Palestinian Baby With Genetic Defect Saved Solely by Israeli Kindness; Mother Wants Him to Grow Up and Suicide Bomb Israelis in Return


The facts in brief:

– Palestinian baby has a genetic defect that will kill him (in no way caused by Israeli actions)

– Israeli reporter helps to find donors to pay for the life-saving operation via news item, despite average of 10 Hamas rockets launched at Israel daily at the time

– Israeli Jew whose son died in military service (likely killed by Hamas-alikes?) donates $55,000 for operation

– Mother of the saved baby wants him to get well, grow up (at least a little) and suicide bomb Israelis

Via Elder of Ziyon, through Gateway Pundit, excerpted from Haaretz:

In Sheba’s pediatric hemato-oncology department was Mohammed Abu Mustafa, a four-and-a-half-month-old Palestinian infant. Protruding from his tiny body were pipes attached to big machines. His breathing was labored.

“His days may be numbered. He is suffering from a genetic defect that is causing the failure of his immune system,” said the baby’s mother, Raida, from the Gaza Strip, when she emerged from the isolation room. “I had two daughters in Gaza,” she continued, her black eyes shimmering. “Both died because of immune deficiency. In Gaza I was told all the time that there is no treatment for this and that he is doomed to die. The problem now is how to pay for the [bone marrow] transplant. There is no funding.”

“I got to her after all the attempts to find a donation for the transplant had failed,” [Israeli reporter Shlomi Eldar] relates. “I understood that I was the baby’s last hope, but I didn’t give it much of a chance. At the time, Qassam rockets falling on Sderot opened every newscast. In that situation, I didn’t believe that anyone would be willing to give a shekel for a Palestinian infant.”

He was wrong. Hours after the news item about Mohammed was broadcast, the hospital switchboard was jammed with callers. An Israeli Jew whose son died during his military service donated $55,000, and for the first time the Abu Mustafa family began to feel hopeful. Only then did Eldar grasp the full dramatic potential of the story. He told his editor, Tali Ben Ovadia, that he wanted to continue accompanying the family.

…Nevertheless, this idyllic situation developed into a deep crisis that led to the severance of the relations and what appeared to be the end of the filming. From an innocent conversation about religious holidays, Raida Abu Mustafa launched into a painful monologue about the culture of the shahids – the martyrs – and admitted, during the complex transplant process, that she would like to see her son perpetrate a suicide bombing attack in Jerusalem.

“Jerusalem is ours,” she declared. “We are all for Jerusalem, the whole nation, not just a million, all of us. Do you understand what that means – all of us?”

She also explained to Eldar exactly what she had in mind. “For us, death is a natural thing. We are not frightened of death. From the smallest infant, even smaller than Mohammed, to the oldest person, we will all sacrifice ourselves for the sake of Jerusalem. We feel we have the right to it. You’re free to be angry, so be angry.”

And Eldar was angry. “Then why are you fighting to save your son’s life, if you say that death is a usual thing for your people?” he lashes out in one of the most dramatic moments in the film.

“It is a regular thing,” she smiles at him. “Life is not precious. Life is precious, but not for us. For us, life is nothing, not worth a thing. That is why we have so many suicide bombers. They are not afraid of death. None of us, not even the children, are afraid of death. It is natural for us. After Mohammed gets well, I will certainly want him to be a shahid. If it’s for Jerusalem, then there’s no problem. For you it is hard, I know; with us, there are cries of rejoicing and happiness when someone falls as a shahid. For us a shahid is a tremendous thing.”

And another one. Why save a life doomed by own mother to die?

Sadly, this is totally expected by me in light of previous posts like these:

If All Mothers Were Like This:

IfAllMothersWereLikeThis

Suicide Bomber Sing Along Karaoke For Kids:

SuicideSingAlong3

SuicideSingAlong5

SuicideSingAlong6

How Palestinian Freedom Fighters Protect Innocent Bystanders:

And a trio of kiddie-brainwashers (not sure what animal mascot jihadist they’re up to now):

Assud the Martyrdom Rabbit:

Assud: We are all martyrdom-seekers, are we not, Saraa?

Saraa Barhoum: Of course we are. We are all ready to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of our homeland. We will sacrifice our souls and everything we own for the homeland.

Nahoul the Hamas Bee:

I want to continue in the path of Farfour – the path of Islam, of heroism, of martyrdom, and of the mujahideen. Me and my friends will follow in the footsteps of Farfour.

See Nahoul taunt and provoke defenceless animals!

Farfour the Jihadi Mouse:

“You and I are laying the foundation for a world led by Islamists.”

“Yes, we, tomorrow’s pioneers, will restore to this nation its glory, and we will liberate Al-Aqsa, with Allah’s will, and we will liberate Iraq, with Allah’s will, and we will liberate the Muslim countries, invaded by murderers.”

Palestine… The nation most deserving of the world’s charity and aid, always putting resources to good use and seeking a peaceful end to the Middle East conflict.

“Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs start to love their children more than they hate us.” – Golda Meir, former Israeli Prime Minister

“We have discovered how to hit the Jews where they are the most vulnerable. The Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from them. We are going to win because they love life and we love death.” – Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah

—————————-

PS. As an afterthought, the titular total lack of any sense of gratefulness or reciprocation is symptomatic of her ilk. That is why terror appeasers gain absolutely nothing from ‘multicultural sensitivity‘, all-encompassing tolerance, groveling apologies, making things ‘fairer’, over-reaching across the aisle and other acts that are rightly perceived as dhimmitude.

“When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.” – Osama bin Laden


Tags: , , ,

247 Responses to “Palestinian Baby With Genetic Defect Saved Solely by Israeli Kindness; Mother Wants Him to Grow Up and Suicide Bomb Israelis in Return”

  1. Zack T Says:

    And people thought ‘Jesus Camp’ was bad…
    (Though persoanlly, I’ve not watch the documentary movie)

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486358/

  2. Ron Says:

    I have, and quite frankly, I think that Becky Fischer should be charged with multiple counts of child abuse.

    Hey and I love that Ted Haggard quote on IMDB

    Ted Haggard: We’ve decided the Bible is the word of God. We don’t have to have a General Assembly about what we believe. It’s written in the Bible. Alright, so we don’t have to debate what we think about homosexual activity. It’s written in the Bible. [pointing and looking into the camera]

    Seven months later… word gets out that Ted has been seeing a male prostitute for over three years and has a meth habit.

  3. Scott Thong Says:

    Ted Haggard: This and that is a sin!

    (Goes and does the sin, gets caught)

    Ted Haggard: I admit that have sinned.

    Hey, still better than a certain some other publicly adored inspirer…

    Anonymous Inspirer: I promise no more earmarks, healthcare reform debates on CSPAN, all bills for public viewing and comment 5 days before passing, post-partisanship, no tax increases on the middle class, unprecedented access for the media…

    (Goes and does the exact opposite in each case, gets caught)

    Anonymous Inspirer: My critics are motivated by racism, fringe beliefs that I wasn’t born here, irrational suspicion due to my middle name, and it’s all Bush’s fault anyway.

    Amen, brudder!

  4. Ron Says:

    Ted: Alright, so we don’t have to debate what we think about homosexual activity. It’s written in the Bible.

    ‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.’ Leviticus 20:13

    Seems the congregation of New Life Church disobeyed God’s direct orders, and they can’t blame it on shortage of rocks… Colorado Springs is in the mountains.

  5. Zack T Says:

    That’s an easy one, Ron.

    John 8:7, [Jesus said,] “He who is without sin cast the first stone”

    And then…

    John 8:9-11
    At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the [sinner] still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked [the sinner], “Where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

    “No one, sir,” [the sinner] said.

    And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

  6. Scott Thong Says:

    I’ll echo what Simon said of Cherie: ‘Still in the OT when we live by the NT’.

  7. Ron Says:

    Matthew 5:17-18

    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” –JC

    Romans 1:32

    “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” — Paul (aka Saul) of Tarsus

  8. Simon Thong Says:

    Sorry, Ron, you’re still in the OT, too…and to think that you can quote the words of Jesus and FAIL to understand that he has given a NEW INTERPRETATION of the OT.

  9. Simon Thong Says:

    Zack T, Ron has cast many stones..and he obviously has many more to cast. Still, they’re really teeny weeny pebbles.

  10. Zack T Says:

    Simon…. lol..

    Ron….

    Matthew 5:17-18
    Jesus came to fulfill the law (hence ‘until everything is accomplished’), not to enforce it on everyone; unlike Islam. You’ve misunderstood the text again. =)

    Romans 1:32
    Are you trying to imply that Simon, Scott and I are gays?? Shame on you, Ron! =P

  11. Ron Says:

    The text is clear and unambiguous, so there’s no wiggle room for interpretation:

    UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH DISAPPEAR, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

    From NLC’s Statement of Faith page:

    The Scripture.
    We affirm that the Bible containing the Old and New Testaments is the infallible and inspired Word of God, and that its authority is ultimate and final and eternal. It cannot be added to, subtracted from, or superseded in any regard. The Bible is the source of all doctrine, instruction, and correction. (II Timothy 3:16; II Peter 1:20-21)

    http://www.newlifechurch.org/pages.jsp?id=1

    “Romans 1:32
    Are you trying to imply that Simon, Scott and I are gays??”

    Well, if you and the Thong’s feel yourselves implicated, then that would be your own guilty conscience speaking.

    However, I was referring specifically to Ted Haggard who preached one thing and did another.

    I’m also referring to the New Life church board, which met in private and hammered out a deal that gave Haggard a $140k severance in exchange for his promise to go quietly into the night and never preach within a hundred miles of Colorado Springs. (Haggard took the money and left, but has since returned to open a new church just a scant mile away from NLC.). Their meeting came about not because Haggard had gone astray, but because he had blatantly lied about it on camera when confronted by a reporter. It’s also been revealed that they paid hush money to a former male parishioner who alleged that he met Haggard at a hotel where they masturbated in front of each other. (Haggard has since admitted that he had an “inappropriate, consensual sexual relationship” with the former parishioner.)

  12. Ron Says:

    ‘Still in the OT when we live by the NT’.

    Then why do Christians always bring up OT laws? Jesus makes no mention for or against homosexuality.

    These are the only one’s he mentions:

    17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

    18″Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'”

    20″Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”

    21Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Luke 6)

  13. Ron Says:

    Correction: that should be Mark 10: 17-21

  14. Zack T Says:

    Hahaha… Ron… As I’ve said… ‘until everything is accomplished’ was meant for Jesus to accomplished everything.. not for us to accomplished everything, cause that would mean we can achieved perfection on our own.
    I’m not doing any wiggling of interpretation.

    And we’re not changing or subtracting anything. Jesus told us to change the way we deal with people who broke or indulge themselves in sinful acts, be it murder, homo, adultery, idolatry, etc. Love, forgive, do not judge/condemn, etc.
    (And just to add, the bible doesn’t condemn us if we choose to follow the OT’s way of punishing sinners; but it considers those of us who do that as having lesser faith, compared to the ones following the NT’s new covenant of love and forgiveness, established by Jesus)

    Matthew 22:36-40 – The Greatest Commandment

    “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

    Jesus replied:

    ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.

    And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

    See that.. “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments”…. this is mainly referring to the OT laws and prophets.

    Haggard did the sin, but he surely did not condone it (hence his statement in front of the camera)… And no, he didn’t lie. Homosexuality is a sin against God; it is just that he himself fell into the sin, which made him a hypocrite and definitely a sinner…. which we’re pretty much fine with (as long as he’s repentant of it), cause that’s just shows he’s human and needs Jesus Christ in his life, just as the bible teaches.
    But of course, the bible teaches us to not continue sinning but repent/turn away from it and turn towards God and work towards Him.

    Homosexuality can be within the adultery category..
    But anyways, Jesus’s statement is just a summary of the Ten commandments. Doesn’t mean He’s implying that homosexuality is not a prohibition or part of the Ten Commandments (since throughout OT, God had been punishing those who commit homosexuality and also condone/encourage the act; i.e. Sodom, Gomorrah)

    The reason why we continue to bring up OT laws is because the OT laws is still applicable to us.. It’s just that God’s requirement to judge/punish those who break those laws are no longer necessary and have been replaced by Jesus Christ’s new covenant of love and forgiveness.
    However, it doesn’t mean if a murderer is found guilty and was forgiven by the victims/families, that we just let him go. He still needs to face the consequences/penalty of his actions according to the law of the land.
    Ultimately, as individuals, God wants us to love and forgive everyone, especially sinners and enemies of God; because God loves everyone, be it sinners or enemies (that includes you, Ron).

    As you pointed out, Jesus Himself said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.”
    The Law was fulfilled/completed by Jesus Himself… but in no way did He abolished/get rid of/nullified the Law.

  15. Simon Thong Says:

    The most unforgiving among us is the atheist as represented by Ron. He would stone all believers to death, simply because they believe, if he could. He is an accuser of believers…

  16. Ron Says:

    To the contrary. I’m not into stoning people to death for enjoying consensual sexual relationships, be they straight or homosexual. But that’s precisely the punishment prescribed by your morally perfect, just and loving God of the OT.

    Which leaves you with a logical conundrum: if God’s laws are absolute and unchanging (as Scott has argued many times on this blog) then they cannot be rescinded just because Christians no longer find them palatable; and if they are considered unjust my modern standards, then they are not perfect.

    Thankfully, western civilization has jettisoned all the OT rules and come up with a better set.

  17. Ron Says:

    “I’m not doing any wiggling of interpretation.”

    It says the law is in effect until heaven and earth disappear. I don’t know about heaven, but the earth is definitely still here.

    “Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.”

    Yes, and that comes from Deuteronomy 6:5, which was a commandment given to Israel before they crossed over the Jordan into the promised land. They were to bind the commandments to their hands and foreheads inscribe them on their gates and doorways.

    “And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. See that.. ‘All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments’…. this is mainly referring to the OT laws and prophets.”

    Which comes directly from Leviticus 19:18. Besides prohibitions on theft, robbery, deceit, fraud, cursing the deaf, tripping the blind, people, spreading slander, screwing your neighbor’s slave girl, and prostituting your daughter, this chapter also forbids the following:

    – Do not hold back the wages of a hired man overnight
    – Do not mate different kinds of animals.
    – Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
    – Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material
    – Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.
    – Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
    – Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves.

    The chapter ends with: ‘Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the LORD.’

    So in light of Jesus statement, ALL of those rules are still in effect. You can’t just cherry-pick bits and pieces out of the exact same chapter.

    BTW, it’s highly doubtful Jesus actually spoke these words, since the three synoptics disagree on who spoke the words, and the precise words spoken.

    “Haggard did the sin, but he surely did not condone it (hence his statement in front of the camera)…”

    Yeah, not publicly, but privately he indulged that which he denounced in others. Nor was this a one time event — it was going on for years. And he admitted he had dabbled with homosexuality during adolescence.

    And for the record, I don’t condemn him for being gay — just his hypocrisy. I’d rather he just come out and admit that he’s gay, because his deception hurts not only himself, but also his wife, his family, his friends, his colleagues, and most of all, other gay men.

    “Homosexuality can be within the adultery category..”

    The OT definition of adultery is basically that you can’t sleep with another man’s wife. Women were considered chattel, so a man could legally have several wives, and even concubines. Abraham married his sister Sarah and slept with Hagar, her handmaid. Jacob married two sisters and had sexual relations with their maidservants. David and Solomon each had hundreds of wives and concubines. Virgin girls from conquered nations were sexual war booty, and if they no longer satisfied your needs you could send them off.

    And not surprisingly, God violated his own rules when he told Hosea to marry an adulterous woman.

    “The reason why we continue to bring up OT laws is because the OT laws is still applicable to us.. It’s just that God’s requirement to judge/punish those who break those laws are no longer necessary and have been replaced by Jesus Christ’s new covenant of love and forgiveness.”

    While I’m glad that the brutal and barbaric punishments are no longer practiced, I disagree with the apologetics. Reading through the text, it’s clear that a major rift developed between the Jewish sect which wanted to abide my Mosaic Law and the gentile sect which did not. Paul discarded the Jewish dietary and circumcision rules to make Christianity more salable to gentile converts.

    “However, it doesn’t mean if a murderer is found guilty and was forgiven by the victims/families, that we just let him go. He still needs to face the consequences/penalty of his actions according to the law of the land.”

    So how come Saul/Paul wasn’t punished for his murder and persecution of the Christians before he converted? He basically got off Scott free without so much as a reprimand or stern rebuke.

  18. Ron Says:

    Re: Sodom & Gomorrah

    The reason cited for their destruction was due to their severe inhospitality to strangers.

    “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” (Ezekiel 16:49-50)

  19. Zack T Says:

    My my, Ron…. So many points… I honestly won’t bother covering all of them. And yes, they are all answerable; due to the fact of your stubbornness to stick to your mindset and deliberate misunderstanding/ignorance of Jesus’s new covenant (which deemed a number of those laws as no longer applicable or necessary; i.e. Pagan influences during the time, etc)

    “It says the law is in effect until heaven and earth disappear. I don’t know about heaven, but the earth is definitely still here.”

    Nothing wrong with that statement. I never said the law is no longer in effect. I just said Jesus came to fulfill/accomplish it.; cause we as normal humans will never be able to fulfill/accomplish the Law.
    Fulfilling the Law does not mean the Law is abolished, hence Jesus’s statement “I have not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.”

    Deuteronomy 6:5
    Nothing wrong so far with your statement, but keep in mind, the tying/inscribing was meant to be a symbol, a reminder to themselves and also of their tasks to impress the commandment into their children, next generation, etc. (Deut 6:7-9)

    Leviticus 19:18
    You’re making the commandment seemed like it comes in that package of regulations. Let’s see the verse:

    “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”

    Nope, the main point of the statement was the first half of the statement; and then followed by the ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ like an alternative/more preferred action to what was being talked about; grudge/revenge.

    Which means, Jesus’s mentioning the ‘Love your neighbor’ commandment will not automatically include the rest of the ‘decrees’ mentioned in this chapter….
    Since when does shaving or animal/plant cross-breeding has anything to do with loving your neighbor?

    “Homosexuality can be within the adultery category..”

    Whether my statement above is correct or inaccurate or plain wrong, it is irrelevant. Homosexuality is still a sin against God; cause it is a perversion of God’s intention of marriage and sex; one husband to one wife, one male to one female.

    Hosea Marrying An Adulterous Woman? [Red Herring]
    I feel this link gives a good enough answer.
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_God_commanded_Hosea_to_commit_adultery_in_Hosea_1_v2_then_why_is_adultery_a_sin

    “Paul discarded the Jewish dietary and circumcision rules to make Christianity more salable to gentile converts.”

    No, he did it because Gentiles are not Jews, plain and simple. Hence, God need not require them to do such. A lot of the (less known) commandments decrees were meant for Jews only… A LOT.

    And why Paul was never punished?
    I’m sure he has suffered a lot even after his conversion to Christ (stoned, shipwrecked, imprisoned, etc)…
    But then, him killing so many Christians was not an act of personal revenge or grudge; but that he was commanded to seek out Christians (considered a cult by the Jewish Pharisees) and kill them. (Acts 26:10)
    SO it’s not a comparison between a seriel killer… but with a soldier instead; he was following orders.
    And let’s not forget, he believed in the Jewish traditions and loved Yahweh, etc. It was just that he thought Jesus was not the Messiah and was a false prophet/teacher, hence gladly persecuted those following the ‘cult’ of Jesus. He followed the orders in his attempt to please Yahweh, his God.

    Re: Sodom & Gomorrah

    Strange, as far as I’ve read your reference, it says nothing about inhospitable behaviors towards strangers. And note ‘did detestable things before me’.
    I didn’t state Sodom, Gomorrah were punished solely cause of homosexuality; sorry if I had implied that. But no, it is not the only reason for God’s judgment on them.

  20. Simon Thong Says:

    Thankfully, western civilization has jettisoned all the OT rules and come up with a better set – Ron.

    What better set? The atheistic-based utilitarian one? I haven’t seen it yet, whatever it is.

    Yea, you are into stoning, not literally but figuratively. Not much of a imagination, have you? And definitely (almost) spiritual dead, unable to grasp spiritual truths. You brought this on yourself.

  21. Ron Says:

    “I just said Jesus came to fulfill/accomplish it.”

    Here’s what the NT claims Jesus fulfilled:

    Matt 1:22-23 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” – which means, “God with us.”

    Matt 2:14-15 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

    Matt 2:23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: “He will be called a Nazarene.”

    Matt 4:13-15 Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali— fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah: “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, the way to the sea, along the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles— the people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned.”

    Matt 8:16-18 When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.”

    Matt 12:14-21 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus. Aware of this, Jesus withdrew from that place. Many followed him, and he healed all their sick, warning them not to tell who he was. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations. He will not quarrel or cry out; no one will hear his voice in the streets. bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he leads justice to victory. In his name the nations will put their hope.”

    Matt 13:34-36 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”

    Matt 21:3-5 “If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.” This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: “Say to the Daughter of Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’ ”

    Matt 26:55-57 At that time Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

    Matt 27:8-10 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then what was spoken by Jeremiah [sic] the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.” (This is either a transcription error or the author was alluding to Zechariah 11:12-13 — and even that’s a big stretch given the context.)

    … and on and on it goes in all four gospels — obscure text from the OT prophets quoted out of context in a desperate attempt to establish Jesus as the promised messiah. Not one fulfillment states: “here is where it was prophesied that Jesus sets aside Mosaic Law.”

    “You’re making the commandment seemed like it comes in that package of regulations.”

    That’s because IT IS included in a package of regulations…. for Israelites:

    “The LORD said to Moses, ‘Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them…'”

    And Jesus was ministry was confined to the Jews.

    “These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5-6)

    The “love your neighbour as yourself” part clearly meant fellow Jews, not Gentiles. (Jews had a tough enough time getting along with one another.)

    “Whether my statement above is correct or inaccurate or plain wrong, it is irrelevant. Homosexuality is still a sin against God; cause it is a perversion of God’s intention of marriage and sex; one husband to one wife, one male to one female.”

    LOL — you raised the argument, I refuted it, so now it’s irrelevant. On to Plan B: God wants us to be fruitful and multiply. Except nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly state that homosexuality is wrong for lack of progeny; that’s an apologetics interpolation unsupported by the scriptures, especially in light of all the ‘barren’ women we encounter.

    And with the “adultery” argument defeated we’re right back to square one. If your contention is that Christians now get their moral advice solely from the NT, please cite where Jesus makes specific mention for or against homosexual unions.

    “Hosea Marrying An Adulterous Woman? [Red Herring]”

    I think God giving instructions which run counter to his original instructions is entirely relevant. And come on — he wanted Hosea to teach Israel the moral code by breaking it? Does that seem like the most logical way to prove a point? Should we teach children the dangers of drugs by becoming heroin junkies? Perhaps Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Kim Il Sung should be honored for instructing us that evil dictators, genocide and totalitarian ideology are a bad mix. Sure, millions of people died,but if it prevents just ONE future ethnic cleansing or mass extermination, it was all worth it.

    If Ted Haggard claimed, “God told me to live a homosexual lifestyle in order to demonstrate that it’s wrong” would you accepted that argument?

    “No, he did it because Gentiles are not Jews, plain and simple. Hence, God need not require them to do such. A lot of the (less known) commandments decrees were meant for Jews only… A LOT.”

    For me it goes back to the assertion that God’s moral code is perfect and absolute. Imagine your government created a law which said natural born citizens will be executed for wearing baseball caps, but new immigrants can sagely disregard that law. Would you consider that just?

    “And why Paul was never punished?
    I’m sure he has suffered a lot even after his conversion to Christ (stoned, shipwrecked, imprisoned, etc)…
    But then, him killing so many Christians was not an act of personal revenge or grudge; but that he was commanded to seek out Christians (considered a cult by the Jewish Pharisees) and kill them. (Acts 26:10)
    SO it’s not a comparison between a seriel killer… but with a soldier instead; he was following orders.
    And let’s not forget, he believed in the Jewish traditions and loved Yahweh, etc. It was just that he thought Jesus was not the Messiah and was a false prophet/teacher, hence gladly persecuted those following the ‘cult’ of Jesus. He followed the orders in his attempt to please Yahweh, his God.”

    So you’re proposing a Nuremberg defense (just following orders), remorse, and misguided intentions are punishment enough. By that reckoning, should Al-Qaeda terrorists be exonerated for their actions because they honestly thought they were following Allah’s will?

  22. Ron Says:

    “What better set?”

    Well, it started with the English Magna Carta, moved on to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights..

  23. Zack T Says:

    My gosh, Ron… You just enjoyed taking the parts you like (from the bible and from my comments) and ignore the rest or the context…

    Will do my best to explain and refute your silly reasoning when I’m not rushed for time.

    Just a quick statement.. ‘The homosexual can be within adultery category’ was just a quick statement of possibility; ‘can be’… I wasn’t even trying to make a big deal out of it and you’re making it as if it was an uber big argument that I was trying to make.
    Did you not notice my next two words after that statement? ‘But anyway’

    So yeah.. there’s no ‘Plan B’ cause that wasn’t part of Plan A in the first place. Silly Ron.

  24. Zack T Says:

    Fulfilling the Law

    You were just looking for the word ‘fulfill’ and just quote those passages, huh?
    Tsk tsk tsk, Ron. You’re really showing yourself as a non-serious truth seeker, but just someone looking for an argument…
    All of those fulfillments were of prophecies… And Jesus fulfilled MANY prophecies… There are over 300 of them (which He fulfilled all).
    But prophecies are separate from the Law. Fulfilling the Law means to successfully obey and follow and never break any and all of the laws.

    I ain’t gonna reason with you more regarding this, since you’ve shown that you’re not serious about learning more about how Jesus fulfilled the law.

    I think this short study should help you understand more about The Law and Jesus’s fulfillment of it.
    http://executableoutlines.com/mt/mt_04.htm

  25. Zack T Says:

    Oh… just so that you won’t ‘misunderstand’ my statement, Ron…

    There are over 300 Messianic prophecies (which Jesus fulfilled all).

  26. Zack T Says:

    Hahaha… re-reading his comments.. I find it hilarious how much Ron feels much more superior after ‘defeating’ my ‘homosexuality -> adultery’ statement…. which was one very minor point I made, in comparison with the rest of my other actual ‘arguments’.

    And I’ll stress again, Ron.. No, it was NOT an argument I was trying to make. What argument have I made that I left as short as one sentence. Tell me. =)

  27. Simon Thong Says:

    Still awaiting YOUR statement of a “better set”; don’t try to squirm away by referring me to something else, especially feudal laws in the Magna Carta.

  28. Simon Thong Says:

    Yes, Zack T, our Ron is devious, to put it mildly. He could argue a dead man deader (coz the dead can’t reply).

  29. Ron Says:

    “I ain’t gonna reason with you…”

    No surprises there. That’s been the Christian apologist’s MO since the Nicene Creed was adopted in 325 CE.

    “I think this short study should help you understand more about The Law and Jesus’s fulfillment of it.”

    I don’t debate with links to third party sites. If you feel you have a convincing argument present it in your own words. That said, I noticed the author used the following verses (twice) as a supporting argument:

    “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” (Hebrew 8:6-7)

    The supposedly All-Perfect, All-Knowing, All-Powerful God of the Bible candidly admits (via the author’s divinely inspired words) that his first covenant was sub-par and needed revision.

  30. Zack T Says:

    I pray to God that I speak righteously and do not speak in error and I pray that the words I speak/write will be glorifying to the great name of my Lord and Savior and may the Holy Spirit convict the listeners/readers as they come to know more about what Christ has done for them.

    “Not one fulfillment states: “here is where it was prophesied that Jesus sets aside Mosaic Law.” “

    Yeah.. none does… cause Jesus Himself said He has…
    Jesus said, “It is finished.” [John 19:30]
    I’m sure you’re very familiar with that statement of His, yeah?
    A chapter of interest… Hebrew 10.

    “And Jesus’s ministry was confined to the Jews.”

    No it was not confined to the Jews… but that His ministry was first targeted at the Jews [God’s chosen people]…
    Matthew 15:24 – Jesus said He was sent only for the lost sheeps of Israel [Jews]
    Then, just before the ascension, what did Jesus say?
    Matthew 28:19 – [Jesus commanded,] “Go therefore and make disciples of ALL nations…”

    Jesus on Homosexuality

    “Jesus never spoke anything about or against homosexuality. THerefore, it’s proof He was never against homosexuality.”
    *LOUD BUZZER BUZZZZ*
    I like to quote from this page… ((Plus, it connects well with the previous point made, about Jesus coming to the Jews first and foremost))
    http: … apocalipsis.org/difficulties/Jesussilenceonhomosexualunions.htm
    The gays often gloat that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. But why should he? His ministry was to the Jews who already knew the Levitical law. They certainly did not need any teaching about that.

    Hosea marrying an adulterous woman

    Does you marrying an adulterous woman equal you committing adultery?
    Does you marrying a drug addict equal you having a drug addiction?
    Does you marrying someone who has murdered a lot of people make you a murderer yourself?
    No? So we have no contradiction.

    “If Ted Haggard claimed, “God told me to live a homosexual lifestyle in order to demonstrate that it’s wrong” would you accepted that argument?”

    1 John 4:1 – Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
    And just so you know, this implies testing ‘the spirits’ against the Word of God [Bible].
    God planned for male-female union; Adam and Eve… not Adam and Steve.

    “Would you consider that just?”

    Though your example is greatly exaggerated… I understand your choice of logic. So how about we take into consideration the privileges of the ‘natural born citizens’ aka Jews?
    1 – He saved them countless times from oppression (Egypt, Babylon, Goliath, etc)
    2 – He protected them and also blessed them throughout OT; assuming they were not being disobedient and forgotten God.
    3 – Jesus was sent for the lost sheep of Israel (Jews). He came for them first, and then Gentiles.
    4 – Jesus’s disciples (all Jewish men) will be assigned a kingdom each.

    Jews are God’s chosen people since Abraham, and His covenant with Abraham and his descendant is binding. And God asks that Abraham and his descendent/household honor God with circumcision.

    “should Al-Qaeda terrorists be exonerated for their actions because they honestly thought they were following Allah’s will?”

    Let’s do some comparisons…
    Paul was ordered by Pharisees, religiously authoritative men who physically and directly told him to do so.
    Al-Qaeda followed Allah’s order, based on a book that is claimed to be from God. (Remember my statement earlier about ‘testing the spirits’?)
    Big difference..

    Are you trying to say soldiers who have been to war will all be condemned by my God for following orders directly (physically) given by their authorities?
    Better yet… are you equating soldiers who kill on the battlefield with terrorists who kill even in civilian areas?
    Be consistent with your reasoning, Ron.

    May the Holy Spirit convict you with the Truth, Ron.
    Will pray that your hardened heart be softened.

  31. Zack T Says:

    “No surprises there. That’s been the Christian apologist’s MO since the Nicene Creed was adopted in 325 CE.”

    You speak as if I did it because I felt like it.
    It’s because you’re just not doing an honest job of reasoning, Ron. And I’d just be wasting my effort trying to refute pointless, meaningless, dishonest statements/reasons/arguments that were meant to destroy, rather than to seek truth.
    And in case that statement was confusing… I’m saying you’re not arguing here for the sake of seeking or uncovering truth, but just to destroy what we believe for your own satisfaction.

    Fyi, I linked to save time when someone else has already done the study; while I have many other things to do than sitting down before my computer to think/consider/type all the things to reason with you….
    Plus, didn’t I just state before that link that I wouldn’t further reason with you regarding that particular topic?

    Quote from Ron:
    ” “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” (Hebrew 8:6-7)

    The supposedly All-Perfect, All-Knowing, All-Powerful God of the Bible candidly admits (via the author’s divinely inspired words) that his first covenant was sub-par and needed revision.”

    [Lol]
    In comparison to Jesus’s new covenant where the penalty of the Law (which is Death) no longer applies… how is the ‘first’ ever gonna compare?
    [/lol]

    Let’s see what the ‘first covenant’ brings to the table:
    Romans 2:12 – “For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.”
    Romans 5:20a – “The law came in to increase the trepass [aka, make known our sinfulness]…”
    Romans 7:10 – “The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.”

    Compared with Jesus’s new covenant…
    Romans 3:21-26 – God’s righteousness manifested apart from the law through the faith in Jesus Christ for all who believes; for redemption is made available to be received by faith as a gift of grace through Christ whom God put forth as a propitiation by His blood.
    Romans 5:20b-21 – “…where sin increased, grace abounted all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Christ our Lord.
    Romans 7:24-25 – “Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

    So… if you want the ‘first covenant’ aka the Law, go ahead and keep it. I’ll gladly take Christ’s new covenant, where the law’s penalty will no longer apply to me.

  32. Zack T Says:

    Praise God that He has blessed me as I speak with Ron and I pray to God that Ron will be convicted by the Holy Spirit and that if he continues to ‘reason’, I pray he reasons with intent of uncovering truth, not destroy for his own satisfaction.

  33. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron refuses to argue with links to third party sites? What do you think you were doing, Ron, when you merely cited the Magna Carta and the Universal Declaration….? Not even a link, and no statement. Lazy? Or simply incompetent when it comes to stating a coherent theory? Almost but not quite great at rubbishing others’ arguments but…

  34. Ron Says:

    Re: Fulfillment of Prophecy

    “Yeah.. none does… cause Jesus Himself said He has… Jesus said, “It is finished.” [John 19:30] I’m sure you’re very familiar with that statement of His, yeah?”

    A statement isn’t automatically true just because someone claims it to be true. To illustrate the point, imagine the following scenario:

    Prosecutor: Did you bludgeon your wife to death?
    Defendant: No sir, I swear to God that I didn’t do it.
    Judge: Ok. Case dismissed.

    “A chapter of interest… Hebrew 10.”

    Again, all you have is statements made by an anonymous source. Where is the corroborating extra-biblical evidence to support the claims?

    Re: Jesus Ministry

    “Then, just before the ascension, what did Jesus say? Matthew 28:19 – [Jesus commanded,] “Go therefore and make disciples of ALL nations…”

    Yes, except I don’t believe that dead men can come back to life and make speeches. Factor in all the post-crucification discrepancies between the gospels, and the only logical conclusion you can draw is that the authors were either hallucinating, or the narratives were embellished.

    Re; Jesus on Homosexuality

    “The gays often gloat that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. But why should he? His ministry was to the Jews who already knew the Levitical law. They certainly did not need any teaching about that.”

    If that’s the case then why would Jesus need to remind them about all the other Levitical Laws like “love God with all your heart” and “love your neighbor as yourself?”

    Forget about homosexuality for a moment and concentrate on the bigger picture here. Where does Jesus separate the OT laws into aggregate lists of: still sinful & punishable, still sinful but no longer punishable, and rescinded?

    Re: Hosea marrying an adulterous woman

    ‘They must not marry women defiled by prostitution or divorced from their husbands, because priests are holy to their God.’ (Leviticus 21:7)

    ‘The woman he marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, so he will not defile his offspring among his people. I am the LORD, who makes him holy. (Leviticus 21:13-15)

    If these are God’s strict moral standards for priests, why would he expect any less of a prophet, let alone COMMAND direct disobedience to his own absolute guidelines?

    Re: Testing Spirits

    “1 John 4:1 – Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

    Ted Haggard was head pastor of a 14,000 member congregation. For three years he was president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), and organization that (according to their website): “represents more than 45,000 local churches from over 40 different denominations and serves a constituency of millions.” He also served as a spiritual advisor to President George W. Bush.

    If millions of believers and the self-professed “Born Again” POTUS got hoodwinked by a false prophet what does that say about the Christian ability to test the spirits? (Hint: Epic Fail)

    Re: Jewish Privileges

    “1 – He saved them countless times from oppression (Egypt, Babylon, Goliath, etc)”

    Who put them under oppression to begin with? Thanks God for removing me from the bondage you placed me under since birth.

    “2 – He protected them and also blessed them throughout OT; assuming they were not being disobedient and forgotten God.”

    He went back on his word. The original covenant with Abraham was a land grant with no strings attached. There was no mention of 400 years in slavery followed by a 40-year walkabout.

    The LORD had said to Abram, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you. “I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” (Genesis 12: 1-3)

    “3 – Jesus was sent for the lost sheep of Israel (Jews). He came for them first, and then Gentiles.”

    Not exactly a selling feature for someone who lived and died prior to Jesus birth though, is it.

    “4 – Jesus’s disciples (all Jewish men) will be assigned a kingdom each.”

    Ditto. Plus there was no promise of an afterlife in the OT. In fact, there’s no proof of an afterlife at all. As Tom Cruise’s character said in Jerry McGuire: “Show me the money.”

    “Jews are God’s chosen people since Abraham, and His covenant with Abraham and his descendant is binding. And God asks that Abraham and his descendent/household honor God with circumcision.”

    Demanding genital mutilation from someone as a precondition for love is morally repugnant; and demanding it without consent from a week-old infant is downright sadistic. You worship one very sick and twisted deity — and I’m being polite.

    Re: Al-Qaeda

    “Let’s do some comparisons…
    Paul was ordered by Pharisees, religiously authoritative men who physically and directly told him to do so.”

    That’s called the “Nuremberg Defense” – pleading not guilty for actions committed while following the commands of a superior officer. It was rejected on the grounds that an officer is ultimately responsible for crimes against humanity. While I’ll concede that Paul wasn’t sending people to the gas chamber, he was nonetheless killing innocent people who had committed no crime and were not engaged in an act of war against the state.

    “Al-Qaeda followed Allah’s order, based on a book that is claimed to be from God. (Remember my statement earlier about ‘testing the spirits’?)
    Big difference..”

    Couldn’t they borrow the same argument you used for Paul? Does the Qur’an contain a similar ‘testing of the spirits’ guideline? (Not that it’s very reliable anyways, considering the Ted Haggard fiasco.)

    “Are you trying to say soldiers who have been to war will all be condemned by my God for following orders directly (physically) given by their authorities?”

    I honestly can’t answer that, as I don’t believe in your God. Lest you think I’m evading the question, I’ll phrase it in terms you might understand.

    Are you trying to say soldiers who have been to war will all be condemned by ZEUS for following orders directly (physically) given by their authorities?

    “Better yet… are you equating soldiers who kill on the battlefield with terrorists who kill even in civilian areas?”

    I’m a pacifist, so I consider any act of aggression, coercion or initiation of force against another individual as morally wrong — self-defense to protect oneself or others excluded.

  35. Zack T Says:

    Please excuse the extensively long comment…

    “A statement isn’t automatically true just because someone claims it to be true.”

    That is true if the person is known to have lied at least once. Jesus never lied before, and He has a ‘godly’ advantage of integrity.
    And plus, you were asking for a statement of fulfillment. I gave you one.. now you’re trying to say it doesn’t count/qualify.
    This isn’t my problem.. It’s yours.

    “A chapter of interest… Hebrew 10.”

    I just threw that in for your benefit. Whether you choose to accept my recommendation, it’s up to you.
    Please be considerate and understand that not every line of my comment is meant to be an ‘argument’ against you, ya know?

    Re: Jesus Ministry

    Again, not my problem. You argued that Jesus’s ministry was limited to Jews… I gave you a statement attributed to Jesus where He calls for His disciples to minister to all nations; which the disciples took as authentic.
    So, Jesus’s ministry was not limited to Jews as you so stubbornly argue to be the case.

    How about you do a research and prove to us ‘delusional’ Christians that the resurrection of Christ was untrue and that people during that time (1st Century) never believed it or was proven to be a fraud?
    (Word of warning; a lot of people who researched truthfully to disprove Christ’s resurrection end up believing the ‘delusion’; e.g. Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case for Christ’)

    “If that’s the case then why would Jesus need to remind them about all the other Levitical Laws like “love God with all your heart” and “love your neighbor as yourself?” “

    Why do you need to remind your child to keep quiet when you’re concentrating on something or talking with someone?
    Why do you need to remind your child to share his toys with others?
    Not forgetting, the Pharisees at that time have abused the Mosaic Law and caused trouble for the believing people due to their selfishness; i.e. exaggerated Sabbath regulations, overly money-minded, becoming hypocritical with their prayers/religious acts, etc.
    So Jesus was correcting the wrong/false teachings of the Pharisees at the time.

    “Forget about homosexuality for a moment”

    “Haha, you brought up the argument and now you’re pushing it aside because you knew you couldn’t win this!”
    sorry… just thinking how someone I know responded to a near similar statement of mine not so long ago…

  36. Zack T Says:

    “Where does Jesus separate the OT laws into aggregate lists of: still sinful & punishable, still sinful but no longer punishable, and rescinded?”

    Please forgive me that I can’t provide you any better verses on the top of my head. But this verse I believe answers rather well enough.

    John 3:16-18
    [Jesus said,] “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”

    “If these are God’s strict moral standards for priests, why would he expect any less of a prophet, let alone COMMAND direct disobedience to his own absolute guidelines?”

    Extra: Leviticus 21:13-15 is meant for High Priests; Leviticus 21:10

    Why is a Supreme Court Judge caught commiting bribery is worse than a bribed District Official?
    Because the two roles are different and one holds a heavier burden of integrity.
    Priests hold a different role than prophets, and carry a heavier burden to be holy/pure because they are directly serving God and His people in performing rituals and such.
    And obviously, High Priests would hold a more heavier burden compared to the priests.

    God is very particular and detailed in His decrees in the OT. If He makes regulations for priests, it’s meant for priests, unless He stated otherwise. If He meant it for prophets, He would clearly say so; e.g. Deuteronomy 18:20-22.

    Speaking of Deuteronomy 18:20-22..

    “If millions of believers and the self-professed “Born Again” POTUS got hoodwinked by a false prophet what does that say about the Christian ability to test the spirits?”

    What is God’s criteria of a false prophet? Is there anywhere in the bible that God states falling into sin makes a false prophet?
    No, there isn’t.

    Please explain to me how Ted’s secret indulgence in homosexual sin influenced his teachings regarding God when he was proclaiming homosexuality is a sin, as well as others.
    Did he ever claim that God told him homosexuality is not a sin all that time?
    None? Then that means the people were not ‘hoodwinked’ by a ‘false prophet’… but only that they were oblivious of Ted’s hypocritical circumstances. (Nudge: Epic fail)

    Take for example:
    A court judge performs his job as a judge against murderers and thieves justly; according to the evidences and the jury’s final verdict… but outside the court, is involved in bribery or assasination, etc. Does that make him a fake judge?
    No… just a hypocritical judge.

  37. Zack T Says:

    “Who put them under oppression to begin with?”

    Technically, the Devil… They fall into oppression because God allows the enemies to prevail by withdrawing the privilege of His protection from His people.

    “The original covenant with Abraham was a land grant with no strings attached. (Genesis 12: 1-3)”

    Explain to me where in that passage you quoted that God said along the lines of ‘I’ll give you this land with no strings attached’? It’s not evident or even implied in that passage.

    “Not exactly a selling feature for someone who lived and died prior to Jesus birth though, is it.”

    Are you someone who lived and died prior to Jesus’s birth?
    I mentioned these ‘privileges’ of God’s chosen people, the Jews, to show there’s nothing unfair about God’s new covenant.

    Example: If you come to a high class restaurant and you’re given the privilege of using the most expensive VIP room absolutely for free, but then you’ll be served your food slower than everyone else… Would you considered that unfair?

    “Plus there was no promise of an afterlife in the OT. In fact, there’s no proof of an afterlife at all.”

    Enjoy the short episode of 1 Samuel 28:7-20, where King Saul spoke with the deceased Samuel. Looks like an affirmation of an afterlife to me.

    Re: God’s covenant with Abraham

    First of all, God’s covenant to Abraham is neither a ‘precondition for love’ nor a promise of His love to Abraham.
    God will love Abraham despite his flaws/failures… just as God loves you despite your rebelliousness and abuse of His words.
    Circumsion is an act God destined as honoring to Him and His Covenant where He promised Abraham that his descendants will be many and also have the pleasure of God’s blessings.
    Second of all, why do you put a baby through the pains of injections/vaccination without the baby’s consent?? Or better, what parent ever asked a 5-year-old’s consent before sending him/her to school; where he/she spends long hours of not playing?
    That’s because the parents gave the consent on behalf of the baby/child. Silly, Ron.
    Plus, if Abraham’s household were to practice circumcision just as told to Moses… that means they do the baby circumcizing when the baby’s 8 days old.. There’s apparently some scientific study that shows an 8-day-old baby’s blood coagulation is increased to 110%, before returning to 100% the next day.
    So it looks like God planned everything very lovingly to me.

    “[Paul] was nonetheless killing innocent people who had committed no crime and were not engaged in an act of war against the state.”

    Now that’s somewhat misleading.. since according to the Pharisees who followed the Mosaic Laws and did not believe Christ… these ‘Christians’ were blaspheming against God and therefore, are guilty and the Mosaic Law required them to be stoned to death.
    At least they were acting according to a Higher Order… rather than their personal preferences; e.g. Hitler.

    Re: Quran

    I won’t go into the Quran, since (1) it’ll just add more things to say…. and (2) you’re not a Muslim anyways…

    “I honestly can’t answer that, as I don’t believe in your God. Lest you think I’m evading the question…”

    Then how are you ever gonna convinced me that Christianity is false if you’re just gonna be shouting ‘from outside the circle’ and pretend as if you know what we believe?
    And yes, I do think you’re evading the question, despite your question (since I can answer that question, because I understand somewhat of the Greeks’ beliefs about Zeus.)

    I once again pray to God for Ron’s eternal salvation that the seed planted in him will be nurtured and grow and mature for God’s glory before he is called to God.

  38. Ron Says:

    “Fyi, I linked to save time when someone else has already done the study; while I have many other things to do than sitting down before my computer to think/consider/type all the things to reason with you….
    Plus, didn’t I just state before that link that I wouldn’t further reason with you regarding that particular topic?”

    Yet here you are, still expending valuable time responding to my comments, troubling yourself even, to add stylistic flourish via bold topic headers, and thanking your non-existent God that you’ve been granted an opportunity to sway me to your beliefs. And at no point have I ever pressured you to come up with a response within a set amount of time. In fact, I’d rather you take as much time as required to come up with a challenging rebuttal. Furthermore, you have no direct access to my thoughts. Rejecting my arguments out of hand by assigning ulterior motives to my purpose is presumptuous at best, and does nothing to advance the soundness of your position. Play the ball, not the player.

    Re: Covenants

    “So… if you want the ‘first covenant’ aka the Law, go ahead and keep it. I’ll gladly take Christ’s new covenant, where the law’s penalty will no longer apply to me.”

    That’s a nice strawman, but I wasn’t ranking them from worst to best. The point was that an All-Perfect deity had to make two covenants to begin with. He either didn’t know he set the bar to high the first time around (which diminishes claims to his omniscience), or he knew and proceeded anyways, which means he wasted a lot of time and effort pursuing a flawed plan, not to mention all the souls lost before Jesus came. Take your pick.

    Re: Jesus Fulfillment

    Quoting John 3:16 fails to address my question.

    Bringing homosexuality back into the discussion, the OT clearly states:

    Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22); and

    If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.’ Leviticus 20:13

    It also commands:

    Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live; Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death; He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. (Exodus 22:18-20)

    WHERE explicitly does Jesus revoke the death penalty for those acts and all Ten Commandments, except for murder (and covetousness which never had a prescribed punishment to begin with)?

    Re: Hosea marrying an adulterous woman

    “Why is a Supreme Court Judge caught commiting bribery is worse than a bribed District Official?”

    My original question more akin to asking: Why would the Supreme Court direct judges to take bribes in order to convince citizens that bribery is wrong?

    “Because the two roles are different and one holds a heavier burden of integrity. Priests hold a different role than prophets, and carry a heavier burden to be holy/pure because they are directly serving God and His people in performing rituals and such. And obviously, High Priests would hold a more heavier burden compared to the priests.”

    An action is judged morally right or wrong for its own sake, and stands apart from the actor; and in a just society the standards of right and wrong apply across the board to everyone.

    “God is very particular and detailed in His decrees in the OT. If He makes regulations for priests, it’s meant for priests, unless He stated otherwise. If He meant it for prophets, He would clearly say so; e.g. Deuteronomy 18:20-22.”

    So you’re saying that the same God who: decrees a woman should be stoned to death for not screaming loudly enough during a rape, condemns the general population to death for committing adultery, and sets exacting high standards for priests has decided that prophets are exempt because he didn’t specifically mention them in his golden rulebook?

    And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:21-22)

    Great advice… in hindsight. Put in a modern context it might go like this.

    Me: How do I tell a bad financial advisor from a good one?
    You: Well, a good financial advisor will make you a ton of money, a bad one (or fraud) will put you in the poorhouse and face fraud charges.

    Re: Testing Spirits

    “Please explain to me how Ted’s secret indulgence in homosexual sin influenced his teachings regarding God when he was proclaiming homosexuality is a sin, as well as others….”

    If his congregation can’t trust him to remain faithful to the teachings he professes to uphold, how can they possibly trust him to be faithful to the scriptures at all? Are you not aware that a number of his doctrines were already being denounced as non-biblical by other apologists even before his fall? Yet millions of Christians trusted him to teach them the correct doctrine according to the scriptures.

    Re: Jewish Privileges

    “Technically, the Devil… They fall into oppression because God allows the enemies to prevail by withdrawing the privilege of His protection from His people.”

    I don’t believe in Satan, the Devil, or demons. But for the sake of argument, even if they did exist, they are proffered as part of God’s creation, so he’s still not off the hook. Meanwhile, children born into slavery are punished unjustly through no fault of their own.

    “Explain to me where in that passage you quoted that God said along the lines of ‘I’ll give you this land with no strings attached’? It’s not evident or even implied in that passage.”

    If your neighbor comes up and says: “See that carport next to my garage? You can use it for as long as we’re neighbors. And if anyone goes near your vehicle, I’ll deal with them personally.”

    Would you expect them to come back at a later date demanding you sign a 400 page contract and then cut off your foreskin to seal the deal?

    “Enjoy the short episode of 1 Samuel 28:7-20, where King Saul spoke with the deceased Samuel. Looks like an affirmation of an afterlife to me.”

    Show me where God promises an an eternal afterlife in heaven for faithfully following his commandments, and everlasting punishment (i.e., wailing and gnashing of teeth) in hell for not.

    Re: God’s covenant with Abraham

    I honestly fail to see how cutting off your foreskin is an act of honor. Is that how you define your relationships with others?

    “Second of all, why do you put a baby through the pains of injections/vaccination without the baby’s consent?? Or better, what parent ever asked a 5-year-old’s consent before sending him/her to school; where he/she spends long hours of not playing?
    That’s because the parents gave the consent on behalf of the baby/child.”

    Vaccinations reduce the risk of life-threatening illnesses. Schooling prepares children to fend for themselves and become productive members of society. Both those things improve the overall quality of life. Cutting off the end of your boy’s wee-wee serves no useful purpose — it simply plays to the unfounded superstitious beliefs of dim-witted people who think such actions will mollify their non-existent god. And once again, I’m being polite.

    Re: Paul vs. Al-Qaeda

    “Now that’s somewhat misleading.. since according to the Pharisees who followed the Mosaic Laws and did not believe Christ… these ‘Christians’ were blaspheming against God and therefore, are guilty and the Mosaic Law required them to be stoned to death.”

    Funny thing is, Muslims share similar beliefs to those held by Saul and the Pharisees when it comes to Jesus divinity, and stoning blasphemers.

    “At least they were acting according to a Higher Order… rather than their personal preferences; e.g. Hitler.”

    I don’t have the exact quote, but Hitler truly believed he was carrying out God’s will and was granted the Pope’s divine blessing to rule Germany. He attended regular Church services, and was regarded as an extremely charismatic leader by most of the population. His army served him with utmost respect and loyalty.

    Same difference.

    “Then how are you ever gonna convinced me that Christianity is false if you’re just gonna be shouting ‘from outside the circle’ and pretend as if you know what we believe?”

    I already know what evangelicals believe, because I was immersed in that culture for close to two decades.
    .
    “And yes, I do think you’re evading the question, despite your question (since I can answer that question, because I understand somewhat of the Greeks’ beliefs about Zeus.)”

    Believe as you wish.

    “I once again pray to God for Ron’s eternal salvation that the seed planted in him will be nurtured and grow and mature for God’s glory before he is called to God.”

    While you’re praying for me, I’ll be thinking for you. 8)

  39. Ron Says:

    Re: Jesus honesty and ministry

    Appealing to supernatural events to advance your case, amounts to special pleading, especially when your conclusion (what he said) is based on an unproven premise (his divinity and resurrection). Until you’ve successfully established that Jesus never lied and actually rose from the grave, all subsequent statements he might have issued are little more than wishful thinking.

    Plus I specifically stated his ministry was confined to the Jews, which it was — he never preached to the Gentiles during his lifetime and his ministry ended at death as you yourself have already quoted:

    Jesus said, “It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost..” [John 19:30]

    “How about you do a research and prove to us ‘delusional’ Christians that the resurrection of Christ was untrue and that people during that time (1st Century) never believed it or was proven to be a fraud?
    (Word of warning; a lot of people who researched truthfully to disprove Christ’s resurrection end up believing the ‘delusion’; e.g. Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case for Christ’)”

    Yes and it’s also been successfully rebutted many times since he wrote that book.

  40. Zack T Says:

    “Yet here you are, still expending valuable time responding to my comments….”

    Now you’re one to play the player…. adding more presumptions to my actions than I did yours…
    Sorry if my flow of sentence wasn’t clear for ya… let me rephrase them again to hopefully get you to understand them better.

    “Fyi, I linked to save time since someone else has already done the study; instead of me thinking and answering you while I have many other things to do and limited time to spend here.
    AND anyways.. didn’t I state I wouldn’t further reason with you regarding that topic/argument? So I was just being true to my word that I wouldn’t further reason with you regarding that topic/argument.”

    Re: Jesus honesty and ministry

    Hahaha…. Since it is impossible to prove the non-existent of something.. the burden of proof that Jesus did not raise from the dead is on you, actually. Because it is recorded that there were 500 eyewitnesses to met Jesus after He had died (ate with him, touched him, talked with him, etc). And almost all 500 were killed for proclaiming Christ is alive and Lord, which includes Jesus’s disciples (including James, His own stepbrother, who always thought Jesus was crazy!) and even Saul of Tarsus (who was, you agreed, strongly persecuting these Christians in the first place!)..

    Prove to me that those 500 were false and went to be killed for a lie.

    “Plus I specifically stated his ministry was confined to the Jews, which it was — he never preached to the Gentiles during his lifetime and his ministry ended at death as you yourself have already quoted:..”

    Silly Ron… Jesus was talking about His work on Earth is done; every of God’s prophecies of His 1st coming were fulfilled)… not His ministry, which He passed to His disciples to do (Matthew 28:19).

    “Yes and it’s also been successfully rebutted many times since he wrote that book.”

    That’s just a claim.
    Same as when some scientist in the past claimed the Earth was a sphere… and was successfully rebutted many times by the majority…
    Does that mean anything? No, cause you need to research both claims and come up with the conclusion.

  41. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Ron meant business. He has the case to be heard.. (and to be responded). Whatever it is, I never believe in anyone who have date of birth, and used a bathroom/restroom/toilet to be ‘god’. God doesn’t need to be born (because He is always there; He doesn’t need a toilet too, and doesn’t need foods or drinks,…or rest like His creatures. Anyone who have those qualities CANNOT be God, NOT God! Superman or super human is NO god too.

    God is NOT a human being. Might be the Bible says there was an epic of an “action film”, a drama but not really true stuff.. something white but not really white..something black but not actually black, not white, not black. Is there such thing in the Bible !?!?

    “Son of Man” (73 times) mentioned in the Bible. Ask our Christians friends who is Son of Man?? All agree..Jesus. So..why son of god then?
    Not Moses, Abraham or Adam ?

    Someting wrong somewhere maybe? Let us look at it gain, maybe.

  42. Zack T Says:

    “He either didn’t know he set the bar to high the first time around, or he knew and proceeded anyways, which means he wasted a lot of time and effort pursuing a flawed plan.”

    Not to your surprise (most likely), it’s neither.
    He did not set the bar too high, cause His standard is complete perfection. Not one sin (no matter how tiny) can enter Heaven or withstand God’s Holy Presence.
    What God knew was that no normal man will ever reach that standard of perfection on their own.
    And that’s where His grace comes into the picture, where if any man decides to have faith in God (not just any god but Him) and submit to and do His will, then they shall be justified by faith and be acceptable to God; and plus somehow, the significant figures in the OT knew Jesus (or at least, about Jesus); e.g. John 8:56.

    “Quoting John 3:16 fails to address my question.”

    Then probably I don’t understand what you’re asking for..

    “Bringing homosexuality back into the discussion, the OT clearly states…”

    And yet earlier, you were trying to claim Jesus was never against homosexuality…

    “WHERE explicitly does Jesus revoke the death penalty for those acts and all Ten Commandments, except for murder (and covetousness which never had a prescribed punishment to begin with)?”

    Joshua 7:21-25 – The ones who committed covetousness were stoned and burned.

    John 8:7 – Jesus’s answer to you, “If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone.”

    “My original question more akin to asking: Why would the Supreme Court direct judges to take bribes in order to convince citizens that bribery is wrong?”

    And so your original question is not akin to Hosea marrying an adulterous woman… cause the correct question akin to this situation would be…
    “Why would the Supreme Court hire judges who have ever taken bribes in order to convince citizens that bribery is wrong?”

    It’s pretty much the same as some schools selecting among the bad students to become school prefects. I’m sure Scott can testify to such practices.
    I know one school in my area practiced that before with rather positive results.

    “An action is judged morally right or wrong for its own sake, and stands apart from the actor; and in a just society the standards of right and wrong apply across the board to everyone.”

    yes, an action is morally judged on its own… But the question here is the degree of punishment for the wrong deed committed. And the degree of punishment depends on the perpetrator of the deed.
    To say the standards of right and wrong apply across the board to everyone would include adolescent crimes. Now I’m sure you’ll agree that punishments/penalties of child perpetrators are lesser than adult ones.

    “So you’re saying that the same God has decided that prophets are exempt because he didn’t specifically mention them in his golden rulebook?”

    No, that’s a very distorted view of what I said. God decided prophets be exempt from the regulations of the High priests much like He exempts the common believer from such standards/regulation. Prophets and Priests serve different purposes, as I’ve mentioned before.
    Prophets have their own sets of rules, and so do the Priests.
    Are you saying Police chiefs have to wash their hands everytime they handle a criminal, much like doctors wash their hands when examining/operating on their patients?? Or clean their guns and batons before using it on a criminal??
    No! Although they serve both the general population and the government they work for, they serve different purposes.

  43. Zack T Says:

    “Well, a good financial advisor will make you a ton of money, a bad one (or fraud) will put you in the poorhouse and face fraud charges.”

    Incorrect once again, Ron. That is barely even close to be a modern equivalent of that passage.
    A more accurate modern equivalent would be…
    “A financial advisor that promises to make a ton of money for you, but fails, is a bad financial advisor. You are to forget about this advisor and not recommend him/her to anyone else.”

    Looks like a great advice to me… in whatever sight.

    “If his congregation can’t trust him to remain faithful to the teachings he professes to uphold, how can they possibly trust him to be faithful to the scriptures at all? “

    Being able to teach what’s in Scripture and being able to obey it are two different tasks.
    The same was said when the Pope wrote a book about marriage and sex. How can he write about marriage and sex when he’s practicing celibacy?
    That’s because teaching doesn’t require that you actually experienced it. Much like a science teacher teaches science even though he/she never actually did the research or the experiment before.

    And no, I’m not aware, cause I do not know what are the doctrines he taught/teaches. If those doctrines are not based on the scriptures, it is meant to be denounced… much like some of the doctrines of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.

    “even if they did exist, they are proffered as part of God’s creation, so he’s still not off the hook.”

    Equivalent of blaming the parents of Adolf Hitler for giving birth to him; unless it is indeed the parents who taught and brought Hitler up to do what he did… in which case, God never did as such with Satan.
    So yes, He is off the hook.

    And God made it clear to His people how bad His punishment can/will be if they choose to disobey/dishonor Him. So in the end, it’s the faults of the people, not God’s, for choosing to not repent and return to God’s good side.
    Much like a poor family renting from the owner of a apartment. If the parents can’t keep up with the rents for months to years (which the owner graciously allows them to continue to stay there regardless)… then the burden to settle the debt falls upon the whole family.. including the children, or the following generations.
    Looks fair and just to me.

    “If your neighbor comes up and says….”

    [LOL] That doesn’t answer my question. [/LOL]
    My question… “Explain to me where in that passage you quoted that God said along the lines of ‘I’ll give you this land with no strings attached’?”
    Only proves that you are inserting your own intepretations INTO the text, and it’s not the text that is saying it.

    “Show me where God promises an an eternal afterlife… for following His commandments…”

    He doesn’t… cause He knows no one can achieve it through their own efforts (without His help). But He does reward those who follow Him and punish those who didn’t; within their lifetimes (in the OT).

    “I honestly fail to see how cutting off your foreskin is an act of honor.”

    Then you also fail to see how soldiers/armies fighting in a war to protect their countries is an act of honor for them and their families.
    Plus, cutting off the foreskin is a less daunting sacrifice to show your obedience, as compared to some cults (especially back in those days) that involves cutting themselves over and over to please their ‘gods’.

    “Cutting off the end of your boy’s wee-wee serves no useful purpose — it simply plays to the unfounded superstitious beliefs…”

    Contrary to your lack of beliefs, Ron, circumcision doesn’t ‘serve no useful purpose’..

    Circumcision – Benefits Outweigh the Risks
    http://www.circinfo.net/benefits_outweigh_the_risks.html

    Wouldn’t you know it… It’s a whole website dedicated to talk about circumcision and to “provide a balanced up-to-date review of scientific studies on circumcision that have been published mainly in reputable international medical and scientific journals after a formal, critical refereeing process by experts in the field”.

    “Funny thing is, Muslims share similar beliefs to those held by Saul and the Pharisees when it comes to Jesus divinity, and stoning blasphemers.”

    Funny thing is… no.. they don’t believe the same thing when it comes to Jesus’s divinity.. and they overlook a lot of sin that was punishable by stoning… e.g. sexual sins, false prophets, etc.

    “I don’t have the exact quote, but Hitler truly believed he was carrying out God’s will..”

    yeah.. and his ‘God’ wasn’t the Christian God.

    Quote from Hitler from “Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944” published by Farrar, Straus and Young; pg 43
    “Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.”

    For more info about Hitler and Christianity -> http://www.answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html

    (Don’t forget, Hitler was known to use various methods to win the general populace to side with him… e.g. burning a government building and blaming it on his enemies)

    Obama is a charismatic leader.. who claims to be a Christian believer.. has plenty of people serving him with utmost respect and loyalty… and probably has the Pope’s blessings too… Doesn’t make him a true Christian by God’s standard.
    A true Christian is measured by his belief in Jesus Christ and what He taught as recorded in His Word (the bible).

    Same difference… nullified.

    “I already know what evangelicals believe, because I was immersed in that culture for close to two decades.”

    if you believe you hold the truth, then you should have no problem answering or researching fairly and justly the claims both you and I are making… or in general, claims of both bible-believing Christians and Christian skeptics.

  44. Zack T Says:

    (Forgotten to get rid of the hyperlinks…. do discard my pending comment, Scott)

    “He either didn’t know he set the bar to high the first time around, or he knew and proceeded anyways, which means he wasted a lot of time and effort pursuing a flawed plan.”

    Not to your surprise (most likely), it’s neither.
    He did not set the bar too high, cause His standard is complete perfection. Not one sin (no matter how tiny) can enter Heaven or withstand God’s Holy Presence.
    What God knew was that no normal man will ever reach that standard of perfection on their own.
    And that’s where His grace comes into the picture, where if any man decides to have faith in God (not just any god but Him) and submit to and do His will, then they shall be justified by faith and be acceptable to God; and plus somehow, the significant figures in the OT knew Jesus (or at least, about Jesus); e.g. John 8:56.

    “Quoting John 3:16 fails to address my question.”

    Then probably I don’t understand what you’re asking for..

    “Bringing homosexuality back into the discussion, the OT clearly states…”

    And yet earlier, you were trying to claim Jesus was never against homosexuality…

    “WHERE explicitly does Jesus revoke the death penalty for those acts and all Ten Commandments, except for murder (and covetousness which never had a prescribed punishment to begin with)?”

    Joshua 7:21-25 – The ones who committed covetousness were stoned and burned.

    John 8:7 – Jesus’s answer to you, “If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone.”

    “My original question more akin to asking: Why would the Supreme Court direct judges to take bribes in order to convince citizens that bribery is wrong?”

    And so your original question is not akin to Hosea marrying an adulterous woman… cause the correct question akin to this situation would be…
    “Why would the Supreme Court hire judges who have ever taken bribes in order to convince citizens that bribery is wrong?”

    It’s pretty much the same as some schools selecting among the bad students to become school prefects. I’m sure Scott can testify to such practices.
    I know one school in my area practiced that before with rather positive results.

    “An action is judged morally right or wrong for its own sake, and stands apart from the actor; and in a just society the standards of right and wrong apply across the board to everyone.”

    yes, an action is morally judged on its own… But the question here is the degree of punishment for the wrong deed committed. And the degree of punishment depends on the perpetrator of the deed.
    To say the standards of right and wrong apply across the board to everyone would include adolescent crimes. Now I’m sure you’ll agree that punishments/penalties of child perpetrators are lesser than adult ones.

    “So you’re saying that the same God has decided that prophets are exempt because he didn’t specifically mention them in his golden rulebook?”

    No, that’s a very distorted view of what I said. God decided prophets be exempt from the regulations of the High priests much like He exempts the common believer from such standards/regulation. Prophets and Priests serve different purposes, as I’ve mentioned before.
    Prophets have their own sets of rules, and so do the Priests.
    Are you saying Police chiefs have to wash their hands everytime they handle a criminal, much like doctors wash their hands when examining/operating on their patients?? Or clean their guns and batons before using it on a criminal??
    No! Although they serve both the general population and the government they work for, they serve different purposes.

    “Well, a good financial advisor will make you a ton of money, a bad one (or fraud) will put you in the poorhouse and face fraud charges.”

    Incorrect once again, Ron. That is barely even close to be a modern equivalent of that passage.
    A more accurate modern equivalent would be…
    “A financial advisor that promises to make a ton of money for you, but fails, is a bad financial advisor. You are to forget about this advisor and not recommend him/her to anyone else.”

    Looks like a great advice to me… in whatever sight.

    “If his congregation can’t trust him to remain faithful to the teachings he professes to uphold, how can they possibly trust him to be faithful to the scriptures at all? “

    Being able to teach what’s in Scripture and being able to obey it are two different tasks.
    The same was said when the Pope wrote a book about marriage and sex. How can he write about marriage and sex when he’s practicing celibacy?
    That’s because teaching doesn’t require that you actually experienced it. Much like a science teacher teaches science even though he/she never actually did the research or the experiment before.

    And no, I’m not aware, cause I do not know what are the doctrines he taught/teaches. If those doctrines are not based on the scriptures, it is meant to be denounced… much like some of the doctrines of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.

    “even if they did exist, they are proffered as part of God’s creation, so he’s still not off the hook.”

    Equivalent of blaming the parents of Adolf Hitler for giving birth to him; unless it is indeed the parents who taught and brought Hitler up to do what he did… in which case, God never did as such with Satan.
    So yes, He is off the hook.

    And God made it clear to His people how bad His punishment can/will be if they choose to disobey/dishonor Him. So in the end, it’s the faults of the people, not God’s, for choosing to not repent and return to God’s good side.
    Much like a poor family renting from the owner of a apartment. If the parents can’t keep up with the rents for months to years (which the owner graciously allows them to continue to stay there regardless)… then the burden to settle the debt falls upon the whole family.. including the children, or the following generations.
    Looks fair and just to me.

    “If your neighbor comes up and says….”

    [LOL] That doesn’t answer my question. [/LOL]
    My question… “Explain to me where in that passage you quoted that God said along the lines of ‘I’ll give you this land with no strings attached’?”
    Only proves that you are inserting your own intepretations INTO the text, and it’s not the text that is saying it.

    “Show me where God promises an an eternal afterlife… for following His commandments…”

    He doesn’t… cause He knows no one can achieve it through their own efforts (without His help). But He does reward those who follow Him and punish those who didn’t; within their lifetimes (in the OT).

    “I honestly fail to see how cutting off your foreskin is an act of honor.”

    Then you also fail to see how soldiers/armies fighting in a war to protect their countries is an act of honor for them and their families.
    Plus, cutting off the foreskin is a less daunting sacrifice to show your obedience, as compared to some cults (especially back in those days) that involves cutting themselves over and over to please their ‘gods’.

    “Cutting off the end of your boy’s wee-wee serves no useful purpose — it simply plays to the unfounded superstitious beliefs…”

    Contrary to your lack of beliefs, Ron, circumcision doesn’t ‘serve no useful purpose’..

    Circumcision – Benefits Outweigh the Risks
    http:// … circinfo.net/benefits_outweigh_the_risks.html

    Wouldn’t you know it… It’s a whole website dedicated to talk about circumcision and to “provide a balanced up-to-date review of scientific studies on circumcision that have been published mainly in reputable international medical and scientific journals after a formal, critical refereeing process by experts in the field”.

    “Funny thing is, Muslims share similar beliefs to those held by Saul and the Pharisees when it comes to Jesus divinity, and stoning blasphemers.”

    Funny thing is… no.. they don’t believe the same thing when it comes to Jesus’s divinity.. and they overlook a lot of sin that was punishable by stoning… e.g. sexual sins, false prophets, etc.

    “I don’t have the exact quote, but Hitler truly believed he was carrying out God’s will..”

    yeah.. and his ‘God’ wasn’t the Christian God.

    Quote from Hitler from “Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944” published by Farrar, Straus and Young; pg 43
    “Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.”

    For more info about Hitler and Christianity -> http:// … answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html

    (Don’t forget, Hitler was known to use various methods to win the general populace to side with him… e.g. burning a government building and blaming it on his enemies)

    Obama is a charismatic leader.. who claims to be a Christian believer.. has plenty of people serving him with utmost respect and loyalty… and probably has the Pope’s blessings too… Doesn’t make him a true Christian by God’s standard.
    A true Christian is measured by his belief in Jesus Christ and what He taught as recorded in His Word (the bible).

    Same difference… nullified.

    “I already know what evangelicals believe, because I was immersed in that culture for close to two decades.”

    if you believe you hold the truth, then you should have no problem answering or researching fairly and justly the claims both you and I are making… or in general, claims of both bible-believing Christians and Christian skeptics.

  45. Scott Thong Says:

    Hyperlinks are ok, it just takes me a day or so max to approve it.

  46. Zack T Says:

    haha… Nasaei, you funny man.. hahha

    Yes, Ron has a case to be heard, alright… otherwise it’d be to his lost if he was not/never corrected.

    Who says God has a birthdate? But Jesus has a birthdate!
    You’re talking about Jesus as a man, right? Yeah!
    Exactly.

    Don’t forget Christians believe Jesus had a dual nature: He was fully man in the flesh and at the same time, fully God in spirit.

    And no, no one believes God is a human being. Christians believe God entered into His created world in the form of a man; the Son of Man, the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
    Why would Moses, Abraham be in the running to be called either title?

    Adam was a son of God – bene-Elohim (Hebrew).. just as Eve was… as well as the angels.. creatures created directly by God…
    The rest of mankind (conceived through natural means of sex and births) are called ‘sons of Adam’ aka ‘sons of Man’.
    Jesus was called THE Son of Man… and THE son of God. Distinct Messianic titles.
    He was born through the womb of a woman but was not conceived through natural means of sex… but through the Holy Spirit.

    Tell me, Nasaei, where in the Quran does it say that God cannot and will not ever enter into His created world?

    And challenge me, if you dare, how Jesus never claims divinity. =)

  47. Zack T Says:

    Scott:

    Ok then.. but now you need to delete on of my duplicated comments then. haha.. Sorry about that.

  48. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    You are right Zack T. However if there is no explicit statement in the Quran
    that says “god will appear or not appear..or “incarnate” or such thing..that doesn’t absolutely correct or confirm His “appearance” (in any forms).

    Anyway, in Sura Al-Ikhlas it says” He is NOT like anything”. To us (Muslims) if He appears, this will contradict. I mean, when He appear, it will will be “like something/anything”.

    What differs between our brotherly faiths is that you (of Christian faith) believe double : man-God “which mould” together, which Muslims can’t accept..as you put it: “He was fully man in the flesh and at the same time, fully God in spirit”, like black can be white, and on the other occasion will be only white or so.

    So I don’t think I’m funny in anyway.

  49. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Zack.. if possible could you pls. define further in detail what you meant with “He was fully man in the flesh and at the same time, fully God in spirit”.
    Better to provide biblical verses also (to support your stance). TQ

  50. Zack T Says:

    Nasaei “Anyway, in Sura Al-Ikhlas it says” He is NOT like anything”. To us (Muslims) if He appears, this will contradict. I mean, when He appear, it will will be “like something/anything”.”

    Oh nos! Nasaei fell into my trap!

    Just kidding…. sort of. =P

    Nasaei “I mean, when He appear, it will will be “like something/anything”.”

    Is that supposed to be ‘it will not be’? or ‘it will be’??

    Let’s see….
    Sura 27:7-8
    Recall that Moses said to his family, “I see a fire; let me bring you news therefrom, or a torch to warm you.”
    When he came to it, he was called: “Blessed is the One (who is speaking from) within the fire, and those around it.”

    Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0349:
    “Allah would then come to them in a form other than His own Form, recognisable to them, and would say: I am your Lord.”

    Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 577:
    “Allah will come to them in a shape other than they know and will say, ‘I am your Lord.’ They will say, ‘We seek refuge with Allah from you. This is our place; (we will not follow you) till our Lord comes to us, and when our Lord comes to us, we will recognize Him.”

    Hmm… He’s not like anything? Looking like a contradiction here.

    Nasaei “you (of Christian faith) believe double : man-God “which mould” together, which Muslims can’t accept…. like black can be white, and on the other occasion will be only white or so.”

    No, you’re misunderstanding my statement. I’m not saying God’s divine nature ‘mixed’ together with man’s nature when Jesus was born. Just as man’s flesh and spirit are not ‘mixed’ but distinctly separate.
    So it’s not that black can be white, or vice versa or at moments can be only black or only white.
    I’m sure you understand the idea of our body and our spirit being separate, right?
    So that should answer your next inquiry.

    Nasaei “define further in detail what you meant with “He was fully man in the flesh and at the same time, fully God in spirit”.”

    Here’s how it is. The main problem here is not that I need to prove Jesus was a man or fully man.. We both agree Jesus was born into this world as any human being. If it wasn’t for His teachings and His miracles, He’d be as normal as any other average Joe during that time.

    The main problem is Christian’s view that Jesus is also God or fully God, despite in His human form.

    As far as I know, the bible never explicitly or plain flat out says ‘Jesus was fully man and fully God’..
    However, this teaching is understood clearly after taking the whole bible into account.
    There are passages that explains that God came in a (fully) human body, but yet still maintains being (fully) God..

    John 1:1-4, 10, 14, 18
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men… He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not… And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father… No one has ever seen God; the only Son, God (monogenes theos), who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.”

    Colossians 1:15-22
    “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and IN HIM all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him,”

    Colossians 2:9
    “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,”

    Then there are times that God appeared in the OT and had some sort of physical contact with the significant figures;
    – Genesis 18 – God ate and conversed with Abraham
    – Genesis 32:24-30 – A mysterious person wrestled with Jacob

    Then there’s the matter of whether people around Jesus thought of Him as God in any way…
    – Mark 1:24 – demons recognized Jesus as ‘the Holy One of God’ and feared Him, a normal human being??
    – John 6:68-69 – Simon Peter calls Him ‘the Holy One of God’
    – Acts 3:14-15 – Jesus called ‘The Holy and Righteous One’ and also ‘the Author of Life’

    Further detail:
    – www answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_eat_sleep_weep.htm
    – www answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_god_not_man.htm
    – www answering-islam.org/Shamoun/index.htm#common_questions

  51. Scott Thong Says:

    Waitaminnit… I thought Hitler was a good little Catholic or something like that.

    http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/06/hating-christia.html

  52. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Zack, Surah An-Naml (27) verse 7-9 are not in any way indicate God presence in a specific form, rather it was voice only that Moses heard. You might have misconstrue it with a Christian believe.

    Muslims believe we can only see God in the Day of Judgment only, not in our life life time or during this worldly life. So He will never appear. Your picked Bukhari hadith (above) is in reference to hereafter (future). I’m afraid you understood it wrongly, out of context. No Muslims believe God will ever appear in any form whatsoever, but in hereafter. TQ

  53. Zack T Says:

    Nasaei,
    Good response to the argument… God will only appear in the hereafter…

    Before I continue.. I just want to affirm something, which I don’t have the supporting references for but generally Muslims proclaim this indefinitely.
    Nasaei, you said Allah is not like anything… so, does Allah have any particular form? or is he indescribable? Or is he in a form of a man likeness (not form of a man, but a likeness of that of a human being)? Or what, really? Or is he a ball of light…?
    How would you describe Allah in his original, most glorious form when he appears in the day of judgment?

    And regarding Sura 27.. I disagree..
    according to the translation (at least), “Blessed is the One (who is speaking from) within the fire”.. or “Blessed is the One within the fire”..
    Looks like it’s not just a voice Moses heard from nowhere…
    It’s coming within or from within the fire. I’m not injecting my Christian beliefs into the scene here.
    That’s what the text says. “Blessed is the One within the fire
    Naturally, biblical Christians will have no problem with that phrase.

    That translation I got from submission.org.
    Ref: www submission.org/suras/sura27.html

    Here’s another from tafsir.com, translation by Tafsir ibn Kathir..
    “Blessed is whosoever is in the fire…”
    Ref: www tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=27&tid=38081 (accompanied With arabic wordings)

  54. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Thanks Zack. Right now I’m about to clear my desk and finish today’s work. It is nice that we exchange views. Since I’m not only an ordinary common Muslim, what I can tell you is basic believe only.

    Islam requires Muslim to know and learn about Allah’s attributes only, and NOT required to “go beyond” – which I believe it may get us mistaken idea which maybe wrong. Actually, nobody knows exactly. This sounds somehow ‘absurd’ or ‘weird’ but as I said, from Islamic teaching, you are required to know His attributes/”charecteristic”, for example :

    1. Wujud (He existed)
    2. Qidam (He has no beginning)
    3. Baqa’ (He is eternal)
    4. Mukhalafatuhu lihawadith (anything “new” is wrong and not Him. Note:
    All others (creatures that He created, other than Him, is NOT like Him
    the Creator; “New” applies to everything other than Him)
    5. He is all knowing, all listening (but never imagine He sees like us (using eyes) or He hears like us (using ears)- He is NOT like that
    He speaks (but not like us by what we call “mouth”) etc.

    There are 20 main attributes. This is basics. By the way, His 99 names also describe His attributes. For example (AR-Rahman= The Most Gracious/ Benevolent). Ar-Rahim= The one who loves His creatures most); Al-Malik= King/ Ruler of the world and Akhirat (Day of Judgement). Many more.

    In short NO one knows or have the knowledge His looks actually. And Muslims are not required to know that difficult parts. Only Allah himself knows best. It is sufficient to know His attributes.

    Surah Al-Ikhlas also tells us He has no son and not son of anyone. And
    “Nothing like Him”

    Therefore to figure out His image (even by imagination is wrong by Islamic teaching – because you may get it wrong, and not required. In the Day or Judgment, then, the righteous devouted human beings will see, and know (at that time).

    I still remember that, an ustaz told me, we (man) need space to sit, stand..meaning that if you occupied certain area, other cannot ‘sit’ there together with you (because you already took/cover that spot. But Allah is NOT like that. He doesn’t space, spot to exist or to presence. In short this is also refers to what we called “He is NOT like anything”.

  55. Zack T Says:

    I see.. maybe I should’ve phrased it this way.

    Does Allah change? Change in any way; spiritually, ‘physically’/shapeshift, personality, standard, ‘change his mind’, etc?

    And the Quran teaches that Jesus, or Isa as He is called in the Quran, is the Word of God? And also the Wisdom of God? I don’t think He was called the truth by the Quran… maybe I’m mistaken?

  56. Scott Thong Says:

    Zack, I just found more anecdotal evidence that terrorists being porn freaks isn’t far fetched:

    http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/203290.php

    Pakistan is top dog in searches per-person for “horse sex” since 2004, “donkey sex” since 2007, “rape pictures” between 2004 and 2009, “rape sex” since 2004, “child sex” between 2004 and 2007 and since 2009, “animal sex” since 2004 and “dog sex” since 2005, according to Google Trends and Google Insights, features of Google that generate data based on popular search terms.

    The country also is tops — or has been No. 1 — in searches for “sex,” “camel sex,” “rape video,” “child sex video” and some other searches that can’t be printed here.

    So that’s what all those fellas go to Pakistan ‘training camps’ to do!

  57. Ron Says:

    Re: Jesus honesty and ministry

    “Since it is impossible to prove the non-existent of something.. the burden of proof that Jesus did not raise from the dead is on you, actually.”

    The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim, which in this case is that corpses can come back to life — a claim unsupported by millennia of human experience.

    “Because it is recorded that there were 500 eyewitnesses to met Jesus after He had died (ate with him, touched him, talked with him, etc). And almost all 500 were killed for proclaiming Christ is alive and Lord, which includes Jesus’s disciples (including James, His own stepbrother, who always thought Jesus was crazy!) and even Saul of Tarsus (who was, you agreed, strongly persecuting these Christians in the first place!)..

    Recorded where?

    In Mathew Mary Magdalene and the other Mary go to the tomb, there’s a severe earthquake, an angel appears and rolls the stone away and sits on it, the guards pass out, the angel tells the women to look inside where he was lying and instructs them to tell the disciples that Jesus is risen. They run off, Jesus meets them on the way, and then has a rendezvous with the eleven disciples on a mountain in Galilee. Fade to black. (no mention of an ascension or any other witnesses)

    Mark 16, historically ends (according to the publishers’ annotations in my ‘dead tree’ bibles) at verse eight with the women — Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome — entering the tomb (stone already rolled away) talking to a man in white robe, then fleeing away and keeping mum. Even with the appended eleven verses, Jesus appears only to Mary Magdalene, then to two disciples on a country road, and then to all eleven reclining at the table. He then ascends immediately after speaking with them. (still no other witnesses)

    In Luke, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James go to the tomb, find the stone rolled away, enter and find it empty, suddenly find two men in dazzling clothes next to them, are told that JC is risen and go tell the disciples. They report it to the eleven, Peter runs to the tomb, finds the linen wrappings and goes home to marvel what has happened. Jesus meets two disciples (one named Cleopas) on the road to Emmaus, stays with them, reveals himself, and they run back to Jerusalem to tell the others. Jesus meets the eleven, and those gathered with them, makes a speech, leads them towards Bethany and then ascends.(and still no other witnesses)

    In John, Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb, finds it empty, then rushes to tell Peter and the other disciple, whom Jesus loved. They race to the tomb and find it empty, and go home leaving Mary there alone weeping. She then looks inside and notices two angels who ask her why she’s crying. While she’s explaining she turns around and faces Jesus, but mistakes him for the gardener. When he calls out her name she finally recognizes him. She goes to tell the disciples. In the evening he appears before them behind locked doors (because they were afraid of the Jews). A week later he appears before them again,let’s Thomas feel him wounds, reprimands him for being such a doubter and then says: “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

    The author then follows up with a little ‘Honest, I’m telling the truth’ spin job: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (He wrote a similar comment after the crucifixion.)

    Later Jesus appears to the disciples a third time, gives them fishing advice, has breakfast, pesters Peter three about his love, tells Peter how he’ll die, and tells Peter to quit worrying about that other disciple he loved.

    The story closes with a surprise ending as the author attempts one final spin job: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.” (i.e., The story is true because I wrote it, and everything I write is 100% trustworthy.) and then goes for broke ladling on the BS: “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”

    No ascension, no other witnesses.

    In Acts, which is presumed to be written by the author of Luke, Jesus hangs out with the disciples for 40 days and then ascends into the sky.

    So where do we read about 500 witnesses?

    Well, from Paul himself: “and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”(1 Corinthians 15:5-8)

    Paul doesn’t mention the women, but that’s no big surprise — he preached they should cover their heads, keep quiet, and obey their husbands.

    The only problem is that Paul never actually met the physical Jesus. All we have to go on is Paul’s uncorroborated account that he saw a bright light and heard voices on the road to Damascus, and that he heard Jesus during a ‘trance’ at the temple in Jerusalum. And even his conversion story has conflicting elements.(Acts 9, Acts 22)

    Basically we’re left with four conflicting gospel accounts, an account in Acts which conflicts with all four gospel accounts including the one (supposedly) written by the same author, and Paul’s unconfirmed testimony.

    At the time of Jesus death, three gospels mention the earth went dark of three hours and the curtain in the temple tore in two. Mathew goes one step further by claiming there was a major earthquake and Jerusalem had a zombie invasion. Yet neither John nor any outside source bothered to record these amazing events.

    Colour me unconvinced.

    Oh, and James wasn’t the only one who thought Jesus was nuts:

    At these words the Jews were again divided. Many of them said, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?”(John 10:19-20)

    “Prove to me that those 500 were false and went to be killed for a lie.”

    You’d first have to establish (through extra-biblical sources) that there were 500 witnesses. And even then it proves nothing. People have shown themselves willing to die for all kinds of crazy beliefs — The Branch Davidians, Jim Jones Cult, Order of the Solar Temple, terrorists who fly planes into buildings and detonate themselves in public squares, etc, etc

    “Jesus was talking about His work on Earth is done”

    Yes, and HIS personal ministry ended at death.

    “every of God’s prophecies of His 1st coming were fulfilled)… ”

    And all the claims to fulfilled prophesies have been rebutted. Most are completely vague, like the first four in that link you don’t want to talk about (and Mr. Copeland, the site owner, writes he won’t entertain questions either due to time constraints), or the prophecies are twisted completely out of context, or they are their are patently unoriginal (wars and rumors of war — wooh like that’s unheard of).

    What Christians never explain is all the UNFULFILLED and FAILED prophecies. Here are a few to get started (Scott seems to be having problems):

    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/08/16/isaiah-in-the-dead-sea-scrolls/#comment-42051

    If you choose to respond, do it on that thread; this one is already becoming unmanageable.

    “That’s just a claim.”

    Just a claim? There are websites and a book devoted to refuting his ‘evidence’ for Christ.

    Google and ye shall find.

    Re: Covenants

    “What God knew was that no normal man will ever reach that standard of perfection on their own.”

    So in other words, you’re going with option two: he knew no one could meet the standards of his first covenant, but went ahead with it anyways, and then waited several centuries before rolling out his new and improved ‘saved by grace’ option. Why go through the trouble? He could have just had Jesus die prior to the deluge; or better yet, create a world without that tree which led to the fall.

    Re: Jesus and nekid butt sex

    “And yet earlier, you were trying to claim Jesus was never against homosexuality…”

    No, I asked, “If your contention is that Christians now get their moral advice solely from the NT, please cite where Jesus makes specific mention for or against homosexual unions.”

    And just out of curiosity, what if a married heterosexual couple engages in anal intercourse or oral sex? That’s not covered anywhere in the Bible.

    “Joshua 7:21-25 – The ones who committed covetousness were stoned and burned.”

    Ok, I’ll put you up in the camp that thinks he was executed for covetousness. The reason I put it in brackets with ‘prescribed punishments’ was because other Christians I’ve debated on this topic feel that Achan was executed primarily because he disobeyed God’s covenant (Deuteronomy 7), disobeyed a direct order to leave behind banned items (the mantle) in Jericho, and failed to forward the silver and gold to the treasury — a position I side with because the coveting described in the Ten Commandments dealt explicitly with your neighbor’s possessions and the Mosaic Law does not list a punishment for that offense, which is basically a thought crime anyways. Then again, if God’s punishment for violating all the other commandments is death, why should one expect anything less for the last.

    “John 8:7 – Jesus’s answer to you, “If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone.”

    So why do did Christians continue burning (alleged) witches and heretics through the middle ages? Were the executioners all sinless?

    Re: Hosea

    “Why would the Supreme Court hire judges who have ever taken bribes in order to convince citizens that bribery is wrong? It’s pretty much the same as some schools selecting among the bad students to become school prefects. I’m sure Scott can testify to such practices.”

    No, because Hosea took the adulterous wife (or prostitute) AFTER being specifically requested to do so by God, not beforehand.

    “I know one school in my area practiced that before with rather positive results.”

    Except in this case, Hosea was living with an adulterous wife while screaming that everyone should repent from their sinful ways. It of sets a bad example, don’t you think? “Do as I say and not as I do” is a poor way to persuade some to follow the rules. People would consider him a hypocrite and ignore his advice.

    And God seems to agree with me:
    “And among the prophets of Jerusalem
    I have seen something horrible:
    They commit adultery and live a lie.
    They strengthen the hands of evildoers,
    so that no one turns from his wickedness.
    They are all like Sodom to me;
    the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.”(Jeremiah 23:14)

    Jeez, I wonder why?

    “Yes, an action is morally judged on its own… But the question here is the degree of punishment for the wrong deed committed. And the degree of punishment depends on the perpetrator of the deed.To say the standards of right and wrong apply across the board to everyone would include adolescent crimes. Now I’m sure you’ll agree that punishments/penalties of child perpetrators are lesser than adult ones.”

    Punishments for children and the mentally handicapped take into consideration that certain individuals either lack the moral capacity to make sound decisions, or don’t understand the consequences of their actions. However in this case, the argument is a moot point because most priests and prophets tend to be grown adults.

    “No, that’s a very distorted view of what I said. God decided prophets be exempt from the regulations of the High priests much like He exempts the common believer from such standards/regulation. Prophets and Priests serve different purposes, as I’ve mentioned before. Prophets have their own sets of rules, and so do the Priests.”

    There was nothing distorted about my view. The rules I listed all echo the same sentiment: adultery, prostitution, and other certain other sexual practices are forbidden, period. So there is no reason to conclude that prophets had a special pass. (See Jeremiah 23:14 above)

    “Are you saying Police chiefs have to wash their hands everytime they handle a criminal, much like doctors wash their hands when examining/operating on their patients?? Or clean their guns and batons before using it on a criminal??
    No! Although they serve both the general population and the government they work for, they serve different purposes.”

    Your argument makes sense for hand washing, but can you conceive of a reason why adultery would ever be acceptable for one occupation and not another?

    “Looks like a great advice to me… in whatever sight.”

    This one is kind of a riddle:

    This is what the LORD Almighty says: “Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD. (Jeremiah 23:16)

    So should they listen to what the prophet Jeremiah is saying or not?

    Indeed, I am against those who prophesy false dreams,” declares the LORD. “They tell them and lead my people astray with their reckless lies, yet I did not send or appoint them. They do not benefit these people in the least,” declares the LORD.(Jeremiah 23:32)

    Either way, it looks like the advice wasn’t working.

    Re: Ted Haggard

    “Being able to teach what’s in Scripture and being able to obey it are two different tasks.The same was said when the Pope wrote a book about marriage and sex. How can he write about marriage and sex when he’s practicing celibacy?
    That’s because teaching doesn’t require that you actually experienced it.”

    It’s precisely because the Pope knows diddly-squat about marriage and sex that battered women stay with abusive husbands, priests bugger alter boys, teenage girls get pregnant, and third world countries suffer poverty due to overpopulation and aids epidemics.

    Re: Jewish Privileges

    “Equivalent of blaming the parents of Adolf Hitler for giving birth to him; unless it is indeed the parents who taught and brought Hitler up to do what he did… in which case, God never did as such with Satan. So yes, He is off the hook.”

    No it’s not the equivalent. Theists present God as an All-Perfect, All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-Loving, All-Merciful and All-Just Creator. If he created a being that turns to evil, then he’s failed the first two categories. If he can’t stop such a being, he’s failed the third. If he knowingly allows such a being to exist, then he’s failed the last three.

    “Explain to me where in that passage you quoted that God said along the lines of ‘I’ll give you this land with no strings attached?”

    His only directive is: “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you.”

    Then he makes the promise, implying it’s a gift. Had it been a contract, he would have stated it upfront, just like he did when he made his other covenants with Israel..

    Ever been on vacation to a country where someone comes up and offers to take a picture of you, or your family and then later demands a fee for what you thought was a kind gesture? Employing your logic, that person could argue “where did I say I’d do it for free?”

    “Circumcision – Benefits Outweigh the Risks”

    The site author is a academic, and a quick search reveals he’s considered a quack. If I want to take a course, I’ll go to university. If I want competent medical advice regarding circumcision, I’ll seek out a competent medical professional.

    http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/13585.shtml

    And how strange that the God who supposedly created us perfect in the womb, needs humans to make some post-delivery modifications.

    “Funny thing is… no.. they don’t believe the same thing when it comes to Jesus’s divinity.. and they overlook a lot of sin that was punishable by stoning… e.g. sexual sins, false prophets, etc.”

    False prophets to you. To them you’re an infidel and blasphemer… and to me both groups are deluded.

    “Same difference… nullified.”

    I didn’t claim he was a Christian. You’re correct in stating that Hitler was against organized religion; nonetheless he claimed to have had a divine intervention during World War I, and truly believed he had a manifest destiny.From Mein Kampf:

    “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

    He managed to persuade clergy and citizens to rally to that cause, and I still know a few German immigrants who believe he was a good leader and attribute his failure to incompetent subordinates. They also believe the Holocaust is postwar propaganda invented by the allies to exact revenge. Oh, and one other thing… they are devout Christians who take advantage of every opportunity to proselytize whenever I come in contact with them.

    “If you believe you hold the truth, then you should have no problem answering or researching fairly and justly the claims both you and I are making… or in general, claims of both bible-believing Christians and Christian skeptics.”

    I’ve already done the research, and reading the Bible cover to cover while trying to strengthen my faith was the reason I became an atheist, or rather gave up trying to believe in a God whose presence I never felt.

  58. Zack T Says:

    Scott… you’re sick for looking into these sort of things… =_=

  59. Zack T Says:

    Ron,
    Hahah… nice spin on ‘I’m telling you the truth’… but no, that’s not what he is emphasizing on.
    “These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ”
    He’s not even focused on himself, as you so like to make it emphasize on.

    “Paul doesn’t mention the women, but that’s no big surprise”

    When a Jew says ‘brethrens’ or ‘brothers’ in the original language that they speak (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc), it always includes both men and women. So, moot.
    I won’t comment on anything ‘Paul’ from here, since I’m trying to lessen the things to comment about and make this less ‘unmanageable’.

    I’ll just quickly say there may be conflicting accounts, but the main teachings/doctrines are still clear and unchanged; e.g. “Jesus died and rose again”.
    We do not proclaim God will protect every physical letter of the bible in any particular language, unlike Muslims. Although some words may have been changed or a phrase or so was added or left out, humans make mistakes, His message remains the same despite thousands of years had passed.
    And leave it as that.

    “You’d first have to establish (through extra-biblical sources) that there were 500 witnesses.”

    I don’t have the resources to share with you.. so i’ll just point to somewhere that does.
    www answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm

    “Oh, and James wasn’t the only one who thought Jesus was nuts”

    People thought Einstein was crazy too.. And Galileo… And a lot of well-known scientists who have changed this world.
    Interestingly… James, who did not believe Jesus, became a devout believer after Jesus’s resurrection.. (Acts 1:12,14, Galatians 1:18-19, 1 Corinthians 5:9)
    Nuff said.

  60. Zack T Says:

    ZT “Prove to me that those 500 were false and went to be killed for a lie.”
    Ron “And even then it proves nothing. People have shown themselves willing to die for all kinds of crazy beliefs”

    Doesn’t answer my point. Those people you quoted proves my case, not yours.
    Those people believed those ‘false things’ to be true..
    They didn’t conspired to make a ‘false thing’ and went to be killed while still upholding the ‘truth’ of that ‘false thing’.

    Just one more evidence the resurrection of Christ is true.

    “Yes, and HIS personal ministry ended at death.”

    If you put it that way, you are correct.
    His personal ministry is over and His job on Earth was completed on the cross and when He had presented Himself to the Father after raising from the dead.
    And then, as end of Matthew records, He sent His disciples out to minister, baptize and make disciples of all nations; just like how God sent prophets to do His work in the OT.

    “And all the claims to fulfilled prophesies have been rebutted. Most are completely vague, like the first four in that link you don’t want to talk about”

    First four of that link?? I really need to clarify with you which link you’re talking about.

    And you feel the prophecies are twisted out of context, or are vague, because you’re not a Jew or, I guess, you don’t understand the Jews’mindset, especially during those times. (not that i’m claiming I do, but I try to see the prophecies through the eyes of a Jew)

    “Just a claim? There are websites and a book devoted to refuting his ‘evidence’ for Christ.”

    Now that’s better of a claim. But for now, I’m not interested in getting to know the opposing views against Lee Strobel’s book.
    maybe another day when I find the interest to learn more about the scientific(?) arguments to Strobel’s book.

  61. Zack T Says:

    “Why go through the trouble?”

    God knows what’s best and most effective.
    And just like how God sent John the Baptist to prepare the way before the Messiah comes.. God was preparing the way for a very long time before Jesus’s birth.
    What’s there to prepare? Well, the Jews for one. In those early times, polytheism was abundant and He doesn’t want people getting confused about the Trinity when Jesus comes, proclaiming to be God.
    That’s just one reason He did it at that time, but there’re plenty but it’d be too much for even myself to try and explain more.

    “please cite where Jesus makes specific mention for or against homosexual unions.”

    That had been answered when I linked this page. The first point is enough to explain.
    apocalipsis.org/difficulties/Jesussilenceonhomosexualunions.htm

    “what if a married heterosexual couple engages in anal intercourse or oral sex?”

    I don’t know. I’ve yet to find anything wrong (both biblical or personal) with married couples being creative with their sex life… but I do find some argue that anal sex can lead to very very unwanted health issues.

    “other Christians I’ve debated on this topic feel that Achan was executed primarily because he disobeyed God’s covenant (Deuteronomy 7)”

    I did notice/realize that and I will look further into it when I have the opportunity. Thank you for pointing it out.

    “if God’s punishment for violating all the other commandments is death, why should one expect anything less for the last.”

    There are different degrees of punishments for different violations… much like stealing has less a penalty, as compared to murder. But ultimately, the penalty for sin is death (hell aka the second death).

    “No, because Hosea took the adulterous wife (or prostitute) AFTER being specifically requested to do so by God, not beforehand.”

    I actually don’t understand what you’re asking about.
    God asked Hosea to get an adulterous wife… but never asked him to be an adulterer. It’s two different situation

    “Do as I say and not as I do”

    Was Hosea being an adulterer? or just married to one?
    If a man’s wife has an affair, which makes her an adulterer, does that make him an adulterer too?
    If a woman marries a man who (for sake of argument) is a rapist, does that make her a rapist herself?

    If a bad student becomes a school prefect and with guidance, use his knowledge of the tricks and trades of bad students to his advantage as a prefect, and as he does his work as prefect correctly, he is set as an example for others to follow… is that poor way to handle the bad students or to persuade them to ‘follow the rules’?

    ” And God seems to agree with me:
    “And among the prophets of Jerusalem
    I have seen something horrible:
    They commit adultery and live a lie….” “

    Once again I ask.. was God asking Hosea to be an adulterer? or to marry an adulteress? Please make up your mind, Ron.

    “The rules I listed all echo the same sentiment: adultery, prostitution, and other certain other sexual practices are forbidden, period.”

    Hahaha.. But those are commandments that suit everyone of any area of life. If a prophet or a priest or a commoner commits an adultery, yes, he is to be stoned, according to the OT.

    But it is different to say a priest, whose job description requires him to be ceremonial cleaned when serving God practically at all time, that causes himself to be unclean by marrying an unclean woman (unmarried non-virgins were considered unclean/not pure)… while a prophet, whose job description does not require him to be ceremonially clean, who chooses to marry an adulteress (not commit adultery, btw), be it commanded or personal choice.

    “Your argument makes sense for hand washing, but can you conceive of a reason why adultery would ever be acceptable for one occupation and not another?”

    Ok.. sure. By the grace of God, He has blessed me with some insights.
    Who faces a heavier penalty; a bribed police or a bribed doctor?

    “So should they listen to what the prophet Jeremiah is saying or not?”

    This thread wouldn’t be ‘unmanageable’ if you would just drop some of the arguments (if you have nothing to add to them) and stop bringing in more new ones to talk about…

    I think I’ll just drop the ‘Jeremiah and false prophets ones’ for us, but it’d make an interesting read for me.. Thanks.

    “No it’s not the equivalent. Theists present God as an All-Perfect, All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-Loving, All-Merciful and All-Just Creator. If he created a being that turns to evil, then he’s failed the first two categories. If he can’t stop such a being, he’s failed the third. If he knowingly allows such a being to exist, then he’s failed the last three.”

    Nope, disagree again. (this one I have to defend)
    God is All-Loving, one reason He created this world.
    Obviously, there’s no point in creating a world of robots that obey and love Him because that is their only function.. hence why we were given free will.. so we can freely choose to love Him or not to. And because He is All-Loving, He won’t force you to love Him.
    He is All-Perfect cause there is no sin in Him, He is completely, purely Holy, which also brings us to His All-Just attribute.
    He is All-Knowing, that He knew His creations would be tainted by sin, but He had already made plans for redemption through Jesus Christ.
    God’s attributes are not independent, as you’re implying or relying upon on your statements. They are dependent of the other attribute.
    He is All-Just, and therefore must punish sin… but then He is All-Loving, so He loves the sinner and wants to save the sinner.
    He is All-Merciful, so He wants to forgive the sinner despite his/her sin, but He is All-Just and cannot do so at a whim.

    With free will, we decide for ourselves whether we will choose to love God and seek Him, or reject God and move on without ever thinking or bothering with Him.
    As much as God is All-Powerful and can make you change your mind, or disallow your existence, He is All-Loving and will not force you to love Him, but He can send those who do love Him to talk to you and work to get you to turn back to Him, and then He Himself will work in you once you have opened your heart to Him; be it a large or small opening, though it depends also how long that opening remains before you might close it back.

    “Explain to me where in that passage you quoted that God said along the lines of ‘I’ll give you this land with no strings attached?”

    Did the passage say He will immediately inherit the land? Or that God will bless him and his descendents?
    “..to the land I show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you…”
    Seems God promised He WILL do what He said and did it; Abraham’s descendents did inherit the lands.
    And plus, where in the bible does God say it is a requirement that the freed people of Egypt and Moses must travel for 40 years before getting there?
    He pronounced it as a punishment.. not a requirement (Numbers 14:26-35)

    You fail to prove your case and I’ll rest my case on this subject. No more of this subject from me.

    “And how strange that the God who supposedly created us perfect in the womb, needs humans to make some post-delivery modifications.”

    Please quote me where it was stated anywhere that circumsion is to make a person perfect? (I stated it was to honor God, fyi)

    And I don’t understand why you linked the site. Even that site tells that circumsion brings benefits. I tried finding where it talks about the risks… I couldn’t find it. Maybe you can point it out for me. I’d really like to learn more about this, if possible. Interesting general knowledge.

    “I’ve already done the research, and reading the Bible cover to cover while trying to strengthen my faith was the reason I became an atheist, or rather gave up trying to believe in a God whose presence I never felt.”

    Then I am saddened to hear that and will pray for you. As should my Christian brethrens.

  62. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    “I’ve already done the research, and reading the Bible cover to cover while trying to strengthen my faith was the reason I became an atheist, or rather gave up trying to believe in a God whose presence I never felt.”

    – Ron

    “What else can we say about our brother Ron… “God” doesn’t make sense to him, but the so-called “evolution” is. And science. Explanations by Scott, Zack T etc did not make sense to him either.

    I would suggest Ron make the same research on other religions and their scriptures as well since he finds Bible is fallible. And Quran too?

    In our efforts to ‘pinpoint’ or verify truth, what we have in mind is NOT necessarily correct or true. I mean, even though I was sure 100 percent of something, however I find out on a later time it was untrue, .. wrong, or mistaken ! This could happen to everybody..including Ron.

  63. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    I think Muslims are the true followers of the teaching of Christianity. Some Christianity do not. Bible tells us God is one – Muslims believe it. Bible tells us, “when he (Jesus was eight days old, he was circumcised” – we Muslims follow. All male Muslims are circumcised.

    Luke 1:15 urged us not to consume wine or alcohol, and it is totally forbidden in Islam. Most Muslims do not take alcohol. Leviticus 11.7 forbids us from eating pork, Muslims do not take it. Not even touch it.

    In Psalms 15:5 tells us that to avoid the practice of interest taking in business dealing (usury) is wrong – Muslims follow. It is totally ‘haram’.

    Genesis 17:3 stated that bowing and touching the forehead is they pray is done (also Matthew 26:39 and Exodus 34:8). That was the exactly prayer is in Islamic way as we all did. Exodus also tells us not to bow to statue (any statue/idol)- Muslim acknowledge and follow. Muslims do not decorate a tree too much (like in Christmas for instance), and Jeremiah 10:2-5 tells us that. I think it is also taught in Christianity, before eating, we should read or recite a prayer of praising God. Many Muslims follow this. Did our Christians friends follow?

    We (female Muslims) wear hijab (dead cover) as nuns did. Only nuns follow the teaching and not the rest ?

    Pls. correct me if I’m wrong, especially the references quoted above.

    I’m sure you’ll have many, many explanations..or justifications with you friends. Your explanation is the most correct of all..anyway? You’ll always have explanations, explanations..till the end.. Yours are the most precise, most correct..as I noticed it..

  64. Zack T Says:

    Seems Nasaei has chosen to not answer my latest few comments/responses to him.
    1 – Regarding Jesus’s divine identity in the New Testament that is clearly taught.
    2 – That Allah appeared to Moses in the fire.
    3 – My question about the Quran teaching Jesus/Isa as Word of God/Allah.

    Anyway… by the grace of God, and in the name of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, I’ll do my best to answer you.

    1 – Why do Muslims circumcise? Why do they practice this? Can you please explain? Besides just saying ‘because Jesus and the other prophets did it’.
    Why do Muslim believe they have to ‘continue’ the practice?

    2 – Luke 1:15? Interesting… how about you quote us the context, please? It starts from Luke 1:13 onwards.
    After you read the verse in its context, I would then ask, “Is this a verse where God commands it to all people?”

    Then, also.. why not quote all these other verses; mostly from Torah and even the Psalms:
    Genesis 14:18 – Where Melchizedek, a king and priest of God, brings bread and wine to Abraham.
    Deuteronomy 14:26 – Which implies you can spend one’s tithe on wine and strong drink to rejoice before the Lord.
    Psalm 104:14-15 – That credits God as the creator of wine that ‘gladdens the heart of man’.
    Proverbs 31:6-7 – “Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more.”
    Isaiah 25:6 – Where God has a banquet with ‘well-aged wine’ and ‘aged wine well refined’.
    Jeremiah 48:33 – Where lack of wine was God’s punishment.

    There’s a common misunderstanding of what the bible says about wine/alcohol. The bible doesn’t condemn or forbids alcohol/wine or drinking them… but its verses are always referring to drunkardness or drinking til one becomes drunk.
    Examples:
    Proverbs 20:1 – “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise.”
    Isaiah 5:11 – “Woe to those who rise early in the morning, that they may run after strong drink, who tarry late into the evening as wine inflames them!”

    Wine is considered a blessing in Jewish weddings (and there’s the time Jesus turned water into wine; John 2:1-12, which is Jesus’s 1st miracle).

    Well.. ok. The Quran (supposedly) forbids Muslims drinking alcohol and that it is ‘Satan’s handiwork’ (Sura 5:90)……
    so then, what’s Satan’s handiwork doing in ‘paradise’ (Sura 47:15, Sura 83:22,25)?

    3 – No pork? What does Jesus say?
    Mark 7:14-23 – “Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?”

    4 – First of all, no, Genesis 17:3 does not state bowing and touching foreheard is their prayer is done (neither does Exodus 34:8). It is just mentioning Abram/Moses doing so when he met God. There are plenty of other ways of prayer. Bowing face to the ground is one of many.
    For example… Luke 18:9-14 – A tax collector beat his chest while praying, and Jesus considered him righteous.

    And Matthew 26:39 is an interesting one. Let’s read the whole verse, shall we?
    “And going a little farther, [Jesus] fell on His face and prayed, saying, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.’ ”
    This verse alone refutes two important teachings of the Quran about Jesus..
    A) That Allah has no Son neither does he begets one.
    B) That Jesus never believed He was going to face death. (the cup Jesus is talking about is the ‘Cup of God’s Wraith’ that is reserved for the punishment of sin.)

    Thank you for quoting that verse.

    5 – “Exodus also tells us not to bow to statue (any statue/idol)- Muslim acknowledge and follow.”
    Yeah, kissing a black stone/meteorite isn’t idolatry..
    1 Kings 19:18 – [God spoke] “Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel – all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and all whose mouths have not kissed him.”
    Hosea 13:2 – “Now they sin more and more; they make idols for themselves from their silver, cleverly fashioned images, all of them the work of craftsmen. It is said of these people, ‘They offer human sacrifice and kiss the calf-idols.’ ”

    6 – “I think it is also taught in Christianity, before eating, we should read or recite a prayer of praising God.”
    Please quote the verse(s).
    And what about Christians saying grace before eating?

    7 – Please quote me the verse(s) where God states He required women to cover their heads?

    8 – Of course I have many explanations.. cause usually Muslims will misrepresent what the bible teaches; e.g. Trinity, Jesus’s divinity and crucifixion and resurrection, etc.
    If you think my answers are precise and most correct, then I am flattered. But I don’t think I’ve ever made such a claim.
    But I’m glad you’re asking about the bible and what it teaches. May God’s truth be revealed to you and that the Holy Spirit will do His work in you.

  65. Ron Says:

    “Nice spin on ‘I’m telling you the truth’… but no, that’s not what he is emphasizing on.”

    It’s an appeal to authority — in this case the author’s — intended to lend credence to the stories. He does this at least three times.

    “Paul doesn’t mention the women, but that’s no big surprise”

    To clarify, I was referring to Paul’s omission of Mary in his chronological listing of Jesus’ appearances after the resurrection — an appearance mentioned in all four gospels.

    “I’ll just quickly say there may be conflicting accounts, but the main teachings/doctrines are still clear and unchanged; e.g. “Jesus died and rose again”. We do not proclaim God will protect every physical letter of the bible in any particular language, unlike Muslims. Although some words may have been changed or a phrase or so was added or left out, humans make mistakes, His message remains the same despite thousands of years had passed.”

    Your explanation defies logic. How can anyone in good conscience assert the events transpired exactly as written when the accounts themselves are in conflict? And your inerrancy argument is unconvincing. Christians claim this is supposed to be the greatest and most influential story ever told. Why would the hand of God which diligently guided the pens of the original authors be suddenly withdrawn from the scribes of subsequent copies? And more importantly, why would he allow the originals to go missing, thereby forcing future generations to rely solely on the less reliable transcriptions as an article of faith?

    “I don’t have the resources to share with you.. so i’ll just point to somewhere that does.
    www answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm”

    Despite the title, the link you gave only establishes the existence of historical figures and place names mentioned in the Bible, not the actual resurrection. Fan sites claim Elvis died at his home in Memphis on 16 August 1977, but just because we can confirm those facts doesn’t mean that all the reported sightings of Elvis after his death are also automatically true.

    “Doesn’t answer my point. Those people you quoted proves my case, not yours.Those people believed those ‘false things’ to be true.” They didn’t conspired to make a ‘false thing’ and went to be killed while still upholding the ‘truth’ of that ‘false thing’.

    Just one more evidence the resurrection of Christ is true.

    Evidence is precisely what’s lacking. Is there a list with 500 names? Is there any mention of how they all died, or for what reason? Why does Acts 1:15 state there were only 120 believers? Does that mean 380 later recanted their belief? Or did Paul exaggerate? And how do you know HOW all the apostles died? Or how Paul died?

    Joseph Smith, the alleged Mormon martyr, was killed by an angry mob while held in jail. Does that mean he was telling the truth about the tablets? Or did he die for a lie? The eleven witnesses who signed an affidavit claiming to have seen those tablets weren’t martyred, but they all went to their graves asserting their testimony was true.

    Who would risk death for a lie? How about the people who lied to SS officials about sheltering Jews, or the POWs who fed their captors false information about troop deployments to save other soldiers from capture?

    “First four of that link?? I really need to clarify with you which link you’re talking about.”

    executableoutlines.com/mt/mt_04.htm

    “please cite where Jesus makes specific mention for or against homosexual unions.”

    I’ll sign off on this portion of the discussion by saying that you have failed to substantiate the claim that Christian views against homosexuality are informed by Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament. So when Ted Haggard said, “Alright, so we don’t have to debate what we think about homosexual activity. It’s written in the Bible.” he could only be referring to what’s written in Leviticus.

    “There are different degrees of punishments for different violations… much like stealing has less a penalty, as compared to murder.”

    Nonetheless, the punishment for violating any of the Ten Commandments was death — a fact many “let’s put the Ten Commandments back in the courthouse” proponents are often completely unaware of (that’s if they can even name them all, which many can’t).

    “But ultimately, the penalty for sin is death (hell aka the second death).”

    An infinite punishment for a finite crime isn’t justice. According to the scriptures, even the smallest indiscretion is deserving of eternal damnation. So a kind and compassionate young girl who volunteers at the local hospice but dies a non-believer goes to an everlasting torment, while the demented killer who sadistically rapes and bludgeons that girl on the way to the shelter but confesses Christ as his Saviour prior to execution goes to Heaven. It’s a morality that defies all logic and human decency.

    Re: Hosea

    I think you’re focusing too much on the letter of the law and not enough on the spirit of the law, the vary thing Jesus accused the Pharisees of doing. Throughout the OT, God makes it patently clear that he detests all manner of sexual impropriety. It therefore astonishes me that he would command his prophet to live with someone who represents the exact opposite of what he desires. The allegory between God/Hosea and Israel/adulteress isn’t lost on me, but why is it that practically every single account in the OT amplifies the bad behavior and never accentuates the good? Why are there so few positive stories showing the benefits of kindness, and compassion, and love towards your fellow human? I successfully guided my children into adopting positive behavior by setting a good example and practicing it myself, rather than just pounding them with an impossible-to-follow list of dos and don’ts. If I — a fallible human — can manage to do that, why is the All-Powerful Creator of the universe so inept in his parenting skills?

    Re: Free Will and God’s attributes

    I’ve broached this topic elsewhere here on this blog, but it bears repeating here.

    Free will and divine will are mutually incompatible with one another. The underlying premise is that every choice we make constitutes an exercise of free will. By definition, free will can not be an imposed choice. Otherwise an armed robber who yells, “Your money or your life” could (rightly) claim that he offers his victims an opportunity to exercise their free will. And we know that such a line of defense would fail in a court of law. So God’s command — to love and obey him, or perish — is an imposed choice, because there’s no other option available.

    If I write a computer program that fails to perform as desired, the blame rests with me as the programmer, not the program itself. If I deliberately add code that causes the program to crash at random intervals, I can’t say that my program has ‘free will’ and deliberately chose to ignore my instructions — the blame also rests with me. And if I intentionally introduce (or allow) a virus into my system that’s also my fault. How can I blame the program after adding an element that interferes with its proper functioning?

    Likewise, all-just and all-merciful are incompatible attributes.

    Justice means carrying out the prescribed punishment. Merciful means reducing or negating that punishment. If murder invokes the death penalty, then a ‘just’ judge must quell his merciful thoughts and impose the death sentence. In order to be merciful, a judge would have to stay the execution, thereby violating the demand for full justice. To get around this dilemma, Christians have introduced the idea of vicarious redemption — an immoral concept which proposes that killing an innocent third party can satisfy both components (justice and mercy) simultaneously. How anyone can square this vile injustice is beyond me. There isn’t a single court of law in the western world which would allow (much less demand) someone else to stand in for a death row inmate. And it boggles my mind why God can’t simply forgive without all the drama. I don’t need to kill my son first in order to forgive a neighbor for trampling my plants, and then make it conditional upon acceptance of my son’s death for his transgression.

    Re: Circumcision

    “Please quote me where it was stated anywhere that circumcision is to make a person perfect? (I stated it was to honor God, fyi)”

    You also introduced an argument attesting to the medical benefits — benefits which are not as clear ‘cut’ as proponents of circumcision make them out to be. North American paediatricians have determined the benefits are minimal and no longer perform the procedure unless parents specifically request it for religious reasons. But this is a side issue unrelated to the main the discussion, so I’ll drop it.

  66. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Wait a minute Zack my friend.. I’ll try to comment on your questions sooner or later. However, I have never made a serious biblical study before.. therefore some of my personal opinion might be incorrect (or in fact correct).

    By the way, my joke this morning..in case I decide to pursue the case in a ‘court of law’ later, I really appreciate if Ron can be my lawyer..to represent me. I hope Ron will consider…

  67. Zack T Says:

    Nasaei,

    Don’t worry. I kept the assumption that you have not made any (serious) study on the bible prior to you making those comments/assertions.

    I was merely answering your quotes and explaining to you how I understood those verses or regarding those topics.

    Myself, my knowledge regarding the Quran and its teachings are mainly from Christian scholars (some ex-Muslims and some Arab speaking) who study the Quran and the hadiths vigorously in order to debate and/or witness to Muslims.

    www answering-islam.org – Christian Apologetics regarding Islam
    www abnsat.com – “Jesus or Muhammad” tv show
    www answeringmuslims.com – a blog by some Christian apologists

  68. Zack T Says:

    And Ron…
    I am growing tired of the discussion on most of the issues… I wish to stop this debating, since it’s getting no where for either of us.

    So I’ll just get to what really matters…

    “Free Will vs God’s Attributes”

    If you want an allusion using computer program… it would be more accurately to portray this way.
    That you created a program that has the ability to decide for itself what and how it executes something.
    And that you created an environment where it allows for good results (i.e. calculations or display something you want) and bad results (i.e. virus, error) to happen; depending on what the program decides to execute/do.
    Your ‘divine’ will is that the program operates within the good side of the environment and you had created it so it understands to stay away from the bad side, but still, the program has the capacity to execute the bad side if it decides to.
    So, every time the program decides to execute and produce good results, naturally you’d be happy with the program’s performance, because you know it is the program’s own decision to do the good, instead of the bad.

    Naturally, it is either the program pleases you by doing the good as you created it to do… or you delete it for failing to do what you wanted it to.
    Seems perfectly fine to me.

    “Otherwise an armed robber who yells, “Your money or your life” could (rightly) claim that he offers his victims an opportunity to exercise their free will. And we know that such a line of defense would fail in a court of law.”
    Of course it fails in court of law… because the robber doesn’t hold any form of sovereignty over your life prior to the situation where he threatens your life. A robber’s death threat is not parallel with God’s punishment. A court judge would be a better parallel.
    Which brings me to the more important bit..

    “All-Just vs All-Merciful”
    God is undoubtedly All-Just and All-Merciful… How so?

    A just/fair court judge must judge every wrong doing, no matter how small, and demand payment of the penalty (i.e. fees, jail time, or even life), and he cannot be biased to anyone, even to his own children or family members.
    A merciful judge would, as you say, work to reduce or completely negate the punishment if possible.

    So how is God both just and merciful?
    To be merciful, He doesn’t want to punish the sinner, but to be just, He cannot ignore the penalty of the sin committed. And the penalty of sin, big or small, is death (second death, hell, eternal separation from God’s glory).

    That’s why He chose to pay the penalty Himself… through the death of His Son, Jesus Christ; who came into this world, born as a man, and lived a perfect life (without sin), so that He may become the perfect sacrifice to satisfy God’s demanded price for sin (of men)…
    Because Jesus was of no sin, death holds no power against Him and thus, He is able to resurrect Himself and prove His authority over death.

    And now, even now, every man is still accountable to the sins they’ve done or continue to do…
    However, Jesus offers His perfect record to share with you so your sinful record will be swapped for His, so you may stand before God and God will call you ‘Righteous’.

    To accept Jesus’s record, He asks for two things..
    1 – To be willing to turn away from sin… When you’re willing, He can work in you to empower you to turn from sin.
    2 – To submit completely to His will… meaning you dedicate your life to God, your Eternal Savior, to whom you are indebted to for giving you eternal salvation.

    God is a Just and Loving God. He will not ignore His standards (unlike Allah which just waves away a Muslim’s sin and instead, places his/her punishment upon a non-Muslim; according to Sahih Muslim).
    But He wishes for all to be saved and be eternally with Him in Heaven.
    That’s why He does what He can to show the non-believers of His glory and love;
    a) through His creation that is just so wonderful and marvelous that it should make one wonder how did it all come to be as it is (regarding science, to be clear);
    b) by sending and placing His people to minister or witness to the non-believers around the world;
    c) and ultimately through the historical event of Jesus Christ’s death and then His resurrection.

    But ultimately, the decision remains in your hands, and God will never force you to love Him and hence will not force you to be with Him for all eternity… which means you’ll be sent to a place where God’s presence is absent completely.

  69. Zack T Says:

    “Naturally, it is either the program pleases you by doing the good as you created it to do… or you delete it for failing to do what you wanted it to.
    Seems perfectly fine to me.”

    Sorry… a little bit of correction…

    “Naturally, it is either the program pleases you by doing the good as you created it to do… or you delete it for failing and continually failing to do what you wanted it to.
    Seems perfectly fine to me.”

  70. Scott Thong Says:

    I think Muslims are the true followers of the teaching of Christianity. Some Christianity do not. – Nasaei Ahmad

    It has been said that Islam is basically Judaism version 2.0 – a stricter, ‘more righteous’ update of the Laws of Moses. (Although halal actually allows more foods than kosher, such as shellfish and camel.)

    Perhaps the best response to this line of reasoning would be to quote Jesus:

    For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. – Matthew 5:20

    Now it could be argued, who is more righteous than even the Jews? Only the Muslims who have even stricter laws! This is in fact what Ahmed Deedat said in his closing statements with Josh McDowell:

    Let me end with the message of Jesus: He says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and the pharisees, you shall by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” There’s no heaven for you. This is what He says; these are His words. And what is happening is, you are not contradicting His words. This is Islam! Unless you are better than the Jews, there is no heaven for you.

    He didn’t say it’s the blood, but your righteousness, You must be better than the Jews, You must fast, as the Jews fasted, but on a higher level: you must pray, as the Jews prayed, but on a higher level, you must give charity, as the Jews gave charity, but on a higher level. And that is Islam. – Ahmed Deedat

    But Jesus was actually meaning something else – that no one can be righteous enough by himself to earn heaven!

    The Pharisees and teachers of the law followed every single law and regulation of Moses, with many micro-level nuances their leaders added over the centuries. They were legally perfect. Yet Jesus said that even their level of legal perfection was insufficient to enter heaven.

    One drop of ink contaminates a glass of water forever. You can add more and more water, but it will never be pure. And if you add that water to the water dispenser, the whole dispenser is no longer pure.

    Similarly, one act of evil contaminates the soul forever. You can add mroe and more good deeds, but that will never erase the evil. Letting someone with even a trace of evil, just one wrong act in his lifetime, will make heaven no longer ‘perfect’.

    Thus, according to Christianity, only the cleansing and forgiving power of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross can remove all traces of evil once and for all. That is the fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam on how to attain heaven.

    If Islam is Judaism version 2.0, Christianity is an entirely new program.

  71. Zack T Says:

    Amen to that. =D

  72. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Well.. ok. The Quran (supposedly) forbids Muslims drinking alcohol and that it is ‘Satan’s handiwork’ (Sura 5:90)……
    so then, what’s Satan’s handiwork doing in ‘paradise’ (Sura 47:15, Sura 83:22,25)?

    – Zack T.

    Not only you Zack..(who do not aware that in paradise ‘alcohol’ is allowed) ..but some Muslims also! Really. But not adultery..I mean, no mention in hadith that fornication or adultery in the paradise. Alcohol, yes – allowed, mentioned. Something new to you about this maybe. I hope you did not get it wrong (idea). However, I don’t anybody is sure, or have the knowledge what kind of “beer” or “whiskey” is there in the paradise. It just mentioned (in hadith), the paradise dwellers would be surrounded and intimated by beautiful girls, like that.

    5 – “Exodus also tells us not to bow to statue (any statue/idol)- Muslim acknowledge and follow.”
    Yeah, kissing a black stone/meteorite isn’t idolatry..

    Maybe I won’t kiss my son or my mother any more..its is idolatry!!

  73. Zack T Says:

    So you’re agreeing to the statement ‘Satan’s handiwork’ is in ‘paradise’?
    And you said no adultery… but then you also said “It just mentioned (in hadith), the paradise dwellers would be surrounded and intimated by beautiful girls, like that.”
    What about married men? what about their wives?
    how is that not a form of adultery?

    What kind of ‘paradise’ focuses so much of the material desires that are from Earth?
    What about God? Where’s God in this paradise?

    If you are worshiping your children or parents, then yes, it’s idolatry.
    But if you kiss them out of love, then that’s fine.

    But the bible is very clear. You are not to worship, bow or kiss crafted idols, because they are emotionless and not alive.
    So how is it that Islam is a continuation of the Jewish teachings… when Jews believe God forbids any form of material worship; be it bowing, praying or kissing the object?

  74. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Oh my God..really we differ in believe as much..even on the petty things Zack. Muslims do not believe God lives in paradise. He lives in “Arash”. You’ll find this word in Quran on many, many occasions/ places. What is “Arash” ? The answer is nobody knows in dept, what it is exactly.

    Then married men/women? I don’t know. What I know is, dwellers will be
    attended by those “bidadari” in Malay (literally very pretty girls). Then, adultery or not..I have no idea. I was told that, in this world God forbids
    certain things, but some of those forbidden would be allowed in the paradise. I think God want to test, who obeys, who do not, I don’t know.

    You are right about kissing I think. When French won World Cup in 2002, players kissed the trophy. Some of them are Muslim converts (Thiery Henry, Frank Ribery, Nicholas Anelka and former coach Phillippe Troussier). But then, I have not heard any Muslim scholar said that was a ‘idolatry’ because (might be).., as long as they didn’t believe
    the object had the power, attributes or qualities similar to thet of God..the okay I think, even though it was a motionless/ lifeless object.

  75. Zack T Says:

    Yes, indeed Christianity and Islam are very different… ‘even on the petty things’…
    And I guess Islam and Judaism are very different too. Jews don’t believe in such a ‘paradise’.. let alone a ‘paradise’ with overflowing wine and ‘bidahari’. Then again, Jews are forbidden from practicing polygamy (marrying more than 1 wife).

    You should really check out the sites I linked.
    ABNSAT I find is especially interesting since it’s a tv show, where Christians and Muslims can call in and talk about the topic at hand..
    Though you’ll probably consider it biased because it’s hosted by Christian hosts.
    And Answering-Islam.org contains a lot of articles regarding Islam, its history, and its teachings and how they contradict with what Jesus teaches or what Jews believed, etc.

  76. Ron Says:

    “I am growing tired of the discussion on most of the issues… I wish to stop this debating, since it’s getting no where for either of us.”

    As you wish, but I find it amusing that you have grown ‘tired’ of the discussion. I thought you had god helping you out? Doesn’t Isaiah 40:28-31 promise:

    ‘Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom. He gives strength to the weary and increases the power of the weak. Even youths grow tired and weary, and young men stumble and fall; but those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.’

    Re: Divine Will vs. Free Will

    “If you want an allusion using computer program… it would be more accurately to portray this way….”

    Then you’re obviously unfamiliar with project development life cycles and the concept of ‘Software Best Practices’ — subjects introduced in entry level computer science courses and stressed repeatedly in professional journals, books, periodicals, policy manuals, and professional development seminars.. As any software professional worth that title will tell you, the key guidelines to a successful project are: planning; design; implementation; testing; deployment and maintenance. People who don’t follow those guidelines are quickly shown the door, and it’s inconceivable that even the lowliest programmer would deliberately inject code which causes programs to perform in an unpredictable manner; even those who write malicious code expect it to perform exactly as intended. So your reconstructed analogy is a fail.

    “…because the robber doesn’t hold any form of sovereignty over your life prior to the situation where he threatens your life.”

    How so? When faced with either/or choices imposed by someone else you’re deprived of the ability to exercise free will. We even have a word to describe that situation: coercion. Here’s another example to help clarify that point:

    Suitor: I love you and want you to be my wife. Nothing would please me more than hearing you say, “Yes, I want to love, honor and obey you for the rest of my life.” If you say no, I’ll be become extremely angry — so angry that I will torture and burn you. However, I respect your right to make your own decisions and would never force you to marry me.

    Re: All-Just vs All-Merciful

    You’ve simply regurgitated your beliefs and ignored my arguments demonstrating that vicarious redemption is an injustice. Even if there were a way around the moral dilemma, Christ’s death and resurrection fail to satisfy the punishment god decreed for our sins, i.e., eternal damnation. According to the narrative, Jesus not only didn’t go to hell, he wasn’t even dead for the ‘three days and three nights’ he prophesied in Matthew 12:38-40. Nor was his death any more painful than that of any anyone else who’s suffered crucifixion. In fact, there are many people who have suffered far worse and much longer. For an infinite deity this ordeal could best be described as a minor paper cut that lasts for less than a centillionth of a second in all of eternity.

  77. Simon Thong Says:

    But I’m not tired of waiting for Ron’s imagined “better set” or rules. Will he deliver? I’m patient.

  78. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Re: Circumcision

    “Please quote me where it was stated anywhere that circumcision is to make a person perfect? (I stated it was to honor God, fyi)”

    I think some people have their own personal idea in this issue. It think it is not about making you “perfect” but it is about obey God’s instruction..or not. And maybe about hygiene too. Take for example when God orders Abraham to sacrifice and slaughter his son Ismael (Ishmael). What is good about killing the son? Make you perfect? Obeying your creator is the best thing one can do I think.

    If your father instruct you to wash his car, what benefit do you get? How much money you get paid ? The value is that, a good son should always obey his father, unless if he asked you to commit a crime or such thing, you’re not required to obey.

  79. Zack T Says:

    Nasaei.. As I understand… Muslims are told by the Quran to believe in the Scriptures that were revealed to the Jews… and that would mean the Torah..

    And obviously, the story of Abraham is in the Torah… And even the Quran says that the Torah is Allah’s word (along with the Quran) and nothing can change the word of Allah…

    So that should conclude that Abraham was ordered to sacrifice Isaac.. not Ishmael (who was already ‘exiled’ from Abraham’s family before this incident).
    And plus the Quran never even states who was the boy that Abraham was supposed to sacrifice… it just states ‘his son’ or something along that lines.

  80. Ron Says:

    “The value is that, a good son should always obey his father, unless if he asked you to commit a crime or such thing, you’re not required to obey.”

    Then Abraham should have disobeyed the order to kill his son from the outset because it contravenes God’s prohibition against murder. In fact, Abraham should have said, “Any god who asks me to take the life of another without cause is a false god unworthy of my praise or honor.”

  81. Zack T Says:

    In a non-theistic human’s perspective, yes, Abraham should’ve done that.
    But Abraham is not non-theistic.

    Abraham knew and remembered what God promised him; to bless his only begotten son, Isaac, and make his descendants a great nation, etc. And he trusted God to deliver on His promises.
    Now here’s God asking Abraham to do something that will nullify His promises.
    And since it’s God’s orders, Abraham went to prepare and proceeded to have the deed done.

    Abraham understood something very well in this situation… the problem did not lay with him.. but with God. Because God promised to bless his son, etc… And God is a god that never breaks a promise (otherwise He’d be/become a liar).
    So the burden was on God to keep His word/promise, not Abraham.

    Which means… Abraham either knew/expected God to ‘bring a substitute’ for Isaac at the end… or that God will resurrect Isaac from the dead.
    (And as we all know, God did the first)

  82. Simon Thong Says:

    Ron wants to IMPORT into the Bible his own views of what should be and what should not be.

  83. ari Says:

    Better for the Patient to Suffer than to Be Treated by Israelis?

    Someone please explain to me how one reconciles the Hippocratic Oath with this kind of behavior by Medicins sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders).

    We’re not too surprised at this kind of behavior by Arab Muslims – but by a group of Western doctors? Absurd.
    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/evelyn-gordon/331736

  84. Ron Says:

    There’s nothing in the text to suggest that Abraham expected some form of divine intervention at the last minute. And if God and Satan are equally capable of asking for human sacrifice, how would Abraham be able to distinguish the source of such a request?

    Besides, if God is truly omniscient he already knows whether or not Abraham is obedient, so the test serves no useful purpose.

  85. Zack T Says:

    Ron,

    like I said… God made the promise to bless Abraham’s descendant through Isaac. Even if it was Satan who spoke and tricked Abraham… God will still save Isaac because He has made that promise and what He promises, He won’t fail to deliver.
    I’m sure Abraham is well-familiar with God that he knows to recognize Him or His angels.. That’s what it means to have a relationship with God, Ron. That you’re so close to the person that you can recognize and trust in him no matter what. Just like you would recognize and trust your wife in practically every aspect of your life!

    And the test wasn’t for God’s approval… It was God’s test for Abraham to prove himself to himself. God knew Abraham would do it. Abraham needed to know he would do it and that he is willing enough to entrust his most cherished treasure (his only begotten son) into God’s hand, no matter what the situation.
    It’s almost like a teacher telling a student to go for a debate competition, even though the student has never done a debate or gone to a competition before… but that the teacher had confidence in the student to do well and maybe even win the competition.

  86. Scott Thong Says:

    There’s nothing in the text to suggest that Abraham expected some form of divine intervention at the last minute. And if God and Satan are equally capable of asking for human sacrifice, how would Abraham be able to distinguish the source of such a request? – Ron

    Although some commentators believe Abraham did expect some sort of divine intervention to save Isaac, I personally lean to the conclusion that he did not. Yet this does not diminish Abraham’s belief in a good God, because:

    1) According to some other commentators, Abraham fully expected to be reunited with Isaac – in fact, receive Isaac back – at the resurrection of the dead.

    2) Isaac had been gifted by God when it should have been impossible for his elderly parents to conceive him. God was now merely asking if Abraham would return the gift. Note that had God not given the gift in the first place, Isaac would never have existed – 20 odd years of life was already a bonus.

    3) God is the ultimately the creator and owner of all life – He has the right to give it, preserve it, or end it. As I often say when it comes to the Israelite invasion of Canaan, what’s the big deal with God commanding His people to kill in His name? Would there be as much polemics if instead, a volcano or meteorite smote the Canaanites – or if Isaac simply fell off a cliff?

    And on distinguishing between God and Satan, while it may be a harder task today, Abraham had actually met and spoken with God in person on several occasions – including in the physical form of ‘the Angel of the Lord’.

  87. Ron Says:

    It amazes me the hoops that apologists will jump through to defend and excuse their god’s capricious and immoral behavior — behavior you would condemn in a heartbeat if committed by a man.

    Trust is granted to someone of character and integrity. To say this was an act of trust is to make a mockery of the word. Committing an immoral act at someone’s bequest isn’t a sign of trust — it’s blind obedience and an abdication of all reason and human decency.

  88. Zack T Says:

    That’s simply cause you choose to be biased with your opinions/beliefs.. as are we with ours.
    Except that… you’re just speculating our understanding as ‘hoops’ while we also see you doing exactly that with your twisting and turning of the Scriptures.

    Btw, that was an attack on the person, rather than the explanation of the beliefs. So we stand truthfully with our beliefs… while you can only attack us personally to make a point. =)

  89. Scott Thong Says:

    A man is a man, and God is God. It is not so much double standards as different standards altogether. It is just as how an animal that merely bites a human or two is hunted down and shot, while a human serial rapist/killer is praised and campaigned for by liberals the world over. (See what I did there?)

  90. Ron Says:

    Unfortunately Zack, not only is your ‘ad hominem’ accusation wrong, but it commits the very fallacy you accuse me of.

    “…ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn’t there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person’s arguments. […]

    “Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks.

    http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

  91. Ron Says:

    “A man is a man, and God is God. It is not so much double standards as different standards altogether.”

    When a lawgiver is himself a lawbreaker, he becomes a despot.

  92. Simon Thong Says:

    The Lawgiver breaks no law; man, especially arrogant man, living in a well, sees it as lawbreaking. A man’s mind is so limited that he believes, wrongly, that God breaks the law.

  93. Zack T Says:

    “Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.”

    Ron said,
    “It amazes me the hoops that apologists will jump through to defend and excuse their god’s capricious and immoral behavior — behavior you would condemn in a heartbeat if committed by a man. ”

    That wasn’t an argument against my statements, but it sure was meant to undermine my statements to make them seemed ‘trivial’ or ‘without thought/meaning’ (along with any other Christians or ‘theists’ that may be debating with you). Thus, ad hominem or ‘argumentative ad hominem’.

  94. Ron Says:

    You obviously didn’t read the examples in the link I provided.

    In addition to my self-contained opening statement I went on to explain my position:

    “Trust is granted to someone of character and integrity. To say this was an act of trust is to make a mockery of the word. Committing an immoral act at someone’s bequest isn’t a sign of trust — it’s blind obedience and an abdication of all reason and human decency.”

    Rather than address that issue directly, you evaded the issue by diverting off into an erroneous and unnecessary ‘ad hominum’ discussion. Like I said before, “Play the ball, not the player.”

  95. Ron Says:

    Here’s a modern day version of the Abraham/Isaac story with all the ingredients for a senseless death:

    – a woman who heard ‘voices’ from God commanding her to offer up her baby
    – a husband who shrugged off the warning signs because of religious belifs
    – a self-proclaimed prophet/pastor who preached that “mental illness was caused by demons and that medicine wasn’t needed if you had faith.”

    http://sites.google.com/site/chilrenstempletepages/God-Bless-Our-Lost-Angels/10-month-old-Margaret-Elizabeth-Schlosser

  96. Ron Says:

    Here’s another story of a Baptist minister’s granddaughter and Sunday school teacher who strangled an 8-year-old girl to death, stuffed her body into a suitcase, and then threw it into an irrigation pond.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/Media/melissa-huckaby-confessed-murderer-year-girl-sentenced-life/story?id=10910285&page=2

    Where was the all-loving god to intervene in these to cases?

  97. Zack T Says:

    Oh, come on, Ron. It’s comparing apples with oranges.
    In Abraham’s time, sacrifices were demanded from God (although He never demanded children sacrifices ever, except Isaac, which never even went through when God provided the sacrifice; the ram/lamb)..

    And as we said, Abraham got to see/talk with God in person. (He even ate and conversed with Him regarding Sodom/Gomorrah.)

    Just cause there are misguided Christians doesn’t mean our God is evil and capricious, or that our teachings are wrong. There are just simply misguided people (and possibly with mental illnesses)
    If I were to name you and link your articles of all sorts of atheists who murdered someone/others for no reason but enjoyment or whatever selfish reason. Would that prove to everyone that ‘belief in no God’ is evil and capricious?
    No, it wouldn’t. You would just say that guy has his own evil intentions/motives or he is misguided in some ways or just plain mental.

    In the same way, these bunch you linked are misguided and (for us Christians) were led astray by the Devil.
    I’ll repeat, God NEVER demanded child sacrifices from us or from the OT.. except for Isaac, which never went through cause God provided another sacrifice in the end for Abraham.

    And I still consider your statements an ad hominem. You didn’t address our points. We stated our reasons, and gave your examples to relate to. Then you just say about ‘jumping through hoops ‘ and then say ‘our logic makes no logical sense/is a mockery to the word’, when our examples gave a pretty good understanding of the situation between Abraham and God. Let me show you how your ‘response’ doesn’t do anything against ours.

    “Trust is granted to someone of character and integrity. To say this was an act of trust is to make a mockery of the word. Committing an immoral act at someone’s bequest isn’t a sign of trust — it’s blind obedience and an abdication of all reason and human decency.”

    When did Abraham did an ‘immoral act’? When?
    And is it an immoral request when God never intended Isaac to literally be killed at the end?
    And is it blind obedience when Abraham has known God personally and intimately (i.e. ate and chatted with) for years and years and have been blessed over and over by God?

    None of your statement applies. You’re just brushing aside our reasons and putting in your own interpretation/misunderstanding (almost deliberate ones) and then present it as if that was our understanding/reasoning.

  98. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Then Abraham should have disobeyed the order to kill his son from the outset because it contravenes God’s prohibition against murder. In fact, Abraham should have said, “Any god who asks me to take the life of another without cause is a false god unworthy of my praise or honor.”

    – Ron

    According to Muslims believe, Ishmael was replaced with a goat. So, there was NO killing of a human being involved after all. And Muslims believe it was Ishmael, not Ishak (Isaac).

    Christians believe it was Isaac. Between the two (Christian and Islam),
    since it is contradicting, only one could be true. Both depends on the records of their scriptures (Bible and Quran).

  99. Yashiko Sagamori Says:

    If you are so sure that ” Palestine , the country, goes back through most of recorded history,” I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine :
    1. When was it founded and by whom?
    2. What were its borders?
    3. What was its capital?
    4. What were its major cities?
    5. What constituted the basis of its economy?
    6. What was its form of government?
    7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
    8. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
    9. What was the language of the country of Palestine ?
    10. What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine ?
    11. What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese Yuan on that date.
    12. And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
    You are lamenting the “low sinking” of a “once proud” nation.. Please tell me, when exactly was that “nation” proud and what was it so proud of?

    -By Yashiko Sagamori

  100. Zack T Says:

    Nasaei,

    “Christians believe it was Isaac. Between the two (Christian and Islam),
    since it is contradicting, only one could be true. Both depends on the records of their scriptures (Bible and Quran).”

    As I’ve said.. The name of Abraham’s son that was to be sacrifice was never mentioned in the Quran. It was added in by translators in brackets… [proving that the name is NOT there.]
    So where or when or how did they know/decide that Ishmael was the one to be sacrificed?
    Apparently during the early time of when Islam just started (after Muhammad’s death), there was plenty of debate between the Muslims scholars (people who knew Muhammad’s teachings within some generations or less!) who was the sacrificial son of Abraham…
    (Sources referenced are mainly Islamic)

    www answering-islam.org/Shamoun/sacrifice.htm

  101. poisson Says:

    Bordello Heaven??
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/jan/12/books.guardianreview5

  102. poisson Says:

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Somali apostate from Islam:

    “When people say that the values of Islam are compassion and tolerance and freedom, I look at reality, at real cultures and governments, and I see that it simply isn’t so” (Infidel, p. 349).

    Jacques Ellul, a French Reformed Christian, lay theologian and sociologist who taught law at the University of Bordeaux, and participated in many inter-faith ‘dialogues’, penned a brief foreword on ‘jihad’ – Islamic warfare – for his friend Bat Ye’or’s book “The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam”. From that foreword, this is his disturbing assessment (remember, he speaks as a sociologist):

    “there is so much talk nowadays of the tolerance and fundamental pacifism of Islam that it is necessary to recall its nature, which is fundamentally warlike!”.

    The German-American scholar Joseph Schacht, in his monumental academic tome ‘An Introduction to Islamic Law’:

    “The basis of the Islamic attitude towards unbelievers is the law of war; they must be either converted, or subjugated, or killed”.

  103. Zack T Says:

    Ron stated…
    “Trust is granted to someone of character and integrity. To say this was an act of trust is to make a mockery of the word. Committing an immoral act at someone’s bequest isn’t a sign of trust — it’s blind obedience and an abdication of all reason and human decency.”

    Come to think of it…

    Coming from the point of view of an atheist… why would this be considered an immoral act? How do you judge or decide what’s moral and what’s not?

    Isn’t the standard of what’s moral and what’s not that you’re appealing to based on a standard given by ‘religious’ people from times of old? Which obviously required the belief in the existence of God…

    How do you judge what’s moral and what’s not? What makes your standard for your moral values? Or is there any in the first place?

  104. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    How do you judge what’s moral and what’s not? What makes your standard for your moral values? Or is there any in the first place?
    – Zack T.

    Yea. The issue of standard moral values for atheists has been raised long time ago. Atheists are not seriously talking about this; they just “forget it” ! Please explain Ron and Robert. Theists’ values and laws are mostly derived or formulated based from religious teachings.

    – What to eat (all can eaten/edible except stone and woods) ? Snakes, dog, crocodile, lizard are all okay. Dead body of a human beings/carcass / corpses are all okay ? Why not ? Fetuses also okay ?

    – After visiting a restroom/toilet, why wash ? Don’t wash it the better I
    think – just ‘forget it’ so that no need to save time, water or tissue
    paper.

    – Homo-sex, lesbian, incest are all ok.

    Ron should explain as well, why hitting someone head is wrong ?

  105. Aragorn Says:

    “- What to eat (all can eaten/edible except stone and woods) ? Snakes, dog, crocodile, lizard are all okay. Dead body of a human beings/carcass / corpses are all okay ? Why not ? Fetuses also okay ?”

    You talk like that to the Malaysian Rangers and see where they put your mouth.

  106. Zack T Says:

    Aragorn…

    You are aware that snakes, dogs, crocodile and lizards are sold somewhere as a delicacy… maybe not all in one location… but they are sold as delicacy…
    I’ve ever tried crocodile meat… taste like chicken… tough like beef.

  107. Scott Thong Says:

    When a lawgiver is himself a lawbreaker, he becomes a despot. – Ron

    Okay, I’ll run with that.

    Cite the passages in the Bible where God says that God cannot take away a life. Or God cannot take away possessions of humans. Or any other law that applies to God instead of man.

  108. Scott Thong Says:

    Here’s another story of a Baptist minister’s granddaughter and Sunday school teacher who strangled an 8-year-old girl to death, stuffed her body into a suitcase, and then threw it into an irrigation pond.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/Media/melissa-huckaby-confessed-murderer-year-girl-sentenced-life/story?id=10910285&page=2

    Where was the all-loving god to intervene in these to cases? – Ron

    I’d explain at length about the doctrine of sin, the fallen world and the coming redemption, but I already know you didn’t ask that question out of any real seeking of an answer.

  109. Scott Thong Says:

    According to Muslims believe, Ishmael was replaced with a goat. So, there was NO killing of a human being involved after all. And Muslims believe it was Ishmael, not Ishak (Isaac).

    Christians believe it was Isaac. Between the two (Christian and Islam),
    since it is contradicting, only one could be true. Both depends on the records of their scriptures (Bible and Quran). – Nasaei Ahmad

    I’ve already talked to Ron about this matter, and basically he doesn’t think that there is any difference whatsoever – YHWH is Allah, and so on. Just ask him and see.

  110. Ron Says:

    Nasaei, to me it doesn’t matter so much which son Abraham was going to kill, so much as the fact that he was actually willing to go through with the act. And since God was the one who talked Abraham into it, he becomes an accessory to attempted murder — in modern courts he’d be brought up on criminal conspiracy charges.

  111. Ron Says:

    Where do we get our moral standards from? Well, it’s certainly not from religion or reading sacred texts. The Bible says nothing against — and often condones or promotes — genocide, slavery, the subjugation of women, or child labor — yet modern civilization vehemently condemns all of those practices.

    So do we really need a deity to figure this out?

    No, because as I’ve already mentioned on another thread, there is a South American tribe which functions under a perfectly acceptable moral code without the crutch of deistic beliefs.

    So morality is an intrinsic part of human nature and constantly evolving. Psychologically, we’re motivated by enlightened self-interest and empathy. As rational beings were guided by reason. Communities in which individual members voluntarily agree to pool their efforts and resources in a cooperative spirit towards the advancement of mutual interests have a higher success rate than those which don’t.

    Reason dictates that actions which uphold our highest values are moral, and those which diminish them are immoral.

    My moral code is built on the premise that the highest moral value is a person’s life, and that we each possess an inalienable right to choose what is right for ourselves, and ONLY for ourselves, i.e., our choices cannot be imposed upon or impede the rights of others.

  112. Ron Says:

    “I’d explain at length about the doctrine of sin, the fallen world and the coming redemption, but I already know you didn’t ask that question out of any real seeking of an answer.”

    Now there is an example of an ‘ad hominum’. 8)

    And my question remains: WTF was your all-loving God doing during those incidents? If people are quick to praise him for career opportunities, locating misplaced car keys, or chasing away ghosts, why can’t he be held accountable for abandoning innocent children to certain doom?

  113. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    You talk like that to the Malaysian Rangers and see where they put your mouth.

    I’m sorry Aragon, Ron, Robert and all..I just made it ‘harsh joke’ actually..because we (theists) mostly can’t understand what guideline (if any) atheists adapted to, when it comes to moral code. And atheists silence made me more coarse.

    Sorry again friends.

  114. Scott Thong Says:

    I was thinking the other day, why are certain things viewed as ‘miracles’ or ‘answered prayer’ whereas others are just ‘coincidence’?

    Simply defined, it can’t be ‘answered prayer’ if nothing was prayed for.

    And ad honimem or not, I don’t have any obligation to waste time collecting and citing passages which explain why God is not obliged to do this and that or answer so-and-so prayer when I believe that you will summarily dismiss or ignore the fruit of my effort. If I do decide to do so, it will be purely for the sake of anyone else who actually wants to know.

    In any case, one would think God would have more vested interest in spontaneously smiting those who directly doubt and mock His existence. Unless Hitchens and the late Deedat count (which I personally do not).

  115. Zack T Says:

    “there is a South American tribe which functions under a perfectly acceptable moral code without the crutch of deistic beliefs.”

    Would you look at that… ‘a perfectly acceptable moral code’… acceptable based on what? Your own personal opinion? Majority consent? Minority rights? For the ‘greater good’??
    Acceptable based on what?

    “My moral code is built on the premise that the highest moral value is a person’s life, and that we each possess an inalienable right to choose what is right for ourselves, and ONLY for ourselves, i.e., our choices cannot be imposed upon or impede the rights of others.”

    “Communities in which individual members voluntarily agree to pool their efforts and resources in a cooperative spirit towards the advancement of mutual interests have a higher success rate than those which don’t.”

    “So morality is an intrinsic part of human nature and constantly evolving. ”

    And thus wraps up the big problem that Atheists have when it comes to Morality and Ethics… there is no objective moral values that they can adhere to.

    One community of atheists would say ‘upholding the king and leader of our group’ is moral and right… while another will say ‘down with the king and the power is for everybody’ is right and moral.
    Then there’ll be another that tries to be in-between… and all this at the same period of time!

    Human standards change or ‘evolve’ at any time. Is it ever wrong for an atheist to be selfish when ‘we each possess an inalienable right to choose what is right for ourselves, and ONLY for ourselves’?
    Why is another person’s life more important than our own?

    What if an adult atheist (with that mindset) faces a situation where he has to choose between his own life or a child’s life?
    If he chooses to save his own life… that’s right for him..
    but what would other people say? Do they have the right to say he was selfish? Or that he was wrong to choose his own life over a child’s?

    And what about bestiality? Is it wrong for an atheist to seek pleasure in having sex with animals? Well, it feels right for him, what’s it to you?
    Can you condemn him for such an act? Can you even have the right to say ‘this is not right’?

    You have no objective moral values to adhere to of your own as an atheist. Even this tribe you mentioned only has a perfectly ‘acceptable’ moral code. How about you call it a perfectly righteous moral code, hm?

  116. Zack T Says:

    “I’d explain at length about the doctrine of sin, the fallen world and the coming redemption, but I already know you didn’t ask that question out of any real seeking of an answer.”

    “Now there is an example of an ‘ad hominum’.” – Ron

    I wouldn’t call that an ‘ad hominum’, Ron. Not because it was Scott who said it…
    but because he isn’t trying to refute your point or anything. It wasn’t an statement to ‘undermine your arguments’.

    “Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. ”

    So you’ve just proven to yourself and everyone else that you can’t even tell the difference between an ‘ad hominum’ and just a statement of opinion…. DESPITE having pointed out to all of us what the definition of an ad hominum was yourself.

    I just quote you what you like to say about us…
    “Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks.”

  117. Ron Says:

    Looks like you still haven’t read that link I gave you Zack!!

    Oh well, you can lead a horse to water…

    “Would you look at that… ‘a perfectly acceptable moral code’… acceptable based on what? Your own personal opinion? Majority consent? Minority rights? For the ‘greater good’?? Acceptable based on what?”

    Based on the fact that they live in harmony amongst themselves and with nature — there’s no cannibalism, no child sacrifice, no murder, no theft, and little to no domestic strife. They’re overall happiness quotient was rated higher than any other country in the world even though they live a primitive, nomadic lifestyle.

    “there is no objective moral values that they can adhere to.”

    What could be more objective that respecting the sanctity of life and individual autonomy? If that’s the highest standard, it becomes logically impossible to use individual freedom to justify it’s opposite. You can’t sacrifice others to achieve your ends and vice versa.

  118. Ron Says:

    “Cite the passages in the Bible where God says that God cannot take away a life. Or God cannot take away possessions of humans. Or any other law that applies to God instead of man.”

    So your morality boils down to might makes right?

  119. Zack T Says:

    “Based on the fact that they live in harmony amongst themselves and with nature — there’s no cannibalism, no child sacrifice, no murder, no theft, and little to no domestic strife. They’re overall happiness quotient was rated higher than any other country in the world even though they live a primitive, nomadic lifestyle.”

    You did not answer my question, Ron. Re-read my question and try again.

    “What could be more objective that respecting the sanctity of life and individual autonomy? If that’s the highest standard, it becomes logically impossible to use individual freedom to justify it’s opposite. You can’t sacrifice others to achieve your ends and vice versa.”

    let me quote you one famous idiom that everyone has ever heard of…
    “Another man’s trash is another man’s treasure.”

    That may be the highest standard for you… but is it for everyone? And if it’s not.. what gives you the right to say otherwise?
    Why is it one cannot sacrifice others to achieve his/her own ends?
    Didn’t you say ‘we each possess an inalienable right to choose what is right for ourselves, and ONLY for ourselves’?

  120. Zack T Says:

    I’ll restate my statement (which I got from Dr. William Lane Craig)..

    Atheists have no objective moral values.

  121. Ron Says:

    “You did not answer my question, Ron. Re-read my question and try again.”

    Actually, I did, but your unhappy with the answer because it negates the myopic world view that morality begins and ends with an ancient book written in Palestine. In fact, it shatters our smug first world view that technological innovation is the be-all and end-all of human endeavors. The Pirahã People of the Amazon have achieved oneness and contentment by integrating with their environment rather than reshaping it, and by adopting a moral code which grants maximum individual freedom within the confines of tribal living. They have a zero crime rate. so they don’t need politicians, lawyers, judges, police officers, jailers, drug rehab, AA, youth councilors, psychiatrists, therapists, self-help programs, priests, or absolution–in other words, they have attained spiritual enlightenment without the sadomasochistic rituals of religious dogma. Based on those reasons alone, I’d say their moral code is superior and bears a closer examination.

    “That may be the highest standard for you… but is it for everyone? And if it’s not.. what gives you the right to say otherwise?”

    Please outline the flaws of said moral code. Dismissing them out of hand is not a valid counter-argument.

    Why is it one cannot sacrifice others to achieve his/her own ends?

    I’ve already explained why. If man’s life is his highest moral value, then sacrificing oneself to others, or others to oneself cannot be a method to attain that value.

    “Didn’t you say ‘we each possess an inalienable right to choose what is right for ourselves, and ONLY for ourselves’?”

    Yes, and it pertained exclusively to choices which affect only ourselves.

  122. Simon Thong Says:

    The Piraha are animists, and are so small in number that they are likely to go extinct. On both counts, Ron proves again that he will use anything and everything (the proverbial kitchen sink thrown in) to try and win an argument. He has no principles except win at all costs, even to the cost of his own integrity.

  123. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    That’s why I wish Ron to be my lawyer/ solicitor ..(in case I have to pursue anything (my rights).. in any court of law).

  124. Simon Thong Says:

    More of a pasar malam man, selling all manners of things..

  125. Zack T Says:

    No, Ron.. you didn’t answer my question. In actual fact, nothing in your statement answers my questions… None at all!
    But let me just accept your answer regarding ‘acceptable based on what’ and then follow it with the exact same question as before…

    So.. it’s based on results then? Thus it is fine to use any means possible as long as the result is ‘acceptable’?
    Then again… Who decides that the result is ‘acceptable’? Majority opinion? Minority opinion? Opinion of a leader? Or each and everyone has a right to his/her own individual opinion?

    Ron said…
    ““That may be the highest standard for you… but is it for everyone? And if it’s not.. what gives you the right to say otherwise?”

    Please outline the flaws of said moral code. Dismissing them out of hand is not a valid counter-argument.”

    Was I dismissing anything in that statement? How was I dismissing anything? I was stating that that is YOUR highest standard. And I was asking you does EVERYONE hold the same highest standard as you do? (“Another’s life is more valuable than my own” vs “My life is more valuable than everyone else’s”)
    And if they don’t, what gives you the right to say that they’re wrong to not hold the same highest standard as you?

    “I’ve already explained why. If man’s life is his highest moral value, then sacrificing oneself to others, or others to oneself cannot be a method to attain that value.”

    What gives you the right to say that cannot be a method to attain that value? What are you basing that ‘belief’ on as an atheist? And why must others hold that same view as you? WILL everyone who is atheist hold that same view as you?
    I repeat… if they don’t, what gives you the right to say they’re wrong to do so; to disagree with your ‘highest standard’?

    “Pirahã People of the Amazon have achieved oneness and contentment by integrating with their environment rather than reshaping it, and by adopting a moral code which grants maximum individual freedom within the confines of tribal living.”

    Haha… The Piraha tribe is an interesting bunch.. and it’s even more interesting to take note of how ‘atheists’ are trying to make this bunch a great big deal against religion/theists in general.. haha.
    let’s take a closer look at these bunch and maybe point out some small details atheists are overlooking…

    “Not that they have escaped religion entirely. Spirits live everywhere and may even caution or lecture them at times. But these spirits are visible to the Pirahãs, if not to Everett and his family, who spent 30 years, on and off, living with the tribe. ”
    – www friendlyatheist.com/2009/04/17/missionary-deconverted-by-amazon-tribe/

    They still believe that ‘spirits’ live everywhere… which is contrary to an atheist’s world view, where there are no such supernatural matters; since to imply one in any way leads to the possibility of God’s own existence (God is spirit).

    “But they don’t have marriage or funeral ceremonies. Cohabitation suffices as the wedding announcement and divorce is accomplished just as simply, though there may be more noise involved. Sexual mores are governed by common sense rather than stricture, which means that single people have sex at will while married people are more circumspect.”
    – www seacoastonline.com/articles/20090412-ENTERTAIN-904120305

    Example:
    Abi and Abu like each other. Announces their relationship and dedication to one another. Next day has a disagreement and big quarrel. Announces their separation. Next week Abu finds Bebe. They like each other. Cycle repeats.

    An exaggeration, but only in terms of the timing. What’s to stop someone from having ‘marrying’ and then ‘divorcing’ as he/she please? What’s stopping them from having more than one husband.. or one wife? Or be married to several partners at one time? How is this a perfectly moral value? Doesn’t this pretty much equal adultery? Oh wait… you’re an atheist. There’s no such thing as an adultery or even bestiality.

    And why do you respect the deceased, Ron? (i.e. grandparents, great grandparents, friends or family members who died early) Just forget them altogether. After all, they’re ‘xibipío‘ (‘gone out of experience’), according to the Piraha.

    And since sexual mores are governed by common sense… how will this belief/mindset work in a city setting? Or a more ‘modern’ setting?

    “Told that Christ died two thousand years ago, the Pirahã would react much as they did to my using bug repellent. It explained their failure to build up food stocks, since this required planning for a future that did not yet exist; it explained the failure of the boys’ model airplanes to foster a tradition of sculpture-making, since the models expressed only the momentary burst of excitement that accompanied the sight of an actual plane. It explained the Pirahã’s lack of original stories about how they came into being, since this was a conundrum buried in a past outside the experience of parents and grandparents. ”
    – www newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_colapinto

    Just so much ‘problems’ with this tribe having ‘a perfectly acceptable moral value’ as Ron claims… their ‘perfectly moral values’ rely on the fact that the future does not exist!!
    There is nothing abstract in their understanding of the world around them. If told about their brain, they’ll deny the existence of it since they did not ‘experience’ their own brains! (reminds me of that forward email where a young boy stumped his teacher when he said the teacher’s brain does not exist.)

    Since the future does not exist, they won’t make any preparation for it. They can’t plan for anything in the future since it’s outside their experience, aka does not exist! Stocking up for food before winter, for example.. (Thank God there is not such thing as winter where they live!)
    Parents and grandparents can’t pass down their knowledge to the next generation except that the next gen experience it all themselves!
    This is against the idea; “It is wise to learn from your mistakes; but wiser to learn it from someone who has already experienced it.”
    There’s also no point in keeping history, since it has ‘gone out of experience’, according to Piraha’s world view.

    Ron said..
    “They have a zero crime rate. so they don’t need politicians, lawyers, judges, police officers, jailers, drug rehab, AA, youth councilors, psychiatrists, therapists, self-help programs, priests, or absolution–in other words, they have attained spiritual enlightenment without the sadomasochistic rituals of religious dogma.”

    Yeah.. because they have no plans for the future! wahahaha! 😄
    Their mindset is only ‘here and now’.. no past… no future! There’s no such things as dreams, hope, desires, aspirations, motivation, goals, since all of these are abstract and ‘out of experience’!
    You happy to have this sort of moral value achieved through such a means? Would you choose to live that way?
    How long will such a lifestyle/mindset last in a ‘modern’ society? Or just in a larger and growing community?

  126. Zack T Says:

    Another interesting fact about the Piraha… THERE’S NO MATHEMATICS!!

    There is no number in their language.. along with colors, words for ‘please’, ‘thank you’ or ‘sorry’.

    I guess it’s possible to accept the latter… but mathematics!?!?!

    I’m sure Ron would agree that mathematics do exist in this world. To deny the existence of mathematics is to deny the very objective reality of this world!

  127. Simon Thong Says:

    “They have a zero crime rate.” Which reminds me of Communist China in the 1960s. It was so poor that you left your door open. Nothing to steal. Unless you want the toothless comb or wornout toothbrush. Relative came back from China and boasted, “Wah, zero crime rate, can leave door open!” My dad, immigrant from China as a boy, asked, “What was there to steal?” Relative, in surprise, replied, “Nothing! Nothing at all! People there asked me for coins and things! So poor!”
    Poor Ron, rich in material things, rich in resources for thought, poor in thinking…

  128. Scott Thong Says:

    Mathematics in nature… Makes me think of how amazing a ‘coincidence’ are such things as the golden ratio appearing in plants.

  129. Scott Thong Says:

    “Cite the passages in the Bible where God says that God cannot take away a life. Or God cannot take away possessions of humans. Or any other law that applies to God instead of man.”

    So your morality boils down to might makes right? – Ron

    More accurately, make(r) makes right – life, body, universe, soul, sentience, you name it.

    You can’t really complain when something you never earned or deserved which was given to you free is later taken away – unless you’re a Big Welfare liberal, which I thought you said you weren’t.

  130. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Crazy ! See this man..what is he talking about…Search Youtube entitled:

    “Lies in Your False Bibles: The King James vs. Other Versions”

  131. Scott Thong Says:

    Ok Zack, I entrust you with watching this video and responding. I can assist if you pose the question to me. I suspect I know some of what will be claimed already.

  132. Zack T Says:

    Haha.. I’m not as good when it comes to the different translations or the Muslim’s argument regarding the different ‘versions’.

    But I do know that the Quran is not free of such similar ‘issues’.
    www answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm

    Then the Quran also has the issue regarding ‘abrogation’..
    www answering-islam.org/Quran/abrogating_satan.htm
    (just one of a number of articles on the issue of abrogation in the Quran – refer to the 2nd index provided link below)

    Here’s some indexes on the matter that might be interesting for you:
    (All written by people who’ve studied Islam and its *early*, *reliable*, and/or *authentic* sources)
    – www answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/index.html
    – www answering-islam.org/Quran/index.html

    Once I am home, then i’ll have a look at the video. Can’t view at work.

  133. Zack T Says:

    But one thing I constantly can’t understand… why do Muslims always want to believe that the bible is false? Why?

    Doesn’t the Quran teach that the bible is one of the (many) books that Allah revealed to His prophet? meaning that it is the Word of Allah?
    After all, the Quran is supposed to confirm all the scriptures previously revealed; the Torah and the Gospel. (Sura 3:3)
    And since the Torah and the Gospel are Allah’s word, is it possible to change or abrogate Allah’s word? (Sura 6:115; 6:34)

    Even Muhammad himself relied on the ‘previous’ scripture to confirm his own prophethood…
    [10:94] If you have any doubt regarding what is revealed to you from your Lord, then ask those who read the previous scripture. Indeed, the truth has come to you from your Lord. Do not be with the doubters.
    [10:95] Nor shall you join those who rejected GOD’s revelations, lest you be with the losers.

    Why do Muslims believe the bible has been corrupted?
    www answering-islam.org/Bible/jrwhy.html

    What does the Quran say about the bible?
    www answering-islam.org/Campbell/s2c1.html

    This is what the Quran says about ‘arguing with Christians/Jews’..
    [29:46] Do not argue with the people of the scripture (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) except in the nicest possible manner – unless they transgress – and say, “We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you, and our god and your god is one and the same; to Him we are submitters.”

    So why are you disobeying your own Quran, Nasaei?

    Here’s the big problem with a Muslim’s argument that the bible is corrupted/changed/full of lies.

    The Torah and Gospel are both Allah’s word, according to the Quran. Throughout the Quran, Allah and Muhammad appealed to the ‘previous scriptures’, which the Quran said the Jews/Christians had, and that even Jesus Himself confirmed/approved..
    And both Christianity and Islam agree that God/Allah’s words cannot be changed (though Christianity believes, not even by God Himself, since it is perfect the first time He spoke it; while Islam allows Allah or Muhammad to change it ‘for something better’ [2:106, 16:101])

    So.. since the bible is the Word of Allah, as the Quran teaches, and Allah’s word cannot change (except by Allah Himself)… therefore it cannot be corrupted or be changed now..
    Since Muslims love to claim the bible is changed, therefore Allah’s word was changed, therefore the Quran is false.

    But then, we have another problem. If the bible, being Allah’s Word, is unchanged/not corrupted, and we all know the bible is completely against Islam and what the Quran teaches… therefore, the Quran is false in saying it confirms the Torah, Gospel, etc.

    Either way you go, Nasaei, your Quran is proven false. So convert to the truth that the bible teaches… aka Christianity.

  134. Zack T Says:

    Oh.. in case someone questions whether Allah promised to ‘preserve’ His word, instead of disallowing His Word to be changed…

    yes, He did..

    [15:9] Absolutely, we have revealed the reminder [Quran], and, absolutely, we will preserve it.

    (Some translations use ‘I’ instead of ‘we’.)

  135. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    So.. since the bible is the Word of Allah, as the Quran teaches, and Allah’s word cannot change (except by Allah Himself)… therefore it cannot be corrupted or be changed now..
    – Zack T said.

    It is true Zack, 10 transliteration would bring us 10 varities/ differences.
    That is the theings to do with books of the translation of Quran (not Quran, but its translateration).

    Anyway..Quran is all in Arabic. All over the world (in Arabic). They are identical (except allegations by Gerd R. Puin..and maybe Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina..and all those friends in Answering Islam site)..and thousand more allegations out there..).

  136. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    So.. since the bible is the Word of Allah, as the Quran teaches, and Allah’s word cannot change (except by Allah Himself)… therefore it cannot be corrupted or be changed now..
    – Zack T.

    Yes, you are correct again Zack. Muslims believe Torah and Gospel are from the same God (Allah) if you mean Taurah and Zabur exactly. The sources our scriptures is the same (God Almighty). But whether it is including ALL parts/books/chapter are from the same source are from God ? I don’t know frankly. Our Protestants brothers doubt it as well, that is whay (perhaps) they reject those Apocryphals ?

  137. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Better to exchange views sincerely. And better to listen to specialist, or authority. The man in the first video probably common man. Anyway I believe he spoke from the bottom of his heart (sincerely-what he truly believe..and with the bad intention to attack..or to belittle anything).

    Now, PLEASE listen to an authority/specialist. I do think he spoke from the bottom of his heart also-sincere 99.9 percent maybe. The clarity of this video is excellent, can be understood by kids. Very clear and loud. American way of speaking or so. The youtube video entitled:

    “Top Bible scholar leaves Christianity”

    Pls. watch it and listen what others have to say. Then discuss. TQ

  138. Simon Thong Says:

    One Quran, no translation but it does not equal one meaning to all Muslims. People approach it (the Quran in Arabic) and come up with DIFFERENT views. Is this not what has happened? Just take two main difference, the shiites and the sunnis.

  139. Scott Thong Says:

    On the Apocrypha, a simple comparison is this: If someone took the sayings of Ayah Pin and made it into a booklet, and claim it is a new part of the Quran – would you accept it?

    The Apocrypha is rejected by Protestants for various logical reasons, not just ‘for fun’.

  140. Zack T Says:

    Nasaei said..
    “Anyway..Quran is all in Arabic. All over the world (in Arabic). They are identical (except allegations by Gerd R. Puin..and maybe Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina..and all those friends in Answering Islam site)..and thousand more allegations out there..).”

    Which means your statement is false.. Arabic speaking/reading people have verified this as fact. Not ALL Arabic Qurans are identical.. And it’s not just spelling or one word or two differences, too…

    You know why they’re not identical? That’s because in the original writings of the Quran, whatever writings they could find… the Arabic language did not have anything that would be an equivalent to our English’s vowels (a, e, i, o, u).
    So one word can be interpreted as one or more words that could be completely different in meaning depending on context or usage.

    So no… Not all Arabic Quran are identical.
    And since Islam and the Quran claim that the Quran has been preserved to the very letter.. not one letter lost, etc… But yet there exist numerous Arabic Qurans that STILL differ anyways… means your Quran is false.
    Though, in the first place, it is highly highly untrue that the Quran has been preserved perfectly… since even Muhammad’s companions did not believe so… and would honestly disagree with that statement…
    The Hadiths state over and over by different Muslim scholars/imams/or whoever Muhammad’s companions were; including Aisha (Muhammad’s 6-year-old bride, obviously more grown up by the time of Muhammad’s death) said so in some of the hadith.. That there were numerous chapters that were lost; namely the ones that got eaten up by a goat while everyone was busy preparing for Muhammad’s funeral.

    Nasaei said..
    “Yes, you are correct again Zack. Muslims believe Torah and Gospel are from the same God (Allah) if you mean Taurah and Zabur exactly. But whether it is including ALL parts/books/chapter are from the same source are from God ? I don’t know frankly. Our Protestants brothers doubt it as well, that is whay (perhaps) they reject those Apocryphals ?”

    Zabur is Psalms… Gospel is Injil.
    You don’t know if the bible is all divine or only partly? Well.. let’s see what Muhammad has to say…
    In this article (link below), look for Section D, “VERSES WHERE MUHAMMAD ACTUALLY QUOTES OR APPEALS TO THE TORAH AND/OR THE GOSPEL”.
    answering-islam.org/Campbell/s2c1.html

    And the Apocrypha? Even Catholics agree that those Apocrypha books are not Inspired text from God… meaning they’re not from God.

  141. Zack T Says:

    Nasaei said…
    “Better to exchange views sincerely. And better to listen to specialist, or authority. The man in the first video probably common man. Anyway I believe he spoke from the bottom of his heart (sincerely-what he truly believe..and with the bad intention to attack..or to belittle anything).

    Now, PLEASE listen to an authority/specialist. I do think he spoke from the bottom of his heart also-sincere 99.9 percent maybe. The clarity of this video is excellent, can be understood by kids. Very clear and loud. American way of speaking or so. The youtube video entitled:”

    Umm… those in the ‘Answering Islam’ site have continuously been quoting from Islamic sources… from the early Islamic scholar… most of them who directly heard the words of Muhammad… from the Hadith literature… from the Quran… from the Sahih etcs…
    So if they’re not quoting from ‘authority’.. then who else is more qualified to be considered ‘authoritative’..? Modern Islamic scholars who never heard the words directly from Muhammad’s mouth?

    And come on, Nasaei.. You’re now appealing to ‘the man is 99.9% sincere in his belief’ as evidence that he speaks the truth? I’ll be glad to accept that Muhammad was 99.999999999% sincere when he believed that he was speaking on behalf of ‘Allah’… but I’m also ready to say that he is 100% sincerely wrong.

    Are you trying to say I’m not speaking from the bottom of my heart when I’m telling you all this?
    What has Muhammad done to give you a guarantee to go to ‘Heaven’ or ‘paradise’? Spoke lots of words? Give lots of advices?
    Muhammad himself wasn’t sure of his salvation… He doesn’t know where he’ll go after he dies..
    Sura 46:8-9 – “Or do they say, ‘He has forged it’? Say: ‘If I have forged it, you have no power to help me against Allah. He knows very well what you are pressing upon; He suffices as a witness between me and you; He is the All-forgiving, the All-compassionate.’ Say: ‘I am not an innovation among the Messengers, and I know not what shall be done with me or with you. I only follow what is revealed to me; I am only a clear warner.’
    www answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/muhammad_salvation.html

    And if testimonies of converts is going to be a measure.. then here’s some for you too..
    Testimonials from Ex-Muslims – bibleprobe.com/islamapostates.htm
    Notable Former Muslims – wikiislam.com/wiki/Notable_Former_Muslims (This one is really interesting.. haha)
    Apostates of Islam – apostatesofislam.com/
    Story of 3 former Islamic Terrorists – From Islam to Christ – youtube.com/watch?v=9uIOIG-mlE8 (And PLENTY more testimonies on the right)

    And there’s a lot of Muslims->Christians conversions that involved having a dream of Jesus Christ who led them to the bible and ultimately to Himself.
    Where’s some conversion story where Muhammad comes or ‘Angel Gabriel’ comes to convince a Christian to convert to Islam? Or even Jesus Himself?? He is supposed to be your greatest prophet, isn’t it?

  142. Ron Says:

    “No, Ron.. you didn’t answer my question. In actual fact, nothing in your statement answers my questions… None at all!”

    Then I’m not sure what you are asking. The purpose of a moral code is to define the principles of conduct to be followed by individuals within a group or community. The primary objective of such a moral code is to bring about social cohesion. Since the Pirahã have managed to achieve near 100% compliance with their moral code and live in harmony, it can be safely assumed that their code is acceptable to the individual members within that group.

    “So.. it’s based on results then?”

    It’s based on what works for that particular group.

    “Thus it is fine to use any means possible as long as the result is ‘acceptable’?”

    Since they don’t have a written language or oral history, it’s impossible to determine how they arrived at their moral code; most likely through trial and error, like any other social community. But it’s certainly not because of a monotheistic belief system.

    Then again… Who decides that the result is ‘acceptable’? Majority opinion? Minority opinion? Opinion of a leader? Or each and everyone has a right to his/her own individual opinion?

    In this particular case, it appears that the code they live by (non-coercion) is acceptable to the entire population of that group and was reached by consensus.

    “And I was asking you does EVERYONE hold the same highest standard as you do? (“Another’s life is more valuable than my own” vs “My life is more valuable than everyone else’s”)”

    But that’s not what I wrote. I clearly stated that “the highest moral value is a person’s life, and that we each possess an inalienable right to choose what is right for ourselves, and ONLY for ourselves [pertaining exclusively to choices which affect only ourselves], .i.e., our choices cannot be imposed upon or impede the rights of others. So where do you conclude that means: “Another’s life is more valuable than my own” vs “My life is more valuable than everyone else’s”?

    “And if they don’t, what gives you the right to say that they’re wrong to not hold the same highest standard as you?”

    Isn’t the underlying theme of Scott’s post that Palestinian suicide bombers don’t value the sanctity of life? So tell me then, are you saying that life isn’t your highest value? And if not, then what is? Because dead people are incapable of holding any values.

    “What gives you the right to say that cannot be a method to attain that value?”

    Because it’s impossible to justify the right to life and liberty for oneself while simultaneously denying those same rights to others?

    “What are you basing that ‘belief’ on as an atheist? And why must others hold that same view as you?”

    The logical realities of life. If humanity wishes to survive, it’s imperative that we try to get along, and it’s in our own self-interests to do so without undo coercion.

    “WILL everyone who is atheist hold that same view as you?”

    I can’t presume to speak for every atheist, but any rational atheist would and does reach the same conclusion: this is the only shot at life we get, so it behooves us to make the most of it because killing, fighting, and enslavement detract from the overall quality of life. In any case, these principles aren’t all that new; they were enunciated in the Declaration of Independence over 230 years ago.

    Re: The Pirahã

    Yes, they’re animists, but so what? Animism is not deism, and it’s most definitely not theism. The underlying premise in your argument to me was that moral codes require belief in the existence of God and I’ve demonstrated that such is clearly not the case.

    As for the rest of your comments, they reveal the same ethnocentric mindset that was responsible for wiping out entire populations of indigenous people living in the Americas in previous centuries. Who the hell are you to come rafting down the river and tell another culture — one that’s gotten along fine for centuries — that they are wrong for not subscribing to your puritan ethics? As Daniel Everett, the Christian missionary who lived and studied their culture for over 30 years observes:

    “It’s wrong to try and convert tribal societies. What should the empirical evidence for religion be? It should produce peaceful, strong, secure people who are right with God and right with the world. I don’t see that evidence very often. So then I find myself with the Pirahã. They have all these qualities that I am trying to tell them they could have. They are the ones who are living life the way I’m saying it ought to be lived, they just don’t fear heaven and hell.”

    “The Pirahã aren’t poor. They don’t see themselves as poor,” he says. He believes capitalism and religion are manufacturing desires. “One of the saddest things I’ve seen in Amazonian cultures is people who were self-sufficient and happy that now think of themselves as poor and become dissatisfied with their lives. What worries me is outsiders trying to impose their values and materialism on the Pirahã.”

  143. Ron Says:

    “More accurately, make(r) makes right – life, body, universe, soul, sentience, you name it. You can’t really complain when something you never earned or deserved which was given to you free is later taken away – unless you’re a Big Welfare liberal, which I thought you said you weren’t.”

    Well, I’ll credit you for your candor. But its hard for me to fathom how you can respect and honor a celestial dictator who ignores the standards he sets for others just because he can get away with it.

  144. Ron Says:

    “People approach it (the Quran in Arabic) and come up with DIFFERENT views. Is this not what has happened? Just take two main difference, the shiites and the sunnis.”

    One Bible… over 30,000 sects.

    Pot – meet kettle.

  145. Zack T Says:

    Ron said…
    “One Bible… over 30,000 sects.

    Pot – meet kettle.”

    Ron..

    The bible never said you cannot have differences. It never called us to be ‘uniformed’ in our beliefs or practices.
    The only exception is that we don’t do anything that is contrary or against the bible’s teaching or God.

    The Quran does claim you cannot be different (no matter which part of the world you are) and that you must be uniformed (hence why female Muslims anywhere MUST be covered).

    End of story.

  146. Simon Thong Says:

    Pirahas are animists. That’s not deism or theism. That’s not atheism either but they are polytheists, Ron, which undermines your whole argument. They are a religious based tribe however much you are trying to argue otherwise.

  147. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    The only exception is that we don’t do anything that is contrary or against the bible’s teaching or God.”…

    Really? As I believe/said, Bible teaches us to believe in ONE God and doesn’t anywhere mention about trinity or triune god; avoid usury /interest taking, and pork and beer/alcohol; Jesus showed example by circumcise etc…none is been followed. Maybe our Christians brothers follow the church, not the Bible, I have no idea.

  148. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Or they follow the tradition..taught by Churches

  149. Ron Says:

    They don’t believe in gods, they don’t believe in an afterlife, they don’t have rituals, they don’t have alters, they don’t worship idols, they don’t offer sacrifices, and they don’t have a creation story.

    Hence they are not religious, or polytheists.

  150. Zack T Says:

    Yes indeed, Ron, you don’t understand the relevence of what I’m asking you; you as an atheist. And thus you’re just dancing around my reasons and not addressing *MOST* of them. So many questions I asked went unanswered… here and elsewhere. But I’ll forgive you, since I do write too much in one comment. (Will begin to practice cutting my comment to several comments from now onwards)

    Allow me to summarize what has happened so far between our discussion regarding morality…
    It can be done with just one statement from each of us.

    Zack’s “There is no objective moral values that Atheists can adhere to.”

    Ron’s “What could be more objective that respecting the sanctity of life and individual autonomy?”

    You claim that that’s your measure of objectivity for morality. I say you’re oblivious to what it means to be objective.. or just plain ignorant of what an atheist’s position is/should be.
    How is one’s opinion (or anyone’s for that matter) regarding what’s moral and what’s not be considered objective?
    As I’ve stressed over and over, you may hold to that kind of moral value, regarding your life versus other people’s lives.. What about other atheists who doesn’t?
    If given the circumstances, you may sacrifice your own life for another… but that other atheist says, ‘No, I won’t. my life is more valuable than yours. Why should I sacrifice it for you?’
    You can’t just go up to him and say ‘I respect your belief that your life is your highest standard or moral value. But it becomes logically impossible to use individual freedom to justify your decision. You can’t sacrifice others to achieve your ends and vice versa.’
    Otherwise he’ll reply, ‘Says who?’

    Atheists have no objective moral value and CANNOT have objective moral values because their moral values are determined by they themselves… which is obviously NOT objective as everyone’s opinions are anything BUT.
    Even with the case of the Piraha tribe. You say they’ve ‘a perfectly acceptable moral system’.. Why not ‘perfect’? or ‘perfectly good’? Why acceptable? Cause it’s NOT objective. You have no higher standard to appeal to. only subjective opinions and philosophies.
    If Piraha’s moral system is ‘perfectly acceptable’.. would you adopt it for yourself and apply it to all atheists? To adopt their moral system, you’ll need to adopt their belief system, too. Would you?
    Spirits? No future? No past? No respect to the dead? No wisdom past down from generation to generation? No MATHS!?
    No, I doubt you will. I doubt it even crossed your mind.

    “Isn’t the underlying theme of Scott’s post that Palestinian suicide bombers don’t value the sanctity of life? So tell me then, are you saying that life isn’t your highest value? And if not, then what is? Because dead people are incapable of holding any values.”

    Now you’re trying to throw a red herring here. Islam has their own teaching regarding life and morality. And so does the bible.. But Atheists don’t. Don’t try to shift the spotlight here. I’m asking you as an atheist.
    What’s your belief regarding life and morality? And why do you ‘impose’ on others (atheists in general) that they cannot attain their choice of moral values over the lives of others?
    What gives you the right to say ‘Because it’s impossible to justify the right to life and liberty for oneself while simultaneously denying those same rights to others’? Must they care what your opinion/belief is?
    Moral values as an atheist are subjective and depends on each community of their own, right?

  151. Zack T Says:

    “The logical realities of life. If humanity wishes to survive, it’s imperative that we try to get along, and it’s in our own self-interests to do so without undo coercion.”
    Yeah… IF every atheist holds to that same view as you.. what if they’re a bunch of selfish tyrants looking to ‘overrule’ the world? Then ‘humanity’, in this case, is whoever they determine worthy enough to be part of their ‘in’ group. Must they care for the whole of mankind?

    “but any rational atheist would and does reach the same conclusion”

    hahaha… once again… a very subjective statement.. Who are considered ‘rational atheists’, Ron? Who determines who’s rational? how is it determined if an atheist is rational?
    If this world was overrun by mentally challenged atheists… what’s the standard for rationality? How do you know you’re considered a rational atheist? hahaha.

    “The underlying premise in your argument to me was that moral codes require belief in the existence of God and I’ve demonstrated that such is clearly not the case.”

    No it’s not. I stand to my statement. “There is no objective moral values that Atheists can adhere to.”
    It does not claim that Atheists can’t have any moral values. They just don’t have objective ones. It all depends.

    “What should the empirical evidence for religion be? It should produce peaceful, strong, secure people who are right with God and right with the world. I don’t see that evidence very often.”

    hahaha… That’s what Everett believes… but is that what the bible teaches? heck no! He doesn’t even know what the bible teaches and is misrepresenting it with that statement.
    The bible teaches us to be right with God (which will in turn lead us to be more righteous in our lives), but it says nothing about being right with the world. In fact, Jesus teaches the world will hate us because we’re right with God, rather than with the world, because the world is corrupted by sin and doesn’t like/want to be corrected.

    “What worries me is outsiders trying to impose their values and materialism on the Pirahã.”
    hahaha… now you’re trying to make it imply that Christianity is materialistic? Puh-lease…. We’re called to be otherwise.

  152. Zack T Says:

    Allow me to close my comment with these…

    “this is the only shot at life we get, so it behooves us to make the most of it because killing, fighting, and enslavement detract from the overall quality of life.”
    What if the Vikings were a community of atheists, yet their lifestyles involves plundering other villages and taking for themselves the village’s plunder…? then for them, that’s their preferred quality of life; where they rule and can take whatever they want, ignoring others who are not part of their community.

    And you being an atheist… what’s it to you that you only got one shot at life? What’s the purpose of completing achievements in your life?
    After all that you put your efforts to achieve, by the time you achieve most of them, you’d probably be too old to enjoy the benefits. Then when you die, all that you worked for is either wasted/lost/gone or given to someone else. Your achievements becomes useless and worthless in the end, despite all that you do to achieve them.
    Real atheists understand the significance of their belief of God’s non-existent. They understand that without God, then there’s no purpose in life. We’re all just a result of an accidental cosmic ‘burp’. No ultimate goal in life. No truth to why they are alive. Just opinions and self-satisfying conjectures.

    “As for the rest of your comments, they reveal the same ethnocentric mindset that was responsible for wiping out entire populations of indigenous people living in the Americas in previous centuries. Who the hell are you to come rafting down the river and tell another culture — one that’s gotten along fine for centuries — that they are wrong for not subscribing to your puritan ethics?”

    Hahaha… To have an objective moral value is what’s responsible for people enslaving/massacring another? It is one thing to go out and proclaim ‘you should be adopting this belief’, as compared to go out and kill or enslave them for being different.
    If God’s moral value is the objective standard, as taught in the bible, not as falsely misrepresented by those seeking to destroy it like yourself, then whatever man (Christian or not) does won’t change it. If a Christian killed another, then he/she is guilty of going against God’s objective moral standard and thus subject to God’ judgment on what the penalty shall be for his/her sin.

    We’re all guilty of failure to adhere to God’s perfect standard, Ron. And everyone of us deserve to be thrown into eternal punishment for our sin; just as a murderer or conman or thief deserved prisonment or capital punsihment.
    Repent and turn back to Christ. Accept His new covenant and you will forever be grateful in eternity.

  153. Simon Thong Says:

    They don’t have all those, and they are polytheists for their gods/spirits are found in things like trees and animals. We term that animism. They don’t have a developed form of religion. Indeed, they don’t have a developed form of almost everything. Still, they have what the evolutionists would call the earliest form of religion. Yet, Ron, you have to stick to your guns, right? You must insist that they are not religious. Can’t lose, coz that means lose face. In Chinese we have an idiom for someone like you: sei kei chang po koi (dying chicken kicks against the pot lid). To your own self be true. But then, if your whole approach is based on twisting and turning facts and words, you’re just being true to yourself.

  154. Zack T Says:

    Nasaei said…
    “Really? As I believe/said, Bible teaches us to believe in ONE God and doesn’t anywhere mention about trinity or triune god; avoid usury /interest taking, and pork and beer/alcohol; Jesus showed example by circumcise etc…none is been followed. Maybe our Christians brothers follow the church, not the Bible, I have no idea.”

    haha. Nasaei, you’re funny, man.. not cause of your choice of words/reasons, but because of your ignorance or lack of knowledge regarding the bible.

    Where in the whole of Quran does the word ‘Tawhid’ appear? Nowhere.
    That’s the same for the Trinity. It’s not there in the bible. Doesn’t mean it’s not taught throughout the bible.
    Throughout the NT, Christ, Father and the Holy Spirit are placed as equally God. Jesus made numerous claims to divinity (that would be an equivalent of someone in Islam proclaiming any of Allah’s 99 names/titles).
    even in the OT, you can find passages that would imply the presence of the Trinity.

    Beer and alcohol??
    Please, Nasaei.. I’ve already covered that issue (rather thoroughly) in another discussion we had before. (it’s in this same thread of comments)
    “2 – Luke 1:15? Interesting… how about you quote us the context, please? It starts from Luke 1:13 onwards.
    After you read the verse in its context, I would then ask, “Is this a verse where God commands it to all people?”

    Then, also.. why not quote all these other verses; mostly from Torah and even the Psalms:
    Genesis 14:18, Deuteronomy 14:26, Psalm 104:14-15, Proverbs 31:6-7, Isaiah 25:6, Jeremiah 48:33”
    Jews are allowed to enjoy alcohol/fermented/even strong fermented drinks. They are forbidden from getting themselves drunk.

    And plus, what’s ‘Satan’s handiwork’ doing in your Islamic paradise? Why prohibit in this world a ‘blessing’ that will be abundant in paradise? (Sura 5:90 vs Sura 47:15, Sura 83:22,25)

    Pork?
    I’ve answered you before… look up there somewhere amongst the comments..
    “3 – No pork? What does Jesus say?
    Mark 7:14-23 – “Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” ”

    There are a number of things the church do not practice; like circumcision, because these are meant for Jews! Who did God ask to keep to circumcision? Abraham, his household and his descendants through Isaac (his ‘only begotten’ son).
    Are you of Jewish descent? Was Muhammad? If not, then what are you trying to proclaim that we must follow circumcision? Paul and the apostles of Christ had this discussion long since the times of Acts and concluded that it is not required of non-Jews to practice what Jews have to.

    If Islam adheres to the Jewish practices… why do you not adhere to the Jewish traditions? Why do you not celebrate all the festivals and feasts that they have? Passover, Feast of Unleavened Bread, and many more etc. These were all called for by God and His prophets in the OT. Why do you go to FRIday prayers and not Saturday, which is the Sabbath day for Jews?
    Be consistent with your reasonings, Nasaei and seek to know/understand more completely what you’re trying to refute before you do or be shown to be a fool for your lack of knowledge.

  155. Zack T Says:

    This comment is a comment that is still awaiting confirmation, and I just thought to repost so you know I had more to say regarding Nasaei’s earlier comment regarding some videos.

    Nasaei said…
    “Better to exchange views sincerely. And better to listen to specialist, or authority. The man in the first video probably common man. Anyway I believe he spoke from the bottom of his heart (sincerely-what he truly believe..and with the bad intention to attack..or to belittle anything).

    Now, PLEASE listen to an authority/specialist. I do think he spoke from the bottom of his heart also-sincere 99.9 percent maybe. The clarity of this video is excellent, can be understood by kids. Very clear and loud. American way of speaking or so. The youtube video entitled:”

    Umm… those in the ‘Answering Islam’ site have continuously been quoting from Islamic sources… from the early Islamic scholar… most of them who directly heard the words of Muhammad… from the Hadith literature… from the Quran… from the Sahih etcs…
    So if they’re not quoting from ‘authority’.. then who else is more qualified to be considered ‘authoritative’..? Modern Islamic scholars who never heard the words directly from Muhammad’s mouth?

    And come on, Nasaei.. You’re now appealing to ‘the man is 99.9% sincere in his belief’ as evidence that he speaks the truth? I’ll be glad to accept that Muhammad was 99.999999999% sincere when he believed that he was speaking on behalf of ‘Allah’… but I’m also ready to say that he is 100% sincerely wrong.
    [To be continued..]

  156. Zack T Says:

    This comment is a comment that is still awaiting confirmation, and I just thought to repost so you know I had more to say regarding Nasaei’s earlier comment regarding some videos.

    Nasaei said…
    “Better to exchange views sincerely. And better to listen to specialist, or authority. The man in the first video probably common man. Anyway I believe he spoke from the bottom of his heart (sincerely-what he truly believe..and with the bad intention to attack..or to belittle anything).

    Now, PLEASE listen to an authority/specialist. I do think he spoke from the bottom of his heart also-sincere 99.9 percent maybe. The clarity of this video is excellent, can be understood by kids. Very clear and loud. American way of speaking or so. The youtube video entitled:”

    Umm… those in the ‘Answering Islam’ site have continuously been quoting from Islamic sources… from the early Islamic scholar… most of them who directly heard the words of Muhammad… from the Hadith literature… from the Quran… from the Sahih etcs…
    So if they’re not quoting from ‘authority’.. then who else is more qualified to be considered ‘authoritative’..? Modern Islamic scholars who never heard the words directly from Muhammad’s mouth?

    And come on, Nasaei.. You’re now appealing to ‘the man is 99.9% sincere in his belief’ as evidence that he speaks the truth? I’ll be glad to accept that Muhammad was 99.999999999 percent sincere when he believed that he was speaking on behalf of ‘Allah’… but I’m also ready to say that he is 100% sincerely wrong.
    [To be continued..]

  157. Zack T Says:

    This comment is a comment that is still awaiting confirmation, and I just thought to repost so you know I had more to say regarding Nasaei’s earlier comment regarding some videos.

    Nasaei said…
    “Better to exchange views sincerely. And better to listen to specialist, or authority. The man in the first video probably common man. Anyway I believe he spoke from the bottom of his heart (sincerely-what he truly believe..and with the bad intention to attack..or to belittle anything).

    Now, PLEASE listen to an authority/specialist. I do think he spoke from the bottom of his heart also-sincere 99.9 percent maybe. The clarity of this video is excellent, can be understood by kids. Very clear and loud. American way of speaking or so. The youtube video entitled:”

    Umm… those in the ‘Answering Islam’ site have continuously been quoting from Islamic sources… from the early Islamic scholar… most of them who directly heard the words of Muhammad… from the Hadith literature… from the Quran… from the Sahih etcs…
    So if they’re not quoting from ‘authority’.. then who else is more qualified to be considered ‘authoritative’..? Modern Islamic scholars who never heard the words directly from Muhammad’s mouth?

    And come on, Nasaei.. You’re now appealing to ‘the man is 99.9% sincere in his belief’ as evidence that he speaks the truth? I’ll be glad to accept that Muhammad was 99.999999999 percent sincere when he believed that he was speaking on behalf of ‘Allah’… but I’m also ready to say that he is 100 percent sincerely wrong.

    Are you trying to say I’m not speaking from the bottom of my heart when I’m telling you all this?
    What has Muhammad done to give you a guarantee to go to ‘Heaven’ or ‘paradise’? Spoke lots of words? Give lots of advices?
    Muhammad himself wasn’t sure of his salvation… He doesn’t know where he’ll go after he dies..
    Sura 46:8-9 – “Or do they say, ‘He has forged it’? Say: ‘If I have forged it, you have no power to help me against Allah. He knows very well what you are pressing upon; He suffices as a witness between me and you; He is the All-forgiving, the All-compassionate.’ Say: ‘I am not an innovation among the Messengers, and I know not what shall be done with me or with you. I only follow what is revealed to me; I am only a clear warner.’ ”
    – answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/muhammad_salvation.html

    And if testimonies of converts is going to be a measure.. then here’s some for you too..
    Testimonials from Ex-Muslims – bibleprobe.com/islamapostates.htm
    Notable Former Muslims – wikiislam.com/wiki/Notable_Former_Muslims (This one is really interesting.. haha)
    Apostates of Islam – apostatesofislam.com/
    Story of 3 former Islamic Terrorists – From Islam to Christ – youtube.com/watch?v=9uIOIG-mlE8 (And PLENTY more testimonies on the right)

    And there’s a lot of Muslims->Christians conversions that involved having a dream of Jesus Christ who led them to the bible and ultimately to Himself.
    Where’s some conversion story where Muhammad comes or ‘Angel Gabriel’ comes to convince a Christian to convert to Islam? Or even Jesus Himself?? He is supposed to be your greatest prophet, isn’t it?

  158. Zack T Says:

    I finally listened (not watch) to the videos that Nasaei linked.

    ‘Top(?) Bible Scholar Leaves Christianity’

    First of all, I wanna say the title is super misleading. No this guy is not ‘top’. His so-called ‘scholarly’ research is completely lacking and incomplete.
    Countless NT scholars attest and affirm the NT’s authencity and that the earliest copies are as close as mere decades away from Christ’s death/ascension.

    And plus, does ‘inerrancy’ mean ‘completely no mistake’ in the bible?
    No, it doesn’t. The bible has copious errors here and there, yeah. But does ANY of that change the primary doctrines taught in the bible? Jesus is Christ? Jesus died? Jesus was sinless? Jesus resurrected? Heck no! It’s still consistent!
    And poor scholarship like these that causes man like him to be so easily led astray.

    Do we even need ‘original’ manuscripts to affirm history? Then you’ll have to throw out a number of history, like a number of Roman Empirors..

    And where are his proofs or evidences of such changes/manipulation being done onto the bible? Where? I doubt he can produce any, and will resort to say ‘they were burned/destroyed’.
    I’d then ask.. where is the proof/evidence of such an event in the few centuries right after Christ’s death/ascension?

    And near the beginning, the man states ‘just the existence of God Himself, I finally came to realize, for me, it just didn’t make sense anymore.’
    and I was thinking why a Muslim would have this man to prove their case against the bible?
    and then… WOW!! It turns out this video was coming from The Deen Show! NO WONDER!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHHA!
    The host(s) of this show are so inconsistent with their points that it’s laughable! ahahaha.

    Come on… let me drive this one home for you, Nasaei.
    If we’re gonna following this guy’s logic, that means he would have never believe in the Quran as well. (And there’s plenty more evidence of manipulation of manuscript or destruction of manuscript copies… from Islamic sources!)
    You still want to use him as your support for truth?

  159. Zack T Says:

    Then there’s the other (earlier) video titled ‘Lies in your False Bibles: The King James vs Other Versions’

    This is to laugh… like seriously…

    Here is someone who is proving ‘lies’ in the bibles… but you know what’s the whole point of the video or what this guy is doing?

    “King James Version is the true Word of God; translated in English”

    Based on that video, I’m guessing he’s a KJV Only-ist.
    Look, I like the KJV (I have one electronic one in my phone), and I agree there are some *translation* errors here and there (and definitely some very problematic translation versions of the bible), depending on who were the translators and what manuscript the translation was based on.

    But does that mean our bible is corrupt? No.. it just means we have very poor or untrustworthy translators. There are plenty of good translation versions (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc) and KJV itself is not completely free of error itself.

    So.. how does attacking the ‘false’ *translation* version of the bible prove the bible has been corrupted or manipulated or changed?
    And using this guy, is Nasaei saying the KJV is the true and uncorrupted translated version of the bible? Highly doubtful.

    So in the end… what does the video prove? Only that some translation versions are problematic.

    Try again, Nasaei. May God bless you in your seeking for the truth and I pray you find it. =)

  160. Zack T Says:

    This comment is a comment that is still awaiting confirmation, and I just thought to repost so you know I had more to say regarding Nasaei’s earlier comment regarding some videos.
    (So sorry for the duplicate comments awaiting confirmation. Please delete them. Thanks, Scott)

    Nasaei said…
    “Better to exchange views sincerely. And better to listen to specialist, or authority. The man in the first video probably common man. Anyway I believe he spoke from the bottom of his heart (sincerely-what he truly believe..and with the bad intention to attack..or to belittle anything).

    Now, PLEASE listen to an authority/specialist. I do think he spoke from the bottom of his heart also-sincere 99.9 percent maybe. The clarity of this video is excellent, can be understood by kids. Very clear and loud. American way of speaking or so. The youtube video entitled:”

    Umm… those in the ‘Answering Islam’ site have continuously been quoting from Islamic sources… from the early Islamic scholar… most of them who directly heard the words of Muhammad… from the Hadith literature… from the Quran… from the Sahih etcs…
    So if they’re not quoting from ‘authority’.. then who else is more qualified to be considered ‘authoritative’..? Modern Islamic scholars who never heard the words directly from Muhammad’s mouth?
    [Part 1]

  161. Zack T Says:

    This comment is a comment that is still awaiting confirmation, and I just thought to repost so you know I had more to say regarding Nasaei’s earlier comment regarding some videos.
    (So sorry for the duplicate comments awaiting confirmation. Please delete them. Thanks, Scott)

    Nasaei said..
    “Better to exchange views sincerely. And better to listen to specialist, or authority. The man in the first video probably common man. Anyway I believe he spoke from the bottom of his heart (sincerely-what he truly believe.. and with the bad intention to attack.. or to belittle anything).

    Now, PLEASE listen to an authority/specialist. I do think he spoke from the bottom of his heart also-sincere 99.9 percent maybe. The clarity of this video is excellent, can be understood by kids. Very clear and loud. American way of speaking or so.”

    Umm.. those in the ‘Answering Islam’ site have continuously been quoting from Islamic sources.. from the early Islamic scholar.. most of them who directly heard the words of Muhammad.. from the Hadith literature.. from the Quran… from the Sahih etcs..
    So if they’re not quoting from ‘authority’.. then who else is more qualified to be considered ‘authoritative’..? Modern Islamic scholars who never heard the words directly from Muhammad’s mouth?
    [Part 1]

  162. Zack T Says:

    This comment is a comment that is still awaiting confirmation, and I just thought to repost so you know I had more to say regarding Nasaei’s earlier comment regarding some videos.
    (So sorry for the duplicate comments awaiting confirmation. Please delete them. Thanks, Scott)

    Nasaei said..
    “Better to exchange views sincerely. And better to listen to specialist, or authority. The man in the first video probably common man. Anyway I believe he spoke from the bottom of his heart (sincerely, what he truly believe.. and with the bad intention to attack.. or to belittle anything).

    Now, PLEASE listen to an authority/specialist. I do think he spoke from the bottom of his heart also-sincere 99.9 percent maybe. The clarity of this video is excellent, can be understood by kids. Very clear and loud. American way of speaking or so.”

    Umm.. those in the ‘Answering Islam’ site have continuously been quoting from Islamic sources.. from the early Islamic scholar.. most of them who directly heard the words of Muhammad.. from the Hadith literature.. from the Quran.. from the Sahih etcs..
    So if they’re not quoting from ‘authority’.. then who else is more qualified to be considered ‘authoritative’..? Modern Islamic scholars who never heard the words directly from Muhammad’s mouth?
    And come on, Nasaei.. You’re now appealing to ‘the man is 99.9 percent sincere in his belief’ as evidence that he speaks the truth? I’ll be glad to accept that Muhammad was 100 percent sincere when he believed that he was speaking on behalf of ‘Allah’.. but I’m also ready to say that he is 100 percent sincerely wrong.

    Are you trying to say I’m not speaking from the bottom of my heart when I’m telling you all this?
    What has Muhammad done to give you a guarantee to go to ‘Heaven’ or ‘paradise’? Spoke lots of words? Give lots of advices?
    Muhammad himself wasn’t sure of his salvation… He doesn’t know where he’ll go after he dies..
    Sura 46:8-9 – “Or do they say, ‘He has forged it’? Say: ‘If I have forged it, you have no power to help me against Allah. He knows very well what you are pressing upon; He suffices as a witness between me and you; He is the All-forgiving, the All-compassionate.’ Say: ‘I am not an innovation among the Messengers, and I know not what shall be done with me or with you. I only follow what is revealed to me; I am only a clear warner.’ ”
    – www answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/muhammad_salvation.html

    And if testimonies of converts is going to be a measure.. then here’s some for you too..
    Testimonials from Ex-Muslims – bibleprobe.com/islamapostates.htm
    Notable Former Muslims – wikiislam.com/wiki/Notable_Former_Muslims (This one is really interesting.. haha)
    Apostates of Islam – (Search it on google)
    Story of 3 former Islamic Terrorists From Islam to Christ – in Youtube (And PLENTY more testimonies on the right)

    And there’s a lot of Muslims-to-Christians conversions that involved having a dream of Jesus Christ who led them to the bible and ultimately to Himself.
    Where’s some conversion story where Muhammad comes or ‘Angel Gabriel’ comes to convince a Christian to convert to Islam? Or even Jesus Himself?? He is supposed to be your greatest prophet, isn’t it?

  163. Zack T Says:

    So sorry Scott. But for some reason, one of my comment (having no proper http:// link) keeps falling into the waiting list for confirmation, despite how I change the comment.

    Please delete all previous ones and just approve the last final one.. so sorry for the trouble again.

  164. Zack T Says:

    Just thought to provide some youtube videos that might interest Nasaei as well as everyone else..

    Seek the videos titled

    “Story of 3 Former Islamic Terrorists. From Islam to Christ”

    “Egyptian Imam & Professor leaves Islam – Accepts Christ”
    (An equivalent to Nasaei’s ‘Top bible scholar’ video)

  165. Scott Thong Says:

    Well, I’ll credit you for your candor. But its hard for me to fathom how you can respect and honor a celestial dictator who ignores the standards he sets for others just because he can get away with it. – Ron

    Your point would be valid if we were talking about a human dictator setting double-standard rules for other, lesser humans to follow.

    In fact, I’d be fully on your side – see how vehemently I bash emissions/consumption hypocrites like Gore, Communism-is-best-but-I-don’t-wanna-live-there hypocrites like Hollywoodites, and the-other-is-violent/rude/Godwin’s-lawing hypocrites like various lefty commentators.

    But God is not merely another human being.

    Okay, let’s take murder for example. Why is it wrong? The secular reasoning is because it is something harmful – the ultimate harm – done to someone against their will. Thus if so-called God ‘murders’ someone through command or direct act, it is immoral.

    Whereas the religious reasoning for why murder is wrong is because God is the creator and ultimate owner of life – only He can give, and only He has the right to take away (to paraphrase Job). Thus it is immoral if a human kills another human on a whim, but not if God decides “Okay, your forty years of smoking and high cholesterol food catches up to you today!”

    (If God does exist and we take the secular reasoning on murder, then God is murdering all the time – simply by not granting each person physical immortality!)

    This distinction also goes a long way to explaining the different left-right views towards abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia.

  166. truth Says:

  167. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Thanks Zack. I’m very sorry IF you feel comments by those people on Youtube videos somehow like ‘attacking’ Christianity. Many videos “attacking” Islam as well out there. I didn’t intend to attack, ridicule or mock your believe. My motive was to listen, see or ‘lend an ear’ to what others have to say, as I said. I don’t think they had bad intention either. They really believe ‘something wrong’ with the scripture, might be.

    The best way..I would suggest you..(or anybody else) is to produce a rebuttal to such a video on Youtube. So that viewers all over the world may get better informed .

    The other “allegations”, among the many.. (if I may quote here) are under the names/topics”:

    1) Jerald F Dirks
    2) Joshua Evans

    Just type their names on Youtube, you’ll be able to listen to what they’ve said or claimed.

    Dr. Jerald F Dirks is no ordinary “accuser”, he studied religion at Havard (mind you..)and holds a Phd in Psychology. I guess, this man, like Prof. Bart D Ehrman, is a very knowledgeable person, and author of many books. Definitely his works is being read worldwide..or so. You need to counter-response if possible – rather than let it goes as it likes..

    Pls. view to those videos, especially the above Bart Ehrman.

  168. dollars Says:

    Rebuttals to Dr. Jerald F. Dirks
    http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/dirks.html

  169. Scott Thong Says:

    I finally listened (not watch) to the videos that Nasaei linked. – Zack T

    Wow… Much better than I would have done, Zack.

  170. Zack T Says:

    (Just created myself a wordpress username… hopefully allows me to edit/delete comments as I need to)

    Alright. Sorry, Nasaei, if I mistook your comments as attempts to ‘attack Christianity’.. Though so far, I’ve just been responding to them since you shared them…
    And I’m sorry if I was responding in a seemingly ‘hostile’ manner, but I have to take the assumption that these speakers are people trying to bring evidences against the bible; in a manner, attack Christianity.

    Regardless you are just sharing or attacking… I am responding to the terrible misconceptions and misunderstandings that so many Muslims have fallen victim to.

    And I am familiar with Joshua Evans. I’ve seen his testimony. And I’m very disappointed at how terribly he represented what the bible teaches.
    I’ve even seen his session on The Deen Show, regarding Top 10 Reasons Why Jesus is Not God.
    And in all honesty, I really enjoy that show because it really shows me how terribly ignorant they are (they’ve shot themselves in the foot on a few of those Top 10 reasons, if not most) and how wonderful and perfect my God is when He gave us His Word.

    I’m only a user of youtube… I ain’t going to put myself up on youtube and caused myself to have to answer hundreds and, who knows, more comments of those who are completely ignorant of the bible. I’m not prepared and not able to commit such time to answer everyone. (As evident to how much time I spend here just responding to a few people. haha)

    Nasaei, I really hope you’ll spend the time at the answering-islam.org site. The writers there have spent years and even decades on the subject of Islam. And all, if not over 90%, of their sources are Islamic sources from the earliest and the most ‘sahih’ resources.
    If not, at least have a look at the two youtube videos I pointed to earlier.
    Here there are again..

    “Story of 3 Former Islamic Terrorists. From Islam to Christ”

    “Egyptian Imam & Professor leaves Islam – Accepts Christ”
    (An equivalent to Nasaei’s ‘Top bible scholar’ video)
    *I especially recommend this one*

    (BTW, I just realized the so-called ‘top bible scholar’ is the infamous ex-Christian-now-Atheist ‘Prof Bart Erhman’. An atheist. Not Muslim)

  171. Zack T Says:

    (Nope.. even with WordPress account, doesn’t allow to re-edit or such.. T_Y)

  172. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Thanks Zack. Now lunch time, I have time to respond you quickly sometimes.

    Maybe we should wage a “holy war” on atheists instead. Not ‘jihad’ or such things, but ideological or believe-counter responses. I usually tired of atheists very very ignorant mentality and attitude. You’ll find their thinking is ‘unimagible’. If you tell something to kids, they will find it easier to grasp the message, but not atheists. They are like mammals with brain ?

  173. Zack T Says:

    Hahahaa.. Funny man you are, Nasaei. haha.

    I don’t mind ‘joining forces’ if it’s against Atheism. They’re just as much with Satan as they are against God.

    But the Piraha Tribe is a really interesting bunch. haha. With their ‘belief’ system and moral system.
    I think Ron is jumping to far ahead of himself with regards to the Piraha Tribe.

  174. Scott Thong Says:

    Yeah Zack, sorry… I’ve FAQ-ed WordPress on how to allow regular commentors to post links without succumbing to the Spam net.

  175. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Frankly Zack, I used to visit Answering-Islam site before, since 4 years ago I had read many of their articles. Not only that site, but also atheists articles as well. Names such as Ali Sina, Syed Kamran, Avijit Roy, Ibn Warraq, Denise..and christian apologists Josh Mc Dowell, John Gilchrist, Dr. William Campbell etc used to be the ‘authors” that I came across. Anyway, I’ll try to read again taht specific articles you gave above.

  176. Zack T Says:

    I haven’t read all the articles… but I think John Gilchrist is a good one. Josh McDowell is a known name as well.
    Then there’s Sam Shamoun and David Wood (answeringmuslims.com).

    These bunch knows the Quran and the Hadith literatures and apply equal standards of argument on the Quran and also the Bible.

    May the Lord bless you, Nasaei.

  177. Zack T Says:

    Oh.. forgot to link this one.. a Q-A index of questions/arguments that Muslims usually ask/used

    www answering-islam.org/Q-A-panel/index.html

  178. at_ease Says:

    There are several myths here, all tightly intertwined for the apparent purpose of getting atheists to cease making uncomfortable and unwelcome criticisms of religion and theism. Religious believers, mostly Christians, are responding to atheistic critiques of religion by claiming that vocal, unapologetic atheists are analogous to religious terrorists and that criticism of religion is a form of religious intolerance. The implication is that believers shouldn’t have to be faced with criticism.
    http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/Intolerant.htm

  179. at_ease Says:

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/08/muslims-pressure-radio-station-regarding-coptic-priest-zakaria-botros-rants-and-bizarre-statements-a.html

  180. Zack T Says:

    at_ease,

    man, you’re a funny fellow too. Coming in here and suddenly accusing us of calling atheists ‘religious terrorists’ and claiming that we’re not comfortable with criticism. Hahaha.
    I really would like to know… where any of us here ‘responded to atheistic critiques of religion by claiming’ such things? Please… show us.

    Well, I’m very certain that I’m not uncomfortable here. I have truth on my side. What do you have on your side?

    Please, if you have something to say about our ‘myths’, please lay them out for us and let’s dialogue. Don’t just drop in an ad hominem and then disappear.

  181. Scott Thong Says:

    I am familiar with Josh McDowell. I have hardcover edition Evidence That Demands A Verdict 2, which is a compilation of archaeological discoveries and other proof that correlates the factual accuracy of the Bible, with footnotes and citations for every claim. It’s actually like a lecture reference book, since he wrote it based on his own lecture notes.

  182. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Whatever evidences you let atheists know – be it archaeological or scriptural..or scientific..atheists will never accept them.

    W

  183. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Ron said,..from Leviticus 19:18. Besides prohibitions on theft, robbery, deceit, fraud, cursing the deaf, tripping the blind, people, spreading slander, screwing your neighbor’s slave girl, and prostituting your daughter, this chapter also forbids the following:

    – Do not hold back the wages of a hired man overnight
    – Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material
    – Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.
    – Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
    – Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves.

    I think some of those ‘rules’ are similar to islamic teaching.. for example
    there is a hadith about paying immediately to workers; and meat..sould let the blood drained before you can cook or eat. Anyway..when it comes to obeying such teaching.. I guess, not all Muslim employers pay their workers immediately. You see.. some Muslims also doing bad things, such as consuming beer or alcohol, gambling etc, etc. Up to them if they want to choose bad or good, etc. We cannot control them.
    Nobody can control anybody – if they want to put bomb on their body and kill themselves and others. All must be hold responsible for their actions.. and face the Creator’s wrath at last. No one, no way they can escape.

  184. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Ron, I’m sorry, I’ve missed the link, maybe. I have not read your comments (if any) about the Quran’s verses that somehow science confirmed, which I gave one example, a few days ago. It was weekend also. I hope I can provide some more later, but I guess many people (and might be you as well, already knew or heard them before). Anyway we can discuss it when time permits. We could discuss the ‘contradictions’ separately later on. TQ

  185. Ron Says:

    “I think some of those ‘rules’ are similar to islamic teaching.. for example
    there is a hadith about paying immediately to workers; and meat..sould let the blood drained before you can cook or eat. Anyway..when it comes to obeying such teaching.”

    Nasaei, my point was that Christians claim they no longer have to follow most of these rules, but whenever I ask them to cite the passage where Jesus lists which specific laws are no longer applicable they come up empty handed. The reality is that Christians cherry-pick the passages to suit their own preconceived notions of what’s morally acceptable and what isn’t.

  186. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    “… Christians claim they no longer have to follow most of these rules, but whenever I ask them to cite the passage where Jesus lists which specific laws are no longer applicable they come up empty handed. The reality is that Christians cherry-pick the passages to suit their own preconceived notions of what’s morally acceptable and what isn’t.”

    – Ron

    Yea..I have no idea, and I myself don’t understand also pertaining to teaching of Christinity and the people (Christian). I wonder if they really follow the teaching..or not. For example believeing in one God, eating pork, covering head, forbidding alcohol, bowing when praying..etc. I heard all those things were all in the scripture, but Christians do not follow. Whereas, nowhere in the Holy Bible mentioning “trinity”, “triune god” or such thing..yet they believe. Might be they follow the teaching of churches, I’m not sure. They had many “explanations” on it.

  187. Zack T Says:

    Nasaei, please. I’ve mentioned to you a number of times..
    You can’t use that ‘this word is not in the bible, therefore it isn’t taught in the bible’ logic.

    Where in the Quran does Muhammad say explicitly ‘I am the last prophet of Allah’? Or where is the word ‘Tawhid/Tauhid’ in the Quran? Where in the Quran is it taught to go pray 5 times a day in the mosque? Where in the Quran does it say ‘Ibrahim’ was going to sacrifice ‘Ishmael’? No way in the Quran, yet you believe in all these. Same logic.

    And I’ve explained a number of times regarding the law vs grace, etc. But both you and Ron still refuse to accept the Christian’s understanding, so be it.

  188. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    i) Not available in the scripture – however, people believe
    ii) Taught by the scripture – but people ignore it.

    Two almost similar stuff, but a bit different.

    I think there is a hadith (his saying, not Quran) he was the last.

    Tawhid: “Tawhid” to me, is anything of true concept of believe. Adjective. So do we believe in “tawhid”?. No, no Zack ! What you believe..is called “tawhid/ tawheed”..

    So, what is taught in Quran in total, in general is “tawhid”.

    Then..what is taught in the Bible, in general, as a whole is “trinity” ?

    So, quite difficult to demonstrate to you Zack. But I’m not very sure of your..that no mention of it however. Let me check again later.

    Tawhid is not a certain thing or a noun, I think. But a concept, idea, understanding.

    Secondly, we must remember, the sources of Islamic teaching is NOT Quran alone. But authentic hadiths as well. I’m not sure if besides Bible, where else Christians have their believe. Churches ? Pope? Then it is settled..I mean if it true Pope and churches..or King (James etc) CAN ‘impose’ certain rules/laws in Christians. And the sources of Islamic jurisdictions / jurisprudence is Quran, Hadiths, Itjmak Ulamaks (majority of scholars views) and Qisas.

    It is true, Quran is not a very detail scripture. I remember, there are some anti hadith groups in Malaysia, and may be in other countries as well. So Suni Muslims asked them where they learn how to pray since they put aside the teaching of hadiths. Because there is no mention in the Quran how to pray, what to read during prayer, how many times etc. Quran just mentions ‘prayer in a part of day, and night’ only.

    Without the examples shown by the Prophet (pbuh)..and his hadiths, Muslims will not know how to pray exactly.

  189. Zack T Says:

    “So, what is taught in Quran in total, in general is “tawhid”.
    Then..what is taught in the Bible, in general, as a whole is “trinity” ?”

    “Whereas, nowhere in the Holy Bible mentioning “trinity”, “triune god” or such thing.. yet they believe.”

    If you understand the logic.. Then. Stop. Using. That. Argument.
    Consistency, people.

    It’s annoying/frustrating to keep listening/witnessing the same argument even after repeated explanation.

    “Without the examples shown by the Prophet (pbuh)..and his hadiths, Muslims will not know how to pray exactly.”

    Good that you know, and hence, just a reminder. Just because it’s absent, it does not immediately mean it’s not true.
    _

    “Secondly, we must remember, the sources of Islamic teaching is NOT Quran alone. But authentic hadiths as well.”

    I am happy to acknowledge that you’re not a Quran-only Muslim. Then the hadiths will help make reasoning a lot easier for me… and most likely, more difficult for you.
    May the Lord of Truth be merciful and bless and convict you with the Truth that is Jesus Christ, our Lord and ONLY Savior.
    _

    “I’m not sure if besides Bible, where else Christians have their believe. Churches ? Pope? Then it is settled..I mean if it true Pope and churches..or King (James etc)”

    Allow me to ‘enlighten’ you on Christian’s belief… biblical Christians. We don’t need to go into the denominations for this one, since that just requires a lot more information, so I’ll just go with basics.

    Biblical Christians believe in what they call ‘Sola Scriptura’, which means basically ‘solely scripture’ aka ‘bible only’. Traditions are not compulsory and needs not be imposed upon anyone, everyone, anytime, everytime, anywhere, everywhere; and ritualistic practices are no longer necessary, as opposed to OT, e.g. animal sacrifices.
    In fact, we’re allowed to exercise different ways of performing our traditions/rituals depending on our different cultures or understanding of the bible.

    BUT, what we practice/believe must be in line with the bible, hence where ‘Sola Scriptura’ comes in. Our bible is our sole source of truth and our firm foundation as Christians given by God.
    So, unlike Catholics, we neither hold the belief that traditions are just as essential as the bible, nor do we see the Pope or the Vatican as our ultimate spiritual leader.
    Jesus Christ is our ultimate leader and Head of the Church. We can seek Him and pray to Him directly and need not any mediators (priests, ‘fathers’, saints, popes or Mary) between us and Jesus.

    So, in other words, we’re ‘Bible-only’ followers of Christ; and in my belief and understanding of the scripture, as taught by Jesus, His disciples and the prophets, this is the right way of being Christians; since Jesus Himself appealed to the scriptures, not traditions, during His time on earth.
    (Mind you, that doesn’t mean we can’t have leaders/pastors, etc in our churches. It is just that Christ is ultimately sovereign and everyone is equal in God’s eyes, regardless of position.)
    _

    “It is true, Quran is not a very detail scripture.”

    Excellent thought. Let’s see what does the Quran say.

    Sura 5:15 – A beacon [‘a reminder’ in some translations, aka the Quran] has come to you from Allah, and a profound scripture. [describing the Quran as profound]

    Sura 16:89 – We have revealed to you this book [the Quran; singular] to provide explanations for everything, and guidance, and mercy, and good news for the submitters.
    [Sounds like there’s some overlooking going on… either on your part.. or Allah’s.]

    Sura 30:28 – Thus do we explain the Signs [referring to Quran] in detail to a people that understand.

    Sura 41:3 – A scripture whose verses provide the complete details, in an Arabic Quran, for people who know. [Obviously about the Quran]

    Hmmmm….

  190. Ron Says:

    Why Islam is the true religion:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plyS8sIUjmQ&feature=related

  191. Zack T Says:

    Dr Zakir Naik is a show-off. Plain and straight. (He even supports the terrorist movement, which caused him to be banned from ever coming into the UK, not so long ago)

    Why is 2+2 not 3? Or 6? Why is it only 4?
    1+1 can be equaled to 2 AND 1… Why?
    What makes something true and others false?

    He is essentially saying… “The Quran says this, therefore don’t bother thinking or studying it any further. Leave your brains at the door. This is the truth, you need not question it further.”

    Which is obviously false when it comes to truth-seeking. And I’m sure both Ron and Nasaei would agree that real truth-seekers will seek out the truth and understand why one thing is true while another is not. Meaning to know both sides, at least, well enough before making a final conclusion.

  192. Ron Says:

    “The Bible says this, therefore don’t bother thinking or studying it any further. Leave your brains at the door. This is the truth, you need not question it further.”

    That pretty much sums up Christian followers.

    “Whereas, nowhere in the Holy Bible mentioning “trinity”, “triune god” or such thing.. yet they believe.” –Nasaei

    Your correct. Jesus never claims to be anything but the son of god. The trinity is a later invention stemming from the Pauline sect of Christianity, which basically corrupted everything Jesus said.

  193. Ron Says:

    A former minister explains why he abandoned Christianity.

  194. Zack T Says:

    “That pretty much sums up Christian followers.”

    Nope… that sums up YOUR beliefs, Ron. No wonder you left the faith.

    Just some of us here have shown that we’re investigating the truth of our beliefs, etc..

    If that’s good enough.. you can always look up Dr William Lane Craig, David Wood, Sam Shamoun, Dr. Nabeel Qureshi, James White, Samuel Green, Tony Costa, and alot of others.
    _

    “The trinity is a later invention stemming from the Pauline sect of Christianity, which basically corrupted everything Jesus said.”

    John 1 – Word was with God, Word was God, The Word became flesh, etc

    John 8:58-59 – Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am.” Therefore the Jews picked up stones to throw at Him.

    John 10:30-33 – Jesus said “The Father and I are one.” The Jews took up stones again to stone Jesus, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God,”

    Mark 1:5-7 – Jesus forgave sin of a paralyzed man; healing him and allowing him to walk again. Jews that witnessed it said, “Why does this man speak blasphemy? Only God can forgive sins.”

    Luke 24:47 – Repentance of sin to be preached in the name of Jesus Christ.

    Acts 4:12 – No salvation in any other name, but Jesus Christ’s. (Which is before Paul even came into the scene)

    Matthew 25:31-46 – Jesus will be the Judge on the Day of Judgment.

    Mark 14:61-64 – The High Priest asked Jesus “Are you the Christ, the Son of [God]?” Jesus answered, “I am, and you shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” The high priest then ripped his clothes [in anger] and said, “What further witness we need? You have heard the blasphemy for yourselves.” And they condemned him to be guilty of death.

    [sarcasm]
    Yeah.. It stemmed from Pauline sect…
    [/sarcasm]

    As I’ve stressed before and have shown along the way with these verse, the titles ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of Man’ were understood by the Jews (at least, of that time) to be divine titles (hence the high priest’s reaction).

  195. Scott Thong Says:

    For example believeing in one God, eating pork, covering head, forbidding alcohol, bowing when praying..etc. I heard all those things were all in the scripture, but Christians do not follow. Whereas, nowhere in the Holy Bible mentioning “trinity”, “triune god” or such thing..yet they believe. Might be they follow the teaching of churches, I’m not sure. They had many “explanations” on it. – Nasaei Ahmad

    Simple explanation really – Jews follow the Old Testament, Christians follow the New Testament (with the Old Testament as a guide and example).

    1) Belief in one God – still applies.
    2) Eating pork – does not apply due to Matthew 15:10-11 and Acts 10:9-16 (however some denominations still apply kosher dietary rules)
    3) Covering head – if based on 1 Corinthians 11:3-10, disputed interpretation (see bottom of this page)
    4) Forbidding alcohol – debatable based on what the words translated ‘wine’ mean (alcoholic or non-alcoholic?); however IMHO the Last Supper was clearly non-alcoholic due to Passover no-yeast laws in force
    5) Bowing when praying – not applicable, see Matt 6:5-8

  196. Scott Thong Says:

    “The Bible says this, therefore don’t bother thinking or studying it any further. Leave your brains at the door. This is the truth, you need not question it further.”

    That pretty much sums up Christian followers. – Ron

    With the caveat that before deciding whether the Bible should be taken as an authoritative source, a personal in-depth study and judgment of the veracity of the material is performed first.

    Same reasoning for why we pick up a Cambridge dictionary to find a word definition without cross-checking against ten other dictionaries and researching the etymology of the word in depth before accepting the Cambridge definition, or why we don’t send Baskin Robbins tubs for Salmonella/Botulism/Anthrax testing every 31st-of-the-month sale before chowing down.

    (And also, why on the other hand we constantly fact-check the leftwing narrative being spewed out by the likes of CNN, NYT, MSNBC and Newsweek…)

    If we always accepted appeal-to-authority, we wouldn’t have had the Protestant movement.

    Your correct. Jesus never claims to be anything but the son of god.

    In the same way that Obama has, even up to now, never specifically referred to himself as ‘the head of state and head of government of the United States’, or ‘head of the executive branch of the government, whose responsibility is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ in those exact words. It kind of comes along with the other titles he does regularly lay claim to.

  197. Scott Thong Says:

    OT example:

    And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. – Zechariah 12:10

  198. Zack T Says:

    I was looking for that OT verse… So that’s where it was.. Was lookin for it at Isaiah… my memory versing is terrible..😛

  199. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Sura 41:3 – A scripture whose verses provide the complete details, in an Arabic Quran, for people who know. [Obviously about the Quran]

    – Ron.

    Malay translation published by PM Dept, JAKIM 41:3 is transliterated as follows:

    Sebuah Kitab yang dijelaskan ayatnya satu persatu; iaitu Al Quran yang
    ditirunkan dalan Bahasa Arab bagi faedah orang-orang yang beriman…”

    It used “satu-persatu”. Yes, it is somehow means “in detail” too. I don’t know if “in great detail” is equal to “in detail”. Maybe.

    However, if you read Quran as a whole, I think, not every single thing in great detail. I mean, like paryer, as I said, (and as you know) it doesn’t
    describe how to perform it from A to Z, what to read, how many exactly..etc. We learn from hadiths instead. Quran mentioned only
    “O believers, bow among the people who bowed..”..and it says ” pray
    in a part of night, and in other part of day..”.

    It remained so forever. Of course, translations/ interpretations is a bit varies. But Arabic Quran, remained the same, as it is. We don’t have many “versions” anyway.

  200. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    I ‘salute’ Ron and Scott, they have many ‘arsenal’, ‘silos’ and ‘bullets with them. No sign of them having depleted of bullets. However, I’m not sure if their shots hit the target or not. Some, as I noticed, yes, they hit the target on “bold”.

    I still working in the old office, really I had ample time to care to turn the pages of scriptures. But since transferred..new boss, new office, new works. Visiting blogs, “exchanges barbs” (and jokes) cannot be gone overboard. Limited time (and rules).

  201. Zack T Says:

    “satu persatu” means one-by-one, literally. That tells me that it’s not just ‘in detail’ but ‘in meticulous detail’..
    If someone was to say that he has proofread an essay ‘sentence-by-sentence’.. you’d take it as him saying he really made sure every detail/grammar/etc is correct/right.

    “Of course, translations/ interpretations is a bit varies. But Arabic Quran, remained the same, as it is. We don’t have many “versions” anyway.”

    Quran Versions – www answering-islam.org/Quran/Versions/
    Textual Variants of the Quran – www answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/index.html

    One article that shows variants between Arabic ‘versions’ of the Quran.
    www answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm

    It’s shown rather clearly that there is not ‘one version’ of the Arabic Quran.

  202. Scott Thong Says:

    Check this out Zack – I just came across it recently.

    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/irony-and-wordplay-in-the-old-testament/

  203. Zack T Says:

    Nasaei, since you believe in the hadiths, maybe I should point you to some ‘clear’ passages that talk about how the Quran was ‘compiled’ by the early Muslims after Muhammad died… (yes, the Quran was compiled/collected AFTER Muhammad’s death) and also how there were disagreements with the compiled Quran..

    www usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/061.sbt.html
    [Bold and paragraphing are my own for better ease of read and emphasis.]

    Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510:
    Narrated Anas bin Malik:
    … Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to ‘Uthman, “O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before.” So ‘Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, “Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.”

    Hafsa sent it to ‘Uthman. ‘Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, ‘Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and ‘AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. ‘Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.” They did so, and when they had written many copies, ‘Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa.

    Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.

    Said bin Thabit added, “A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): ‘Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.’ (33.23)

    With that in mind… here’s what Zaid thought of the suggestion when he was first approached by Caliph Umar…

    Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509:
    Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
    Abu Bakr then said (to me [Zaid]), “Umar has come to me and said: “Casualties were heavy among the Qurra’ of the! Qur’an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra’ on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur’an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur’an be collected.”

    I [Zaid] said to ‘Umar, “How can you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?”

    ‘Umar said, “By Allah, that is a good project. “Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea….

    Seems that busts one Islam myth, that the Quran was recorded/written by Muhammad himself or while he was still alive.
    And a second Islam myth, that there wasn’t ever any other ‘version’ of the Arabic Quran..
    Even if I accept that now there’s only one version of the Arabic Quran today, that’s because Caliph Umar burnt all the fragments/materials/manuscripts on which the Sura verses were recorded on…

    Why I know those fragments/materials/manuscripts contained variants?

    Evidence #1 – Different Recitations, Different Ways of Revelation

    Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 514:
    Narrated ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab:
    I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah’s Apostle had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper, and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, “Who taught you this Sura which I heard you reciting?” He replied, “Allah’s Apostle taught it to me.” I said, “You have told a lie, for Allah’s Apostle has taught it to me in a different way from yours.” So I dragged him to Allah’s Apostle and said (to Allah’s Apostle),

    “I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven’t taught me!” On that Allah’s Apostle said, “Release him, (O ‘Umar!) Recite, O Hisham!” Then he recited in the same way as I heard him reciting. Then Allah’s Apostle said, “It was revealed in this way,” and added, “Recite, O ‘Umar!” I recited it as he had taught me.

    Allah’s Apostle then said, “It was revealed in this way. This Qur’an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever (way) is easier for you (or read as much of it as may be easy for you).”

    Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 682:
    Narrated Ibn Mas’ud:
    I heard a person reciting a (Quranic) Verse in a certain way, and I had heard the Prophet reciting the same Verse in a different way. So I took him to the Prophet and informed him of that but I noticed the sign of disapproval on his face, and then [the Prophet] said, “Both of you are correct, so don’t differ, for the nations before you differed, so they were destroyed.”

    Evidence #2 – Ibn Mas’ud
    Just a reminder of how significant Ibn Mas’ud was with regards to the Quran:

    Narrated Masruq: Abdullah bin Mas’ud was mentioned before Abdullah bin Amr who said, “That is a man I still love, as I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, ‘Learn the recitation of the Qur’an from four: from Abdullah bin Mas’ud – he started with him – Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu’adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka’b”. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 153)

    Ibn Masud opposed/disapproved Zaid’s Quran:

    Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.444:
    The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of [Zaid’s] Qur’an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth“.

    Jami At-Tirmidhi 3104:
    Az-Zuhri said: “Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utbah informed me that Abdullah bin Mas’ud disliked Zaid bin Thabit copying the Musahif, and he said: ‘O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man’–meaning Zaid bin Thabit–and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas’ud said: ‘O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.'”

    ..which connects with Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 6022.
    -> www usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/031.smt.html#031.6022

    Reference:
    -> Ibn Mas’ud on Zaid’s Mushaf – www answeringmuslims.com/2009/02/ibn-masud-on-zaids-mushaf.html
    -> The Ibn Masud Problem: Muslims’ Flawed Responses – www answeringmuslims.com/2009/02/failure-of-muslim-response-to-ibn-masud.html

    _

    EXTRA: This site makes this bold claim:
    “There are no ancient copies of the Koran dating before 750 AD in museums. We challenge you to prove us wrong! Send us the name, locate and date of the Koran written earlier!”
    -> www bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-koran-manuscripts.htm

  204. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Zack, my opinion..as a common Muslim regarding the above:

    I think what you posted above is no big deal to me Zack, not because I’m scholarly knowledgible or what..but because of the differences of believe..I mean we look at thing from the different angles, I think. Scott had also provided those Bukhari hadiths before if I’m not mistaken. And many Muslims are aware of it. We sometimes learned it at mesjid/suraus..

    The diferences of opinion between those earliers collectors of Quran verses migt be looked serious to you. To Muslims, it is normal. Many Muslims acknowledge it (‘quarrel’ about the better ways to gather/compile Quranic verses/ mushaf).

    Why it is ‘normal’ ? (To me personally)..because look at what you have at hand..if Quran today has so many descrepancies, contradictions, shortcomings, false statements etc.. (like Bible?)..then the cause for concern/doubts would be “a big deal” or greater, I think. Is that the case however? Yes, we heard people said, quite many “contradictions” (eg. numbers of days in creation depiction, Mary “brother” of Aaron”, wrong total fractions for benefeciaries of property left by parents, number of years angel ascended to God…those thing I mean. And Scott did say last time, that those Quran compilors were all not prophets and they were all fallible.. So, my answers is the same as above- check what we have in hand (Quran). (scholars my have their own answers maybe).

    Yes, many casualties. But all of those hafizun (hafis) died in battle ? We are not sure of this. Like today, if we burn all the Quran (ALL of them !)..Muslims believe, in few days it can be written again…because all the contents is in the heart of hafizs. No joke. So..I think many of the prophet’s companions were hafiz, though, many died in battle. May be I’m wrong, but that was the muslim’s believe (beside the Quality of the present day’s Quran itself).

    God also promised to preserve it. Less worry to me.

    Now, you say..”no Koran before 750AD”. Maybe you are right. But no Quran in the hearts’ of hafiz at that tiem ? (and today).. Any body sure? We don’t know.

    About “version/s”. What do we mean “version” anyway ?

    You know, the earliest Quran is NOT like the present day’s Quran. (if that made another “version”, then at this poit you are exactly right. Old /earliest Quran didn’t contain reading signs (ie. fatha, kasra, fatha, tanween, sukun, etc). IOld Quran was in plain letter only. Arabs know how to read them. But non Arab like Malaysians may find it intriguing/ difficult to know where is prohibited to stop (while reading); where is short pronunciation, or long ‘nasalization’ etc.

    That was already two versions here? I don’t know. If you say YES, you got 2 already, but you keep claiming “Quran has no version”…then..up to you. WE don’t care, we don’t bother.

    Scholars should be able to explain it further I think.

  205. Zack T Says:

    My gosh… just as we have an Atheist ignorant of Atheist’s circumstances… now we have a Muslim ignorant of Muslim’s circumstances… worse yet… an ignorant Muslim with high amounts of blind faith..

    First, Muslims claim over and over that the Quran is preserved well, since Muhammad, etc… Then when shown in their own Islamic sources that the early Muslims did no such thing… they just say ‘well, there were a lot people who memorized them.’

    Did you noticed in some of the passages I quoted that the recitations differ from one person to another?
    Here’s some facts… People’s memories fade. As people pass down knowledge, they paraphrase, they shorten, they add, they summarize in the way that suits their understanding.
    Messages have a tendency of changing too as it gets passed along (due to how people understanding words/sentences differently); e.g. gossips, the game ‘Chinese Whispers’.

    What’s more.. how much faith do you have that, despite the large casualties of those ‘hafizun’, that they’re still able to compile together a complete Quran, without missing ANY verses?
    In one of the passages I quote, Zaid almost missed one, which he happened to remember. He was a young Muslim at that time and got to spent a short time with Muhammad; he doesn’t know every sura ever recited by Muhammad. How many more might he have missed during compilation?

    What about the fact that Aisha reported a goat eating up some verses?

    Aisha, “When the verses “Rajm” [Stoning] and ayah “Rezah Kabir” descended, they were written on a piece of paper and kept under my pillow. Following the demise of Prophet Muhammad (S) a goat ate the piece of paper while we were mourning.

    1. Sunan Ibne Majah, Volume 2, Page 39, Published Karachi.
    2. Musnad Imam Ahmad, Volume 6, Page 269, Published Beirut.
    3. Taweel Mukhtalif Al Hadees, Page 310, Published Beirut

    Then there’s the matter of Muhammad’s companion having different amounts of sura in their own Qurans.

    Ibn Masud had 111 chapters in his Quran, leaving out chapters 1, 113, and 114. He considered these to be prayers revealed by God for the benefit of Muslims, but not surahs intended for the Quran. (As a side note, Ubay ibn Kab included these 3 surahs in his codex, along with 2 others. The additional 2 surahs are prayers recited by Muslims even today which many believe to be divinely revealed, but not part of the Quran).

    “God also promised to preserve it. Less worry to me.”

    I admire you faith, in that regards, since it’s similar to my faith with the bible.
    BUt that’s our only similarity. Christians have our proofs and evidences to show that the bible HAVE BEEN preserved. e.g. Dead Sea Scrolls, along with thousands of other NT manuscripts (of different languages too), which goes as early as less than a century after Jesus’s death/resurrection (and this is the accepted number by general consensus; there are plenty who believe some earliest manuscripts are only decades apart form Jesus).

    What about Quran? Manuscripts from Muhammad’s time could’ve been saved but were destroyed by Caliph Umar’s bid to ‘save the Quran’. Which begs the question, if Allah had promised to preserve the Quran, why was it necessary for mere mortals to set out to do exactly that?
    Couldn’t Allah just protect the ‘Hafizun’ from dying in the first place? Or maybe He could’ve told Muhammad to collect and compile a complete Quran before he passed away?
    Couldn’t Allah had just prevented the ‘Aisha and the Quran-eating goat’ episode altogether??
    (And we’ve not even touch on the fact that the Quran’s passages and Surrahs are not arranged chronologically and isn’t coherent from one passage to the next.)

    “If you say YES, you got 2 already, but you keep claiming “Quran has no version”…then..up to you.”

    No idea what you’re trying to say, Nasaei.. I never claimed ‘Quran has no version’..
    And you’re completely misrepresenting my point here.
    When I say versions, I meant versions, not translations. As in this Quran says this, while another says another thing.
    The fact that there’s two Arabic Qurans with differring words is troubling.. the links I provided gave more than two.
    So, as I’ve said, the Islam myth that there’s only one version of the Arabic Quran is busted.

  206. Zack T Says:

    Nasaei, I pray that you will be more honest and really search the truth… These are not matters regarding ‘preferences’ or ‘someone else will figure it out’.. This is a matter of you going to ‘eternal salvation’ or ‘eternal damnation’.

    The Christian God is happy for us that we have strong faith in Him, and maybe even blind faith (based on His word alone, that is)… but the bible tells us:

    “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” – 1 John 4:1

    “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” – 1 Thessalonians 5:21

    We are called to be truth-seekers and stand firm on the Truth… because Jesus Christ is the Truth (John 14:6), and when we seek truth earnestly and diligently, we will find Him.

    I pray that you will too… as well as Ron.

  207. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    EXTRA: This site makes this bold claim:
    “There are no ancient copies of the Koran dating before 750 AD in museums. We challenge you to prove us wrong! Send us the name, locate and date of the Koran written earlier!”

    – I hope the above is not really Zack words. Challenge like this would be
    negative for open an discussion. Last time I heard also Deedat chalenged Jimmy Swaggard (and all those audince at USC ?) to produce any two Bible versions that are identical. Really (you may view the debate again on Youtube also available). So, to my surprise..is it really you DON’T have identical versions among the many Bibles? Otherwise how come the late Deedat dare to ‘challenge’ it..in front of university’s professors, academicians, and Swaggard himself? And I don’t if that challenge has already been met by those attended the debate (including Swaggard). I don’t know for sure if what Deedat claimed was true or not.

    I don’t like to ‘challenge’ like that..if we want to promote open discussion.

  208. Zack T Says:

    Zack, “This site makes this bold claim: …”

    Nasaei, “I hope the above is not really Zack words.”

    Umm.. do you have difficulty with English? Just a thought…

    And Deedat’s answer can be met with the exact opposite: “Produce any two Quran (Arabic or not) versions that are identical.”

    To call somethings ‘versions’ means to say they are different, not identical in the first place.
    e.g. “Produce me two identical versions of Romeo & Juliet?”
    “Two identical versions of Hamlet”
    “Two identical versions of Little Red Riding Hood”

    Get my point? It’s an oxymoron.
    _

    Deedat was a showman, not a debater. I’ve seen his debates (a lot of them) and have sat tirelessly through his blasphemous ‘rantings’ and ignorant ‘babblings’.
    It is sad but rather ironic that he caught a stroke that prevented him from speaking any longer.

    Allow me to warn you… he has done a poor job of properly representing the Christian perspective as well as the Muslim perspective…. contrary to the beliefs of his ‘zombie’ fans.

  209. Ron Says:

    “With the caveat that before deciding whether the Bible should be taken as an authoritative source, a personal in-depth study and judgment of the veracity of the material is performed first.”

    Based on personal experiences, I’m willing to wager that many (if not most) people calling themselves Christians have never cracked open a Bible, except to read selected passages during sermons or devotional studies. Even among fundamentalists/evangelists I’ve never met anyone who’s read the book from cover to cover, other than clergy.

    “Same reasoning for why we pick up a Cambridge dictionary to find a word definition without cross-checking against ten other dictionaries and researching the etymology of the word in depth before accepting the Cambridge definition, or why we don’t send Baskin Robbins tubs for Salmonella/Botulism/Anthrax testing every 31st-of-the-month sale before chowing down.”

    Thing is… at least I can verify the Cambridge definition of a certain word against others. What do I verify the Bible against? As for ice cream, the manufacturing facilities are usually monitored on a regular basis by health inspectors so that we don’t have to do it ourselves — and even then our overrelliance on others to protect us from ourselves has sometimes proven to be misguided and/or fatal.

    “If we always accepted appeal-to-authority, we wouldn’t have had the Protestant movement.”

    Luther wasn’t against the hierarchy so much as the abuses of said hierarchy.

    “In the same way that Obama has, even up to now, never specifically referred to himself as ‘the head of state and head of government of the United States’, or ‘head of the executive branch of the government, whose responsibility is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ in those exact words. It kind of comes along with the other titles he does regularly lay claim to.”

    That’s because Article Two of the United States Constitution clearly spells out the duties and obligations of the POTUS.

  210. Ron Says:

    “My gosh… just as we have an Atheist ignorant of Atheist’s circumstances..”

    What ignorance might that be?

  211. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Deedat was a showman, not a debater. I’ve seen his debates (a lot of them)

    – Zack.

    I think Swaggard was (a showman). He would be a good TV personality if he were in such an industry.. like Oprah. But to debate..err.. I don’t know..maybe Dr. Anish Shorrosh is the better. I would suggest you to listen to his (Shorrosh’s) debate with Deedat as well..in London. There are series of about 8 tapes or more on Youtube. I like most this…among the many debates.

  212. Zack T Says:

    I don’t know Swaggard. Heard about him from Deedat, but never went to watch their debate together.

    And I should’ve watched the debate you are referring to between Shorrosh and Deedat. Dr. Shorrosh wasn’t that great of a debater too.. which actually speaks of Deedat’s debating career..

    The opponents he debated against were all, if not, mostly inexperienced when it comes to debating.
    He himself fails to debate well in the first place.

    Even when his opponents were able to bring forward a good argument/explanation to counter Deedat’s.. he doesn’t bother to refute those arguments but instead goes on a tangent and threw all sorts of red herrings everywhere and acted as if he had satisfyingly answered the argument.
    Not to mentioned, a number of his arguments are untrue and plain deceptive: e.g. his ‘supposed’ Greek understanding of John 1:1.

    Besides, practically all of his arguments are easily explained.. yet he refused to accept or just plain ignored the explanation and continue to hammer his refuted point; to the adoration of his ‘zombie’ fans.
    _

    And just to explain what I meant by ‘zombie’ fan… I meant their just followers of Deedat who left their brains at home and would just agree with whatever Deedat says.
    Refer: Deedat on the Balance -> answering-islam.org/Responses/Deedat/deedat.html
    Regarding his ‘zombie’ fans, search for ‘TRANSVAAL IN THE 1970’S’ in linked article.

  213. Scott Thong Says:

    Based on personal experiences, I’m willing to wager that many (if not most) people calling themselves Christians have never cracked open a Bible, except to read selected passages during sermons or devotional studies. Even among fundamentalists/evangelists I’ve never met anyone who’s read the book from cover to cover, other than clergy. – Ron

    Sad but true, despite many ‘plans’ that lay out which passages to read to finish the Bible in one, two or more years.

    Thing is… at least I can verify the Cambridge definition of a certain word against others. What do I verify the Bible against?

    Archaeology, internal consistency – both of which you debate already.

    As for ice cream

    My point is that after long enough experience with something, you are secure enough in it to not furtively cross-examine it at every turn.

    This is similar to my other analogy, likening ‘faith in God’ to ‘faith in your wife who has yet to poison your dessert wine’.

    Luther wasn’t against the hierarchy so much as the abuses of said hierarchy.

    Without questioning of authority, there are no abuses if the hierarchy say there aren’t.

    That’s because Article Two of the United States Constitution clearly spells out the duties and obligations of the POTUS.

    Exactly my point! We don’t need him to spell out his duties every time he turns on the Teleprompter of the United States because other documents and precedents have already established what being POTUS entails.

    Likewise, it’s completely fair to say that Jesus never specifically referred to Himself as God, but His other deeds and words point to that direction for anyone who does a little digging. E.g. Title of Son of Man vis-a-vis Daniel’s vision, allowing worship at His feet, forgiving sins.

  214. Zack T Says:

    Good ones, Scott. Haha. Combo hits.

  215. Ron Says:

    “Sad but true, despite many ‘plans’ that lay out which passages to read to finish the Bible in one, two or more years.”

    So then how does that gel with your earlier comment — “before deciding whether the Bible should be taken as an authoritative source, a personal in-depth study and judgment of the veracity of the material is performed first” — when that is in fact not the case? As I’ve mentioned before, most people unquestioningly adopt the religion they are born into and never investigate those beliefs further. How can anyone state with absolute certainty that their beliefs have merit if they haven’t even bothered to read the book on which those beliefs are founded?

    “Archaeology, internal consistency – both of which you debate already.”

    The archaeological findings seem to contradict the events described in the narrative; and examined as a whole, the narrative is anything but consistent. If I can’t trust the things I can verify, how can I trust the moral guidelines and directives attributed to god, which I can’t verify?

    “This is similar to my other analogy, likening ‘faith in God’ to ‘faith in your wife who has yet to poison your dessert wine’.”

    Your comparing to disparate things. Faith in God is belief without logical proof or evidence. Faith in your wife is based on an established trust. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, not only because the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth, but primarily because a strong body of evidence informs me that it’s done so since the dawn of history. Nonetheless, there is a remote possibility that the earth could be destroyed — just as there is a distinct possibility that your wife could betray the trust you’ve bestowed on her.

    “If we always accepted appeal-to-authority, we wouldn’t have had the Protestant movement.”

    “Without questioning of authority, there are no abuses if the hierarchy say there aren’t.”

    That’s the equivalent of asking, “If a tree falls in a forest and there’s no one to hear it will it make a sound?”

    Nonetheless, I have questioned and continue to question (and deny) the authority of anyone who purports that his or her authority is informed by the contents of some ancient text.

    “Exactly my point! We don’t need him to spell out his duties every time he turns on the Teleprompter of the United States because other documents and precedents have already established what being POTUS entails. Likewise, it’s completely fair to say that Jesus never specifically referred to Himself as God, but His other deeds and words point to that direction for anyone who does a little digging. E.g. Title of Son of Man vis-a-vis Daniel’s vision, allowing worship at His feet, forgiving sins.”

    I know you would like to believe that, but the fact remains that Jesus makes no direct statement which supports the doctrine of the trinity as it is currently understood; this particular ‘article of fatih’ became Church dogma came about as a result of political wrangling in which the theological opinions of Bishop Athanasius won out.

  216. Ron Says:

    Clarification: when I wrote “the narrative is anything but consistent” I meant it is not consistent.

  217. Zack T Says:

    “That’s the equivalent of asking, “If a tree falls in a forest and there’s no one to hear it will it make a sound?” ”

    Your equivalent sayings are always not equivalent….

    “If a tree fell in a forest and a group of high-class scientists said it made no sound, did it make a sound?”

    “I know you would like to believe that, but the fact remains that Jesus makes no direct statement which supports the doctrine of the trinity as it is currently understood; this particular ‘article of fatih’ became Church dogma came about as a result of political wrangling in which the theological opinions of Bishop Athanasius won out.”

    Your statement has been refuted over and over. Good luck with your continual denial, Ron.

  218. Zack T Says:

    I just find it amazing how stubborn Ron is, despite how often he has been proven wrong and wrong and wrong over and over and over.

    And what’s more.. he’s so inconsistent…

    He admitted the POTUS needs not state over and over and explicitly that he is the POTUS and that his task/duty is to blahblahblah..
    But when compared to all the divine statements that Jesus says of himself in all four gospels, he just says ‘Jesus never said that.’

    What’s more… earlier he said, “The trinity is a later invention stemming from the Pauline sect of Christianity, which basically corrupted everything Jesus said.”
    Then now he says, “…the doctrine of the trinity as it is currently understood; this particular ‘article of fatih’ became Church dogma came about as a result of political wrangling in which the theological opinions of Bishop Athanasius won out.”

    So which is it, Ron? Was it Paul or Bishop Athanasius that started this idea of Trinity?
    You’re just grabbing at straws and throwing everything at us, even the kitchen sink, without THINKing what you’re saying.

  219. Zack T Says:

    Ron’s silly inconsistent answer regarding the Trinity is the same as Joshua Evans’ during his interview on The Deen Show; “Top Ten Reasons Why Jesus is Not God”.

    He first stated no early Christians believed in the Trinity until the Council of Nicea… then just one minute later, said that the idea started from Paul’s teachings.

    Inconsistent and contradicting.

    And most of all, untrue, since I’ve shown throughout the gospels the teachings of Trinity and Jesus’s divinity are clearly shown.. and even in the OT; e.g. God pierced and died??

    You can’t attribute those to corruption because we have the earliest manuscripts that say the same thing as today… Those doctrines are not changed; albeit written differently (depending on style, language, etc).

  220. Ron Says:

    “I just find it amazing how stubborn Ron is, despite how often he has been proven wrong and wrong and wrong over and over and over.”

    That’s news to me. Let’s recap the main topics discussed so far:

    Homosexual unions – After citing scriptures which form the basis of Ted Haggard’s opinions on homosexuality, Simon accused me not only of being mired in the OT scriptures, but for failing to understand that Jesus had given a new interpretation of the OT laws; so I asked for specific NT citations to show where Jesus addresses that particular topic. I also asked for a precise enumeration of which OT laws Jesus said were no longer in effect. To date none have been provided.

    Absolute morality – On several occasions I’ve asked how God’s laws can be considered objective and absolute when he keeps changing or modifying the moral code to suit the occasion. I also asked how it was morally justifiable for God to exempt himself from the rules he imposes on others. Scott argued that God’s supremacy allows him to do as he damn well pleases (1 Samuel 2:6-7), but that makes him out to be a celestial dictator whose moral code is based entirely on personal whim rather than intrinsically objective values.

    Jesus resurrection and ascension- You stated that there were 500 witnesses to these events. I pointed out major discrepancies in the gospel accounts and asked for evidence of these 500 witnesses. You asserted that the doctrine was true despite the conflicting accounts and provided no further evidence for the 500 witnesses. You went on to state that the original documents were accurate, but no assurance was given for the accuracy of subsequent copies. I wondered how you could maintain such a view and asked you to explain why God would trouble himself to ensure the accuracy of the originals, and then allow them to get lost forcing future generations to rely on error-prone copies. Again, no answers were given.

    At this point you retired from the discussion, saying you had grown tired of the debate.

    Free will vs. Divine will – I stated that these two ideas were mutually incompatible and provided examples to support my explanation. Once again, you abandoned the argument.

    All-Just vs All-Merciful – Ditto. I showed how these two concepts were incongruent with one another and demonstrated that the atonement doctrine was morally repugnant. Your response amounted to a short sermon that ended with a call to accept Christ.

    Trust & obedience – The upshot is that Christians consider blind obedience to God’s commands — no matter how immoral they might seem to us — a sign of deep trust and respect, but only when presenting stories found in the bible; today, if anyone commits atrocities as a consequence of obeying voices from God, Christian’s tend to argue that that person is obviously deluded or insane. However, when asked to explain this dichotomy, the answers given are mostly weak rationalizations.

    Objective Morality – You claimed that it’s impossible to form an objective moral code without belief in a god, the underlying premise being that godless societies would fall into moral decay. I countered that by presenting the existence of a peaceful tribal society operating under a moral code established without any belief in supernatural deities. Faced with the evidence that societies can and do function quite well without the aid of theistic dogma, you then simply resorted to bashing their way of life. I also explained how an objective moral code could be built on the rational observation that a man’s life is his highest value, because the only other option available is death. It therefore follows that everything which contributes to that value can be considered morally good, and everything that detracts from that value can be considered morally wrong. I explicitly stated that our actions must be guided by reason, since that is the only cognitive tool available to us. Ignoring what I wrote, you proudly declared that there were no objective moral values one could adhere to, and then followed up with strawman arguments — people acting irrationally based on subjective feelings — which was completely the opposite of what I had argued.

    Archaeological evidence – I argued there was no historical evidence to support biblical accounts of the exodus and cited archaeological findings which flat out contradict the Jewish chronology pertaining to the fall of Jericho. No counter-evidence was presented to refute those claims.

    Trinity – Cry all you want but there is no biblical evidence to support your claims that Jesus preached the trinity doctrine. He may well have considered himself a divine being (sitting at the right hand of God), but nowhere does he mention a triune entity.

    “So which is it, Ron? Was it Paul or Bishop Athanasius that started this idea of Trinity?”

    Where did I say Paul personally started the Trinity doctrine? I wrote that it was a later invention stemming from the Pauline sect of Christianity (i.e., gentile sects), though I’ll concede that “invention” was the wrong word — it was more the incorporation of pre-existing trinitarian concepts (promulgated by Plato) floating around in several other religious beliefs during Roman times. Based on Paul’s writings, I doubt he subscribed to a trinitarian belief, and if his first letter to the Corinthians is any indication, he abhorred the ‘foolishness’ of philosophical discussions — were he alive today, Paul would give William L Craig a severe tongue-lashing for engaging in all those religious debates.

    And I stand by my statement that the doctrine of the trinity was codified during the fourth century following the First Council of Nicaea — a meeting convened by Emperor Constantine for the sole purpose of creating a uniform Christian doctrine out of many conflicting beliefs. After a series of rigorous debate, the opinions of Bishop Athanasius prevailed. It became part of the Nicene Creed (325 CE) and was further refined to become part of the Athanasian Creed (500 CE). Afterwards, anyone with competing thoughts on the matter was deemed a heretic and expelled and/or executed. All this information can be gleaned from Wikipedia or directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia (which gives its own unique spin to the story).

  221. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    And I stand by my statement that the doctrine of the trinity was codified during the fourth century following the First Council of Nicaea — a meeting convened by Emperor Constantine for the sole purpose of creating a uniform Christian doctrine out of many conflicting beliefs. After a series of rigorous debate, the opinions of Bishop Athanasius prevailed. It became part of the Nicene Creed (325 CE) and was further refined to become part of the Athanasian Creed (500 CE).

    – Ron

    Many people said that (including scholars). Last time I did also raised that. But our friend of the Christian faith didn’t think it was. Many times I heard/ read, that early Christians DID NOT believe in trinity.

    I don’t know anyway.

  222. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Free will vs. Divine will – I stated that these two ideas were mutually incompatible and provided examples to support my explanation. Once again, you abandoned the argument.

    All-Just vs All-Merciful – Ditto. I showed how these two concepts were incongruent with one another and demonstrated that the atonement doctrine was morally repugnant. Your response amounted to a short sermon that ended with a call to accept Christ.

    – Ron.

    Yes Ron, I know many atheists do think so. Bart Ehrman asked the same idea : “If God exists, why do we suffer anyway?”.

    You must understand, when we say “God is the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate” etc, it doesn’t mean every one of us is always happy, free from miseries, disasters or calamities; or living forever..

    No such things. You must remember, no one knows or understand ALL God’s will, His plans, His works, His destiny on His creatures. God doesn’t think like we do, according to our logic). You wrongly generalize according your own thinking (not according to His ‘thinking’). A mistake !

  223. Ron Says:

    Nasaei, the rules of logic are independent of the actor. To state that God can operate outside the bounds of logic is to argue that logic can be contradictory.

    1. If God is omnipotent, then he could create an actual square circle.
    2. But square circles are self-contradictory and cannot exist.
    3. Therefore God is not omnipotent

  224. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Ha..ha. I understand what you are saying Ron. There in no ’rounded’ triangle, or.. no 2 sided polygon in existence..or so.

    What I meant was, “omnipotent” / “an do anything” is NOT like what you think, but like what He (God’s) thinks/ plan.

    We cannot use metric system to measure sincerity of someone’ heart (for example).

    The mistake with you here (on this particular subject) is you thought that God works like what you think, whereas it is not. And when you demand God to give quickly (or now) a ‘square circle’..and God doesn’t give you ..then you made the conclusion.. :

    ..”God is not omnipotent”..

    How do you know, if God reserve it for you ?

    I just know, God reserve hellfire for bad peoples, bad Muslims, and the unbelievers..

    Then..you may say: ” bring the hellfire NOW!” (…and no hellfire coming NOW to you…is that means there will be no hellfire for you later?).

    In debate.. atheists will always..win. People say.

  225. Ron Says:

    Is God good?

    I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

  226. Ron Says:

    Are God and Satan the same entity?

    “Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. So David said to Joab and the commanders of the troops, “Go and count the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan. Then report back to me so that I may know how many there are.” (1 chronicles 21:1-2)

    Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah. So the king said to Joab and the army commanders with him, “Go throughout the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beersheba and enroll the fighting men, so that I may know how many there are.” (2 Samuel 24:1-2)

  227. Ron Says:

    Do we have free will?

    When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)

    And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Romans 8:28-30)

    What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Romans 9:14-21)

    All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. (Revelation 13:8)

  228. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Are God and Satan the same entity?

    I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

    – Ron.

    Someone need to help Ron understand it (with explanations), before he get more mess up, confused, up side down – ‘capsized’.

  229. Zack T Says:

    Wow… a whole essay by Ron… here and in the other thread… gonna take a while to address them… and most likely, I’ll be cutting off some of the disagreements that is less vital.
    First of all, I need to state this upfront. A number of your points HAVE ALREADY been address, but it seems you continue to push it forward as if it was never address…
    BUT, you think that we would forget the NUMEROUS points that YOU did not address. I will bring up some of the ones I brought up before but you never address later.

    All-Just vs All-Merciful –
    God is All-Just, therefore He must punsih every sin, both big and tiny. Not one drop of sin can enter Heaven, otherwise Heaven will no longer be perfect and pure.

    God is All-Loving, and thus, He loves everyone, even if they are sinners (He hates their sin, not they themselves).

    God is All-Merciful, and therefore He has provided a way for us to be forgiven of our sins through Jesus Christ.

    God is All-Loving. He wishes everyone to be saved, but because He loves you so much, He won’t force you to love Him or accept/believe Jesus, if you don want to.

    God is All-Just, and will still judge sin based on everyone’s deeds in their lifetimes at the end, but those who believe in Christ and are covered and cleansed with Christ’s blood, will be forgiven and called Righteous. Those who aren’t, will be judged based on their deeds alone and thus, will be deemed sinful, cause no man is without sin.

    |

    Homosexuals – I’ve already address this matter, Ron. You just refuse to accept my explanation; that just because Jesus didn’t explicitly say ‘no male on male, or female on female, doesn’t mean He didn’t teach it.
    Mark 10:6-9 – [Jesus said] “at the beginning of creation God made them male and female… and the two will beccome one flesh.”
    God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, and Jesus testifies to that.

    There are a number of things Jesus is not recorded to explicitly ‘address’.. but was later brought up by the disciples in the rest of the NT, here and there.

    Absolute Morality – Why is a judge allowed to kill people through capital punishment?

  230. Zack T Says:

    Jesus resurrection and ascension, eyewitnesses:
    “William Ramsay was one of the greatest archaeologists ever. Josh McDowell records in ‘The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict’ (page 62) how Ramsay studied in the German liberal school of theology. As a result, he came to his archaeological research assuming that Luke-Acts was written in the middle of the second century AD, and was completely unreliable historically. Yet as he went on with his researches, he was forced by the evidence to admit that Luke was historically accurate. Ramsay said:

    I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favour of the conclusion [the historical reliability of Luke] which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it.

    Ramsay’s conclusion was that

    Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy… this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians… Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.”
    From: www facingthechallenge.org/luke.php
    _

    “It would be extremely difficult for the honest skeptic to dispute the overwhelming archeological support for the historical accuracy of both the Old and New Testaments. Numerous items discussed in the Bible such as nations, important people, customary practices, etc. have been verified by archeological evidence. Bible critics have often been embarrassed by discoveries that corroborated Bible accounts they had previously deemed to be myth, such as the existence of the Hittites, King David, and Pontius Pilate, just to name a few. The noted Jewish archeologist Nelson Glueck summed it up very well:

    It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible.”
    From: www bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm

    |

    Free Will vs Divine Will, Ron, “Do we have free will?”

    Very difficult to explain since you’re drawing on several different passages with different contexts.
    I’m not the best person to explain this due to my lack of ability to convey how I understand this co-relation between free will and divine will.

    |

    Trust & obedience – how do you conclude that God is the voice that these people are listening to? You do realize that Christians also believe in the existence of Satan and his demons and fallen angels.. and they do can just as easily speak with these people (and what’s more pretend to be God).

    2 Corinthians 11:13-15 – “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.”

    And obviously there were the numerous accounts of demon possessed people which Jesus Himself personally rebuked.

  231. Zack T Says:

    Objective Morality – “You claimed that it’s impossible to form an objective moral code without belief in a god, the underlying premise being that godless societies would fall into moral decay.”

    No, that’s not my premise. You wish it was, because that’d make me incorrect or easily refuted.
    My premise, to be precise, is the fact that your so-called ‘objective values’ falls into relativism, not objectivity.
    And hence comes one of the things you never addressed when asked before.

    You believe that it is morally right to not do/decide anything that will negatively affect another’s life. So, then what gives you the right to say that another atheist should follow that same value you hold?

    And my so-called ‘bashing of their way of life’ is not so. I bash the idea that YOU want to live YOUR atheist life the same way at them.

    And they do believe in a form of the supernatural… and even gets ‘lectures’ from them…
    “Not that they have escaped religion entirely. Spirits live everywhere and may even caution or lecture them at times. But these spirits are visible to the Pirahãs, if not to Everett and his family, who spent 30 years, on and off, living with the tribe.”
    – www friendlyatheist.com/2009/04/17/missionary-deconverted-by-amazon-tribe/

    You, sir, are the one ignoring what I wrote.

    To be objective is not just to rely on personal opinions, but to rely on a higher authority. When two people dispute over a matter, they appeal to higher authorities to settle that dispute righteously.
    But when it comes to morality, Atheists have no higher authority to appeal to, except themselves. One atheist community’s moral values will be different and even opposed by another atheist community’s moral value.
    This is NOT objective. For moral values to be objective, it is applicable to EVERYONE fairly and rightly and with no personal bias taken into account.

    You rely only on your own personal values and philosophy. That doesn’t qualify as being objective.

    And I’ll repeat my question regarding this..
    What gives you the right to correct another atheist if he doesn’t hold the same moral value as you do (that is the life of another person)?

    |

    Archaeological evidence – and some of us have argued you have ignored all other archaeological finds that do support the biblical claims… and I argue that your evidence against the bible account are inaccurate or biased.
    I can’t argue further with regards to this, due to my lesser knowledge of sources to cite for you.

  232. Zack T Says:

    Trinity – you just refuse over and over to accept the clear verses that speaks of the Trinity… both in OT and NT. That’s not fault on our side.

    Matthew 28:19 – “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”

    Name, singular, of the FATHER, of the SON, and of the SPIRIT…
    not name of the father, name of the son, name of spirit… or nameS of father, son, spirit.

    And thus, the rest of your comment is addressed by this alone; along with Nasaei’s assertion. Obviously, he too have completely ignored the verses quoted in support of the Trinity.

    (Except for this.. you obviously don’t know what Paul is addressing in Corinthians, if you think he “adhorred the ‘foolishness’ of philosophical discussions”..)

    |

    Ron, “Are God and Satan the same entity?”

    “Is Bush and the US army the same person?”

    Bush entered Iraq to fight against al-Qaeda.
    The US Army entered Iraq to fight against al-Qaeda.

    |

    Ron, “Is God good?”

    There’s natural evil (death and killing/eating in nature to sustain life)…
    And there’s moral evil (failing or going against God’s moral standard)…

    That verse refered to the first, since God can’t CREATE the second form of evil.

  233. Zack T Says:

    Oh.. just to add for natural evil: natural disasters too, hurricanes, floods, snowstorm, desert storms, etc.

  234. Scott Thong Says:

    Nasaei, the rules of logic are independent of the actor. To state that God can operate outside the bounds of logic is to argue that logic can be contradictory.

    1. If God is omnipotent, then he could create an actual square circle.
    2. But square circles are self-contradictory and cannot exist.
    3. Therefore God is not omnipotent

    – Ron

    Well Nasaei has given my response, here’s mine:

    God’s omnipotence is often misunderstood. There are actually many things that God cannot do according to the Bible, including lie, break an unconditional promise, do evil, sin, and do something insensible (such as make a rock so heavy He cannot lift it). Having something be both yes and no is acceptable in Eastern philosophy, however.

    Hence God is omnipotent within the boundaries of His other attributes.

    But as for a ‘square circle’… The terms square and circle are merely words used to describe something. If it has four equal angles and sides, by definition it is a square.

  235. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Whatever it is…Up to you Ron. I can’t help !

  236. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Zack..try your very best to convince Ron, Robert etc. I’ll salute you, in case you can convince them..ha ha..

    I’ll salute, not once, but 3 times !

  237. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Not just salute Zack. I could possibly spend you teh tarik in Ipoh, together with Scott and Simon as well !

  238. Zack T Says:

    Hahaha… I wish I am able to convince Ron, or the others.

    May God work to bless them and soften their hearts (and heads) and may the Holy Spirit lead them into truth, which in turn will convict them of their sinful nature and guilt.

  239. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    1. If God is omnipotent, then he could create an actual square circle.
    2. But square circles are self-contradictory and cannot exist.
    3. Therefore God is not omnipotent

    – Ron

    I think, in the first place, Ron must know, it was INVALID application. Quite a silly thing..for anyone.

    Was he talking about a square..or a circle ? If I were talking about Ron, I wasn’t morally (and technically) right if I combine with his friend Robert (to be a creature called “RonRob” or such thing). Nonsensical.

    Can I ask my mum to give an orange-apple fruit ? What is her respond?
    The respond maybe..”I think you have a fever son… you need to see a doctor (or a psychiatrist)..”.

    So, as I notice, Ron made it invalid. Invalid is a strong word that disqualify his point/ argument immediately, and by itself.

    Yea.. I know…he (Ron) may say: “Then how come you (and your scripture) say God can do anything, everything?

    I think, omnipotent and omniscience mean He can do anything He wants, and doesn’t do anything He doesn’t wants. Thus, He works like His way (NOT as we wished, or think, or, like what we would like things to be..)

    So, Ron made second mistake there. He thought God would respond to him !

    Thirdly, how did Ron know, if God will be producing Ron’s challenge in future..or “reserve” it as I said ?

    Ron made another erroneous inference by believing that, if God doesn’t do it now, then sure He (God) cannot, or will not be able to do it any any other time. I wonder how does Ron see this. If God is not answering to you IMMEDIATELY, is it God can’t do it ?

    Ron made it wrong all the way. No wonder he failed.

  240. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    I wonder how does Ron see this. If God is not answering to you IMMEDIATELY, is it God can’t do it ?

    I used to ask people for something. Not all of them give me what I requested or asked IMMEDIATELY. I know, by now giving immediately, it doesn’t mean they can’t do it however.

  241. Scott Thong Says:

    I’ll bet you Ron will say because God cannot do something impossible, therefore God is not omnipotent.

    Well, perhaps one day God will grant Ron’s wish and prove conclusively that He is real. God has proven Himself real enough to me already.

    Until that day…

  242. Ron Says:

    All-Just vs All-Merciful

    These two goals are mutually incompatible — there is simply no way around it. If the punishment for murder is the death penalty, then a just judge who carries out the prescribed sentence can’t be merciful, and a merciful judge who grants a stay of execution can’t be just. And asking an innocent third party to accept the punishment of the accused would be both unjust and immoral.

    Homosexuals

    “I’ve already address this matter, Ron. You just refuse to accept my explanation; that just because Jesus didn’t explicitly say ‘no male on male, or female on female, doesn’t mean He didn’t teach it.
    Mark 10:6-9 – [Jesus said] “at the beginning of creation God made them male and female… and the two will beccome one flesh.” God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, and Jesus testifies to that.”

    Read in context, it’s clear that Jesus was addressing a specific question regarding divorce laws, not hot man-on-man action.

    2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”
    3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.
    4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
    5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.

    And of course the naked man following Jesus in Mark 14, his healing of the centurion’s “servant” plus several gospel references to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” suggests that JC might have swung for the other team.

    “There are a number of things Jesus is not recorded to explicitly ‘address’.. but was later brought up by the disciples in the rest of the NT, here and there.”

    The point is you’ve failed to defend the claim that Jesus has given a NEW INTERPRETATION of the OT regarding homosexuality. Since Jesus never directly addressed the issue, Ted Haggard’s biblical opinions must have been based on OT passages.

    Absolute Morality

    “Why is a judge allowed to kill people through capital punishment?”

    Judges pass sentences — they don’t execute people. And you’re sidestepping the issue: how is God morally justified in violating his own code? He says “thou shalt not kill” and then a few chapters later commands Joshua to commit genocide.

    Jesus resurrection and ascension, eyewitnesses:

    “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy… this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians… Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.”

    Wow, Luke got the place names correct. So using that logic Hogwarts, Lord Voldemort, and wizzards must be real, because most of the places described in the Harry Potter books exist as well. And since the Titanic really did sink after striking an iceberg, all the conversion onboard the ship in James Cameron’s movie must be accurate as well.

    Too bad that the ‘historian of first rank’ didn’t do so well with the actual narrative though. As mentioned previously, Paul stated there were 500 witness, but Acts records only 120 people. In Galatians Paul says that after his conversion he stayed away from Jerusalem and went immediately to Arabia, then Damascus, then three years later to Jerusalem. Yet in Acts we read that Paul went directly to Damascus, stayed several days and then went to Jerusalem. Then there are the conflicts between the gospels themselves. Luke himself wasn’t even an eyewitness to those events, and relies on the testimony of others.

    Not to mention the scriptural conflicts in doctrine:

    For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (Romans 14:9)

    He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive. (Luke 20:38)

    He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them. (Luke 21:8)

    And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.(Romans 13:11-12)

    Apparently Luke didn’t realize that Paul contradicted Jesus and was a false prophet.

    “It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible.”
    From: www bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm

    Your link is long on polemics and short on evidence.

    Trust & obedience

    “how do you conclude that God is the voice that these people are listening to? You do realize that Christians also believe in the existence of Satan and his demons and fallen angels.. and they do can just as easily speak with these people (and what’s more pretend to be God).”

    The women themselves said they heard God talking to them. I’ve already shown the totally inerrant writings (1 Chronicles 21 and 2 Samuel 24), state God and Satan are the same entity. And of course God loves deceiving his own prophets:

    O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me. (Jeremiah 20:7)

    And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. (Ezekiel 14:9)

    So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you. (2 Chronicles 18, 1 Kings 22:20-23)

    And in the NT:

    For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie. (2 Thessalonians 2:11)

    Objective Morality

    “My premise, to be precise, is the fact that your so-called ‘objective values’ falls into relativism, not objectivity.”

    Moral (adj) – involving right and wrong
    Objective (noun)- an aim, goal, or purpose.
    Objective (verb)- undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena
    Objectivity (n) – judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
    Objectivism (n) – the view that there is a reality or ontological realm of objects and facts that exists independent of the mind.
    Reality (noun) – that which exists, independent of human awareness
    Reason (noun) – the basis or motive for an action or decision
    Value (noun) – an assigned measure of importance

    Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.

    “And hence comes one of the things you never addressed when asked before. You believe that it is morally right to not do/decide anything that will negatively affect another’s life. So, then what gives you the right to say that another atheist should follow that same value you hold?”

    An objective moral value isn’t imposed — it is derived through observation and reason, and these things inform us that violence and aggression are detrimental to our life, survival, and ultimate well-being.

    “And my so-called ‘bashing of their way of life’ is not so. I bash the idea that YOU want to live YOUR atheist life the same way at them.”

    Not true. You openly mocked them because they have no number system, lack words for colors, don’t concern themselves about the past or the future, and practice informal marriage arrangements — in other words, for living a life that’s different from your own.

    “And they do believe in a form of the supernatural… and even gets ‘lectures’ from them…”

    Yes, they’re animists — I’ve already agreed to that. And it still doesn’t change the fact that their moral code is not based on a direct revelation from a personal god or supernatural deity.

    “To be objective is not just to rely on personal opinions, but to rely on a higher authority. When two people dispute over a matter, they appeal to higher authorities to settle that dispute righteously.”

    No it doesn’t. See the definition of ‘objective’ above. What you’re describing is called arbitration: the hearing and determination of a dispute by an impartial referee agreed to by both parties

    “But when it comes to morality, Atheists have no higher authority to appeal to, except themselves. One atheist community’s moral values will be different and even opposed by another atheist community’s moral value. This is NOT objective. For moral values to be objective, it is applicable to EVERYONE fairly and rightly and with no personal bias taken into account. You rely only on your own personal values and philosophy. That doesn’t qualify as being objective.”

    Small wonder we’re still hashing this over if you’re laboring under the wrong definition of “objective” despite the fact that I’ve made it crystal clear on several occasions that OUR ACTIONS MUST BE GUIDED BY REASON — the exact opposite of personal bias, emotions, feelings, superstition, mysticism, revelation, whim, or any other non-rational form of knowledge.

    “Archaeological evidence – and some of us have argued you have ignored all other archaeological finds that do support the biblical claims… and I argue that your evidence against the bible account are inaccurate or biased. I can’t argue further with regards to this, due to my lesser knowledge of sources to cite for you.”

    Well, that’s precisely my point; you’ve argued about it but cited no sources to back up your claims.

    “Trinity – you just refuse over and over to accept the clear verses that speaks of the Trinity… both in OT and NT. That’s not fault on our side.”

    There’s nothing to refuse. If someone completely unfamiliar with Christianity found a Bible and started reading the NT on their own, they would conclude that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are three seperate entities. Your verses simply don’t support the notion of a Trinity without an apologetic interpretation — a point highlighted by the fact that early Christian sects argued over this issue for three centuries and had to settle it by a vote. Even now, several sects reject the doctrine.

    “…you obviously don’t know what Paul is addressing in Corinthians, if you think he “adhorred the ‘foolishness’ of philosophical discussions”

    *Sigh*

    After the opening introduction the letter immediately focuses on internal divisions brought on by different teachings:

    I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” (1 Corinthians 1:10-12)

    He goes on:

    Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength. (1 Corinthians 1:20-25)

    And later repeats the same message:

    If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” (1 Corinthians 3:18-20)

    Are God and Satan the same entity?

    “Is Bush and the US army the same person?”

    “Bush entered Iraq to fight against al-Qaeda.”
    “The US Army entered Iraq to fight against al-Qaeda.”

    Unfortunately, the “inerrant word of God” contains two conflicting accounts, and your analogy isn’t going to help you explain it away. In fact, if Satan was acting at God’s bequest, it only makes matters worse.

    Is God good?

    “There’s natural evil (death and killing/eating in nature to sustain life)…
    And there’s moral evil (failing or going against God’s moral standard)…

    “That verse refered to the first, since God can’t CREATE the second form of evil.”

    After Abimelech had governed Israel three years, God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem, who acted treacherously against Abimelech. (Judges 9:22-23)

    Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him. Saul’s attendants said to him, “See, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. Let our lord command his servants here to search for someone who can play the harp. He will play when the evil spirit from God comes upon you, and you will feel better.”
    […]
    Whenever the spirit from God came upon Saul, David would take his harp and play. Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him. (1 Samuel 16:14-23)

    “Oh, just to add for natural evil: natural disasters too, hurricanes, floods, snowstorm, desert storms, etc.”

    Yeah, your God’s a real sweetheart.

  243. Zack T Says:

    “All-Just vs All-Merciful

    These two goals are mutually incompatible — there is simply no way around it.”

    A classic case of prejudice… I’ve given my explanation, Ron just brush it aside and sticks with his own opinion and not allow the bible to explain itself..

    If a just judge rules a man guilty of a crime and his fine is 1 million dollars and yet that same judge chooses to pay the fine himself in a display of mercy and love… is that being mutually incompatible? No!
    And since the fine/penalty has been paid in full, the guilty man is free from having to pay the punishment himself.
    But if the guilty man does not accept the judge’s generosity, then the judge’s mercy won’t be applied on the guilty man, and the penalty is still owed by the guilty man himself.

    Plain and simple, Ron.
    You still owe a debt to the Judge due to every sin you have committed and you will have to pay the penalty, which is eternal damnation… unless you repent and accept God’s gift of salvation.

    |

    “Why is a judge allowed to kill people through capital punishment?

    Judges pass sentences — they don’t execute people.”

    You’ve given yourself the answer, Ron. God is the Judge in the bible. If a normal human judge can pass death sentences, what’s wrong with our Christian God (who in our bible is Judge) do the same?
    You’re the one sidestepping the issue.

    And if you read the previous books before Joshua, you’ll see that God has allowed a long period of time for those people before Joshua came; “And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” [Gen 15:16]

    God graciously allowed them to live for another 400 years or so; to allow them time to repent or turn from their sinful ways. If God is really into the genocide business, why would He just call Abraham to do the Amorites in right there and then? Abraham was a pretty powerful man back in those days.. (e.g. defeating 4 kings, who had earlier defeated 5 other kings, in his bid to rescue Lot)

    |

    “Mark 10:6-9 – [Jesus said] “at the beginning of creation God made them male and female… and the two will beccome one flesh.” God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, and Jesus testifies to that.”

    Read in context, it’s clear that Jesus was addressing a specific question regarding divorce laws, not hot man-on-man action.”

    I know full well the context, Ron… but the statement is still there… “at the beginning of creation God made them male and female…”
    _

    “The point is you’ve failed to defend the claim that Jesus has given a NEW INTERPRETATION of the OT regarding homosexuality.”

    Because there ISN’T a NEW interpretation of the OT regarding homosexuality! God still doesn’t condone homosexuality and He never did!
    It’s the punishment for such sinful acts along with others that Jesus said to change.

  244. Zack T Says:

    “Jesus resurrection and ascension, eyewitnesses”

    Wow.. look at the desperation.. comparing an accepted historian to that of a profiting storyteller/Hollywood.
    _

    “As mentioned previously, Paul stated there were 500 witness, but Acts records only 120 people.”

    Yeah.. because those 120 happened to be believers in that area while Jesus appeared in various locations and to various people.
    You do have something there… not.
    _

    “Then there are the conflicts between the gospels themselves. Luke himself wasn’t even an eyewitness to those events, and relies on the testimony of others.”

    Question 1 – Must we only trust an eyewitness to write reliable history?

    Question 2 – Is a manuscript immediately thrown out as historically unreliable when there’s at least one error/conflict in the text?

    Question 3 – Just because one account chooses to overlook Arabia, while another mentions it, does that mean the the two accounts are in conflict? No, it just means one didn’t record the events of Arabia, while the other did.
    Much like a victim and a passerby won’t give equal accounts to a crime that happened.

    The desperation…..

    |

    Archaeological Finds:
    Zack, “I can’t argue further with regards to this, due to my lesser knowledge of sources to cite for you.”

    Ron, “Well, that’s precisely my point; you’ve argued about it but cited no sources to back up your claims.”

    Index of Questions Regarding Archaeology and the Bible – www christiananswers.net/archaeology/

    Archaeology and the OT – www evidenceandanswers.org/articles/Archaeology%20and%20the%20OT.pdf

    Archaeology and the Old Testament – http: apologeticspress.org/articles/2502

    Ketef Hinnom: An IMportant Arhaeological Find – stand-firm.blogspot.com/2010/04/ketef-hinnom-important-archeological.html

    Tiny tablet provides proof for OT – www telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557124/Tiny-tablet-provides-proof-for-Old-Testament.html

    Dead Sea Scrolls – www theologicalhistory.com/?p=168

    |

    Trinity – “If someone completely unfamiliar with Christianity found a Bible and started reading the NT on their own, they would conclude that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are three seperate entities.”

    Are you sure? I doubt it.
    1 – Bible teaches God is One and Only.. I doubt you will reject that.
    2 – Bible shows three different persons being attributed with divine status.
    3 – Bible tells us that God will lead us in all truths if we earnestly and HONESTLY seek the truth.

    So, we have both the textual testimony and God’s spiritual guidance.

    “a point highlighted by the fact that early Christian sects argued over this issue for three centuries and had to settle it by a vote. Even now, several sects reject the doctrine.”

    Several groups of people rejected and disputed the evolution theory in the early days… thus evolution is not true.
    You wouldn’t accept that kind of argument, would you?

    Just because some groups of people aren’t able to understand a particular doctrine, doesn’t mean the doctrine is untrue.

    I won’t bother further…

    – www answering-islam.org/authors/hartman/trinity_historic.html

  245. Zack T Says:

    Romans 14:9 VS Luke 20:38 – Lord of the Dead or not?

    Easy.. read the context and tell me what Jesus [in Luke] was talking about, and what Paul [in Romans] was talking about.

    I’ll give you my answer:
    Jesus in Luke 20:34-38 – Jesus is not the God of the dead, but of the living because believers/followers will be resurrected from the dead at the end and thus are living.

    Paul in Romans 14:9-12 – Everyone dies, but Jesus is still sovereign God and Judge who will hold EVERYONE accountable… both dead, or living… i.e. both unbelievers and believers. (That includes you, Ron, whether you like it or hate it.)

    |

    Ron, “The women themselves said they heard God talking to them.”

    Zack, “You do realize that Christians also believe in the existence of Satan and his demons and fallen angels.. and they do can just as easily speak with these people (and what’s more pretend to be God).”
    _

    “I’ve already shown the totally inerrant writings (1 Chronicles 21 and 2 Samuel 24), state God and Satan are the same entity.”

    Bush entered Iraq to fight the Taliban.
    The US Army entered Iraq to fight the Taliban.

    Thus, Bush and the US Army are the same person/being.

    “Unfortunately, the “inerrant word of God” contains two conflicting accounts, and your analogy isn’t going to help you explain it away. In fact, if Satan was acting at God’s bequest, it only makes matters worse.”

    Does inerrant word of God mean the bible written by men and copied/translated by men down the generations will remain completely without writing errors?
    No, that’s what the Quran claims for its Arabic Quran/s.

    Inerrant word of God means that God will protect His message (not the physical book/writing) throughout the ages and as the OT and NT manuscripts have shown, the important messages of God’s plan of redemption is still the same as written thousands of years before; e.g. Dead Sea Scrolls.

    A lot of ancient history has been accepted as true, using exceedingly far less manuscripts than the bible (e.g. over 24,000 NT manuscripts).
    _

    Jeremiah 20:7 – God deceived Jeremiah?

    Interesting that Ron quoted a prophet who was complaining about his predicament because his own expectations weren’t being satisfied.
    Let’s not forget, it was the HUMAN prophet complaining, not God saying or making claims that He deceives people.
    Being only HUMAN, prophets make mistakes too.. Even godly men in the bible made mistakes…

    So, does a prophet’s complaining in frustration or anger does mean what he said was of God’s?
    No… and thus why in that passage Jeremiah never attributed what he said in that passage as from God.

    More info – http: doctor.claudemariottini.com/2006/08/jeremiah-207-call-to-prophetic.html
    _

    Ezekiel 14:9 – God deceived a prophet!?
    2 Chronicles 18, 1 Kings 22:20-23 – God used a lying spirit?
    2 Thessalonians 2:11 – God sends a strong delusion??
    Judges 9:22-23 – God sent an evil spirit?
    1 Samuel 16:14-23 – Spirit from God came upon Saul and Saul did murderous things?

    Question regarding Ezekiel – What prophet? A prophet of God? Or a false prophet?

    The context of either of these verses are talking about people who have rejected God and adopted idols. It is not uncharacteristic of God to allow unrepentant sinful men to continue on with their sin or to be deceived by lying spirits.

    But allowing people to be deceived or using a lying/evil spirit is not the same as God Himself being deceitful.

    Query from Ezekiel – http: inerrancy.org/ezek.htm#ezek%2014

    Why did God use lying spirits? – www tektonics.org/lp/lyingghosts.html

  246. Zack T Says:

    “…you obviously don’t know what Paul is addressing in Corinthians, if you think he “adhorred the ‘foolishness’ of philosophical discussions”

    Unless I’m missing the point here.. I stand uncorrected.

    Paul isn’t abhorring the ‘foolishness’ of philosophical discussions (as in he discourages any form of philosophical discussion), but he was abhorring foolish philosophical discussions.

    And Paul’s writing about God’s wisdom and the foolishness of the world’s wisdom is exactly that.. a comparison between the wisdom of God as opposed to the wisdom of the world.
    So which is yours, Ron?

    |

    Zack, “Oh, just to add for natural evil: natural disasters too, hurricanes, floods, snowstorm, desert storms, etc.”
    Ron, “Yeah, your God’s a real sweetheart.”

    Natural evil, sin entered the world through one man’s disobedience.
    Wouldn’t have been so if it wasn’t for Adam.
    God made it all possible, doesn’t mean He made it to be so; just like Bill Gates produced Windows for the good and technological progress of everyone, and not for hackers to steal money from people or producce viruses to destroy others.
    _

    Obective Morality:

    Very interesting, how you gather the various meanings of objectivity… and then end it with the definition of Moral Objectivism… which supported my stance, not yours.

    Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.

    Thus, men themselves can’t determine objective moral values, both individuals and the society. If moral objectivity is not determined by a person or the people? Then who or what?

    Thank you for refuting yourself and supporting mine.

    |

    “An objective moral value isn’t imposed — it is derived through observation and reason, and these things inform us that violence and aggression are detrimental to our life, survival, and ultimate well-being.”

    Yet again, you’re proving how your ‘objective moral values’ are more subjective and relative, than objective, and fails to fit the definition of Moral Objectivism as you quoted earlier.

    |

    Zack, “And my so-called ‘bashing of their way of life’ is not so. I bash the idea that YOU want to live YOUR atheist life the same way at them.”

    Ron, “Not true. …. in other words, for living a life that’s different from your own.”

    Hahaha… I’m not mocking their lifestyles, I’m mocking the idea that Atheists want to use them as support for their case against God.
    Mathematics, being as unrejectable as the theory of gravity or physics, is absent in this culture, and is contrary to modern Atheists, and yet the same atheists want to us them as a positive case against God?
    Same with their perspective of the ‘supernatural’, which is also contrary to modern Atheists’ beliefs and yet… hahaha.

    And thus I asked the question, would YOU live your life like them, since you claim they have an ‘acceptable moral system’ WITHOUT God in the picture?
    And you never did answer that question, did you?
    _

    “And it still doesn’t change the fact that their moral code is not based on a direct revelation from a personal god or supernatural deity.”

    I certainly did not claim nontheists can’t live or recognize moral values..
    However, theirs are more subjective/relative than objective.
    You’re gonna have to accept that you nontheists have no objective moral standards. Deal with it.
    _

    Objectivity through higher authority?

    “No it doesn’t. See the definition of ‘objective’ above. What you’re describing is called arbitration: the hearing and determination of a dispute by an impartial referee agreed to by both parties”

    Yeah, so it is. So how do you be objective to determine objective moral values? Let’s look at the definition of moral objectivism once again.

    Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.

    It cannot be dependant on the society or individual. So who else is left?
    _

    “OUR ACTIONS MUST BE GUIDED BY REASON — the exact opposite of personal bias, emotions, feelings, superstition, mysticism, revelation, whim, or any other non-rational form of knowledge.”

    Riiight~… REASON.. Of course..
    Ok.. how about you explain with your REASON how raping a child is wrong?

  247. Immigration Advicers in London Says:

    What you posted was very logical. However, what about this?
    what if you were to write a awesome title? I am not suggesting your information
    is not good, however suppose you added a headline to possibly grab a
    person’s attention? I mean Palestinian Baby With Genetic Defect Saved Solely by Israeli Kindness; Mother Wants Him to Grow Up and Suicide Bomb Israelis in Return LEADING MALAYSIAN NEOCON is kinda boring. You might glance at Yahoo’s front page
    and watch how they create article titles to grab
    people to click. You might add a related video or a related pic
    or two to grab readers interested about everything’ve got to say. In my opinion, it could bring your posts a little livelier.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: