Missionary Mishap: Seeing Jesus Challenge

Calling Christians

On January 8th (2017), Neil Littlejohn, or as he is fondly called by his friends and family, Colin made it known that he had a vision of Jesus:

cc-2017-mm-neil

He challenged anyone, quite literally, anyone to have him tested with a polygraph to verify that he wasn’t deluded or lying. Unfortunately, it’s been almost a week later and after offering to pay for both a polygraph test and a psychological evaluation, Colin (or Neil, or whatever identity he assumes today) has failed to take up the offer, after having put out the challenge himself.

cc-2017-mm-neil1

Has Colin/ Neil realised he was deluded and now does not want to expose himself by being tested? The challenge still stands, and so does our acceptance of the challenge. We await his response, if he ever decides to give one. However the chances of him accepting are slim, he knows he’s lying. Only time…

View original post 6 more words

Advertisements


Categories: Islam

7 replies

  1. A compulsive liar or a sociopath could pass a polygraph; they aren’t totally accurate. And this guy seems to be a bit of both.

    “Scientific” 😂

    Liked by 2 people

  2. It looks like he won’t allow himself to be tested after all.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. this reminds me of robert m prices response to jp holding a long time ago :

    Junior Detectives

    “Encouraging people to verify claims and seek proof (and hence discouraging their gullibility) is a guaranteed way to get slammed if you are preaching lies. Let us suppose for a minute that you are trying to start a false religion. In order to support your false religion, you decide to make up a number of historical (i.e., testable) claims, and then hope that nobody would check up on them. What is the most important thing to do, if you have made up claims that are provably false? Well, of course, you don’t go around encouraging people to check up on your claims, knowing that if they do so you will be found out!” Once a student in a class of mine insisted that the CEO of Proctor and Gamble had admitted on the Donahue TV show that he was a Satanist and that the corporate logo was Satanic symbolism as well. I told my student that this was an urban legend. Next time he brought in the crudely copied hand-bill he had read. It offered a New York City phone number and urged the reader to call and ask for the transcript of the show for so and so date. I called it. There was no connection at all with Donahue. The hoaxer had evidently assumed that the mere provision of this (fake) information would be so convincing as to deceive the reader into thinking just as my student did and just as Holding does. When the reader of 1 Corinthians 15 reads that Paul challenged him to go and ask the 500 brethren about their resurrection sightings, something Paul knew well the Corinthians would never have the leisure to do, he may be impressed, but Paul was taking no risks. The mere challenge in such a case functions as sufficient “proof.” Note that he provides no clue as to the names or locations of these supposed witnesses. In the late Syriac hagiography, The Life of John Son of Zebedee, the apostle similarly invites his hearers to check out the story of Jairus’ daughter, resurrected by Jesus. The idea is that the reader will understand that once upon a time the facts could have been checked out, even though it is too late for him personally to do so. This all proves nothing and indeed invites suspicion of imposture where it might not have arisen otherwise.

    Holding imagines, with the eye of faith that calls thing which are not as though they were, that “Throughout the NT, the apostles encouraged people to check seek proof and verify facts: 1 Thessalonians 5:21 [says to] ‘Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.’” But this text refers, in context, to prophetic utterances which should not be dismissed out of hand but scrutinized, as in 1 Corinthians 14:29.

    “And when fledgling converts heeded this advice, not only did they remain converts (suggesting that the evidence held up under scrutiny), but the apostles described them as ‘noble’ for doing so: Acts 17:11[says,] ‘These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.’” But this is only a much later description of a dubiously historical scene and in any case means only “See? The smart people agree with us!” And if Luke means us to take as representative the fanciful scripture “proofs” he has the apostles offer elsewhere in the book, we can hang it up right now.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Didn’t this guy already get exposed by Brother Aquil from Shabahat (or whatever the name was) as someone who eloped with a Saudi Girl and the father did not approve and so the chameleon had a mental fit and decided to hate Islam?

    Like

Please 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: