Monday, October 14, 2013

The Toilets of Satan!

The following video taps into the rich pool of wisdom that wells up and flows from the Islamic sources. If the demonstrably otherworldly insight of Muhammad, a seventh century Arab that Muslims purport to have been illiterate and otherwise unresourceful in himself, is not obvious to you after watching this video, then little else can be expected to get through to you.

 

12 comments:

Sis said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_ADabJKu48

BM200032 said...

It's amazing what blind faith does to people...

They won't accept evolution, something proven and demonstrated by science with the skeletons and DNA there for the world to see...

But when allah, muhammeds alter-ego tells them that he turned jews into apes and pigs for fishing on the Sabbath, all of a sudden "mashallah, its true! how beautiful!"

allah needs to re-take 1st grade science...

Deleting said...

BM200032 said, "They won't accept evolution, something proven and demonstrated by science with the skeletons and DNA there for the world to see..."

What's the proof of evolution when there's yet to be conclusive proof featuring skeletons showing various states of transitioning between one form and the next?

bob said...

Luther was not wrong when he wrote:


“I am convinced that nothing more irksome and harmful could possibly be done to Mohammed or the Turks [Islam] (more than with all weapons) than the publication among Christians of their Koran. By reading it Christians may see what an utterly accursed, shameful, wretched book it is – full of lies, fables, and all abominations… Therefore my kind and Christian petition to you, my gracious and dear sirs, is: Be pleased to allow this book freely to circulate, without hindrance, for the glory of Christ, for the good of Christians, for the harm of the Turks, and to the disgust of the devil.”


A letter from Martin Luther to the city council of Basel on October 24, 1542 (from: What Luther Says, by Ewald M. Plass, page 961)."

hugh watt said...

"They won't accept evolution, something proven and demonstrated by science with the skeletons and DNA there for the world to see..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

Walter Sieruk said...

The early Christian Church had the Gospel of Christ, First Corinthians 15:1-8. In contrast, what Muhammad gave the world was the Quran which ,in reality, is another gospel. Muhammad even claimed, at times,to get this information that eventually went into the composition of the Quran through an angel to help make the Quran[another gosple]. Such a thing was forseen and warned about in the Bible. For the Bible reads "Though we,or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you let him be accursed. As we said before, so I say now again, if any man preach any other gosple unto you than ye have recived, let him be accursed." [KJV]

Mike said...

Anthony, considering the joke of an apologetic methodology to which you subscribe, why should we take anything from you seriously? Yeah, Islam is pretty ridiculous, but so is presuppositionalism. You just presuppose that your particular version of Christianity is true and refuse to provide evidence for your assertions. Well, I think your methods are ridiculous. Take the exodus story as told in the Bible. The consensus of the scholarly archaeological community is that the exodus story, as told in the Bible at least, did not happen. Well, I'll take the scholarly assessment of exodus over your presupposition that the exodus must have happened because "it's in the word of god and the word of god cannot lie." Is that not your argument? Let me guess. Do you believe that there's a firmament above the earth as the Bible says....because the Bible says and you presuppose the Bible to be true because it's the word of God? Gotta love circular reasoning! That what your beloved presuppositionalism is!

kiwimac said...

Hey, It was worth it just to see Bill Murray get Slimed again!!

David Wood said...

Mike said: "You just presuppose that your particular version of Christianity is true and refuse to provide evidence for your assertions. Well, I think your methods are ridiculous."

It's funny when someone who has no understanding of presuppositionalist apologetics condemns the approach based on his own ignorance of the approach.

Anthony Rogers said...

Mike said: "That [sic] what your beloved presuppositionalism is!"

As David said, what you described is miles apart from the methodology to which I subscribe. In fact, it looks to me like you heard the word "presupposition" and you presupposed it meant all the ridiculous things you imputed to it without good evidence. In this you have fallen into the pit you dug for me. Don't you look like a goof.

There are those who take an approach that roughly approximates the one you attribute to me, e.g. the late Gordon Clark, John Robbins, et. al., who reject the basic reliability of sense perception and reject all empirical methods, but you have no evidence that this is my approach to things. It is somewhat unfortunate that the methodology became saddled with this word (i.e. "presuppositionalism") early on given that it is susceptible to different meanings, and not just the one you sophomorically presupposed or the one I actually hold, but for better or worse we are pretty well stuck with it and can only hope we do a good enough job educating neophytes like yourself and making it clear to them that their unnuanced understanding of these matters is not commensurate with the level of bombast that they display when talking about this subject.

I would love to say more, but I have more pressing matters to attend to at the moment since I am going to Arizona to speak to your equally ridiculous religious counter-parts in Arizona. I am sorry that you ended up looking like such a dolt, but take this as a lesson to be careful next time not to fall into a pit that you dig for someone else.

Mike said...

Actually, David and Anthony, I've read Greg Bahnsen's "Always Ready" and other sources onpresuppositionalism. Perhaps you guys don't like it that I exposed how ridiculous and fraudulent your preferred apologetic methodology is and because you can't defend yourself, you guys resort to the ad hominem fallacy by calling me names. Hey, go ahead and call me a "neophyte", but you guys are the ones who look like dolts by believing ridiculous things. So, if I am such a "dolt", please correct me. Will you be providing actual evidence for your assertions? Let's take the example I used earlier, which was the Exodus story. Please provide evidence that the scholarly archaeological community is wrong and that the Exodus, as described in the Bible is not myth but actual historical fact as certain as the assassination of JFK. Come on Dave and Tony, if you guys are going to talk tough, back it up! Hey, Anthony, it's not my fault your belief system is so faulty. I can see I'm getting in your head. Your temper tantum was hilarious! Sorry you got owned....but you did!!!!! LOL!

David Wood said...

Hmmm. So (1) Mike claims that he's studied presuppositionalist apologetics, and yet (2) his statement about presuppositionalist apologetics is completely inaccurate. This means either (a) Mike doesn't understand what he studies, or (b) he is deliberately misrepresenting presuppositionalist apologetics.

Mike takes the presuppositional approach as "I'm going to presuppose Christianity. There! Case closed! I win!" Funny, I don't hear presuppositionalists making this argument.

Though presuppositionalist apologetics takes several forms, a common approach runs as follows: When we reason, or debate, or discuss, etc., we PRESUPPOSE certain things (e.g. logical laws, objective moral values, the dignity of human persons, the uniformity of nature, etc.). But the collection of things that are presupposed in our reasoning (and other human experience) only makes sense on the Christian worldview. That is, opposing world views cannot be true because they cannot account for basic human experience and reasoning. Hence, we stand on Christianity, because there's nowhere else to stand.

If Mike has studied presuppositionalist apologetics, then he knows this. Why, then, deliberately misrepresent the presuppositionalist approach as "I'm presupposing Christianity without any evidence"?