The following discussion was from earlier this afternoon, and I believe clearly shows the common bankruptcy found in Islamic apologists – they can’t defend their own text, and they won’t answer questions. I invite you to examine the conversation and see for yourself.

[RazorsKiss] Surah 53:36 Nay, is he not acquainted with what is in the Books of Moses- (YUS)
[RazorsKiss] Surah 53:37 And of Abraham who fulfilled his engagements?- (YUS)
[RazorsKiss] Surah 53:38 Namely, that no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another; (YUS)
[RazorsKiss] .kjv gal 6:2
[Bible] Galatians 6:2 Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. (King James Version)
[RazorsKiss] So, beyinsiz – why is your Qu’ran contradicting Scripture?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss it doesn’t. It corrects the contradictions. That’s it.
[RazorsKiss] Surah 3:84 Say: “We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between on e and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam).”
[RazorsKiss] The Books?
[RazorsKiss] Seems to me that’s one of the Books spoken on in the Qu’Ran.
[RazorsKiss] *of in
[RazorsKiss] Why does your Qu’Ran contradict it?
[RazorsKiss] .kjv exo 6:6
[Bible] Exodus 6:6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgements: (King James Version)
[beyinsiz] aligning*
[RazorsKiss] Seems as if God himself does the same.
[Delano] Muslims and Christians who dispute one another’s holy books only “prove” that the other doesn’t apply the same critical thinking to their own scriptures as they do to their opponent’s
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss A contradiction only happens with something that has COHERENCE. It’s true that the content of the bible is of full errors, historical information.
[RazorsKiss] Delano: One says the other book is inspired, yet contradicts it.
[RazorsKiss] That’s telling, is it not?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss how many tellings in the bible are existing ?
[Delano] Oh, very much :o)
[RazorsKiss] Paul tells the Galatians to do something the Qu’Ran forbids.
[beyinsiz] if there are 60 bibles available, it’s likely that quran would treat them each as differently ?
[RazorsKiss] Look at the greek, and then look at your arabic.
[RazorsKiss] compare the two, see if they mean the same thing.
[Delano] Er,
[Delano] He couldn’t be able to anyway
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss why would something that Paul told would be a divine commandment. Paul cannot make any divine decision, He is not a prophet.
[RazorsKiss] Galatians 6:2 allhlwn ta barh bastazete kai outws anaplhrwsete ton nomon tou xristou (GRK)
[beyinsiz] He wasn’t even an apostle of Jesus
[Delano] The Qur’an is written in a classical form of Arabic that modern Arabs do not understand
[Delano] Just like modern English speakers do not understand Anglo-Saxon
[RazorsKiss] I know several Christians who read arabic just fine.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss Galatians is an epistle that he wrote up. It’s not the word of God, nor that of Jesus. Come up with something else
[RazorsKiss] As well as Koine.
[Delano] Modern, yes
[Delano] Classical Arabic is different :o)
[RazorsKiss] No, Quranic.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss yes I can read classical arabic, koine greek, latin , hebrew with diacriticals.
[Delano] Same with Greek… modern is different to Koine and Attic
[RazorsKiss] Expressly for the purpose of studying Quranic textual transmission.
[Delano] Although Attic was not used in the NT
[RazorsKiss] Quranic Arabic, and Koine.
[Delano] beyinsiz, impressive
[beyinsiz] what textual transmission ? there has only been 1 manuscript and the bible had like 300 according to the decree at the Nicea Council.
[Delano] beyinsiz, which Latin? Classic or Old Church?
[RazorsKiss] Not according to the Uthmanic revision, no there hasn’t.
[beyinsiz] Delano Clasical, the church doesn’t alter remarkably except the the pronounciation. the grammar is the same.
[Delano] beyinsiz, and more vocabularly
[Delano] Biblical-based vocabulary
[RazorsKiss] Ibn Masud’s version is the foundation for the modern-day Sunni-Shi’ite division.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss yes Uthman was a companion of Prophet unlike Paul wasn’t of Jesus
[RazorsKiss] Same generation, and was indeed an apostle – though one born late.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss that’s inaccurate and non sense to the extent of textual transmission claim. If you claim there is any other version of the quran, can you please show it ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss it still doesn’t make him an apostle
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TEUMkkSHek
[beyinsiz] the bible says they were 12 you say something else
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss I dont want a youtube video. show me a manuscript
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz – yes it does – and was recognized as one by the other apostles – the apostle to the gentiles, as we both are.
[beyinsiz] you make it up you find one !
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss by no means it doesn’t. There is no one verse that Paul is regarded as an apostle.
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz – the video is one by Dr. James White.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss Why would I belive in him ? It’s you who claim that there is another shii quran and I am asking you to show it up !
[RazorsKiss] Concerning the Uthmanic revision, and Ibn Masud’s manuscript he refused to give up.
[RazorsKiss] and, by certain traditions, was beaten for until he died.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss It doesn’t make any sense when you just speculate about the duplication of a text once you dont provide any clear evidence and yet I can show you a dozen for the bible ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss where are the manuscripts you claim for transmissions ? where are they ?
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz – http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1713
[beyinsiz] I see no manuscript differentiation on this page.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss either you show me a manuscript that DIFFERS from the one we have today
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz – no manuscript variations exist in scripture that affect any major dotrine.
[Bonz] http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4048586,00.html QURAN NOT GIVEN TO MUHAMMED
[Bonz] But Dr Gerd R Puin, a renowned Islamicist at Saarland University, Germany, says it is not one single work that has survived unchanged through the centuries. It may include stories that were written before the prophet Mohammed began his ministry and which have subsequently been rewritten.
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: sort of hard, since uthman burned them all, isn’t it?
[RazorsKiss] almost like islam had something to hide.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you even know that not on the basis of quran but some narrations ? Do you believe in the muslim narrations ? are you muslim yourself ?
[Bonz] beyinsiz Quran was changed several times
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss answer my question Do you believe in islamic narrations ?
[RazorsKiss] Not to mention the fact that the textual history of Islam is one of protection and central authoritative copying, past that date
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss answer my question Do you believe in islamic narrations ?
[RazorsKiss] and before that, all variatiosn were burned, so as to erase any variants.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss You quoted an historical even on the basis of islamic narrations namely hadith. Do you believe in them to be true ?
[beyinsiz] event *
[beyinsiz] He cant answer the question
[RazorsKiss] Of course not, they contradict Scripture.
[RazorsKiss] I was finishing my own point, thanks 😀
[RazorsKiss] Care to respond to my last ones?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss then how come you claimed that Uthman burned them from your point of view ???????????????????
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss You first must justify the ground of your knowledge if you don’t believe what you claim, why should I take care to answer ?
[RazorsKiss] Why do you claim that Paul wasn’t an apostle, when your Quran commands you to consider Scripture as from Allah?
[RazorsKiss] Scripture says otherwise.
[beyinsiz] Inge then what part does he like to include and what others he likes to exclude ? what is the standart for that ? 🙂
[Bonz] beyinsiz He can use any standard he wants to.
[Inge] beyinsiz: *shrug* 🙂
[RazorsKiss] I don’t believe that they are spiritual truth – but I can see historical accounts.
[Bonz] beyinsiz And you have to defend against ANY standard
[Colin^] Bonz this is way over your head. I suggest you sit it out. :o)
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss There is no such verse that would make someone assume that Paul was an apostle. It’s the epistles he wrote which are not divinely revealed. There are many christian epistles in that time
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss You couldn’t answer a simple question I asked. Yet you BASED YOUR CLAIM on that historical event. Your mask FELL DOWN
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were in mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] next question
[RazorsKiss] *being mentioned
[Bonz] beyinsiz You lose.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss You based your opinion on the fact that you assumed the narration to be true and now you can’t answer. Did you lie there ?
[Bonz] beyinsiz The Quran is not inspired. Muhammed wasn’t a prophet of Jesu
[RazorsKiss] I don’t consider the Hadith to be a true reflection of spiritual things, no.
[beyinsiz] Did you lie when you were purposefully claimed that Uthman burned them and yet you didn’t take it a granted fact ?
[Bonz] beyinsiz He didn’t asume it to be true
[beyinsiz] This is what your faith could be like !
[RazorsKiss] I do consider them useful for an examination of the historical situation.
[beyinsiz] Bonz then why did he say he did burn it ?
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were in mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] he didn’t say he MAY HAVE burnt
[Inge] Bonz: are you arguing *for* a Christian?
* Inge takes Bonz’ temperature and calls 911
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss why would I answer your question and waste my time to discuss with you brother? You lied, why would I consider it worthwhile ?
[RazorsKiss] Uthman burnt every variant of the Quran, save Ibn Masud’s
[Delano] Inge, sometimes a man must choose the lesser of the two evils.
[beyinsiz] You have to explain to me something first. I will not just skip it.
[RazorsKiss] and Ibn Masud died for withholding it.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss Do you believe this to be true, and considering it a prophetical narration ?
[Bonz] Inge Nope, against a Muslim. beyinsiz wants to have his cake and eat it as well.
[beyinsiz] say yes or no
[beyinsiz] :DDDDD
[RazorsKiss] I don’t consider a proven false prophet to be true in any way, no.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss then why did you claim that to be true ????????
[beyinsiz] then you lied !
[beyinsiz] you busted
[Delano] Inge, not if they support the bigger evil ;o)
[RazorsKiss] I do, however, think the Hadith literature is an interesting study in history.
[Colin^] beyinsiz is busted, he doesn’t obey the Quran
[Colin^] :o(
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you lost my friend. It’s your hatred, illogical faulty manner that gave you away.
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were in mentioned in surah 3:84?
[Bonz] beyinsiz It’s not HIS fault that your holy books are wrong
[Delano] Well, to his RazorsKiss, I don’t think RazorsKiss is a hateful fellow
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss sorry I don’t regard to discuss with some person who even lies in the name of his argument (?).
[Delano] Er
[Bonz] beyinsiz YOU are the illogical one
[Delano] Well, to his defense, I don’t think RazorsKiss is a hateful fellow
[Colin^] beyinsiz isn’t a Submitter…merely a beliver,shame face belong to him
[beyinsiz] everbody call in witness to what this man had done to himself.
[beyinsiz] Colin^ why ?
[Bonz] beyinsiz He won. You lost.
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were in mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] Bonz if yo u say so.
[Delano] beyinsiz, in fact, RazorsKiss has been a lot more civil to you than a lot of other Christians here would have been :o)
[RazorsKiss] All you’re doing is spinning around like a top, sir.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss You first explain as to why you used a prophetical narration as to be historically true when you claimed the person is a false prophet and thus unreliable ??
[RazorsKiss] I consider Mohammed a false prophet, yes.
[beyinsiz] Because it is our first topic to be sort out and without first solving it , it is useless and pointless to skip the other. Why would I do that ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss then why did you quote the historical event to be true ?
[RazorsKiss] I don’t even think the authors of the Hadith even consider a mention as such, at all.
[Bonz] beyinsiz Your holy books are wrong. He doesn’t have to believe in them to poiny point out thet they are wrong
[beyinsiz] did you lie ? or did you trust him in that particular time and event ?
[RazorsKiss] Because the uthmanic revision has nothing to do with the prophethood of Mohammed.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss how do you know that ?
[beyinsiz] ??????????????????????
[RazorsKiss] It has to do with the actions of Uthman, and why he did what he did.
[beyinsiz] ??????????????????????
[RazorsKiss] Why did Uthman burn every Quranic variant?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss how do you know that ? are you inspired or do you have other sources of epistemology ?
[beyinsiz] HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT ?
[beyinsiz] HOW
[RazorsKiss] It’s attested fact.
[RazorsKiss] http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1713
[beyinsiz] HOW
[RazorsKiss] read this.
[Colin^] beyinsiz Attested FACT!
[RazorsKiss] I gave my source.
[Bonz] beyinsiz And you have to make arguments against the epistles. You can’t just say you don’t think they were prophets
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss but our case is not what I read. It’s what YOU CLAIM AND HOW YOU ATTEST
[RazorsKiss] and, Dr. White talks about it further in the video above, concerning Ibn Masud.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss answer me
[RazorsKiss] *talks
[beyinsiz] Did uthman burn it ? true or false… see he CANT ANSWER IT 🙂
[beyinsiz] YES OR NO
[beyinsiz] ?
[Delano] Heh
[Delano] beyinsiz, relax
[RazorsKiss] True, Uthman burned every variant copy of the Quran.
[Colin^] beyinsiz has his knickers in a knot
[Delano] beyinsiz, you’re not gonna get any point across by getting upset and TYPING ALL IN CAPS
[Colin^] Delano will be after him. :o(
[beyinsiz] how shameful you are to hold such a stupid logical incoherence. and you were going to discuss me something in particular about quran
[RazorsKiss] Except for Ibn Masud’s, given several sources.
[Bonz] beyinsiz You’re only making yourself look stupid
[Delano] beyinsiz, relax please
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss do you that these sources are historically to be true because they are narrated by prophet muhammad ?
[Delano] beyinsiz, you are an intelligent fellow… there’s no need to get emotional
[Bonz] beyinsiz HIS logic is FINE. It is YOUR logic that is faulty
[RazorsKiss] and, Ibn Masud’s defiance, accordign to those same sources, is the source of the Sunni/Shi’ite split today.
[beyinsiz] Delano ok I will take your word
[RazorsKiss] 1) You claim that Paul is not an apostle
[RazorsKiss] 2) This goes against the word of the apostles you do claim to recognize
[RazorsKiss] 3) Your own Quran tells you to consider that book from God, per Surah 3:84, and several others.
[RazorsKiss] 4) You deny what your own Quran tells you – what is denial of the commands of the Quran called?
[beyinsiz] you FIRST claim something else and failed to prove it
[beyinsiz] and got yourself stuck in a VERY VERY BAD THEOLOGICAL DUBMNESS
[beyinsiz] You couldn’t even answer
[beyinsiz] and you couldn’t even back up what you had to swollow ! now what are you enumerating ????????
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you couldn’t build a ground for your theory You couldn’t believe what you said
[RazorsKiss] I’ll go through it again – if you’d quit typing for a minute, you could spare the time to read it.
[RazorsKiss] 1) You claim that Paul is not an apostle
[beyinsiz] You didn’t confirm the information which yourself has provided
[RazorsKiss] 2) This goes against the word of the apostles you do claim to recognize
[RazorsKiss] 3) Your own Quran tells you to consider that book from God, per Surah 3:84, and several others.
[RazorsKiss] 4) You deny what your own Quran tells you – what is denial of the commands of the Quran called?
[RazorsKiss] Do you have an answer that doesn’t involve two dozen exclamation points?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss but the topic is none of what you have enumerated ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss sure I do have a lot
[RazorsKiss] Actually, it was the original topic I bought up.
[beyinsiz] but I will not skip your turn.
[beyinsiz] no we were discussing about the manuscript transmission
[RazorsKiss] YOU skipped all over creation for all sorts of others topics.
[RazorsKiss] *other
[beyinsiz] it’s now your turn to answer my question. It’s my right to ask.
[RazorsKiss] You’ve been asking the whole time.
[beyinsiz] How do you know that Uthman burnt the manuscript ?
[RazorsKiss] I’ve been answering.
[beyinsiz] the other one ? Prove it
[beyinsiz] no you didn’t it
[beyinsiz] How do you know that ?
[RazorsKiss] Burnt which one?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss I don’t know. you claim that he did burn one didn’t yo u???????????????
[RazorsKiss] I gave you the source I had for Uthman’s burning of copies.
[RazorsKiss] You keep ignoring it.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss I didn’t ask for any reading source. My question was not that.
[beyinsiz] My question is simply relating to your confirmation that if this historical event is true , then do you believe the narrator, the prophet himself to be true ?
[RazorsKiss] the pertinent section: “‘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.
[RazorsKiss] 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)”
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss do you believe this to be true ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss do you believe this to be true ?
[beyinsiz] I don’t judge the validity of the text. I am only asking you whether you TAKE THIS TO BE TRUE TO PROPOSE IT AS AN EVIDENCE
[RazorsKiss] On what basis do I have to believe that if one historical narration is true, the whole Quran is true?
[beyinsiz] can you understand that ?
[RazorsKiss] The narrator was not Mohammed.
[RazorsKiss] Secondly.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss then do you believe the narrator whatever ?
[RazorsKiss] Sahih Al-Bukhari, 6.507, 509-510:
[RazorsKiss] Who is that, beyinsiz?
[beyinsiz] razor do you believe sahih al bukhari ?
[beyinsiz] it’s a muslim.
[beyinsiz] Do you believe a muslim reporter to be true ?
[beyinsiz] ?????????
[RazorsKiss] I believe he was telling the truth about that story, yes.
[beyinsiz] 🙂
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss why ?
[RazorsKiss] I don’t tend to disbelieve people simply because they’re muslim.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss then will you believe his other narrations as well ?
[RazorsKiss] Do you disbelieve Sahih Al-Bukhari?
[RazorsKiss] I hear tell he’s a pretty important source.
[RazorsKiss] in fact, one muslim apologist rejected Bukhari’s testimony over this one issue, in a debate with Dr. White.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss ok but here in this very particular event, you take him as an acceptable source regardless of his theological background
[RazorsKiss] Yes, for the third time.
[beyinsiz] Now will you regard his authencity when he narrates miracles of the prophet ?
[beyinsiz] as historical events ?
[beyinsiz] because he has lots of other historical narrations ?
[RazorsKiss] They may be.
[beyinsiz] please answer
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss nooo
[RazorsKiss] Scripture says many false prophets will come, doing signs and wonders.
[RazorsKiss] So Mohammed could easy have done signs and wonders.
[RazorsKiss] *easily
[beyinsiz] you didn’t give any probability to his very particular case. then you must consider the other with certainty on account of the narrator’s authencity
[RazorsKiss] However, he contradicted Scripture.
[RazorsKiss] Which makes him a false prophet in any case.
[RazorsKiss] Further, he was profoundly ignorant of texts he recommends.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss Did you not judge the event’s validity based on the narrator’s validity ? now how come it turned out to be “may” and with uthman you took it granted
[RazorsKiss] If you look through the NT, it’s authors are very knowledgeable of the OT.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you are not answering the question
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: that would have to depend on whether or not Uthman had a tested interest in proving Mohommaed as a prophet, wouldn’t it? 😀
[RazorsKiss] *vested
[beyinsiz] razor if you judge it on the narrator’s authencity as you did with uthman’s action to burn the text, then there are other narrations of him that testify his prophecy, the unity of God, and the blasphemy of christians as HISTORICAL EVENTS
[beyinsiz] will you accept them as well ?
[RazorsKiss] I don’t take every historian to be correct in every instance.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss ok then what made you to accept that and this not ?
[RazorsKiss] Especially not concerning an event central to further himself.
[RazorsKiss] Take Josephus, for example.
[beyinsiz] what is your criterian to consider an account of bukhari to be true and the other not ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss now we are talking about our case. let’s not get distracted
[RazorsKiss] On whether it had any self-interest involved.
[beyinsiz] what is your criterian to consider an account of bukhari to be true and the other not ?
[RazorsKiss] If you read the account, it’s very straight-forward.
[beyinsiz] answer the question please
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss according to what ?
[RazorsKiss] one more, and it’s my turn.
[beyinsiz] straight forward what ?
[RazorsKiss] It’s a very bare-bones, to the facts account.
[RazorsKiss] uthman wanted the texts, he got them, the rest were burned.
[beyinsiz] what is your criterian to judge a buhkhari narration to be straight forward to be true and in others parts that he failed ?
[RazorsKiss] all done.
[RazorsKiss] this is your last question – gimme a sec
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss ok but there are other narrations which are straight forwardly testifying the prophet’s validity and so others ?
[beyinsiz] noooooooooo
[beyinsiz] you didn’t answer it. You PROLONGED IT
* RazorsKiss rolls his eyes
[beyinsiz] still you remained a question unreplied because that’s the last station we may arrive !
[RazorsKiss] I judge the bukhari narration to be true in this instance, because there is no self-interest involved in the account.
[RazorsKiss] I do not care, concerning miracles of mohammed, because it’s a non-issue.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss what self interest could he seek with miracles ?
[RazorsKiss] Your turn, when I get back 😀
[beyinsiz] not it’s such a great issue to determine the scale of accepting a norm in analyzing the data
[RazorsKiss] I said last question, and I meant it.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss we will not skip it
[RazorsKiss] You’ve had a good 15 minutes of cross-ex.
[RazorsKiss] My turn – but I want a break for a minute.
[beyinsiz] no you didn’t answer the question you only made another suspicious answer :=)
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss no way man. you lied
[beyinsiz] you are not answering it
[RazorsKiss] then be suspicious all you want.
[RazorsKiss] I don’t care.
[Bonz] beyinsiz Quran was revised many times
[Bonz] http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4048586,00.html QURAN NOT GIVEN TO MUHAMMED
[Bonz] But Dr Gerd R Puin, a renowned Islamicist at Saarland University, Germany, says it is not one single work that has survived unchanged through the centuries. It may include stories that were written before the prophet Mohammed began his ministry and which have subsequently been rewritten.
[RazorsKiss] bbiam.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss it’s not a suspicion of skepticism. It’s your not FULLY responsing kind of manner and logic
[beyinsiz] you never answer the question fully. How do you know that bukhari was seeking self interest or not ? Is it your beliefs and not the facts ?
[beyinsiz] because you claimed this to be a fact and not a belief, if it’s your beliefs why would I consider to be true objectively ?
[Bonz] beyinsiz It is fact and his belief. All of them were liars or insane
[beyinsiz] Bonz and why the other is not a fact or belief since the judgement is based on the narrator’s id ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you screwed up both in terms of your FAITH AND FACT KNOWING
[beyinsiz] you are in a worse trouble man than when you set out to prove
[beyinsiz] you never answer the question fully. How do you know that bukhari was seeking self interest or not ? Is it your beliefs and not the facts ?
[RazorsKiss] you had your say.
[RazorsKiss] My turn.
[beyinsiz] ecause you claimed this to be a fact and not a belief, if it’s your beliefs why would I consider to be true objectively ?
[RazorsKiss] I started out with the topic of the Quran contradicting the Scriptures.
[beyinsiz] no answer this because you didn’T fully respond. this is childhish sophistry
[beyinsiz] ecause you claimed this to be a fact and not a belief, if it’s your beliefs why would I consider to be true objectively ?
[RazorsKiss] You went off on the “one quranic text” rabbit trail.
[RazorsKiss] I refuted it – you grilled me in return.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss and what did you go off with ?
[beyinsiz] ecause you claimed this to be a fact and not a belief, if it’s your beliefs why would I consider to be true objectively ?
[beyinsiz] Your ground of knowledge collapsed
[RazorsKiss] So, back to the original question.
[beyinsiz] the original question was How did you know that
[beyinsiz] and we came to this point and now you evade
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss No I am not skipping that until you finally answer my question
[RazorsKiss] Then you’ll be waiting a while.
[beyinsiz] how come your beliefs must be assumed as historical events objectively , please answer
[RazorsKiss] you asked, I answered.
[RazorsKiss] If you don’t like it, that’s not my problem.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss no you didn’t answer that. you said “I believe that” I say then how come your beliefs are just to be considered as historical events
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] ecause you claimed this to be a fact and not a belief, if it’s your beliefs why would I consider to be true objectively ?
[beyinsiz] I will not answer unless you give this a full response
[RazorsKiss] then I suppose you won’t answer.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you can only suppose that you failed to answer the first question I asked
[beyinsiz] I am only doing this to make you seem worse
[RazorsKiss] You may be in the habit of directing every single conversation you have, but I am not in the habit of letting someone else control entire conversations.
[beyinsiz] so that perhaps you will regard to re think what you have done. That will be a good lesson for you
* Delano chuckles
[Bonz] beyinsiz YOU are the one who is evading. Your pretend is not working
[Delano] So it’s a power struggle :op
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were in mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss I never did that at all. each time I asked the question you altered the topic to something else.
* Colin^ giggles at the dualing egos
[beyinsiz] you consciously prolonged it and now you evade
[organicwrk] That does it. I’m pulling the car over.
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books are mentioned in surah 3:84?
[Bonz] beyinsiz Why are you AFRAID to answer RazorsKiss ?
[beyinsiz] you say you claim that because you believe this thing to be true ? and I am asking why your beliefs must be regarded as historical facts ?
[RazorsKiss] It’s because he knows his prophet was ignorant of the NT.
[beyinsiz] what kind of faith and fact appreciation is that ?
[RazorsKiss] not to mention of the Hebrew OT.
[beyinsiz] because you say you claim that because you believe this thing to be true ? and I am asking why your beliefs must be regarded as historical facts ?
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books are mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] answer the question dont flee
[beyinsiz] you are fleeing from it
[beyinsiz] because you say you claim that because you believe this thing to be true ? and I am asking why your beliefs must be regarded as historical facts ?
[RazorsKiss] It’s not ego, by the by.
[RazorsKiss] This is called “scattershot apologetics”
[beyinsiz] razor then why do you consider your own person beliefs that they must be regarded as historical facts ? Must I believe the way you do to understand the truth ?
[RazorsKiss] Throw as many objections as humanly possible at your opponent, and try to find one, by volume or ignorance, he cannot answer.
[deja_vu] beyonisz is using ‘apologist techniques’ to beat back Razorskiss
[RazorsKiss] Actually, it’s just being rude.
[RazorsKiss] Unfortunately, some people consider that an apologetic.
[beyinsiz] If that’s the case then why do you find it worth to ask a question since it’s all up to beliefs ? not logic ?
[Bonz] beyinsiz HE DID NOT SAY IT IS TRUE.
[beyinsiz] yes he did say it true. Bonz
[beyinsiz] he said uthman burnt it
[beyinsiz] I said how
[beyinsiz] he said bukhari reported it
[beyinsiz] I said do you believe him
[beyinsiz] he kept not answering for like 5 minutes or something
[beyinsiz] then he said the prophet was a fake
[beyinsiz] I said then how come do you believe in his narrator
[Bonz] It doesn’t mater if him. All he has to do is QUOTE him
[beyinsiz] he then waited a bit and said this one is ok . then I said why not the other, the one on his validity etc ?
[RazorsKiss] Actually, you asked if I thought the prophet was true.
[Bonz] It does not matter if he believes him
[RazorsKiss] Which had nothing to do with Bukhari.
[beyinsiz] he said it may have that he could show miracles giving some account for that . then I questioned his probability comment on that he didn’t answer as to his double standart
[RazorsKiss] But, regardless, I’m getting off the objection-go-round until you answer a question.
[beyinsiz] and then I asked him how did he know that he said this to be true ? he said HE BELIEVES SO
[Bonz] beyinsiz So YOU avoided the issue. “then I said why not the other, the one on his validity etc ?”
[RazorsKiss] I went 15-20 minutes fielding objections.
[RazorsKiss] Yet, beyinsiz can’t seem to answer one. Very telling for the truth of Islam, isn’t it?
[beyinsiz] then I said how come his beliefs could be facts objectively to be taken true ? no you fielded nothing more complicated than what I summarized.
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books are mentioned in surah 3:84?
[Bonz] beyinsiz YOU do not get to ask HIM questions. You have to ANSWER one
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you couldn’t even answer one question. you try to get rid of it
[RazorsKiss] all he’s done is ask questions.
[RazorsKiss] All I’ve done is answer them.
[beyinsiz] no you couldn’t
[RazorsKiss] Well… I’ve tried to ask them 😀
[Bonz] beyinsiz You have CONSTANTLY asked questions, ad NEVER said anything
[RazorsKiss] But someone isn’t answering.
[RazorsKiss] Perhaps because they can’t, without self-refutation?
[beyinsiz] you tried well I am sorry but it didn’t work. Not my fault. You ended up saying your beliefs are the truths as historical facts
[beyinsiz] and now I am asking why then are you asking me ???????
[Bonz] beyinsiz He doesn’t HAVE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS
[beyinsiz] and now I am asking why then are you asking me ???????
[RazorsKiss] to show your truth claims for what they are – self-refuting.
[beyinsiz] you tried well I am sorry but it didn’t work. Not my fault. You ended up saying your beliefs are the truths as historical facts
[beyinsiz] and now I am asking why then are you asking me ???????
[RazorsKiss] sheer volume doesn’t show truthfulness.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss if that’s all up to the belief to prove some point as fact will you regard some claim that you are pumpkin because they believe ?
[RazorsKiss] Neither does the volume of objections.
[RazorsKiss] The failure to answer a question – from your own text – speaks volumes in itself.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss according your own view of epistemology, if some other person believes that you are a bulky pumpkin he has all the right and it is as an historical fact. that’s where you end up
[RazorsKiss] Unless you’re prepared to answer?
* RazorsKiss will answer for beyinsiz, in that case.
[Bonz] beyinsiz You have nothing other than belief. Why is his standard higher?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss why would I answer ? you defined true knowledge on the basis of faith as it PROVES THE HISTORICAL FACT.
[beyinsiz] Why would you regard my questions as worthy when they are not YOUR BELIEFS ?
[beyinsiz] whyyyyyyyyyyyyy
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz cannot escape the fact that Islam is grounded in ignorance.
[Bonz] beyinsiz All religions do that. Islam included
[beyinsiz] razor well you’re groundless to say that. that’s for sure
[beyinsiz] you are embarrassed.
[RazorsKiss] Islam points their followers toward the scriptures of Christians and the Jews – yet contradicts them throughout the Quran.
[beyinsiz] you made such a big mistake and you even know dont where exactly you stand
[RazorsKiss] Which shows, quite clearly, that Mohammed was not only not a prophet, but not even knowledgeable of what he spoke of.
[beyinsiz] because youur reliance on a historical fact as YOU ADMIT is not beyond a “belief”
[RazorsKiss] Further, it shows that Mohammed did not consider the Scriptures to be corrupted.
[RazorsKiss] Yet, modern islam claims the opposite.
[RazorsKiss] Mohammed pointed to the Scriptures as the words of God.
[RazorsKiss] Modern islam points to the scriptures, and says “corrupted”.
[RazorsKiss] This is demonstrably false, given that we have many, many, MANY manuscipt copies FAR predating Mohammed.
[RazorsKiss] that say exactly what we can read today.
[RazorsKiss] Thus, Mohammed was pointing to a book that was in the same form as we see it now – and calling it God’s.
[RazorsKiss] Yet, his followers contradict him, and us.
[RazorsKiss] That’s why beyinsiz won’t answer the question.
[RazorsKiss] He can’t.
[RazorsKiss] It shows the bankruptcy at the heart of Islam.
[RazorsKiss] The demonstrable lie that is Islam, and the demonstrable lie that Mohammed is a prophet of any sort – let alone a prophet of God.
* RazorsKiss gives beyinsiz the floor back. All yours, man. But remember – Christ can save, and save perfectly.
[RazorsKiss] God bless.

For further references:

Mohamed Did Not Believe that the Old Testament was Corrupt
Quran 101: The Uthmanic Revision
An Interesting Conversation
Ibn Masud’s Death and the text of the Quran

See, I’m doing this game project. The great and powerful Fringespace. I love it, I really do. I’m just getting sort of frustrated with the process right now. We supposedly have this really big team, and all of that… but only a few of us are doing anything. I can live with that, I suppose – but it makes getting the gumption up for doing something on it hard, sometimes. Especially when I could be doing apologetics! As you probably know, I hang out in several chat channels – I average 7-8, on a normal day. I hang out in James White’s #prosapologian and #apologetics, on Starlink IRC – #apologetics on Undernet, #hard-light and #fringespace, on EsperNet, #btrl on another server, and #gamedev, on another.

I get to engage in some awesome apologetic discussions on starlink and undernet, constantly – and that is just so much mroe fulfilling than working on a game, most times. Although, really, I want to get this game done. I’m torn, and I’m a bit guilty that I’ve neglected the game – but I can’t stay guilty, because I’m doing something very profitable!

What’s a gamer/apologist to do? I’m going to keep working, but it’s hard to stay focused when there could be an awesome conversation about the deep things of God going on, and I know I’m missing it. I also feel guilty for neglecting my baby here, this blog, for that game – but it’s a very rewarding project, too. I’m just going to have to divide my time up wisely, so that I am doing everything I can, with the gifts I’ve been given. I know I’m good at this – and I want to show that Christians can do things like this as well as anyone can – but I don’t want to neglect God by doing so.

Hence, my ennui.

Posted originally as one of the opening entries on this blog. I’m pressed for time, as you may have noticed, and I feel bad just letting this blog sit here. Some of you may not have seen this one…

So, enjoy.

Atheism

Definition:
Dictionary.com

Quote:

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Language origin: Greek

“a” (negative, negator) – “theos” (god) = “No God”

Antithesis:

Theism – Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. (Dictionary.com)

Self-definitions

* “An atheist is someone who believes and/or knows there is no god.”
* “An atheist lacks belief in a god.”
* “An atheist exercises no faith in the concept of god at all.”
* “An atheist is someone who is free from religious oppression and bigotry.”
* “An atheist is someone who is a free-thinker, free from religion and its ideas.”

Reasons:

1. Lack of Evidence

Example:

The supporting evidence isn’t good enough for him to affirm God’s existence. (agnostic?)

2. Illogical

Example:

Says there is evidence contrary to God’s existence.

3. Non-Issue

Example:

Lack belief in God the way they lack belief in invisible space snails in orbit around Saturn.

Common Presuppositions

(NOTE – NOT universally adopted. The ONLY common belief is a belief that God does not exist.)

1. There is no God or devil.
2. There is no supernatural realm.
3. Miracles cannot occur.
4. There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God’s will.
5. Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable.
6. Man is material.

7. Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.
8. Ethics and morals are relative

Example Argument

God is supposed to be all good and all powerful. Evil and suffering exist in the world. If God is all good he would not want evil and suffering to exist. If He is all powerful then He is able to remove all evil and suffering. Since evil and suffering exist, God is either not all good (which means he is not perfect and not God), or he is not all powerful (and limited in abilities and scope). Since either case shows God is not all good and powerful, then He does not exist.

Mission: Prove a negative, absolute statement

Your mission, should you choose to accept it – is to state that there is absolutely no god, and that the concept of god is absolutely false -then, to prove this statement: NO GOD =1

First, we have to make a couple definitions. A CANNOT be A and NOT A, at the same time.

To say there is NO God is an absolute statement. So, if you say that there is NO God, No God = NOT A. If you say that there IS a God, God = A. A cannot be A, and NOT A at the same time, remember. So, the mission is to prove that A =/= A – but A = NOT A.

If A = god, and NOT A = No god

A cannot be A, but MUST be NOT A, in order for NOT A to be true.

NOT A and A are not equal, and cannot have the same value – so, we must accept that NOT A =/= A.

In order for NOT A to be a true statement. A MUST be false. In order for NOT A to be accepted true, the axiom of “A =/= NOT A” MUST be accepted – thus, absolutes must be accepted, in order for there to be NO god. No is an ABSOLUTE statement – thus, A MUST be false, and it MUST be accompanied by a proof, for the statements GOD = A , and NO GOD = NOT A, to be logically true.

So, since we’ve established that “No God”, and “God” are mutually exclusive – we’ll move on.

“No God” is a negative value – so, the mission is to prove a negative. God cannot exist, and there must be proof of God’s non-existence – or there is still a possibility of A equaling A.

To prove that A = A, however, is still pretty hard. It’s an axiom, like 0=0, or 1=1. To prove that God = A, requires that Not A also be proven false. So, on the other side, we’re also stuck.

But, we’ve proven that it’s impossible to “prove” God’s existence, or non-existence – and, we HAVE proven the existence of absolutes. So, it’s now possible to use absolutes in our argument,s henceforth. A, forever after, CANNOT also be NOT A – thus, unless you invalidate absolutes altogether, and thus, any scientific method, you’re stuck with absolutes as an axiom. So to accept that A cannot be NOT A did absolutely nothing but prove absolute exist. So, let’s move on.

So, here’s the next question – if a statement is unprovable – how can it be absolute?

The answer?

It can’t.

So, the basic statement Atheism is founded upon is based upon belief, to put it bluntly – yet contains an absolute statement – which, in order to be undeniably correct, would have to prove a negative – something which has NEVER been done in the history of logical thought.

So, in order to back up that absolute statement saying there is NO god, you would have to prove a negative – but, how do you prove that the negative of something which you say does not exist, does NOT exist – without recognizing it’s existence?

On the other hand, any Religion has only the burden of evidence to bear – not the burden of proof – because all religions are based upon faith in the unprovable – not an absolute statement of fact. If you believe something, you believe IN something. You have no need to prove the non-existence of a thing – you just have to prove a thing exists. Also impossible, but not because of logical impossibility – but factual impossibility. Noone, but the God believed in, can know ALL the facts – so, it’s unprovable. There is evidence, of course – which an Atheist can never have – there CAN be no evidence of the NON existence of something – because there would be nothing to see, if the thing which does not exist – doesn’t exist.

Existence is either believed, or disbelieved – but it is never known, with complete certainly.

In response on this post, I was told that arguing for an objective morality was contrary to a recognizance of faith, as faith – in essence, that a logical argument for the existence of objective morality was an attempt to “prove” faith.

The quotes are as follows:

Razor,

Faith, by definition, exists apart from logical proofs. Foundationalsim assumes a preset of basic beliefs – your initial post serves to legitimze this approach by postulating the existene of basic beliefs. Does that not seem circular to you?

I am certainly NOT suggesting that logical exercises are not useful – in most cases they are. However, reducing matters of faith to logical precepts removes the mystery aspect of faith, suggesting somehow that the wonder and mystery of our God can be defined and detailed to the nth degree by our keen human intellect.

I mean no offense, but it smacks of arrogance to me, and brings forth a sickening feeling in my innermost being that usually comes when attempts are made to somehow intellectually legitimize faith through logical science. Faith requires no such legitimization, which is really antithetical to faith, in the strictest sense.

What I find helpful is using logical devices to construct a systematic theology. However, a systematic theology assumes that a foundation of faith already exists – it does not serve to provide logical foundations to faith.

Well, today’s sermon at church was about faith, but only partially. In that sermon, we were given a quote from Charles Spurgeon, which I’m going to use for this post. See, according to Spurgeon, faith consists of three things:

What is faith? It is made up of three things—knowledge, belief, and trust.

Knowledge, chiefly, is what concerns me today. “Faith begins with knowledge“, says Spurgeon. When we have faith, we must know what we have faith in. I cannot stress enough that we cannot have a blind faith. A faith which does not even know what it is faithful for, what it is faithful to, why it is even faithful at all… this is not a faith worth recognizing. So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. This is what faith requires. Knowledge.

Now, let me hasten to say that this knowledge must not be perfect. it must only be sufficient. This knowledge is NOT, contrary to my brother’s assertion, the proof of faith – it is simply the portion of faith which requires us to know what we are having faith in.

Now, this knowledge does not constitute the entirety of faith. We must then “believe that these things are true“. As Spurgeon says: “Believe these truths as you believe any other statements; for the difference between common faith and saving faith lies mainly in the subjects upon which it is exercised. Believe the witness of God just as you believe the testimony of your own father or friend. “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater.“”

Catch that part I bolded? The difference is NOT the amount of faith – it is the object of that faith. Saving faith is differentiated by what you believe in.

“So far you have made an advance toward faith; only one more ingredient is needed to complete it, which is trust. …The Puritans were accustomed to explain faith by the word “recumbency.” It meant leaning upon a thing. Lean with all your weight upon Christ. It would be a better illustration still if I said, fall at full length, and lie on the Rock of Ages. Cast yourself upon Jesus; rest in Him; commit yourself to Him.”

He continues the lesson with this:

“Faith is not a blind thing; for faith begins with knowledge. It is not a speculative thing; for faith believes facts of which it is sure. It is not an unpractical, dreamy thing; for faith trusts, and stakes its destiny upon the truth of revelation. That is one way of describing what faith is.
Let me try again. Faith is believing that Christ is what He is said to be, and that He will do what He has promised to do, and then to expect this of Him.”

Faith does not require proof. Faith does require knowledge. It does require belief of veracity, although it does not require proof of veracity. It does require trust, although it does not require proof of trustworthiness.

Apologetics is an activity which is concerned with clearing away the obstacles to a true understanding of what God teaches, who He is, and what is really, actually true. This is the goal, the object, of apologetics. It is not to somehow “prove” the existence of God – or even of principles. It is an outline of the body of knowledge which, if taken all together, will give you a healthy, Biblical knowledge of the Holy, and what it entails. That is, at bottom, the purpose of apologetics. Not to prove, but to clear away obstructions. Not to argue minutae, but to unblock the way. Not to engage in debate for the sake of debate, but to define clearly the path which must be traveled.

Sometimes, that process is quite involved. It may have to start hundreds of allegorical miles away from even the beginning of that path. Sometimes, it may start with a log dropped right at the entrance to that narrow way. Regardless, the mission is clear. Remove all impedances, wherever possible, to a knowledge of the Holy.

Remember – the first step is knowledge, true knowledge, of what you are to have faith in. Only then can you believe that the object of your faith is true.

(All quotes from Charles Spurgeon may be found at Spurgeon.org, where they are hosting his small book, “All of Grace“.)

A response to this set of questions:

1) Can you prove that objective moral facts exists?

2) Can you prove that you are able to properly apprehend these facts through some source?

3) Can you prove that this source is the true source of all objective moral facts?

Simple Model:

• Objective moral fact claims exist;
• One set of moral fact claims is true;
• Objective moral facts exist.

• These facts can be properly apprehended;
• These facts have a source;
• This source is the source of all objective moral facts.

(Conditional)

• The source itself is the means to properly understand these objective moral facts.

Expanded Model:

Objective moral fact claims exist.

• All claims to knowledge of moral facts are qualitative objects;
• Qualitative objects exist;
• Objective Moral fact claims exist.

One set of claims is true, so objective moral facts exist.

• One set of objective moral truth claims is in accordance with reality;
• To be in accordance with reality is to be factual;
• One set of objective moral facts exist.

These facts can be properly apprehended

Facts are apprehensible;

• If a fact is objective, it is intelligible;
• If an objective fact is intelligible, it is apprehensible;
• Objective facts are apprehensible.

Facts are properly apprehensible;

• Objective facts are intelligible;
• Intelligible facts are apprehensible;
• If a fact is apprehended, it is apprehended properly.

(Note: This is axiomatic. You either understand, or you do not. You either apprehend the fact, or you do not. A word which means “understood” leaves no room for “incompletely” understood. It is, or it is not. )

• Objective facts are properly apprehensible.

Objective facts can be properly apprehended.

These facts have a source.

• An objective moral fact would be communicated via information;
• Information must have a source;
• Objective moral facts have a source.

This source is the true source of all objective moral facts.

• If all objective moral facts are contained in a set, this set is objective moral fact;
• If objective moral fact is supplied, it is supplied as a set;
• The set cannot contain any moral non-facts;
• If it is supplied as a set, it has either one source, or multiple sources which agree in all respects.
• To be factual is to be true;
• This source is the true source of all objective moral fact.

Bonus Arguments:

This source is also the means by which objective moral facts are properly understood.

• The source must communicate these facts to others, if others are to know them;
• Understanding is predicated upon knowledge;
• The source is thus the means for proper understanding of these facts.

< < Further Discussion Here >>

I’ve posted about Subjectivism before. I’m happy with the post, but it didn’t cover all of the aspects of Subjectivism that I wanted to cover, and I’ve had an epiphany of sorts.

If: Subjectivism is the belief that the individual conscience determines the morality of the decision;
Then: The individual conscience is determined to be more important, or more valid, than objective moral truth, or its standards.

Contrasted with:

If: The Biblical Account is true;
Then: God’s Word is Objective Truth.

So, we have two antithetical statements.

If:God’s Word is Objective Truth,
Then: Jesus Christ is Objective Truth, per John 1:1.

If: Jesus Christ is Objective Truth;
Then: God the Father is Objective Truth, as Jesus stated that His Father who sent Him was true.

If: Father and Son are Truth;
Then: the Spirit will also be truth, as is shown in John 14:17

Thus; God, in all three Persons, is True.

If: Moral Wrong is called Sin by God
Then: God is telling the truth.

If: Sin is deliberate disobedience to the known will of God;
Then: Sin is morally wrong, as it violates the standards God has set forth.

(Which are dictated by God’s nature, not arbitrarily created. God is not subject to these standards – His very self is implicit in these standards.)

If: Violation of these standards is objectively sinful;
Then: Violation of these standards is a transgression not just of standards, but of God’s very self.

If: The act of violation stems from a personal choice;
Then: The act of violation is an act of subjective moral choice

If: The act is a subjective moral choice;
Then: The individual is, in essence, saying that their individual moral choice is of more importance, or more valid, than God’s very self.

If: Subjectivism is the act of proclaiming one’s own choice as more important, or more valid, than God’s very self

Furthermore…

If: Pride is an excessively high opinion of oneself;

Then: Subjectivism is Pride

If: Pride is the beginning of all sin (Vulgate, non-Protestant Apocryphal book)
Then: Subjectivism is the beginning of all sin.

If: Subjectivism is the beginning of all sin;
Then: since Money is the root of all evil, Subjectivism is the root of all evil.

Thus; Subjectivism is the Root of all Evil.

Slightly tongue-in-cheek… but, really. To be more serious – Subjectivism is simply Pride. It is a Pride in one’s own decisions, that supercedes your respect for Objective Truth – thus, God.

It’s inherently sinful. As we broke down what sin is – it is thus inherently morally wrong to follow a so-called system of Subjective Morality.

7/16

Mommy Brain, Keer Unplugged, My Own Thoughts, Gigowski Gibberish, and The Common Room have also weighed in.

7/15

Carla Wolfe, Chris, and Sal have all posted on this topic as well.

After reading blestwithsons’ post, and the post that inspired it, I’ve mulled over some of the conclusions, and I’m forced to say that I agree with some, disagree with others.

This post, due to it’s title, will now get some interesting traffic, I’m sure – which is fine. That’s why I titled it as such. Better me pulling search engine traffic for this than an actual pedo photoblog… so, neener.

When we post picture of our kids online, we should worry about pedophiles. To an extent. To another extent, I don’tthink the risks outweigh the benefits.

So, what rules should we set, when we post them?

Read the rest of this entry

Where did I say anything about your opinion of the TNIV? If you think I ever said anything about your interpretation, then you must have been misreading me, which might explain a few things.

In your comments section. You said: “The reason you can’t see it is because you were looking for something against those who oppose the TNIV.”

Nope. I wasn’t. Actually, I think the TNIV, like the NIV, is a paraphrase – and not a very good one. I prefer literal translations.

What I WAS looking for, was substantiative evidence of what you were saying. I read your post, and went straight to their post, to “see if it was so”. So, I read what you were saying about their anti-TNIV leanings – and even tried to make the connection – which I did – but only in their word “Considering” – which I read as “in consideration of”. When applied, contextually, I get a sense that they do, actually, not think highly of the TNIV – however, the wording does not, in any way, suggest to me any sort of accusation that TNIV supporters would be, in their opinion, “anti-Christian”.

Here’s why. Read the rest of this entry

I’m going to steal shamelessly from the name of the late 80’s “missile defense program”, in my initial offering of an idea.

Now that we’re moderately organized, apologists – we need to start targeting, and spreading out to practice apologetics.

I have a couple theories on how to do so.

1. We need to start “teaming up”.

2. We need to start identifying the people we plan on reaching out to.

3. We need to start identifying the people we need to defend the Gospel from, and to.

So, there’s a few ideas, thrown into the wind. Now, let’s flesh them out.

Teaming up:

I’d like to mention a verse I made in an earlier post: “And if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three {strands} is not quickly torn apart.” (Ecclesiastes 4:12)

This concept is especially important to those of us who actively defend the faith – sometimes in hostile settings. I can point to a host of times, in my own experience, where just one single, solitary friendly word worked worlds of encouragement. Even more welcome is a brother or sister, who can stand back to back with you, and assist you – and you him/her. It is invaluable, when debating, defending, or explaining the Word – and even more so in a hostile setting – which is where those of us who are active, offensively (in a tactical sense) minded apologists are likely to be.

I encourage you to find someone, or someones, of a like mind, and a like spirit, to “team up” with, when you do “on the spot” apologetics. On a forum I often debate on, I created a group called “Shade Tree Apologists”, in order to assist the Christians who debate on this forum. It’s proven unbelievably encouraging and effective – because, like that strand of three cords, it is not easily broken. It allows you to have backup, to have a slightly different perspective, an encourager, and a comradeship.

Don’t forget the great bit of wisdom above.

Identifying:

I have a challenge for you. Find at least 3 “secular”, 3 agnostic, or 3 atheistic journals/blogs this week. Pick whichever suits your style of apologetics. Now, start commenting. Get to know them. Interact – make their day. Preferably, find a low traffic blog (especially you higher-ranked bloggers), and make their day even further by giving them a nod in your sidebar.

Several “encouragement” opportunities, and a way to “let your light shine before all men”. See how that works. I’m going to try an experiment, to see how the idea of “salting the blogosphere” works, in practice. Who’s with me? I’ll round up your results in my “Daily Cut” posts, as you do so. That’s the other reason I wanted the aggregator…

Targeting:

Also, I encourage you to find at least one blog with a worldview antithetical to the Christian worldview. Disagree, trackback, and dialogue. At least one “defense” per week should be our goal, in my humble opinion. Don’t you think? Now, not all of us are _active_ apologists. If your gifts correspond to this type of thing – go for it. If they _DO NOT_, ignore this. My opinion, at least. Another option: disagree, trackback, and continue the dialogue blog to blog, instead of in their comments section. I dunno. See what works. It’s an experiment 😀

So… who wants to try this?

Article 4 in “The Ghetto: Solutions”.

So, yeah – I’m a new kid on the block, I have some interesting ideas – maybe. That’s nice. So what. The blogosphere is an interesting phenomenon, but can it be used the way I’m talking about? If we do the same old things… No. That’s why we’re in the Ghetto to begin with. Remember? To change the paradigms, and actually get _out_ of the Ghetto – we have to rebuild it. Will it happen all at once? Of course not. Can it happen? I believe it can. Why do I believe this? I’m about to tell you why. I’m also going to tell you _how_ I think it’s possible for us to do it.

I’ll go back to my familiar themes. Hubs/Metablogs, Meta-Niching, and Individual Blogs.

This, time, though, I’m going to step past theories, models, and ideas – and get to practical application. I told you I was going to…
Read the rest of this entry