Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Wtinessing to Muslims

Witnessing to Muslims


The main thrust of witnessing to a Muslim is for one to demonstrate that all men, including the Muslim, are under God’s judgment from breaking the moral law. All are sinners and all need a Savior.

Muslim terrorists are pure evil and most Muslims are not terrorists (yet, almost all terrorists are Muslims and countless Muslims support terrorist acts). The interesting aspect of this phenomenon is that the terrorists are trying to follow true Islam and its founder, Muhammad. The modern day Muslim terrorist aims to be faithful to Muhammad’s life and instruction. Thus, Muhammad ordered the killing of many people and the Muslim terrorist engages in similar activity.

The Islamic moral code is an ethical system that sanctions death for verbal crimes and the repression of women. It is worth noting that if Allah is a lone monad deity, love could not be part of his eternal nature. Moreover, love is the heart and motivation of true morality. The Islamic god cannot account for love since it is not an eternal attribute of his nature. The biblical God is love. He has loved, through all eternity, as the Father loved the Son and the Holy Spirit. Love flows to man from God’s nature because love is an eternal attribute of the true God. Islam recoils at the thought of God as Father, who offers free grace and eternal love to sinners. Many Muslims profess that Allah is God, who has commanded his followers to pursue jihad against Jews, Christians, and all other “infidels” (see Sura 2:193; 8:12, 17, 41, 60; 9:5, 14, 29, 123; and Hadith 1:25; 4:196, etc.). Remember that it was Muhammad himself, who led or ordered twenty-seven warring attacks against the “infidels.” He, as their supreme lawgiver, gave the order to decapitate 900 Jewish men for opposing him and not receiving him as a prophet.

Millions of Muslims avouch and support jihad. Jihad against Israel, America, and all non-Muslims is an important element in the worldview of large populations of Muslim people. The Koran commands: “Slay the idolaters, wherever you find them...ambush them” (Sura 9). The Arabic dictionary defines jihad: “To fight and kill in the path of Allah, the enemies of Allah, for the cause of Allah. It can also be used to mean to strive in the path of Allah.”

see my book that refutes Islam and other false religions:
[[ASIN:1432722956 One Way to God: Christian Philosophy and Presuppositional Apologetics Examine World Religions]] at www.MikeARobinson.com or Amazon.

Muhammad launched and advanced Islam with the sword. Muhammad himself led numerous invasions on neighboring villages during his lifetime, while his followers engaged in fifty more. Many times the conquered people were given the choice of conversion to Islam or death. Christians, pagans, and Jews were killed by the armies of Muhammad in seventh century Islam. Islam's inception is associated with war. At Islam’s birth, there were eighty-three military campaigns involving Muslims.

Muhammad spearheaded or ordered almost eighty attacks. Jesus Christ and all His apostles ordered zero military attacks. Islam is a warring religion, and has been so in every century it has existed. Even George Washington had to deal with Islam’s warring and plundering. Muslims were kidnapping Americans and receiving large ransoms for the captured. President Washington wrote a letter in 1786 to Marquis de Lafayette, complaining of Muslim terrorism, and wished that America “had a navy able to reform those enemies of mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.”

Muhammad engaged in many dozens of armed battles. The Apostle Paul commanded zero military campaigns. Muhammad organized over five dozen raids. Peter, Paul, John, James, Mark, and all the Christians for the first three hundred years of Christianity, directed zero military wars. Muhammad stirred up hatred and conducted numerous conquests in the name of Allah.

Muslim Nonstop Warfare

"Would you rather have an Allah, who demands that you kill me so you can go to heaven, or a Jesus, who says to love Him and others because you are going to heaven?" (Rick Mathes).

The conquest of Constantinople, in 1453, saw Christians massacred and cut down like grass by Muslim invaders. Christian diplomats, citizens, ministers, women, and children were butchered. Bodies were stacked up as high as the wall around the city. The churches were converted to Mosques, as several thousand of massacred heads bobbed in the bay. The Muslims were motivated by jihad and dreams of a world-wide Islamic conquest.

"Hear, O Muslims, the meaning of life. The peak of the matter is Islam itself. The pillar is Rakatin prayer. And the topmost part is jihad - holy war" (Muhammad in the Hadith).

Christianity the Source of Human Rights: Islam a Source of Abuse

"They have lived long and prospered. But now, we shall invade their land and curtail their borders" (Koran, Sura 21:41-46).

Muhammad asked, “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women replied, “Yes.” He said, “This is because of the deficiency of the woman’s mind” (Haddith, Volume 3:826).

Early Christianity grew and spread by the spoken word, peace, love, and sacrifice; it overtook the whole Roman Empire by persuasion and works of compassion. Islamic morality is the antithesis of Christian morality. Islam spread by ambush, atrocities, and forced conversions. Last century, this warring religion murdered a million and a half Armenian Christians in Turkey. It is against the law to publicly preach a non-Islamic religion in every Muslim nation. The death penalty is imposed on all those who are found guilty of this “offense.”

Islam lacked a common usage word for “heresy until the nineteenth century.” Bernard Lewis writes that the “main difference between the Sunnis and the Shi`a, whose theological differences are minimal, often diverge considerably on point of law.” Thus, they kill each other and have for over ten centuries over religious disputes. All violent religionists should affirm and embrace the Christian worldview of love, lawfulness, and peace.

"Allah’s messenger has commanded: fight against the unbelievers and kill them. Pursue them until even a stone would say; come here Muslim, there is an infidel hiding. Kill him. Kill him quickly" (Koran, Sura 16:13).

The former is just a brief recounting of Islam’s history. It is stunning and a little scary. However those are just evidential and historical arguments. The main problem for Islam is it worships a false god and it has a fallacious moral law and epistemology (the basis for all knowledge). That is, my dominant argument can function to undermine Islam’s relation to its false and irrational epistemology. The Muslim cannot account for logic, love, absolute morals, and knowledge.
[[ASIN:1432722956 One Way to God: Christian Philosophy and Presuppositional Apologetics Examine World Religions]]

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Truth v. Error

Of all the offspring of time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder’s welcome (Charles Mackay).
a quote I employ in my new Book. see www.mikeArobinson.com

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Jeff Jones couldn't find a book that brought together reason with a robust faith in God. So he almost gave up.
Interested in apologetics without knowing that such a thing existed, the 19-year-old while browsing Amazon, stumbled upon "When Skeptics Ask" by Norman Geisler (author of over 70 books). He found what he was looking for without knowing apologetic books even existed. He bought it, read it, and re-read it.
A week later he was able to refute an atheist friend and later lead him to the Lord.
Within this outstanding book are answers to questions like:
- Does the Christian God exist?
- Can one prove Christian theism (CT)?
- How can the believer answer the problem of evil?
- How is Jesus Christ unique?
- Are miracles rational?

In "When Skeptics Ask" scholars Dr. Geisler and Ronald Brooks explicate effective and potent ways to defend the faith and the word of God utilizing an evidential apologetic methodology. This is an outstanding evidential resource well suited for students, ministers, and average non-scholars. This appealing read makes a fine gift for your father, mother, or young adult.

This appealing volume is endorsed by:
- Josh McDowell
- J. P. Moreland
- RC Sproul who writes: "This is an excellent tool for Christians who want to be able to provide sound answers to real intellectual questions about the Christian faith."
I assert: Yes, the Bible reveals to humanity that the Earth hangs on nothing (Job 26:7) and is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). Scripture declared this thousands of years before telescopes and modern science discovered those facts. God's word teaches us the proper function of the water cycle (Job 38:12-14), the existence of ocean currents (Psalms 8:8), the solar cycle, and the expansion of the universe (Isaiah 40:22) centuries before modern science found these truths. These evidential facts are consistent with the authority of the Bible. These and other evidences do not give the Bible authority; it is endued with it because it is God's word. All science, testing, and examination presuppose God and His word. Testing utilizes a number of dynamics such as logic and induction. A materialistic worldview cannot justify the existence or the use of the laws of reason. They are nonphysical and abstract dynamics that can only come from the nature of the one true God. We have certain knowledge that the God of scripture lives. We do not think He probably exists. Our faith is not just reasonable or plausible. It is impossible for the true and living God not to exist because without Him, we cannot know anything at all. He is the precondition for all knowledge. God must be presupposed as the basis of every element of mankind's experience, knowledge, and value.

This is a fine resource that will help believers and unbelievers discover the massive amount of evidence that exists for CT.

------ See the New Book that contends for the existence of God using moral absolutes by Mike Robinson:
[[ASIN:1598007661 There Are Moral Absolutes: How to Be Absolutely Sure That Christianity Alone Supplies]]
------ or additionally see the dynamic new book on apologetics:
[[ASIN:1420827626 "God Does Exist!: Defending the faith using Presuppositional Apologetics, Evidence, and the Impossibility of the Contrary"]]

Medved on the Real Lackof "Islamophobia": There's a Reason to be concerned about Islamic Violence

Michael Medved ContributorAOL News
(Sept. 15) -- Does a negative opinion of Islam amount to conclusive evidence of bigotry?Those who warn of a raging frenzy of American "Islamophobia" base their case on the assumption that anything less than enthusiastic approval of The Religion of Peace automatically qualifies as hatemongering and ignorance. On ABC News, Christiane Amanpour pointed to recent survey figures on public uneasiness with Islam to prove that Muslim Americans faced an unprecedented tsunami of hostility and discrimination.

Actually, the Washington Post/ABC poll she repeatedly cited hardly indicated seething, volcanic anti-Muslim sentiment: less than half the public (49 percent) held generally "unfavorable" views of Islam, while fully 37 percent felt favorably disposed toward Koranic values.Far from reflecting an alarming new surge of groundless hatred, these figures remain virtually unchanged from results of an identical Washington Post/ABC survey from four-and-a-half years ago (March, 2006), which showed 46 percent unfavorably inclined toward the Muslim faith.The real question raised by all such expressions of public opinion should confront the nearly 40 percent of Americans who say they feel positively impressed by Islam and its influence.What aspect of Muslim teaching and achievement most inspires such respondents? Is it the daily reports of suicidal Muslim violence from every corner of the globe? Or perhaps the open-hearted respect by pious Muslims for the rights of women, homosexuals and infidels? Is it the record of economic progress and social justice achieved by those societies (like Saudi Arabia and Iran) that take Shariah law most seriously? Or perhaps it's the contributions of Muslim charities in the U.S., the most prominent of which (remember the Holy Land Foundation?) have been shut down by the government for their lavish support of murderous terrorist groups like Hamas?
.articleRSSFeedback{font:11px arial;}.articleRSSFeed{width:240px; border:1px solid #C3C3C3; margin:10px 0;}.articleRSSFeed img{padding:10px 10px 0; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; width:auto; display:block;}.articleRSSFeed h3{padding:10px; margin-bottom:5px; color:#000000; font:bold 13px arial; border-bottom:1px solid #C3C3C3;}.articleRSSFeed ul{padding:0 10px 10px; margin:0;}.articleRSSFeed ul li{margin-bottom:5px; list-style-type:none;}.articleRSSFeed ul li a{font:bold 11px arial; background:url("http://o.aolcdn.com/os/sphere/art/blue-icon") no-repeat scroll 0 0.5em transparent; padding:0 5px 0 10px;}.articleRSSFeed .moreStories{border-top:1px solid #C3C3C3; font:11px arial; padding:5px 0 5px 15px;}

Quite naturally, the people who look favorably on Islam focus instead on the law-abiding, patriotic, family-loving Muslims who have established benign communities throughout the United States. But even the decent people who reside in those communities rightly worry that their impressionable offspring may become too religious, too zealous in their fervent commitment to The Prophet and his teachings.There is no real parallel to this fear in Christian or Jewish homes. Christian parents may feel embarrassed by their religiously reborn children suddenly studying the Gospels obsessively, or witnessing obnoxiously to family or friends, but they needn't worry about wayward kids blowing up themselves or others in the name of Jesus. Jewish mothers and fathers may hate the scraggly beards and black hats adopted by a suddenly Orthodox generation, or resent the refusal to eat non-kosher food at home, but even the most fanatical of their kids feel scant temptation to travel to remote mountain hideouts as part of an international terror conspiracy.By contrast, the secularized, prosperous parents of the Christmas Day Underwear Bomber (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab), or the would-be Times Square Bomber (Faisal Shahzad), or the Fort Hood Shooter (Nidal Malik Hasan), or European-educated engineering graduate Mohammed Atta (and his 18 9/11 accomplices) can testify what happens when even products of sophisticated, privileged families become too deeply entangled in Muslim fundamentalism.The spiritual leader of the proposed Islamic Cultural Center near Ground Zero insists that the true problem is extremism, not Islam itself. "The real battlefront today is not between Muslims and non-Muslims," declared Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to the Council on Foreign Relations, "but between moderates of all faith traditions against the extremists of all faith traditions."This ignores the huge differences -- both quantitative (Islamic radicals are vastly more numerous) and qualitative (Muslim fanatics endorse uniquely murderous rhetoric and deeds) -- between extremists in one faith tradition and all others.A Christian fundamentalist may talk about burning Qurans; Muslim crazies regularly burn buildings -- and people. Even after Pastor Terry Jones called off his idiotic barbecue of the Islamic holy book, Muslims reacted with deadly riots in Kashmir that killed 16 and wounded 60, while burning several schools and other government buildings.Calling attention to these recent excesses doesn't mean denying the fanaticism of Christian authorities during the Crusades or Inquisition, who roasted heretics, non-believers and suspected witches by the thousands, nor ignoring the brutal stupidity of the Jewish fundamentalist establishment that publicly torched the books of the great sage Maimonides some 800 years ago.But in recent generations, there is no comparison between the distinctive dangers of extremist Islam and the menace posed by any other religious creed.

Some Americans may dislike the style of worship in Pentecostal or Catholic churches, for instance, but the faithful (no matter how tackily dressed) never surge out of their sanctuaries on Sundays with fury and blood-lust, looking for non-believers to stone and property to destroy. Every Friday, however, somewhere in the vast Muslim world, some congregations of the devout react to their uplifting prayer services by going directly from their mosques to rousing orgies of rage and violence.This observation isn't an expression of bigotry; it's a factual product of reading the newspaper, and regularly monitoring international news.The lame-brained insistence that all faith traditions deserve equal respect (or equal condemnation) doesn't demonstrate tolerance or broad-mindedness; it expresses, rather, a refusal to take any religion seriously enough for honest evaluation of its virtues and flaws.Reservations about Islam, and even fears of the Muslim faith's influence on the world at large, don't constitute paranoia or intolerance. These concerns represent an honest and reasonable response on the part of a significant segment of the public to a serious global challenge to the values that Americans hold most dear.

UK Muslims Burn Flag and US Constitution on 911

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxan9ztrdbw

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Book Review: Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics by Craig

William Lane Craig books hold many commodious rational delectations for students, philosophers, and apologists. With "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics," the compelling attraction is his exposition of the theistic proofs. He supplies the historical overview of each proof, from the ontological argument to the evidence for the Resurrection of Christ, and writes in an accessible and alluring style meant to equip the reader to personally employ the rational contentions he provides.

This fresh edition (third) expands Craig's work on the arguments for the existence of God, and to make room for this enlargement, the author deleted the chapter on the historicity of scripture. The purpose of this volume Craig asserts is "primarily to to serve as a textbook for seminary level courses on Christian apologetics" (p. 12).

Craig begins by defining the term and role of apologetics (p. 15) as he furnishes a nine page introduction. He aptly defends the uniqueness of Christian theism as a spiritual commencement ignited by the Holy Spirit (p.p. 44-50), and then presses the crucial role of reason within the context of the necessity of faith (p. 51). He effectively discusses Inductive arguments and Deductive arguments while contrasting the differences between the two approaches.

Craig blesses the reader with extensive bibliographies and suggested reading at the end of each chapter.

Chapters include:
- How do I know that Christianity is true?
- The absurdity of life without God
- The existence of God part 1 and part 2
- The problem of historical knowledge
- The problem of miracles
- The Resurrection of Jesus - and more.

Craig delivers his usual superb arguments that have defeated every atheist he has publicly debated. Additionally he exposes the ignorance, or dishonesty, of professional atheist Daniel Dennett when Dennett incorrectly outlined the Cosmological Argument. Dennett misstated, as many atheists do, the argument as: "Everything that exists must have a cause." The correct rendering of the argument is everything that "begins to exist has a cause" (p. 115).

Dr. Craig advocates the moral argument for theism when he refutes the attempt to undermine it with the Euthyphro Dilemma (p. 181). He delivers a fine defense of the Ontological Argument as he interacts with Plantinga's version of this difficult proof. He ends with what he calls the "ultimate apologetic" (p. 405). The UA is an extension of the believer's relationship with Christ and a caring rational relationship built with the nonbeliever.

This 400 page volume is endorsed by:
- J.P. Moreland
- Craig A. Evans
- Don Nelson
- C. Behan McCullagh

Professor Craig delivers a powerful and effective case for the existence of God as he unfolds proof after proof for theism with concision and tenacious precision. Christianity Today opined on this mighty volume: "First-rate treatment, there is none better." See the New Book that contends for and proves the Existence of God using moral absolutes by Mike Robinson: There Are Moral Absolutes: How to Be Absolutely Sure That Christianity Alone Supplies ------ or additionally see the dynamic new book on apologetics: "Letter to an Atheist Nation: Presupositional Apologetics Responds To: Letter to a Christian" by Mike A Robinson ASIN:1432706322

AM Vid debate

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/

see Vids on Koran burning debate

Paul Manata's New Blog

http://aporeticchristianity.wordpress.com/

Check out Paul Manata

Friday, September 10, 2010

Ann Coulter on the Koran Burning and Liberal Hypocrisy

http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2010/09/08/bonfire_of_the_insanities

Nothing Cannot Create Everything: Answering Stephen Hawking

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going" (Stephen Hawking: The Grand Design).

"I never quite understood the conviction that creation requires a creator" (cosmologist and spontaneous creation advocate Lawrence M. Krauss).

"Something can only create if it already exists (where ‘already’ indicates logical rather than temporal priority). Nothing does not have the power to create, or to do anything else for that matter, because nothing is quite literally no thing. So the universe could only create itself if it already existed; but if it already existed, it would have no need to create itself!" (James Anderson: proginosko. wordpress.com).

Hawking’s notion of calling upon gravity as a purposeful force with causal agency is absurd and would leave the world unintelligible. Gravity is an element of the material cosmos subsequent to its initial commencement and not previous to the origin of the universe.

"God didn’t create the universe; it was created spontaneously" (Lawrence Krauss).

"He who does not believe in God will believe in anything" (attributed to G.K. Chesterton).

Anderson goes on to ask: “How could there be laws of nature without nature itself? Surely the laws of nature—the law of gravity included—presuppose the existence of the natural universe. If there were no universe, to what would the laws of nature refer? This is one reason why I find it prima facie implausible that the law of gravity or any other physical law could even in principle explain the existence of the universe. The laws of nature presuppose the existence of nature, just as the laws of Scotland presuppose the existence of Scotland.”

"There are remarkable, testable arguments that provide firmer empirical evidence that our universe arose from nothing" (Lawrence Krauss).

"Philosophy is dead" (Hawking: The Grand Design).

"The “laws of nature” are mere abstractions and cannot explain anything. What exists in the natural order are concrete material substances with certain essences, and talk of “laws of nature” is merely shorthand for the patterns of behavior they tend to exhibit given those essences" (Edward Feser: The Last Superstition).

Anderson exposes Hawking’s philosophical practice of ditching philosophy when he asserts that if “Hawking thinks there is some law or principle that explains the very existence of the universe, he must have in mind a metaphysical law rather than a physical law. Unless I’m much mistaken, the law of gravity is a physical law. It appears that Hawking intends to leave behind physics (a subject on which he is eminently qualified to speak) and enter the realm of metaphysics (a subject on which he has no particular expertise, so far as I know). It’s more than a little ironic therefore to find Hawking declaring on the very first page of his new book that ‘philosophy is dead.’ If philosophy is dead, why is Hawking now turning his hand to philosophy? No, philosophy is in very good health, despite its frequent mistreatment at the hands of scientists.”


That Which Doesn’t Exist Cannot Cause the Cosmos


No lie is of the truth (1John 2:21).

The universe could not create itself no matter how small or large it becomes; it is not possible to make itself. For the universe to make itself it would have to be and not be at the same time in the same manner, which contravenes the Law of Non-contradiction and necessitates a dive into the illogical.

• The cosmos is composed of the entire realm that is natural.
• When the cosmos is not present, there is nothing natural.
• The universe was once not present.
• The non-presence of that which is natural is not a natural cause.
• Hence, the creation of the cosmos was not natural.
• Therefore, the creation of the cosmos was anatural (supernatural).

The anatural cause of the cosmos is not wholly reliant on matter, light, space, gravity, and energy: the natural. An anatural creation excludes the possibility of a creation by nature forasmuch as nature did not yet exist before its creation. Something rather than nothing created the cosmos (God). The cosmos does not subsist as a consequence of mere natural design, but the grand designer is God, an anatural (supernatural) cause.


Choose God and Account for Rationality


"Contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything; they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions. What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine. That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own—but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent. Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved" (John Lennox).

Moreover, this volume has established that a materialistic view of the cosmos undermines the possibility of rationality. Dr. Lennox adds: “Hawking’s argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth? Similarly, when Hawking argues, in support of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for ‘the blue touch paper’ to be lit to ‘set the universe going’, the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And who lit it, if not God? Despite this, Hawking, like so many other critics of religion, wants us to believe we are nothing but a random collection of molecules, the end product of a mindless process.”


Precommitments Direct One’s Worldview


We take the side of science … because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door (Richard Lewontin).

"This, if true, would undermine the very rationality we need to study science. If the brain were really the result of an unguided process, then there is no reason to believe in its capacity to tell us the truth" (John Lennox).

Everyone has presuppositions—primary belief patterns that color all one’s thought and rational viewpoint. Reason is only consistent with Christian presuppositions. Hence, the real battle is between presuppositions. Hawking and spontaneous creation activists presuppose and advocate the absurd notion that nothing created everything. The Christian presupposes the Creator God who raised Christ from the dead and provides all the required a priori truth conditions for the laws of logic that allow one to investigate anything, including cosmology.



See my apologetic book that contends for Christian truth:
[["The Necessary Existence of God: The Proof of Christianity Through Presuppositional Apologetics"]] type in ASIN#:1419620355
or
Moral absolutes contending for theism:
There Are Moral Absolutes: How to Be Absolutely Sure That Christianity Alone Supplies

For a book that refutes atheism, skepticism, and agnosticism utilizing the doctrine of the Trinity see: One Way to God: Christian Philosophy and Presuppositional Apologetics Examine World Religions
and
God Does Exist!: Defending the faith using Presuppositional Apologetics, Evidence, and the Impossibility of the Contrary