Sunday, 22 May 2011

The Finest Christian Apologist Questioned...

So Anthony “the finest Christian apologist” Rogers popped over and was presented with a few questions. As usual, as the going got tough Rogers and co went all silent. I thought the finest Christian apologist would be able to offer an answer or two. Perhaps Rogers was busy at church or sleeping. Arise from your slumber Mr. Rogers and begin giving reason for the hope within – the questions will keep coming.

1MoreMuslim poses tough questions and has more to follow...

Why Paul makes clear distinction between the True God and the false Mortal Gods? And Why Elijah was mocking a God who sleeps and travels? And when the Divine becomes flesh does he assume limitation of knowledge? Why the word , being divine, suddenly doesn't know the hour? The human limitations overshadows the unlimited divine nature?

I think his reference to Elijah is taken from 1 Kings 18:27:

At noon Elijah began to taunt them. "Shout louder!" he said. "Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened." [NIV]

Elijah’s mockery does also affect the Christian god too as the Christian god (Jesus, p) travels and sleeps (and even worships God!). I guess this is one of the numerous reasons why Christians so readily skip over the Old Testament.

Gospel contradictions

Anthony, you know what, I have NEVER seen a Christian answer (adequately) on the Gospel contradictions. Mike Licona failed to impress me perhaps you as the “finest Christian apologist” would like to pass on your explanation. Here is an excerpt from Geza Vermes’ list of flat contradictions – don’t get too comfortable – it is only the first serving concerning the resurrection accounts ONLY:

The accounts differ regarding the number and identity of the women who visited the tomb: one, Mary Magdalene, in John and Mark B; two, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary in Matthew; three, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome, in Mark A; and several, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women from Galilee, in Luke. Such variations would have rendered the testimony unacceptable in a Jewish court.

Once you have finished with these please work on the rest which can be found here:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2011/05/contradictions-in-gospels-geza-vermes.html

Once you have supplied explanations for that particular list please move onto the irreconcilable contradictions concerning the “crucifixion” accounts. Yep, plenty to be cracking on with…

After all that you could actually challenge your silent mode as the posts concerning the incarnation and holy spirit seem to have pushed your mute button on previous occasions...

Oh heck, we may as well push the boat out seen as we have you here. Here's what every Christian wants answered. I am yet to see a decent answer. The stage is yours, "the finest Christian apologist":

Bart Ehrman rattles off a few from the "thousands" of contradictions within the New Testament and discusses the doubts over the gospel of John and the contradictions around the crucifixion stories



Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them), Ehrman goes even further, revealing not only that the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies and outright forgeries, but that many fundamental stories and doctrines don't actually exist within its pages--they were later inventions by people trying to make sense of a disconnected collection of texts. The Scriptures did not come down to us through the ages in one, harmonious,unbroken version. The story of Jesus was, in fact, interrupted.

I bet "the finest Christian apologist" rushes off into silent mode and wishes he never popped over...

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.co.uk

49 comments:

Anthony Rogers said...

I never claimed to be "the finest Christian apologist", but since you think so highly of me, even to the point of pretending that I went mute because you guys have such grand questions, I hereby repeat my willingness to debate you when your false god finally wakes up from his slumber and gives you sufficient courage to do so.

(It is a shame your false god tells you to do all sorts of things for him in order to hopefully move his arbitrary will to grant you admittance to paradise and all of the carnal pleasures it holds out to you, but then he won't/hasn't lifted one of his fingers to help you out. Maybe if you cry louder or kiss the black stone a hundred times he might finally get around to doing his pretend job.)

Anonymous said...

@Yahya

Were did you get that Anthony Rogers is "The Finest Christian Apologist"

Ali said...

its obvious when christians get angry. start calling God 'false', and one thing that i see is a trend in christians. they're minds are soo sexualy perverted they barely go one post without mentioning sex.
its funny how he said God 'wakes up' when his god is already dead and our true God repeatedly claims nothing can take over him.
christianity=false apostle, false scriptures and false cross

1MoreMuslim said...

Finally , I found time to get my blog started.
http://1moremuslim.blogspot.com/

islamophobe said...

Anthony,

You are the epitome of hypocricy and distasteful behaviour! You hardly deserve a platform, such as this blog, to herald your views because they always consist of deragotary and abusive material. We are prohibited in Islam to mock other faiths, but you seem to indulge in the practice every now and then -- and remember, it's you and your crew that claim that Muslims are the ones following an 'evil' book. Shame on you for you hardly live up to the expectations of Christ - Subhan'Allah, nothing could be further from the truth.

Anthony Rogers said...

I don't need this blog for a platform, silly. And if you don't like what I have to say, blame your cronies since I am just throwing their rhetoric back on them. And as for the expectation of Christ regarding my behavior, he told me to "answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit," therefore I have.

Antiislamophobe said...

Anthony,

I enjoy your willingness to speak your mind, but what I object to is your self-righteous demeanor.

So you consider us as fools? Very Christ-like, indeed (sarcasm). You never fail to surprise me. I will stick to Islam where I am told to not mock other beliefs and reserve my judgements, whereas you can continue to follow Christianity, a religion you believe allows you to take anyone you wish as fools and treat them as such.

Really? Holy Scripture teaches you this?

Antiislamophobe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
answeringmuslims.com said...

Jihad Watch: The nation's leading legal expert on Sharia and its relationship to American law, David Yerushalmi, here tears the cover off the common assertion that anti-Sharia legal initiatives are unnecessary, because Sharia isn't being used in American courts in the first place:
New Study Finds Shariah Law Involved in Court Cases in 23 States CSP

Washington, DC, May 17, 2011 - The Center for Security Policy today released an in-depth study-- Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. The study evaluates 50 appellate court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law. The analysis finds that Shariah has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.
Some commentators have tried to minimize this problem, claiming, as an editorial in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times put it that, “…There is scant evidence that American judges are resolving cases on the basis of shariah.” To the contrary, our study identified 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate court published cases.
Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy. The Center’s analysis, however, found 15 trial court cases, and 12 appellate court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases.
The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with constitutional protections.
On the releasing the study, the Center for Security Policy’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:
"These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded."

Ali said...

@answeringmuslims

shame shame, only the dirty idiots come up with that crap. no sane person takes these goons seriously.
and there isn't much difference between sharia and west law. except islam has more civility

Anthony Rogers said...

"I enjoy your willingness to speak your mind, but what I object to is your self-righteous demeanor."

How do you know my demeanor? Or perhaps you mean my tone? Well, I do take offense at someone writing something and insinuating that I think of myself as "the finest Christian apologist", something I never said, but if putting that kind of false insinuation down for the lie that it is is an act of self-righteousness, then you can be certain the Bible teaches me to act that way. The fact is the guy you so happily are defending has a penchant for slandering people and distorting facts about what they said and did and in what context. But I never said these words at all in any context, except in this thread by way of repeating him for the sake of his correction. (What he needs to do is make it clear in his post that the words put in quotes are not mine. And he needs to stop doing such sloppy work in the future only later to cry that it was inadvertent. Lies make their way around and are hard to get back once the damage is done.)

"I will stick to Islam where I am told to not mock other beliefs and reserve my judgements, whereas you can continue to follow Christianity,..."

If you don't like the mockery of Muhammad's god, then you should stop YOUR hypocrisy and let your Muslim counter-parts on here know how you feel. It was 1moremuslim and Yahya Snow who brought up the issue of God slumbering, and so the first shot was fired by them. Of course anyone who knows the history of your prophet and religion knows that this is just how it worked at the beginning as well. Your prophet and his followers mocked the pagans and their gods and religion and then couldn't take it when they got the same in return. Hence the reason for the verse that tells Muslims not to mock people's God (which neither 1moremuslim nor Yahya Snow seem overly concerned to follow), for it may lead them to mock in return. If you don't like mockery, then never mock a mocker. That's in the same book of the Bible that says to answer a fool according to his folly.

"So you consider us as fools? Very Christ-like, indeed (sarcasm)....you can continue to follow Christianity, a religion you believe allows you to take anyone you wish as fools and treat them as such."

I didn't say anything about all Muslims being fools in the sense I am speaking of above. But yes, having interacted with these two for a long period of time, their latest acts of buffoonery only serving as one example of a great many, they routinely behave quite foolishly. And yes again, this is quite Christ-like:

"But God said to him, ' You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?'" (Luke 12:20)

""You fools and blind men!..." (Matthew 23:17)

You may not like what I did say, but just imagine the sort of filthy things I could have quoted from your prophet and his companions about the gods and religion of the pagans around them. Given this, and given your self-righteous assumption that your ill-informed judgments based on ignorance of what Jesus taught and willingly ignoring both the history of Islam and the conduct of your co-beligerents in this discussion, I think I have shown remarkable restraint.

Antiislamophobe said...

Anthony,

Firstly, I don't need to know who you are personally to judge you, because your errant,derogatory, and disrespectful remarks clearly earns you an unfortunate label in my mind. I have never seen Yahya purposefully misconstrue Biblical verses or pass offensive comments about other faiths and system of thought. Could you kindly show me where Yahya slandered you and your group, and if he did, I think you deserve an apology. However, I thought that it was customary for Christians to turn the other cheek like Christ? No?

Yahya makes an apt point by challenging you that the Christian god at one point in his 'life' had experienced severe shortcomings as experienced by all human beings. Do you regard this as slander when you - yourself believe that the Jesus Christ, son of Mary, was God in the flesh? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but with all due respect I feel this is just a point of contention between you and us, and not necessary slander. We respect your beliefs and practices but do not agree with the god-man or man-god notion (I do not know your beliefs so that's why I mentioned both terms). Anthony, it is certainly not as wicked as you saying:

" Maybe if you cry louder or kiss the black stone a hundred times he might finally get around to doing his pretend job."

I've kept a close eye on Yahya's blog throughout the year and have seen that you regularly pass comments as the one I quoted above. Charged words such as "buffoonery", "foolishly" also make your case quite exceptionally weak. If Yahya or anyon show you even an iota of poor sportsmanship, then you should be the better man and turn the other cheek. If anyone's shown any sort of restraint, Yahya would be our best candidate.

Anonymous said...

Islamaphonbe said...

"We are prohibited in Islam to mock other faiths,"

I say...

"HA HA HA HA HA LOL HA HA HA HA,
Are you for real man. The Muslims on this blog do nothing but mock Christ, his church, and even the holy spirit. It got so bad one time that as Muslims were insulting Christians and the holy spirit the blog owner was busy running behind them deleting their comments. I believe he had to delete 19 comments.

Ali one time after a constant diatribe against the holy spirit said those that insult other peoples religions were not true Muslims. Funny he never repented or apologized for his hatred against Gods Spirit.

IBN, 1moreMuslim, Sam1528, and others all have taken their turn to insult and mock the holy spirit.

The vilest one by far is a nice little Muslima revert called Womanoftruth. Oh she has a extra special hatred for God. The funny thing is the Muslims on this blog have called her a "GOOD WOMAN" lol.

Her hatred spills over from her blog into the comment section here and sometimes onto the AM blog. All the while being praised and encouraged by Muslims to "Keep up the good work exposing the Christians Holy Spirit" She and others have called God's holy spirit a liar, a demon, and even a sex offender.

So please Islamaphobe go sell crazy someplace else we are all booked up here.

Anonymous said...

Brother Yahya

Why would you call this guy "The Finest Christian Apologist"?

Anthony Rogers said...

Well said, anonymous. Now obviously YOU have been watching what goes on around here. This islamaphobe/antiislamaphobe fella is just jerrymandering a canal beneath his feet to pretend Muslims are made of sugar and spice and all things nice. It just aint so.

Anthony Rogers said...

Ali said: "its obvious when christians get angry. start calling God 'false',..."

I guess that means Ali must be angry. After all, he also said:

"...his god is already dead and our true God repeatedly claims nothing can take over him. christianity=false apostle, false scriptures and false cross"

Behold! The consistency is amazing.

Anthony Rogers said...

Islamaphobe/Antiislamaphobe said:

"You are the epitome of hypocricy and distasteful behaviour!.... We are prohibited in Islam to mock other faiths, but you seem to indulge in the practice every now and then -- and remember, it's you and your crew that claim that Muslims are the ones following an 'evil' book..."

And again: Islamaphobe/Antiislamaphobe said:

"So you consider us as fools? Very Christ-like, indeed (sarcasm). You never fail to surprise me. I will stick to Islam where I am told to not mock other beliefs and reserve my judgements, whereas you can continue to follow Christianity, a religion you believe allows you to take anyone you wish as fools and treat them as such."

As if to expose the obvious lies and hypocrisy involved here, Ali the Muslim said:

"shame shame, only the dirty idiots come up with that crap. no sane person takes these goons seriously."

Anthony Rogers said...

Yahya decided to take his turn refuting and exposing the hypocrisy and lies of AntiIslamaphobe. He just posted on his blog the following about Sam Shamoun: “absurdly foolish”, “bigot”, “this bloke suffers from brain blackouts”, “off his rocker” – Compliments of Yahya Snow (see here).

What a beautiful "demeanor" Allah and the Qur'an put on the face of Muslims. Surely he is following the example of "the finest prophet" who ever lived.

Yahya Snow said...

@ Anthony rogers, I clearly see you have resorted to quote-mining and ripping me out of context in order to avoid answering the questions. That’s fine by me – its quite telling too!

As for you presenting little snippets to brother Anti-Islamophobe why not present the whole deal? Why the deception? I just don’t understand!

Here is the CONTEXT of the snips Rogers removes. You can tell Rogers is getting quite desperate to remove attention from the questions within the post:

Then again, we are not talking about anybody when we mention Mr shamoun - this bloke suffers brain-blackouts at the mere mention of a Muslim - hence why he appears to be off his rocker when interacting with Muslims/Islam. Sad.

I'm sorry to say this strange Shamoun character is back on the scene. Previously he used to call Muslims "black stone lickers". He was corrected on such a claim back then and subsequently stopped making such absurd claims - I guess even he felt he was looking absurdly foolish

@Anti-Islamophobe

Brother, I saw messages – I shall sub and inshaAllah respond tomorrow after work. Speak to you then, inshaAllah.

@anonymous

I don’t believe he is “the finest Christian apologist”. I am quoting Shamoun. Shamoun, if memory serves me correct, said something of such a nature about Rogers.

Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens another.

Anthony Rogers said...

Of course my remarks have a context, too. But that didn't bother Islamaphobe/antiislamaphobe. After all, he is cheering for the other side.

As for the context of your remarks, the context hardly justifies what you said about Sam. You claimed he is a liar for saying Muslims are guilty of fetishism regarding the black rock Muhammad stole from the pagans, but the video you offered in "rebuttal" doesn't even talk about Muhammad's rock mistress but about the Kaaba.

In any event, you did not make clear that you are quoting Sam when you wrote that I am "the finest Christian apologist", thus leaving the impression by the quotation marks that I said such a thing about myself. In doing so you are misleading people and lying, the very thing you falsely accused Sam of doing. Ironic, isn't it?

Also, I said I would be more than happy to debate you and you can bring up all the questions that stump you about what the prophets and apostles taught about the Lord Jesus.

The only thing that is "telling" in light of all this is the hypocrisy on this site and the extreme fear that grips the heart of Muslims like yourself preventing you from engaging in an open debate where you can be pressed to deal with the issues.

Yahya Snow said...

@Anthony Rogers

Areyou for real? You arre accusing me of liar simply because I didn't state who I was quoting with regards to the "finest Christian apologist". Crikey you are certainly scratching the bottom of the can!

As for black stone? What are you on about. Shamoun previously called us black stone lickers and now he has called us black stone worshippers. The video deals with his claim regardless of what Shamoun was referencing as the vid claearly shows the scholar stating that worshipping anything otehr than Allah is prohibited - that includes whatever blackstone Mr Shamoun had in mind.

You should forget about debates for the time being and read up on the angel of the Lord asthat issue will be coming back your way shortly...

I invite you to worship the God that Jesus worshipped - even the gospels record Jesus worshipping God.

Think about it.

Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens another.

Anthony Rogers said...

Yes, it is dishonest to leave false impressions. When you put quotes around something it indicates that you are - brace yourself, this is going to be deep - quoting someone. And since you are talking about me, the impression left is that you are quoting me. The fact that you are trying to justify it and refuse to make it clear in your post shows that you have a defiled and seared conscience.

The video doesn't deal with Muhammad kissing the black stone and other repugnant things that are rejected by true monotheists and those who follow the prophets.

As for the Angel of the Lord, that is a debate you ran from a long time ago. But I will happily school you on it again. If four blog posts in addition to four major articles weren't enough for you, I will happily remind you why you never replied to them and why you won't debate the issue either.

minoria said...

Regarding the comment by Geza Vermes,as I said before,practically all scholars say Matt and Luke copied from Mark.

Mark wrote in bad Greek and Luke adds more information saying it was some time after the women entered the tomb that angels appeared.

Mary Mag was with them,then she saw the empty tomb BEFORE THE ANGELS APPAEARED and LEFT BEFORE they appeared and told the disciples.Her story appears in JOHN.

ABOUT DATING THE GOSPELS

I said it before,Mark is dated 70-75 because he has Jesus saying the Temple will be destroyed.But prophecies are impossible,it must be an interpolation,since it happened in 70 AD Mark COULD NOT have been written BEFORE 70 AD.

Matt and Luke-Acts are from 80-85 since they copied from Mark.

Yet as I said before Acts stops at 61 AD.It tells of the martyrdom of Steven and James(brother of John) yet MYSTERIOUSLY OMITS the death of the 3 TOP Christian leaders Peter,Paul and James,half-brother of Jesus,and omits 20-25 years of church history.Nothing about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

Mark,Luke and Matt say SOMEBODY cut off a servant's ear the night Jesus was arrested but NO NAME.

ABOUT JOHN

It is dated 90-95.Why?Because (according to JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN of the Jesus Seminar) 50% of NT scholars believe John COPIED from the SYNOPTICS.SO he read Luke,for example,which is from 80-85 and so JOHN has to be from 90-95 AD.

JOHN gives the NAME of the mysterious fighter,he says it was PETER.The synoptics end in 61 AD(Acts stops there) and in 61 AD PETER was still ALIVE,that is why they dont say the name,so he wont get in trouble.

But JOHN was written AFTER PETER's death in 64 AD and so he could give the name.

DATING JOHN

As I mentioned to 1moremuslim before the Koran in 17:4-7 talks of the BIBLE having prophecies,one saying the Temple would be destroyed a SECOND time.Is it referring to Jesus' prophecy?

I think so,I think Mohammed heard about it from some Christian.Anyway,if one believes the supernatural is true then Jesus did say it and Matt,Luke-ACts are from 61 AD,Mark is from 51 AD.

AND JOHN

Since he copied from the Synoptics it was written around 71 AD,not 90-95.

Anonymous said...

this is getting good. many of the early muslims were quite courageous. they really believed this stuff i think. it's obvious that modern muslims have lost a lot of their confidence in allah, especially as their civilizations declined and were dwarfed by the prosperity and success of the west. i think just like they stopped being successful in their efforts to conquer the world by the sword, showing that allah's supposed strength was sapped, so they are starting to lose confidence in their ability to be successful in debate since god is obviously not with them and can't guarantee them success. yahya seems to know this. thank you brother rogers for exposing this.

Anonymous said...

by "god cannot guarantee them success", i meant of course THEIR god, Allah.

minoria said...

REGARDING EHRMAN

Read the great review of the inaccuracies,fundemental ones for his latest book's thesis,in Ehrman's book:"Forged:Writing in the name of God"

It is by Michael Licona,in his website:
http://www.risenjesus.com/

Click on the option ARTICLES,it is the first one.A fine article that impressed me.

BASIC IDEAS

1.Ehrman says approximately 70 percent of the New Testament writings were not written by those to whom they are attributed.

2.Citation from the article:


"For example, in his discussion pertaining to the authorship of Ephesians, Ehrman contends that Paul speaks of the resurrection of believers as a future event and provides Romans 6:1-4 and 1 Corinthians 15 in support (that Paul wrote these letters is undisputed). He then states that Ephesians teaches that the resurrection of believers has already occurred (2:5-6) and adds "[t]his is precisely the view that Paul argued against in his letters to the Corinthians" (111)!

Ehrman is correct that Paul thought of the resurrection of believers as a very real and physical event that would take place when Jesus returns.[7] Romans 8:11 and 23 teach this even more clearly than the reference cited in Romans by Ehrman. He appears unaware, however, that Paul also spoke of the resurrection of believers in a symbolic sense. Consider Romans 6:13, the same chapter in the same letter Ehrman cites for Paul's teaching that the resurrection of believers is a future event:

and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.[8]

Paul's teaching concerning the resurrection of believers in Romans is completely compatible with what we find in Ephesians and Colossians. Many of the teachings in the disputed letters of Paul that Ehrman regards as contradictory to the teachings in his undisputed letters are solved just as easily with a careful look at the texts in question. Unfortunately, because many of Ehrman's readers will go no further than reading Forged, they will fall prey to some very poor arguments."

Citation 2:

"The fifth and final attempt cites the involvement of secretaries in the writing of letters. Most, though not all, of the arguments against traditional authorship fall into two categories: style and content. If an author employed the use of a secretary to write what he dictated as well as provide varying degrees of editing, this would explain quite well why some of the questionable letters in the New Testament have vocabulary, grammar, some content and an overall writing style that differs, even significantly, from the undisputed letters. Ehrman recognizes this and writes, "Virtually all of the problems with what I've been calling forgeries can be solved if secretaries were heavily involved in the composition of the early Christian writings" (134). But he argues that, although it's certain that Paul often used a secretary, the secretary only took Paul's dictation. This is an Achilles heel in Ehrman's case that we will discuss at length below."

Ali said...

//As if to expose the obvious lies and hypocrisy involved here, Ali the Muslim said:

"shame shame, only the dirty idiots come up with that crap. no sane person takes these goons seriously."//

obviously anthony's anger has caused him to skip half of of my posts. i was referring to that rabbi who was called an 'exper' by rob spencer. i was referring to people who make cash in promoting hate crimes against muslims. and how is that wrong?

Ali said...

@ anonymous

no its just christians who lose confidence in the holy spirit.

Anthony Rogers said...

Ali said: "obviously anthony's anger has caused him to skip half of of my posts."

Ali said: "its obvious when christians get angry. start calling God 'false',..."

I guess that means Ali must be angry. After all, he also said:

"...his god is already dead and our true God repeatedly claims nothing can take over him. christianity=false apostle, false scriptures and false cross"

Ali asked: "how is that wrong?"

You have to ask Islamaphobe/antiislamaphobe that question. It is his inconsistent complaint.

Anthony Rogers said...

Ali said to anonymous: "no its just christians who lose confidence in the holy spirit."

This Christian has all confidence in the Holy Spirit. That's why I will debate Yahya any day of the week. lol

Anonymous said...

Brother Snow

Sam the Sham said that. That is to good, I thought that sham was in his mind the finest Christian apologist.

Do you remember where you heard it? Is it on youtube?

Anthony Rogers said...

He knows where he heard it. He is just playing coy. He is embarrassed to admit where he heard it since he has been running from that issue as well.

Ali said...

//This Christian has all confidence in the Holy Spirit. That's why I will debate Yahya any day of the week. lol//

I'd do the same to david wood. except he'll just block me once he realizes his arguments have corrections

Antiislamophobe said...

Anthony,

....I wrote a post yesterday but it seems it didn't go through. An issue with my browser I suppose. Well I'll write you another day.

Anonymous said...

only the dirty idiots come up with that crap

i truly cherish the glimpses i get into the muslim mind from this site.

Anonymous said...

and how is that wrong?

LOL im having a blast. and how are they dirty? lol

Ali said...

@ anonymous

what i said can be found in its EXACT words in JihadWatch and answering muslims by christians. so mock my words if you will, you're only ranting on your own people as well.

Ali said...

//and how is that wrong?

LOL im having a blast. and how are they dirty? lol//

how is it wrong if i called people who promote hatred and genocide of muslims 'dirty' and 'idiots'?

Anonymous said...

To minoria.
You said - "Never in any European country in the Middle Ages or later was there such a law,there was "convert or be exiled" but not convert or die,"

Check video http://www.youtube.com/user/YahyaSnow#p/u/6/tJJFqG2Q-ZY on 2:43 and tell me what did you hear.

Anonymous said...

@Ali

You said...
"how is it wrong if i called people who promote hatred and genocide of muslims 'dirty' and 'idiots'?"

So only Genocide against Muslims is wrong? Or is Genocide against any culture, tribe, creed, ethnic group, or religious group in any time of history WRONG?

Ali said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ali said...

//So only Genocide against Muslims is wrong? Or is Genocide against any culture, tribe, creed, ethnic group, or religious group in any time of history WRONG?//

I've noticed christians often misinterpret the Quran, but also just regular sentences as well. anonymous let me take your hand and point out what i'm saying.
there's people who support (i.e christians) hate crimes and genocides of muslims. theres people (i.e christians and christians who support that crazy rabbi) who intentionally spread hate and lies about muslims and islam. and they do this for cash. theres 7 million muslims in north america who get scapegoated by these people. we're looked down upon. we get denied jobs and service because of our names or our dress. these people (i.e christians) are flat out disgusting. no evidence of humanity in them. I'm SPECIFICALLY talking about THESE people here in the WEST. I'm not talking about any other culture or religion. I'm talking about Islam in the West.

do you understand? can i let go of your hand now?

24 May 2011 15:24

Anonymous said...

@Ali

Thanks for not answering my question. I will ask it again.

Is Genocide against any culture, tribe, creed, ethnic group, or religious group in any time of history WRONG? Or is it only wrong when it pertains to Muslims as you seem to indicate in your non answer.


"I'm SPECIFICALLY talking about THESE people here in the WEST. I'm not talking about any other culture or religion. I'm talking about Islam in the West."

Ali said...

LOL anonymous. i'm not your mommy i can't hold your hand forever

yes genocide is wrong to whichever group. happy?

Ali said...

now what about you? do you support those hating christians?

1MoreMuslim said...

To Anthony Rogers:

I you want real questions, visit my blog
http://1moremuslim.blogspot.com/

minoria said...

Hello anonymous,
I saw the video and the person said 3 Muslims were killed in 17th century UK for not converting to Christianity.One would need a real reference to what law it was,assuming the speaker was accurate.
Otherwise the argument is incomplete.

He didnt even say the exact year.

CATHOLICISM PROHIBITED IN THE UK

The reason was basically political since the Pope and his Catholic allies were trying and had tried to conquer England and would have greatly persecuted the protestants,the majority of the population.

Under MARY TUDOR many Protestants had been burned at the stake for being Protestant.Also remember the Invicible Armada sent by Spain with 30,000 soldiers later on and they would have wiped out Protestants in England.The Queen of England Elizabeth,a Protestant, had been declared to be a usurper,not the real queen, by the Pope.

A Catholic had to put loyalty to the Pope,even his political decisions,above loyalty to a heretic government.

REGARDING THE JEWS

The Jews were expelled from England in 1290.They were allowed to return under the Republic in the reign of Cromwell.There was no law against Judaism since the members posed no political threat.

But as for what the law was for non-Catholic and non-Jews if there was one PROHIBITING ISLAM at all it would have been on purely political-military grounds,since the Ottoman Muslims were always trying to conquer Europe.

In 1683 an army of 90,000 Muslims almost conquered Vienna,that was also in the 17th century and though defeated they took 80,000 Christian girls and women with them as slaves,for the harem.

minoria said...

There is more.I had once argued Jesus died in 30 AD and that the number 40 repeats itself like 20 times in the Bible.There is even a generation of 40 years,the "Biblical generation".

I said Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple in 30 AD(the year of his death)and it happened one Biblical generation later in 70 AD.I had said scholars are divided between 2 dates for Jesus death:30 AD and 33 AD.

MOST SAY IT IS 30 AD

GARY HABERMAS,a serious scholar,in his studies,has found out most shcolars accept the 30 AD date,he himself does do.It appears in a DISCUSSION(not a debate),a friendly laid-back real conversation between
MICHAEL LICONA and ATHEIST RICHARD CARRIER on "Did Jesus rise from the Dead?"It began as a formal debate-exposition of 20 min for each but the following discussion period was the best,relaxed,with real interaction:

http://youtu.be/_1_GYR3xjPQ

The debate is fascinating and both scholars,if I remember correctly, said they really liked the discussion,they said it spontaneously during the talk.

SO?

The 30 AD date is important since it would be,for some,proof Jesus was a prophet by having the destruction of the Temple occur exactly 40 years later,to coincide with the midrash repetition of the number 40,

The year 30 also reconciles the passover dates since in that year the ESSENE PASSOVER and the PHARISEE Passover were 1 day apart.There was an ESSENE QUARTER in Jerusalem,where they would have celebrated it.JOHN said the last supper was one day before Passover(before the Pharisee one),the others say it was on the day of passover(it would be the Essene Passover).

It would answer another so-called problem,that the Pharisees and Saduccees would never have a trial of Jesus during the Passover festival,it was illegal,but what if the trial was the DAY BEFORE?Then it was ok for them.

Taimur said...

Salam to all my brothers and sisters in Islam, I would just like to remind you that in such interfaith debate, we must make sure that what we are debating is for the sake of Allah swt and not our own egos in defending our beliefs. I take great interest in interfaith debate like this and would discuss such things with the Imam of my mosque and my family. My Imam reminded me to be careful for what cause I argue for and I would like to pass on the reminder to you as well for I have seen some comments here that may be ego-based on Muslims' part.