Burqa’s, beards and prejudice: Why religious people are judged as being non objective

You’ve heard it all before haven’t you? Being racially or religiously profiled for your beard, skin colour or clothing. Only recently was a Muslim individual stopped on the streets by a Caucasian woman, because of the clothes he was wearing. These highly deplorable images sail their way onto social media, consequently being met by thousands of protesters in the form of angry Emojis on Facebook.
While such incidents are deplorable, racist and xenophobic they are nonetheless identifiable because of the peripheral nature of its manifestation, that is it can be seen by all individuals. The real issue facing society today however isn’t these rather conspicuous incidents, but rather those that hide under the curtain, disguised and almost perfectly hidden. What I am referring to is the new age academic bias that has been created amongst the intelligentsia, that religious folk can never be quote on quote ‘objective’.

This brings into question the idea of ‘What is objective’ and why religious people seem to be targeted more than any other group. Consider the following example, how many people would you hear pointing out atheism as a cause of one’s bias, or their upbringing and experiences ? The social image constructed regarding religion – post enlightenment period – is one of frustration and religious antagonism. Phrases such as religion being backward, a barrier to progress or the biggest of plight in the twenty first century, are part of the enlightenment narrative.

Dick Gregory in his provocatively titled autobiography ‘Nigger’ says that “I was learning that just being a Negro doesn’t qualify you to understand the race situation any more than being sick makes you an expert on medicine.” What stems from Dick’s quote is the fundamental distinction between “experiencing” something and “understanding” it. This logic can further be applied to any group, faith or ideology regardless of its key tenants and laws.

Members of opposite political thought – even though they can overlap from time to time – are most likely to support the political points that are embedded within their respective philosophies. However time and time again, they find themselves on national television debating one another – (insert Theresa May pun here) – in the vain hope of trying to convince the public why their manifesto and party position is more effective than the other.

The question one has to ask is why, if at all, should people consider anyone else’s position if they are to be biased from the first place. To address this issue we actually have to first analyse the most abused word in the English language when it comes to debates: bias.

The definition of bias, according to the oxford dictionary, is as follows: “Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair”. What needs to be particularly taken from this definition, is the distinction between having an inclination towards something and on the other hand accepting something as true without any justification and consideration, in other words to be inclined but in a way that is unfair.

Everyone has some form of inclination due to their religious beliefs, life experiences, political affiliation, school, college, family values, upbringing, location, culture and a variety of other things. The fundamental difference between these and religious impetus is solely based on two things: (I) the laws and commandments of religion, are clearly set out and (II) that religion has always had a set biased created against it. Note that on this occasion I use the term bias with its full intended meaning, that is to say, with a sense of unfairness.

It becomes useful at this point to define in context, what we actually mean by ‘unfairness’. In this context we will consider it to be the complete negation of any idea, solely on the basis that it has an association with religion based on the assumption that the individual has no reason other than religion to justify it, or that the individual is trying to superimpose their religious beliefs on others. The problem with this type of thinking is that it assumes (a) religious beliefs are without reason and (b) that specific beliefs within religion are only justifiable by religious cannon and tradition, and not by means other than that, such as pure reason, logic, cause and effect etc.

The hypocrisy in the one making the claim can beautifully be summarised in a incident regarding Professor John Lennox, where he was once told by his opponent during a debate, that he only believed in God because his parents were believers. Lennox later asked his opponent what belief their parents followed, the individual replied “atheists” to which Lennox appropriately responded by saying “really!”.

What Lennox revealed is the blatant hypocrisy that is made in regards to religion that it is neither rational nor capable of being objective. What one doesn’t realize is that every individual can be considered guilty of being under some influence and inclination due his own beliefs, the only difference is we never mention those things to dismiss a particular view because we believe that somehow atheists can be objective while religious people cant. This is definitely not the case.

To illustrate an example of an individual who was a religious scholar, yet was highly objective and met his opponents at an equal footing without the need to retort to revelation, let us take a look at the famous Islamic theologian and philosopher Imam Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali (R.A). During his time one of the major intellectual onslaughts that occurred against the Muslims was that of Greek Philosophy.

Its intricate use of logic and syllogisms was a powerful force in the academic world and the philosophers of that that time were no less famous than figures like Richard Dawkins are today. To counter this issue one could not simply refer to revelation as a defence, rather Imam Ghazali had to counter their arguments using the same methodology his opponents used as well as understanding the relevant fallacies in their arguments. This led to his famous work The Incoherence of the Philosophers (تهافت الفلاسفة Tahāfut al-Falāsifa) that served to become a powerful refutation of these philosophers for centuries. The imperative point about Al-Ghazali’s work wasn’t the quality of his work, but rather his ability to utilize the methodology of his opponent and debate them using reason in their own field.

This demonstrates a religious figures ability to be able to argue rationally – and non-religiously- regarding an issue while remaining as objective as possible. The assumption that religion requires the negation of reason is fundamentally misleading because reading revelation requires reason! It comes as no surprise then that this ability to deal with reason can also be applied in arguing points outside of a religious context.

This brings me to the next concept that I wish to clarify, which is the separation of the divine essence within particular rulings and the social effects that they have. Many Islamic rulings can be thought of like a cross with the vertical axis representing the divine manifestation, and the horizontal axis representing the worldly manifestation of that particular ruling. This is essential in helping people understand that while a particular point has a divine reason for it, it may also have some kind of material manifestation, that can be seen in the real world in the form of cause and effect.

For example take the ruling on giving charity (zakat) in Islam. The vertical aspect involves pleasing God and spreading provision (rizq) that he has bestowed upon you. The horizontal manifestation however can be argued from a purely non-religious and scientific way, using pure reason. We can talk about how it is morally right to help fellow human beings, how someone might desperately be in need, and how doing this can build better and more interconnected societies while reducing poverty. The same sort of examples can be applied to things such as alcohol, music, dress code and even fasting. This sort of materialistic dialogue that is solely based on logic, depends on whether the speaker is interested from a religious point or view or a purely secular one.

We now continuously find non-believers (and ironically believers) that oppose any view by a religious individual based solely on the view that believing in a particular religion will make him/her bias. But as Dr. Mohamed Ghilan mentions in one of his lectures, rather than being apologetic one should rhetorically ask the individual making such claims what makes them more objective than you are ? Surely they are just as influenced by their experiences, upbringing and own thoughts just as much as you. Assuming one is influenced by some ideological force in their lives, (which most of us naturally are) it makes no difference to the point being made. If the individual makes a claim based on pure logic and reason then bringing their religion into the question without acknowledging their point is simply a form of discrimination.

Rather one should recognize that everyone is prone to being somewhat inclined but being part of a particular group, faith, race or ideologically does not make their points less objective than the other. Appealing to your religion and why a particular point in your religion are two very different things, with latter being arguable through completely irreligious means.

A perfect example of this sort of form of duality is presented as one unique concept can be seen in Imam Al-Ghazali’s magnum opus The Revival of Religious Sciences (Ihya’ Ulum al-Din or Ihya’u Ulumiddin) in which he discusses many different religious actions but also acts as a spiritual psychologist, dissecting and discerning different rulings laying bare their effects. While the full sweetness of the text (or its aim) cannot be tasted without its religious aspects, the book also serves as a monument of scientific observation, application of pure reason and analytical psychology to the point that non-Muslim readers can also greatly benefit from his work.

This objectivity is not limited purely to Islamic intellectual thinkers but actually famous Christian ones as well. To quote Lennox “God is not an alternative to science as an explanation, he is not to be understood merely as a God of the gaps, he is the ground of all explanation: it is his existence which gives rise to the very possibility of explanation, scientific or otherwise. It is important to stress this because influential authors such as Richard Dawkins will insist on conceiving of God as an explanatory alternative to science – an idea that is nowhere to be found in theological reflection of any depth. Dawkins is therefore tilting at a windmill – dismissing a concept of God that no serious thinker believes in anyway. Such activity is not necessarily to be regarded as a mark of intellectual sophistication”.

Indeed many scientific figures including Galileo, Maxwell, Newton, Pascal, Kepler and numerous others were driven by their belief in God to do objective science. This is summarized succinctly in a quote by C.S Lewis in which he says ‘Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator.’ Rather than halting scientific progress, religion played a tremendous role in informing the scientific method and the application of logic and rationality. The Quran makes and sets a epistemological impetus for the scientific method in the verse “Do they not look at the Camels, how they are made? And at the Sky, how it is raised high? And at the Mountains, how they are fixed firm? And at the Earth, how it is spread out? Therefore do thou give admonition, for thou art one to admonish.” (Al-Ghashiya – The Overwhelming/The Pall, 17-21). Far from curtailing it, the Quran vigorously commands believers to use their intellect and apply their reason in understanding the universe and all that is in it.

An excellent example showing how the dynamic of being bias and objective can quickly be reversed for the religious and non-religious, can be viewed in the history of the big bang theory and the events that led up to its formulation. The Christian priest and professor of physics Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître published a paper in 1927 titled A homogeneous Universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae. The paper was translated into English from Belgian in 1931 shortly after which during a meeting at the British Association, where he was invited to talk on the relationship between the universe and spirituality, Lemaître conceived Of an initial starting point called the “Primeval Atom” from which the universe expanded. Hence giving birth to the idea of the big bang theory.

What gave Lemaître and his ideas solid evidence to further his case was the observations made by the famous American astronomer Edwin Powell Hubble. In 1929 Hubble was able to show that, there was a direct relationship between a Galaxy’s distance and velocity, in what came to be known as Hubble’s law. The implications of this however were that the universe must have begun as a small condensed state and has expanded ever since. Lemaître took this as evidence for his big bang model of the universe. Perhaps what most evidently shows Lemaitre’s success is when Einstein, who once opposed Lemaitre’s ideas and said: “Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious”, came to support his views and adopted the big bang model of the universe.
Scientists however continued to support the idea of a eternal universe for a variety of different reasons that included scientific objections to the Big bang Model such as the inability to explain the formation of galaxies and absence CMB (cosmic background radiation). This led physicists Fred Hoyle and Hermann Bondi proposed the Steady State Model of the universe, which in very simple terms suggested that, the universe could be eternal and unchanging whilst still having galaxies move away from each other as Hubble has predicted. The Steady State Model itself also had problems such as the inability to explain the distribution of galaxies, age of the universe and the observed abundance of light atoms. Much like Smackdown vs RAW – but much more realistic – there were two competing theories in the physics world namely, The Steady State Model and The Big bang Model.

What’s important to observe here is that that many of the scientists who continued to support the Steady State Model of the universe, did so because it was in line with their philosophical presuppositions that the universe was indeed eternal, and did not require a creator. The Big Bang Model implied the universe had a beginning and that necessarily implied it must have some first cause (although in the modern day that is debated). Scientists did indeed – whether you accept it or not – have an underlying inclination, and it caused them to hold tight to a theory that came under increasing scrutiny from emerging evidence. This is a perfect example of how even the non-religious can sometimes be swayed by their philosophical inclinations, and how the religious, in this case Lemaitre, turned out to be right and in line with the evidence. Although one cannot definitively prove that the scientists were biased – since we can never know peoples intentions and thoughts – we can see that their ideas were taken seriously, and that’s what should happen i.e. someone shouldn’t be judged for who they are or what ideology they claim to support, but rather merit ones idea on the basis of its strength and coherence.

The following excerpt from the book ‘Big bang’ by Simon Singh perfectly the underlying attitudes of scientists making the assumption that religious figures cannot be objective: “Like Galileo, Lemaître believed that God had blessed humans with an enquiring mind and that He would look fondly upon scientific cosmology. At the same time, Lemaître kept his physics and his religion separate, declaring that his religious beliefs certainly did not motivate his cosmology. ‘Hundreds of professional and amateur scientists actually believe the Bible pretends to teach science,’ he said. ‘This is a good deal like assuming that there must be authentic religious dogma in the binomial theorem.’ Nevertheless, some scientists continued to believe that theology had negatively influenced the priest’s cosmology. This anti-religious faction complained that his primeval atom theory of creation was nothing more than a pseudo-scientific justification of a master creator, a modern version of the Book of Genesis.” (Simon Singh Big Bang 2010).

One other myth that pervades the social sphere is this idea that all religious figures and thought, are homogenous, static, unchanging and without critical debate and dialogue. Early Islamic theologians debated creed vigorously in a science known to them as Kalam which erupted an atmosphere of intellectual thought and debate. Islamic Law (Fiqh) is most certainly the product of different legal methodologies and thought processes that involved challenging the status quo. Interestingly the four major legal schools of Islam (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali) were begun by figures who were either students or teachers of one another.

A keystone event in history that defines the ability of religious thinkers to oppose the clergy in pursuit of objectivity and truth, can be seen in the life of someone who is regarded as the father of science, namely Galileo Galilei. His scientific curiosity was like an adult who saw everything with the amusement and excitement of a child discovering the world. He made many different scientific observations which included using a pendulum as a timing device and proved that the common assumption that heavier objects fall faster than light objects was wrong. Galileo in 1609 has built the most powerful telescope in the world allowing him too far beyond what the average man could in that time.

In 1610 Galileo made observations that supported the sun-centred model. While evidence for the Sun-centred model of the universe continued to grow in evidence, people still found themselves adhering to the earth centred model of the universe. The religious establishment of the time, The Catholic Church, was unapologetically opposed to the idea of accepting the sun centred model because it contradicted their interpretation of the bible. So much so was this opposition that in 1616 it was declared that holding the Sun-centred view of the universe was heretical. Galileo however remained unperturbed by these events and went where his rational insight took him. A trial against him had begun in April 1633 and left him under indefinite house arrest with much of his work blocked. Later after his death the Sun-centred model of the universe would come to be accepted by most astronomers.

Galileo represents the ideal figure that stood up to the establishment. He preferred truth over comfort, objectivity over subjectivity, rationality over irrationality and reason over dogma. He showed how religious individuals are neither homogenous nor static, and most importantly that some of them, when required, were willing to stand up to their co-religionists when they felt they were tampering and misinforming people of God’s creation. Perhaps Galileo’s beliefs can be summarised in his own words when he said: “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

The above is just a drop in an ocean of religious scholars, all of whom were the leading thinkers of their time. Much to do with the distrust in religious figures, stems primarily from the birth of modernism occurring between 18th and 19th centuries. The nature of what modernity did to religious thought and prestige goes beyond the scope of this essay, however it should be noted its effects have had a riveting effect on our perception in a way that is constantly reinforced by a liberal and secular worldview, that maintains its assertion that divorce from God is the first step towards reason.
Much of what has been discussed above is simply a close examination of the genetic fallacy. But the aim of the essay is not invoke an exclusive justification for religious folk, rather it is meant to knock on peoples conscious and erupt an awareness that, no matter what colour, race, religion, hair style or brand you decide to wear, the ultimate authenticity of your point lies within the point itself, not in someone’s perceptions about who made that point.

Truth has no partner, it chooses who deserves itself, and it doesn’t care about who says it.

Advertisements


Categories: Islam

47 replies

  1. An excellent refutation of the genetic fallacy.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Ali, the author of this article, can be followed on twitter @Ali_talib

    His bio states he is ‘BSc Biochemistry QMUL Neuroscience MSc Kings College London (current) Maliki Lover of science, religion and philosophy.’

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “house request” did you mean house arrest?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I’m really glad to find that the author mentions Ghazali, few people recognize his contribution…Infact most muslims don’t even know who he was which is kinda sad…

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you for your comment. I am currently investigating Al-Ghazali’s contribution to the sacred sciences as well as to the modern fields of psychology, theology and philosophy. Individuals like Neil De Gray Tyson, alongside other orientalists and even Muslims! Have tried to malign him by suggesting he was the reason for the collapse of the Muslim inquiry into science and development. They fail to realize that the comments he made about mathematics had a metaphysical context to them, as well as an appreciation of how much his works have contributed to the thought of Descartes and others.

      Will hopefully culminate by thoughts in a blog regarding this soon.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Looking foward to see it, nice article by the way…👍

      Liked by 1 person

    • @alitalibx

      In particular lookup his comments on how learning arithmetic is an obligation in the chapter on knowledge in his Revival of the Religious Sciences. Also check this Yaqeen article: https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/asadullah/scientism/

      Liked by 1 person

    • Many of quoted these 2 quotes from Al Ghazali, but don’t give the original reference.

      Al-Ghazali notes that ” it is
      impossible that Allah should love mankind because ‘when there is love there must be a sense of
      incompleteness in the lover, a realisation that the beloved is needed for complete realisation of self.’ AlGhazali
      concludes that this is inconceivable with Allah, since Allah is perfectly complete in himself.”

      Does anyone know the exact reference (book, page no., etc.) to these quote of Al Ghazali ‘s ? (and context)

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Wow, absolutely brilliant piece!

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Also, another famous quote by Al Ghazali:

    Abdullah Kunde quoted it at the end on the last video section of questions from the audience. (in his debate with Samuel Green – Savior of the World? Jesus or the Qur’an) last video section:

    Abdullah Kunde said that Al Ghazali said, “If on the day of judgment Allah decides to send all the good people (believers in Allah) to hell and all the evil people to paradise, He can do that, and we have no right to question.”
    (I am remembering it from memory, so it may not be an exact quote.)

    Can anyone track that down and publish the reference?

    Like

  7. Hi Paul,
    But Abdullah Kunde gave us the quote; and it is from one your greatest Muslim philosopher – theologians. (Al Ghazali)

    Like

    • No one has the power over Allah(sw). No one can force Gd to do anything. It’s like verse 17 surah.

      Like

    • But would Allah change his mind like that (in the quote of Al Ghazali’s that Abdullah Kunde quoted) after He promised eternal life to the believers and hell for unbelievers? Breaking a promise . . . Wouldn’t that call into question Allah’s integrity to fulfill His promise, and call into question Him as Al Haq الحق / The Truth ?

      Like

    • Surah 5:17

      Like

    • like i said its an odd quote. And it its not referenced.

      Like

    • Do you think Abdullah Kunde just made it up? Why doesn’t anyone find it? Abdullah himself told me years ago he would find it for me and get it for me, but he never did. I guess he just got too busy and forgot after a while.

      Like

    • unless you can find the quote and cite it in context you are wasting your time Ken.

      A question: do you believe Martin Luther was a born-again Christian, full of the Holy Spirit?

      Like

    • Amazing that no Muslim can find the quotes for all of us. (with reference in Al Ghazali’s works) I would love to be able to read the context.

      Like

    • its not amazing. Could be that no one is interested apart from you.

      Like

    • “not interested” could be your way of avoiding finding those hard to explain quotes of Al Ghazali. They deny Allah is love; and the others deny that Allah would keep His promise.

      Whereas we have the promise from the true God, the God who inspired the books before the Qur’an. (The Torah, Zobur, and Injeel – ie, the OT and NT).

      1 John 2:25
      This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.

      Like

    • I assure to you that the Islamic belief states that it’s impossible for Allah(sw) to break his promise as He has told us in his book. However, it seems to me that Al Ghazali – if he had said those words- meant that no one has the power over Allah(sw), which is lined up with Surah 5:17.

      Moreover, you have to know that we don’t have an “Islamic pope”.
      As Imam Malik(rh) said : “The words of anyone may be accepted or rejected, except the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).”.

      Like

    • We Evangelical Protestants don’t have a Pope either. I am a Baptist, we don’t have a Pope.

      Like

    • Ken, please do not put your notions over the words of Al Ghazali whom we can reject his saying easily when it contradicts Quran and Sunnah.
      FYI, he has been criticized within the Islamic domain of scholarship before your country was even discovered, which is something you cannot do with your prophet Paul when he contradicts Jesus. However, Al Ghazali did not say God does not keep his promise.

      Furthermore, God of the OT is not a man whereas the God bless of the NT is a man. It’s a remarkable contradiction still observed by jews, muslims, and even atheists.
      We know that you have some “excuses” for this big contradiction, but at the end of the day, you have a remarkable different.
      Also, the OT does not state that god loves the world so he will give his son to be sacrificed. This concept of god dying is just an idea invented by your prophet Paul.
      BTW, Torah and Injeel are not the protestant bible neither according to the bible’s definition nor according to the Quranic one.

      Regarding the founder of your sect, I got this information ( about the book Revelation) from Abdullah Kunde.

      Liked by 1 person

    • The OT clearly prophesied of the Messiah, who is also the Son of God ( Psalm 2:1-12; and the Hebrew priests knew this – Mark 14:60-64) – this Messiah would be “cut off” (killed) – see Daniel 9:24-27 and Isaiah 53:8. He would voluntarily offer Himself as a guilt offering (Isaiah 53:10), which He (Jesus Al Masih عیسی المسیح ) said He was going to do, as a ransom sacrifice for the sins of many people from all nations – Mark 10:45 (see Revelation 5:9; 7:9).

      “All of us like sheep have gone astray,
      each one has turned to his own way;
      But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon Him.”
      Isaiah 53:6

      Like

    • ken temple has no guarantee of salvation. everyday he has to pray to his false blood god, HOPING that he is not ONE of the people who will be told “depart from me…”

      lol

      time line 19:30

      Like

    • The promise is clear in 1 John 2:25; John 5:24; Acts 2:38-39

      Like

    • Jesus guarantees salvation for those who truly repent and trust Christ as Savior and Lord. Matthew 11:27-30; John 1:12; John 5:24; 1 John 2:25; Acts 2:37-38; Acts 13:38-39; Acts 15:9-11; Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 10:9-10; I John 5:13

      Hebrews 7:22
      “Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant”

      Romans 8:28-34
      “. . . who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God the Father and also intercedes for us.”

      You need His atonement, resurrection, and intercession at the right hand of God the Father to save you.

      We Christians have that guarantee. Jesus is the true mediator / intercessor – Shafi’ee
      شفیع

      Like

    • ken, you have no guarantee. if you think you have then you are a shameless liar. your god explicitly says that you could be the one who is told to depart from him. you must be praying to your god day and night not to be the doomed one.

      “Jesus guarantees salvation for those who truly repent and trust Christ as Savior and Lord. Matthew 11:27-30; John 1:12; John 5:24; 1 John 2:25; Acts 2:37-38; Acts 13:38-39; Acts 15:9-11; Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 10:9-10; I John 5:13”

      that’ exactly what the ones who do “miracles” in his phony name , do

      that’s exactly what you pagans do . but he already warned you that you COULD be the one who is doomed

      guarantee means that you DEFINITELY will get your REWARD. but this is no proof. you have not seen it. and neither has your god TOLD you from the heavens that you are chosen

      i will FURTHER destroy you ken

      quote :

      There is also a Q saying (Mt. 19:28, Lk. 22:30) in which Jesus tells the disciples. including Judas, that they will sit on “twelve thrones.” This would seem to indicate a lack of knowledge of a betrayal at a very early layer of development

      quote :

      “Truly I say to you, in the renewed world, when the Son of Man is sitting on the throne of his glory, you (disciples) also will be seated on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt. 19:28; cf. Luke 22:30)”

      QUESTION :

      when it says “truly i say to you…”
      is it like a guarantee for judas that he would be sitting on the throne? is jesus saying that judas like peter will be rewarded? does this imply jesus is making false prophecy ?
      if the author knew that jesus knew that judas would not be rewarded , he would have said something like
      “those who among you who follow me will….”

      REPLY :

      Yes seems to be. This is why the saying almost certainly is something the historical Jesus said (not something put on his lips by later Christians) before anyone knew that Judas would be a betrayer.

      you better start DOUBTING in your salvation ken. you could be the ONE who is told to “DEPART from me”

      judas received no intercession, even though he HELPED activate salvation

      judas got no intercession even though he was promised to sit on throne, but jesus changed his mind.

      You need His atonement, resurrection, and intercession at the right hand of God the Father to save you.

      We Christians have that guarantee. Jesus is the true mediator / intercessor – Shafi’ee”

      i am telling you right now that you could be the one who is cast out like judas was and like jimmy swaggart was. intercession is no GUARANTEE just like it wasn’t for judas .

      WHAT MAKES YOU THING THAT YOU WILL NOT BE THE ONE WHO IS TOLD TO DEPART “FROM me” ?

      DO YOU PRAY TO YOUR god NOT TO MAKE YOU OF THOSE WHO WILL BE TOLD TO “DEPART from mE” ?

      if you do, then you have admitted that even you think that you have no guarantee, otherwise why would you pray and have this DOUBT in your mind ?

      do you at least FEAR a little bit that you could be told

      Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

      QUOTE :

      The discrepancy can be more easily resolved when we realize that God does NOT expect perfection and that He accepts repentance – both concepts clearly articulated in Tanach Psalm 103:14, Psalm 51:19””

      //////////////////////////////////

      And ironically, Rabbi, that is exactly what Christians REALLY believe when they are not trying to convert people, but living their life in a cycle of sin and repentance. How many times have we seen the bumper sticker that reads, “Christians are not Perfect, just Forgiven”?

      This is the catch-22 they face. If God can forgive and welcome an imperfect person, then what is the need for Jesus? On the other hand, if they are still sinning even after accepting Jesus (and ALL of them are, by their own admission), then on what basis are they fit for God’s presence, if sinless perfection is the qualifying criteria? Think about this: if it is about “the blood of Jesus” and “Jesus dying for our sins”, then there is no need for repentance or even right-doing, since God does not consider your sin, but Jesus’ supposed perfection in your place.

      That is why Hebrews chapters 8-10 exposes the fatal flaw of Christian doctrine and the NT. No reason to even bother with the rest of the arguments. Christianity is self-defeating on its most basic premise.

      END QUOTE

      DO YOU AT LEAST FEAR THAT YOU COULD BE TOLD

      Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

      Like

    • I am humbly requesting everyone to stop going off the topic and using this platform as a debating arena. If you have something to say relevant to the essay please do so otherwise I will request that the comments section for this essay be shut down.

      Thank you,

      Ali

      Like

  8. Abdullah Kunde is one of the nicest Muslims I have met on the internet / emails through his very good interaction with Dr. White and the 3 debates that they have done together. ( think 3, maybe 4)

    Like

  9. Paul,
    Yes, Martin Luther was a Christian, but his anti-Semitic writing at the end of his life was evil and this article does not sugar coat that reality and exposes it for all the evil that it was later used by some of the Nazis.
    I know where you are going by your question, and this article is very good and you (and anyone else who takes the time to read it, will agree). It does not excuse Luther’s little booklet “On the Jews and their lies” and fully exposes it and condemns it and we all have to live with the contradiction and historical reality and consequences of that. (written by a Messianic Jew)

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/luthers-jewish-problem

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Burqa’s, beards and prejudice: Why religious people are judged as being non objective | kokicat

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: