Some details on my upcoming podcast and blog topics

As of today, I will try to make almost daily posts, many of them dealing with the claims of many Christian apologists. A sample of names include, but is not limited to Dr.'s  James White, William Craig,  Jonathan McLatchie, John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Michael Brown, David Wood,  Nabeel Qureshi , Jay Smith, Andy Bannister and many more. Stay tuned.

Refuting Dr. Bannister's assertians on Islam and Christianity about who Jesus and God are.

8/13/17

I was listening to the podcast called "Unbelievable" hosted by  Justin Brierley. In the preliminary portion of the show, Dr. Andy Bannister, who stated that he has a PHD in Islamic studies, stated a couple of things about Islam that really bothered me. I will make some quick comments.

First he said that Christianity is the religion that accepts the premise that Jesus was who he said he was. This is incorrect. A better definition would be that Christianity is a religion in which one believes in certain sayings and deeds attributed to Jesus by the New Testament. So more accurately, Andy Banister is not accepting the testimony of what Jesus said, but what others claim that Jesus said. This would include the Greek gospels of Mattew, Mark, Luke, and John, the letters of St. Paul, and basically the New Testament. These writings were all written in Greek and none of them were written during the life-time of Jesus. It would therefore be an extreme oversimplification for someone to say that as a Christian, one is accepting that Jesus was speaking the truth about who he claimed to be(in contrast to other claims).

Another thing that Dr. Banister said was that his studies in Islam reveal that Islam does not claim to lead people to God, but to a paradise of inferior things such rivers of wine, and the other descriptions of delights that those who make it to paradise experience. First, even if this was true, it would have no bearing on whether or not Islam was true or not, as it is up to God to reward his servents as He sees fit. But more importantly there are so many verses in the Quran which show this assertian to be false. See for example Quran 5:15.

More on these issues later, and I hope my brief responses show how wrong Dr. Banister and other apologists are on these issues.

Question from James in Miami,

The doubting Thomas in front of all the apostles tells Jesus that he is Lord and God.Neither Jesus or the apostles contradict this,  How can you be against the  apostles with Thomas' declaration and Jesus accepting?






Response:

Thank you for the question. There is a great deal that can be said here, though I will have to be brief. Please email me if you want more info.s

The scene with Doubting Thomas, who, after refusing to believe that Jesus was alive, strangely is with the other apostles in the upper room of the Last Supper

Does a lie or theft one has commited in the past make a person evil?

Please skip this next paragraph to get a detailed explanation. As promised, I will give short answers when I can to get to the point!

Response to this video, and to others who use this same way of thinking:

TTP Summary: Telling a lie does not make you a liar deserving damnation, nor does one become a thief if they have stolen once in their lives. Just as telling the truth at times does not make someone an honest man, and one who gives in charity or returns a stolen good does not necessarily make one a generous saint.

This logic is silly and we must call out those who do it.

Full Discussion
Recently I saw a video on the internet entitled "A Baptist tries to convert an agnostic to Catholicism" on youtube1 in which Todd Friel showed casual religious encounter with two students in which a Baptist and Agnostic interacted. At the very end, C, informs them that they are bad people, as they both have stolen and lied in their lives.

I am honestly tired of hearing these type of simple-minded caricatures. This really goes back to the notion of whether or not humanity is born into a state of evil, and consequently, needs a savior to erase this evil. I will answer a part of the video, and the logic for this answer will suffice as evidence for the rest of the video.  Mr. Friel tells these young adults that since they have stolen in their lifetime, and they are both thieves. Furthermore, he states that since each one of them has told a lie, that both of them are liars.

This is honestly one of the silliest assertations made by many Evangelicals today. If telling a lie once, or even 20 times, makes a person a liar, then it should also be accepted that a good deed can make such exaggerated enormous descriptions. I wish I was there.  The students should have said that they have told the truth at times. Or perhaps they have donated goods to the needy, or to whoever was a victim of theft. Would that then make them truthful, and charitable people? Not necessarily. Doing something bad does not necessarily doom one to being an evil person, just as a good act does not necessarily make a person a saint.  Mr. Friel needs to do this so he can create a huge theological point, which can then set him already on the winning side of Christianity as a true believer. This is obviously nonsense, and its time that people call  these people out on this. Please contact me if any clarifications are needed.

Debate Ettiqute

While doing my general research regarding what is going in the world of religious debate, something bothers me.Debate etiquette. Honestly when I talk to people with different points of view, if the person I am arguing with cannot stop interrupting me, then I am sorry. I am moving on to another person or going to do something more productive. I have asked people now to at least go back and forth from 1 to 3 minutes to make a point, for example. Otherwise, I think that nobody is benefitting and that energy that could opportunities that could otherwise be used in exchanging valuable information. is lost. Some good examples of this can be seen online in youtube videos in places like Speakers' Corner in the UK.
I would love to visit the place one day just to see all that energy in person. But I think that a huge percentage of the people there might move on rather than engaging in very informal discussion rules. I think one thing that additionally benefit from this experience would be to allow each side to repeat what they think the other side is saying so that there are no misunderstands and so that one would not lose time and energy arguing against a position that the other side is not actually trying to see.  But I think I would go crazy after a while. Anyway, I just thought I would share this tiny tidbit of info to perhaps discuss issues with a greater degree of mutual respect for one another. In the Quran God Almighty says:
وَلَا تَسْتَوِي الْحَسَنَةُ وَلَا السَّيِّئَةُ ۚ ادْفَعْ بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ فَإِذَا الَّذِي بَيْنَكَ وَبَيْنَهُ عَدَاوَةٌ كَأَنَّهُ وَلِيٌّ حَمِيمٌ
[ ص: ٣٢٥]

"Good and bad ways of acting are very different. Use good deeds as a response to bad ones and you may be surprised that your adversary may become your best friend!" Quran Interpreted 

 41:34

More Later!

definition of sitdown argument [or sit-down sit-down]

While I am just starting now to answer some questions and to make statements regarding, you know, the subject in the title of the web page, I need this definition online so nobody can steal it. So please ignore this post, it is just a formality:

Definition of:
SITDOWN ARGUMENT

-also known as sit-down argument

-an argument that is so potent that the opposition is better off just sitting down and shutting their mouth before they embarrass themselves.

Why assume Unitarianism?

Trinitarian apologists claim that assuming Unitarianism, the belief that God is one entity, is not a must assumption, and that the concept of God one God must allow, or this door cannot be closed, that there may be multiple persons in the being of God. must not exclude that the oneGod may be three persons in one being.

This is usually brought up in debates in which the trinity (or who Jesus is) is defended or attacked by one side of an argument.

The fact of the matter is that Unitarianism must be assumed unless evidence otherwise is given. If God can be a being shared by three persons, such as in the Trinity of Christianity, then there can be no basis for puting any limitations on the nunmber of persons who share eternal

The doctrine of the Trinity is simply that there is one eternal being of God - indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

ie i.e.