to capture the viewers attention by the skilful use of a medium. If excellent the vids will go viral without any help. And if a suggestion of a short series in the making is left, it might pique interest and probably internet searches in that arena.

Perhaps get a Christian media house to buy into the project.

jonnykzj said...

@Sam

U said:

>>BTW, good luck getting nightmare to account for honesty and consistency in his worldview which says we are nothing more than chemical reactions, molecules in motions, and evolved animals. Yet try to have sex with his wife or steal his wallet and see how he starts sounding like a Christian theist by presupposing that these acts are morally wrong!!!!<<

JK- Sam, I love brother and your arguments exposing islam are spot on. HOEVEVER here i beleive ure not making sound arguments and this cld lead atheists to only become strengthened in their viewpoint. LET ME point out to you what is wrong here. The first point is that most educated atheists NEVER consider humans to be just any chemical reactions BUT a particular set of chemical reactions in specific arrays SUCH AS THT "package of reactions" define values for themselves. 2ndly morals are considered to have EVOLVED COZ we as humans are a SOCIAL SPECIES n cld only survive if we are social AT LEAST AS FAR AS OUR TRIBE OR GRP is concerned. Hence trust is also required and having sex with ones wife behind ones back is an act which leads to distrust and is thus fnd to be abhorrent by our nature. Regarding the issue of stealing im pretty sure u mustve seen documentaries where an an ape or monkey goes crazy if someone tries to steal something from him/her. This is not uniquely human. Humans ofcourse have a more complex set of morals which did evolve into them but i as a believer wld say it was ALL PLANNED BY GOD as He made us also via natural processes. NOW with all tht said the real argument IMU is tht this trust and morality is MOSTLY LIMITED TO OUR OWN GRP N TRIBE as is also the case with other non human apes BUT CHRIST CAME TO EXTEND THIS TO ALL HUMANS WORLDWIDE n thts whts so amazing abt Christianity. IF u want a powerful argument for the exsietnce of GOD which i beleive has never been made to atheists as yet i can send them to u. infact ive already once posted them on this blog.

Sam said...

Johnny, I love you more but your response is weak and is what I would expect from an atheist. Yte seeing how you have been affected by macroevolution I can see why you would reason like them, as opposed to reasoning like a Biblically informed Christian.

To argue that educated atheists would say we are "a set of chemical reactions SUCH AS THT 'package of reactions' define values for themselves" is a distinction without a difference since, when you come down right to it, you are still affirming that we are nothing more than chemical reactions, molecules in motion, and evolved animals.

Moreover, in speaking of morality evolving because we are social species only highlights the utter bankruptcy of atheism (and your unbiblical theistic evolutionary presuppositions) as a worldview. If morals are nothing more than a construct which have evolved as a result of social species trying to "get along" in order to survive then that means that they are completely arbitrary and relative to a particular group's beliefs and understanding. And since not all humans subscribe to the same set of morals this means that the group that is most dominant and powerful will have their values prevail over the others. Beautiful illustrations of this point would be Islam and Nazi Germany and how these tyrannical societies impose(d) their sets of moral values upon those groups which are/were unfortunate enough to come under their control and domination.

Finally, in using the example of a monkey getting angry at someone who steals from him/her you are only proving my point further. The issue is not whether there are animals that get offended at others for doing something harmful to them. The issue is whether such acts are objectively wrong. Is it objectively wrong to steal from someone, whether a monkey, dog, rat, human etc.? if the atheist says yes then s/he must have to explain the basis for stating that something is objectively right or wrong or true. An atheist can't simply presuppose morality but must first establish that moral absolutes do exist, and if so s/he must explain where do they come from, and what is their basis or foundation?

So Johnny, try preaching your theistic evolution to someone else who buys your unbiblical worldview. This is not the forum to preach your propaganda where you mix unbiblical theories with biblical truths.

Sorry for being so up front with you but I had to tell it like it is out of love for you.

Royal Son said...

Nitemere6 - Do I know you as an ex-christian from Paltalk?

I have a funny feeling I know who you are?

Are you the person who made a chatroom "DK the nitemere exposes Islam" or something like that?

Hemel said...

@Samatar,I dont get though you were informed before that Bassam is running away from the giant bro Sam Shamoun ,why are you posting here again about that instead of contacting Bassam.
Concerning the White-Bassam debate I watched the whole debate few months back.As I like bro Sam as he is the one who can make muslims feel the defeat ,so I was not impressed by white's approach.Though his logic was good.
And I was talking to one of my muslim classmates about quranic attack on trinity,and I said to him Bassam Zawadi said these...he told me that Bassam maybe a CIA agent working for the USA to harm islam.
And Samatar if you really beleive what you say ,why dont you ,Bassam,Sami come to our muslim countries and teach them that christian dont believe that Isa is God's blogical son(nauzubillah),and they dont believe in 3 Gods,but a triune God and Mary is not part of the trinity,.....believe me I will try to give you shelter when you will be running away for you lives from the muslims .
And by God's grace if you can manage to actually teach muslims that...millions will start coming to Christ.As the biggest obstacle we face while preaching is that the accusation that we believe allah's biological son is Isa and marium is his mother.
And if you can teach muslims Sami Zaatari's western peaceful version of islam where apostates should not be killed..converts from islam who are thousands even some say about 1 million only in my country ...all will start to have the courage to practice their faith in public and soon islam will fall dramatically by the power of the gospel of Christ.
But what you guys are doing is hypocrisy.In muslim countries you are oppressing us so that you stay on top ,and teaching muslims hateful things about our faith which we dont believe ...but in the west as muslims arte influenced by western education there you guys are preaching a different islam to hold them to islam anyway.Please,if you are honest ,you ,Sami,Bassam atleast try to come to muslim countries and preach your new made ideas to muslims which muhammad had no idea about.

jonnykzj said...

@Sam

>>Johnny, I love you more but your response is weak and is what I would expect from an atheist. Yte seeing how you have been affected by macroevolution I can see why you would reason like them, as opposed to reasoning like a Biblically informed Christian.<<

JK- U do realize that the majority of Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic Christians ALL ACCEPT common ancestry? Are you saying they all understood the Bible wrong?
Reg wiki they mostly provide references. u may disregard any comments for which references have not been provided.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#cite_ref-9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#Christianity
To show you it is compatible with the Bible check this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis
I even have a utube video of AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN PRIEST saying clearly tht we are not to live in denial of the facts derived from independently studying reality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_NNU7bBGgc&feature=channel_video_title

>>To argue that educated atheists would say we are "a set of chemical reactions SUCH AS THT 'package of reactions' define values for themselves" is a distinction without a difference since, when you come down right to it, you are still affirming that we are nothing more than chemical reactions, molecules in motion, and evolved animals.<<

JK- When ure saying "nothing more" ure downplaying the chemical reactions which themselves R VERY AMAZING n also fascinating as they get more complex to the observers. SO this wont impress atheists. Infact theyd reply tht u r the one downplaying these complex, wonderful and awe inspiring chemical reactions.

>>Moreover, in speaking of morality evolving because we are social species only highlights the utter bankruptcy of atheism (and your unbiblical theistic evolutionary presuppositions) as a worldview. If morals are nothing more than a construct which have evolved as a result of social species trying to "get along" in order to survive then that means that they are completely arbitrary and relative to a particular group's beliefs and understanding. And since not all humans subscribe to the same set of morals this means that the group that is most dominant and powerful will have their values prevail over the others.<<

JK- They are not arbitrary in the sense that they ENSURED THE SPECIES SURVIVAL. All humans share some biologically ingrained morals which r similar world wide as do many animals.

>>Beautiful illustrations of this point would be Islam and Nazi Germany and how these tyrannical societies impose(d) their sets of moral values upon those groups which are/were unfortunate enough to come under their control and domination.<<

JK- Yes this is true and i pointed this out towards the bottom of mky post earlier that our morals TEND TO BE LIMITED TO OUR OWN GRP. But thts not wht u initially pted out since amongst the grp stealing, adultery etc r considered immoral ensuring trust and thus protecting self interest. I then went on to explain why with Jesus Christ these already present tribal morals r boosted so tht we can extend these to everyone.

jonnykzj said...

@Sam again

>>Finally, in using the example of a monkey getting angry at someone who steals from him/her you are only proving my point further. The issue is not whether there are animals that get offended at others for doing something harmful to them. The issue is whether such acts are objectively wrong. Is it objectively wrong to steal from someone, whether a monkey, dog, rat, human etc.? if the atheist says yes then s/he must have to explain the basis for stating that something is objectively right or wrong or true. An atheist can't simply presuppose morality but must first establish that moral absolutes do exist, and if so s/he must explain where do they come from, and what is their basis or foundation?<<

JK- Morals are not objects so it really doesnt make any sense to say such n such is objectively morally wrong, whether in Christianity or elsewhere. Craig's arguments here r very weak n have been debunked numerous times by atheists. THIS IS COZ MORALS R ALWAYS RELATED TO SUBJECTS. Without minds(WHICH R SUBJECTS) THE VERY CONCEPT OF MORALITY DOES NOT EXIST. HOWEVER AS SAM HARRIS PTED OUT there r OBJECTIVE MEANS to determine wht most benefits and harms us as humans N PERHAPS DUE TO MODERN fMRI techniques even objetcively measure a person's brain when he/she feels good/bad or is hurt/feels pleasure. The axiom one has to accept though is tht this leads to our survical n protection of our self interests at large. Now u can say. Who says we shld protect our self interest but this is a silly qs since it is our very nature. One can still try to hurt us but most of us will counter them INSTINCTIVELY.
NOW u can say wht abt psychopaths? Wht if all the world or the majority became psychopathic? Well the answer is simply tht this wld be OUR END n hence i as a Christian wld say GOD wont even allow it to happen.

>>So Johnny, try preaching your theistic evolution to someone else who buys your unbiblical worldview. This is not the forum to preach your propaganda where you mix unbiblical theories with biblical truths.<<

JK- I hope ive showed u tht it is NOT unbibilical by any means, otherwise so any theologians and Christians worldwide wld never have accepted it CONSIDERING THT U WLD THINK the Bible biases one in having to accept direct special creation. This itself shld tell u something. For me it is very easy. Either GOD deceived almost all the biologists who indepdently studied nature and make it appear as evo happened OR THS THE WAY HE DID IT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

>>Sorry for being so up front with you but I had to tell it like it is out of love for you.<<

JK- Oh never mind bro i can take a lot n i also hope ur mind is not closed to the evidence as well as other interpretations of the Bible as uve currently got regarding these particular issues.

jonnykzj said...

@Sam again

I have presented many more evidences for common ancestry in the following discussion btw me and "donna60" at:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6590312557191237519&postID=5351515764757181945
U might wanna read through it some time.
OTHER THAN THT if u want ill also repost to u my arguments for atheists as to why GOD must exist inevitably EVEN IF one grants the atheists' position on ultimate arising of everything from chaos. infact id say ESPECIALLY then.

Sam said...

JK, it seems you are trying hard to push your macroevolution garbage down my throat. You have come to the wrong forum to preach your unbiblical theories, especially when I said I wasn't interested.

Since you don't respect people's wishes time for me to ask you questions in order to document why your position is incompatible with the Bible.

Do you believe in the special creation of man, in that God created an Adam and Eve as reported in the Bible?

Once you answer we can proceed. Now time for me to dismantle some of your responses.

Sam said...

This is to Johnny. First, you do realize that appealing to a majority proves absolutely nothing, just as Biblical history attests? Are you saying that all the nations were wrong for worshiping other gods and that only Israel had it right? So appealing to a so-called majority, even if they claim to be Christian, proves absolutely nothing to me.

Secondly, I appreciate that you avoid attacking strawman and address the issue. You sound like a militant atheist not like Bible believing Christian when you try to come to their defense.

With that said, my comment regarding humans being chemical reactions was directed to atheists who deny that men are created in God's image and have souls/spirits, and therefore have intrinsic value. So let's cut to the chase. Do you believe you were created in God's image.

Moreover, being more than chemical reactions, we are moral agents created to reflect God's moral qualities. Therefore, objective moral values only have meaning in a theistic worldview which says that God exists and has revealed his standard of morals to the creatures which he has made in his image.

So now stop distorting my words and stop mixing in your unbiblical evolutionary theories with biblical Christianity in order to answer my objections aimed at someone who denies that God exists and that things such as moral absolutes exist.

Continued in the next post.

Sam said...

Here is where you betray that fundamentally you really are not a Christian and do not really believe the Bible:

JK- Yes this is true and i pointed this out towards the bottom of mky post earlier that our morals TEND TO BE LIMITED TO OUR OWN GRP. But thts not wht u initially pted out since amongst the grp stealing, adultery etc r considered immoral ensuring trust and thus protecting self interest. I then went on to explain why with Jesus Christ these already present tribal morals r boosted so tht we can extend these to everyone.

Please don't twist my words since my initial post was aimed at trying to expose the folly of atheists like nightmare who try to argue for something being morally objectionable when their worldview cannot account for the existence of objective moral values. (BTW, it seems you have a hard time comprehending these concepts since you perverted what I meant by the word objective in your second post which I will address shortly.)

Secondly, try to answer this question as an atheist since your view is basically atheistic at its core, even though you try to pass it off as Christian. In a materialistic worldview where moral absolutes do not objectively exist, why should the survival of the human species matter? Why should anyone care about rules which some animals came up with for their survival when human life is no more meaningful than any other life form that has become extinct? In other words, in an atheistic worldview why should anyone care about your subjective rules, codes, and morality?

So let us cut to the chase again. Do you believe that morals were revealed by God, or were they a human construct developed by our species for the purpose of human survival? Your answer will determine whether you are truly a Christian or not.

Continued in my next post.

jonnykzj said...

@Sam again

Let me add something i forgot but consider to be the CRUX of the argument regarding morality. If we were to go along with ur argument for morality then it seems like tht everything which GOD commands to be good is good and that which He commands to be bad is bad. There r big probs with this since now we dont have anything to show why anyone shld follow the morals of Christianity. SO there must be a way to FIRST DETERMINE wht is moral and what is not INDEPENDENT of any religion. When we start y the axioms of wht benefits us max as a whole n tht wht best caters to our self interest THEN WE COMPARE which religion comes closest to these independent discoveries. AMAZINGLY I FND tht they best match CHRISTIANITY N THIS IS HOW WE SHLD ARGUE. INDEED NO OTHER RELIGION protects ppl as a whole as much as Christianity be it reg physical dangers OR EMOTIONAL coz no matter how much a Christian will rebuke someone in an argument he/she wld always do SO IN LOVE N R$EADY WITH OPEN ARMS TO EMBRACE HIM/HER.

Sam said...

This is my third reply to Johnny. What you say next again proves that you are not really a Bible believing Christian:

JK- Morals are not objects so it really doesnt make any sense to say such n such is objectively morally wrong, whether in Christianity or elsewhere.

This shows that you really don't know what objective means, at least the way I and others like Craig use it. By objective I am speaking of morality existing independently of the existence of humans since morality is not anchored in creatures but in God as a reflection of his nature and being. In other words, morals do exist irrespective of human beings.

Craig's arguments here r very weak n have been debunked numerous times by atheists. THIS IS COZ MORALS R ALWAYS RELATED TO SUBJECTS. Without minds(WHICH R SUBJECTS) THE VERY CONCEPT OF MORALITY DOES NOT EXIST. HOWEVER AS SAM HARRIS PTED OUT there r OBJECTIVE MEANS to determine wht most benefits and harms us as humans N PERHAPS DUE TO MODERN fMRI techniques even objetcively measure a person's brain when he/she feels good/bad or is hurt/feels pleasure. The axiom one has to accept though is tht this leads to our survical n protection of our self interests at large. Now u can say. Who says we shld protect our self interest but this is a silly qs since it is our very nature. One can still try to hurt us but most of us will counter them INSTINCTIVELY.

NOW u can say wht abt psychopaths? Wht if all the world or the majority became psychopathic? Well the answer is simply tht this wld be OUR END n hence i as a Christian wld say GOD wont even allow it to happen.

Thank you for exposing who or what your real authority happens to be. There are so many errors in your post here that I don't know where to start. But I will take a stab anyway.

First, what is weak is your assertion that morality is always related to subjects, which in context you mean creatures. This means that you actually do deny the reality of moral absolutes since or that morals exist independently of creatures, which pretty much means that you don't believe that God is the source and foundation of morality. And yet you claim to be a Christian!

Secondly, you again beg the question and take it as a given that your definition and explanation of morality is true. Take, for instance, your appeal to your prophet Sam Harris where you say that we can use mri techniques to see when a person feels good/bad, pain/pleasure. Here is my question to you sine you obviously aren't getting the point.

Why does it even matter whether a human animal feels pain or not? Why should anyone care whether a human being is happy or not? If human beings are not created in God's image, and therefore do not have any intrinsic value, and if God isn't the source and grounds of morality, then it simply doesn't matter whether human beings get hurt or wrong.

So let us try this exercise one more time. Why does it matter if chemical reactions, molecules in motion, human animals survive or not, feel pain or not, are wronged or not?

Hopefully, you finally get the point since thus far you have failed to address the point, which tells me that you really don't get it.

Sam said...

BTW Johnny, I saw how you turned that other thread into an macro-evolution versus biblical creation debate, which is not the purpose of the blog. So stop trying to convince people to embrace your unbiblical theories since, as we shall see when you answer my question on Adam and Eve, your views are destructive and end up perverting the Holy Bible.

Proof of this will be coming shortly right after you answer my question.

Sam said...

And johnny, I really am not interested in your arguments for God's existence which you use against atheists since, in light of what you have written here, I don't think they will be at all honoring to the God revealed in the Holy Bible.

Sorry for being so blunt but I have to speak the truth to you in love.

jonnykzj said...

@Sam again

Sorry bro just cldnt hold myself from adding this important point. U MIGHT ARGUE tht morals r written on everyone's heart. Id agree in part since i agree tht BASIC morality is "stamped" on our DNA VIA GOD'S CREATIVE MECHANISM which i believe to be evolution but thts not the main pt here. Here my point is that NOT EVERY CHRISTIAN MORAL IS "STAMPED" on our body. For example the command Jesus gave to LOVE EVERYONE, NOT ONLY OUR CLOSE BY NEIGHBORS/GRPS/TRIBES. This is TOTALY COUNTERINTUITIVE. NOW how do we then decide tht this is a good moral? Coz the Bible says so? Certainly not coz thtd be circular n means nothing to atheists. We need an external argument AND THERE IS. INFACT ONE ONLY NEEDS TO LOOK AT history n see those who followed this commandment n wht it achieved to bring harmony btw mankind n thus cater to protect everyone's interests IN THE LONG RUN. IT IS DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE which atheists have been looking for so long but many Christians instead of pting it out this way diverted from it n i find tht pretty sad indeed.

Sam said...

BTW Johnny, your latest post proves that you really are not a Christian and you really don't believe in the Holy Bible. Notice what you said about the Bible:

NOW how do we then decide tht this is a good moral? Coz the Bible says so? Certainly not coz thtd be circular n means nothing to atheists. We need an external argument AND THERE IS.

Quoting the Bible is circular reasoning just because it won't appeal to an atheist and yet appealing to some external argument is crucial for determining whether something is morally good which you erroneously assume an atheist will automatically accept?

This not only shows that you really don't know the Bible or what a circular argument actually is, it also shows that you sound exactly a God-denying atheist would say?

More importantly, who are you trying appease, atheists or the triune God? It is obvious, since your assault against the Holy Bible clearly shows who you truly bow down to.

Anyway, before I put a hole in your claim that an external authority is needed, I will first wait for you to answer my specific question concerning Adam and Eve.

jonnykzj said...

@Sam

>>JK, it seems you are trying hard to push your macroevolution garbage down my throat. You have come to the wrong forum to preach your unbiblical theories, especially when I said I wasn't interested.<<

JK- Now this sounds like a very close minded attitude which i know to be more islamic rather than Christian, especially when most of my fellow Christians i know in Germany have no probs accepting common ancestry. Even your use of the term "theories" seems to imply that you think of common ancestry as "JUST A THEORY" which is absurd since the scientific term "theory" DOES NOT MEAN HYPOTHESIS. Otherwise wld ualso disregard "the THEORY OF RELATIVITY" or "germ theory" etc? plz read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory to get an undertanding of wht a "theory" in science is as opposed to the commonly understood term. NEXT see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

>>Since you don't respect people's wishes time for me to ask you questions in order to document why your position is incompatible with the Bible.<<

JK- If it so imcpaticle with the Bible why do so many theologians in Christianity have no probs with it? ESPECIALLY why do so many Jewish ppl, who r focused on the OT alone, agree with evo, 77% according to this chart:
http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Religious-Differences-on-the-Question-of-Evolution.aspx

>>Do you believe in the special creation of man, in that God created an Adam and Eve as reported in the Bible?<<

JK- Yes but allegorically. Also it is possible that Adam and Eve were the first humans in the sense that before those the creatures in qs, though leading up to humans(perhaps one cld define them as stages of creation leading up to humans), were not humans by GOD's definition.

>>Once you answer we can proceed. Now time for me to dismantle some of your responses.<<

JK- Sure.

jonnykzj said...

@Sam

>>This is to Johnny. First, you do realize that appealing to a majority proves absolutely nothing, just as Biblical history attests? Are you saying that all the nations were wrong for worshiping other gods and that only Israel had it right? So appealing to a so-called majority, even if they claim to be Christian, proves absolutely nothing to me.<<

JK- We are not talking abt absolute majorities here BUT MAJORITIES OF THOSE who call themselves Christian. And this is very signficant UNLESS u wanna fall into the "no true scotsman" fallacy. PLUS the theologians who have studied the Bible.

>>Secondly, I appreciate that you avoid attacking strawman and address the issue. You sound like a militant atheist not like Bible believing Christian when you try to come to their defense.<<

JK- Sorry if i snd like tht but my intent is to be consistent with both Bible and reality and i want Christians to be so too.

>>With that said, my comment regarding humans being chemical reactions was directed to atheists who deny that men are created in God's image and have souls/spirits, and therefore have intrinsic value. So let's cut to the chase. Do you believe you were created in God's image.<<

JK- Most certainly i do believe tht all humans r created in YHWH's image. ADDITIONALLY i also believe tht angels as well as many other animals r somewht created in the image of GOD.

>>Moreover, being more than chemical reactions, we are moral agents created to reflect God's moral qualities. Therefore, objective moral values only have meaning in a theistic worldview which says that God exists and has revealed his standard of morals to the creatures which he has made in his image.<<

JK- This i find to be a bad argument since atheists will argue, and not unreasonably so IMU, tht just coz an all powerful being reveals something does not make it objective BUT AT BEST SUPER SUBJECTIVE(since GOD's mind wld be a subject NOT an object). ive also explained this in more detail in one of my posts above.

>>So now stop distorting my words and stop mixing in your unbiblical evolutionary theories with biblical Christianity in order to answer my objections aimed at someone who denies that God exists and that things such as moral absolutes exist.<<

JK- I have not distorted ur words deliberately by any means. If i have n u show me where ill respond accordingly.

jonnykzj said...

@Sam

>>Here is where you betray that fundamentally you really are not a Christian and do not really believe the Bible:

Please don't twist my words since my initial post was aimed at trying to expose the folly of atheists like nightmare who try to argue for something being morally objectionable when their worldview cannot account for the existence of objective moral values. (BTW, it seems you have a hard time comprehending these concepts since you perverted what I meant by the word objective in your second post which I will address shortly.)<<

JK- Well i used the scientific meaning of "objective". if u have another one in mind plz state so BUT dont then be surprised if many atheists who have the other meaning in mind will then object coz of not understanding u.

>>Secondly, try to answer this question as an atheist since your view is basically atheistic at its core, even though you try to pass it off as Christian. In a materialistic worldview where moral absolutes do not objectively exist, why should the survival of the human species matter?
Why should anyone care about rules which some animals came up with for their survival when human life is no more meaningful than any other life form that has become extinct? In other words, in an atheistic worldview why should anyone care about your subjective rules, codes, and morality?<<

JK- I think i knew u wld say this n have if i rem correctly already responded to this in my reply to u above. TO put it simply from a secular pt of u HUMANS GIVE VALUE TO THEMSELVES. Why does this happen? Coz thts wht is "coded" in our DNA. Shld this happen? As long as this code remains in our "DNA" we are bound to say that it should. Should hypothetically one day, and i dont beleive it wld, this part of code be removed, the world will end up with wht we wldf now call psychopathic humans who wld not claim tht any shld survive. THTS why this type of arguments do NOT IMPRESS atheists n beleive my i always become very sad when Christians continue to use it

>>So let us cut to the chase again. Do you believe that morals were revealed by God, or were they a human construct developed by our species for the purpose of human survival? Your answer will determine whether you are truly a Christian or not.<<

JK- I beleive the ENITRE UNIVERSE is made by GOD with morals being just a part of it. I NEVER signle out morals making it appear as a last defense for my belief in God. I also believe tht God used a mechanism to implant those morals within us.

jonnykzj said...

@Sam

>>This is my third reply to Johnny. What you say next again proves that you are not really a Bible believing Christian:
This shows that you really don't know what objective means, at least the way I and others like Craig use it.<<

JK- Ok im listening.

>>By objective I am speaking of morality existing independently of the existence of humans since morality is not anchored in creatures but in God as a reflection of his nature and being. In other words, morals do exist irrespective of human beings.<<

JK- Actually that makes them "Super Subjective" or "Divine Subjective" since the morals then exist within GOD'S MIND unless u suddenly wanna redefine wht exists in a mind as objective but tht by definition is subjective. Do u see my pt?

>> Thank you for exposing who or what your real authority happens to be. There are so many errors in your post here that I don't know where to start. But I will take a stab anyway.

First, what is weak is your assertion that morality is always related to subjects, which in context you mean creatures.<<

JK- I dont necessarily mean only creatures but ALL MINDS-

>>This means that you actually do deny the reality of moral absolutes since or that morals exist independently of creatures, which pretty much means that you don't believe that God is the source and foundation of morality. And yet you claim to be a Christian!<

JK- GOD IS THE SOURCE OF EVERYTHING, NOT JUST MORALITY. Dont u see my pt till now? By defending morality this way u make it seem tht all the other stuff is not really from GOD or only more or less from GOD whilst morality is directly from GOD.

>>Secondly, you again beg the question and take it as a given that your definition and explanation of morality is true. Take, for instance, your appeal to your prophet Sam Harris where you say that we can use mri techniques to see when a person feels good/bad, pain/pleasure. Here is my question to you sine you obviously aren't getting the point.<<

JK- Sam Harris is by NO KEANS MY PROPHET but he is a wise man and unfortunately an atheist. Tht doesnt mean he is dumb though or doesnt understand wht hes talking abt.

>>Why does it even matter whether a human animal feels pain or not? Why should anyone care whether a human being is happy or not? If human beings are not created in God's image, and therefore do not have any intrinsic value, and if God isn't the source and grounds of morality, then it simply doesn't matter whether human beings get hurt or wrong.<<

JK- Why shld animals care for one another which many species do? They do this COZ IT'S IN THEIR DNA CODE WHICH FORCES THEM TO DO SO. It is their in their DNA coz thts wht ensured survival in their repective envirnoments. NOW i as a Christian believe fully tht GOD created all those environments n thus also the code via a specific mechanism as He did with all other things.

>>So let us try this exercise one more time. Why does it matter if chemical reactions, molecules in motion, human animals survive or not, feel pain or not, are wronged or not?<<

JK- I think ive answered this numerous times by now.

>>Hopefully, you finally get the point since thus far you have failed to address the point, which tells me that you really don't get it.<<

JK- I think thus far uve failed to understand wht ive been trying to explain to u over n over

jonnykzj said...

@Sam

>>BTW Johnny, I saw how you turned that other thread into an macro-evolution versus biblical creation debate, which is not the purpose of the blog. So stop trying to convince people to embrace your unbiblical theories since, as we shall see when you answer my question on Adam and Eve, your views are destructive and end up perverting the Holy Bible.<<

JK- I dont think this will be the case. As to Adam and Eve ull find my answer to tht in my replies to u above. IF U INSIST on such literalism as Creationism do u then also believe tht the mornings and evenings(as mentioned in Gen 1) were there BEFORE THE SUN? Or when it says in the Bible tht "God is Light" He's physical light? You have to see that there r huge probs with such understandings.

jonnykzj said...

@Sam

>>And johnny, I really am not interested in your arguments for God's existence which you use against atheists since, in light of what you have written here, I don't think they will be at all honoring to the God revealed in the Holy Bible.<<

JK- I think u shld decide tht after uve read them. ALSO rem im not even saying tht u necessarily need to beleive thts how it is BUT IM ARGUING FROM THT FROM THE ATHEISTS OWN PERPECTIVE OF ORDER ARISING FROM CHAOS, they then shld logically accept tht GOD must INEVITABLY exist. Got my pt?

>>Sorry for being so blunt but I have to speak the truth to you in love.<<

JK- Well im sorry too but i too have to be blunt then to speak the truth.

jonnykzj said...

@Sam again

Infact let me put it simply as to wht i criticized abt ur original pt. U IMU said tht Atheists dont have a leg to stand on when they get upset abt adultery perhaps even implying immoral acts like murder, stealing u infact mentioned etc. SO TELL ME is there no good reason IN THE WORLD ALONE for an atheist as to why he/she shldnt murder or steal? Are you really saying tht? IF SO then im sorry but i have to be extremely blunt and say tht tht is ABSURDITY AT IT'S FINEST. One reason even an atheist will not murder or steal for example is coz he/she wld be inturn endangering him/herself, having to await revenge. If an atheist allows for a society in which ppl r free to do so he/she wld again inturn be endangering themselves. THATS why theyd even want laws. As for adultery it's more subtle BUT yet as ive explained it shows the person engaging in such is not trustworthy and such persons can again endanger other individuals at large. AS FOR THE repulsive reaction of an atheist towards someone having sex with his wife IT IS AS IVE SAID CODED IN HIS DNA SIMILAR TO MANY PHOBIAS N FLIGHT RESPONSES BEING CODED THERE. To single out morality and try making it alone a super argument for God thus will just not work for atheists/agnostics.

jonnykzj said...

@Sam Again

BTW since W. Lane Craig was brought up n u seem to agree with him Id like to 1st point out tht EVEN HE DOES NOT have a problem with evolution though he claims to be more btw PROGRESSIVE creation(which is almost like evo) and theistic evolution, DEFINITELY NO YEC. Here u can see 4 urself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSc92EDm5gU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyOZRMIe768&feature=related
2ndly i too have something +ve to say abt Craig COZ ONE ARGUMENT in his debate with Hitchens i fnd very compelling n tht is "if the order we see on this planet were just by chance THEN WE SHLD AT LEAST NOT SEE ANY ORDER PAST OUR EARTH N EVEN LESS SO PAST OUR SOLAR SYSTEM, GALAXY ETC BUT WE DO".

Zack_Tiang said...

Jonny...

You completely miss Sam's points... completely.

I suggest you hear more of his side, instead of continually ignoring his side and only trumpeting yours.

For a very very young and very naive Christian, you sure act as though you know a lot. That is the biggest contradiction in your behavior with regards to being a follower of Christ.

Humble yourself and be eager to learn. If you disagree about something, ask and question... not object and reject.

You barely have a firm foundation in your theological understanding of Christianity, but you're acting like some hotshot whose opinions are to be taken seriously.

No, Jonny, you are not yet there. You can't even understand why we reject your "majority of Christians must mean it is true or right" mindset.
And you can't even appreciate the different schools of theology regarding different topics and think only you know what's true/right, because you got the 'truth' from the 'majority'.
I say you don't even know what it means when 'literal Creationists' take the bible literally...
It's the same as I accusing you (who take the Genesis account as allegorical) of believing Jesus was just an allegorical character and not a literal historical person. Do you? Of course not.
Just because a Creationist believes in a literal account of the Creation story, doesn't mean they take everything in the bible as literal.
Terrible misrepresentation of the other side.

mana nimmathi said...

Dear David,

I am Augustine, an evangelist from South India. I enjoy every bword of you. ur website is very much useful to me. I have a question to u. Pls read Rom 11:32 and tell me if GOD IS THE REASON FOR MAN TO SIN?

PLS SEND THE ANSWER TO
mananimmathi@gmil.com

BRO AUGUSTINE
PEACE GIVING COUNSELLINGS

Sam said...

Zack, thank you for seeing what has become obvious to me and others. Johnny thinks he has answers and thinks he actually addressing the points when in reality he is deliberately distorting them. He also thinks that by posting tons of fluff that this somehow proves that he is actually refuting the arguments marshaled against his position. Muslim dawagandists do this all the time.

Anyway, I am going to get him banned if he keeps coming here and spamming every thread with his gospel of evolution in order to convince people to follow his prophets such as Charles Darwin and Sam Harris.

Now Zack make sure to read what I am about to do with his claim regarding Adam and Eve.

Sam said...

This is for Johnny, I actually had to skim through all your fluff in order to find your reply to my question regarding Adam and Eve. Here is what you said:

JK- Yes but allegorically. Also it is possible that Adam and Eve were the first humans in the sense that before those the creatures in qs, though leading up to humans(perhaps one cld define them as stages of creation leading up to humans), were not humans by GOD's definition.

Here is my follow up question. If the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical do you then believe that the story of Cain and Abel is also allegorical?

To put this another way, is the story of Cain killing Abel history in that this murder actually took place or is it simply an allegory?

Please answer so we can proceed to my next questions.

jonnykzj said...

@Zack tiang

>>You completely miss Sam's points... completely.<<

JK- Aha, lets see then.

>>I suggest you hear more of his side, instead of continually ignoring his side and only trumpeting yours.<<

JK- I DID n responded to almost, if not every pt he made.

>>For a very very young and very naive Christian, you sure act as though you know a lot. That is the biggest contradiction in your behavior with regards to being a follower of Christ.<<

JK- Ive never boasted abt my knowledge but only stated things which r 1) scientific facts uninamously agreed in the scientific community OR 2) wht theologians whove studied the Bible say in this regard AND YES ALSO 3) my own understanding so far which ive absolutely not said it is perfect or near perfect by any means.

>>Humble yourself and be eager to learn. If you disagree about something, ask and question... not object and reject.<<

JK- Doesnt Sam object to many things? I thik i have the right to object to some things which i find very inconsistent or against independent observed reality as ive explained.

>>You barely have a firm foundation in your theological understanding of Christianity, but you're acting like some hotshot whose opinions are to be taken seriously.<<

JK- Now rnt u the one judging my understanding? I never said tht i had much but i used my current knowledge and understanding to argue my case.

>>No, Jonny, you are not yet there. You can't even understand why we reject your "majority of Christians must mean it is true or right" mindset.<<

JK- And i replied and explained to u the difference btw 1) absolute majority(all humans) and 2) the majority of Christians whove not intensively studied the Bible and those who have i.e. theologians. U dont seem to get this crucial difference.

>>And you can't even appreciate the different schools of theology regarding different topics and think only you know what's true/right, because you got the 'truth' from the 'majority'.<<

JK- 1st i NEVER SAID tht only i was right. Different theological schools can have very good pts on many issues but pretty bad ones on others. BUT if there is an overwhelming consensus amongst theologians on something then this strengthens the issue IMU and so i also think itd be the case if this additionally also goes in line with wht the majority of those who call themselves Christians do COZ IMU GOD will not allow hypocrisy to creep in at a dominant level in Christianity as is the case with islam. this is coz in Christanity ppl r FREE TO LEAVE unlike islam.

>>I say you don't even know what it means when 'literal Creationists' take the bible literally...
It's the same as I accusing you (who take the Genesis account as allegorical) of believing Jesus was just an allegorical character and not a literal historical person. Do you? Of course not.<<

JK- I perfectly acknoledge tht some things in the Bible r literal and others are not. I even gave two examples one of which when the Bible sates that "GOD is Light". Thoughtful theologians worldwide have worked this out and they see no contradiction btw common ancestry and the Bible. Here for example read what Augustine had to say abt the literal interpretation of Genesis. type in "Saint Augustine Augustine" in search to get there instantly at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis#Days_of_creation

>>Just because a Creationist believes in a literal account of the Creation story, doesn't mean they take everything in the bible as literal.<<

JK- True i agree with this. Unfortunately they take those parts literally which i and many theologians, inc Augustine, say tht it shld not be done.

>>Terrible misrepresentation of the other side.<<

JK- I hope i clarified myself.

Sam said...

See what I mean, Zack? If you read Johnny's posts carefully you will see that he really thinks he is somehow God's solution to the problem of atheism and that everyone needs to buy into his garbage if they are going to be able to convert the world to his perversion of Christianity.

I sense that he may be suffering from a sense of megalomania. It is only a matter of time before he self-destructs. In fact, I highly doubt that he will remain a "Christian" for too long since his arguments will inevitably lead him to either atheism or agnosticism. Wait and see.

Now Johnny, make sure to answer my question.

Zack_Tiang said...

Jonnykzj said...
">>I suggest you hear more of his side, instead of continually ignoring his side and only trumpeting yours.<<

JK- I DID n responded to almost, if not every pt he made.

JK- Ive never boasted abt my knowledge but only stated things which r 1) scientific facts uninamously agreed in the scientific community OR 2) wht theologians whove studied the Bible say in this regard AND YES ALSO 3) my own understanding so far which ive absolutely not said it is perfect or near perfect by any means."

And that is exactly what I'm talking about. You think you are hearing out the other side, but no, what you're doing is finding fault with it.
You never look into what is being presented by the other side, but only compare it with what you have come to accept so far with your 'month-or-so' research on Christianity.

In essence, you still aren't hearing out the other side, but merely want to push forward your side as the truth and reject all else that doesn't fit with your accepted 'truths'.

--

JK said, "JK- Doesnt Sam object to many things? I thik i have the right to object to some things which i find very inconsistent or against independent observed reality as ive explained."

Notice what I said... Ask and question.. NOT object and reject.
The reason I don't allow you the same privilege of objecting and rejecting is because you aren't as experienced or knowledgeable as Sam is (or even as I am; or even many of us commenting here in this blog).
You're barely a month old in your knowing about Christianity and you think you know everything about Christianity and can start discerning for yourself what's correct and what's not?
That's like a baby claiming to know who's a good person and who's a bad person from a crowd.

--

"JK- Now rnt u the one judging my understanding? I never said tht i had much but i used my current knowledge and understanding to argue my case."

Then how can you be arguing your case when you don't have 'much'?
Why must you 'argue' any case?

Again, ask and question... not object and reject.
Humble and teachable attitude, Jonny. Not naive and 'know-it-all' attitude.

--

"JK- And i replied and explained to u the difference btw 1) absolute majority(all humans) and 2) the majority of Christians whove not intensively studied the Bible and those who have i.e. theologians. U dont seem to get this crucial difference."

You clearly still don't understand and you think you can argue your case?
Even if the whole Christian community accepts God's creation through evolution, we (so-called) 'minority' would still gladly accept that God created as literally as He said He did in the bible.
You don't even know what are our reasons to believe that and doubt evolution. You think evolution is all that? We need not even wait til we get to Heaven and you'd be surprised.

And as I've said before, I seriously doubt your 'majority' statistics anyways...

Zack_Tiang said...

"JK- 1st i NEVER SAID tht only i was right."

You never need to. Your actions and behavior spoke loudly enough.

--

"JK- I perfectly acknoledge tht some things in the Bible r literal and others are not."

I know full well that you do... but you didn't seem to allow such flexibility for 'literal Creationists', and THAT was my point.
See how you aren't able to grasp what others are saying?

I can EASILY claim the same thing for those who accept a literal Creation account... "Many thoughtful theologians worldwide have worked this out and they see no reason to believe anything else but a literal creation account of Genesis"..
And I can recommend you a few too; Kent Hovind (drdino.com), Chuck Missler (khouse.org)...
Search their videos and seminars online and if you actually bother to check out what they have to share about literal creationism, I think you may just change your mind about your evolution.

--

"JK- True i agree with this. Unfortunately they take those parts literally which i and many theologians, inc Augustine, say tht it shld not be done."

And what makes you and your "many theologians" authoritative to declare what is to be taken literally, and what allegorically?

Here's an interesting challenge I have for you...
Do you accept the 7 days of creation in Genesis as literally seven 24-hour periods of time?

Sam said...

Zack, don't waste your time on Johnny since you are feeding his ego and need for attention. After he finishes with my questions I am going to get Wood to ban him from flooding each and every post with a plethora of texts that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

jonnykzj said...

@Sam

Sam ur beginning to show me a very ugly side of urs. U went too far when u called me not a true Christian n now u even want to ban me. Isnt this just wht muslims do? I cldve said the same of u BUT NEVER wld i call someone who accepted Christ as their savior a fake Christian, not even Calvinists though i believe the doctrines of it r strongly heretical. Tell me something? R u saying tht ALL PASTORS, THEOLOGIANS n others who call themselves Christians, accept Christ as their savior n believe in all the essential doctrines of Christianity BUT ALSO accept common ancestry and evolution, R NOT TRUE CHRISTIANS? Coz to me it certainly appears tht way.

NOW onto wht u replied:

>>Here is my follow up question. If the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical do you then believe that the story of Cain and Abel is also allegorical? To put this another way, is the story of Cain killing Abel history in that this murder actually took place or is it simply an allegory?<<

JK- Im not too sure abt Cain and Abel so i cant comment on tht right now. HOWEVER i also stated tht Adam and Eve cld be the first two people WHOM GOD LABELLED HUMAN. If u want to get an intro into the details of theistic evlution here's something to read up on. See first wht Augustine had to say abt a literal interpreation of Gen. search for "saint augustine" at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis#Days_of_creation
Then read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_%28Genesis%29
For further details i suggest u discuss this with a theologian who accepts theistic evolution n also has studied the Bible for many yrs.

jonnykzj said...

@Zack tiang

>>And that is exactly what I'm talking about. You think you are hearing out the other side, but no, what you're doing is finding fault with it. You never look into what is being presented by the other side, but only compare it with what you have come to accept so far with your 'month-or-so' research on Christianity.<<

JK- I personally see probs with it yes BUT i dont label u or other ppl not true Christians whilst Sam did this with me. See the difference?

>>In essence, you still aren't hearing out the other side, but merely want to push forward your side as the truth and reject all else that doesn't fit with your accepted 'truths'.<<

JK- Wht can i say?

>>Notice what I said... Ask and question.. NOT object and reject.
The reason I don't allow you the same privilege of objecting and rejecting is because you aren't as experienced or knowledgeable as Sam is (or even as I am; or even many of us commenting here in this blog).<<

JK- OH, OH IC im not tht experienced? Now isnt tht arrogant to say the least?

>>You're barely a month old in your knowing about Christianity and you think you know everything about Christianity and can start discerning for yourself what's correct and what's not?<<

JK- Ive known alot abt the Bible before tht as well. Sure i was confused abt the doctrines of christianity but even those i do undersstand now pretty well. HOWEVER ive also got considerable knowledge of science and evolution and as to why it is extremely unlikely tht it is not true. SO I ASK one can either 1) deny reality OR 2) say tht GOD made it look in nature AS IF COMMON ANCESTRY IS TRUE but He just deceived us? N JUST LIKE KEN MILLER I DO NOT BELIEVE in a deceptive god.

>>That's like a baby claiming to know who's a good person and who's a bad person from a crowd.<<

JK- Again ure showing ur arrogance here by comparing my knowledge to tht of a child or worse a baby's.

>>Then how can you be arguing your case when you don't have 'much'?
Why must you 'argue' any case?<<

JK- I said this coz i dont wanna appear arrogant. Otherwise i believe tht i have considerbale knowledge BUT THERE R GREAT THEOLOGIANS who have a much greater understanding.

>>Again, ask and question... not object and reject.
Humble and teachable attitude, Jonny. Not naive and 'know-it-all' attitude.<<

JK- It appears to me tht it is u who're tending more towards "know-it-all" then me from wht iv read so far.

>>You clearly still don't understand and you think you can argue your case?
Even if the whole Christian community accepts God's creation through evolution, we (so-called) 'minority' would still gladly accept that God created as literally as He said He did in the bible.<<

JK- k wht abt the majority of theologians? IF U STILL insist on ur position rnt u being arrogant COZ IT ASSUMES u know the Bible and reality better than the rest of the ppl. Now tell me how does tht work?

>>You don't even know what are our reasons to believe that and doubt evolution. You think evolution is all that? We need not even wait til we get to Heaven and you'd be surprised.<<

JK- Wht r ur reasons tell me? Ive brought up tons of evidence and u havnt even shown whilst one of it doesnt make sense?

>>And as I've said before, I seriously doubt your 'majority' statistics anyways...<<

JK- Wht can i say!

jonnykzj said...

@Zack tiang

>>You never need to. Your actions and behavior spoke loudly enough.<<

JK- then i guess ur the one who misunderstood me too.

>>I know full well that you do... but you didn't seem to allow such flexibility for 'literal Creationists', and THAT was my point.
See how you aren't able to grasp what others are saying?<<

JK- If i made it appear tht way. which was not my intention, then i once again without probs acknowledge tht i made a mistake. However i still dont agree as to wht parts they take literally BUT i wld never go as far to say they r not true Christians therefore.

>>I can EASILY claim the same thing for those who accept a literal Creation account... "Many thoughtful theologians worldwide have worked this out and they see no reason to believe anything else but a literal creation account of Genesis"..
And I can recommend you a few too; Kent Hovind (drdino.com), Chuck Missler (khouse.org)...
Search their videos and seminars online and if you actually bother to check out what they have to share about literal creationism, I think you may just change your mind about your evolution.<<

JK- Even though i strongly disagree with Hovind, and beleive me ive seen almost all of his debates n analysed many pts, id also not say he's a fake Christian. NOW PLZ LISTEN TO THIS very carefully. Go and watch the following debate of Hovind vs Dr. James Paulson, and again IF uve already seen it. NOTICE THEPART when Dr. Paul, who is a Christian too, CLEARLY EXPLAINS tht "dolphins and mice SHARE MORE SIMILARITIES IN ALL GENES as compared to dolphins and sharks. IF direct creation was true wed expect dolpßhins to be similar IN AT LEAST SOME GENES TO SHARKS THAN MICE BUT THIS ISNT TH CASE". THIS is also wht ive been trying to make clear to Donna60 if u looked at my discussion with her. Hovind never answered this. ALSO note the example Dr. Paul gives with the "light bulp" and "nuclear power plant". SO IF u watch this debate beyond the rhetoric ull see these pts clearly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ7bfNlfJ0M


>>And what makes you and your "many theologians" authoritative to declare what is to be taken literally, and what allegorically? <<

JK- Independent study of REALITY i.e. the scientists who've studied biology and unanimously agree upon common ancestry being true perhaps?

>>Here's an interesting challenge I have for you...
Do you accept the 7 days of creation in Genesis as literally seven 24-hour periods of time?<<

JK- NO n this shows me u didnt read wht is in the links i provided regarding this issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_%28Genesis%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis#Days_of_creation

jonnykzj said...

@Sam

I forgot to reply to this post of urs:

>>Quoting the Bible is circular reasoning just because it won't appeal to an atheist and yet appealing to some external argument is crucial for determining whether something is morally good which you erroneously assume an atheist will automatically accept? <<

JK- UVE JUST effectively rendered most of David Wood's argument against muslims void. True, he does say morality is not all an issue for him BUT it is a big part. HOW can u convince a muslim to accept tht their morality is wrong just by an appeal to the Bible IF THEY DONT ALREADY REALIZE WITHIN THEMSELVES N THEIR ENVRONEMENT tht wht the Bible preaches abt morals is beneficial to them? OFCOURSE theyd have to realize this first. Otherwise the Bible wld never appeal to them. GET IT? Other than tht the Bible is also historically sound WHICH IS ALSO ONE OF THE MAIN reasons David acceted it in the first place. This also takes place by comparison with wriings e.g. Josephus INDEPENDENT OF THE BIBLE.

>>This not only shows that you really don't know the Bible or what a circular argument actually is, it also shows that you sound exactly a God-denying atheist would say?<<

JK- Wht can i say!

>>More importantly, who are you trying appease, atheists or the triune God? It is obvious, since your assault against the Holy Bible clearly shows who you truly bow down to.<<

JK- Ive only assaulted the Holy Bible IN UR MIND, NOT IN MINE N ALSO NOT IN THE MIND OF MANY THEOLOGIANS n CHRISTIANS WHO ALL have accepted Christ as heir savior N agree the Bible does not contradict evolution.

>>Anyway, before I put a hole in your claim that an external authority is needed, I will first wait for you to answer my specific question concerning Adam and Eve.<<

JK- I did tht.

jonnykzj said...

@Sam

>>Zack, don't waste your time on Johnny since you are feeding his ego and need for attention. After he finishes with my questions I am going to get Wood to ban him from flooding each and every post with a plethora of texts that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.<<

JK- Let's see if u just want to ban me for the sake of it or r u at least willing to dicsuss the issues further with me through email exchange? my email is jonnykzjAThotmailDOTcom

jonnykzj said...

@Sam again

Here let me explain the moral issue again, which was our basic point of discussion before u brought up evolution. NOW i completely understand that many Christians claim morals are objective coz they reflect the very nature of GOD. I however argue tht this does not automatically make them objective. For example someone can say, just coz something happens to be GOD's Nature, n tht too he/shed cld claim to be arbitrary, why shld he/she follow it? I know ud say coz it is also fnd within him/herself BUT tht can also be argued for DNA and so he/shed argue ok but just coz GOD's image is being reflected in me WHY SHLD I follow tht? AND INDEED say if GOD, GOD forbid, had been a god who was ANTIO social, whose nature consisted of hate and demanding constant say physical sacrificial acts from humans, it wldnt be appealing at all given tht it is totally against our preservation interests at large. SO IN CONCLUSION we find the true GOD IN THE FIRST PLACE by comparing His Nature to what best caters to our well being and interests in the long run. IRONICALLY MOST, IF NOT ALL, CHRISTIANS ive ever heard do this themselves in any argument especially against islam. But when they argue against atheists/agnostics, many change their format of argument entirely. there they ignore everything regarding well being and protection of humans interests at large. THIS IS wht i wanted to pt out such tht we remain consistent always no mater who we're addressing. SEE MY PT NOW?

Zack_Tiang said...

"JK- I personally see probs with it yes BUT i dont label u or other ppl not true Christians whilst Sam did this with me. See the difference?"

Now that is red herring, JK. What I was talking about had nothing to do with labeling anyone.

--

"JK- OH, OH IC im not tht experienced? Now isnt tht arrogant to say the least?"

It's called being knowledgeable and experienced in the study of the scriptures and Christianity, JK.
I consider this more of senior-ship, than anything else.
If you want to call it arrogance, go right ahead and maintain your non-humble attitude.
Funny you still seem to not understand why I say, "Ask & question, not object and reject"... tsk tsk tsk.

Look at it this way... here is Sam, someone who has been CHristian for some decades, with long history of research and study of the scriptures... and myself (with at least 2 years of studying the scriptures)... and then yourself (with about one month of serious study of the scriptures and Christianity)...
And you call us arrogant? Look who's talking.

--

"JK- Ive known alot abt the Bible before tht as well. Sure i was confused abt the doctrines of christianity but even those i do undersstand now pretty well. HOWEVER ive also got considerable knowledge of science and evolution and as to why it is extremely unlikely tht it is not true. SO I ASK one can either 1) deny reality OR 2) say tht GOD made it look in nature AS IF COMMON ANCESTRY IS TRUE but He just deceived us? N JUST LIKE KEN MILLER I DO NOT BELIEVE in a deceptive god."

I doubt you've bothered to get to know the biblical arguments against evolution and such... So until you do, there's no point arguing with you about that.
I'll just say, Satan is the father of all lies....

--

"JK- Again ure showing ur arrogance here by comparing my knowledge to tht of a child or worse a baby's."

I see you still like to chop people's comments and make them seem like standalone comments...
I don't know why you always want to take what people said out of context. Tsk tsk tsk.

--

"JK- I said this coz i dont wanna appear arrogant. Otherwise i believe tht i have considerbale knowledge BUT THERE R GREAT THEOLOGIANS who have a much greater understanding.

So... in other words... you do believe you have 'much' knowledge, but just that you don't want to appear arrogant?

And funny, I did not see you answer "why must you 'argue' any case?"

Zack_Tiang said...

"JK- It appears to me tht it is u who're tending more towards "know-it-all" then me from wht iv read so far."

Because I have done my research... of BOTH sides of the coin... and I have made my own conclusion with what I understand of the scriptures, not of what someone else tells me of the scriptures.
And when I am not familiar with a particular subject, I ask and question to gain a better understanding before making any conclusions.. not object and reject upfront.

That's what it means to be an objective seeker and advocate of truth.

Even if you were a two-year-old Christian, with your current method of studying Christianity/scriptures, I still wouldn't trust your gathered knowledge, because they are bias and one-sided. You have not shown your objectiveness in your study as you only study one-side and just plainly reject the other without taking the time to study further.

--

"JK- k wht abt the majority of theologians? IF U STILL insist on ur position rnt u being arrogant COZ IT ASSUMES u know the Bible and reality better than the rest of the ppl. Now tell me how does tht work?"

It means I disagree with their interpretation of the bible, JK. And it ain't like I'm alone where I am or am only with Sam here, but there are plenty of theologians who also hold that position and I've named a couple for you (because they are who I have learned from much).
Again, you have not even bothered to get to know the other side's arguments and you immediately rejected them. Tell me how does that work.

--

"JK- Wht r ur reasons tell me? Ive brought up tons of evidence and u havnt even shown whilst one of it doesnt make sense? "

Reason why i didn't, is because this ain't the topic nor the place for such discussions.
I suggest you find the videos and seminars of the two names I gave you; Kent Hovind, Chuck Missler.

--

"JK- then i guess ur the one who misunderstood me too."

Go ahead and ask everyone else. =)

Zack_Tiang said...

"JK- If i made it appear tht way. which was not my intention, then i once again without probs acknowledge tht i made a mistake. However i still dont agree as to wht parts they take literally BUT i wld never go as far to say they r not true Christians therefore."

You made it appear that way?
You likened Creationist's literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account to that of describing God as literally and physically light.
And you are perplexed to why I have a problem with your method of studying the scriptures and Christianity?

Again, red herring. It was not me to had any issue of you being a true Christian or not. I just hold the opinion that you are very poor in your studying of the scriptures and are not objective at all in your study of the scriptures and when discussing about it with others who hold a different view than your own.

--

"JK- Even though i strongly disagree with Hovind, and beleive me ive seen almost all of his debates n analysed many pts, id also not say he's a fake Christian."

I did not learn from Kent Hovind's debates... I learned from his seminars. There's limited time to share one's knowledge and evidence in a debate... but given a whole session dedicated for teaching, one can share a lot more with supporting evidence (especially from the bible), etc.
Try finding Hovind's seminar videos, not debate videos.
Again, this is not about convincing you to join over our side... but just a matter of being objective in your study and at least get to know the arguments and evidences that we have to believe what we believe.

--

"JK- Independent study of REALITY i.e. the scientists who've studied biology and unanimously agree upon common ancestry being true perhaps?"

Oh... so knowledge outside of the bible gives you authority to determine how to interpret the bible?
I never knew that's how Christianity or the bible works.

--

"JK- NO n this shows me u didnt read wht is in the links i provided regarding this issue:"

Really? Then take it up with God.

Exodus 20:8-11
(8) "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
(9) Six days you shall labor, and do all your work,
(10) but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

So... who has the better evidence..
the one who quoted the bible...
or the one who quoted Wikipedia?

Sam said...

Johnny, after you answer this follow up question I am going to have you banned from flooding each topic with posts that are irrelevant to the discussion. I know this is going to be tough for your ego that people smarter than you, who know science and the Bible better than you are not buying into your Christ-dishonoring, Bible-assaulting arguments or think you are the Savior of atheists since now because of you all atheists will finally believe in Christianity.

Anyway, here is what you say in response to my question whether you believe that the story of Cain murdering Abel actually place:

JK- Im not too sure abt Cain and Abel so i cant comment on tht right now...

Now make sure to read my reply in the next post.

Sam said...

Here is my answer to Johnny's reply to my question.

First, this only shows that you have no business talking about these issues because you don't know much about the Bible (or science for that matter).

Second, make sure to ponder over these texts:

"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, FROM THE BLOOD OF RIGHTEOUS ABEL to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation." Matthew 23:34-36

"For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, so that the blood of all the prophets, SHED SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, may be charged against this generation, FROM THE THE BLOOD OF ABEL to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.’" Luke 11:49-51

Here, Jesus says that the judgment for shedding the blood of all the righteous and innocent individuals/prophets was going to fall on his generation. He lists Abel as one of the righteous who was murdered unjustly.

Now this creates major problems for your religion of macro-evolution and your false prophet Charles Darwin.

Here are your options:

1. Jesus is confirming the Genesis account of creation and that which follows as historical, and not something mythical or allegorical. He believed that Cain and Abel truly existed and that Cain truly murdered Abel. However you can't have Cain and Eve without Adam and Eve.

2. Jesus was simply quoting a story which the Jews believed but which he himself did not think was historical. The problem with this view is that this makes Jesus out to be a deceiver and wicked (God forbid such blasphemy!) since he is holding people accountable for a murder which he knew never took place!

3. Jesus didn't know that this event never took place. The problem with this view is that this destroys his perfect Deity and the perfect union of the Godhead. It implies that Jesus is not omniscient and that he could hold to mistaken views, especially concerning events in the past. However, if he could be mistaken about the past then how can we trust him about the future? And what does this say about the Father and the Holy Spirit who allowed Jesus to condemn people for a murder which never took place?

4. Matthew and Luke created this pericope since Jesus never uttered these words. The problem with this view is that this casts doubt on the honesty and reliability of the Gospels since it shows that these writers simply made up speeches of Christ, thereby casting doubt on the rest of their reports concerning Jesus' sayings and deed.

So Johnny boy, no matter position you won't be able to pretend that one can be a Christian and believe in macroevolution.

BTW, I am no reading your posts since I have no interest in feeding your megalomania. It became obvious to me (an others) that you can't represent your opponent's pointed accurately and that you don't comprehend too well. Now even though Zack Tiang is schooling you I am going to encourage him not to waste anymore time on you.

And you have been warned. If you keep flooding the comments section with the gospel of your prophets Darwin and Harris you will be banned.

Dk said...

Sam was never able to deal with non-Muslim groups as good as Muslims. Here he spends all this time attacking a fellow-Christian yet the bottom line is Sam, your accusation against this dude is trash. The only pre-requisite to be a Christian is to believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, the incarnation and divinity of the Holy Trinity (these criterion are almost all explicitly stated in the Biblical Texts). And this guy accepts those dogmas. How he constructs his moral world view whether it's dependent or independent on this is a non-essential.

Sam in his usual domineering self also threatens to have this guy banned because he's off topic, when this forum often gets off-topic, happens regularly and almost to be expected when dealing with these issues as Christians and non-Christians together attack the fallacy of Islam, yet clearly we always have an on-going debate: Is Islamic thought closer to Agnosticism/Atheism or Christianity.

As for the claims that somehow Christian Theism absolves all the moral dilemmas that Atheism has, this is all presupposition. Or how it can give us a plausible moral world view, lets see...

How does having "objective" or "absolute" commands means an act is "essentially moral".

Objective simple means "independent of human beings". Yet morality is NOT independent of human beings. In order for morality to exist we need human beings to exist. Morality is certainly related to how "humans" treat one another, as indicated by the golden rule. Say only God existed, morality then could not exist, because God cannot murder God, God cannot steal from himself, God cannot lie to himself, God cannot experience torment or suffering as he is absolute self-love. So morality doesn't even concretely exist unless we have several conditions first 1) the ability to experience pleasure and suffering 2) intention to cause suffering 3) morally accountable/ conscious beings 4) entities separate from each other

(mind you these are not the only conditions but some obvious ones).

So far:

1) Morality is not independent of humanity

2) Morality therefore is not objective but rather dependent.

Dk said...

Sam also claims that Christian morality is ABSOLUTE, meaning it is has a total and complete solid foundation and grounded in eternal absolute love and goodness.

First of all you can't merely assume an eternal source of absolute lovingness and goodness exists. Unless of course you can prove it is a necessary assumption, an unavoidable assumption which we don't even have a choice in making, an axiom e.g. such as the unavoidable assumption I exist.

But presuppositionalists like Sam have failed to do this. Surely they claim a transcendent super-mind is necessary for the universality of logic, morality and science yet they have not explained how the universe *cannot* provide it, and how God is exempt from things like the problem of induction.

They merely add another layer to explain the problem away, but unfortunately they never explain how exactly is God exempt from the very same problem the universe has, they just define the problem out of existance! Yet the problem in it's core actually still exists, let me explain:

An example of pressupositionalist reasoning:

Atheist: "Okay so induction is an assumption, now how is God exempt from this?"

Pressup: "Well because in eternity there is no future or past, so we don't have to assume the future will be like the past because neither exist"

Atheist: "So it seems to be like your answer is: God is exempt from induction because well... HE IS exempt from induction, there is no time for induction to exist in"

Once again proving the circular reasoning. God is exempt from this problem because the problem doesn't exist where God lives!

Unfortunately this is not an answer at all, anyone can define the problem out of existence.

Now the next problem is: How does Theism account for induction phenomenon better than Atheism?

First theism...Why would the future have to look like the past if God exists? Does God have to make his creations consistent and predictable? (clearly not since even theists think non-theists are inconsistent). Is God itself consistent and predictable? Another unnessacery assumption. How do we know that? We have to make the very same *assumption* about God, that we do the universe.

So the universe is consistent and predictable because GOD is consistent and predictable. Yet how do we know the universe really is consistent and predictable? we cannot know, this is the very assumption we have about it known as induction. What about the same claim about God, how do we *know* God is consistent and predictable? Again like the universe, this is a WORKING assumption, something that cannot actually be demonstrated, only assumed. We might not call the problem "induction" when it comes to God since Theists want to play the issue of semantics "past/future", but essentially the same problem exists. How do we know God is consistent and predictable, especially when there is no space, time and matter for "action" to exist in, then there is no action or motion to make where he could be SHOWN to be consistent and predictable, and hence we could make the assumption "well he has shown consistency in the past, so he might do in the future".

So theism in fact has all the same assumptions as atheism. That God is consistent and predictable like the universe. They don't explain the phenomena away with God, they merely "add a layer". And a totally unnecessary layer.

So no God is not axiomatic knowledge. Meaning God is not a *necessary/unavoidable* self evident knowledge/assumption. Rather God is an unnecessary assumption, contrary to what pressupositionalists think.

Sam said...

Just one last thing. Sorry for all the typos. I rushed through writing these posts and tried to correct as many as I could find, but obviously I missed a ton.

jonnykzj said...

@Sam again

Let me add something i forgot regarding Cain which also supports i believe theistic evolution. It is the verse later on in Genesis where it says that Cain knew his wife. NOW that seems out of the blue n is perhaps A SUBTLE INDICATION tht there were already tribes of other ppl there not necessarily PHYSICALLY(and this is important) descendent from Adam and Eve. 1st of all this solves the problem of incest and the absurdity that living organisms like mammals can survive such a HUGE BOTTLENECK which is hard for even reptiles. The Cheetah was almost wiped out coz of such n there were still many 100s of Cheetahs, not just 2, if not more from which the ones today surived n repopulated. It has suffered greatly genetically coz of this. NOW the 2nd problem is how to solve that we're all still descendant from Adam and Ev. Well what cldbe happened is that like i said Adam and Eve were the first completed humans whom God labelled as such, with other structurally 99.9% or so human bodies arnd. What now remained to make those human was perhaps for a decendent of Adam like Cain or Abel to talk or communicate with them n hence now these also attained the last buit needed to be spirtually human, THUS SPIRITUALLY those were now descendants of adam and Eve. BUT it continues. ALL the other 99.9% bodily "humans" dies out(lived their lifes but without spreading their genes) WHILST ONLY THOSE which contained the seed of Adam and Eve survived and from those we have all humans we have today. NOT saying this is exactly how it happened but it sure solves alot of probs is not inconsistent with scripture, solves the prob of incest completely n can be in complete harmony with science.

Sam said...

Thank you Johnny for doing what you normally do by either ignoring or distorting the statements of your opponents, and for also ignoring everything I wrote concerning Jesus' endorsement of the Cain and Abel story.

Sam said...

This to DK-man. You still have the nerve to show up after the spanking you took from Anthony Rogers over here? http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6590312557191237519&postID=3056562796426415489

And instead of trying to wax eloquent here, and in the process make Muhammadan apologists look actually intelligent and consistent, make sure to bring your "reply" to me in my room on Paltalk so we can really have some fun at your expense.

What makes your response rather hilarious you ended up doing what I said militant atheists such as yourself do, specifically, steal from our worldview in order to attack it. For instance, your "rebuttal" presupposed the validity of logical thinking which you used to show why the arguments by presuppositionalists are fallacious and do nothing to solve the problem, even though you cannot account for the existence of logic or why it is a valid means of determining whether something is true or not.

Let me remind you of what one of your own militant atheist brothers said awhile back:

In short, in the same way which we use inductive reasoning to demonstrate the truth or falsity of a claim. As David Hume showed, there is no logical reason why the future should resemble the past, and thus whenever we believe, say, that the sun will rise tomorrow, this is not based on any objective certainty but rather on the fact that we have experienced many sun rises in the past and that it is ingrained in our psychology to believe that because this has happened in the past it will continue to happen in the future.

In the same way the inductive principle is demonstrably a tool of the human mind AND NOT SOMETHING THAT'S INHERENTLY TRUE about the universe, logical principles are tools of the human mind and not objective parts of the universe. And to answer your original query in full, we cannot determine the truth or falsity of a claim, we cannot prove anything to be true knowledge. We live in a world in which all decision comes down ultimately to dogmatism AND SUBJECTIVITY. And to answer your original query in full, WE CANNOT DETERMINE the truth or falsity of a claim, WE CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING to be true knowledge. We live in a world in which all decision comes down ultimately to dogmatism and SUBJECTIVITY.. And although you might think this invalidates my criticism of arguments for God's existence, even if it does it also invalidates arguments for God's existence, and thus throws us back into the realm of uncertainty and faith, as is the case with tooth-fairies, santa-clause, flying spaghetti monsters, the greek pantheon of gods, etc.
(http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/03/david-wood-vs-john-w-loftus-does-god.html?showComment=1274750054342#c4236080685358367794)

In light of this candid admission from your brother in arms how dare you try to use logical reasoning to prove or falsify anything anyone says, you hypocrite?

Boy I love it when atheist pwn their own, especially those atheists who try to pretend to be intelligent when they can't even account for intelligence!!!!

Now DK, when I see you in the room make sure you are ready to come up with a reason (there goes that word again) for your use of logical reasoning, which shows that you presuppose the objective existence of metaphysical realities which you cannot account for in light of naturalistic, materialistic worldview.

Sam said...

BTW Zack, here is another link to add to the ones you listed which show that macroevolution is a lie: http://evolutionimpossible.com/

jonnykzj said...

@Sam

First of all WHERE r my other responses to you and to Zack? I wrote much more but only this last part went through? NOW onto ur reply:

>>Thank you Johnny for doing what you normally do by either ignoring or distorting the statements of your opponents, and for also ignoring everything I wrote concerning Jesus' endorsement of the Cain and Abel story.<<

JK- I RESPONDED TO IT PT BY PT. It did go through. Here let me post it again then:

>>Here is my answer to Johnny's reply to my question.

First, this only shows that you have no business talking about these issues because you don't know much about the Bible (or science for that matter).<<

JK- I know alot abt science beleive me. HOWEVER if ure so stubborn n insist tht wht im saying reg science is wrong GO OUT n visit the biologists n see wht theyll tell u. IVE even offered to come with u.

>>Second, make sure to ponder over these texts:

"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, FROM THE BLOOD OF RIGHTEOUS ABEL to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation." Matthew 23:34-36

"For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, so that the blood of all the prophets, SHED SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, may be charged against this generation, FROM THE THE BLOOD OF ABEL to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.’" Luke 11:49-51

Here, Jesus says that the judgment for shedding the blood of all the righteous and innocent individuals/prophets was going to fall on his generation. He lists Abel as one of the righteous who was murdered unjustly.

Now this creates major problems for your religion of macro-evolution and your false prophet Charles Darwin.<<

JK- Stop calling ppl my prophets. NOW how does this create probs for common anncestry?

>>Here are your options:

1. Jesus is confirming the Genesis account of creation and that which follows as historical, and not something mythical or allegorical. He believed that Cain and Abel truly existed and that Cain truly murdered Abel. However you can't have Cain and Eve without Adam and Eve.<<

JK- Ok i also gave the option earlier tht it is still possible(n actually i tend more towards tht myself) tht all these r real ppl BUT THE CREATION ACCNT IN GENESIS i do not take lieteral, just like Augustine didn't. I mean wht r u not getting here?
...

jonnykzj said...

...
>>2. Jesus was simply quoting a story which the Jews believed but which he himself did not think was historical. The problem with this view is that this makes Jesus out to be a deceiver and wicked (God forbid such blasphemy!) since he is holding people accountable for a murder which he knew never took place!<<

JK- Same as above. BUT id like to add tht some theologians who also accept evo n beleive tht the ppl themslves r allegorical CLD HAVE REASONS as to why Jesus said this. U SHLDNT BE arrogant n think tht just coz u dont know how this cld be or understand it this means nobody can or ever has. IM ALSO WILLING to call n find such theologians n then lets discuss it with them.

>>3. Jesus didn't know that this event never took place. The problem with this view is that this destroys his perfect Deity and the perfect union of the Godhead. It implies that Jesus is not omniscient and that he could hold to mistaken views, especially concerning events in the past. However, if he could be mistaken about the past then how can we trust him about the future? And what does this say about the Father and the Holy Spirit who allowed Jesus to condemn people for a murder which never took place?<<

JK- This is not an option for me. ALTHOUGH ID ADD tht GOD can limit His own knowledge, whilst retaining the full potential to gain it back at any time, whenever He chooses to.

>>4. Matthew and Luke created this pericope since Jesus never uttered these words. The problem with this view is that this casts doubt on the honesty and reliability of the Gospels since it shows that these writers simply made up speeches of Christ, thereby casting doubt on the rest of their reports concerning Jesus' sayings and deed.<<

JK- Not an option for me.

>>So Johnny boy, no matter position you won't be able to pretend that one can be a Christian and believe in macroevolution.<<

JK- Oh but as u can see i did answer. NOW ANSWER MY ABOVE QS IN THE FIRST REPLY PLZ AS WELL.

>>BTW, I am no reading your posts since I have no interest in feeding your megalomania. It became obvious to me (an others) that you can't represent your opponent's pointed accurately and that you don't comprehend too well. Now even though Zack Tiang is schooling you I am going to encourage him not to waste anymore time on you.<<

JK- Oh isnt tht arrogance at it's finest!

>>And you have been warned. If you keep flooding the comments section with the gospel of your prophets Darwin and Harris you will be banned.<<

JK- I only now reply to ppl's comments when i find ive to object to something they stated or give additional info reg wht they mentioned.

jonnykzj said...

@Sam again

Since u posted a link supposedly showing tht macro evolution is a lie, which is perfectly fine, SO LONG AS U ALSO ALLOW FOR THE COUNTER EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF EVO to be seen. Here r the links:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
and specifically:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

jonnykzj said...

@Sam and all Christians

BTW i just had a very nice face to face discussion with a protestant Theologian and Pastor in my hometown in Germany. We were in Church and touched various topics N AMAZINGLY HE TOO NEVER HAD ANY problems acepting the old age of the earth PLUS macro evolution NEITHER DID he encounter any pastors or theologians who were against such. He also made it clear just like ive thght tht creationists, whom he was aware of, also do not take everything literally so why then insist on those particular passages reg creation? His pts seem very vaid whilst on the trinity he made it clear to me tht the Churches r almost all in harmony with different allegories to appx it etc ALL IN LINE wht we know. NOW i forgot to ask him whether he speaks english n if so i might wanna ask him to chat with u SAM? How abt tht?

jonnykzj said...

@Sam again

In ur reply to DK u stated amongst other things:

>>In light of this candid admission from your brother(im not going to quote it here but u can read it above) in arms how dare you try to use logical reasoning to prove or falsify anything anyone says, you hypocrite?<<

JK- Dont u c that the axiom is OUR SHARED REALITY where we have to start with? All the terms logic, reason etc derive from tht PRIMARILY. GOD is realized ONLY LATER. It is NOT WISE to start of with GOD as the axiom FOR IF U DO the muslims or other religious grps CAN then say WHO R U CHRISTIANS N UR CORRUPT SCRIPTURES TO SAY THT GOD IS LOVE or tht He demands such n such moral behavior?
THE MORALITY HAS TO BE SHOWN TO THEM WITHIN THEMSELVES N WITHIN OUR "SHARED REALITY". This is exactly wht David Wood is doing and most Christians for tht matter BUT WHEN THEY argue this issue they claim otherwise. plz think abt this.

Royal Son said...

DK - You say that morals are not independant of human beings but never actually explained how this is so.

From a naturalistic worldview such as what you have, is not everything pretty much just reduced to chemical reactions?

What value therefore is there for moral values according to your understanding? The delayed extinction of a particular molecular superstructure (species)?

Since you believe that moral values are subjective, are you conceding that you cannot really argue against the morality as taught in the bible, since you only have access to your own subjective morality and not that of those living some thousands of years ago?

Furthermore, would you concede that in the context of the cultures and times when the events took place, the morality could most certainly have been of the highest standard?

Note: I am not suggesting that one has to appeal to a changing morality based upon changing culture in order to defend the precepts of the bible. I am simply pointing out that you only have access to your own personal subjective morality.

Since your morality is subjective, does it change depending on your mood, your circle of influence, events in your life, etc?

Btw guys, I think we can try to disagree in a more agreeable fashion. It is a bit off-putting when dialogue turns into a mud slinging contest. Sometimes it's not even a contest but one side constantly dumps on the other.

I believe atheism is wholly irrational, but I think we can let our arguments win the day, because insults never will.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Traeh said...

To a book by David, I would donate. To a book by Sam, reluctantly. Before Sam got into the Bible, he must have been a boxer or brawler, the way he talks to people who disagree with him, he sounds exactly as if he's roughing them up. I wonder if he knows the distinction between conversation and Biff! Bap! "I'll squash you like a bug." So incredibly pugnacious and pugilistic, to a ridiculous extent. He's a perfect example of the kind of bully who always finds a reason to be offended, so he can have a pretext to be aggressive and go on the offensive against others. I don't care if he has every single word of the Greek Bible memorized backwards and forwards. His self-knowledge is terribly limited. In his case, it's not so much the Bible speaking as some kind of glandular secretion. Maybe he should see a doctor for some kind of hormonal therapy. But wait a minute! Sam's got God on his side, that's why Sam's entitled to treat you like a bug if you disagree with him. Of course, he does it out of "love" for you, you puny insect you.

Probably no word has been more abused than "love."

David Wood said...

Traeh,

Sam is Assyrian, born in the Middle East. His entire family is Assyrian. Here's an interesting research project: What have Muslims done to the Assyrians over the past fourteen centuries? Should give you some insight into why Assyrians don't live up to your standards when they critique Islam.

Traeh said...

Ok, David, but I wasn't responding to his critique of Islam. I was responding to Sam's conversation on this thread with someone who did not agree with Sam about whether a Christian can believe in evolution. Also to his general style of argument, never mind with whom.

I'm just glad he's not with the Muslims.

Maybe I should be less harsh. But I think I hit the nail more or less on the head in what I wrote in my above comment.

Sam said...

Traeh, I am going to go on a limb here and say that you too hold to theistic evolution. I hope I am wrong.

And thank you for telling us how you would spend your money. It is pretty petty on your part to use donations as a way of getting people to do things your way. What was that about being a bully?

Make sure you are consistent in not wanting to support a book co-authored by me by never reading any of my articles or viewing any of my lectures or debates. I would greatly appreciate that.

Derek Adams said...

As this website is not exclusively devoted to Atheist/Theist quarrels Sam, I have addressed you and Anthony's arguments over here if anyone wants to continue in the comment section, no one will be censored:

http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/01/answering-muslims-debate-will-real.html

Derek Adams
www.AnsweringAbraham.com