Muslims and Christmas
Every year I notice Muslims asking their scholars or learned ones how to respond when told merry Christmas. Stupidly enough it's rehashed not to participate in a pagan celebration or rite and by wishing kuffars merry Xmas you are encouraging them.
As an atheist when I say merry Christmas this does not mean I am endorsing the birth of the God-man or advocating the Christian theology behind it.
But this is indeed what this religion does turn such a simple pleasant token into a corrupted satanic. Gesture not to be responded to in kind.
This is another reason to f**k Islam. This is the type of hyperliteral lunacy that religion breeds. Who would of thought such an insignificant issue required a post but no doubt Muslim have hundreds of pages dedicated to absurd questions like this.
Atheist on David Wood blog named Don Dan refutes himself based on his own standard
An atheist who is called Don Dan happened to post a comment on David Wood's blog, the thread is called arguement from reason. The atheist says that he only believes in things based on evidence. It appears that he hasn't taken the time to think about these issues philosophically. Since he presupposes that David Wood must have evidence for God and the Holy Bible in order for them to be true.
A problem arises if that is the case, question is does he have evidence for evidence and evidence for that evidence, which would lead up to infinite regress? And that would mean he doesn't have justification for the very evidence that he demands, he simply assumes that we must have evidence.
Since assumptions without evidence are invalid according to his standard, then that would mean his very challenge to David Wood is invalid because it is just merely an assumption in which he doesn't have evidence for evidence.
Secondly, in light of his naturalistic worldview, how does he account for the laws of logic which are immaterial? Because he assumes these laws of logic, while he presents his challenge to David Wood. Just curious, why in the world is David Wood obligated to be rational according to the atheistic worldview? And if David Wood is obligated to be rational, how does Dan justify from going from what is the case and what ought to be the case?
He says that he is just like the apostle Thomas, he wouldn't believe unless he has seen Jesus and the nails on his hands and feet. I chuckled when I read this comment, because if that is the case why isn't he demanding to see the laws of logic?
And even if he does demand the laws of logic he has to assume these laws while demanding them or denying them, which is a self refutation.
Since Don may be reading this blog and anticipating my evidence for God, this is my answer God is the precondition for evidence and apart from him we can't know anything for certain.
Ironically Don every time you attempt to use evidence to refute the existence God, it is a self refutation. Kind of like arguing against air but while breathing air, aruging against words while using words.
Sidenote: Don Dan every time you engage in science apart from the Christian God you have the problem of induction, in which I will soon demonstrate.
I recall you saying that you are similar to the apostle Thomas because just like him you would demand that you see the nails and wounds on the body of Jesus before you would believe in his resurrection basically alluding that you are a champion of evidence.
Question on what bases do you believe that anytime someone is nailed to a cross that he would have wounds and bruises on his body and also in what bases do you deny that someone could raise from the dead? You would eventually argue from induction Don Dan, but you can't account for induction with out engaging in circular reasoning. Which would mean your boast about being like Thomas is futile since you don't have any justification for what you are boasting about sir.
Another atheist bites the dust.
I would like to thank my Lord and Savior for bringing me out of the darkness of Islam and Atheism. Lord willing my co author will be convicted by the Holy Spirit and come into the perfectly saving hands of Jesus. Nothing but love for you Derek Adams you are major influence in my life
A problem arises if that is the case, question is does he have evidence for evidence and evidence for that evidence, which would lead up to infinite regress? And that would mean he doesn't have justification for the very evidence that he demands, he simply assumes that we must have evidence.
Since assumptions without evidence are invalid according to his standard, then that would mean his very challenge to David Wood is invalid because it is just merely an assumption in which he doesn't have evidence for evidence.
Secondly, in light of his naturalistic worldview, how does he account for the laws of logic which are immaterial? Because he assumes these laws of logic, while he presents his challenge to David Wood. Just curious, why in the world is David Wood obligated to be rational according to the atheistic worldview? And if David Wood is obligated to be rational, how does Dan justify from going from what is the case and what ought to be the case?
He says that he is just like the apostle Thomas, he wouldn't believe unless he has seen Jesus and the nails on his hands and feet. I chuckled when I read this comment, because if that is the case why isn't he demanding to see the laws of logic?
And even if he does demand the laws of logic he has to assume these laws while demanding them or denying them, which is a self refutation.
Since Don may be reading this blog and anticipating my evidence for God, this is my answer God is the precondition for evidence and apart from him we can't know anything for certain.
Ironically Don every time you attempt to use evidence to refute the existence God, it is a self refutation. Kind of like arguing against air but while breathing air, aruging against words while using words.
Sidenote: Don Dan every time you engage in science apart from the Christian God you have the problem of induction, in which I will soon demonstrate.
I recall you saying that you are similar to the apostle Thomas because just like him you would demand that you see the nails and wounds on the body of Jesus before you would believe in his resurrection basically alluding that you are a champion of evidence.
Question on what bases do you believe that anytime someone is nailed to a cross that he would have wounds and bruises on his body and also in what bases do you deny that someone could raise from the dead? You would eventually argue from induction Don Dan, but you can't account for induction with out engaging in circular reasoning. Which would mean your boast about being like Thomas is futile since you don't have any justification for what you are boasting about sir.
Another atheist bites the dust.
I would like to thank my Lord and Savior for bringing me out of the darkness of Islam and Atheism. Lord willing my co author will be convicted by the Holy Spirit and come into the perfectly saving hands of Jesus. Nothing but love for you Derek Adams you are major influence in my life
Challenge to Muslims
I CHALLENGE A SINGLE MUSLIM TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF A SONLESS GOD BEFORE THE ADVENT OF ISLAM IN THE 7TH CENTURY IF NT I CHARGE YOU GOD TO BE A MADE UP CONCOCTION AND FABRUCATION THAT HAS NO EXISTENCE IN HISTORY AND OUTSIDE OF YOUR MIND.
Samuel Lattibeaudiere up and coming Christian apologist
Samuel argues from the presuppositional apologetics stand point, he is a current senior in college. He normally goes around the campus questioning the students regarding their worldview. Today while on campus he began speaking to a young lady and the first question he asked her was could she be wrong about everything she claims to know?
She answered him by saying ,yes she could be wrong about everything she claims to know, he follows up by asking her could she be wrong even about that claim it self? and she responded and said yes. Samuel pointed out that she would end up in an infinite regress.
And the only way to stop an infinite regress is someone who has infinite knowledge which is YWH. She responded back by saying we can't be certain about anything and Sam goes on ask her is she certain that we don't certainty? and she says yes.
He argues that her statment is self refuting and the only way we can have certainy is from an ALL KNOWING BEING, i.e YWH who can reveal things to his creatures in which they can know for certain.
She answered him by saying ,yes she could be wrong about everything she claims to know, he follows up by asking her could she be wrong even about that claim it self? and she responded and said yes. Samuel pointed out that she would end up in an infinite regress.
And the only way to stop an infinite regress is someone who has infinite knowledge which is YWH. She responded back by saying we can't be certain about anything and Sam goes on ask her is she certain that we don't certainty? and she says yes.
He argues that her statment is self refuting and the only way we can have certainy is from an ALL KNOWING BEING, i.e YWH who can reveal things to his creatures in which they can know for certain.
Farhan Qureshi self refuting belief
Farhan Qureshi is a former muslim who embraces the idea that every faith is valid. Secondly according to law of non contradiction a statment can't be both true and false in the very same sense and same way, if contradictory beliefs are equally valid that means I can say things such as: Farhan is wrong for believeing universalism and he can't say am absolutely wrong.
Because people who believe in universalism profess that they don't believe in absolutes. But yet they are making an absolute claim by implying universalism is true.
Its self refuting, all I need to do simply ask Farhan Qureshi is he absolutely certain that universalism is true? If he answers yes, its a self refuting claim, if he answers no, then why in the world is he making a postive claim about universalism if it isn't absolutely true? Since you do not claim objective truth, why should anyone believe you?
Because people who believe in universalism profess that they don't believe in absolutes. But yet they are making an absolute claim by implying universalism is true.
Its self refuting, all I need to do simply ask Farhan Qureshi is he absolutely certain that universalism is true? If he answers yes, its a self refuting claim, if he answers no, then why in the world is he making a postive claim about universalism if it isn't absolutely true? Since you do not claim objective truth, why should anyone believe you?
A critique of Jamal Hassan response to Sam Shamoun
Jamal Hassan says to Sam Shamoun: "Did you ignore the verse in the Quran about Jews changing their book? So if Prophet Muhammad says he believes in the Torah and Allah who revealed the Torah, does that mean everything in it is true? That does not make sense, especially in light of the verse I provided. We Muslims are mandated to believe in all the holy scriptures, does that mean we say everything in it is true? Yes, we believe in the Torah and He who revealed it. But the Quran is clear about the changing of the Torah".
It appears that Jamal is implying that Sam Shamoun should of used deductive reasoning and if he did, he wouldn't have assumed that Muhmmad believed in all of the Torah as the word of Allah. Since supposedly the Quran states the Jews changed their book. Problem that Jamal has to face is according to the Quran none can change the words of Allah.
The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all. (S. 6:115 Pickthall)
1. None can change the words of Allah. 2. The Torah is the word of Allah. 3. Therefore Torah cannot be cannot be changed.
Because Jamal wants to interpret certain Quranic passages as saying that the Jews did change the Torah with their hands, he is faced with dealing with a contradiction, its either Allah's word namely the Torah can't be corrupted or can be corrupted? If he argues the former then he has to accept the Torah as the uncorrupt word of Allah, but if he argues the latter he would have to question the trustworthiness and omnipotence of Allah for making the claim that none can change his words.
It appears that Jamal is implying that Sam Shamoun should of used deductive reasoning and if he did, he wouldn't have assumed that Muhmmad believed in all of the Torah as the word of Allah. Since supposedly the Quran states the Jews changed their book. Problem that Jamal has to face is according to the Quran none can change the words of Allah.
The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all. (S. 6:115 Pickthall)
1. None can change the words of Allah. 2. The Torah is the word of Allah. 3. Therefore Torah cannot be cannot be changed.
Because Jamal wants to interpret certain Quranic passages as saying that the Jews did change the Torah with their hands, he is faced with dealing with a contradiction, its either Allah's word namely the Torah can't be corrupted or can be corrupted? If he argues the former then he has to accept the Torah as the uncorrupt word of Allah, but if he argues the latter he would have to question the trustworthiness and omnipotence of Allah for making the claim that none can change his words.
Sam Shamoun quotes Hadith demonstrating that Muhmmad believed in all of the Torah, not just simply parts of it.
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar:
A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) to Quff. So he visited them in their school.
They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying: I BELIEVED IN THEE AND IN HIM WHO REVEALED THEE.
He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi' (No. 4431)." (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38 (Kitab al Hudud, ie. Prescribed Punishments), Number 4434: http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=38&translator=3&start=0&number=4434)
What's interesting Muhmmad makes the profession that he believes in the Torah that the Jews believed in and IN HIM WHO REVEALED THEE, which implies he believes in the very concept of their God that happens to be YWH. But yet the Torah states that YWH is a Father to his people and that they are his childern and the Quran denies both.
Isaiah 63:16 But you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name.
The Quran denies Allah being a Father and his people being his childern.
Sura 5:18 And (both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are the children of Allah and His loved ones." Say: "Why then does He punish you for your sins?" Nay, you are but human beings, of those He has created, He forgives whom He wills and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and to Him is the return of all.
Question readers should ask themselves how in the world could Muhmmad claim to believe in the very God that the Jews believe when the very basic concept of fatherhood, the Quran denies and Bible affirms?
Wouldn't have Muhmmad known these differences if he was a true prophet?
A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) to Quff. So he visited them in their school.
They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying: I BELIEVED IN THEE AND IN HIM WHO REVEALED THEE.
He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi' (No. 4431)." (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38 (Kitab al Hudud, ie. Prescribed Punishments), Number 4434: http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=38&translator=3&start=0&number=4434)
What's interesting Muhmmad makes the profession that he believes in the Torah that the Jews believed in and IN HIM WHO REVEALED THEE, which implies he believes in the very concept of their God that happens to be YWH. But yet the Torah states that YWH is a Father to his people and that they are his childern and the Quran denies both.
Isaiah 63:16 But you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name.
The Quran denies Allah being a Father and his people being his childern.
Sura 5:18 And (both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are the children of Allah and His loved ones." Say: "Why then does He punish you for your sins?" Nay, you are but human beings, of those He has created, He forgives whom He wills and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and to Him is the return of all.
Question readers should ask themselves how in the world could Muhmmad claim to believe in the very God that the Jews believe when the very basic concept of fatherhood, the Quran denies and Bible affirms?
Wouldn't have Muhmmad known these differences if he was a true prophet?
Encounter with college student
While walking on campus I came across a college student who claims that there isn't a such thing as truth. Problem with that statment, it is self refuting because he presupposes what he is saying is true. It is self refuting to deny truth, its denying the laws of logic, but in order to deny the laws of logic, he must appeal to them.
Virtual Living vs Real Living (Derek Adams Retirement Speech)
I am retiring for a while, I will be back, but sometimes in order to improve, you must out the old, and increase the new.
The Tolerance Of MDI
While it may be politically incorrect for Liberals to condone the preaching of discrimination against minorities, it is equally politically incorrect for Liberals to defend religions with law systems that pre-date Liberalism. Because of this, Hate mongers are regularly appearing in the media making uncontested fallacious statements about Islam and Islamic law. You’ll seldom hear a Liberal defence of either. When Nick Griffin (BNP) stated on BBC’s Question Time, that Islam is ‘wicked and vicious’ – no one challenged him on that, despite the fact that his fellow panellists challenged him incessantly on every other of his views.Al Andalusi (presumably the primary author of this press release) is making a valid legal point, no minority must assimilate and adopt Western Values, that it is indeed perfectly legally compatible and lawful to live a lifestyle within the West without embracing Western values. Mr Al Andalusi has made one critical error, he candidly admits Islam is one of these religions that indeed has a Law system and while no minority must assimilate and adhere to Western values, Andalusi himself admits a society (including the West) must demand obedience to the Law, this essentially means Muslims are also bound by their Religious Law. Andalusi fails to mention that the Islamic sources refer to the Muslims as an "Ummah(community,society nation)", and therefore every Muslim and the Muslim society as a whole are also actually obligated to adhere to the Law of that society (in this case: Sharia Law). But how do Muslims manage to do that in the West?
Instead of providing a refutation to the fallacious attacks against Islam, mainstream politicians and Liberal thinkers will generally respond that they have faith that like the Catholics and Jews who immigrated to the UK before them, the majority of Muslims will also eventually cease being ‘strict’ followers of their faith, and will adopt Western values. This argument is dubious and dangerous, for it implies that the anti-Muslim groups actually have a legitimate intolerance, but that their only fault is rather their impatience, or lack of faith in the expected ’inevitability’ of Muslim assimilation and adoption mind, body and soul, of Western values. The assimulation and forced adoption of arbitrary values, is not an appealing prospect for many Muslims. Muslims justifiably do not see it as fair and just that they should have to change their beliefs in order to be tolerated. A society need only demand obedience to the law from its citizens. A society which demands more than the rule of law upon its minorities, upto the point where they are required to change their beliefs, or face threat of discrimination, and potentially, even outright persecution, is not a fair or just society. (source)
Andalusi knows that adhering to the fully developed Islamic system in the West means Muslims must somehow manage and cope without being fully capable of surrendering and adhering to the Law of God as a Muslim which is why he objects to adopting Western Culture and insists on defending an ancient religious tale and it's binding code. Of course, this results in an internal Jihad for many Muslims, as they outwardly cannot adhere to every law they would like to see implemented.
How do Muslims where Andalusi lives (in England) handle this? They voluntarily submit to their own laws, their "Sharia Councils", effectively they have an Islamic sublaw operating and everything that is incompatible with their own nation's legally binding law must be voluntarily adhered to.
I would like to thank MDI for coming out of the closet and confessing it is Islamic Law they wish to see defended, that assimilation is out of the question for true adherents of Islamic values and practices. Adherence to Allah's eternal law is what Muslims truly desire, not the compatibility of the West and Islam, but the domination of Islamic Laws and the religious right of Muslims to fully practice Islam in the west.
MDI while ranting about incompetent Liberal folly also wish to express the desire to openly debate and challenge Islamic opponents in the spirit of fairness, tolerance and debate, and provide a great Mohammadan example for us all that I thought I would share with you:
"MDI takes guidance from the example provided by the noble Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him): this certainly does not involve covering the eyes, ears, and mouth when confronted by opposing views or opinions. The noble Prophet (pbuh) did not turn his back on the ignorant without dialogue or debate. One famous case was Muhammed’s debate with the Christian delegation of Najran."I have left the web link to the article intact so everyone can go and read the great example of Mohammed's tolerance that MDI wish to obey and emulate. Here are a few quotations for yourself:
After returning from the expedition of Tabuk, the Prophet sent his closest companion, Abu Bakr, to lead the pilgrimage and his cousin, ‘Ali, to claim total and religious authority over Makkah so that no unbeliever was able to offer pilgrimage according to the old practices of ignorance.Then we have more example of the Islamic peace and tolerance promoted by MDI:
The time had come for all Arabian tribes to realize that there was no longer any power in Arabia to challenge the authority of the Islamic state in Madinah with them now followers of the Prophet. Hence, it was only to be expected that the Arabian tribes should start to review their position.
"Later On ...I appreciate MDI's honesty about their willingness to adhere and fight the Christian disbelievers who do not submit to the Islamic State for the Prophet Mohammed and their agreement to ban the religious freedom of pagans.
The story of the Najran people is not complete unless a later episode is mentioned; when the Prophet sent his military commander, Khalid ibn al-Walid, to the tribe of Al-Harith ibn Ka’b, in Najran. The Prophet ordered Khalid to call on those people to accept Islam and to give them a period of three days to make up their minds. If they accepted Islam, Khalid was to accept that from them. If they refused, he would fight them. When Khalid arrived there, he sent his emissaries all over the place, calling on the people to accept Islam. They did so without much hesitation."
So what have we discovered today with the help of MDI?
- Muslims truly in their hearts desire want to adhere to Allah's eternal law stipulated by the Islamic Sources and Scholars
- Muslims justifiably (through Islam) do not wish to assimilate into Western culture but to remain segregated and distant except when debating for purpose of introducing Islam and the Sharia
- Muslims wish to ban or limit religious freedom and fight for the prophet Mohammed when commanded.
- Muslims are their own society and must adhere to Islamic Law to the extent of which they possibly can.
- Like (many liberals), Muslims think freedom of speech should be limited presumably based on the teachings of the Qur'an and example of the prophet Mohammed prohibiting slander (of himself and others) under penalty of death in the Islamic nation.
- Western Values and Islamic Values are ultimately incompatible
Should Muslims Use Jeremiah 8:8 To Demonstrate The Old Testament or Torah Is Corrupt?
Jose made a really interesting post about Muslim appeal to the Gospels and Disciples below and showed how it backfires to assume the Disciples wrote the Gospels and documented their own misunderstandings. I thought a similar argument could be used about Muslims appealing to Old Testament sources.
The same argument can be applied to Muslim usage of Jeremiah 8:8. If the Old Testament is corrupt, then Jeremiah 8:8 must also be corrupt and Jeremiahs teachings and book must have been distorted, unless of course Muslims cherry pick supposed "authentic verses", yet if Jeremiah 8:8 is right about this corruption what independent evidence is there that this verse is authentic and to be trusted? We cannot assume the Old Testament is corrupt and this one verse is authentic since that would be special pleading.
And what evidence is their in Muslim tradition to suggest that Jeremiah was a true prophet, whose teachings do not fully reflect the original teachings of Jeremiah yet some remain intact? They must be agnostic about Jeremiah as a valid prophet and source thus his comments cannot be taken as a valid authority. The only sense in which Muslims could appeal to this reference would be as a historical reference then or as an appeal to Christian scriptures.
If they argue the (8:8) verse doesn't need evidence to be authentic since they are just quoting from the Christian Bible to appeal to your own scriptures in order to show you something, then Christians are not obligated to accept Muslim interpretation of Jeremiah 8:8 since the Christian presupposition is ALL of Jeremiah's and Daniel's teachings are fully intact and authentic reflections on what Jeremiah and Daniel actually believed.
If they argue Jeremiah 8:8 is a valid historical reference, then they must show how conservative/liberal Old Testament Critical Scholarship views this is as a valid historical reference. But they must show it is interpreted as a reference to say there is some truth but some falsehood in the Torah of Moses otherwise all we have is a corrupted Torah.
So what we are essentially left with is the only way for the Muslim argument to work is if they appeal to the authority of the Qur'an as the criterion to determine truth/falsehood in the Old Testament and Jeremiah 8:8 matches completely with what the Qur'an says. Yet to do this they must:
In fact the only explicitly reference to corruption in the Qur'an is Chapter 2:79 which doesn't suggest some parts of the Book are valid and some parts are true, rather 2:79 suggests wholesale corruption by ungodly manipulators and perverters of Gods word selling revelation, thus leaving the Book completely untrustworthy. However this contradictions various other places in the Qur'an like 5:41-43;7:157 which suggest the Torah is the valid and binding word of God for the Jews to trust in and judge by.
An additional problem is that the Qur'an never explicitly identifies "the book(al kitab) or the tawrat" as the Old Testament scriptures. In fact the Quran refers to Al Tawrat (the Torah/Law) as a revelation GIVEN to Moses. Which means the Quran doesn't even REFERENCE the Old Testament least we accuse the Qur'an of making a historical error and saying the entire Old Testament was given to Moses.
Thus what we are left with is the Qur'an never mentions the Old Testament or the Book of Jeremiah, nor does it mention Jeremiah as a prophet. Therefore in conclusion there is not a single verse in the Qur'an that can be taken to mean the Qur'an is the criterion of what is true and false in the book of Jeremiah or the Old Testament in general, thus Muslims must only appeal to Jeremiah as a historical source. Yet according to Muslims much of history is not reliable (e.g. the crucifixion of Jesus), thus how do we know if Jeremiah 8:8 is a reliable historical source? Muslims must also be agnostic about that!
Hopefully this compliments and supplements Jose's post.
The same argument can be applied to Muslim usage of Jeremiah 8:8. If the Old Testament is corrupt, then Jeremiah 8:8 must also be corrupt and Jeremiahs teachings and book must have been distorted, unless of course Muslims cherry pick supposed "authentic verses", yet if Jeremiah 8:8 is right about this corruption what independent evidence is there that this verse is authentic and to be trusted? We cannot assume the Old Testament is corrupt and this one verse is authentic since that would be special pleading.
And what evidence is their in Muslim tradition to suggest that Jeremiah was a true prophet, whose teachings do not fully reflect the original teachings of Jeremiah yet some remain intact? They must be agnostic about Jeremiah as a valid prophet and source thus his comments cannot be taken as a valid authority. The only sense in which Muslims could appeal to this reference would be as a historical reference then or as an appeal to Christian scriptures.
If they argue the (8:8) verse doesn't need evidence to be authentic since they are just quoting from the Christian Bible to appeal to your own scriptures in order to show you something, then Christians are not obligated to accept Muslim interpretation of Jeremiah 8:8 since the Christian presupposition is ALL of Jeremiah's and Daniel's teachings are fully intact and authentic reflections on what Jeremiah and Daniel actually believed.
If they argue Jeremiah 8:8 is a valid historical reference, then they must show how conservative/liberal Old Testament Critical Scholarship views this is as a valid historical reference. But they must show it is interpreted as a reference to say there is some truth but some falsehood in the Torah of Moses otherwise all we have is a corrupted Torah.
So what we are essentially left with is the only way for the Muslim argument to work is if they appeal to the authority of the Qur'an as the criterion to determine truth/falsehood in the Old Testament and Jeremiah 8:8 matches completely with what the Qur'an says. Yet to do this they must:
- A) Establish Qur'an is FULLY divine and valid judging criterion sent by God
- B) Establish the Qur'an and other Islamic sources teach Jeremiah was a true prophet that can be relied upon whose teachings were partially distorted, yet some valid elements remain
- C) Prove the Qur'an accuses Old Testament of having some corruption and some truth and the Quran determines the truth hood therein.
In fact the only explicitly reference to corruption in the Qur'an is Chapter 2:79 which doesn't suggest some parts of the Book are valid and some parts are true, rather 2:79 suggests wholesale corruption by ungodly manipulators and perverters of Gods word selling revelation, thus leaving the Book completely untrustworthy. However this contradictions various other places in the Qur'an like 5:41-43;7:157 which suggest the Torah is the valid and binding word of God for the Jews to trust in and judge by.
An additional problem is that the Qur'an never explicitly identifies "the book(al kitab) or the tawrat" as the Old Testament scriptures. In fact the Quran refers to Al Tawrat (the Torah/Law) as a revelation GIVEN to Moses. Which means the Quran doesn't even REFERENCE the Old Testament least we accuse the Qur'an of making a historical error and saying the entire Old Testament was given to Moses.
Thus what we are left with is the Qur'an never mentions the Old Testament or the Book of Jeremiah, nor does it mention Jeremiah as a prophet. Therefore in conclusion there is not a single verse in the Qur'an that can be taken to mean the Qur'an is the criterion of what is true and false in the book of Jeremiah or the Old Testament in general, thus Muslims must only appeal to Jeremiah as a historical source. Yet according to Muslims much of history is not reliable (e.g. the crucifixion of Jesus), thus how do we know if Jeremiah 8:8 is a reliable historical source? Muslims must also be agnostic about that!
Hopefully this compliments and supplements Jose's post.
Sami Zaatari vs James White: Was Jesus Crucified ?
Sami says the disciples could of misunderstood the crucifixion since they have misunderstood Jesus through the gospels and therefore their testimony isn't trust worthy, it has no bases.
Whats interesting, since Sami said for argument sake that he would grant that the disciples wrote the Gospels, is that the VERY DISCIPLES THEMSELVES are narrating how THEY HAVE AT TIMES MISUNDERSTOOD JESUS. (Side note sure sounds like that passes criterion of embarrassment.)
Its one thing for a person or a group to make the claim that disciples are untrustworthy, and Sami assumes that the people making the claim are trust worthy regarding their assessment of the disciples.
But on the other hand if disciples misunderstood Jesus and therefore because of that they are untrustworthy, why in the world would Sami believe the disciples testimony that they misunderstood Jesus if they are untrustworthy?
I guess the disciples were trustworthy enough to correctly narrate every time they misunderstood Jesus. But ironically they fail to narrate that they misunderstood the crucifixion.
And doesn't admission of a mistake or a misunderstanding presuppose that the person or people have to come to knowledge to what exactly the truth is in order to know that they are mistaken?
Here is the point that would mean anytime that the disciples narrated that they were mistaken about anything about Jesus that would mean they have come to knowledge of the actual truth by the Triune GOD.
Which means Jesus didn't leave the disciples in the dark about ANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS about him, because it would be counter productive to their ministry because they would be spreading false information about Jesus.
And Jesus even promises them the Spirt of Truth which would guide them into and all Truth and enable them to remember everything he said.
But yet Sami wants us to believe when the disciples seen Jesus, he didn't correct their assumption that he was Crucified and Rose from dead.
Whats interesting, since Sami said for argument sake that he would grant that the disciples wrote the Gospels, is that the VERY DISCIPLES THEMSELVES are narrating how THEY HAVE AT TIMES MISUNDERSTOOD JESUS. (Side note sure sounds like that passes criterion of embarrassment.)
Its one thing for a person or a group to make the claim that disciples are untrustworthy, and Sami assumes that the people making the claim are trust worthy regarding their assessment of the disciples.
But on the other hand if disciples misunderstood Jesus and therefore because of that they are untrustworthy, why in the world would Sami believe the disciples testimony that they misunderstood Jesus if they are untrustworthy?
I guess the disciples were trustworthy enough to correctly narrate every time they misunderstood Jesus. But ironically they fail to narrate that they misunderstood the crucifixion.
And doesn't admission of a mistake or a misunderstanding presuppose that the person or people have to come to knowledge to what exactly the truth is in order to know that they are mistaken?
Here is the point that would mean anytime that the disciples narrated that they were mistaken about anything about Jesus that would mean they have come to knowledge of the actual truth by the Triune GOD.
Which means Jesus didn't leave the disciples in the dark about ANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS about him, because it would be counter productive to their ministry because they would be spreading false information about Jesus.
And Jesus even promises them the Spirt of Truth which would guide them into and all Truth and enable them to remember everything he said.
But yet Sami wants us to believe when the disciples seen Jesus, he didn't correct their assumption that he was Crucified and Rose from dead.
Taliban suicide attack kills 20
Taliban insurgents claimed responsibility for the attack near a market in the eastern city of Khost. Six Afghan police and 10 civilians were also killed, and 62 were wounded, provincial governor's spokesman Baryalai Rawan, told AFP.
Authorities had earlier given a death toll of four Afghan police and six civilians.
"Today at around 8:30 am (0400 GMT) a suicide bomber on a motorcycle targeted a joint patrol in Khost city in a crowded area," the governor's office said.
NATO's US-led International Security Assistance Force confirmed that three NATO service members and an ISAF-contracted interpreter had been killed in the attack.
The Taliban Islamists said on their website that the suicide attack was carried out by "a hero mujahid, Shohaib, from Kunduz", claiming that eight foreigners and six Afghan soldiers were killed.
The deaths take coalition casualties to at least 347 this year, according to an AFP tally. NATO has more than 100,000 troops fighting the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, but they are due to pull out by the end of 2014.
Joint NATO-Afghan operations had been temporarily restricted last month after a spike in insider attacks, in which Afghan security forces turned their weapons against their coalition allies.
Last week, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said most joint operations have resumed, but could not give any precise details on numbers.
NATO says that overall insurgent attacks on its forces dropped by five percent in the first eight months of this year compared to 2011, but are still running at about 100 a day.
It said the decline in attacks showed that its troops had been able to "reverse the momentum" of the insurgents' campaign, an interpretation that the Taliban "strongly and categorically" denied.
In a spectacular attack last month the Taliban stormed a heavily fortified base in southern Afghanistan, destroying aircraft worth tens of millions of dollars and killing two US Marines.
And according to the United Nations, August was the second deadliest month in five years for civilians, with a total of 374 -- more than 10 a day -- killed and 581 injured.
The latest blast came a day after NATO announced that a firefight between coalition troops and their Afghan allies killed an ISAF soldier, a civilian contractor and three Afghan army troops.
At least 51 coalition troops have been killed in insider assaults this year -- about 15 percent of all NATO deaths -- and the top ISAF general has described them as "the signature attack" of the Afghan war.
The scale of the insider assaults is unprecedented in modern warfare, and has seriously undermined trust between NATO coalition forces and their Afghan allies in the joint effort against Taliban insurgents.
"I'm mad as hell about them, to be honest with you," ISAF commander General John Allen told CBS's "60 Minutes" programme on Sunday.
"We're willing to sacrifice a lot for this campaign, but we're not willing to be murdered for it," the commander said. (source)
Coptics Aid In Endangering Free Speech - Muslim Cleric Burns the Holy Bible
Hey guys, in case you don't know in a recent protest a Egyptian Muslim Cleric tore the Bible to shreds and some of the Muslim protestors burnt the rest of it. Read about that here.
I was reading in the comment section over here (same story)
Here are what some western Christians posters had to say about this incident:
However, notice the difference between western Christians, and subjugated Dhimmi Coptic Christians, according to the same article:
I don't know for sure, but it seems the Coptics wanted the Muslims to just act consistent with their own standards:
Now we know more than one group of religious adherents want to see actual legal punishments for such free speech, I find this very disturbing.
I was reading in the comment section over here (same story)
Here are what some western Christians posters had to say about this incident:
-
Joe get says:
I’m a roman catholic, and I couldn’t care less if Muslims tear up the bible, burn it or piss on it. Big deal. Next… -
Softly Bob says:
Ooh, you’ve offended me now – boo hoo. I’m crying. My god is so fragile that every time you burn a bible or piss on it, he starts to cry like a baby. I’m going to throw a tantrum now. What I really need to get my anger out is to murder a few people and then sodomize an ambassador. That will make me feel better!
However, notice the difference between western Christians, and subjugated Dhimmi Coptic Christians, according to the same article:
Dr Maraghy, who is the chairman of the Coptic Coalition, said that tearing and burning the Holy Bible, which all Christians in the world believe in, is a "villainous and barbaric act." He added that it is not permitted at all to defame religions. "The same hurt feelings we felt by the film which insulted the prophet is the same that we felt by this criminal act," he said.
He vowed that the Coptic Coalition will not ignore such "ignorant people" but will prosecute them. The Maspero Coptic Youth Union has called on President Morsy to intervene immediately to put an end to any efforts which would kindle the fire of sedition between Muslims and Copts.
Another complaint was also filed this morning against Abu Islam by Karam Gabriel, lawyer with the Copts of Egypt Coalition, for his recent burning of the Holy Bible as well as his previous insults to Christianity through his books and through his Islamic Nation TV Channel.
The Coalition, which has among its members Muslims and Copts, has issued an official statement condemning the film insulting the Prophet of Islam. Magdy Saber, spokesman for the Union, condemned Abu Islam's tearing and burning of the Bible in front of the Copts who were present before the US Embassy, where they had gone in support of their Muslim brothers regarding to prophet's film.Have the Coptics been left this utterly delinquent by their Mohammadan masters? That they would salvage their own religion and replace it with a new political agenda in establishing lawful consequences in destroying a Bible is unthinkable. Or maybe this is this just overt Muslims trying to cast a spell upon the West into believing Christians are like the Muslims, that they believe these kinds of acts should be made illegal because this is genuinely offensive and/or hate speech?
I don't know for sure, but it seems the Coptics wanted the Muslims to just act consistent with their own standards:
Saber demanded from officials to take the necessary measures to prevent sedition among the Egyptians. "If we condemn the film-makers of the prophet film who live outside Egypt," he said, "we should also condemn this disgraceful act in Egypt, stressing the need to punish Abu Islam for his irresponsible actions."But are Coptics stupid enough to actually think demanding the Muslims act consistent isn't going to backfire? Since what this will be used of as an example of "religious defamation" and it will be credited to the cause of introducing the religious blasphemy bill into the U.N.
Now we know more than one group of religious adherents want to see actual legal punishments for such free speech, I find this very disturbing.
New Debate: Are Muslims On The True Path? Royalson vs Nadir Ahmed
The following debate subject is entitled "Are Muslim On The True Path?" The debaters are Nadir Ahmed, infamous Muslim Apologist vs Royalson a Christian Apologist and Critic of Islam.
Further movie protests cause a Lutheran church burned down in Pakistan
The President of Pakistan has condemned the burning down of a Lutheran сhurch and called for the protection of Christians in the country.
Pakistani President Asif Ali
Zardari also condemned the destruction of a school and offices in the
city Mardan and urged local authorities to protect Christians.
According
to the president: "The destruction of property, especially the places
of worship of other religions, is contrary to Islam and should be
condemned."
After Friday prayers Pakistani protesters angered by the film "The Innocence of Muslims" broke into the Anglican Church of St. Paul.
They destroyed the altar, tore up Bibles and then set fire to the building.
The
protesters then broke into a school, a library, an information center
and the homes of two priests and a school teacher, where they destroyed
everything in sight and wrote "Allah Akbar” on the walls. (source)
Prophet film protesters clash in Greece
Greek riot police have used tear gas and pepper spray to disperse Muslim protesters who clashed with officers during a rally against the American film that denigrates Islam's Prophet Mohammed.
A general strike in Bangladesh shut down schools, public transport and businesses, while a few hundred people peacefully marched in Pakistan.
Iranian students burned flags in Tehran to protest the recent publication of lewd caricatures of the Mohammed by a French satirical magazine.
About 300 Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims peacefully rallied in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad, to protest the film.
"There will be no peace in the world until we respect each other's religion," Sikh leader Deedar Singh said.
In Athens, six people were detained during the demonstration at a central square on Sunday, police said. About 600 people attended the rally, which featured heated speeches, but was mostly peaceful.
Some in the crowd then wanted to march to the US Embassy, which is about three kilometres away from Omonia Square. They tried to break through police lines several times, but riot officers pushed them back.
The violence occurred at the end of the rally, when small groups of protesters threw objects at police. Three cars were damaged and three storefronts smashed.
Banners were displayed in English, denouncing the film and called on the US to hang the filmmaker. One told President Barack Obama "we are all with Osama", referring to Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader who was killed in a US raid in Pakistan in May 2011.
The amateurish film has sparked violent protests throughout the Muslim world for nearly two weeks. They have resulted in the deaths of at least 49 people, including the US ambassador to Libya. (source)
A general strike in Bangladesh shut down schools, public transport and businesses, while a few hundred people peacefully marched in Pakistan.
Iranian students burned flags in Tehran to protest the recent publication of lewd caricatures of the Mohammed by a French satirical magazine.
About 300 Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims peacefully rallied in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad, to protest the film.
"There will be no peace in the world until we respect each other's religion," Sikh leader Deedar Singh said.
In Athens, six people were detained during the demonstration at a central square on Sunday, police said. About 600 people attended the rally, which featured heated speeches, but was mostly peaceful.
Some in the crowd then wanted to march to the US Embassy, which is about three kilometres away from Omonia Square. They tried to break through police lines several times, but riot officers pushed them back.
The violence occurred at the end of the rally, when small groups of protesters threw objects at police. Three cars were damaged and three storefronts smashed.
Banners were displayed in English, denouncing the film and called on the US to hang the filmmaker. One told President Barack Obama "we are all with Osama", referring to Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader who was killed in a US raid in Pakistan in May 2011.
The amateurish film has sparked violent protests throughout the Muslim world for nearly two weeks. They have resulted in the deaths of at least 49 people, including the US ambassador to Libya. (source)
Should Muslims get more offended by Syrian atrocities than Prophet attacks?
On the day that Hizbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, called the infamous anti-Muslim film the ‘worst attack on Islam’, another more sinister video has emerged.
Alongside this new video is an image that should shock the Arab world but so far there have been no riots or embassy attacks. The picture shows a small girl in Syria, beheaded. Syrian regime forces were allegedly responsible for the gruesome murder of this young girl.
The video, which was uploaded to YouTube several months ago, shows a Syrian man covered in bruises and scars. Assad’s soldiers appear to be whipping and slapping him while they insist that he calls Assad ‘God.’ It’s an extreme form of blasphemy for a Muslim to be involved in.
Syrian bloggers and activists were quick to point out the hypocrisy: a silly video of actors insulting the Prophet sparked chaos across the Arab world but such brutal human rights assaults have been ignored.
One Syrian tweep started to categorize the pictures and videos as ‘insulting to Muslims’ and ‘non-insulting to Muslims’, putting the beheaded girl in the latter category. So the question remains: why has a b-list film, insulting the Prophet Muhammad, caused so much more outrage?
The answer may have more to do with government policy than a group of amateur actors. Although the attacks on the US embassy in Libya were apparently planned before the release of the film, the two events were not unrelated.
Those countries that felt the most intense reaction were the recent ‘Arab-Springers’: Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia. They have felt resentment towards the West and the US for many years as leaders that were seemingly endorsed by American presidents, perpetrated terrible acts at home.
Yemen has also felt the side effects of US drone attacks, resulting in numerous civilian casualties. So just as these countries took their independence and regained their dignity, they feel themselves mocked and vilified by the US. It’s a potent combination and the effects have been shown around the world this week.
Yet still the atrocities in Syria continue with a growing vacuum of complaint from the Arab world. Activists say if they could inspire even half the outrage of the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ movie, the situation would quickly improve.
Do you think Muslims overreacted to the Prophet attacks? Should there be more outcry about Syria? Tell us what you think below. (source)
Alongside this new video is an image that should shock the Arab world but so far there have been no riots or embassy attacks. The picture shows a small girl in Syria, beheaded. Syrian regime forces were allegedly responsible for the gruesome murder of this young girl.
The video, which was uploaded to YouTube several months ago, shows a Syrian man covered in bruises and scars. Assad’s soldiers appear to be whipping and slapping him while they insist that he calls Assad ‘God.’ It’s an extreme form of blasphemy for a Muslim to be involved in.
Syrian bloggers and activists were quick to point out the hypocrisy: a silly video of actors insulting the Prophet sparked chaos across the Arab world but such brutal human rights assaults have been ignored.
One Syrian tweep started to categorize the pictures and videos as ‘insulting to Muslims’ and ‘non-insulting to Muslims’, putting the beheaded girl in the latter category. So the question remains: why has a b-list film, insulting the Prophet Muhammad, caused so much more outrage?
The answer may have more to do with government policy than a group of amateur actors. Although the attacks on the US embassy in Libya were apparently planned before the release of the film, the two events were not unrelated.
Those countries that felt the most intense reaction were the recent ‘Arab-Springers’: Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia. They have felt resentment towards the West and the US for many years as leaders that were seemingly endorsed by American presidents, perpetrated terrible acts at home.
Yemen has also felt the side effects of US drone attacks, resulting in numerous civilian casualties. So just as these countries took their independence and regained their dignity, they feel themselves mocked and vilified by the US. It’s a potent combination and the effects have been shown around the world this week.
Yet still the atrocities in Syria continue with a growing vacuum of complaint from the Arab world. Activists say if they could inspire even half the outrage of the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ movie, the situation would quickly improve.
Do you think Muslims overreacted to the Prophet attacks? Should there be more outcry about Syria? Tell us what you think below. (source)
Australian Muslim Protests In Sydney
The following article was to Politically Correct to accurately entitle the title.
But I want you all to know what is happening in AUSTRALIA. In one of the most wonderful places of all, Australia is corrupted by adherents of the Sharia.
Is anyone ever going to be honest enough to just say "Islam IS POLITICAL". Is anyone going to be honest enough to stop ballshitting and calling these vocal protests as a "vocal minority" when indeed 85% of Muslims whom are Sunni's agree with the jurisprudence given by Islam, that criticism of Mohammed is prohibited and punishable by death under Islamic Law?
As a Kiwi watching this following clip, it's awfully difficult to not feel sickened by such filth infiltrating our beautiful countries.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-gas-sydney-protesters-20120915-25yrb.html
But I want you all to know what is happening in AUSTRALIA. In one of the most wonderful places of all, Australia is corrupted by adherents of the Sharia.
Is anyone ever going to be honest enough to just say "Islam IS POLITICAL". Is anyone going to be honest enough to stop ballshitting and calling these vocal protests as a "vocal minority" when indeed 85% of Muslims whom are Sunni's agree with the jurisprudence given by Islam, that criticism of Mohammed is prohibited and punishable by death under Islamic Law?
As a Kiwi watching this following clip, it's awfully difficult to not feel sickened by such filth infiltrating our beautiful countries.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-gas-sydney-protesters-20120915-25yrb.html
Google will not remove anti-Islam film from YouTube following White House request for review
Google will not remove the YouTube video that has been cited as the spark for demonstrations raging across the Middle East and North Africa, the company announced Friday.
The decision comes following a White House request for the trailer for ‘Innocence of Muslims’ to be reviewed under the company’s policies.
The Obama administration is not explicitly asking YouTube to remove the film, but to check if it meets their standards.
"The White House asked YouTube to review the video to see if it was in compliance with their terms of use," Press Secretary Jay Carney said.
The company determined that the video was within guidelines.
“However, we’ve restricted access to it in countries where it is illegal such as India and Indoesia, as well as in Libya and Egypt given the very sensitive situation sin these two countries,” a spokeswoman said.
The trailer for "Innocence of Muslims" has been used as a rallying cry by those attacking U.S. embassies and consulates around the world. Several top lawmakers, though, have questioned whether the film -- in the case of the deadly attack on the consulate in Libya -- was used as a cover to execute a pre-planned attack on American officials.
Critics have accused the Obama administration of putting too much focus on the film itself, and faulted the administration for continuing to condemn it.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a ceremony Friday marking the return of the remains of the four Americans killed, again described that video as "senseless" and "unacceptable." But she also called on leaders in those countries to stop the violence.
"The people of Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob. Reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries need to do everything they can to restore security and hold accountable those behind these violent acts," she said.
Meanwhile, The Associated Press reports that federal probation officials are investigating the California filmmaker linked to the video. He had previously been convicted of financial crimes.
Fox News' Wendell Goler contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/14/white-house-asks-youtube-to-review-anti-islam-film/#ixzz26WUfg4DQ
The decision comes following a White House request for the trailer for ‘Innocence of Muslims’ to be reviewed under the company’s policies.
The Obama administration is not explicitly asking YouTube to remove the film, but to check if it meets their standards.
"The White House asked YouTube to review the video to see if it was in compliance with their terms of use," Press Secretary Jay Carney said.
The company determined that the video was within guidelines.
“However, we’ve restricted access to it in countries where it is illegal such as India and Indoesia, as well as in Libya and Egypt given the very sensitive situation sin these two countries,” a spokeswoman said.
The trailer for "Innocence of Muslims" has been used as a rallying cry by those attacking U.S. embassies and consulates around the world. Several top lawmakers, though, have questioned whether the film -- in the case of the deadly attack on the consulate in Libya -- was used as a cover to execute a pre-planned attack on American officials.
Critics have accused the Obama administration of putting too much focus on the film itself, and faulted the administration for continuing to condemn it.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a ceremony Friday marking the return of the remains of the four Americans killed, again described that video as "senseless" and "unacceptable." But she also called on leaders in those countries to stop the violence.
"The people of Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob. Reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries need to do everything they can to restore security and hold accountable those behind these violent acts," she said.
Meanwhile, The Associated Press reports that federal probation officials are investigating the California filmmaker linked to the video. He had previously been convicted of financial crimes.
Fox News' Wendell Goler contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/14/white-house-asks-youtube-to-review-anti-islam-film/#ixzz26WUfg4DQ
U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Benghazi - Islam-insulting film triggers attacks on US consulate in Libya
I woke up extra early today which almost never happens, perhaps that was "psychically" connected with posting this story....
Here is more:
If you are wondering why an innocent Ambassador is dead, and what exactly was the nature of this particular "American" crime?
Here is the trailer from the movie itself!
Cross Examination, James White vs. Rober Sungenis, Predestination Free Will?
Is God Unjust? Romans 9 Free Will?
It was interesting to hear the Catholic Perspective on Romans 9. Sungenis position seems to be it's perfectly legitimate for God to harden the heart of those who harden themselves first. Where as White appears to take the view that God can harden first, God is not obligated to work in any chronological order.
But what was especially interesting was when White asked him "Then what is Paul's objection mean then?" regarding "who can resist his will?" And Sungenis pointed out in his view the objection was raised because God can react and harden, and then the person can blame God for hardening the person further and being unable to resist his will. So there is still an objection to be made even in the Free Will view.
Question here is, is the free will position(Sungenis own position) anymore moral or legitimate than Dr White's? Personally I don't believe so.
Perhaps Sungenis didn't know that Islam teaches the same thing:
Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad Peace be upon him) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe. Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, (i.e. they are closed from accepting Allah's Guidance), and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment. And of mankind, there are some (hypocrites) who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day" while in fact they believe not. They (think to) deceive Allah and those who believe, while they only deceive themselves, and perceive (it) not! In their hearts is a disease (of doubt and hypocrisy) and Allah has increased their disease. A painful torment is theirs because they used to tell lies.Quran Chapter 2:6-10
Verily, Allah is not ashamed to set forth a parable even of a mosquito or so much more when it is bigger (or less when it is smaller) than it. And as for those who believe, they know that it is the Truth from their Lord, but as for those who disbelieve, they say: "What did Allah intend by this parable?" By it He misleads many, and many He guides thereby. And He misleads thereby ONLY THOSE WHO ARE Al-Fasiqun (the rebellious, disobedient to Allah). 2:26It is therefore inevitable, if God hardens a persons heart, then he has increased that individual's delusion, blindness, and stubbornness, he has taken away their ability to hear and see. In fact Romans 11 says likewise:
In fact it's highly likely that God himself (as opposed to Satan) is the referent in this verse as argued for by Sam Shamoun:What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day.” And David says: “a stumbling block and a retribution for them. May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.” Romans 11:7-10
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The God of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4A plain reading and exegesis of the text would lead us to conclude this is God the Father in the immediate and neighboring context.
To add to the fire, it is known the Bible teaches there exists a Divine Council, a divine panel or court of gods who congregate together in order to execute the will of the chief God, YHVH. This happens to include Satan and his demons who are known as "Sons of God", or simply gods themselves. It is thus indisputable even if God was not directly responsible for blinding the mind of the disbelievers, God certainly gave permission to the evil agents to fulfill his will like he did in the case of Satan and Job.
Why does Sungenis have a problem with God hardening the heart in some instances but not all instances is also not made clear. If free will truly existed, we would be free to choose God until the day we die, thus putting an end to even Sungenis version of free-will.
Adam And Free Will
James White points out when those elect attain their own post-resurrected glorified bodies, the believers will have a type of impeccability. Believers in heaven will not be capable of sinning or having evil desires. Dr White shows a distinction between this state of existence and the state of existence endowed upon Adam. Adam was not made perfected, meaning he was not made incapable of sinning. James White puts it the best:
"The will decides based upon the desires that are presented to it by a persons nature, we can't tell what Adam's nature was outside of knowing there was no sin, but there was no perfection in him which would keep him from having an evil desire, which evidently he did which lead to his fall...Not only did God have knowledge of what Adam was going to do, but if God's knowledge of the future is based on his decree, then it was apart of God's decree"It is interesting to note that James White remains agnostic about whether Adam had free will but then points out the will is decided based upon desires and he claims Adam clearly had evil desires.
Dr White seems to shoot himself in the foot here. Why does Dr White not conclude Adam did not have free will based upon these two facts alone.
- God's decree (as elaborated by Dr White)
- The desires given to Adam which Adam must have followed, as the will decides based upon desires, if something has more than one desire then clearly the will, will indeed fulfill each and every desire.
I want to add something I said elsewhere in a discussion with Mkvine:
This next was the most funniest part of it all (ME QUOTING MKVINE): "I can hardly make sense of this objection. Yeah, God gave the spirits permission to perform dark-arts (assuming there was no trickery involved). JUST LIKE HE GIVES US PERMISSION to sin or go to church or buy a car or eat a cheeseburger etc. Just because GOD GIVES US PERMISSION permission doesn't mean that he is commanding us to do it."And to add further what Dr White said: "The will decides based upon the desires that are presented to it by a persons nature".
(MY RESPONSE TO MKVINE:) If I give my daughter a car (the ability) and then the permission (my approval) considering her nature, needs and desires (rebellious sinner and curious teenage girl/or in the case of demons: evil) to go to the party. Do you think she will go to the party?
Lets think about this. I create something, but I don't merely create something I give it all the abilities, I decide it's nature, it's desires and inclinations, I give it my consent and approval and I set it up to go to the party, will it then, go to the party Mkvine? :)
I found I am not the only person to make such objections, similar objections have been made by the the great Apologist Sam Shamoun, in his dismissal of the Muslim God, Allah:
Thus, not only does Allah mislead the ungodly, he is the one who actually makes them ungodly in the first place and sends them straying from the very beginning! In other words, Allah has already determined beforehand who will be misled and has chosen not to grant certain individuals the ability to follow the guidance, thereby turning them into rebel sinners. Allah then decides to continue to lead these individuals astray for not believing in his message!(1)...
If Allah created the movements, or lack thereof, of every single thing then doesn’t this clearly establish the fact that a creature's every single action, desire, or word, whether good or bad, was created or foreordained by Allah, otherwise s/he wouldn’t or couldn’t speak, desire, or act in a certain way? Since Zawadi himself admits that Allah actually does create the evil that he wants to occur then how does this not prove that Allah has already decided to create people for both heaven and hell, and even created the very actions that they will do which will lead them to either one of these eternal abodes? (source)Or how about in the same article:
In light of what Islam teaches the obvious questions to ask are, how can a person believe in the message at all if Allah doesn’t will it for him/her? What choice does man really have when Allah creates even his very desires, words and actions beforehand? And how can people be condemned for their unbelief when Allah has created them for disbelief and has chosen to send them to hell before creation itself?...Of course Shamoun tries to show how Christianity is different in some senses because God loves all people and died for all sinners. To begin with these kind of Calvinists are known as 4 pointers or Amrydians, because they don't fully accept the implications of "limited atonement". But what this implicitly shows and attests to is Shamoun would conjoin with me in attacking Islam and High Calvinism (a position Dr White holds) because in this position God neither loves all the world, nor does he die for every human just like Islam.
First, pointing to what the Holy Bible teaches concerning Divine sovereignty, predestination, human responsibility etc. will not answer or solve the objections raised by the orthodox Muslim doctrine of predestination. This approach will demonstrate at most that both the Christian and Islamic traditions have major theological, philosophical and logical problems with their teachings concerning predestination and human choice.
But it further adds more confusion. Many People have objected to the Trinity on the grounds that God is schizophrenic. While I agree this is an invalid objection in that case, here this objection may be held. If God only predestines a portion of those whom he loves to his eternal grace this only further compounds the problem. If it is true that "every being acts on it's desires presented to it by it's nature", then God is acting contradictory with his own desires by not predestining all of those whom he loves. Dr White makes further and better objections against the "soft Calvinism" position, but for now we know that Christianity does indeed have the same problems as Shamoun accuses Islam of having.
But getting back to point. It is therefore true that a will must follow it's desires, meaning Adam had no choice but to fulfill all the desire given to him by his nature created by God. In fact God could have created every human being with the attribute of impeccability, meaning humans are incapable of experiencing evil desires or sinful actions, it is therefore inescapable, every Christian Theist must concede God wanted and designed, purposed, decreed and planned the fall of Adam.
Does God give only certain people the ability to repent? Yet he calls all men everywhere to repent, Doesn't that strike you as odd?
Dr James White answered this brilliantly:
"God's will in the law says thou shall not kill, and yet God's decree was that Jesus should die upon the cross, we have to allow all of those texts to stand together and recognize the difference between the revealed will and that of his decree"As usual it is Calvinism (and the great defender of Biblical Calvinism Dr White) which seem to be advocating the most scripturally and logically sound position.
Understandably many non-Calvinist Christians heavily object to Calvinism. But on what grounds? Are the grounds scriptural or logical or are they moral grounds?
If a Christian does object to such a God, yet we find this to be the Biblical God, we have several choices. We either become a predeterminist and object to the God we think exists and become part of the rebellion. Further more we could investigate into evaluating whether such a diabolical being exists at all in the first place like here on AnsweringAbraham.
James White "Discussion" with Ehteshaam Gulam
I must confess I think Sam Shamoun really fixed the questions himself at question time. As these questions are far to thoughtful for the average audience. Man, even Gulam couldn't understand such a unequivocal question, and he is the "representative". Another sham really.
By the way in case you haven't seen Gulam's response to Farhan Qureshi's apostasy, I highly recommend the video where he almost breaks down, best entertainment ever. I literally would pay to see videos made like that every week.
Adnan Rashid vs. James White - Trinity and Shirk
I have to be honest and admit, I could barely watch this debate. Adnan is another "stage performer debater" or quite simply "a showman" like all the most popular Muslim Dawahgandists.
He talks loudly, with breaking rapport and with irrational certainty and a non-anchored vast dynamic range. How many times does one have to repeat "Dr White" or "Ladies and Gentlemen"? He comes across as rude, arrogant, aggressive and most importantly insincere, he clearly wants his Muslim brothers to come out thinking he has accomplished a mighty victory rather than just sitting down and having a genuine conversation. This is the same mentality illustrated by the deceased Deedat and still to this day Zakir Naik.
This enough alone is to discard this incoherent, rambling shambles. Honestly I can't believe I use to take the time to listen to every last nonsense speaker and debate similar to this. How does Sam Shamoun do it? Knowing Sam I know there is almost nothing he hasn't seen, but I must confess I am slacking behind these days, I use to only do one thing, that was living my life evaluating arguments and researching. Now this is a perfect example why this isn't necessary. Because people like Adnan don't give a dam about any of that, they are more interested in getting the high from defeating an opponent.
Now I don't think James White is perfect, but I must admit there are just some apologists like Bassam Zawadi and James White who actually seem to "interact"and actually don't come across as showmen. The other peculiar thing is White comes across as passionate, but it does seem Adnan brings out the more aggressive side in Dr White, why is another reason Adnan should not be given any status. For some it's about the argument, for others it's about performance skills and the great feeling of winning over the opponent. Of course adding the "religious complex" only makes it worse, these faith-found illiterate masses think they are exalting and working for the grand designer, as if garbage like this would impress such a being?
Besides the obvious Adnan had no clue how to cope with the time restraints, and he simply didn't study basic Christian beliefs before debating. For example he represented Christianity as believing Jesus is "a God" when Jesus "Has a God". Such a basic fundamental error alone is enough to discredit this huckster and fraud.
Finally note how the actual topic was hardly discussed .Shirk is obviously an Islamic concept thus it's necessary to prove that "partners sharing the being of Allah" is equivalent to "persons". It's quite obvious "partners" refers to gods or entities outside the being of Allah, thus the Quran doesn't mention the "being" of Allah. It's also necessary to prove that Allah not only doesn't have a son in the physical sense (as described in the Quran) but it must be proven God cannot have a divine son whose eternal generation is derived from Allah. In conclusion the fundamental suppositions of the debate are not even contested or explicitly dealt with.
Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Moonies, dies in South Korea Self-proclaimed messiah notorious for mass weddings and creation of Unification Church dies aged 92
He married thousands of people in mass weddings, made millions from his church's business interests and was accused of brainwashing his members and breaking up families.'
But the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church – whose followers became known as "Moonies" – managed to shed the mantle of suspicion and ridicule to become a friend of political and religious leaders before his death in South Korea on Sunday, aged 92.
Moon saw himself as a messiah and created a church that became a worldwide movement and claims to have around 3 million members, including 100,000 in the United States.
Ahn Ho-yeul, a Unification Church spokesman, told the Associated Press that Moon died at a church-owned hospital near his home in Gapyeong, north-east of Seoul, with his wife and children at his bedside, two weeks after being hospitalised with pneumonia.
The church was seen as a cult in the 1970s and 80s, and was regularly accused of conning new recruits, holding them against their will, splitting families and forcing initiates to give over their life savings.
The church responded to accusations by saying many other new religious movements faced similar attacks in their early stages. Allegations of brainwashing which were common in the 1980s have rarely been heard since.
Moon was born in what would become North Korea in 1920 to a family that followed Confucian beliefs, but when he was 10 years old the family converted to Christianity and joined the Presbyterian church.
Moon said he was 16 when Jesus Christ called upon him to complete His work. He said he resisted twice before finally accepting the task.
He was jailed for five years by the North Korean government in 1948, but escaped in 1950 when his guards fled as United Nations troops advanced. He was an active anti-Communist throughout the cold war.
Moon founded the church in 1954 amid the ruins of South Korea and promoted a mixture of Christianity and his own conservative, family-oriented teachings. He preached new interpretations of lessons from the Bible, and fused elements of Christianity and Confucianism – outlining his principles in his book, Explanation of the Divine Principle, published in 1957.
In later years, the church built a business empire that included the Washington Times newspaper, the New Yorker Hotel in Manhattan, Bridgeport University in Connecticut, as well as a hotel and a car plant in North Korea. It acquired a ski resort, a professional soccer team and other businesses in South Korea, and a seafood firm that supplies sushi to Japanese restaurants across the United States.
In 1982, the church sponsored the American film Inchon, about the Korean war.
Moon began rebuilding his relationship with North Korea in 1991, when he met the country's founder, Kim Il Sung, in the eastern industrial city of Hamhung. In his autobiography, Moon said he asked Kim to give up his nuclear ambitions, and Kim responded that his atomic programme was for peaceful purposes and he had no intention to use it to "kill my own people".
"The two of us were able to communicate well about our shared hobbies of hunting and fishing. At one point, we each felt we had so much to say to the other that we just started talking like old friends meeting after a long separation," Moon wrote.
He added that he heard Kim tell his son: "After I die, if there are things to discuss pertaining to north-south relations, you must always seek the advice of President Moon."
When Kim died in 1994, Moon sent a condolence delegation to North Korea, drawing criticism from conservatives at home. Kim's son and successor, Kim Jong Il, sent roses, prized wild ginseng, Rolex watchesand other gifts to Moon on his birthday each year. Kim Jong Il died late last year and was succeeded by his son, Kim Jong Un. Moon sent a delegation to pay respects during the mourning period for Kim Jong Il.
The church leader also developed good relationships with conservative American leaders, including Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior. However, he was found guilty of tax evasion in the United States, where he lived for 30 years, and served 13 months of an 18 month sentence.
As he grew older, Moon quietly handed over day-to-day control of his multibillion-dollar religious and business empire, companies ranging from hospitals and universities to a ballet troupe.
His youngest son, the Rev Hyung-jin Moon, was named the church's top religious director in April 2008. Other sons and daughters were put in charge of the church's business and charitable activities in South Korea and abroad.
After ending his first marriage, Moon wedded a South Korean, Hak Ja Han Moon, in 1960. She often was at Moon's side for the mass weddings.
Their youngest son told the Associated Press in a February 2010 interview that Moon's offspring do not see themselves as his successors.
"Our role is not inheriting that messianic role," he said. "Our role is more of the apostles, where we share … where we become the bridge between understanding what kind of lives [our] two parents have lived."
Moon is survived by his second wife and 10 children.
But the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church – whose followers became known as "Moonies" – managed to shed the mantle of suspicion and ridicule to become a friend of political and religious leaders before his death in South Korea on Sunday, aged 92.
Moon saw himself as a messiah and created a church that became a worldwide movement and claims to have around 3 million members, including 100,000 in the United States.
Ahn Ho-yeul, a Unification Church spokesman, told the Associated Press that Moon died at a church-owned hospital near his home in Gapyeong, north-east of Seoul, with his wife and children at his bedside, two weeks after being hospitalised with pneumonia.
The church was seen as a cult in the 1970s and 80s, and was regularly accused of conning new recruits, holding them against their will, splitting families and forcing initiates to give over their life savings.
The church responded to accusations by saying many other new religious movements faced similar attacks in their early stages. Allegations of brainwashing which were common in the 1980s have rarely been heard since.
Moon was born in what would become North Korea in 1920 to a family that followed Confucian beliefs, but when he was 10 years old the family converted to Christianity and joined the Presbyterian church.
Moon said he was 16 when Jesus Christ called upon him to complete His work. He said he resisted twice before finally accepting the task.
He was jailed for five years by the North Korean government in 1948, but escaped in 1950 when his guards fled as United Nations troops advanced. He was an active anti-Communist throughout the cold war.
Moon founded the church in 1954 amid the ruins of South Korea and promoted a mixture of Christianity and his own conservative, family-oriented teachings. He preached new interpretations of lessons from the Bible, and fused elements of Christianity and Confucianism – outlining his principles in his book, Explanation of the Divine Principle, published in 1957.
In later years, the church built a business empire that included the Washington Times newspaper, the New Yorker Hotel in Manhattan, Bridgeport University in Connecticut, as well as a hotel and a car plant in North Korea. It acquired a ski resort, a professional soccer team and other businesses in South Korea, and a seafood firm that supplies sushi to Japanese restaurants across the United States.
In 1982, the church sponsored the American film Inchon, about the Korean war.
Moon began rebuilding his relationship with North Korea in 1991, when he met the country's founder, Kim Il Sung, in the eastern industrial city of Hamhung. In his autobiography, Moon said he asked Kim to give up his nuclear ambitions, and Kim responded that his atomic programme was for peaceful purposes and he had no intention to use it to "kill my own people".
"The two of us were able to communicate well about our shared hobbies of hunting and fishing. At one point, we each felt we had so much to say to the other that we just started talking like old friends meeting after a long separation," Moon wrote.
He added that he heard Kim tell his son: "After I die, if there are things to discuss pertaining to north-south relations, you must always seek the advice of President Moon."
When Kim died in 1994, Moon sent a condolence delegation to North Korea, drawing criticism from conservatives at home. Kim's son and successor, Kim Jong Il, sent roses, prized wild ginseng, Rolex watchesand other gifts to Moon on his birthday each year. Kim Jong Il died late last year and was succeeded by his son, Kim Jong Un. Moon sent a delegation to pay respects during the mourning period for Kim Jong Il.
The church leader also developed good relationships with conservative American leaders, including Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior. However, he was found guilty of tax evasion in the United States, where he lived for 30 years, and served 13 months of an 18 month sentence.
As he grew older, Moon quietly handed over day-to-day control of his multibillion-dollar religious and business empire, companies ranging from hospitals and universities to a ballet troupe.
His youngest son, the Rev Hyung-jin Moon, was named the church's top religious director in April 2008. Other sons and daughters were put in charge of the church's business and charitable activities in South Korea and abroad.
After ending his first marriage, Moon wedded a South Korean, Hak Ja Han Moon, in 1960. She often was at Moon's side for the mass weddings.
Their youngest son told the Associated Press in a February 2010 interview that Moon's offspring do not see themselves as his successors.
"Our role is not inheriting that messianic role," he said. "Our role is more of the apostles, where we share … where we become the bridge between understanding what kind of lives [our] two parents have lived."
Moon is survived by his second wife and 10 children.
Marriage lines
The Reverend Sun Myung Moon's mass weddings were a central aspect of the Unification Church. He conducted his first in Seoul in the early 1960s, and the "blessing ceremonies" grew in scale over the years. A 1982 wedding at New York's Madison Square Garden, the first outside South Korea, drew thousands of participants.
"International and intercultural marriages are the quickest way to bring about an ideal world of peace," Moon said in a 2009 autobiography. "People should marry across national and cultural boundaries with people from countries they consider to be their enemies so that the world of peace can come that much more quickly."
In 2009, Moon married 45,000 people in simultaneous ceremonies worldwide in his first large-scale mass wedding in years, the church said. (source)
The Reverend Sun Myung Moon's mass weddings were a central aspect of the Unification Church. He conducted his first in Seoul in the early 1960s, and the "blessing ceremonies" grew in scale over the years. A 1982 wedding at New York's Madison Square Garden, the first outside South Korea, drew thousands of participants.
"International and intercultural marriages are the quickest way to bring about an ideal world of peace," Moon said in a 2009 autobiography. "People should marry across national and cultural boundaries with people from countries they consider to be their enemies so that the world of peace can come that much more quickly."
In 2009, Moon married 45,000 people in simultaneous ceremonies worldwide in his first large-scale mass wedding in years, the church said. (source)
The problem of textual corruption for Allah
I have heard the argument against Christianity that since the nature of YWH is all loving and all powerful therefore there should be no problem of evil . I thought of applying the problem of evil against Islam but instead of calling it the problem of evil but the problem of textual corruption.
- If Allah exists then he is omniscient, omnipotent and his Word is non corruptible
- The world contains corrupted words of Allah, I.e the Injill and Torah
- If Allah were omniscient, omnipotent and his Word is non corruptible then the world would not contain corrupt words of Allah.
- It is not the case that Allah exists
Secondly a Muslims couldn't argue and say since the Injill and Torah are corrupted they couldn't possibly be the words of Allah, because Allah's words are subject to corruption.
Jonny recants Open Theism and becomes a Biblical Calvinist
My co-author wrote a post exposing Open Theism directed to Jonny.
Jonny has now recanted his position:
Jonny has now recanted his position:
jonnykzj: ANSWERING ABRAHAM: btw i saw an article refuting my view on open theism. Ive changed my posiiton so cld u plz remove tht article or put at the top tht jonnykzj has changed his view n is now Calvinist
Perfect Balanced Fine Dining vs Obsession
How obsessing and only doing one thing is ruining your life. How much life can get better with having so many pillars to fall back on.
Plowing through pain
Plowing through extremely painful circumstances. Self Accountability And Determination are the skills you need here.The most dreaded example I use is when you get the WORST rejection you can think of. Your pride is completely stripped away as a male, and you have no dignity left after being humiliated. This one fear happens to prevent the majority of strangers from interacting at all. Tonight, I had one of the worst rejections I've had this year, but yet I still pick myself up and continue on.
Solipism and Ego: fate, destiny, mystical magic directing your life, all products of ego
So the universe will give you what you need when you need it and never overburden you so that you can't handle it?
This is another flawed human belief, as usual related to the normative human belief that the stars and galaxies were arranged for them (by the universe, or gods or whatever). Everything was arranged so that you can wake up in the morning and go to work and have a bad or good day?
I rant about these kind of beliefs in this video.
This is another flawed human belief, as usual related to the normative human belief that the stars and galaxies were arranged for them (by the universe, or gods or whatever). Everything was arranged so that you can wake up in the morning and go to work and have a bad or good day?
I rant about these kind of beliefs in this video.
Dragon Ball Z - Come Back Parodies! DBZ Parody
This is for my fellow "nerd/geek" audience. Maybe you grew up watching DBZ like me.
If you did, then you have to watch these, unbeatable!
If you did, then you have to watch these, unbeatable!
Derren Brown - The Experiments (2011)
This post is particularly for my friend Radical. The first three episodes are some of my absolute favourite, and an awesome example of psychological techniques, tactics and influences showing some incredible things about human nature.
Derren Brown - The Experiments: The Assassin (Full)
Derren Brown - The Experiments: The Gameshow (Full)
Derren Brown - The Experiments: The Guilt Trip (Full)
Derren Brown - The Experiments: The Secret of Luck (Full)
Astrology and Christianity
This post is especially (but not only) for my Pisces brother who remains an agnostic Christian while believing in astrology. The following is from a paper entitled: Astrology: Between Religion and the Empirical by Dr. Gustav-Adolf Schoener
Let us return now to European astrology. For here astrology has stood in close interrelation with Christianity for two thousand years. How do they act in regards to one another, if Christianity proclaims the one God who created the world including the heavenly bodies, while astrology views the heavenly bodies and nature as full of magical gods and powers?
History
The Bible addresses astrology indirectly in some places without, however, clearly explaining in detail. Many are surely familiar with the "star of Bethlehem" which is reported in the Gospel of Matthew (Mt 2). There the story is told of three "Magi from the east" who have seen a special star. The Magi understood this star as a sign which announced the birth of a new "king of the Jews." Now they sought him in Jerusalem and finally found him in the baby Jesus. If this story is historically true, then the Magi were very probably priests who were followers of astrology from the Persian region. For these were well-known throughout Roman Empire at the time of Jesus. But even if it is not true, the authors of the Gospel according to Matthew knew of the "Magi from the east" and built them into the birth story of Jesus.
The Christian theologian Tertullian (ca. 160-220 AD) advocated because of this traditional story the view that astrology and magic were valid until the time of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. However, now that God had shown himself in the person of Jesus, astrology became superfluous. Since the three Magi’s homage to the baby Jesus—according to Tertullian—it is no longer necessary to revere or consult the gods of the heavenly bodies [64].
-54-
But all in all, astrology was very controversial in the beginnings of Christianity. A large number of the early Christians rejected astrology. Many, like Justinus (ca. 100-165 AD), for example, saw in the gods of the heavenly bodies foreign gods or angels that had fallen from God [65]. Others criticized the far too unreliable horoscope interpretation. For the most part, however, astrology was rejected because it was classified among the non-Christian, "heathen" religions and their practices, and the "new" religion, Christianity, no longer needed it.
However, there was also a thoroughly positive attitude towards astrology. This had less to do with horoscope interpretation as rather with the symbolism and image-world of astrology. Many astrological symbols were already common in some currents of Judaism and flowed quite naturally into Christianity. The largest number of astrological symbols are found in the Revelation of John. Thus, the astrologically important numbers four, seven, and twelve occur in quite central passages. Right in the first chapter, seven stars are mentioned which are represented as seven angels (Rev. 1:20). The septet of stars referred in the ancient world to the seven known planets: sun, moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. In chapter 12, a woman is mentioned who appears in the sky, clad in the sun, beneath her feet the moon and on her head a crown with twelve stars. She is quite reminiscent, down to the details, of the Mesopotamian Ishtar, who corresponds to the planet Venus and the Egyptian Isis, and who is also connected with the moon. Hermann Gunkel and Hugo Gressmann, two representatives of the "religious history school" (Religionsgeschichtliche Schule) in Göttingen, have dealt with the influence of Mesopotamian astrology on the New Testament and especially on the Revelation of John [66].
It has also been handed down to us that in the early period of the church, but also in the Middle Ages and early modern period, the twelve disciples of Christ are identified with the twelve signs of the zodiac [67]. We still find traces of this in Leonardo da Vinci’s painting of "The Last Supper," which was produced between 1495 and 1498. Here the twelve disciples are represented with characteristic markings and gestures of the twelve zodiac signs [68].
In the Middle Ages, astrology was considered – under Aristotelian influence in theology, as well – a science. Great Christian theologians, like Hildegard von Bingen (d. 1179), Meister Eckhard (1260-1327), or the Franciscan Roger Bacon (1214-1294), included astrology in their teachings. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) explained the relationship of Christianity and astrology most clearly. According to him, the heavenly bodies affect the physical condition of humans and the sensual inclinations. Whether physical passions or inclinations regarding profession—every worldly bond is determined by the heavenly bodies. However, every human has also the possibility to avoid the influences of the celestial bodies. The more he overcomes sensual inclinations, makes use of his reason, and devotes himself to God, the better is he able to master the passions and with them the influence of the stars. Thomas did not think that the vast majority of mankind was capable of this. Events such as war were proof enough of that for Thomas [69].
A basic stance of the church regarding astrology resulted. As long as astrologers practiced a "judicial" (judgment-passing) astrology for individuals, it was not allowed and was combated as a heathen faith. Here the powers of the heavenly bodies stood clearly opposed to the Christian Creator-God and the individual’s free decision in favor of this God. But as long as a "natural" astrology – the astrologia naturalis – gave information about weather or found application in medicine, it was allowed.
-55-
The Renaissance brought once again an enormous boom in popularity for astrology in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. This was because interest in science and art, and especially in the ancient world increased. Pope Leo X valued astrology so highly that he established a professorship of astrology at the papal university in 1520. Protestant theologians as well, such as Philipp Melanchthon (1496-1565), ardently practiced astrology. But despite this great sympathy on both the Roman Catholic as well as the Protestant sides, there were also critics. And this criticism was hardly different from that of the early Christian period. Above all Martin Luther (1483-1546) saw a danger in the belief in the powers of the heavenly bodies. Luther did not want to accept any other powers next to the one God who took human form in Jesus Christ [70]. In addition, there were some astrological forecasts which were not fulfilled, and thus Luther made some mocking remarks about astrology.
But sometimes Luther was not so sure after all. For he wrote a very detailed foreword in 1527 for a very detailed and religio-politically important forecast by the astrologer Johann Lichtenberger [71]. In it he said that, though the heavenly bodies cannot effect anything, they can yet announce events.
It speaks for the vast influence of astrology in both great confessions that Luther’s horoscope led to a heated debate between Protestant and Roman Catholic astrologers. The reason for this was his indefinite time of birth [72].
Heroism, Tragedy: Dark Knight, Alex Teves. Dark Knight Rises Thoughts
So back in 2008 I worked at a video store, I went to see The Dark Knight, (the second in the trilogy) Heath Ledgers final performance (as he had died before it's opening) as the Joker and boy was it amazing. In some ways over the years I became a movie critic as when you work at a video store you get to watch everything. And Dark Knight is definitely very high quality material, a movie that I have watched time and time again, a movie I was so excited about showing some friends who had never seen it even by 2011!. Anyway today I asked my dad to come and see the final in the trilogy with me after reading the awful news about a horrible tragedy in a Colorado cinema, but boy was I paranoid! I never mentioned this incident to Father as I don't want to make him any more paranoid than he can be. Sometimes our thoughts take hold of us, the older we get the more we seem to decline with thoughts of delusion, it seems to be a tenancy in our family with my passed grandma. Anyway I thought this might be the last chance me and my dad go to a movie together (since it seems like we only go to the movies once every ten years together), so we ended up going. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, I still believe the second one was the best, but there is no way I could miss this movie, as I have waited four years and it never ceases to amaze me watching the psychology of a true hero, a person who fights for a symbol, an idea that can never be defeated. Unfortunately James Holmes must have lost hold of this, as it's movies like this that should of shown people like James the very heart of a hero and love of his people.
In the description of the murderer James Holmes, I noticed he was a very isolated person who left university, was dumped by his girlfriend and was being kicked out of his house, a person who played video games, someone who lost touch with reality. I myself tend to be more introverted and so I could identify with him in some level. I have also lost a girlfriend, I have also left tertiary education, I have also been asked to leave several houses for various reasons, I also played video games, I also can be isolated, the intensity, pressure and suffering can build up. As someone who is fascinated by psychology I am wondering where things went wrong and what causes actions such as these? Here is a video of Holmes speaking at a camp back when he was 18, a shy but intelligent person (like many of us):
We godless agnostics/atheists are not all heartless. Words cannot express and tears have swelled up a few times, how deeply saddened this has made me. Although one nice thing came out of this, the victims got to meet Christian Bale:
Perhaps in the following documentary one of the following diagnosis matches James Holmes. The following documentary is a must watch, for those interested in psychology and superheroism and the dark knight himself!
There was one hero in this whole incident: Alex Teves, a living batman, the man who saved his girlfriend and covered her up and protected her. Read more about him and the other innocent victims including a six year old girl here.
One of the key defining characteristics or features of a superhero is found in all the greatest fictional or non-fictional superhero characters who put their own lives on the line time after time, never ask for praise or thanks or worship, they just do it out of their own sense of moral duty and obligation. Superhero's are always humble (except you Ironman!) and they expect nothing in return even when they are considered villians or bad guys by the citizens, a great man like Alex inbound knew his situation was incoming death but faced death head on, that's what a hero is.
This is a big shout out to all the real life superheroes like Alex Teves, people like you will never be forgotten. I wish I had the balls of a hero like this.
Here is my flowers to his family, girlfriend and friends:
I hope you find the hero inside.
Everyone has one
In the description of the murderer James Holmes, I noticed he was a very isolated person who left university, was dumped by his girlfriend and was being kicked out of his house, a person who played video games, someone who lost touch with reality. I myself tend to be more introverted and so I could identify with him in some level. I have also lost a girlfriend, I have also left tertiary education, I have also been asked to leave several houses for various reasons, I also played video games, I also can be isolated, the intensity, pressure and suffering can build up. As someone who is fascinated by psychology I am wondering where things went wrong and what causes actions such as these? Here is a video of Holmes speaking at a camp back when he was 18, a shy but intelligent person (like many of us):
We godless agnostics/atheists are not all heartless. Words cannot express and tears have swelled up a few times, how deeply saddened this has made me. Although one nice thing came out of this, the victims got to meet Christian Bale:
Perhaps in the following documentary one of the following diagnosis matches James Holmes. The following documentary is a must watch, for those interested in psychology and superheroism and the dark knight himself!
There was one hero in this whole incident: Alex Teves, a living batman, the man who saved his girlfriend and covered her up and protected her. Read more about him and the other innocent victims including a six year old girl here.
One of the key defining characteristics or features of a superhero is found in all the greatest fictional or non-fictional superhero characters who put their own lives on the line time after time, never ask for praise or thanks or worship, they just do it out of their own sense of moral duty and obligation. Superhero's are always humble (except you Ironman!) and they expect nothing in return even when they are considered villians or bad guys by the citizens, a great man like Alex inbound knew his situation was incoming death but faced death head on, that's what a hero is.
This is a big shout out to all the real life superheroes like Alex Teves, people like you will never be forgotten. I wish I had the balls of a hero like this.
Here is my flowers to his family, girlfriend and friends:
Everyone has one
Muslim Child Brides And Rape In New Zealand
Unfortunately child victims of rape are being forced to marry the rapist, sounds biblical? Well in this case it's Islamic! In fact this a modern (and ancient) endemic of the Islamic World! As indeed statutory rape is sanctioned by Islam because the last and greatest final prophet Mohammed whom married a child is the perfect role model for all Muslim and mankind. I viewed the following videos a few years ago. Unfortunately the following took place in my home country of New Zealand. However this sort of practice is not limited to New Zealand. Usually wherever Muslims migrate there are a smaller percentage of Muslims who cause similar problems because of the culture that strident forms of Islam produce. While I have many Muslim friends whom I consider friends and believe many Muslims would never commit such an act, I can never doubt that Islam is a contributing factor to this kind of on-going twisted backwards cultural phenomenon. And I always maintain the problem with religious moderates is that they are inadvertently and by association with causing the indirect consequence and perpetuating such actions by approving and endorsing the horrible world view behind it. Please just think about the implications of the world view in which you support. Even if there was no direct injunction in Islam to sanction statutory rape, would statutory rape still be an indirect social consequence of certain Islamic teachings? Please think seriously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)