A Christian family speak with Hashim, Naveed and Brother Paul (me). Speakers Corner

Also filmed last Sunday..



Categories: Bible, Christianity, God, Speakers Corner

61 replies

  1. I think Christians should stand firm against Islam imposing its own definition of immortality and omniscience upon us.

    The bible is on our side not the side of Islam.

    The omniscience of God, as defined by the bible, includes ignorance as consonant with the nature of God.

    The immortality of God, as defined by the bible, includes the experience of death in the form of the God-man as consonant with the nature of God.

    The bible alone is what defines truth for us, not any other belief system. The bible gives us the truth of immortality in the context of the death of the God-man Jesus. The bible gives us the truth of omniscience in the context of what is revealed about the ignorance of the Son in relation to the Father. This means that Islam, or any other belief system, is wrong if it contradicts what the bible teaches.

    Like

    • It’s not a question “Islam imposing its own definition …”. It’s a matter of universal common sense.

      “In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most montrous,… With such persons, gullability, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.” (Jefferson’s Works, Vol. 7, p. 269-70 by H.A. Washington).

      Liked by 1 person

    • What does omniscience mean?

      Like

  2. I don’t follow “universal common sense” on these issues. I bow to revelation.

    Like

    • Seriously man, that’s the end of any reasonable communication.

      You bow to revelation? Like Jehovahs witnesses, congratulation.

      Liked by 1 person

    • The reason why i am asking these questions is because it would be wrong of me to assume that all Christians think the same way just like i said about Muslims. Therefore i cannot make a point until i actually know what you personally believe.

      K?

      Like

    • Patrice

      “The reason why i am asking these questions is because it would be wrong of me to assume that all Christians think the same way just like i said about Muslims. Therefore i cannot make a point until i actually know what you personally believe.”

      That makes no sense at all – you are fishing for a “gottcha” moment, which I expect from muslims, but the dance is getting old.

      Surely you have opinions and beliefs about whatever it is you are trying get us to talk about? That doesn’t require knowledge of my beliefs.

      So again, please tell me what’s on your mind and we can proceed.

      Like

    • I most certainly am not looking for a “gotcha” moment and no i don’t have any opinions on what you personally believe yet as i don’t know what you believe regarding Gods omniscience. In order for me to have an opinion I need to first know what you actually think thus far all i know is you believe Omniscience is unlimited knowledge and that the Bible is the source for that definition as it is a religious/metaphysical concept that cannot be derided from human reason.

      What i don’t know is where the definition comes from in the Bible and whether or not Gods omniscience is a necessary attribute for divinity. The reason why i am asking is since Christians ,generally speaking of course believe that Jesus is God however say that he had emptied himself of his divine power including his omniscience since he demonstrated ignorance with regards to the end times and the fig tree. If therefore God is by definition omniscient then how can Jesus rightly be called God when he is ignorant?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice, the Bible clearly says “God knows everything”, see 1 John 3:20

      Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks Paul for the reference i only hope that D can reconcile this with the Jesus we find in the Gospels

      Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice

      “What i don’t know is where the definition comes from in the Bible and whether or not Gods omniscience is a necessary attribute for divinity. The reason why i am asking is since Christians ,generally speaking of course believe that Jesus is God however say that he had emptied himself of his divine power including his omniscience since he demonstrated ignorance with regards to the end times and the fig tree. If therefore God is by definition omniscient then how can Jesus rightly be called God when he is ignorant?”

      You are presenting yourself with a false dichotomy – god exists in more than one place at the same time, in however many forms he chooses, with as much of his divine power expressed as he chooses to express.

      There is no contradiction – the christian belief is that god can and does enter creation, and that in order to do this, he withholds those aspects of his powers that are detrimental to creation. Thus, he can exist both as omniscient and emptied of his powers at the same time. There is no logical contradiction here.

      And please explain what you mean by jesus’ ignorance about end times and the fig tree.

      Like

    • Patrice

      “Thanks Paul for the reference i only hope that D can reconcile this with the Jesus we find in the Gospels”

      Muslims have a greater problem of reconciliation of their insistence on defining the nature of omniscience. Muslims simply cannot claim that your god is omniscient – his essence is unknowable, so at best you have say that you are (bizarrely) agnostic about this feature of divinity.

      Like

    • 1 Kings 8:27 But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, *cannot contain you*. How much less this temple I have built

      😉

      Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks Omar I have reposted your comment

      Like

    • omar

      the holy of holies was the place where the high priest alone entered the presence of the lord.

      Like

    • And creation exists according to his will, not your silly attempt at rationalizing atheism.

      Like

  3. “What does omniscience mean? ”

    according to universal common sense, or Mirriams or Websters, or the bible?

    Like

    • According to the dictionary

      Like

    • How do you expect to make any strong case for your religion with such outright fideism? It just ends up turning into well the Bible says….therefore it is true?

      Why can’t Muslims just say in response well the Qur’an says….therefore it is true?

      Liked by 1 person

    • They already do that.

      Like

    • So that somehow justifies Christian apologists doing the same?

      Like

    • “They already do that.”

      Not in this case. In case of “trinitarian” omniscience and immortality Muslims argue reasonably like everyone else except the Trinitarian fundamentalist.

      Like

    • Wut?

      Most muslim apologetics is based on arguments from their scriptures and commentaries.

      Like

    • Burhanuddin1

      “Not in this case. In case of “trinitarian” omniscience and immortality Muslims argue reasonably like everyone else except the Trinitarian fundamentalist.”

      Priceless. You admit that most of the time you don’t argue reasonably.

      Like

    • You really are desperate

      Like

    • D “they” are 1.6 billion people whom are not monolithic in their understanding of Islam and so will argue differently.

      In this case however the Muslims in the video are not arguing based on Qur’an says therefore it is true. So your point that others do it is irrelevant. My point to Madmanna about his fideism is relevant.

      Keep up dear boy…

      Liked by 1 person

    • Don’t be a moron, patrice. That wasn’t my point – neither I nor burhanuddin1 were talking specifically about the video and neither were you referencing the video in your first comment.

      Islam is rotting your brain, son.

      Like

    • …and here come the insults! Ds modus operandi

      Liked by 1 person

    • Leave him alone Patrice. It’s the only thing he is good at.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Besdies the topic is based on the video!

      As i said to you before do keep up dear…

      Liked by 1 person

    • Madamen says
      I don’t follow “universal common sense” on these issues. I bow to revelation.

      Talk about rotting your brain D

      Like

    • Your comment had nothing to with the video – and what insults? You are not making any sense and your random redaction of previous statements makes you look moronic.

      No insults here.

      Do you agree that muslims argue from their scriptures? If so, what is your problem?

      Like

    • Burhanuddin1

      “Madamen says
      I don’t follow “universal common sense” on these issues. I bow to revelation.

      Talk about rotting your brain D”

      LOL!!!

      You believe in a god whose attributes are finite.

      Like

    • Mentally handicapped probably

      Like

    • It depends on the issue D. But as i said to you before “they” represents a very large group of people who do not all think the same.

      Now on to the discussion itself which is based on the video. Madmanna said that one should not base their views of omniscience on human reason but rather on the Bible, this is known as Fideism a belief that states that true knowledge can only be gained through revelation. I pointed out that this will mean nothing to those who do not believe in said revelation. Thoughts? How would you define omniscience?

      Like

    • Patrice

      “t depends on the issue D. But as i said to you before “they” represents a very large group of people who do not all think the same.”

      You’re funny. You said…

      “Why can’t Muslims just say in response well the Qur’an says….therefore it is true?”

      You are the one who began by speaking of “muslims” in a monolithic sense. That’s why I thought of your subsequent comments as somewhat moronic. Nice try though.

      “Now on to the discussion itself which is based on the video. Madmanna said that one should not base their views of omniscience on human reason but rather on the Bible, this is known as Fideism a belief that states that true knowledge can only be gained through revelation. I pointed out that this will mean nothing to those who do not believe in said revelation. Thoughts? How would you define omniscience?”

      Is that what madmanna said? Read his comments again. He hasn’t come close to saying that true knowledge can only be gained through revelation.

      Like

    • Where do you think i spoke of Muslims in a “monolithic sense” i was speaking generally.

      Madmanna said: “The bible alone is what defines truth for us” ergo Fideism. It doesn’t get much clearer than that. But nice try though…

      Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice

      “Where do you think i spoke of Muslims in a “monolithic sense” i was speaking generally.”

      So was I.

      “Madmanna said: “The bible alone is what defines truth for us” ergo Fideism. It doesn’t get much clearer than that. But nice try though…”

      Hmm…still didn’t read the entire comment.

      He said….”The bible alone is what defines truth for us, not any other belief system.”

      Are you saying that common sense or the dictionary are belief systems? Nice try tho….

      Like

    • No D i’m not saying that. Are you going to answer the question regarding omniscience or not?

      Like

    • The problem, patrice is that omniscience is not a phenomenon of the senses – it exists as a philosophical possibility, so by definition one’s scripture defines it.

      Religious tenets are by definition often outside the realms of common sense.

      Is it common sense to kill apostates or adulterers? Or have sex with nine year old girls who will probably experience great pain and suffer long-term psychological and physical harm from the encounter?

      I don’t think muslims apply much common sense to these tenets of their faith, so it surprises me that muslims are trying use it as the basis for their apologetics.

      So your points don’t make any sense -omniscience is a religious concept, derived from religious revelations and scriptures. Saying that we shouldn’t use scripture to define a scriptural concept is a little silly.

      That aside, omniscience..

      infinite knowledge.

      Like

    • Where does the Bible define omniscience since you say that one must use scripture to define the term?

      My second question is would you say that God by definition must be omniscient or not?

      Like

    • Patrice

      If you have a point, make it. You asked a question, I answered it. Do you have anything to say?

      Like

    • I’m just trying to learn about your religion D i have no ulterior motive.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice

      “I’m just trying to learn about your religion D i have no ulterior motive.”

      LOL!! Okay.

      I think you know what religion I am, and from your other comments on this blog, you seem to fancy yourself as someone who is intimately acquainted with it.

      So again, if you have a point to make, or have anything to say, then please proceed. I’m all ears.

      Like

    • I think Jonathan is incensed by Mansur and wants the chance for a second round. But Mansur doesn’t do debates outside of speakers corner. If he comes back to sc he will be slaughtered again.

      Like

  4. The most important value of Islam is Jihad. Muslims can only reach glory through Jihad. All other attempts lead to a fail.

    Islam is very moral. But modern infidels are evil because of their liberal secular values. That is where the problem lies. It is not about Islam vs Christianity but religion vs liberalism secularism.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Nadir the most important value in Islam is Tawheed. The message of all the Prophets that their is only one God and to submit to him alone this is where true glory lies. Not in fighting people who you disagree with for that does not change hearts but only forces obedience.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, you are right. Tawhid is the Islamic belief. Jihad is the fighting for Islamic supremacy. This is the supremacy of Tawhid over disbelief.

      Like

    • Jihad does not mean fighting for Islamic supremacy it means to strive, apply oneself, struggle, and preserve. Fighting against others is only way that this can be applied it would be wrong to not point out that this can also include the internal struggle against sin or establishing a just society.

      n.b The earliest Islamic state in Medina was a pluralistic society that allowed for different laws for other beliefs take for example the response of the Prophet to when the Jews went to him for a ruling and he instructed them to do according to what the Torah commands.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I agree with everything you say.
      The term Jihad can also be used for these things. But in legal terms Jihad means either defensive war or expansionist war. The aim of expansionist war is to establish Islamic rule over the whole world.

      After Islamic overrule non-Muslims can live as Dhimmis with their own laws. But the supreme rule has to belong to Islam.

      Like

    • True with regards to Jihad in legal terms but the issue has to be what exactly an Islamic rule looks like or perhaps how it has been implemented in different cultures throughout time. No one Islamic society has ever looked the same. Take Islamic Spain as an example a renaissance sparked there that had a major role to play in the European renaissance but this was a time when religious freedom was the norm as was acceptance not just tolerance.

      Expansionist must also be more carefully understood and one should examine the contexts of when these took place take for example also that of Umars’ campaign in Syria against the Byzantines lest people see this as an example of simple power grabs and domination.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Islam does allow religious pluralism but it does not promote it. The Qur’an and the Prophet would be obsolete otherwise. People of other religions would need to live under Islamic rule. They are not allowed to have total sovereignty but only certain autonomy inside the Islamic states.

      What has changed in modern times regarding Jihad is that now there are two supremacist ideologies that call all humans to it. Before this Muslims used to fight the Christians, the Mongols, the Indians etc. separately. Today basically all non-Muslims have united under secularism and many Muslims joined them.
      So we have a situation where we can divide the world into kufr and Islam in the most clear way ever. There are not many differences between the different nations anymore. They are basically fighting for the same and have a common enemy which is Islam.

      Like

    • How can one not consider the Prophets recognition of the Torah in legal matters and the rights of various Christian communities as not being a promotion? If the Prophet as a head of state did not want such beliefs to exist or flourish then why give such freedom in the first place?

      But are they not allowed sovereignty other their own communities through instituting their respective laws?

      Finally you say that the state of the modern world is Islam vs Secularism and all of the people who are not Muslims have joined this group as if being secular is such a bad thing. Secularism is simply the belief that no religious law such rule over a society so as to ensure that each person is treated equally while I understand why traditional Islam may not understand that kind of view or even desire it as the ultimate goal of humanity it is one that does not stop anyone from practicising their faith or spreading their religion.

      Secularism is not the enemy. I would argue that the greater threat is fundamentalism and all its anti-intellectualism and intolerance. Everything in essence that the Prophet in Medina worked against. It is merely a modern day Tribalism with a modern Quraysh.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Freedom of religion is given because belief cannot be enforced. Islam tolerates non-Muslims only because of this. But there is no good in the kuffar.

      Fundamentalism and intolerance are not anti-intellectualism. I am not very tolerant of other beliefs but I am not anti-intellectualist. It is irrational to say that there can be many truths. This is the belief of Hussein Nasr and perennialism. This is dangerous.

      Secularism is the enemy of Islam. We have to stop secular education.

      Like

  5. lol you are no Muslim dude. I smell troll.

    Like

  6. I’m not a troll Paul. I do troll sometimes but I am Muslim. I’m serious.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: