In the name of Allah (God),
I have decided to dedicate sincere and honest endeavour in helping to establish the Truth by helping to defend the good name of the last Prophet (pbuh) of Allah as well as refuting many other lies and misconceptions that are being disseminated by the insincere, wicked, deceptive, intellectually and morally bankrupted individuals as well as the ignorant individuals who all share a faulty characteristic; a blatant disregard for the Truth.
I ask Allah to purify my intentions and save me from doing any good action for self-aggrandizement, as all actions are judged by intentions. May Allah Love me, and bless this work. My message to any non-Muslim reading this is thus:
Please give Islam a chance, research it for yourself and allow Muslims and Muslim sources to be your primary resources you refer to when studying Islam rather than basing your views on agenda-motivated Islamophobic sources.
O Allah, You are Al-Wadud (The Loving)...please O Allah love me and bless all those Muslims and non-Muslims who read this.
Ameen
The tweet is in unclear English but it does appear as though the author of this tweet (Hatun Tash?) is suggesting the “dawah team” (I think this is a catchall term anti-Islam Christian “evangelists” are using for any Muslim who they encounter resistance from or whom is preaching Islam) supports grooming gangs – sexual abuse and rape of girls. A nasty and malicious suggestion showing the heart of the author of the tweet. If it is Hatun Tash, it would keep in with her past inflammatory behaviour towards Muslims, she suggested Muslims who helped the Grenfell Tower fire victims were only doing so because of the cameras and she thanked God for the death of a Muslim who used to preach to Christians.
If that’s what he/she is suggesting then that is clearly vile slander. Just because somebody is unwilling to discuss “grooming gangs” with you, specifically you, (an antagonistic anti-Islam Christian) it does not mean that they agree with or support grooming gangs. Quite how somebody can reach that conclusion is beyond me.
Muslims have repeatedly denounced grooming gangs. It’s obvious grooming gangs are not acting according to Islam as alcohol, drugs and rape are all unislamic. To suggest criminals involved in such abuse are acting Islamic is to throw aside common sense for one’s agenda of propaganda.
CJ Davis of St Nicholas Church in Tooting is asked to check whether this tweet comes from one of his church members. By their fruit ye shall know them. Anti-Muslim propaganda, vile slander and deceit are not what one would consider to be good fruit.
Or are the news stories of brown folks with Muslim names in sexual grooming scandals just being used as a stick for evangelical “Christian” propaganda? By their fruit ye shall know them. I think weaponising sexual abuse victims and their pain for evangelical and/or anti-Islam propaganda is a sign of bad fruit, specially in the post-Brexit vote climate we find ourselves in. Like somebody is going to sign on the dotted line and join the CofE or any other church because of such shallow tactics.
Following similar patterns of abuse in Rochdale, Rotherham and Oxford, the convictions have provoked fresh national debate over whether select minorities should be taking responsibility.
Dipu Ahad, Newcastle councillor, said local Muslims were “absolutely disgusted” by their crimes and feared a possible backlash. [Independent]
Do Muslims Condemn Grooming Gangs? Tommy Robinson Supporters Answered
Video also uploaded here and here
The sexual grooming of children has been condemned by Muslim leaders across the UK in a sermon read to thousands of worshippers.
Organisers Together Against Grooming (TAG) said imams at hundreds of mosques had pledged to read the sermon to congregations during Friday prayers.
The sermon highlighted how the Koran emphasised that Muslims must protect children and the vulnerable.
The policing minister Damian Green said it was a "very important" move.
"It reminds people that the vast majority, the overwhelming majority, of British Muslims, condemn child sexual abuse as strongly as any other group in modern Britain," he said.
Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra, an imam at Abu Bakr Mosque in Leicester, said: "People were troubled by us reading the sermon and one man asked me how he could stop it being read.
"He said 'it was not our fault this had happened, our religion does not teach us to do these things and we are condemning it'.
"But as I said to him our only option is to speak out about it."
Mr Mogra added the sermon's message was very clear "this is an evil against humanity" and he was "absolutely delighted with the response".[BBC News]
Gavin Ashenden (GA) has been spilling a bit of cyber-ink over Michael Curry’s speech at the royal wedding. I’ve responded with a few thoughts to some select comments which grabbed my attention.
GA: And at one level, the choice was brilliant. Michael Curry is a gifted preacher and black. What a great way of signalling the coming together of American and British culture, white and coloured. Surely the marriage of Meghan and Harry was the fusion of American and British culture. The fusion of BLACK and “coloured”.
The use of the word “coloured” seems archaic. Next time, perhaps it will be wiser to just use the colour of the person you’re talking about: black (Michael Curry), white (Justin Welby), and brown (Jesus). Let’s not be seeing the word “coloured” to describe black people again. Yes, I just slapped Gavin’s wrist. Ever so lightly. No big deal.
GA: So when Justin Welby suggested Michael Curry as the preacher on this astonishing world-wide stage, he was also signing up one of the most effective street fighters for progressive, distorted Christianity who – with great charm and verve – presents his own preferred version of Jesus to the real one we find in the Gospels.
The 4 Church gospels are not reliable, Gavin Ashenden needs to stop being so bold in his claims he can find the “real” Jesus in there. Likewise with Church traditions such as the 4th century belief of the Trinity, this is clearly a belief Jesus never knew about never mind believed in. In sum, just don’t take the Church ‘s doctrines as authoritative nor the texts it claims to be “inspired”.
GA: This matters very much. Curry’s Jesus is preoccupied with social Justice and the celebration of romance and sexual love wherever it finds you. The real Jesus warned that social justice would never happen in this world, that heterosexual marriage [sic] was to be between a man and a woman, and that equality had nothing to do with the Kingdom of Heaven. Curry twists that round and turns it upside down. He says Jesus likes homosexual marriage and favours the quest for equality that left-wing politicians have made their life’s work. Curry says wherever you find ‘love’ you have found God. But when Jesus defines love it sounds very different from Curry.
This is Gavin Ashenden blowing his bugle. He’s really up for the scrap to halt the gay marriage juggernaut which is running through the CofE. This is admirable as it’s obvious marriage can only be between male and female. Folks who are trying to subvert this rule are folks who are pushing the envelope of an agenda which has nothing to do with any religion at all (no matter how assidually shills operating in religious organisations, churches mainly, toil for that irreligious agenda)
I’d like to posit three points for consideration:
1. Michael Curry did not mention gay marriage in his speech but he did mention Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King rejected the idea of Jesus being deity (amongst other doctrines) and thus was not a Christian. Why is Gavin Ashenden not out to bat for the idea of Jesus being deity, Trinity doctrine and other beliefs King rejected?
2. Gavin Ashenden may want to aim his bugle at folks closer to home. It’s the members of the CofE who will ultimately decide to usher gay marriage in to the Church of England, which looks increasingly likely. More CofE members believe gay marriage is right than those who say it’s wrong. YouGov suggested45% of Church of England followers felt same-sex marriage was right, against 37% who believed it wrong [stats sourced from Huffington Post]. Get blowing that bugle long and loud, Gavin. Knock on the doors of the mosques to get a crowd behind you against the concept of gay marriage (Muslims really don’t want the LGBTQ pressure lobby to begin taking aim at mosques after they’ve finished with the churches and a churchmen). Once the churchmen capitulate, it’s the Muslims and the Jews who will be targeted.
3. Was there not a sinful union taking place according to the biblical injunction forbidding divorce and remarriage (Matthew 5:32) as Meghan Markle has been divorced and thus this was a “further marriage”. And who was there to deliver that message to Charles and Camilla despite their union having been “blessed” by the CofE ‘s Rowan Williams? It all seems a little odd that we see little opposition to the surrendering of faithfulness to the Bible in favour of secular and social affirmation in the regard of the bolted horses (divorce-remarriage) but the horse which is about to bolt (heterosexual marriage) is the one which the bugle blowing is all about. If the churchmen blew their bugles and waved them around enough in the past (on divorce and remarriage, before that church silence on sex before marriage) perhaps they would not be seen as people who are ready to sell out their traditions and beliefs for worldly acceptance. I wonder if Gavin Ashenden has ever preached a sermon against sex before marriage, that’s something the CofE seems quite silent on. Very little bugle waving and blowing there. The vast majority of the CofE probably reject or are ignorant about the 4th century doctrine of the Trinity, how much bugle blowing are we hearing about this? The volume is as low as those preaching against divorce. Almost complete silence.
GA: There is a civil war raging at the moment in Anglicanism (and elsewhere) between progressive Christianity that takes its priorities from the zeitgeist, the present culture, and a faithful orthodox belief
“A civil war”? From an outsider looking in, it looks more like a few mealy mouthed Anglicans speaking in opposition to gay marriage (with a few folk less mealy-mouthed, like Gavin Ashenden) just like they are/were doing so with respect to opposing female bishops. If you want to listen to a typical mealy mouthed effort against female bishops pull up the archive of CJ Davis’ session on female bishops at St Nicholas Church Tooting. The man seemed to me, at least, to be uncertain, lacking confidence and afraid of stepping on egg shells placed there by present culture. That is what the zeitgeist does to churchmen.
One thing is true, serving the present culture will make a hypocrite out of everyone and anyone.
Really quickly (yeah right!), one of Tooting's St Nicholas Church’s members has been talking about polygamy again. Being swamped in Islamophobia, it’s just gushy zeitgeist and dated feminist propaganda for the evangelical wing of the Church of England – basically saying Islam is inferior to Christianity because Islam allows polygamy and Christianity (according to her strained interpretation) does not.
Yeah, like a bunch of Muslims and secularists around the world are going to start worshipping the Middle Eastern man the Church of England worship, Prophet Jesus, because of such shallow propaganda snuff.
Martin Luther never thought the Bible banned polygamy
I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. [Martin Luther]
This will raise a few Protestant Church eyebrows. In the case of the aging CofE, zimmer-frames, painted on eyebrows, Conservative party membership cards and walking sticks.
Who was Martin Luther, only a massive spark for the Protestant movement and the subsequent Protestant Church.
Augustine
We’ve already mentioned Augustine to Islamophobes.
"Saint Augustine believed that the Bible allowed for polygamy, but only for the purpose of procreation and only if the law of the land allowed it" [Source]
Dated feminism of Lizzie Schofield (and St Nicholas Church Tooting)
I highly suspect the lurch to the anti-polygamy pews is actually based on what these people believe to be feminism and the zeitgeist (spirit of the age). In true Church of England fashion, the spirit of the age is highly influential in interpreting the Bible – you don’t end up sitting on billions of quid worth of assets if you’re not mindful of public and governmental opinion. Church of England members increasingly support the ordination female priests simply because of the public opinion in Britain moving in that direction. It’s seen as bigoted and anti-woman to not allow females to have overall leadership in churches, the Church of England folk obligingly alter their hermeneutical approach and abandon previous leanings which do not comply with the spirit of the age. Even those (largely older members like CJ Davis) who offer resistance do it mealy mouthed. If somebody can pull up the archived sermon of CJ Davis’ “hot-potato” discussion on female clergy you’ll see what I mean. That could be put forward as a dictionary example of “mealy-mouthed”. CJ, this is my observation which I feel many others will share around your handling of that discussion. I suspect that uneasiness and lack of confidence was because you were going against the zeitgeist. I wonder what you’d have advised King Henry VIII back in the day...assuming you weren’t knocking about back in those days and actually advising him (just some silly banter!).
A growing number of CofE folks are in favour of gay marriage, in fact, it’s the majority of folks in the CofE [YouGov suggested45% of Church of England followers felt same-sex marriage was right, against 37% who believed it wrong [stats sourced from Huffington Post]. . You know what’s going to happen, they are going to change their approach and interpret the Bible to allow gay marriage. It’s already happened in some "Christian" quarters. Serving the spirit of the age.
The same, if past CofE hypocritical trends are anything to go by, will happen with plural marriage. Polyamory is an idea in the modern feminism. An opportunity for some light-hearted banter with CJ Davis, St Nicholas Church’s chief! Don’t get excited CJ Davis, the Church will probably have a different hermeneutic based on 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 for church leaders. In any case, you’ll be retired by the time they get to thinking about cashing in on plural marriages. They’ve got their hands full with women bishops and gay weddings right now after the Church's drawn-out fight to overcome the biblical opposition to remarriage and divorce.
My theory is that men in the Church of England (the vast majority, 75%, of whom are struggling with porn dependency) have a teenage-boyish wet-dream view when they think of polygamy. As for the church women, being insecure and knowing the perversions their churchmen are afflicted with loudly rail against polygyny simply because they fear their churchmen secretly want it. But in reality, if they had the ability to be more mature, nuanced and fair minded they’d see polygamy as a healthy alternative for a number of women around the world - with special emphasis on those in poorer countries. It basically gives women more choice, in fact, the feminist ideal is built on widening the choice women have. Would there not be an argument to say it’s anti-feminist to deny women the right to share a husband. I’m not arguing from a feminist stand-point and I think the widening of choice narrative ultimately leads to unregulated plural relationships (not even marriages) which both the Christian (well, the dying breed of Christian who is not hypocritically following the zeitgeist and who actually accepts the Bible as an authority wholsesale) and the Muslim would believe to be unacceptable.
I’ll just dump a couple of quotes from Laurie Penny below and leave it to folks to use their brains. Men at St Nicholas church, please do not go pestering the clergy at your church to allow polyamory. I’m not advocating unfettered polyamory. I’m just saying a regulated form of polygyny does provide women a good alternative and a useful option in real life, especially women outside our cultural and geographical parameters so it just seems really shallow and culturally imperialistic of the CofE to bash Islam and denounce Islamic regulations on polygamy [the man can only marry another woman (maximum 4) if he has the financial means and ability to look after the wives equally [and for the immature churchmen, nope get your minds out of the gutter, they aren’t all allowed to have sex together. In fact, it’s the same churchmen who have an unhealthy fascination with the Muslim belief that there is sex in Paradise, so what if there’s sex in Paradise? If Paradise is going to be better than this life then it will have the best of the physical (food, friendships, companionship, clothing housing etc.) and the best of the spiritual (the relationship to God which is the ultimate experience in Paradise, far superseding the physical). Of course, the promise of better material in an everlasting Paradise helps keep the Muslim away from the ephemeral pursuits in this life which ultimately makes the Muslim less worldly and more charitable].
What was that, CJ Davis or whoever instructs DCCI Ministries to fling low-level polemical mud at Islam in an effort to bring people into the Church and worship a man (Jesus)? You want the crew to ignore that common sense above, find some Muslims who don’t know English or aren’t too knowledgeable to counter the dishonest polemics and just continue reeling off the same sex-obsessed polemics against Islam in a numbers game hoping somebody is stupid/ignorant enough to sign on the Church dotted line...is the CofE trying to rack up the idiot and the part-time feminist count in the Church?
This is the same Church of England which is not meant to allow divorce (unless for adultery) and not allow divorced women to remarry. Just look at how Justin Welby “dealt with” the remarriage of Megan Markle (a divorcee), Was that to get the big wedding of the summer (and presumably big money spinner for the CofE) on? Is that tumbleweed blowing past St Nicholas Church and Lambeth Palace? Yep, in my opinion the CofE has been embarrassing Britain for centuries and still going strong!
Laurie Penny quotes:
“Paradoxically, as the moral grip of religious patriarchy has loosened its hold in the West, the doctrine of monogamous romance has become ever more entrenched. Marriage was once understood as a practical, domestic arrangement that involved a certain amount of self-denial. Now your life partner is also supposed to answer your every intimate and practical need, from orgasms to organising the school run. Polyamory is a response to the understanding that, for a great many of us, that ideal is impractical, if not an active source of unhappiness. People have all sorts of needs at different times in their lives – for love, companionship, care and intimacy, sexual adventure and self-expression – and expecting one person to be able to meet them all is not just unrealistic, it’s unreasonable. Women in particular, who often end up doing the bulk of the emotional labour in traditional, monogamous, heterosexual relationships, don’t have the energy to be anyone’s everything.
I don’t expect anyone to be everything to me. I want my freedom, and I want to be ethical, and I also want care and affection and pleasure in my life. I guess I’m greedy. I guess I’m a woman who wants to have it all. It’s just that my version of ‘having it all’ is a little different from the picture of marriage, mortgage and monogamy to which I was raised to aspire.”
“Personally, I started practising non-monogamy in my early 20s as a statement against the tyranny of the heterosexual couple form and the patriarchal nuclear family”
Do St Nicholas Church believe Jesus cares about women in all cultures?
The Church of England is culturally one-dimensional in my view. You’d expect it to be, it’s the Church of ENGLAND. Crikey, I’ve capitalised “England”, looking over my shoulder in case anybody thinks I’m part of the bigoted EDL or the nutty “Christian group” of Britain First.
When Congolese village women, where swathes of men have been killed in civil war, are struggling to find husbands because of the shortage of men, do you really think polygamy should be banned based on a biblical hermeneutic geared to modern day Britain where we, thankfully (thanking God, not Jesus) have stability and peace in comparison to war-torn lands (war-torn lands largely because of Western, culturally “Christian”, intervention/proxy). What you’re essentially doing here is denying those foreign women the right of protection, financial stability, possibly housing and obviously children by forbidding them to marry a man who is willing to look after her as a second wife. Islam’s teachings offer these practical solutions whilst the Church of England’s teachings (as of today, subject to change tomorrow) offers nothing in practical options.
The Bible and polygamy – unconvincing hermeneutics by the Church of England for the spirit of the age
The Bible is not even clear on prohibiting polygamy, and in parts it permits polygamy by offering regulating teachings for men with wives. But hey, this is the Church of England and the Church of England will mould its texts and change its stance to fit in with what they believe to be the prevailing wind of the zeitgeist and/or self-interest (£££££££££££ and power imo). Is this not the same institution that was essentially started as King Henry VIII wanted another wife because his first wife did not bear a male heir? The irony here is, the Church of England would not have existed if Henry was allowed to marry a second wife via polygyny (or if Rome were as servile as the CofE to the requests of English monarchs) the split from the main Church was due to Henry wanting to annul* his marriage to Catherine in order to marry Anne Boleyn. Thus, the Church of England was born. What an acrimonious and contentious start to the institution, the Church of England. The CofE has been embarrassing Britain for centuries...and it’s still going!
*CJ Davis may be the only person reading who will know what I’m talking about here – CJ feel free to correct me on this or add to my knowledge. From my understanding Henry was not after a divorce, he wanted an annulment. Henry VIII actually opposed divorced so it’s a misconception to think the CofE was formed because a king wanted a “divorce”. The ditty Divorced-Beheaded-Died:Divorced-Beheaded-Survived (or whatever it is!) is probably a little inaccurate, an annulment in those times may just have been a way to get a divorce without it being called a divorce although Henry was using Leviticus to argue his first marriage was invalid if I'm nto mistaken. The CofE has traditionally been staunch against divorce as well as remarriage. There were about 300 people who were granted divorce (and allowed to remarry) by the CofE between the 1600s and the 1800ish (?) at the request of the government . Remarriage (if you had a living spouse) was only allowed from 2002 in the CofE. Is that all pretty correct? I’d be interested in knowing how clergy like you feel about this and how you reconcile this in your mind to continue to work for this institute. I’d also be interested in knowing if YOU would conduct the marriage of Megan and Harry, if you were asked to? If so, what would your reasoning be to allow itIf not, are you or your bishop be matched with more traditional (and biblical) members of the CofE for “theological affinity” on divorce and remarriage? I would love to hear your thoughts
Talking about embarrassments, the “I’ll throw the Bible under the bus to bash Islam” attitude in the CofE continues
Elizabeth Schofield’s (representing St Nicholas Church Tooting) premise in arguing against polygyny in the Bible is based on the “one flesh verse” (Genesis 2:24 and Matt 19:4-6).
Surely Elizabeth Schofield knows she and/or her colleagues in anti-Islam polemics have been told that the traditional Church view is that Moses wrote Genesis 2:24, yet he was a polygamist (had more than one wife!) so either you’re saying Moses was a hypocrite (and thus a large portion of your Bible was written by a hypocrite according to you and your Church) or that Moses did not understand the teachings he was passing on to his community. Both beliefs would lead you to question whether Moses was a prophet – talking about Moses and the Bible I would love to hear the Church in Tooting to apologise to a Muslim who brought up a passage in Numbers. Or perhaps you’ve got some complicated hermeneutics like those who try to shoe-horn the 4th century (and obviously false) doctrine of the Trinity into the Bible to avoid this dilemma? I’m all ears. CJ Davis or Robert Schofield, do you lads (adding a more working class vibe as CJ “probably never had a pot-noodle or been to a football match” Davis shudders!) care to butt in as expositors of the Bible? Thought not!
I’m just rehashing an old piece I based on Mark Henkel’s lecture on the Bible and polygamy:
The prohibition on adultery is not given in English, it was given in Hebrew. Mark Henkel teaches the Hebrew word for 'adultery' means WOMAN who breaks wed-lock. Thus through the Hebrew we see that polygamy of a man marrying more than one wife is not adultery.
And we must also keep in mind Mark Henkel's important reminder of Christian belief, Moses is believed to have written down the Law prohibiting adultery yet he had more than one wife thus showing to Christians and Jews that polygamy of a man marrying more than one wife is NOT adultery.
As for the two will be one flesh. Mark Henkel states this does not mean you cannot be one flesh with more than one woman as Moses was a polygamist.
Mark Henkel points out that the Bible also teaches one can become 'one flesh' with a prostitute. Mark Henkel contends this means that the person can be 'one flesh' with his wife and 'one flesh' with a prostitute.
16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b] 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. [1 Corinthians 6]
Mark Henkel believes the understanding of adultery and the one-flesh passage are not in contradiction with Polygamy
Do they believe Jesus gave wives (notice, plural!) to David?
The fact that the Church of England (essentially) believe Jesus gave David multiple wives and would have given him more wives if David wanted and that they believe Jesus gave orders regulating polygamy (not forbidding it) is kind of overlooked. A hermeneutical approach which panders to the spirit of the age or the spirit of a government, pretty close to the framework Archbishop Cranmer was operating in for Henry, what say you CJ Davis? Time for more Mark Henkel logic...
Mark Henkel says David had numerous wives and according to the Bible, God gave David those wives and if he wanted more God would have given more:
8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wivesinto your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. [2 Samuel 12:8]
Matthew 25, as mentioned by Mark Henkel, contains a parable of a polygamous bridegroom.
Under the Old Testament Law Polygamy was never banned. It was simply regulated
If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. [Exodus 21:10]
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him. [Deuteronomy 21:15-17]
See Mark Henkel on Polygamy and the Bible
Unintelligible sloganeering from CofE’s Lizzie Schofield
Lizzie: The reason polygamy persists in Islam, apart from the fact that it is sanctioned forever by Allah’s eternal speech, the Qur’an, is because Allah is not a personal, covenantal god. [I guess they believe Martin Luther believed in a God who is not “personal”, whatever that means. I guess they believe the Jews believe in a God who is not personal. Whatever that means. It’s the type of emotion you’ll hear verbalised from an Alpha Course influenced “Christian”, it’s of course rather unintelligible but it seems like a staple slogan for evangelicals nowadays (perhaps the Church's constant bashing of Islam for polygamy is, in part, due to xenophobia in the Church where it pits Arabs and other Eastern foreign men as abusers of women whilst the men of the Church of England are the white - quite literally white in most cases - knights of women? I don't know, are there any fair-minded church leaders to talk about this maturely and honestly rather than leaving it to the more shrill and Islamophobic types amongst CofE members who are just interested in doing low level evangelical propaganda). I wonder what they will change the slogan to *when* gay marriage and plural marriages become more accepted by the Church. I wonder whether their belief that Jesus will return with a sword for Muslim men and women has any bearing on their “personal god” slogan? I wonder if they think Jesus, a Middle Eastern man, is a personal god because they believe he’s going to return in person with a sword for those unwilling to accept Paul of Tarsus as a prophet, the Church and its Trinity doctrine A flurry of questions for CJ Davis, which I’m sure he will not bother trying to answer as he goes through the Anglican motions holding on for retirement. Nominalism is probably more prevalent in the Church of England than xenophobia despite Rev. Root’s belief the CofE is institutionally racist.]
Will St Nicholas Church in Tooting be the first to hold a polygamous wedding?
Unlikely given the current incumbents there, I would not advise anybody to bank on it. Who knows, if public opinion continues to move away from compulsory monogamous relationships then we will see stronger murmurings and even possibly action in an Anglican church within the next decade or two or three. It will start off in more liberal churches and then the more traditional churches will do what they normally do, cave in to public opinion or became really mealy-mouthed and embarrassed by their position they dare not teach it publicly. Ask yourself how many churches actively preach against divorce, sex before marriage and remarriage? They don’t because they suspect their congregations will get upset.
If you’re a church leader in the UK, who is reading this in the future, and are planning to conduct a polygamous marriage will you alert St Nicholas Church Tooting? ?Ofc, if, by then, St Nicholas Church, has not folded and turned into a pub, nightclub, supermarket or whatever else churches are being converted to nowadays – note I’m not going to do the triumphant stuff of saying it will be a mosque because I see a trend where religion in the UK seems to be on the wane and that may also include Islam (which ties in with the Islamic belief that Islam began as something strange and will end up as something strange closer to the end of time) even though pathetically desperate evangelical folks try to scare their cultural Christian comrades into action with the fear that Islam will take over (every church has its bogeyman, the CofE had the pope as its bogeyman for decades; but the bigots nowadays in the Church are increasingly choosing Islam and Muslims to replace the spectre of the “anti-christ” pope) – an appeal to Islamophobia and xenophobia to try and get folks active for the Church of England or whatever evangelical Church they labour for – I told you in my view they continue to embarrass the nation!
This is truly shocking. A Muslim man (Muhammed Hijab) has been the victim of threats and a witch hunt based on false allegation which have led to DFLA supporting xenophobes and Islamophobes to try and get Muhammed Hijab to lose his job. This is crazily unfair. It's obviously a witch hunt conducted by a bunch of upset DFLA supporting Islamophobes due to a couple of their thugs attacking Muhammed Hijab and thus bringing bad PR onto their organisation and their movement.
The Pakistani Christian in this video is either being disingenuous or is not thinking in a reasonable fashion.In order to condemn a group of criminals and/or a criminal action you don’t need to stand outside courts and march around like the xenophobes of the EDL, Britain First, the Football Lads Alliance and the like.You just need to put out a condemnatory statement. That’s all.
This Christian bloke will not accept Muslim condemnations unless he see Muslims outside court cases yelling at groomers going in and out of the court for their trials like Tommy Robinson and Britain First types do.
You don’t see sports club members, employees of TV stations, parliamentarians or church members being asked to protest outside courtrooms in order to condemn groomers caught in their midst?
Why is he asking for this from Muslims? He seems either totally ignorant or just plainly disingenuous.
His attitude is reckless as it can lead to further fan the flames of anti Muslim sentiment and encourage collective blame. This is in fact what the far right are trying to do, they misuse these news stories and the victims of these grooming gangs to push their xenophobia and dg-whistle Islamophobia to the public domain in propaganda campaigns against Muslims – essentially they see the victims of sexual violence at the hands of grooming gangs of an ethnic background for a far right political project. This is quite easily discernible as thy concern themselves exclusively on rapes and sexual assaults which can be pinned on cultural outsiders (Muslims in this case) it has to be opposed intellectually and condemned.
Finally, I want to highlight something you should all be switched on to. The far right are increasingly using people ethnic backgrounds to demonise other minorities (mainly Muslims). This is a tactic used by the far right so as to shield them from accusations of racism. What they are actually doing is tapping into something that has happened historically, as highlighted by MP Dianne Abbot. More established immigrant communities (ethnic minorities) may well criticise the newer and the less established immigrant communities in the West. It’s something to watch out for, it’s still discrimination regardless of the ethnicity of the person who is being used by the far right so don’t feel reluctant to call them out for it by calling a spade a spade .
It starts off with Hashim standing his ground (rightly and commendably so!) fending off a suggestion that a 2-2 minute format should be operated. The explanation for this format here is a worry that Lizzie won't get a word in. I don't get this at all. Hashim's asking questions a good number of his co-religionists will have of Trinitarian Church beliefs and scriptures. You'd think somebody who seriously believes they are an "evangelist" and wants to do the Church's bidding would be up for this. Not Lizzie!
Remember he's asking questions of a Church representative who is meant to believe she's got the Holy Spirit (which the Trinitarian church believes to be God) in-dwelling her and she is taught by an anonymous New Testament author (whom the Church believes was inspired by the same Spirit) to be ready to give an answer:
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect [1 Peter 3:15]
Isn't her job, according to the Church, then, to just sit back, elicit the questions and answer them? Instead, based on her track record, she seems to be led by the spirit of Islamophobia and the spirit of the age (Western culturalism) where she seeks out opportunities to bash the Muslim's religion and in the process bashes the wider Muslim community in the form of stereotyping and propaganda. There’s a sizeable overlap with the Far Right and Lizzie’s “Christian” companions when talking about Islam – something which needs to be reflected and discussed more.
If a Christianophobe was to do the same he’d be linking the Bible’s relatively low age of consent (age puberty) with the Church child grooming scandals which are in the news far and wide. The Christianophobe counterpart to Lizzie Schofield may also link the biblical orders believed, by the Church (presumably by St Nicholas Church too), to be from the person of Jesus to kill children and women as a reason why so many child abuse scandals are hitting CJ Davis’ Church of England; these people see Jesus as their role model and they believe Jesus did not care about the children in 1 Samuel 15, Numbers 31, Joshua thus they abuse children because their role model did not care about them in their minds. Likewise for why they never protest against wars and bombings of Middle Eastern and other Muslim countries where countless children are killed as collateral damage during (“Christian”) military action, in the accompanying economic warfare prior to “Christian” military action and in the maelstrom of power struggles (including economic shock therapies – re Naomi Klein) in the aftermath of “Christian” bombings and invasions.
Sermons promoting anti war protests?
I’d personally love to know if CJ Davis has ever, ever, done a sermon criticising our government or an American administration for their decisions to opt for bombs and wars in an effort to move his congregation to be politically active in campaigning against wars and ultimately attempting to save the lives of young foreign children. Alas, St Nicholas Church are hiding his archived sermons now so there’s no way of telling whether he had the moral aptitude and fortitude to speak out or whether he just continually persists with sermons which make the hyper-individualist “Christian” feel good for the day (and donate for the current church building maintenance drive). I get the feeling this is your average Cof E sermon, a reverend who is out of touch just churning out sermons which sing to the whims of the congregation in this climate of hyper-individualism, does Jeremiah 5 come to mind a little?
The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. [Jeremiah 5]
But hey, the counterpart to Lizzie, may just say CJ Davis’ role model is the Trinitarian Church version of Jesus - a person who is believed to have ordered to the killing of non virgin women (wives/mothers) [1 Samuel 15] – therefore they expect CJ Davis not to ever speak out and be genuinely active in trying to help those poor women and kids who are the victims of Western (“Christian”) imperial campaigns.
Perhaps that Christianophobe is out there: Islamophobia breeds Christianophobia and vice versa. People who are representing mosques or churches should recognise this and be guarded and responsible in what they say. Judging from the behaviour and comments coming from Elizabeth Schofield and her colleagues, I’d reckon St Nicholas Church members are not being taught this – that is a failing on CJ Davis’ part. When’s he due to retire...
Muslims need to wisen up to the dichotomy within evangelicalism
That was quite a tangent! Where was I? Ah yeah, I was rambling on about the Christian lady not answering questions. Come on, answer the questions the bloke has. If you don't know how the Church wants you to answer why are you even there? Hop over to Oxford Street and splash some cash - charge it to Rob Schofield's credit card if he lets you! Enjoy your day out. And whilst we are at it, why aren’t CJ Davis and Robert Schofield there? They represent a local church, Robert is a preacher and CJ is a member of the clergy nearing retirement. I assume they know more about Trinitarian church beliefs than Elizabeth given that they are allowed to (frigidly) preach at St Nicholas Church and she’s not.
Come on, let’s start seeing serious church guys having conversation with Muslims. The Christians bring polite and educated (some are very accomplished academically I must say) folks to talk to Atheists yet when it’s a case of talking to Muslims they send out rabble-rouser types. You know the sort when you hear them a number of descriptive words come into mind: unsophisticated, unhinged unwashed, uncaring, uninformed, uncoordinated, uneducated, uncouth and ultimately easily undone! Just think about the number of obnoxious types on the internet where you just go away and think “what a moron” after reading or listening to their “evangelical” efforts.
Of course, there’s a reason for this. And Muslims need to smarten up to this, it will hurt one’s pride but this is true. The Christians subconsciously see the Atheists and other secularists as their intellectual and cultural superiors as well as being of their own kin and kith; when they see the LGBTQi peeps, uber secular humanists or New Age Atheists they see their family, their role models, their celebrities, their teachers (possibly their church leaders given some of them are secret Atheists too!), their cultural icons and their own culture. That’s an internal and in-house thing for them. When they see some Muslim at Speakers Corner (or wherever) preaching Islam, they see Johnny foreigner. A foreign culture. Subconscious xenophobia kicks in and they leave the uncooked types in the Church to dialogue with Muslims, why should a smart and classy gentleman be resourced on talking to a bunch of Muslims when the metaphorical red-carpet can be rolled out for what the Reformation ultimately helped to spawn as the evolved cultural specimen of the age, the secular humanist?
Xenophobia?
I suspect there is a latent sense of xenophobia in the reason why there is such a gulf in class between the two sets of “evangelists”. If you can’t see this just look at the Christian evangelists and apologists advocating Theism and compare them to those who are concentrated on trying to bring Muslims into the Trinitarian Church. And I don’t mean take Speakers’ Corner Christians as an example as I think it’s pretty well observed that Christians turn up there half-way normal and become buffoonish in many cases for a few hours before going home to act half-way normal again for the rest of the week – that’s sadly rinsed and repeated for the rest of the year. Take Speakers Corner out of the equation, you’ll still notice what I’m getting at.
We haven’t even got into any apologetics yet. This is going to be a toil. Moving on whilst having some more prune juice...
"The Bible is infallible because of the Quran" - Elizabeth Schofield
I want to post more on this type of cognitive laziness and let's be frank, evangelical intellectual obscurantism. She got cut off, rightly so, but it seemed like she was scraping the barrel of low level evangelical slogans with this. Sad.
The New Testament is not the Injeel - this is a crucial distinction which is ignored/missed by evangelicals to promote what is ultimately their intellectually dishonest sloganeering.
Muslims need to be firm, clear and polite in making these points. Churches need to be honest in listening to Muslims and finding out what they believe about the NT rather than thinking some missionary pamphlet is trusty.
The NT was never seen nor sanctioned by Jesus. Islam confirms a Message which was given to [emphasising to] Jesus. The Church "gospels" are written by anonymous people without any authority about Jesus which a church (a bunch of anonymous and unauthorised people again) declared to be "inspired".
Let's see folks stop playing dumb here as clearly Islam contradicts aspects of the Church's teachings. What are you saying, the Quran wholly confirms the Church's books but contradicts the Church's teachings? A simple example here would be that of the deifying of a Prophet, Jesus. The Church believes its books and its creeds teach this. Islam rejects this idea. Likewise with the idea of Jesus being murdered for the sins of mankind, the Church believes this is something their New Testament teaches yet Muslims don’t believe this idea. Do you still want to say Islam confirms the New Testament?
Think about what you’re saying, just because some ropey missionary said it before you for decades does not mean it’s true. Christian missionaries say all sorts of stuff, not all of it’s true.
Muslims believe Scripture was given to Abraham - the Quran teaches this. If the Church or any other organisation turns up with texts written in the name of, about or purported to be from Abraham, does that mean Islam confirms these texts? Nope.
We’ve got to encourage better thought!
As far as I can see, Hashim and those who follow his SC dialogues online are too smart to fall for that. And Lizzie should be switched on enough to know how shallow and offensive to the intellect these scrape-the-bottom-of-the-barrel evangelical slogans look. It goes back to what I was saying about the way the non theists are treated; the Church brings out sophisticated people who proffer sophisticated arguments but it’s anything goes when it comes to Muslims (including hypocrisy, misinformation, out-right lies, decontextualised narratives, xenophobia, racist arguments, logical fallacies, strawmen, made up stories or miracles and healings which always take place when the camera is never around, parlour tricks like leg lengthening passed off as miracles, quote mining etc,.). In fact the Church, along with slogans, rolls out the blankets and promises of help with asylum applications to entice Muslim refugees to sign on the dotted line. A number, desperate and broken through poverty and war, do decide to temporarily pretend to become Christians for the Church goodies and support.
He's not interested in the Church
I’m not watching a video of a Christian manipulating a refugee (all that is done behind closed doors) but I’m watching a video of an evangelist representing the Church talking to a Muslim who is clearly not going to be swayed by promises of blankets, cash, asylum or low level evangelical slogans. How many guys like Hashim has the Church got to sign on the dotted line? You can tell this man will never become a Christian and you can tell Lizzie knows this, she’s not even trying to convince him to follow her to St Nicholas Church and get baptised...she’s not even trying to communicate the Church “gospel” with him. He knows too much about the Bible, the Trinity belief and the Church doctrines. Having said that, if there’s never been an attempt by a Christian, to sit him down and try and answer his questions and communicate the Church message to him, you would have to ask why are DCCI Ministries and these other Church characters you see in SC videos ,who have become somewhat cartoonish, aren’t trying to spend time and “save his soul” according to their Church’s ideas. Do they not care about his soul? You’d think these characters would all be rushing off to their respective local churches and calling on their elders to rush down there and try and save the soul of Hashim.
Perhaps they did but their church leaders were preoccupied on the church roof. Building maintenance, the primary concern of all local churches!
Lizzie Schofield: "It's not a big deal" that other churches have different books in their Bible
Nope Elizabeth.
Not according to St Nicholas Church in Tooting and all those members of the CofE following the Thirty Nine Articles over the centuries as the list of books was deemed important enough to list in the Articles. It's clearly a big deal - especially if you believe Archbishop Cranmer and CofE members over the centuries were indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
What are you saying here Lizzie, it was important for the Holy Spirit to make prominent in the minds of "Christians" centuries ago but nowadays the Holy Spirit does not consider it as important?
And don't you think the spirit inside you wants you to believe it's important which words are attributed to God and which words aren't? When you’ve imbibed the spirit of the age and decided to peddle in islamophobia rather than your Church tradition and Bible you probably don’t think about these points
CJ Davis, care to comment?
Elizabeth Schofield: The differences between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles don't matter because they teach the same thing
Well, if they teach the same thing then why does Robert Schofield, who left the Catholic Church to join the church of Martin Luther and the Puritans, subscribe to the Protestant Bible? And why would he leave Catholicism for Protestantism if it's all the same thing?
Oh, you're saying the overall message in the two faiths are the same? Well, in that case, isn't there an argument for the overall message between Unitarians and the Trinitarian Church being the same? Or the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses have a similar overall message to St Nicholas Church? CJ Davis, are you going to allow Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and Socinians in your church to preach? Let me know if you are planning to as you’re on the road to letting Muslims lead prayers there.
[As for this by-line that the overall message is the same, of course it's going to be as Luther and company did not radically split from the older church of Rome and make their own religion up.
If say you, Lizzie Schofield, decide to reject the Old Testament and reject the Church theology of the Trinity because you don’t like believing in a Trinitarian Church Version Jesus who is the source of Exodus 21:20-21 or 1 Samuel 15 and 2 Samuel 12
Do you think your church would be OK with you to remain as a member and would the clergy there say you believe the same thing as them?
CJ Davis, would you kick her out of your church if she did this (forget about the amount of cash she may or may not pump into the church coffers)? And don’t give me that nonsense of we don’t kick people out, your Church articles teach ex-communication.
The Bible is reliable enough for the basic message of the Church to be ascertained?
Erm, this oh it's reliable enough (meaning that it's not inerrant) actually contradicts the Bible as it's taught to be flawless perfect (discussed later)
CJ, come on mate, I think you really need to stop these people going to parks and mosques; you need to start entering serious discussions on these matters. When I say serious discussions, I don’t mean masking what you're teaching by hiding your sermons, I mean by inviting to the church people who can conduct clear-minded and informed dialogue to help edify your congregations with respect to what the Bible actually is, its history and the history of doctrines such as the 4th century doctrine of the Trinity. Can we move away from slogans, empty rhetoric and move towards having Muslim folks invited to St Nicholas Church to lovingly discuss these talking points with the church members in a spirit of friendship rather than this adversarial hype Lizzie and the other “robust” “Christians” are on? It can be done without the shouting and the immaturity which Dr James R White (church elder at Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church) has rebuked your church member on. There are Muslims willing to lovingly dialogue with you at St Nicholas Church on any given Sunday. You used to do the hot potato sermons, why not make this proposed interfaith discussion (not scream-fest) a regular thing for a Sunday at your church – perhaps bi-monthly? You’ll have to find a sophisticated and learned Muslim (learned in Islam and Christianity) as your dialogue partner, but that should not be a problem as there are plenty out there. Here’s an idea, to get your program running why don’t you invite the chap Liz was talking to, Hashim, he’s clearly got a load of questions which are going unanswered?
~ 26 The Bible is inspired by God – Lizzie Schofield
Where's Lizzie getting this idea from? The Church! The same Church that invented from whole-cloth the Trinity Doctrine. The same Church which was unsure about certain books. The same Church which basically chose, without any authority whatsoever what is to be considered inspired scripture and ended up with four, yes four (4), gospels. It even debated the book of Revelation, as mentioned elsewhere in the video by the Muslim who does not look remotely interested signing up for the Church, Hashim
Why is Lizzie even taking this fallible organisation as an authority?
If a bunch of church-men got together now and declared the Epistle of Barnabas is canon would she accept it? If not then why not as the church-men of today have as much authority as those involved in the long, protracted canonisation process.
Heretics, barbarians and rancour in the heart
I'd bet many, if not all of them, would have considered Lizzie to be a heretic or a pagan (I waggishly ask, would they have called her a barbarian? Oooh the irony considering evangelical “Christian” propaganda which paints Muslims as barbarians!)
Seriously, Lizzie Schofield, forget about all the banter and the personal animosity (plus pride). You must KNOW deep down that this questioning is subsumed on good points. Will you consider the questions faithfully or will you cling on to your Church’s tradition because it's a Muslim or a critic saying it and you've felt your pride dented by such people responding to you?
And on that note, let's just remember these authors did not believe the words they were writing were "inspired". An obvious example would be the fact that none of them claim such and the gospel authors Luke and Matthew clearly did not believe Mark was "inspired" otherwise they would not have wrote their own based on his work...they would have simply copied his accurately and distributed it if they truly believed his text was "inspired". Likewise for the recipients of Paul's letters, how could they believe his letters were "inspired" if they did not even bother to preserve them - his letter to Laodicea is lost (and who knows which other letters and his current letters are thought to be edited versions).
Again, Lizzie, these are good points worthy of a good deal of mulling over - something which can only be considered by putting pride and rancour for the group, person making said points aside.
I used to watch a fair bit of Speakers Corner stuff and as far as a I would speculate, the Christians (including you) are less likely to take anything on board from their Muslim interlocutors simply because of the cameras, rancour in the heart (basically dislike for that individual Muslim) and pride.
27 Lizzie is Uneasy about inerrancy
“Credibility and inerrancy are two different things”
Not for a Book which you claim is inspired by God. Yep for a newspaper or news station. The BBC is reliable (credible) on the whole but it's not inerrant.
The Bible can't be mostly reliable or credible if you believe it's inspired by God - it's got to be flawless. In fact, that is what the Hebrew Bible teaches about itself according to Christians at Got Questions:
The doctrine of biblical inerrancy is an extremely important one because the truth does matter. This issue reflects on the character of God and is foundational to our understanding of everything the Bible teaches. Here are some reasons why we should absolutely believe in biblical inerrancy: 1. The Bible itself claims to be perfect. “And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times” (Psalm 12:6). “The law of the Lord is perfect” (Psalm 19:7). “Every word of God is pure” (Proverbs 30:5 KJV). These claims of purity and perfection are absolute statements. Note that it doesn’t say God’s Word is “mostly” pure or scripture is “nearly” perfect. The Bible argues for complete perfection, leaving no room for “partial perfection” theories.
CJ Davis, do you care about any of this or are you just hanging on until retirement day (CofE pension) going through the motions as a preacher preaching what you think the congregation want you to say to make them feel good about themselves (meeting the needs of hyper-individualism in the church)?
"we've got thousands of manuscripts"..."so much mansucript evidence" – Lizzie Schofield
I'm disappointed because I know this lady is simply repeating lazy apologetics dished down by people who should know better.
These manuscripts are largely from the Middle Ages so the number of manuscripts is irrelevant. It's like me pitching up and claiming we know Shakespeare is reliable because we've got a ton of copies printed from the 1960s in bookstores and libraries across the UK. The smart person will just dismiss this because these copies, centuries later, have no categorical say on whether what we have written now is what Shakespeare originally wrote.
The fact is, there's no way to tell if the Church have copied correctly what the original authors of the NT wrote - there were dishonest scribes and there were sloppy scribes so we don’t know whether they added bits or omitted bits
28 Mark took dictation from Peter – Lizzie Schofield
This is just not true. It's not true.
Mark was probably written after Peter passed away. And that may be one of the reasons why they attributed it to Mark.
Does accuracy and truth not matter?
Look, you've got somebody who the Church wants us to believe is filled with the Holy Spirit and is being sanctified by the Holy Spirit yet this person is a constant source of misinformation – she does not come back and publicly correct herself as far as I’m aware either.
Sadly this is a constant theme amongst Christians who just imbibe what they are told and want to believe it because they want to hold on to their Church beliefs
CJ Davis or whoever is handing this material down really needs to be ashamed. YOU are making this poor lady look dishonest/recklessly ignorant. Does truth/accuracy not matter to you? You send her a bunch of untrue talking points on a regular basis melted into her low level and shallow polemics and apologetics. People aren't half-wits and they will see what’s being said is plainly untrue...well most people!
Why don’t you (whoever is misinforming her) turn up and read the crib sheets yourself, why have poor Lizzie do your bidding as a volunteer? I truly feel sorry for her as I know this is a regular theme - a young lady involved in the church who was in David Wood's group left faith (perhaps partly because of my responses which were essentially a watered down version of my responses to Lizzie) and contacted me. I guarantee you, young people (maybe Lizzie too) will leave the Church or have serious doubts if they follow the sound responses/rebukes in videos (either live encounters with smart and switched on folk or the edited variety) and blogs.
Lizzie may carry on subscribing to the Church because of the support services the local church offers and maybe because of all the cash she's pumped into it via donations over the years but younger people making their way into the world aren't as interested in coffee groups, crèches, clubs, social events, connect groups etc.. This is especially true for younger blokes given the atmosphere of emasculation in churches nowadays, young blokes who already have a support group of friends and social life won’t feel they need that crux of the local church. Of course you’ll always get people moving to new cities and jumping on Alpha Courses but that again is more female oriented and is more about emotions and feelings (smells and bells) rather than serious investigation of Church traditions. There's less lure and appeal for the average bloke, especially working class blokes. I guarantee you if there are young people following DCCI Ministries “work” at Speakers Corner and online they are doubting and/or leaving the faith as they can see what everybody else can see. There are more holes in the explanations and arguments advocated by Lizzie and her church colleagues than the Titanic.
"The fact we've got 4 different gospels not one"
This is yarn is all about turning negatives into positives. Lazy evangelists do this a lot.
The fact the Church chose 4 gospels probably means they simply turned into a super church by grafting in various groups of a similar theology, exorcising their "gospel" may have caused a kerfuffle so the easier thing to do was to just include them all as there was a great deal of overlap between them (I’m open to other theories but this theory makes sense to me). Even though two of them were copying from Mark, hardly different converging lines of evidence.
If I and another blogger reported on some fraud in the church (let's say some dude caught with his hand in the church charity box) and we copy from a church news source and make edits, is that three different converging lines of evidence or is it one report which was re-used?
Paul Williams entered into a dialogue about slavery and had a mini-debate with a Westernised Christian lady who seemed reluctant to want to discuss the topic with Paul Williams. The discussion can be viewed on the SC Dawah YouTube page in a video entitled Biblical Problems: Paul vs Lizzie
Paul gave the Westernised Christian lady an equally difficult time to that which Hashim recently gave her on Numbers 31. I do feel it's noticeable that the Christian lady is being more mindful of allowing the other person to speak and thinking about how she's being perceived, it's a good thing. There has been a marked improvement. Well done!
I've addressed this subject previously in this video. Folks, honest reading of texts is more praise and respect worthy than manipulated readings geared towards low-level polemics and mud-slinging contests. Sincere Christians should think about this.
Do you believe cruel slave masters must be obeyed?
Paul Williams raised the following eye-opening reference from the New Testament. Quite often we expect this type of passage to be limited only to the Old Testament, it' a difficult passage.
18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God [1 Peter 2, NIV]
The lady did try and suggest this was referring to servants rather than slaves and also includes professionals in employment like doctors and lawyers. I don't think this cuts much mustard, look at verse 20, it's talking about receiving beatings. One would expect beatings to be meted out to slaves, not private contractors who you hire. Coupled with Exodus 21:20-21 where TCVO Jesus allows the severe beating of female (and male) slaves as long as they got up after a day or two this is a difficult subject, especially for Westernised "Christians" - the type who get their morals from Western liberal societal norms rather than the Bible.
The New Testament does not say slaves should be freed
Now, this was an interesting claim which Paul made. Food for thought.
I'd like to see this topic explored further. I'm not sure if there is a Christian at that park, with the necessary discipline to stay on the topic, who is willing and able to discuss this topic with somebody like Paul Williams. Perhaps there is and we will se a video of such a discussion emerge on the net in the next few months.
"Muhammad owned slaves"
A few points to consider here:
1. I don't get this point. I don't understand why this is a big deal as Prophet Muhammad's slaves weren't all owned at the same time, they were freed and he encouraged the freeing of slaves. Slavery was embedded in society at the time so for the Prophet of the community to be an example in freeing slaves would have had a positive pedagogical effect on others:
Al-Imaam An-Nawawi may Allaah have mercy upon him said that it should be known that these slaves were not in the possession of the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) at the same time. However, each one served him sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) at a particular time. Moreover, historical sources all agree that the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) set all of his men and women slaves free, setting an example for his Companions , may Allah be pleased with them.[Source]
2. Does this lady not actually believe Jesus got 32 virgin girls given to him as a tribute? In Numbers 31, thirty two virgin girls were given to the LORD (for this lady, the Lord is TCVO Jesus), were these not slaves or does the lady believe the Midianite girls chose to be given to TCVO Jesus
32 The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys 35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man. 36 The half share of those who fought in the battle was: 337,500 sheep, 37 of which the tribute for the Lord was 675; 38 36,000 cattle, of which the tribute for the Lord was 72; 39 30,500 donkeys, of which the tribute for the Lord was 61; 40 16,000 people, of whom the tribute for the Lord was 32.
3. I guess this is part of the mindless emotional fluff we see so often where evangelical "Christian" people selectively compare certain instances in the life of Prophet Muhammad who was running a state with the Jesus of the New Testament who was a citizen and never had any state leadership responsibilities.
On top of this, Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus is God, why are they trying to compare a man they believe to be god with a Prophet? Bizarre. It's not only us who have picked up on this, Christian authors like Thom Stark write about it, equally perplexed:
...since Christians believe that Jesus is God, and Muslims believe that Muhammad was a human prophet, it is patently unfair to try to measure Muhammad against Jesus. Much more appropriate would be to measure Muhammad against Moses, and if Copan were to do that, guess who would be the shining beacon of light? Well, it wouldn’t be the elder of the two states-men. For one thing, Muhammad condemned the slaughter of noncombatants, women and children. Second, he embraced religious tolerance and believed that Christians, despite some theological flaws, were God’s people too, only with imperfect revelation. Moses, on the other hand, ordered and engaged in the slaughter of noncombatants, women and children, on a routine basis, and advocated for anything but religious tolerance.
[Thom Stark]
I can't imagine this lady making such arguments against Moses?
Inconsistency
In fact, the lady believes Jesus allows slavery in both the Bible and as Paul Williams mentioned, nowhere in the Bible does it teach slaves should be freed. And let us not forget that the lady believes TCVO Jesus allowed the severe beating of female slaves in Exodus 21.
I guess it's just another example of what Paul Williams described as throwing the Bible under the bus and opting for secular Western liberalism. I always find it difficult to understand exactly where this lady is coming from, at times she sounds like a British culturalist, at times like a Westernised watered-down "Christian", at times like a secular liberal, at times like a Daily Mail reader and at times like a radical feminist. The times she does sound like a Bible-believing Christian she shocks people with comments about her belief that Jesus will return with a SWORD for the "enemies of Christ" (all non Christians, including women I suppose)
The lady kept using a misleading term, "sex slaves"
I think the Christian lady misunderstood Paul's reason for citing Romans 13:1
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
There are a few difficulties for the Christian which stem from thinking about this Bible verse.
A big issue here I notice arising from Paul of Tarsus' myopic vision and his inability to envision a church (not his church as he was not a Trinitarian and nor did he have the same Bible as the Christians of today) would still be in existence 2000 years after him and that church would have had governance of Rome as well as other lands (many of which he would not have known existed).
Due to his myopia, he never instructed Christians in governance and never instructed Christians in how to govern a land based on biblical principles and laws. Christians believe God gave laws on how to regulate a land (a theocracy) in the Old Testament yet for some reason there is nothing similar in the NT but instead we see an encouragement to subservience of (pagan?) rulers, no matter how cruel and unjust they are. State governance based on social justice does not seem to have been on Paul of Tarsus' mind. This is all because Paul of Tarsus did not envision his religion and community to last long. Little did he know that a church would have saved some of his letters (not all of his letters), designated them "inspired by God" and put them in a canon to add to the Hebrew Bible alongside some other written documents including four "gospels".
I really don't think Paul of Tarsus would recognise the Christian lady in the park to be a follower of his.
And I'm absolutely certain the historical Jesus would not consider her to be a follower of his.
Geza Vermes speaks of Jesus as a ‘lover and worshipper of his Father in heaven’ , whose transformation into an object of worship ‘would have filled this Galilean Hasid with stupefaction, anger and deepest grief’ (Vermes 1983:13) [Cambridge Companion to Jesus Edited by Markus Bockmuehl – Cambridge University Press – 2001]
