And now for something completely different....Instead of dealing with the different methods and approaches of layman Roman Catholic apologists, here's how a Roman Catholic priest understands the endeavour of debate, defending the faith, and world religions (ht: Sceleratissimus Lutheranus).
"Catholic priest explains why religious debate is useless or dangerous while religious discussion is helpful and educational":
OUCH! I just fell asleep and hit my face on the key board.
ReplyDeleteWho is this guy?
ReplyDeleteI like him. We need more of this guy.
ReplyDeleteWith the name of God, peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
ReplyDeleteActually what this man says is a reflection upon us all. (Muslim, Christian, Sunni, Shia, reformed, Catholic, Arminian, Calvinist....you name it)...
People actually used to gather for councils and deliberate matters for weeks or months is this not true?
Now we want to show our bravado and speaking skills or we have 'something up our sleeve' I bet he wont' see this coming and so here we are.
2 and 2 1/2 hour debates. Opening statements, rebuttal, cross examine, Q & A session, photo ops, book signing and that's a wrap.
I think it's pathetic. I think it's a reflection on how dumbed down we as a people have become.
The same thing with politics be it CNN or hardball, Fox News your going to discuss the current economy in 10 minute snippets?
Here we bring you the expert who is speaking with us live sattelite from Conneticut and he is ready to give you dumbed down @$$ clowns (self included) a 4 minute summary of something that is effecting the very way you live forever.
People wake up! We need to expect more from ourselves, our faith traditions, or politicians.
I like blogs because it requires READING...God help us all when text becomes banned in blog spheres!
tgv19,
ReplyDeleteGod help us? I don't mean to be rude, but the followers of the Islamic God are top-notch at censoring texts. Are you sure you mean that?
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
ReplyDeleteWell Rhology I wouldn't doubt that SOME Muslims censor text as I have seen Imam Nawawi's works as well as Ibn Tamiyyah and other's edited by the Psuedo-Salafi movement and their publishers in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
They have tried to tamper with orthrodox Islamic creed. They and their ilk have been dealt with before and Al hamdulillah they are being exposed even now.
Now I do not mean to be rude Rhology but I do not have confidence in your ability to proof read much of anything.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/04/ahmad-deedat-style-of-debate-tactics.html < Please see comments section.
Maybe you missed the fact that I did respond to what you said. You gave a link to an article that is suppose to show that the Qur'an has 'textual variants.
One wonders if you read the article yourself or just surfed the net to find anything that seemed to contribute to the discussion.
So if the followers of the 'Islamic God' are top notch at censoring text' the followers of the 'Christian God' are top notch at not being able to read text.
So now we are both in a pickle! Yes indeed may God help us all.
tgv19,
ReplyDeleteI didn't subscribe to that other thread. It is simply patently obvious that the Qur'anic history has textual variants...there seemed to be no need to stick around. So I didn't see that comment until just now. And your comment there is merely a weak attempt to explain away the variants, along the lines of "Well, they're there but they're not a big deal."
Hmm, who does that sound like? Oh yes! Biblical Christians! So why would anyone be impressed by the claims of superiority that Muslim apologists make for the Qur'anic history?
I wouldn't doubt that SOME Muslims censor text
And so that would mean that you concede my point, now wouldn't it?
I didn't say ALL Muslims censor ALL texts, if you recall. So I'd suggest that maybe proofreading problems might exist on both sides here.
What I was referring to was why many, many Islamic countries will not allow Bibles to be imported into their country. I know for a fact that Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia will not allow Bibles to be brought in en masse or handed out on the street, but you can hand out Qur'ans all day. Why is that?
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord,
ReplyDeleteRhology you said,
"It is simply patently obvious that the Qur'anic history has textual variants...there seemed to be no need to stick around."
Was it patently obvious when you were a five year old child? How about when you were 23 years old? When did it become patently obvious to you and how?
Patently obvious to the world?
"And your comment there is merely a weak attempt to explain away the variants, along the lines of "Well, they're there but they're not a big deal."
Really than why not interact with my weak attempt than to respond with emotional drivel 'well they are there but they are not a big deal'.
Using the article you linked to or any other, I'll give you some tips (answeringislam, answeringmuslims, ministry to muslims) do you know of any textual variants in the Qur'an that you can personaly share with me since the issue is 'patently obvious'?
"Hmm, who does that sound like? Oh yes! Biblical Christians!"
Far from it Rhology. You see we don't believe for the better part of our history that God has revealed as canon Mark 16:9-20, John 8:1-11 and than wake up one day and say naaah that's not revealed canon.
I thought it would be perfectly fine as a human being to come in here and bemoan the current state of human interaction when it comes to matters of higher spiritual truths.
But oh no not on your watch. We won't let a Muslim come and be civil without trying to instigate something.
I think we all have some growing up to do.
Rhology I wouldn't doubt your knowledge on Christianity and the reformation in particular. I am sure many people benefit from it.
I mean you come in and make a comment which to me was phising at it's worst.
I mean how did you want me to respond or interact with your comment?
Hello tgv19,
ReplyDeleteWas it patently obvious when you were a five year old child?
1) No. I didn't even know what the Qur'an was when I was 5.
2) What does this have to do with anything?
than to respond with emotional drivel 'well they are there but they are not a big deal'.
You misunderstand. That is the basic meaning of YOUR response.
You see we don't believe for the better part of our history that God has revealed as canon Mark 16:9-20, John 8:1-11 and than wake up one day and say naaah that's not revealed canon.
What does that have to do with anything? The question is whether textual variants exist in the Qur'an. Apparently they do. Next?
Now, just b/c some Christians, or even most, or even all, have believed sthg wrong for a long time says nothing about the truth of that belief.
We won't let a Muslim come and be civil without trying to instigate something.
?? I'm just asking questions. I'm sorry you find them challenging, but your blog is none too "civil" either.
Besides, you were the one who began the contention. I don't see what good complaining about a frank discussion of disagreements does anyone.
I mean you come in and make a comment which to me was phising at it's worst.
Really? I'm phishing on a blog to which I contribute. OK, gotcha.
I mean how did you want me to respond or interact with your comment?
My preference is that you admit the obvious:
1) That there are textual variants in the Qur'anic history
2) that Muslims are at the head of the pack in censoring books.
I'm quite easy to please, actually.
Peace,
Rhology
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord,
ReplyDeleteRhology thank you for your responses.
Was it patently obvious when you were a five year old child?
1) No. I didn't even know what the Qur'an was when I was 5.
2) What does this have to do with anything?
It has allot to do. You said that the Qur'an has textual variants and it is patently obvious. This to me seems like a very generalized statements with no specifics attached.
For example you concede the point it wouldn't be patently obvious to you at the age of five. Nor is it to people who go about their day every day and care to investigate matters of eternal salvation and theology.
It also is important because you have yet to tell me the date, time, or roughly your age you came to that conclusion and on what basis you came to that conclusion.
You see we don't believe for the better part of our history that God has revealed as canon Mark 16:9-20, John 8:1-11 and than wake up one day and say naaah that's not revealed canon.
What does that have to do with anything? The question is whether textual variants exist in the Qur'an. Apparently they do. Next?
Now, just b/c some Christians, or even most, or even all, have believed sthg wrong for a long time says nothing about the truth of that belief.
It has allot to do with the issue we are discussing. I didn't see you refute that point. Though I will concede the point of your last sentence "says nothing about the truth of that belief" I think that's fair.
However, I am now counting the third time that you believe it is patently obvious that the Qur'an has textual variants in them.
I have yet to see you give ONE example. I am not asking for hundreds of even 10; one would do just nicely. You see I am not too hard to please either Rhology.
<smiling.
I thought I gave you the name of three web sites that could give you a heads in that regards too.
My preference is that you admit the obvious:
1) That there are textual variants in the Qur'anic history
2) that Muslims are at the head of the pack in censoring books.
I'm quite easy to please, actually.
So Rhology becasue things are PATENTLY OBVIOUS and I am sure you know the meaning of both these words in the English language that you would be so kind to give us just ONE example?
Your other request doesn't make you an easy person to please. It would entail doing more research and doing statistics on all the major world faith traditions, the history of those traditions and than gatering the data to see who has censored what books the most.
I am pretty sure that Christians do not fare well in this. It would make for an interesting term paper no doubt.
tgv19,
ReplyDeleteYou said that the Qur'an has textual variants and it is patently obvious. This to me seems like a very generalized statements with no specifics attached.
True, but all it takes is a little research (for a truth-seeker):
Here's a good place to start.
Ironically, this pro-Islam page also demonstrates the same unintentionally; yes, Muslims do engage in textual criticism, it says, b/c they have to, but they do it more conscientiously than Xtians. The latter judgment is, I think, false, but the very fact that he has to spend 8000 words on it says something. He also says: "In conclusion it can be said that the Muslims had the 'critical text' right from the time of the Prophet". Sorry, you don't need a critical text unless there are variants to be excluded.
Look, all silliness about what a 5 yr old child knows aside, I don't see how the bare fact of the presence of textual variants disproves Islam or even weakens its position very much. What this fact does do is destroy an argument Muslims like to use against Christianity. You should let it go and concentrate on some real arguments.
It also is important because you have yet to tell me the date, time, or roughly your age you came to that conclusion and on what basis you came to that conclusion.
I don't know. Nor does it matter in the slightest.
It would entail doing more research and doing statistics on all the major world faith traditions, the history of those traditions and than gatering the data to see who has censored what books the most.
It's actually pretty easy. How many Muslim countries are there? And how many of them do not allow the proliferation of Bibles publicly, or speech/writings critical of Mohammed?
Now count how many countries explicitly follow some other religion. Now compare the numbers.
I am pretty sure that Christians do not fare well in this.
Oh, you know of a country that is officially Christian, AND that censors texts? Do tell! Just one example will be fine.
Peace,
Rhology
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
ReplyDeleteAbout time Rhology. You would think you would have gotten a clue by now considering a few post up I said,
"Using the article you linked to or any other, I'll give you some tips (ANSWERINGISLAM, answeringmuslims, ministry to muslims) do you know of any textual variants in the Qur'an that you can personaly share with me since the issue is 'patently obvious'?
By the way my apologies in advance if you think I'm trying to be a swellhead because I'm not.
So I'll take it you want to pass since you did leave the caveat
"I don't see how the bare fact of the presence of textual variants disproves Islam or even weakens its position very much."
Than you asked,
How many Muslim countries are there?
Last I checked 42.
And how many of them do not allow the proliferation of Bibles publicly?
Last I checked U.S ally and strategic partner Saudi Arabia.
"or speech/writings critical of Mohammed?"
Seeing that the Qur'an itself has critique of Muhammed (saw) I could say none. So you would actually have to be more clear.
Muslims do not believe that free speech entails putting pictures of Jesus in bottles of urine, or painting pictures of the Virgin Mary with feces on her as was done at the New York museum of disgust (oops I mean art).
Look I will completely agree with you Rhology that secularism has kept the more tyranical forms of Christianity at bay.
God only knows if Christian reconstructionism was in place in England, Canada or the United States what we would be allowed to read and what we wouldn't.
Never thought I would hear the day where Christians glee in the triumph of liberalism.
You ask me to name just one country where Chrisitanity is the official Christian that does censorship.
If you asked me to quote from the 28th book of the New Testament wouldn't you need to prove that there is a 28th book of the New Testament first?
I mean I am shocked to find Christians basically saying, "The less influence Christianity has in our society politically and culturally the more freedom we have to say and do what we please".
This hardly seems like a good sales point for Christianity.
v19,
ReplyDeleteYou would think you would have gotten a clue by now
my apologies in advance if you think I'm trying to be a swellhead because I'm not.
Oh yes, I am definitely sensing sincere apologies from you. No question in my mind.
So I'll take it you want to pass since you did leave the caveat
"I don't see how the bare fact of the presence of textual variants disproves Islam or even weakens its position very much."
No, that would be an incorrect assumption. Especially since I looked it up and provided some for you. I explained why the presence of textual variants in the Qur'anic history matters. I guess you just prefer to ignore my reasons.
Last I checked U.S ally and strategic partner Saudi Arabia.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
1) You must think I agree with the US' partnership with S.A. I don't.
2) S.A.'s strategic partnership with the US has nothing to do with whether S.A. is a Muslim country and whether it prohibits the proliferation of Bibles inside its borders.
3) I know firsthand, without question, that Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia do the same thing. They are Muslim countries. I bet we can find some more!
So that's 4 for sure. So what's your answer?
Seeing that the Qur'an itself has critique of Muhammed (saw) I could say none
Now you're just being coy and obfuscatory. Muslims riot and threaten violence in response to "insults to the Prophet Mohammed". If you don't know what this means, you are sadly ignorant, and that is irresponsible if you wish to be a Muslim apologist.
the more tyranical forms of Christianity at bay.
Got any examples? Don't say medieval Rome, either; if you don't know that a contributor to the Beggars All Reformation blog thinks that medieval Romanism is a heresy and false religion, you are, again, totally ignorant.
God only knows if Christian reconstructionism was in place in England
True, b/c that's never been in place. Shall we talk about reality, or make-believe?
If you asked me to quote from the 28th book of the New Testament wouldn't you need to prove that there is a 28th book of the New Testament first?
Um, that's kinda why I asked you that question. So you concede that there is no comparison, and thus that Muslims lead the pack in censorship. Thank you.
"The less influence Christianity has in our society politically and culturally the more freedom we have to say and do what we please".
I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you need to read up on what I believe.
Peace,
Rhology
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
ReplyDeleteRhology I trust you are well and in good health.
You ask me to name just one country where Chrisitanity is the official Christian that does censorship.
Well can you name for which countries have Christianity as their official religion?
I mean you are not asking me to draw a four sided circle correct?
the more tyranical forms of Christianity at bay.
Got any examples?
Well you tell me Rhology. Even among the good Protestant countries why was there a need to seperate church and state?
Perhaps you could enlighten us all.
"The less influence Christianity has in our society politically and culturally the more freedom we have to say and do what we please".
You didn't attempt to interact with that AT ALL! You simply said,
"I have no idea what you're talking about."
Maybe we are talking about the facts your not comfortable discussing.
Instead you like to compare Muslim countries with LIBERAL secular demoracies. Oh wait your not claiming that the United States, and France and just about every other Western nation is infected with liberalism? Oh I see!
So your saying your more free because of the triumph of liberalism in your societies?
This is a point of boast?
Well can you name for which countries have Christianity as their official religion?
ReplyDeleteHooray! You didn't miss the point!
Nope, I can't name one. But I can name many where Islam is. And out of those, many disallow the proliferation of Bibles.
So, it sounds like my contention is proven.
Even among the good Protestant countries why was there a need to seperate church and state?
A need? Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually.
Could take a long time to go into, but I know at the base it's b/c men are sinful.
"The less influence Christianity has in our society politically and culturally the more freedom we have to say and do what we please".
That's rich coming from a Muslim, living in a country founded on Judeo-Christian (not Islamic) ethics.
If you really think that sharia law is MORE freeing than Western law, I can't help you. That's just foolish.
So your saying your more free because of the triumph of liberalism in your societies?
Of course, I didn't say that. Do you earn merit with Allah by misrepresenting your opponents?
Actually, we're LESS free as liberalism gains in strength. See all the encroachments on gun rights, property rights, and speech rights as leftist politics get stronger.
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
ReplyDeleteRhology do you gain merit with the Tri-theistic deity you worship by asking people to draw four sided circles?
Do you gain merit by misrepresenting people who are not your OPPONENTS but people who are trying to have meaningful discussion? Does everything have to be a debate?
I put to you in querry form. Did you notice the ( ? ) at the end?
I did not say hey everyone Rhology
said, We are more free because of the triumph of liberalism in our society"
Had I done that I would have indeed been misrepresenting you.
I said,
"Well can you name for us which countries have Christianity as their official religion?"
I meant to put the word 'us' in there my apologies.
You said,
"Hooray! You didn't miss the point!"
I am sitting here simply amazed that you see this as a point in your favor.
Than you turn around and say that this is a country founded on 'Judeo Christian principles'.
Would you care to share which part of those principles are Judeo and which part are Christian?
Where there is overlap and where the principles are mutally exclusive?
I got the point. The point is due to the triumph of secularism the Church was restrained in political power.
Deist and Liberal influence eventually led to the final step toward creating a secular Europe was WWII and the rise of the socialistic left in the east and the west.
You boast in this? Again I am not stating that you are I am simlpy asking.
Now so I ask you the freedoms you enjoy in the United States. Are they becuase of secularism or inspite of them?
If the United States was a theocracy, or we were based soley on the principles of the Puritans what would be the place of books like say Harry Potter?
Now of course your free to respond that these are imagined scenarios or not reality. That's quite fine. But do note that you are running from the issue.
I haven't denied any thing that you said about those Muslim majority countries that do not allow Bible distribution.
That is why in all honesty it is very hard for a person like myself to see how you are not directly if not indirectly gloating over deist, and liberal goals of turning Europe into secular states.
tgv19,
ReplyDeletedo you gain merit with the Tri-theistic deity you worship by asking people to draw four sided circles?
I don't see how I've done that, for one thing. And no, I gain no merit from God by anything I do. My merit comes solely by the shed blood of Christ on the cross.
Does everything have to be a debate?
No, not everything. But I do usually take exception when people won't admit the obvious when it is a discredit to their position, that is, you can't bring yourself to admit that Islamists are top-notch at censorship.
Than you turn around and say that this is a country founded on 'Judeo Christian principles'.
B/c it is! But that's far from being --TODAY-- a Christian country.
Would you care to share which part of those principles are Judeo and which part are Christian?
That distinction is irrelevant for this discussion.
You boast in this?
Um, no. Where did I say anythg like I was boasting in that?
Now so I ask you the freedoms you enjoy in the United States. Are they becuase of secularism or inspite of them?
Actually, we're LESS free as liberalism gains in strength. See all the encroachments on gun rights, property rights, and speech rights as leftist politics get stronger.
If the United States was a theocracy, or we were based soley on the principles of the Puritans what would be the place of books like say Harry Potter?
Well, the US is NOT a theocracy, so it's hard to speculate.
OTOH, many Muslim countries ARE theocracies. And look at the books they censor!
I don't see why I shouldn't take this as a tacit concession of the point, especially since you can barely bring yourself to address the topic directly.
I haven't denied any thing that you said about those Muslim majority countries that do not allow Bible distribution.
Above, you've said:
--I am pretty sure that Christians do not fare well in this.
--And how many of them do not allow the proliferation of Bibles publicly? Last I checked U.S ally and strategic partner Saudi Arabia. (Thus attempting to shift the blame and the topic.)
That is why in all honesty it is very hard for a person like myself to see how you are not directly if not indirectly gloating over deist, and liberal goals of turning Europe into secular states.
So you want to argue over speculation over to what extent a biblically Christian theocracy would censor texts? This from the guy who'd said, "God help us all when text becomes banned in blog spheres!"? I just thought the statement was as ironic as any I've seen all month. Now that you've conceded that Islamists are indeed top-notch at censoring texts, you want to say "oh yeah? Well, what about you?", but of course there are no counterexamples... so I don't know what to tell you. If I were in your place, I'd just admit it, say "you're right, I was wrong to say that", remind everyone that it has nothing to do with the truth of my worldview, and move on. Much like you won't find me wholly defending the burning of Servetus, or the American massacre of Native American Indians.
Peace,
Rhology