Seriously? I almost feel bad for what I’m about to do here. So on the one hand you’re speaking about a God that is unchanging and has no likeness (Jeremiah 10:6, Isaiah 46:9). Then later you talk about the divine nature, which is infinite and unchanging, adopting the nature of humanity, and thus the divine nature having at some point an end to its old nature without humanity and therefore can’t really be called infinite and unchanging anymore. Then you assert that in taking up the nature of humanity, it included everything that comes with it including being finite, all the while having the divine nature maintaining its infinity. — Mr. Mohamed Ghilan
I take it he’s not a fan. (more…)
Reason, is quite the wonderful thing and used properly, it is one of the most potent gifts that God has bestowed on us. Now reason is directed towards, and finds its end (i.e. its telos) in, truth. Hence why, man being a rational animal, ought to use this faculty above all else to guide his life choices. For if the end of reason is truth, then the end of truth must be God, for God is truth (John 14:6). So it is always with great pleasure that I tend to read works of the religious sort which place a stringent emphasis on logical thinking. Whether these works favour a Christian viewpoint or not, I must say that I quite enjoy the intellectual stimulation.
This then is how I found myself reading the blog post entitled, Talking About God, by one Mohamed Ghilan. The article, as one would expect, discusses the subject of God from an Islamic perspective and in the course of the work, touches on many things—one being Christianity and its alleged incompatibility with logic. Now, longtime readers of this blog will know that I have already shown how this is not the case and refuted the various examples that Muslims (and other non-Christians) will invariably bring up here (I would certainly recommend this article to Muslims seeing as it features a discussion between myself and Muslims on a Muslim forum), here, here, and here. I intend to make reference to the aforementioned posts and more throughout this article. It goes without saying that reading each post on its own would certainly prove beneficial as well.
The blogger, Mohamed Ghilan, seeks to pit Christianity against logical thinking and by such a manner attempt to prove how vastly superior Islam is. The fact of the matter is that it is precisely Islam that is contrary to reason and the general Muslim position that is unschooled in the proper use of thought. Granted these words can be deemed hurtful and for this fact I must apologize. We will go nowhere if our intent is to willfully denigrate the beliefs of others and this is sincerely not my intention. I say the things I say not because I want to anger Muslims, but rather because I honestly think them to be wrong and their beliefs false. At this time, let us examine the claims of Mohamed Ghilan and see who actually misconstrues logic—whether the Christian or the Muslim. (more…)
This post will be very different from those I’ve written so far. I’m not too sure how well it’ll work so I’d greatly appreciate some feedback. Anyway, it is no secret that I’m not a prolific blogger. I write maybe one or two blogs per month—and this is at my best. Most of the time, many months go by without any update on my part. I do apologize for this but updating a blog with quality content on a regular basis is no easy task. That said, in those months when I haven’t been posting, I haven’t exactly been doing nothing either—well I’ve been doing nothing for the most part—but as I was saying, I was at least somewhat productive. The following is just a small part of what I’ve been up to when too lazy to update this blog. More particularly, I took the time to test out some of my arguments and the results were so well that I got banned in the space of a little less than 2 months. I’d like for the reader to follow the exchange between Sol Invictus and whoever he is discussing with (there are quite a few participants who come and go). The subject of the discussion is the Holy Trinity (although the participants move on to different topics as the discussion goes on) and what I would like the reader to note is how it is defended repeatedly without any refutation by the opposition.
(I know that I ended up misnumbering but it would be a pain to change the numbers now. Also, clicking the picture will increase its size and make for an easier read.)
1, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 8, 9, 10, 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e, 11f, 11g, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18a, 18b, 18c, 18d, 18e, 18f, 18g, 19a, 19b, 19c, 19d, 19e, 20, 23, 24a, 24b, 24c, 25, 26, 27,
Readers of this blog will recall that I once wrote a response to an individual going by the name of landsway concerning whether or not the Christ is himself God (and as such equal to the Father)—particularly when this came to his use of 1 Cor. 8:6. The author acknowledged having read my article yet himself did provide no reply to what were serious problems with his position. Personally, I would have loved to have him continue discussing the subject with me yet he made it quite clear that he did not have the time to do so. I, on my part, respected this and for almost an entire year, this was the end of the matter.
Recently however, I have browsed through this individual’s blog again and found that the author is again reiterating the same viewpoint I had claimed to be faulty. Now, before being misunderstood, I should say that I am emphatic of the fact that every individual has the right to express their own opinion. Yet what I do take issue with, is the fact that in writing a post solely to defend his viewpoint and presenting once again the very same arguments—which to the best of my knowledge I have already refuted here (scroll down towards the comment section), here (once again make your way to the comments), here (within the comments) and in my “On (Christian) Unitarianism and 1 Corinthians 8:6” post (the first link within this post)—he is ignoring what I claim to be insurmountable problems with his understanding of the Bible. Moreover, in providing no reply to my argument and yet continuing to present the same points to his audience (as if no challenge to his understanding of theology has been presented) he risks being accused of intellectual dishonesty (not that I am accusing him of such) and failing to take to heart the very dictum he quotes in his post:
“I recently read that an honest but mistaken man; when show the truth, ceases to be mistaken; or he ceases to be honest.” — landsway
All this to say, given that landsway has taken it upon himself to defend his position as biblical truth, then at the very least he owes that post of mine that specifically deals with 1 Cor. 8:6 a response. It is likely that he has forgotten all about our past exchange yet due to his unprompted decision to make a post solely to promote his reading of scripture, he must in all honesty defend his methodology and conclusion from criticism.
Recently, 6sman has made a rejoinder to my response towards his initial article, Decisive Biblical Evidence Against Christ’s Divinity. In a similar vein to what I had noted earlier, once again we find that he is thoroughly restrained and quite courteous in his reply to me. It must be admitted that he elucidates the Muslim position quite well and though it may very well be the case that we will not come to an agreement on the matter of what God desires for us to believe, it has been a pleasure discussing with him all the same. That said, insofar as he has defended the Muslim position yet again, I am compelled to give the reason for the hope that is within me. I will not say that my response will be short but it will certainly be worth one’s time. Once again, the general theme of my post will be consistency vs. inconsistency and I hope to show how the Muslim understanding is thoroughly inconsistent with the text in question—the Bible—and in particular, the New Testament. (more…)
Without a doubt most Muslims believe that the Qur’an actually speaks against the Blessed Trinity and it is my experience that when broaching this topic, one will invariably be presented with a series of quotations from the Muslim holy book which express, in one form or another, a condemnation of what is supposed to be the Christian Trinity. Let us waste no time in saying that although the Qur’an believes itself to be condemning the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, in every instance it undertakes this task it fails to do so and in fact condemns various heresies that adherers of the Trinity themselves have condemned hundreds of years prior to the advent of Islam. (more…)
It just so happens that Hasan took issue with my initial article, to which he then wrote a partial rebuttal and this led to our engaging in a brief discussion on his blog. Eventually, it seemed fit that I dedicate another post on the subject of the Muslim deity and Islam in order to deal with the questions that were brought up in the course of our comments to one another. I strongly recommend for the reader to have at least viewed my original article before reading this one and encourage them to read Hasan’s partial response to it in order to have the best understanding possible of the matters being discussed because I may not necessarily explain things to the extent that one who has read neither of these will need. (more…)
Here’s a post on quite a number of things related to the atonement and Christ’s passion. It is a reply to this article written by one Hasan. The author in fact has an entire series dedicated to questioning the Christian understanding of these concepts and having browsed through most of the articles in this series, I must commend him for thinking critically about the Christian scriptures but I should mention that the outcome leaves much to be desired. Unfortunately his resultant product suffers from severe mistakes and errors in logic which will become all too apparent the more one reads this article. That said, this article is long. (more…)
edit: for some odd reason I had misspelt the individual’s name.
I have recently been engaged in a series of discussions concerning the issue of whether Jesus is God or something other than God, namely the Son of God. While your average Christian would see no contradiction in affirming both statements, the individual with whom I had the pleasure of discussing with seemed to have a vastly different understanding of what these terms meant. It was clear that to him, it denoted some inferiority in ontological being yet since I never actually asked him to expound on his understanding of this title, I won’t go into a discussion of it either. Now before I continue with the subject proper, I should mention that this post should be read in unison with these other two as well. Anyway, let us begin. (more…)