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,
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…)
The claim is often made that Islam does not teach that an individual can carry the sins of another. To this effect passages such as Surah 6:164 are often cited yet one must ask themselves whether such a claim is entirely believable. In this post, it is my task to continue with a general theme that has crept up in my last few articles concerning the fact that the reality of life and even the Qur’an itself teach that individuals regularly carry the sins of others and that Muslim objections to this idea are completely unfounded. For our purpose, we will focus on the story of Noah as it is narrated in the Muslim holy book, the Qur’an. (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…)
At this time, I would like to focus on the concept of God and how he is understood in Christianity and Islam but before that, I would like to present the reader with two scenarios, and once read, I would like for them to simply think about the contrast between the two. Now, if it follows that I have gone beyond what Islam teaches then I sincerely ask to be corrected. Please, I only wish to say what Islam says of itself so if it is that I have misrepresented it, don’t hesitate to inform me. (more…)
Surprisingly enough, Ms. Ruwayda has already provided me with another reply to address some of the points that I had brought up in my latest post. But before I continue I would like to make clear that if I came off as needlessly competitive and if it appeared that this discussion was little more than a game for me then I sincerely apologize. It was not at all my intention. I realize that I have made the claim more than once that Ms. Ruwayda had not refuted me yet this was in no way done out of pride but rather it was simply a statement of fact given that she had brought up certain points which as I have shown did nothing to present my argument as having been incorrect. Now this response on my part will most likely be fairly short (in comparison to my previous posts) given that this time, there is far less that she is objecting to. (more…)
edit: Ms. Ruwayda has been kind enough to also provide her response to this article in the comments section below.
It seems that there has been a response to one of my previous posts coming from Ruwayda herself. I would encourage anyone with the time, to read it because it is well-written and touches upon some of the most important difficulties that Muslims have with the Christian doctrine. I will state once more before I proceed to prove it, that the doctrine of God taking upon himself the punishment of the sins of the world is perfectly logical and a display of the highest mercy and love. Furthermore, that she has once more misunderstood Christianity and that her very argument, as much as she would like to hope otherwise, actually works in favour of the Christian position when it is examined properly. Anyway, enough of this preamble, let us dip right into the matter.