Thursday, October 30, 2014

Paul Beliar Williams - Part 4

Paul Belial Williams originally (wrongly) claimed that Christians are tritheistic polytheists. He now (wrongly) claims we are modalistic unitarians. Notwithstanding his new error, since his present claim (i.e. Christians are unitarians) gives the lie to his original claim (Christians are polytheists), he now agrees with me that his original claim was a lie.

It would be nice if the above admission were an indication that PW is repentant. Instead, it is just an example of what happens to habitual liars: eventually they get caught in their own craftiness and wander into self-contradiction. PW seems to suffer from the same sickness as the author(s) of the Qur’an, who also could not seem to agree on whether or not Christians are monotheists (Q. 5:5 cf. 2:221) or polytheists (9:28-33).

In his invincible ignorance, PW thinks that his change of mind is an indication that I reject the Athanasian Creed. He seems to deduce this from the following syllogism:

P1: I (PW) believe the Athanasian Creed teaches Social Trinitarianism.
P2: Anthony rejects Social Trinitarianism in favor of Latin Trinitarianism (which PW thinks is modalism).
Therefore, Anthony rejects the Athanasian Creed.

However, PW gave no argument for his first premise. And since I have already rejected it, the onus is on PW to prove it. Moreover, I have shown that my interpretation is the historic interpretation of the church. I even referred to J. N. D. Kelly’s book on the history of Christian doctrine so PW would know where to begin his studies.

As for PW's new claim, i.e. historic Trinitarianism is modalism, he offered no argument for it. Instead, at precisely the point where an argument was needed, i.e. to prove his new claim, he simply asserted it to be true. Accordingly, there is no argument (yet) to respond to from PW. 

Laughably, PW concluded his screed by saying that I was going to fall back into the “it’s a mystery” defense. So far the only mystery apparent from our conversation is the mystery of wondering when PW will finally present an argument that he sticks by and that is cogent. So far he has only successfully shown us that he is a liar and doesn’t like being called one, and it is hardly a mystery why a liar would not want others to know he is a liar. 


-----------

To further show PW contradicting himself and admitting that Christians are monotheists, here is a comment that Royalson left in the combox of a previous post:

A contradiction would be something like this:


Accusing Christians of polytheism and repeating that assertion even after being given a lot of opportunity to retract such statements even though you [PW] had THIS to say in a post titled "20 quick responses to common anti-religious arguments":


"The majority of the people in the world are actually monotheists (even if they do not always agree about doctrines and so forth), so even if ‘mankind has created thousands of Gods,’ numbers are still on the theist side."


Say WHAT Mr. Williams? The MAJORITY of the people in the world are MONOTHEISTS?


Wait wait wait......

Back up the truck for a second....

Majority?

REALLY?

Are you sure?

Ok let's do some number crunching.

Islam has a population of about 1.5 Billion

Judaism has a population of 14 million.

The world population is 7.125 billion people. You're short by about 2 Billion to get that majority you were talking about. Now what on Earth could you be referring to? A monotheistic religion that will make up the 2 billion shortfall....hmmmm

Oh yes, that's right - Christianity - you know, that faith you knowingly misrepresented? That one you accused of being polytheistic when you knew full well that they are not.

10 comments:

Radical Moderate said...

Just posted his on Pee Wee's blog but he has moderation turned on so I doubt he will let it go through.


Paul you wrote...
“To eschew demonizing Islam and Muslims; to forbear referring to most Islamic apologists as either liars or something similar. “

Lets examine your track record and the record of your former colleagues from MDI.

First you have personally helped to expose the new leader of MDI for lying as well as embezzlement of MDI donations, as well as talking out of both sides of his mouth by publicly attacking the British Government at the same time he is working for the government collecting a paycheck.

You yourself lived a double life, pretending to be a pious Muslim all the while you were and are an openly practicing homosexual. Before and even after you were outed, I personally asked various members of MDI if you are gay, all of them denied that you were. Even after you were outed I asked a member of MDI point blank “did you know that Paul Williams was gay and in a relationship with another man”. To which he denied any knowledge even going as far as saying that no one in MDI knew. It wasn’t until after you admitted on your blog that everyone knew, that this member of MDI admitted to me “Yah we all knew but its his business no big deal”.

One of your blog’s contributors and fellow apologist (whom you called “one of Islam's greatest apologists) is a well documented and an admitted liar. I could go on about iERA and other Muslim organizations but I think this is enough to demonstrate the open willingness of Muslims to just lie and lie foolishly when there is no need to lie.

You continue to demand...

“To renounce the vitriol and hatred being spouted back and forth “by one side of the debate” – to quote a Christian from recent correspondence. Let us see how he deals with this challenge. “

How about you go first? Have you renounced the vitriol that you have willingly participated in on your own blog? The Blasphemous statements from the nick Isa that you praised, the slanderous and false photo’s that portrayed David Wood and Sam Shamoun as participants in your life style? As well as your consistent and persistent mocking of Christians beliefs?

So until you do, anything you say against the truthful and honest statements made by Anthony Rogers will be nothing more than projection on your part.

Sepher Shalom said...

Paul Williams is no longer allowing my comments to post on his blog. I was dialoguing with other commenters there, and inexplicable my comments are now subject to "moderation" and never get posted.

Certainly says something for the confidence he has in the truth of his claims and his apparent anxiety at allowing open discussion or probing questions to the regular commenters there.

Paul Williams said...

The Trinity in art and a further response to Anthony Rogers

http://bloggingtheology.org/2014/10/31/8941/

Anthony Rogers said...

PW, you are obviously sputtering because you are running out of steam. The best you can do at this point is obfuscate. You couldn't prove what you originally claimed, so now you pretend I have backtracked. The problem is, what you are calling backtracking is me educating you on the historic position of the church. That is fine. I am happy for the opportunity to show Christians how to respond to confused ex-Christians whose confusion has not been aided but only compounded by Muhammad's (mis)guidance. If you would throw off the shackles of the Qur'an and take on the yoke of Christ, which is easy and light, you would begin to be able to make your way out of your confusion. You are a living example that the Qur'an misinterprets Christian doctrine.

I will reply as the occasion arises.

Royal Son said...

Paul Williams, I'm very disappointed in your response. Not only have you continually misrepresented the Trinity as well as what Mr. Rogers has said about it, but you have also failed to respond to the fact that you posted a "20 responses to atheists" article where point 20 makes the claim that the majority of people in the world are monotheists. That would NOT be possible if we are polytheists as you claim.

David Ford said...

[Radical Moderate]"You yourself lived a double life, pretending to be a pious Muslim all the while you were and are an openly practicing homosexual."

Kamal Saleem, in
Malick, Faisal. 2012. _10 Amazing Muslims Touched by God_, 160pp.
http://www.amazon.com/10-Amazing-Muslims-Touched-God/dp/0768441161/
On 31:
In Saudi one of my favorite things was to watch the beheadings on Friday afternoons of the infidels-- those who wanted to leave Islam for another religion or those who were gay or lesbian.

David Ford said...

Apparently, various harmful human behaviors can be promoted by the demonic. One reviewer of _Unbound_ comments that "the five keys to Christian deliverance" are "repentance and faith, forgiveness, renunciation, taking authority in Jesus' name, and receiving the Father's blessing."

Lozano, Neal. 2010. _Unbound: A Practical Guide to Deliverance_
http://www.amazon.com/Unbound-Practical-Deliverance-Neal-Lozano/dp/0800794125/

Anthony Rogers said...

Paul Belial Williams recently had to jettison one of his favorite arguments against Christianity. He used to argue that Christians are polytheists. After learning the historic position on the Trinity, he now claims that position isn’t tritheistic; however, to avoid the debasing and humbling that refutation brings, he now pretends that I changed views midway through our discussion, and that the view I currently hold is not actually the historic position of the Church. Since PW didn’t cite anything from me to show any change in my position, it is sufficient to deny his unconfirmed charge. In addition, it is only too easy for me to document the falsity of PW’s claim since I have written on this issue before, even as far back as 2009 in response to one of the members of MDI, an organization PW used to be a part of before he left (*). As for the claim that my view is not the historic position of the Church, I have already directed PW to J. N. D. Kelly’s authoritative volume on the history of Christian doctrine.

The only thing from PW that looks even remotely like an argument for a change in my position stems from his errant and ahistorical understanding of the Athanasian Creed. As PW wishes were the case, the Athanasian Creed actually teaches a tritheistic understanding of the Trinity. Since I reject that interpretation, PW takes it as evidence for a change of views on my part. And yet, the Nicene fathers clearly assert my view that the Son is one in essence with the Father, and the Athanasian Creed, in perfect agreement with Nicea, clearly says the divine essence is not divided between the persons.

Since previous attempts to educate PW have only led to further obfuscation on his part, here is another juicy quote to further aggravate his sin in lying about what Christians believe and then lying about what the Athanasian Creed has always been understood to mean.

“’We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead,…consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead….’ Thus affirms the creed of Chalcedon concerning Jesus Christ the Son of God, considered as eternally pre-existent; the Athanasian creed, affirming with no less emphasis the numerical identity of substance or essence, at the same time asserts with reiteration the fact of a distinction of Persons. SUCH HAS EVER BEEN THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH.” (Robert Verrell Foster, D.D., Systematic Theology [Nashville, Tenn: Cumberland Presbyterian Publishing House, 1898], p. 450) Emphasis mine.

PW’s ignorance on basic Christian doctrine coupled with his penchant for lying when exposed, two things that were bound to catch up with him and now clearly have, are perhaps the two biggest reasons why PW no longer wants to do formal public debates with orthodox Christians. Ignorance and lying are simply not effective weapons in the long run in the battle against the cause of God and Truth.

Anthony Rogers said...

* Say Not Three Gods

Anthony Rogers said...

My second paragraph above should be corrected to read as follows since the placement of the comma is in the wrong place:

"The only thing from PW that looks even remotely like an argument for a change in my position stems from his errant and ahistorical understanding of the Athanasian Creed. PW wishes were the case that the Athanasian Creed actually teaches a tritheistic understanding of the Trinity, but since I reject that interpretation PW takes it as evidence for a change of views on my part. And yet, the Nicene fathers clearly assert my view that the Son is one in essence with the Father, and the Athanasian Creed, in perfect agreement with Nicea, clearly says the divine essence is not divided between the persons."