By J.S. again.I did write back to him,but it probably went into his spam box.I wrote:
"Sam,I see that you are not really saved according to your own theology.I never imagined you would answer with such insults,just for giving one's point of view?I never insultedd you in any way at all.
The part above should have come second,and it's incomplete,sorry for the mistake.My name is J.S. and I am interested in the Jehovah's Witnesses.I don't know much about Islam but I find your blog fascinating,and you denounce the immoral qualities of several Muslim apologists.I came about it like this:by chance I came across a comment on the JWs by an Evangelical called Sam Shamoun.I wrote to him using his Facebook email address(sam_shmn@hotmail.com),where I very politely wrote,hoping for an educated dialogue:
"Greetings: I am not a JW and am not an Evangelical,just somebody who likes to learn about religion.It seems that an impartial reading of the New Testament shows that even according to Evangelical belief,Catholics and JWs are also saved.It is because of the Good Thief incident,he certainly never accepted Jesus as God,or Messiah or personal saviour.He jsut asked for help. My reasoning is that for 1,500 years before Luther and after,everybody who could, reconciled themselves with God at their deathbed.JWs(I go to their meetings to try to understand them) ask God for forgiveness of their sins every day,and in Jesus' name.I hear it every time. I was baptized Catholic but don't believe in their doctrines,but it is obvious to any impartial person that if the Evangelical belief that only by saying the Sinner's Prayer then you get to heaven,then that means for 1,500 years the true message of salvation was utterly lost.That makes Jesus to be a false prophet,he said in Matthew that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church,and what is more important than the message of salvation.
I don't see why accepting the Trinity is essential for salvation according to the New Testament.Doesn't all this show that Evangelicals have a false interpretation of the New Testament?I think that now that you have this new perspective you will agree with me than JWs and Catholics,from NT standards,can undeniably go to heaven.What is your view on the facts presented by me.Thanks in advance."
That was on December 14,11 days before Christmas.In his beautiful Xmas spirit,this born-again man,who has a personal relationship with Jesus,replied,on that same day:
"Why in the world do you think I would even care about your opinion? Are you that narcissistic that you assume what you have to say is of any value to me or anybody else? Now could you do yourself a favor by never emailing me again, since you will be saving yourself (and me) wasted time in producing an email that only you think is important enough for someone else to read?"
First of all,that's not normal behaviour,you do agree,secondly,coming from a so-called Christian,it's even worse.I thought I would get a theological response,instead I got disgusting behaviour.I have found out he has been insulting others for years,so I think you should denounce him.He obviously knows alot about Islam,which I don't,and I thought he knew about Christianity.He doesn't deserved respect.
It's obvious some of my questions troubled him,such a response is not normal in one who is self-confident about his beliefs.The thief on the cross went to heaven and he didn't have to accept Jesus as God,he had simply sincerely repented of his sins,like all faithful Catholics and JWs do,everyday, and on their deathbed,I wrote back to S. Shamoun,though my response undeniably went into the spam box:
"Sam,I see that you are not really saved according to your own theology.I never imagined you would answer with such insults,just for giving one's point of view?I never insultedd you in any way at all.
Reading history I have learned Luther was an anti-Semite,writing a book calling for the persecution of the Jews,he also allowed polygamy in one case.And Calvin burned Servetus,only for being against the Trinity.Yet Luther and Calvin both believed they were saved by faith in Jesus,and they never repented for the actions I have just described.Their actions show they were never saved,according to their theology,so your actions show the same.I expected a mature,educated reply and instead I got vitriol."
Here is extra evidence of Sam Shamoun's immaturity,in this dialogue he had with a Catholic called Dave Armstrong in April 2014.I am an ex-Catholic,so I have no personal interest in defending Catholicism.Shamoun had written that 50-68 million(million!)had been killed by the Inquisition.His source is David Plaisted,who is no historian.That's no problem,as long as the facts are accurate,but they aren't.The Catholic showed that careful non-Catholic historians Edward Peters and Henry Kamen say the figure is only in the thousands,not 60 million.Shamoun's reply was: "Dave Armstrong, let's try this one more time. Instead of plastering a book length response here which no one will read, answer my questions succinctly. I will even put this in caps in order to help you answer directly. PLEASE GIVE ME THE ROUGH ESTIMATE THAT YOU THINK WERE MURDERED BY YOUR CHURCH DURING THE INQUISITION WITH A LINK OR NAME OF A REPUTABLE SOURCE FOR ME TO VERIFY IT FOR MYSELF. SECONDLY, PLEASE PROVIDE THE JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR CHURCH MURDERING THESE PEOPLE. Hopefully that helped you understand how not to answer and how to properly answer a question. Take care." Armstrong answered: "ALREADY DID ALL THAT. I wrote, "The actual numbers, of course, are just a few thousand, according to real (and competent) historians." You were obviously among the persons that didn't read my post (i.e., before you deleted it). I gave you two reputable historians (Edward Peters and Henry Kamen), and their books and credentials, and cited Peters, saying: " “The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts.” But I guess you didn't read that, either, since we're on this imbecilic, rude playground level you have chosen to descend to. I predicted that you might very well play the ""that's too LOOOONG for me to read!" evasion on my Facebook page, since you did it with someone else, and deleted his comment, too." And also:"Extremely disappointing. I would have no more thought you would assert and dig in over something this stupid and idiotic than I would have thought you would become a Muslim.
I'll now remove the links I have had to your work with the Muslims, that have been up for years, and "unlike" your Facebook page, because in my opinion, you have lost all intellectual credibility. If you can lie and act like a complete ass and fool to this extent, towards a fellow Christian (one that you have even highly complimented in the past) and His Church, I no longer trust you to accurately represent Muslims and Islam."
I don't agree with Armstrong losing his cool but then he has less patience.But to continue,Shamoun then said: "Dave Armstrong, I was going to allow your post to stand because you managed to edit it down from a book length response filled with fluff and evasion to a manageable size where we can actual read through your bluster. However, seeing your rather stupid childish comments and accusations, i.e. "since we're on this imbecilic, rude playground level you have chosen to descend to. I predicted that you might very well play the 'that's too LOOOONG for me to read!' evasion", you have less than an hour to remove yourself from this page before I ban you. Moreover, next time I show up in Michigan I will be more than happy to set up a live debate between you and me on the satellite shows which I do out there. Then we will see who will end up sounding imbecilic and childish. Time is a tickin!
Gee, how original of you Dave Armstrong: [cites this paper] I guess I should be flattered that you have done a post on me, much like you have done with nearly every Protestant apologist from James White to Eric Svendsen. Is this how you try to get people to financially support your ministry, by giving the impression that you are capable of debating and refuting the "big guns" of Protestantism? It obviously isn't working now is it? You have less than 30 minutes to remove yourself as I ban you."
As I said before,Dave lost his patience,and ends his article with:"There you have it, folks. This is what you get, trying to have a rational discussion about historical facts with a raving anti-Catholic zealot. I never expected this from Sam. Apparently over time, he's become an embittered parody of a satire of James White: the Grand Poobah of the anti-Catholics and greatest slanderer of them all. And that is a sad thing to be." Source:http://socrates58.blogspot.ca/2014/04/reformed-apologist-and-expert-on-islam.html
By J.S. again.I did write back to him,but it probably went into his spam box.I wrote:
ReplyDelete"Sam,I see that you are not really saved according to your own theology.I never imagined you would answer with such insults,just for giving one's point of view?I never insultedd you in any way at all.
http://www.answeringabraham.com/2014/12/was-repentant-thief-saved-without.html
DeleteGreetings:
ReplyDeleteThe part above should have come second,and it's incomplete,sorry for the mistake.My name is J.S. and I am interested in the Jehovah's Witnesses.I don't know much about Islam but I find your blog fascinating,and you denounce the immoral qualities of several Muslim apologists.I came about it like this:by chance I came across a comment on the JWs by an Evangelical called Sam Shamoun.I wrote to him using his Facebook email address(sam_shmn@hotmail.com),where I very politely wrote,hoping for an educated dialogue:
"Greetings:
I am not a JW and am not an Evangelical,just somebody who likes to learn about religion.It seems that an impartial reading of the New Testament shows that even according to Evangelical belief,Catholics and JWs are also saved.It is because of the Good Thief incident,he certainly never accepted Jesus as God,or Messiah or personal saviour.He jsut asked for help.
My reasoning is that for 1,500 years before Luther and after,everybody who could, reconciled themselves with God at their deathbed.JWs(I go to their meetings to try to understand them) ask God for forgiveness of their sins every day,and in Jesus' name.I hear it every time.
I was baptized Catholic but don't believe in their doctrines,but it is obvious to any impartial person that if the Evangelical belief that only by saying the Sinner's Prayer then you get to heaven,then that means for 1,500 years the true message of salvation was utterly lost.That makes Jesus to be a false prophet,he said in Matthew that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church,and what is more important than the message of salvation.
I don't see why accepting the Trinity is essential for salvation according to the New Testament.Doesn't all this show that Evangelicals have a false interpretation of the New Testament?I think that now that you have this new perspective you will agree with me than JWs and Catholics,from NT standards,can undeniably go to heaven.What is your view on the facts presented by me.Thanks in advance."
That was on December 14,11 days before Christmas.In his beautiful Xmas spirit,this born-again man,who has a personal relationship with Jesus,replied,on that same day:
"Why in the world do you think I would even care about your opinion? Are you that narcissistic that you assume what you have to say is of any value to me or anybody else? Now could you do yourself a favor by never emailing me again, since you will be saving yourself (and me) wasted time in producing an email that only you think is important enough for someone else to read?"
First of all,that's not normal behaviour,you do agree,secondly,coming from a so-called Christian,it's even worse.I thought I would get a theological response,instead I got disgusting behaviour.I have found out he has been insulting others for years,so I think you should denounce him.He obviously knows alot about Islam,which I don't,and I thought he knew about Christianity.He doesn't deserved respect.
Dear J.S.
DeleteI have enclosed a response to your query here:
http://www.answeringabraham.com/2014/12/was-repentant-thief-saved-without.html
Jesus is Lord to the Glory of God the Father.
http://www.answeringabraham.com/2014/12/was-repentant-thief-saved-without.html
DeleteIt's obvious some of my questions troubled him,such a response is not normal in one who is self-confident about his beliefs.The thief on the cross went to heaven and he didn't have to accept Jesus as God,he had simply sincerely repented of his sins,like all faithful Catholics and JWs do,everyday, and on their deathbed,I wrote back to S. Shamoun,though my response undeniably went into the spam box:
ReplyDelete"Sam,I see that you are not really saved according to your own theology.I never imagined you would answer with such insults,just for giving one's point of view?I never insultedd you in any way at all.
Reading history I have learned Luther was an anti-Semite,writing a book calling for the persecution of the Jews,he also allowed polygamy in one case.And Calvin burned Servetus,only for being against the Trinity.Yet Luther and Calvin both believed they were saved by faith in Jesus,and they never repented for the actions I have just described.Their actions show they were never saved,according to their theology,so your actions show the same.I expected a mature,educated reply and instead I got vitriol."
Here is extra evidence of Sam Shamoun's immaturity,in this dialogue he had with a Catholic called Dave Armstrong in April 2014.I am an ex-Catholic,so I have no personal interest in defending Catholicism.Shamoun had written that 50-68 million(million!)had been killed by the Inquisition.His source is David Plaisted,who is no historian.That's no problem,as long as the facts are accurate,but they aren't.The Catholic showed that careful non-Catholic historians Edward Peters and Henry Kamen say the figure is only in the thousands,not 60 million.Shamoun's reply was:
ReplyDelete"Dave Armstrong, let's try this one more time. Instead of plastering a book length response here which no one will read, answer my questions succinctly. I will even put this in caps in order to help you answer directly. PLEASE GIVE ME THE ROUGH ESTIMATE THAT YOU THINK WERE MURDERED BY YOUR CHURCH DURING THE INQUISITION WITH A LINK OR NAME OF A REPUTABLE SOURCE FOR ME TO VERIFY IT FOR MYSELF. SECONDLY, PLEASE PROVIDE THE JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR CHURCH MURDERING THESE PEOPLE. Hopefully that helped you understand how not to answer and how to properly answer a question. Take care."
Armstrong answered:
"ALREADY DID ALL THAT. I wrote, "The actual numbers, of course, are just a few thousand, according to real (and competent) historians." You were obviously among the persons that didn't read my post (i.e., before you deleted it). I gave you two reputable historians (Edward Peters and Henry Kamen), and their books and credentials, and cited Peters, saying: " “The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts.” But I guess you didn't read that, either, since we're on this imbecilic, rude playground level you have chosen to descend to. I predicted that you might very well play the ""that's too LOOOONG for me to read!" evasion on my Facebook page, since you did it with someone else, and deleted his comment, too."
And also:"Extremely disappointing. I would have no more thought you would assert and dig in over something this stupid and idiotic than I would have thought you would become a Muslim.
I'll now remove the links I have had to your work with the Muslims, that have been up for years, and "unlike" your Facebook page, because in my opinion, you have lost all intellectual credibility. If you can lie and act like a complete ass and fool to this extent, towards a fellow Christian (one that you have even highly complimented in the past) and His Church, I no longer trust you to accurately represent Muslims and Islam."
I don't agree with Armstrong losing his cool but then he has less patience.But to continue,Shamoun then said:
ReplyDelete"Dave Armstrong, I was going to allow your post to stand because you managed to edit it down from a book length response filled with fluff and evasion to a manageable size where we can actual read through your bluster. However, seeing your rather stupid childish comments and accusations, i.e. "since we're on this imbecilic, rude playground level you have chosen to descend to. I predicted that you might very well play the 'that's too LOOOONG for me to read!' evasion", you have less than an hour to remove yourself from this page before I ban you. Moreover, next time I show up in Michigan I will be more than happy to set up a live debate between you and me on the satellite shows which I do out there. Then we will see who will end up sounding imbecilic and childish. Time is a tickin!
Gee, how original of you Dave Armstrong: [cites this paper] I guess I should be flattered that you have done a post on me, much like you have done with nearly every Protestant apologist from James White to Eric Svendsen. Is this how you try to get people to financially support your ministry, by giving the impression that you are capable of debating and refuting the "big guns" of Protestantism? It obviously isn't working now is it? You have less than 30 minutes to remove yourself as I ban you."
As I said before,Dave lost his patience,and ends his article with:"There you have it, folks. This is what you get, trying to have a rational discussion about historical facts with a raving anti-Catholic zealot. I never expected this from Sam. Apparently over time, he's become an embittered parody of a satire of James White: the Grand Poobah of the anti-Catholics and greatest slanderer of them all. And that is a sad thing to be."
Source:http://socrates58.blogspot.ca/2014/04/reformed-apologist-and-expert-on-islam.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete