Thursday, 17 April 2014

Another 'Answering Islam' Argument Destroyed

Here's a comment from Blogging Theology by Tactful83 which takes apart a hypocritical Christian argument against Islam by insincere Christians:
The sad part of all this is the fact that Sam Shamoun and David Wood will not allow meaningful dialogue or disagreement on this subject. Sam deleted my post on his Facebook page and my comment doesn’t even make it past the moderator at David’s website. I’m sure others have the exact same problem. Well, for what it’s worth, here is my original comment that Sam and David don’t want their readers to see:
You have to be careful when putting forth this type of argument because there are dozens of Bible verses that convey something strikingly similar. Christians shouldn’t be using double standards or uneven scales when engaging Muslims. We can’t apply a different standard to the Qur’an that we are unwilling to apply to the Bible. We must strive toward a high standard of truthfulness and honesty, and avoid using unfair and distorted arguments. There are far too many strong and compelling arguments against Islam to be using weak and ineffective ones. The God of the Bible does confuse, confound, deceive and harden the hearts of the wicked.
Here are just a few passages from the Bible that are strikingly similar to Surah 3:54 and 8:30 of the Qur’an:
Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, (2 Thessalonians 2:11 ESV)
Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you.” (1 Kings 22:23 ESV)
And if the prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. (Ezekiel 14:9 ESV)
Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.” (Genesis 11:7 ESV)
Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth. And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of all the earth. (Genesis 11:9 ESV)
O Lord, you have deceived me, and I was deceived; you are stronger than I, and you have prevailed. I have become a laughingstock all the day; everyone mocks me. (Jeremiah 20:7 ESV)
Lord, confuse the wicked, confound their words, for I see violence and strife in the city. (Psalm 55:9 NIV)
But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had spoken to Moses. (Exodus 9:12 ESV)
So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Romans 9:18 ESV).
My view on this argument is reinforced by a passage from Dr. James White’s book, What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an:
“Qur’an 3:54 And they [the disbelievers] schemed, and Allah schemed; and Allah is the best of schemers.
This text is often cited as evidence of some kind of dishonesty on Allah’s part, but the honest reader recognizes that just as God sent a lying spirit into the mouths of false prophets as a means by which He brought just punishment on those who rebelled against Him (1 Kings 22:23), and just as the New Testament warns those who refuse to love the truth will be caused to love a lie (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11), this text could well be saying that when people scheme against Allah and His ways, they will find Allah significantly better at that activity than they are.” (Page 114).


Anonymous said...

The hypocrite christian screams, "Allah is a deceiver, he made jehsos APPEAR to be CRUCIFIED ...."

Thousands of people were crucified before Pontius Pilate and thousands were crucified after them. Crucifixion means absolutely nothing in-and-of itself for no one but the Jews, who because of the Christian assertion cannot accept that Jesus was the Messiah.

Wars of the Jews 5.11.2.

... So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews,
nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after
another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so
great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for
the bodies. (19)....

but lets FOCUS on the keyword in the christian claim about deception and the key word is "APPEARED"

the christian god had to modify his appearance and appear as a gardener, i would assume that he was AFRAID of roman and jewish authorities. imagine if they found A CONVICTED criminal on the loose? you think they wouldn't grab him and pin him again?

jesus had to REMAIN in hiding from the AUTHORITIES.

the POOR ROMANS and jews thought that the christian god was DEAD and finished, but he is appearing as an unrecognisable gardener.

"In the account of the appearance" on the road to Emmaus, Jesus' disciples spend hours discussing the Scriptures with an insightful interlocutor, whom they later "recognize" as Jesus. in John's Gospel, Mary Magdalene encounters someone she's sure is a gardener, then "recognizes" him as Jesus when he says her name."

(so god can modify how his facial features and appear to his dumb deciples )

"If we try to accept both sets of accounts, then we have to assume that the "as-someone-else" accounts present a deceptive entity who uses shape-shifting and/or Illusion spells/Jedi Mind Tricks to change his appearance."

"The whole "Joseph of Arimathea" (where is Arimathea?) episode was probably appended later (and a rich man from nowhere donates his expensive tomb to what amounts to a criminal stranger?), specifically to confound potential investigators of the outlandish claims ("Who is this 'Joseph of Arimathea'? Bring him here so we can question him!" "No one knows, Excellency." "Well, where is this place called Arimathea? I have not heard of it before." "It is a far away land (waves hand vaguely in an easterly direction)"). And again, the Roman and Jewish authorities don't react to any of this, because there was nothing to react TO. At this point in the story, "Christianity" ..... Not only that, but Jesus and the disciples went immediately to Galilee, and didn't stay in Jerusalem according to the Gospels (Mark 16:7), effectively staying in hiding until the "resurrection" was proclaimed seven weeks later (conveniently ten days AFTER the "resurrected" Jesus was whisked to Heaven, beyond investigation again!), effectively preventing any reason to investigate."


almighty god KNEW all languages .when he was hungry he cried like a baby for his food. he knew all languages but pretended to cry like a baby . he could have requested for food in ANY language but decided to make crying sounds. what an evil and deceptive god. almighty gods mother was feeding him food and then did a short prayer as she was feeding him? she was praying to baby almighty god when she was feeding him?

almighty god GREW in wisdom?

god pretended to his mother that he can't speak

or is the christian god a shifting double minded mind which switches on different occasions? on/off?

2 day old almighty god knew what was on his mothers mind but he never let her know what was on her mind. pretended that he needed to GROW in wisdom but he NEVER needed to grow in wisdom,misled his mother to believe otherwise.

Anonymous said...

This accusation is merely based on the fact that you think the word “مَكَرَ” means deception. Well, this is easily solved if u understand the word to mean mean “to PLAN / DEVISE / FORMULATE”. The whole thing will make sense if u do. The translation of “Planning / Devising / formulating” is consistent with the Quran. Let us look at few verses of Quran which use the same word and translate those verses using these two meanings and see for ourselves what really makes sense.

Quran 71:22 وَمَكَرُوا مَكْرًا كُبَّارًا

Translation A ----------- And they DEVISED a tremendous PLAN.

Translation B ----------- And they DECEIVED a great DECEPTION (Does not make any sense, does it?)

Quran 40:45 فَوَقَاهُ اللَّهُ سَيِّئَاتِ مَا مَكَرُوا وَحَاقَ بِآلِ فِرْعَوْنَ سُوءُ الْعَذَابِ

Translation A ----------- And Allah saved them from the EVIL(سَيِّئَاتِ) they PLANNED but the burnt of the Penalty encompassed on all sides the People of Pharaoh.

Translation B ----------- And Allah saved them from the EVIL they DECEIVED but the burnt of the Penalty encompassed on all sides the People of Pharaoh (Does not make any sense, does it?)

Quran 16:45 أَفَأَمِنَ الَّذِينَ مَكَرُوا السَّيِّئَاتِ أَن يَخْسِفَ اللَّهُ بِهِمُ الْأَرْضَ أَوْ يَأْتِيَهُمُ الْعَذَابُ مِنْ حَيْثُ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ

Translation A ----------- Do then those who DEVISE EVIL (السَّيِّئَاتِ) feel secure that Allah will not cause the earth to swallow them up, or that the Wrath will not seize them from directions they little perceive?

Translation B ----------- Do then those who DECEIVE EVIL feel secure that Allah will not cause the earth to swallow them up, or that the Wrath will not seize them from directions they little perceive? (Does not make any sense, does it?)

Quran 14:46 وَقَدْ مَكَرُوا مَكْرَهُمْ وَعِندَ اللَّهِ مَكْرُهُمْ وَإِن كَانَ مَكْرُهُمْ لِتَزُولَ مِنْهُ الْجِبَالُ

Translation A ----------- And they DEVISED their PLANS but their PLANS were within the sight of Allah, even though they were such as to shake the hills.

Translation B ----------- And they DECEIVED their DECEPTIONS but their DECEPTIONS were within the sight of Allah, even though they were such as to shake the hills. (Does not make any sense, does it?)

Quran 7:123 قَالَ فِرْعَوْنُ آمَنتُم بِهِ قَبْلَ أَنْ آذَنَ لَكُمْ إِنَّ هَٰذَا لَمَكْرٌ مَّكَرْتُمُوهُ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ لِتُخْرِجُوا مِنْهَا أَهْلَهَا فَسَوْفَ تَعْلَمُونَ

Translation A ----------- Pharaoh said: do you believe in him before I give you permission? Surely this is a PLAN you have DEVISED in the city to drive out its inhabitants. But soon shall you know its consequences.

Translation B ----------- Pharaoh said: do you believe in him before I give you permission? Surely this is a DECEPTION you have DECEIVED in the city to drive out its inhabitants. But soon shall you know its consequences (Does not make any sense, does it?)

Thus, taking these verses, it is but natural that a better translation is “TO PLAN / DEVISE / FORMULATE” rather than deception and Indeed Allah is the best of planners.

Anonymous said...

From Minoria:

I have read with interest the citations.To be utterly honest one has to agree with the writer.I could be wrong but I think I have never used the argument that because the Koran has Allah trick/deceive evil people then it has to be condemned.Though I could be wrong and have used the argument.

That was because I knew about some of those Bible passages cited(not all of them,but some),so using the argument would be using double standards,which goes against the Golden Rule-Ethic of Reciprocity,which is declared to be the Law(the highest level in Judaism) by the Jews Jesus,James and Paul(in the NT).

Read:Matthew 7:12/Luke 6:31/Romans 13:8-10/Galatians 5:14/James 2:8.


"O Lord, you have deceived me, and I was deceived; you are stronger than I, and you have prevailed. I have become a laughingstock all the day; everyone mocks me. (Jeremiah 20:7)"

It is simply the personal opinion of Jeremiah at the time and can't be taken as eternal truth.He expected more from God.

And that happens many times,look at the case of David Wood.He became a Christian at around 20,then married and in spite of dedicating himself completely to Jesus,one or two of his sons have a genetic condition that leaves them almost dead,in a life that is meaningless,they can't move at all,alive only because of a machine.Where is the logic in that?Why would God not prevent a servant of his that anguish?

Anonymous said...

"Moral rules involving retaliation can be classified under several titles:

• The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

• The Silver Rule: Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.

• The Golden-plated Brazen Rule: Do unto others as they do unto you; and occasionally forgive them.

• The Brazen Rule: Do unto others as they do unto you.

• The Iron Rule: Do unto others as you like, before they do it unto you.

"Empirical studies on groups have shown that the golden-plated brazen rule is the most efficient in reducing negative behaviors in a community abiding by the rule, since the rule has both deterrence and guiding components. Game theorists call this rule "Generous Tit-For-Tat" (GTFT), a rule that leads one party to cooperate as long as the other party does too. If the other party cheats or hurts the party adopting GTFT, then the GTFT-adopting party stops cooperation and retaliates, while demonstrating willingness to forgive the wrongdoing and start a new stage of cooperation. This positive tilt successfully leads the other party to seek cooperation of the GTF party and ultimately adopt the same rule of engagement. The Golden rule, on the other hand, does not correspond to the reality of human nature; it rewards those who wish to take advantage of the other party's niceness. Therefore, though the golden rule is the most popular rule on the lips of people, it is the least used rule in world affairs. It might have some merits in small groups with intimate relations, but we do not have evidence for that. The Quran is a book of reality, and its instructions involving social issues consider the side effects of freedom. Thus, the Quran recommends us to employ the golden-plated brazen rule. "If the enemy inclines toward peace, do you also incline toward peace" (8:61; 4:90; 41:34). Other verses encouraging forgiveness and patience in the practice of retaliation (2:178; 16:126, etc.), make the Quranic rule a "Golden-plated Brazen Rule," the most efficient rule in promoting goodness and discouraging crimes."

Rabbi Joseph Telushkin writes in his book "Jewish Literacy":

"Two of the Ten Commandments are commonly mistranslated in English, leading people to ascribe views to the Bible that are actually alien to it. This is particularly true of the Sixth Commandment, which in Hebrew consists of only two words: Lo tirtzakh. Most English translations render it as "You shall not kill." Pacifists and opponents of capital punishment commonly cite this verse in support of their position. The only problem is that the Bible rejects pacifism, and prescribes capital punishment, especially for murder. The correct translation of Lo tirtzakh is "You shall not murder." Although the Bible abhors unnecessary bloodshed, it does, like every society before and since, distinguish killing from murder--which is nonpermitted killing. That's why we don't speak of "murdering in self-defense," but "killing in self-defense," an act that the Bible--though not Mahatma Ghandi or Jehovah's Witnesses--heartily endorses. As the Rabbis of the Talmud later put it: "If somebody comes to kill you, kill him first" (Sanhedrin 72a)."

Anonymous said...

WHY DID THE golden RULE go missing in john's gospel?


John weeds out all the parables and exorcisms, but still comes out longer than Mark because of new dialogues, long ones, as well as new miracles and tales added to the Jesus story. John probably eschewed exorcisms and talk of a temptation or struggle or binding of Satan because his Jesus was viewed as incomparable with no possible rival entities and the Logos is above temptation, regally in control even during his garden prayer before his execution, and during his arrest where he simply says “I am” and the soldiers fall down. Neither does this Jesus need to speak in parables, since the message by John’s time is believe who we say Jesus is, or you are “condemned already.” It’s the “believe such and such about Jesus” or be damned Gospel. He who does not acknowledge Jesus is “the vine” will be cut off and burned. Neither does the fourth Gospel’s Jesus command love of neighbor or enemy compared with the earlier synoptics. See this essay that include insights from a social science examination of the fourth Gospel…

The Gospel of John consists of “anti-language” say Social Scientists

There is no command in the fourth Gospel [the Gospel of John] to love neighbors or enemies. Instead, it states, “He who believes not is condemned already” (John 3). The fourth Gospel more so than the earlier three teaches that one is either God’s friend or God’s enemy, one must “believe” rightly, or, be “damned.” “Eat the flesh and drink the blood,” or you “have no life within you.” It does not say people will be judged according to their “works” as in Matthew. Additional passages in the fourth Gospel state…

No one is able to come to Me unless the Father Who sent Me attracts and draws him and gives him the desire to come to Me, and [then] I will raise him up [from the dead] at the last day.
John 6:44

You do not believe because you are not of my sheep.
John 10:26

My command is this [spoken to his sheep, not spoken to "the world"]: Love EACH OTHER as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. [not for one's neighbor or enemy]… You are my friends if you do what I command [love EACH OTHER]… You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you… This is my command: Love EACH OTHER.
John 15:14,16-17

Anonymous said...

This is “in-group” speech as Malina and Rohrbaugh point out in their Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John. Love other members of one’s in-group. The discourse even states it is being spoken to the in-group, not to a crowd, since it explains in John 13: “[Now] before the Passover Feast began, Jesus knew the time had come for Him to leave this world and return to the Father. And as He had loved THOSE WHO WERE HIS OWN in the world, He loved them to the last and to the highest degree.” The in-group speech begins there and runs several chapters. God gives certain people to Jesus, even before Jesus has died on the cross: “To all whom Thou [God] has given him (Jesus), He may give eternal life” (John 17:2). Those are the ones Jesus loves, the true believers, and they are commanded to love one another. Nonbelievers are “already condemned,” or they do not abide in the True Vine and their “branches will be cut off and thrown into the fire.”

Jesus’ discourse to his true-believing followers winds down with John 17:22-23 where Jesus prays, “That they may be one [even] as We are one: I in them and You in Me, in order that they may become one and perfectly united, that the world may know and [definitely] recognize that You sent Me.” (But if it takes Christians loving one another in “perfect unity,” so that the world can “know” that “God sent Jesus,” then doesn’t that mean the world has little chance of “knowing” for sure that “God sent Jesus,” because churches, sects, denominations have continued to splinter ever since Jesus’ day just as they have in other major religions?)

Anonymous said...

A passage in the fourth Gospel that universalists cite is John 12:32, “And I, if and when I am lifted up from the earth [on the cross], will draw and attract all men [Gentiles as well as Jews] to Myself.” The Amplified Bible editors added the statement in brackets, suggesting that this passage is not about universalism. Whether the bracketed interpretation is correct or not, it does appear like the author of the fourth Gospel has made it clear that God has only given Jesus “some” but not all of “man”kind. The rest are “damned already” because they “do not believe” (John 3) or, “You do not believe because you are not of my sheep” (John 10).

Malina and Rohrbaugh in their Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John “show that the Christian community of John’s Gospel was an ‘anti-society,’ which in social science speak is a consciously alternative society consisting of exiles, rebels, or ostracized deviants. They note parallels between different anti-societies, such as reform-school students in Poland, members of the underworld in India, and vagabonds in Elizabethan England. Like other anti-societies, the folks who penned the fourth Gospel had acquired their own unique ‘anti-language,’, that is, a resistance language used to maintain their anti-society’s highly sectarian religious reality. This accounts for many of the strange expressions found in the fourth gospel. For instance, the Christians refer to outsiders as people of ‘this world,’ or, ‘the world.’ They believed that members of wider society — especially ‘the Jews’ — lay outside the scope of redemption and were completely beyond the pale if they didn’t “believe” rightly. Like all anti-societies, they overlexicalized their language, which basically means that they used redundant euphemisms. Thus, ‘believing into Jesus,’, ‘abiding in him,’ ‘loving him,’ ‘keeping his word,’ ‘receiving him,’ ‘having him,’ and ‘seeing him’ all meant the same thing. Likewise, ‘bread,’ ‘light,’ ‘door,’ ‘life,’ ‘way,’ and ‘vine’ were all redundant metaphors for Jesus himself. These redundant euphemisms formed an anti-language outside of “the world’s,” and served to maintain inner solidarity in the face of pressures (or perhaps even persecutions) from society. Unlike the religious language found in the Synoptic Gospels or Paul’s letters, John’s language would have been meaningless in the context of wider Judeo-Christian society (‘this world’). Understanding this social background is crucial for interpreting the gospel as a whole and controversial passages in particular.” In short, the fourth Gospel a greater number of specialized theological terms not seen in any of the earlier Gospels, all terms that would be meaningful particularly to an in-group seeking to maintain a strong cohesion including condemnation of outsiders, like members of an exclusive gang with loads of code words, shibboleths, etc.

Anonymous said...

So the reason the fourth Gospel does not include Jesus’ teaching that one must love one’s neighbor (and even one’s enemy) and that loving one’s neighbor is “the law and the prophets” (as in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount) is that your neighbor might not share your “beliefs” about Jesus, and the most important thing according to the author(s) of the fourth Gospel is to “believe” the right things about who Jesus was… or else. It is a lesson the author of the fourth Gospel repeats ad nauseum, “Anyone who does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.” (a verse that came in handy during the Inquisition). “Those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only brother/twin of god.” You must even believe the right liturgical things concerning the Lord’s Supper, because “Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” Speaking of right belief, the Gospel says it was composed “that ye may believe,” and starts off telling everyone what to believe about jesus, and has the disciples call jesus the messiah and much more the instant they meet him, and even has John the Baptist declare what one must believe about Jesus right from the start (a line of the Baptists’ found in no other Gospel), namely that Jesus is “The lamb/brother/twin of god who takes away ...,” something one “must” believe per John 3.