Daniel Boyarin Jesus Kept Kosher

Return of the Muslimah MILF - R Rated

Recently a Muslimah came out exposing Yusuf Deen and Tracy as MILF Hunters. The only reason I bothered posting the video is Yusuf-Deen had the nerve to play videos of me and mock me to all his brothers because of my depression and rather eccentric, unusual personality.  Now it's time to evaluate what happened to this Ummah more extensively. In a comment below the video, Tracy (Yusuf Deen's Muslim brother and close friend) responds to the Muslimah MILF and informs us of some interesting facts:

This is like Syria, but with well.... one difference..

It's England.

Or perhaps it's more like New Zealand these days

Muslims have turned on each other like most of the other Muslims in the world that we know of. I can't say i'm surprised. These sick filthy mind who have slandered me, mocked my videos are now Islamically exploding on each other!

Caution: We don't know if any of these allegations or slander is true. All we know is that the Ummah is in chaos.

Documentary: Human, All Too Human ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Human, All Too Human is a three-part 1999 documentary television series produced by the BBC. It follows the lives of three prominent European philosophers: Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, and Jean-Paul Sartre. The theme of this documentary revolves heavily around the school of philosophical thought known as existentialism, although the term had not been coined at the time of Nietzsche's writing, and Heidegger declaimed the label. The documentary is named after the 1878 book written by Nietzsche, titled Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits.

This first episode is titled Beyond Good and Evil, which is about Friedrich Nietzsche and his gradual shift from religion, to nihilism, and finally to insanity. His sister presented the National Socialists (Nazis) with heavily modified versions of Nietzsche's writings that were interpreted as a pro-Nazi agenda; to advance the superior race of the Übermensch, the "superman", the perfect Aryan.

Muslim Apologist: YusufDeen hunting for MILF online - Rejected by Muslimah

A well known online Muslim debater who has critiqued me for making videos about my depression (intended to help others with the same issue) a Muslim who has help make videos mocking me for being as honest as I can with my faith and life, has now met his karma:

Why Richard Dawkins is (not) qualified to debate William Lane Craig

 

(Dr. Craig) the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists." - Sam Harris

Dear Dr. William Lane Craig (and other parties of interest)

I believe I have supplied adequate justification for you to take my comments and objections into consideration. Please consider the following.

As a believer and then atheist (but now believer again) I thought of Dawkins as quite impressive, articulate and seemingly 'rational', certainly handsome and hilarious! (just kidding about that handsome part, sorry dear chap). As a scientist he appears to be beautiful, exquisite, unique and uncanny. However I have determined Dawkins has no business commenting on religion, philosophy or theology. I am not using the same fallacious reasoning here employed by Dawkins: the idea that if one doesn't have sufficient credentials or worthiness then no response is merited, rather I make this assessment based upon the same absurd criterion he utilities in rejecting academic debate with William Lane Craig. 

As you may know, Professor Dawkins decided to publicly parade this attempted vindication (to refuse to debate), he even made a public spectacle writing about this in the Guardian:

"Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine". 

Craig's latest stalking foray has taken the form of a string of increasingly hectoring challenges to confront him in Oxford this October. I took pleasure in refusing again, which threw him and his followers into a frenzy of blogging, tweeting and YouTubed accusations of cowardice. To this I would only say I that I turn down hundreds of more worthy invitations every year, I have publicly engaged an archbishop of York, two archbishops of Canterbury, many bishops and the chief rabbi, and I'm looking forward to my imminent, doubtless civilised encounter with the present archbishop of Canterbury." [1]

Firstly Craig does not parade himself as a philosopher, rather university moderators credit him in their own introductory remarks as a philosopher because Craig is a qualified philosopher. He has written in about two hundred peer-reviewed academic articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology, including The Journal of Philosophy, New Testament Studies, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, and British Journal for Philosophy of Science [2]

Craig also happens to be a member of the American Philosophical Association, American Academy of Religion, Society of Biblical Literature, Society of Christian Philosophers, Evangelical Theological Society, Evangelical Philosophical Society (Vice President, 1995-96 Vice President 1996-2005), Science and Religion Forum, Philosophy of Time Society (President) [3] Craig has been credited as a philosopher within many legitimate lists of philosophers [4]

Oddly enough in none of these organisations, websites, or peer-reviewed journals has Dawkins accredited as a philosopher, theologian or expert on religion, yet he embarrassingly seems to publish books, make videos, websites about issues he has no academic training in. Sam Harris has a degree in philosophy, (Dennett would also be qualified), but Hitch and Dawkins are completely outside of this field and have entirely no academic credibility here.

A real showman or person parading himself, who has done a fantastically better job of parading over that of Craig, would be Hitchens. He would fit within this category with many of his tours, and even so with academic respect. It is thus irrelevant even if he were to be parading, this is nothing but a rhetorical jab. However similar to Dawkins, Hitchens would not be fully qualified to sell books or debate religion in such vigorous academic environments, but Craig would be fully qualified, yet this fact didn't stop Dawkins from repeatedly endorsing Hitchens in more than one way. Dr. Craig I recommend therefore holding Dawkins responsible to his own standard and refusing to debate this philosophical layman.

In addition, Dr. Craig has debated several colleagues of Dawkins, including Sam Harris [5], Christopher Hitchens(RIP) [6] and Lawrence Krauss [7]

Suspiciously Dawkins asserts none of the professors of philosophy he personally knows have heard of Bill Craig. Now either Dawkins was lying, mistaken or conveniently forgot here, but his friend and colleague Daniel Dennett addressed William Lane Craig at a philosophical conference in 2009 [8]

But why would a professional philosopher like Dennett be addressing a "layman" like Craig who is accordingly not a philosopher according to Dawkins within such an academic context? And why would Alvin Platinga (another philosopher Dennett has lectured/debated with) seeing that he is world-class, hold William Lane Craig in such high regard if Dr. Craig is in fact not a philosopher?

Finally why would an educated elitist like Dawkins make such an abysmal blunder, as to depend or rely upon anecdotal evidence for his evaluation on whether Craig was a professional philosopher? This is despite the fact that he even links to Dr. Craig's website in the Guardian[9], and therefore could have easily checked Dr. Craig's academic credentials, even on the same domain. This all appears highly dubious to me. It its thus unequivocally clear, that all three charges presented by Dr. Dawkins are false:

1. Craig is not parading himself 
2. Craig is qualified
3. Colleagues known by Dawkins have heard of Craig

Dawkins also had no problem sharing the stage with Craig in Mexico in November 2010 when various speakers/debaters addressed the topic:  Does the Universe have a purpose? [10] Dawkins has therefore already indirectly given academic credibility to every presenter on that stage by even interacting or entertaining them. He could have easily refused the stage or given up his presentation instead of producing such misleading thoughts. However perhaps Dawkins is just to malevolent and couldn't even bother avoiding such serious confusion. 

Now if Dawkins claims he made it clear prior to the event that this was not a debate to these speakers in person or other means, then the apparent delusion and/or confusion of Dawkins debating Craig with other theists refutes his own argument against the God of the Bible who also gave advanced notice to the Canaanites and to Israel letting them know he would punish them with delusion and exile. 

What is furtherly hilarious is that Hitchens (RIP), ironically stated the exact opposite to Dawkins and said Craig is taken very seriously by scholars and academia and they even recommended Hitchens stand down:

The unqualified Hitchens however could not resist debating Craig since he loved to parade himself (an act approved by Dawkins) and unfortunately even according to the Atheists, viciously lost this debate [11, 12]

Personally  I am not inconsistent here, I would like to see Dr. Craig several opponents he has declined. I believe Dr. Craig it was charitable of you to debate an unqualified individual like Hitchens (or Richard Carrier) because of his popularity and rhetorical skills, but I must say there are other atheists who equally are absent of qualification , but whom deserve just as much if not more merit than Hitchens, specifically Matt Dillahunty, Jeff Lowder, and one qualified former student of yours John Loftus [13, 14]

Dawkins refers to Professor Craig as a "deplorable apologist for genocide", after having just quoted Craig as saying:

"I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God's command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land..."

Dawkins might not of had his reading glasses at hand at this moment, who knows? However even if Craig were to defend an extreme hyper-literal genocidal reading of the text and the bishops that Dawkins debate assert it to be myth, allegory or metaphor, who would be the more honest opponent to debate? 

Obviously Craig would not be cherry picking the Bible as Dawkins so often alleges about Theists, he wouldn't be selectively basing his own ethics according to his own whim, personally determining which parts were literal and what is poetic but rather trying his best to interpret the Biblical text as accurately and honesty as possible which is a plausible reason to debate such a genuine scholar! In fact two such Christian writers are Paul Copan and Keith Thompson [15]

Dawkins doesn't even attempt to bother explaining why we should take apologists who render the Bible as myth or poetry alone seriously. He doesn't bother arguing that God's divine morality, ought to be identical to 21st century human ethics (and gives no reason to) rather he just asserts one of the most classical logical fallacies a blatant appeal to emotion:

"Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn't, and I won't. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty. 

And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for genocide, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig's words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well."

What universal human morality could Dawkins even appeal to, to make his audience or fellow colleagues universally leave the building? Perhaps they would leave the building due to a shocking display of destitute ridden snobbishness? But Dawkins can't explain why anyone should behave morally and that's part of the reason he won't debate Craig. Perhaps Dawkins should read some Hume: 

"You cannot get an ought from an is" - David Hume (Scottish Atheist Philosopher)

There is no doubt that Dawkins is the last on a long-list of defeated Atheists [16] who is highly afraid of Craig as described by Nathan Schneider in 2013 who describes a personal tale of his encounter with Dawkins:

"When, during a conversation in a swank hotel lobby in Manhattan, I mentioned to Richard Dawkins that I was working on a story about William Lane Craig, the muscles in his face clenched. 

"Why are you publicizing him?" Dawkins demanded, twice. The best-selling "New Atheist" professor went on to assure me that I shouldn't bother, that he'd met Craig in Mexico—they opposed each other in a prime-time, three-on-three debate staged in a boxing ring—and found him "very unimpressive." [17]

Dawkins can't appear to get his story straight, he clearly suggests that the Mexican fiasco was not a debate nor would he ever debate Craig, but yet has no problem gloating and rendering this as a debate when it suits his agenda. This bumbling hypocrite seems to have more in common with his caricature of the primitive Old Testament Deity than he thinks.

In conclusion here is just some of the reasons why Dr. Craig should not debate Dawkins:

1. Dawkins is not qualified, this is not his field of expertise (this is essential to Craig)
2. He approves of unqualified atheists debating qualified theists (like himself vs Rowan Williams but not himself vs Craig) 
3. He is an an anti-Theist polemicist, a rhetorician, but not a philosopher, theologian, historian or textual critic (Bart Ehrman)
4. He makes common appeals to well known logical fallacies
5. He parades himself in multiple documentaries and book tours attacking religion yet condemns others like Craig (but not Hitchens!) for doing the same.
6. He only debates non-literalists, aka I'm a Christian by name not by belief
7. Most of his colleagues have already debated Craig, Dawkins is however frightened and wants to save face from such an embarrassing defeat

I apologize I don't want to spend all my time thinking about the failure and hypocrisies of Dr. Dawkins, but I think this warrants enough to render him intellectually speechless in the world of philosophy and certainly that of consistency.


Yours sincerely
Mark Bennett


Endnotes:

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig/publications

[3] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig/curriculum-vitae

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_philosophers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_of_religion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_born_in_the_twentieth_century

[5] Craig debated Harris twice: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=william+lane+craig+vs+sam+harris&filters=long&lclk=long

[6] http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=christopher+hitchens+vs+william+lane+craig

[7] Craig has debated Krauss about 4 times: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Lawrence+Krauss+vs+william+lane+craig

[8] In Defence of Theistic Arguments"July 2009 - At a philosophical conference, Dennett gives a 15 minute response to Craig's paper titled "In Defence of Theistic Arguments": http://www19.zippyshare.com/v/85071956/file.html

[9] http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites

[10] This edition is the WLC vs RD edited version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uaq6ORDx1C4

[11] http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230

[12] http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.nz/2009/04/william-lane-craig-won-by-landslide.html

[13] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/03/the-hypocrisy-of-william-lane-craigs-refusal-to-debate-jeffery-jay-lowder/

[14] http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4212

[15] http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/05/is-christianity-religion-of-peace.html

[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig#Debates_and_Dialogues

[17] Nathan Schneider is the author of God in Proof: The Story of a Search From the Ancients to the Internet (University of California Press). http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-Theist/140019/

Muslim Mosque Violence In Auckland New Zealand

“It appears that these [people] are radical fundamentalists … to actually put a jihad on a New Zealand citizen trying to enforce New Zealand law is ludicrous.”

A man is in hospital with serious injuries after he was beaten up at an Auckland mosque.

Haider Lone, immediate past president of the NZ Muslim Association and administrator of the Avondale Islamic Centre, says he fears for his life as he believes the attack was an assassination attempt.

Yesterday, police and security were again called in as ugly scenes erupted at the Blockhouse Bay Rd mosque where two Islamic factions are fighting for control.

Security officers had to intervene to stop a worshipper from using a weapon to attack another man who turned up at the mosque border despite having been trespassed. (More here)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11256520

http://mobile.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.php?c_id=1&objectid=11257805

"Wait. CAIR keeps telling me that a Jihad has something to do with weight loss or the environment. Where does violence come in to it? Ali must be another Islamophobe.  

Like the mosque president in the hospital.Muslims are approximately 1 percent of the population. And doubling on a regular basis. 

Try and imagine how much trouble this little fracas will be when they’re 10 percent of the population."

A Real Tale: Unicorn Triumphs Over Atheist

Coming Soon

World Domination - Jewish or Muslim?

The Holy Qur'an says:

"They seek to extinguish the light of ALLAH with their mouths; but ALLAH refuses but to perfect HIS light, though the disbelievers may resent it. HE it is Who has sent HIS Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that HE may make it prevail over every other religion, even though the idolaters may resent it." Qur'an (9:32:-33)  

"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do." (Qur'an 8:39)

The Quran explicitly commands world domination, Mohammed especially carried out this command when in a state of power and dominance he conquered Arabia, upon his death his successors immediately carried out his desires and conquered parts of Africa, namely Egypt, Libya, and Damascus, Syria, Persia and even parts of India and Europe, the Muslims eventually conquered even more.

What is funny is that usually it's the Muslims are prone to adopting conspiracy theories about Jews controlling everything. But in this instance I met an anti-Semite who included the Qur'an as part of her Jewish Conspiracy! Notice the lengths that some Jew haters will go to in order to argue that Jews are responsible for most of the evil in the present world: 

direwarning: criminal jews are out to rule the world, not just paltalk
Dk-man7: direwarning the only group of people who want world domination are Muslims.
direwarning: dk, that is jewish propaganda
Dk-man7: direwarning, actually it's written in the Quran, do you want me to quote the verse?
direwarning: dk, the talmud has a plan for jewish world domination and jews owning everything
Dk-man7: direwarning: The Talmud is not considered inspiried by 97% of Jews.
Dk-man7: direwarning, it also doesn't teach that.
Dk-man7: direwarning, the Quran is considered God's word 100%
Dk-man7: direwarning is the Quran, Jewish Propoganda?
direwarning: dk, the talmud is the highest authority in judaism
Dk-man7: Direwarning, no it isn't. It's the highest authority in Ultra-Orthodox Judaism which is adhered to by less than 3% of Jews.
Dk-man7: Direwarning the Talmud also has nothing about world domination.
direwarning: marge, all jews use the talmud, except the etheopian jews
Dk-man7: Direwarning. Is the Quran, Jewish propoganda?
direwarning: dk, it certainly could be
Dk-man7: hahahahah
Dk-man7: direwarning you are exposed.
direwarning: dk, no, just the things that are used for control of the masses
Dk-man7: Direwarning: Yes Jews are responsible for Saudi , Iran and Pakistan and Afiganistan and Indonesia and Malaysia.
Dk-man7: You are a perfectly "rational" human being.
Dk-man7: Direwarning you are mentally sick.
Dk-man7: There is only one cult that is interested in world domination that is Islam.
direwarning: dk, the original house of saud was jewish
Dk-man7: And they have the resources and the power.
Dk-man7: Direwarning: lool yes and Mohammed ibn Wahab was Jewish.
direwarning: and most, if not all, muslim leaders are controlled by jews
direwarning: dk, that is possible
Dk-man7: yes Muslim leaders are controlled by Jews that's why they want to destroy Israel
Dk-man7: Direwarning: do you mind if I keep your text?
direwarning: dk, I dont mind
Dk-man7: ty

Exit International - Euthanasia: Suicide and Depression

A New Zealand woman who was not terminally ill killed herself with lethal drugs she smuggled home from Mexico after seeking advice from Australian euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke, known as Dr Death. 

Details of the Wellington woman's death believed to be the first such death of a physically fit person in New Zealand have surfaced as Nitschke, head of pressure group Exit International, arrived in New Zealand to hold suicide seminars in Auckland, Wellington, Nelson and Christchurch. 

The revelations have prompted harsh criticism of Nitschke, who encourages euthanasia supporters to travel to Mexico to buy the drug phenobarbitone, commonly called Nembutal and used by vets to destroy animals. 

"We are appalled at this woman's death it's a great tragedy. It's outrageous [Nitschke] is teaching people about this and getting away with it," said Right to Life New Zealand spokesman Ken Orr. 

The case was worse because the woman was not suffering a fatal illness, he said. "It's sad to see vulnerable people being enticed by his programme to commit suicide." 

A friend of the woman told the Sunday Star-Times the woman was active but suffered severe depression. 

"I think if she hadn't had that in the kitchen cupboard, she wouldn't have died that day. People need to be aware this is one of the risks of what [Nitschke] is doing. My view is euthanasia should be only for people who can never recover from their quality of life. People who are depressed can recover." 

The dead woman's friends and family knew of her pro-euthanasia stance. A few months before her death, she spoke about it being her right to decide when she died, regardless of whether she was well. 

"I support her decision but I don't agree with her timing she could have had a good life for a lot longer," her friend said. 

Nitschke was yesterday unrepentant over his role in the death, saying it was "arrogant and paternalistic" to review someone else's decision about when to die. "You're not in her shoes. She obviously made an assessment and decided her life was not worth living any more. You can't simply look at the medical records." 

However, he admitted most people found euthanasia more palatable for severely ill patients. "I don't doubt if we had prevented her to have access to do what she did, she would have gone and done it in a far more common way." 

Fifteen New Zealanders have travelled to Mexico on Exit International tours to buy the class C drug, which is illegal to import or possess in New Zealand without proper authority, and others have gone independently. 

"She joined the organisation not because she was unwell but because she was a person who wanted control," Nitschke said.The woman, 68, was a life member of Exit International and one of its earliest members. 

The woman suffered osteoarthritis, high blood pressure, type-2 diabetes and an underactive thyroid, called hypothyroidism. She was also on medication for depression for about nine months, which her doctor attributed to her husband's death about five years earlier. However, she saw her doctor about four weeks before she died, in March 2006, who noted she seemed well and was enjoying life. 

The woman wrote to Nitschke outlining her plans to fly to Mexico via America in April 2005 to buy "my own personal peanut pill". ("Peanut pill" is the term Nitschke coined for a homemade lethal tablet, containing barbiturates, whose manufacture he has taught at seminars.) 

"I'm 67 at present and held in reasonable shape by a fair battery of pills and injections (I'm diabetic among other things)," she wrote. "My personal end point is when I can no longer look after myself but hopefully not yet." 

She asked Nitschke for advice about buying Nembutal in Mexico. Nitschke said he sent her photographs telling her what shops to buy from and what to buy. 

She wrote to him again on her return to New Zealand in May 2005, telling him about buying Nembutal for $US20, after initially being turned away from several pharmacies, and of the trip costing $NZ3000. "I consider it money well spent for the immediate peace of mind I felt." 

The woman was found dead in her inner Wellington apartment on March 26, 2006 by a neighbour, who found a handwritten note under her door, dated March 24, stating "Please call the police". 

Euthanasia information, including Exit International newsletters containing details of how to use Nembutal, were found in her apartment. 

Controversy erupted in Perth in 2002 when French-Australian woman Lisette Nigot, an Exit International member who was not suffering any serious illnesses, took her own life after deciding she didn't want to live longer than 80. (1, 2, 3)

Examination of Christ Mythicism and Richard Carrier [PART I]

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism or simply mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels. Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century that the New Testament has no historical value, there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical roots. In recent years, there have been a number of books and documentaries on this subject. Some "mythicists" concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are almost entirely fictional. Others believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he never lived. Still others, including some atheist proponents, believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine. (source, summary of key arguments here)

Typically our Muslim friends (e.g. Shabir Ally) appeal to premier scholars like Bart Ehrman or Raymond Brown who are quite critical of the conservative narrative of the historical Jesus and preservation of New Testament offered by (proto)-Orthodox Christianity, rather they have refined or revised history in light of what they view as a more authentic historical criterion. However I have noticed a growing trend in some Muslim circles to now leech onto the Christ Mythicist argumentation or elements of these ideas that advocate a purely mythical, fictitious or legendary Jesus.

First and foremost, there is no one singular monolithic form of the Christ Mythicst Position, and ancient historian and mythicist himself Dr. Richard Carrier is one of the first to point this out. In fact he gladly refutes many of these absurd theories and does an adequate job e.g. Caesars Messiah or the Flavian Theory:



Carrier also critiques documentaries like Zeitgeist (and other shoddy scholarship) but unlike Joesph Atwell and Acharya S, Carrier does not believe we need a second century conspiracy theory to argue the Church invented Jesus. For Carrier's rebuttal to the above documentary see here, and check out a scholar who reviews this absurd theory and in some ways is even more skeptical than Carrier, Dr Robert Price here

Since Carrier sufficiently refutes the other Christ Mythicist Theories, all I merely wish to do then is to take his theory to task, which in turn appears to be the central core of the Christ Mythicist Position. By refuting Carrier, this will virtually wipe out many of the rest of the absurd theories. Carrier has no qualms in admitting, he was once a historicist (someone who adhered to Jesus historical existence), but was convinced by a layman Earl Doherty (see his review here) to become more agnostic about this question. However since then Carrier has upgraded his position to the view that Jesus probably never existed at all, he is less agnostic and more atheistic.

To begin with I want to present Dr. Richard Carriers best version of his argument. He says about the following video:

"Obviously I have specifically humorously, designed this speech to be the most persuasive form of the argument ever. Not being a serious boring scholarly presentation" (42:57)

In this video essentially Carrier appeals to the Apostle of Acts and argues that men like Paul, Peter and Stephen (and others), viewed Christ as a heavenly celestial being rather than someone who ever existed on earth.

For a slightly more academic presentation by Carrier I recommend watching this clip:

Carrier takes for granted mainstream scholarship in rejecting six of the epistles in the New Testament attributed to Paul, while accepting seven of his epistles and the epistle of Hebrews as early and authentic (excluding what he believes are interpolations).

He then places the gospels and acts and the remaining New Testament corpus as written post-70 A.D. This reflects upon a movement that attempted to place Jesus on earth which is standard practice in the ancient world according to Carrier, the myth is always eventually shifted to earth.

In his own words Carrier (elsewhere) says:

• “Paul never clearly places Jesus on earth or connects him to human history.” 
• “Scripture and Revelation are the only sources of information Paul ever mentions anyone having.” 
• “The Jesus he knows and refers to and speaks to is always in outer space.”

Carrier also presents his view here:


(20:00: Nazarene didn't exist refuted by Carrier)

Carrier as a materialist appears to presuppose all supernatural visions have a naturalistic origin e.g. epileptic fits or hallucinations. But this is a highly controversial topic. Mike Licona presents evidence that NDEs (Near Death Experiences and other visions), do not necessarily fit into naturalistic categories in one debate with Carrier:





Carrier openly acknowledges the mainstream consensus of historians and scholarship disagree with him. Dr Mark Goodacre is one of these scholars. Here is a video where the two duke it out:



A similar debate took place with Doctors Licona and Habermas with hyper-skeptic Dr. Robert Price:



While Carrier has not yet published his final work, we have enough information here to address the fundamental arguments and general outline proposed. Watch out for Part II

Global Islamic Terror Threat

Mecca Didn't Exist

Absence of evidence is frequently evidence of absence.

An example, I saw David Wood had posted this:

Muslim Child Marriage In New Zealand

This aired on the program: Sunday (March 14 2010: Child brides)

PART I

PART II

PART III

Syria and Islamic State - Three perspectives, Brotherhood, Salafis, Secularists

US Preparing Team to Help Nigeria Locate Kidnapped Girls

Can Muslims be friends with Jews and Christians?

"O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them. God guides not the people of the evildoers." Qur'an 5:51

The Quran has various passages on this subject, the above passage appears to be quoted most commonly and frequently. The Arabic word translated as "friends" in the above verse is: awliyaa. It is often argued or translated to mean "allies, guides, protectors".

However if we presume these translations provided are correct, Mohammed directly violated a prohibition of the Quran, as Sam Shamoun points out:

"Third, this exposes more of Muhammad’s hypocrisy and inconsistency since he permitted the Muslims to seek refuge with and the protection of the Christian leader of Abyssinia, the Negus, when the Meccan pagans were persecuting them. How convenient that Muhammad didn’t forbid his followers from seeking protection in a Christian land, and forbidding them from living amongst Christians. It is obvious that when Muhammad was the underdog he didn’t find it objectionable to befriend either the Jews or Christians if it helped protect both his followers and himself."

In addition, a problem exists, the word awliyaa in fact can and does mean friends in the Quran, otherwise the Quran would become even less coherent than it already is! As Shamoun points out:

"The Quran refers to believers as auliya of Allah!

Lo! verily the friends of Allah (auliyaa Allahi) are (those) on whom fear (cometh) not, nor do they grieve! S. 10:62 Pickthall 

In another place it refers to the friends of Satan:

The believers fight in the way of God, and the unbelievers fight in the idols' way. Fight you therefore against the friends of Satan (auliyaa alshshaytani); surely the guile of Satan is ever feeble. S. 4:76 

It is obvious that neither Allah nor Satan is in need of human protectors, which means that in these specific contexts auliya can only mean friends. But applying Dr. Badawi’s argument we must render these passages to mean that both Allah and Satan have and need protectors!"

Nearly all the translators of the Quran agree that "friends" is the most appropriate translation, given the reason for revelation, the context provided in the Sunnah.

For further examination of why auliyaa ought to be translated as friends, please read this article here.

The Middle East Problem

Jesus Of Testimony (Must See Documentary!)

This documentary has scholars like Gary Habermas and Richard Bauckham, fascinating and worth watching.

Jesus is Lord to the Glory of God the Father

An atheist changes his mind about God

Yahweh's justice vs Allah's deceit

I would like to express my disagree with several Christians who believe that we should not object to Allah's scheming because there is supposedly Old or New Testament parallels.

Firstly, one Christian "Minoria" accuses Shamoun, Wood and Rogers of never addressing these objections.

Just to make a correction, Sam has addressed these objections, some places include:

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/does_god_deceive.html

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_2cor4_4.html

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_best_deceiver.html

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_deceiver.html

http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/abu_bakr_fear.html

I am pretty sure they also addressed them on ABN forecasts.

As Sam told me this is comparing apples and oranges.

Personally I disagree with Denis Giron and James White (if they personally choose not to use this exact objection). More on this in a minute.

But firstly I think it's inappropriate and  incorrect to infer that James White is calling Sam Shamoun "dishonest" like Snow has speculated. First he could just ring up Dr. White directly and ask him and record it for everyone and secondly if you read the quote more carefully here is what it says:

"This text is often cited as evidence of some kind of dishonesty on Allah’s part, but THE HONEST RECOGNIZES that just as God sent a lying spirit into the mouths of false prophets as a means by which He brought just punishment on those who rebelled against Him (1 Kings 22:23), and JUST AS the New Testament warns those who refuse to love the truth will be caused to love a lie (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11), THIS TEXT COULD WELL BE SAYING that when people scheme against Allah and His ways, they will find Allah significantly better at that activity than they are.” (Page 114)."

The most convincing answer is in the immediate context of 3:54, the scheming is only applied to the disbelieving enemies of Jesus. So indeed the honest reader does recognize the text could well be read this way, but the more precise question is: does it have to be read this way in context with the overall Quranic theology?

The answer is simply: no

The Islamic Tradition and Gospel of Barnabas point out that a group of believers were deceived by the crucifixion, they believe Jesus really died and later was raised. In other words not merely disbelievers who were punished, but believers who were tricked and duped by Allah into thinking their own prophet and Messiah had died and later when they saw him and therefore concluded he was resurrected, as Allah or the Son of Allah.

But Shamoun expounds on more of the differences in his articles. And I will agree with Shamoun and Wood, until Minoria can demonstrate an exact parallel. Also take into account that White is only commenting on 3:54 as it appears in this context, and not the entire Quranic depiction of Allah's scheming, so he could well be agreeing with Shamoun, outside of this immediate context. I agree with White that nothing in the immediate context suggests Allah's scheming is applied to anyone other than the enemies of Jesus, and even goes so far as to say Allah caused Jesus to die and raise and vindicated Jesus. But that doesn't tell us the over-all Quranic theology. And secondly if you take the view that 3:55 does not refer to Jesus death, then we may not conclude that Allah has vindicated Jesus from his enemies false charges, including the one that they had killed him! (4:157).