Rowan Williams and Paul Williams Debate

Paul Williams gave a few jabs in his introduction, Rowan William emphazied the 'universality' of Jesus message opposing Paul Williams advocating a local alone message (mind you contradicted by the Quran itself), which ended up in a more or less debate atmosphere in the Q & A.

Unfortunately the questions were diverse and seem quite random, based on Muslim/Christian Polemics and only 'summations' were given, yet still if you want to summarize an issue I don't think this did justice to any of the questions. To give credit where credit is due Paul Williams is obviously a more experienced debater and was able to unpack more information in short jolts in the Q&A not that this reflected the complete accuracy of his answers. I am curious whether Paul William's repeated persistent obession in appealing to Erhman and Dunn etc are contrasted by a reading of Metzger, Wallace and Hurtado, as it's only fair to read the critics and those who just generally disagree with your own agenda and note the scholarly reasons why.

 

An issue of Methodology: Common Ground and Common Premises

In philosphy, it's charitable to understand your opponent and the position they hold to, and even provide them with the most optimal position avalible to them. Which I believe is why most critics of Islam will always assume along with Muslims that their sources are accurate and reflective of the teachings of early Muslims and Mohammed and assume Islamic depictions of history are generally accurate including the existance of Mohammed, the single version of the Quran etc.

Paul Williams on the other hand takes the least traditional view that most of the New Testament is not written by anyone who knew Jesus, many epistles are forgeries, Paul doesn't teach the divinity of Christ etc. In other words opponents of Islam argue on common ground from Muslim sources themselves that Islam must be false, while Paul Williams does not argue Christianity must be false based on Christian premises, but rather from a premise that no conservative Christian begins to start with.

It would be like a Muslim arguing the Quran says the Bible is corrupt, then quoting Erhman to confirm this. But the question is what authority do the Quran or Erhman have to an Evangelical or Conservative Christian?

Unfortunately Paul Williams is not the only Muslim to take this journey. Yet I agree with Williams in some sense. It is not always obligatory to be charitable and assume common ground with your opponent, especially when you see people like Paul Williams who refuse this and who even never actually quotes from or even attempt to suggeste reading the opposition to his scholars. In this scenario an 'eye for an eye' tactic should be employed. Which is why I would recommend the internet and other opponents of Paul Williams to start emphazing the dubious nature of Mohammed's existence, the reason why all hadith can be thrown aside and distrusted, the reason why the Quran is not a product of a single entity but rather has numerous authors and has been redacted many times. The truth is people like James White don't want to make these arguments against Islam because they believe it's inconsistent for Muslims and Christians not believe God is working in creation, that radical skepticism is an irrational methodology. But I disagree with Dr. White and others here. Why not make Paul Williams consistent by applying the same standards of historicity, textual criticism that he applies to the Bible, why not apply these same standards to the Quran? Hence everyone can work with a shared common ground.

My Challenges To Muslims Who Critque the Bible with Textual Criticism and The Historical Methodology

And now you know the basis for the following challenges to Muslims:

Using historical and critical scholarship alone I would like to know the following information:

I would like to know the scribe(s) and author(s) of each individual chapter of the Quran.

I would like to know the exact time period, location and date each chapter was written.

I would like to know what all the original chapters looked like and how has it changed.

I would like to know how many versions of each chapter existed, were they longer or shorter? what languages were they?

I would like to know how many Islams there were?

I would like to know how many codices of the Quran existed?

I would like to know what historical evidence you have Mohammed was born in 570 A.D. and died in 632 A.D.?

I would like to know what historical evidence is there for any of the first four caliphs?

I would like to know what historical evidence there is for the existance of Khadija, Aisha or any of the companions of the prophet?

Using historical evidence alone what evidence do we have for Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim?

What historically do we know about their lives? 

As you could see, there could be many questions asked and using the historical methodology, textual criticism and critical scholarship we could have a field day with Islam. So I endorse and advocate Paul Williams must keep appealing to the secular methodologies he employees and we will continue to use this on his own faith.

All praise due to Paul.

Top UK Catholic quits over advances claims

The resignation of Britain's most senior Catholic cleric is the biggest crisis for the church in the country for around 450 years, a leading historian says.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, stepped down on Monday, a day after Britain's Observer newspaper reported that three priests and a former priest had complained about him to the Vatican over alleged "inappropriate" behaviour stretching back 30 years.

O'Brien denies the allegations, which date back to the 1980s. A spokesman for the Scottish Catholic Media Office (SCMO) said the allegations were "anonymous and non-specific" and the 74-year-old cardinal is contesting them and taking legal advice.

O'Brien tendered his resignation as head of the Catholic Church in Scotland to the Vatican in November, citing age and "indifferent health" and he had been expected to step down next month when he turns 75, but his resignation now takes immediate effect.

It leaves the Catholic Church in Britain with no vote in the forthcoming conclave to elect a successor to Pope Benedict XVI.

O'Brien confirmed in his resignation statement that he will not take part in the election conclave, which has been overshadowed by controversies surrounding O'Brien and other cardinals caught up in sex scandals.

"I will not join them for this conclave in person," O'Brien said. "I do not wish media attention in Rome to be focused on me - but rather on Pope Benedict XVI and on his successor." (Read More Here)

Six Rules of Success By Arnold Schwarzenegger

Hey this wasn't actually that bad! Some solid advice.

 

If Money Were Not An Obstacle…What Would You Do With Your Life?

If money was not a concern at all.. what would you be doing for the rest of your life?

Bertand Russell Contradictive views

In an article entitled " A Free Man's Worship" Russell concluded : "Brief and powerless is man's life, on him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way" On page 154-155 of Always Ready to Reason Greg L. Bahsen writes: "In the face of nihilism and ethical subjectivim Russell nevertheless called me to the invigoration of the free man's worship" Russell writes: " to worship at the shrine that his own hands have built, undismayyed by the empire of chance"

Greg continues by saying: " Hopefully the brazen contradiction in Russell's philosophy of life is already apparent to the reader. He asserts that our ideals and values are not objective and supported by the nature of reality, indeed that they are fleeting and doom to destruction. On the other hand, quite contrary to this, Russell encourages us to assert our autonomous values in the face of a valueless universe to act though they really amounted to some thing worthwhile, were rational, and not merely the result of chance. But after all, what sense could Russell hope to make of an immaterial value (an ideal) in the face of an "omnipotent matter" which is blind to values? Russell only succeeded in shooting himself in the foot".

The "Better" 10 Commandments

Anti Muslim Comments by New Zealand Politican

The Green Party wants parliament to reaffirm its position on equality and rights of all cultures, especially Muslims, following a backlash over NZ First MP Richard Prosser's controversial call to ban young Muslim men from Western airlines.

Mr Prosser's anti-Muslim opinion column has made headlines across the world, where he suggested Muslim men should be banned on Western airlines for safety reasons and referred to "a sorry pack of misogynist troglodytes from 'Wogistan'".

The column was prompted by having his pocket knife confiscated before boarding a flight at Christchurch Airport.

After a day of avoiding media on Tuesday, Mr Prosser issued a statement saying he accepts he impugned many peaceful, law-abiding Muslims and deeply regrets any embarrassment caused to his party.

"Terrorism and airline safety worldwide is a serious issue which consumes great resources and causes major disruption. The issue requires positive solutions, and my article in Investigate magazine sadly did not contribute to that," he said.

Mr Prosser said he had used the column, which he has written for 10 years, to act like a "shock jock" and accepted it was no longer appropriate for him, as an MP, to be saying certain things.

"I can't separate, obviously, the man from the role, so I'm now having to give serious consideration to whether I continue with that magazine column," he told media at parliament on Wednesday.

"There's a lot of language in that column that I've used in the past that I shouldn't be using now ... Perhaps this is a catalyst for change for me."

Mr Prosser disputed accusations he was racist.

"Islam's a religion, it's not about race."

He stood by his viewpoint that Muslim women's veils were offensive to some people, which he published in a book in 2012.

"I don't believe in covering your face in public."

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman plans to move a motion in parliament on Wednesday afternoon affirming the rights and equality of all people, and that all New Zealanders should act with respect to others.

Click here to see more (and videos)
http://news.msn.co.nz/nationalnews/8609414/mp-will-have-to-front-up-over-muslim-rant

Is Islam The Worst Religion In Today's World?

The answer to this question depends on how we define Islam and how we defin worst. Does it mean Islam as understood and practised in Iran, Saudi, Indonesia, Pakistan, Somalia, sudan? What do we mean by worst, and in what sense? Worst under most theologies would be disobedience to Gods rule and law but if we simply measure worst by the U.n charter of human rights Islam takes the cake in nearly all Muslim countries implenting vari ous aspects of sharia. Http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/countries-worst-religious-freedom-grades-are-mostly-islamic Yet for some Atheists, Skeptics, Agnostics Islam and Christianity remain equally as evil in all sense and really both religions can be politically and economically exploited alone. http://www.patheos.com/forums/unreasonablefaith/topic.php?id=2266 If anyone can show me a Christian nation, meaning there is a type of Christianized constitui tion and set of laws justifed by Christian texts and tradition advocating death for apostacy, adultery, homosexuality etc I will eat my words. The problem with continous false analogies perpetuated by some misguided skeptics is that not only do we have terrorist Muslims justifying their crimes because of Islam but we have the entire political office of over 57 Muslim nations justifying wicked acts in the name of Islam. Thus even to show a Christian terrorist act is comparing apples and oranges as 1. They do not act in the name of the state and 2. Their terrorism is not justifed through Biblical quotations or theological reasoning derived from Christianity. It is also important to.distinguish political speeches covered in theological language and straight forward reason for policy, something for later.