This is just proof that The Reformer is on the leading edge. I've released several physical copies of the first print issue on the "downlow" and look what gets written in The Week magazine three days later! It's talking about reforming the jail system which is what I (the editor-in-chief) wrote about in the print edition of The Reformer.
http://theweek.com/articles/618960/how-26yearold-white-woman-died-horrible-death-american-jail
It just goes to show you that we at The Reformer are on the leading edge.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Say What You Will About Liberation Theology....
Say what you will about Liberation Theology people- at least they have an ethical basis for wanting to be treated right as people! The person in this video (with the youtube/hangouts username "psycho") is an atheist. Where is his ethical basis for fair treatment if the Bible is casually and calmly disregarded?
The Christian in the video is James (all4Hisgloryalone) from our third street apologetics ministries. I enjoyed the video.
In the May issue of The Reformer Magazine I address the issue of how/could/would/should the Biblical principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" be applied to current criminal justice systems such as that of the United States of America at the state and local levels. (notwithstanding the rich historical implications as our current system has some Biblical derivation.) See http://reformermagazine.webs.com/issues
Links about liberation theology-
http://www.theopedia.com/liberation-theology
http://www.britannica.com/topic/liberation-theology
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/liberation_theology.aspx
http://www.gotquestions.org/liberation-theology.html
The Christian in the video is James (all4Hisgloryalone) from our third street apologetics ministries. I enjoyed the video.
In the May issue of The Reformer Magazine I address the issue of how/could/would/should the Biblical principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" be applied to current criminal justice systems such as that of the United States of America at the state and local levels. (notwithstanding the rich historical implications as our current system has some Biblical derivation.) See http://reformermagazine.webs.com/issues
Links about liberation theology-
http://www.theopedia.com/liberation-theology
http://www.britannica.com/topic/liberation-theology
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/liberation_theology.aspx
http://www.gotquestions.org/liberation-theology.html
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Argument from Moral Conscience- Islam
In regards to my last post, some may wonder why I'm presenting information which proves that there's no way around a literal interpretation of the Qur'an if I don't want Muslims committing horrific acts of violence. Let me reassure people that the tension is not within my own worldview, but that of the followers of Islam. Everyone meets on the common ground which is God's created world with God-given conscience, and that is one of the main points of contact Christians have with the unbelieving world. Our Bible explains creation, conscience, and morals, and is consistent on all points, including God's commands. If one follows the teachings of the Qur'an and adopts Islam as his or her worldview, then one will be subscribing to a worldview in conflict with what one knows in one's conscience to be acceptable moral behavior. There will be no way to ever resolve that internal tension in one's thought system for as long as one is professing Islam as one's worldview. It looks like the writer of the article I was commenting on, Nabeel Qureshi, got bend out of shape for a long time during his life in trying to resolve that internal tension, and then finally abandoned Islam for Christianity. You cannot ask me, Mr. Black, to help others resolve it any other way. There is no other way out of it- the foundational doctrines of Islam were set down long ago even. Furthermore, the teachings of Islam are not the truth of the matter. People are being sold a bill of goods which is actually a pack of lies. This pack of lies says, among other things, that all paths lead to God and all paths lead to heaven. Not true. (and that type of universalism and relativism is not supposed to be a teaching in Islam at all! They just tend to talk that way!)
If there is some kind of difficulty here, it is the various dilemmas involved in how to get the necessary truths out to people when those truths are going to have a reprehensible quality to them due to the fact they've already bought into a pack of lies. I would agree that not all truths are worth speaking. Some truths are worth speaking, though. The flawed doctrines of Islam have to be exposed for what they are so that people can see properly what they've been asked to believe in, follow, endorse, etc. Morality is on my side in these arguments, as Islam, when properly examined and exposed, will be shown to endorse, condone, sanctify and justify immoral and unconscionable behavior. Conscience does not allow for the type of senseless and needless violence supposedly commanded by "Allah" in the Qur'an.
If there is some kind of difficulty here, it is the various dilemmas involved in how to get the necessary truths out to people when those truths are going to have a reprehensible quality to them due to the fact they've already bought into a pack of lies. I would agree that not all truths are worth speaking. Some truths are worth speaking, though. The flawed doctrines of Islam have to be exposed for what they are so that people can see properly what they've been asked to believe in, follow, endorse, etc. Morality is on my side in these arguments, as Islam, when properly examined and exposed, will be shown to endorse, condone, sanctify and justify immoral and unconscionable behavior. Conscience does not allow for the type of senseless and needless violence supposedly commanded by "Allah" in the Qur'an.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Quran Interpretation and the Attack in Brussels
I was not surprised to hear that the attacks in Brussels were conducted by Muslims. This is an interesting article from USA Today-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/22/radicalization-isil-islam-sacred-texts-literal-interpretation-column/81808560/
Now Mr. Qureshi (writer of article), what about the doctrine of abrogation in Islam, based on Surah 2:106 which says, "None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things? (Y. Ali) . Aren't the more peaceful verses of the Qur'an which conflict with the more violent verses supposed to be abrogated by the more violent verses which conflict with them? There is no way around proper interpretation of the Qur'an as "literal" in regards to the violent verses. (but obviously I'm not agreeing people should follow the violent verses, either. They should receive Jesus in their heart and follow Him as God, Lord, Christ). A realize that Mr. Qureshi is on the same side as me in this, and that his testimony could help take Muslims by the hand and lead them to the Lord.
Here's a good resource on abrogation in the Qur'an: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/10/the-islamic-doctrine-of-abrogation And another one- http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Abrogation_(Naskh)
Trust me, I understand muslims tend to follow the leaders of their mosques and always refer me to them for answers, because they count on their imams for interpretation (or how to deceive unbelievers as to how they're interpreting). I'll be heading over to a mosque one of these days to just ask a few questions.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/22/radicalization-isil-islam-sacred-texts-literal-interpretation-column/81808560/
Now Mr. Qureshi (writer of article), what about the doctrine of abrogation in Islam, based on Surah 2:106 which says, "None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things? (Y. Ali) . Aren't the more peaceful verses of the Qur'an which conflict with the more violent verses supposed to be abrogated by the more violent verses which conflict with them? There is no way around proper interpretation of the Qur'an as "literal" in regards to the violent verses. (but obviously I'm not agreeing people should follow the violent verses, either. They should receive Jesus in their heart and follow Him as God, Lord, Christ). A realize that Mr. Qureshi is on the same side as me in this, and that his testimony could help take Muslims by the hand and lead them to the Lord.
Here's a good resource on abrogation in the Qur'an: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/10/the-islamic-doctrine-of-abrogation And another one- http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Abrogation_(Naskh)
Trust me, I understand muslims tend to follow the leaders of their mosques and always refer me to them for answers, because they count on their imams for interpretation (or how to deceive unbelievers as to how they're interpreting). I'll be heading over to a mosque one of these days to just ask a few questions.
Sunday, March 20, 2016
A Vision of Hell
A lot of people that know me wonder why I act as I do and place emphasis on things in life such as my blogs, and why I prioritize the way I do. To tell you the truth several years ago I was shown a vision of hell, by the hand of God I'm sure. I did not have a near death experience and go to hell. I did not experience hell in a dream world. I was simply shown an extensive vision of hell in my mind's visual field. I have seen such a vision on two different occasions. All this is quite aside from the details of my preparation to run this blog.
It is not really necessary to share the full extent of my vision here- the vision falls into the category of "spiritual experiences." The vision didn't contradict the scripture's teachings on hell. There were simply a lot of small details in the vision that the Bible is silent on. When I tried to tell others, the details of the vision caused disputes. Therefore, it would only cause division and arguments to describe everything I saw in the vision in this post. The bible tells me to avoid endless and needless arguing. But not only would I be speaking in some respects where the Scriptures are silent, also my investigation subsequent to the vision took me into some territory and terrain where it is hard to say for sure if I am right. I was even, at the time, looking into Bob Morey's book Death and the Afterlife, and was able to confirm several more things from the vision from that book.
Jesus taught extensively about hell, as the Bible inerrantly records. What we know from Jesus's teachings in the scriptures is that:
1) you can't leave hell if assigned there (Luke 16:19-31)
2) God gave humanity sufficient warning as to how to avoid hell (Luke 16:27-30)
3) it's a fiery furnace (Matthew 13:42)
4) there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 13:42)
5) it's a place of outer darkness (Matthew 8:12)
6) it is punishment for eternity (Matthew 25:46, Revelation 14:9-11)
7) it's a place of torment (Luke 16:23)
8) worms don't die there (Mark 9:43-48)
9) it is comparable to a fiery garbage pit called "gehenna" (Matthew 5:29 for example)
10) there are differing levels of punishment in hell (Matthew 11:20-22)
This is just a short list of information about hell from Jesus's teachings. I can tell you from examining the biblical evidence that the vision I saw probably really actually is what the different levels of hell look like (different levels of punishment). Jesus taught with a high level of class and dignity (with perfection actually), when he talks about hell- his language is loaded with enough information to warn us that hell is a bad place we would not want to go to. However, he does not over-indulge in all the finer details of the various types of torment people will undergo here. It is simply a smattering of the right type of detail- with precise language. I just say this because the vision I saw was very much an atrocity [that is not to say God is unjust. I can't find a better word that encapsulates all of it from a human point of view], and gave me the feel that hell is a place that no one in their right mind would want to go to. Have faith in Jesus to save you from that destination.
To bring the discussion back around to where I began, I've seen what hell looks like. The experience has influenced me and contributed to the way I order my life.
It is not really necessary to share the full extent of my vision here- the vision falls into the category of "spiritual experiences." The vision didn't contradict the scripture's teachings on hell. There were simply a lot of small details in the vision that the Bible is silent on. When I tried to tell others, the details of the vision caused disputes. Therefore, it would only cause division and arguments to describe everything I saw in the vision in this post. The bible tells me to avoid endless and needless arguing. But not only would I be speaking in some respects where the Scriptures are silent, also my investigation subsequent to the vision took me into some territory and terrain where it is hard to say for sure if I am right. I was even, at the time, looking into Bob Morey's book Death and the Afterlife, and was able to confirm several more things from the vision from that book.
Jesus taught extensively about hell, as the Bible inerrantly records. What we know from Jesus's teachings in the scriptures is that:
1) you can't leave hell if assigned there (Luke 16:19-31)
2) God gave humanity sufficient warning as to how to avoid hell (Luke 16:27-30)
3) it's a fiery furnace (Matthew 13:42)
4) there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 13:42)
5) it's a place of outer darkness (Matthew 8:12)
6) it is punishment for eternity (Matthew 25:46, Revelation 14:9-11)
7) it's a place of torment (Luke 16:23)
8) worms don't die there (Mark 9:43-48)
9) it is comparable to a fiery garbage pit called "gehenna" (Matthew 5:29 for example)
10) there are differing levels of punishment in hell (Matthew 11:20-22)
This is just a short list of information about hell from Jesus's teachings. I can tell you from examining the biblical evidence that the vision I saw probably really actually is what the different levels of hell look like (different levels of punishment). Jesus taught with a high level of class and dignity (with perfection actually), when he talks about hell- his language is loaded with enough information to warn us that hell is a bad place we would not want to go to. However, he does not over-indulge in all the finer details of the various types of torment people will undergo here. It is simply a smattering of the right type of detail- with precise language. I just say this because the vision I saw was very much an atrocity [that is not to say God is unjust. I can't find a better word that encapsulates all of it from a human point of view], and gave me the feel that hell is a place that no one in their right mind would want to go to. Have faith in Jesus to save you from that destination.
To bring the discussion back around to where I began, I've seen what hell looks like. The experience has influenced me and contributed to the way I order my life.
Future of The Reformer
My long term plan for this blog is to transition to a print magazine with a staff of writers, and continue this blog as a place where I publish my "inklings," opinions, and short articles. The print magazine will be a Christian worldview publication covering a wide variety of topics. I will have to keep it newsletter-length at first to keep it affordable for people, and while we're pulling together advertisers. The original vision of The Reformer was to have a Christian print magazine at the level of class and quality of writing of Harper's or The New Yorker. It will not happen overnight, but steps can be taken in that direction.
I will obviously keep the audience of this blog apprised of news in regards to progress on the print magazine. Suffice to say, this blog will continue.
I will obviously keep the audience of this blog apprised of news in regards to progress on the print magazine. Suffice to say, this blog will continue.
Thursday, March 17, 2016
A Hard Question for Muslims
In reference to the video- A Muslim Tries My Question from TheReformedapologist youtube, this blog's writer.
A lot of hard questions for Muslims will have to do with scriptural preservation and Qur'an preservation. The main question I asked the muslim in this video was, "Why (in his belief system) did God (Allah) preserve the Qur'an and not the Bible?" There are internal contradictions in the beliefs of muslims concerning this point, and it is made more complicated by the fact that the Qur'an may or may not imply that we should find that the New Testament was corrupted. According to this person, the Qur'an never claims the injil (gospel or New Testament) is corrupted - Qur'an Contradiction... A different muslim was telling me in comment boxes on youtube that the Qur'an implies corruption of the New Testament text in what appeared to be Quran 5:72-73. Either way, those who believe in the Qur'an will have trouble answering the question. If they accept that the New Testament was never corrupted, then how are they then going to resolve the obvious contradictions between the Bible and the Qur'an? If they believe the New Testament was corrupted, then how will they deal with the internal contradictions in the Qur'an, because of the various verses dealing with the injil (gospel) and how Allah preserved the "message sent down." And if that verse (Qur'an 15:9) only means the Qur'an was preserved, then why did Allah, (being sovereign over the possible preservation of texts in their point of view), preserve the Qur'an and not the Bible (in Muslims' points of view)?
Not to mention the fact that the Qur'an also says that God's revealed words cannot be changed (Qur'an 6:115, 18:27, 10:64). See also the Sam Samoun article on this. This would seem to be in contradiction with the beliefs of most Muslims that that New Testament was changed, because the Qur'an teaches that the injil (gospel) is from Allah.
I don't think it can be said, either, that the Qur'an depicts that there was a separate different "injil" given to Jesus from what the Christians had at the time, and that this "injil" just got lost, not corrupted. If that was the case (that the original injil was just lost) then why didn't God preserve this, but preserved the Qur'an? If it was the same as the Qur'an, why is it called "injil," a different name and talked about in such terms as Qur'an 3:3, as if there's an old and new testament, a law and a gospel? No, it is talking about the Bible. Qur'an 3:3 and other verses (13:38, 53:36-37, 87:19, 4:163, 17:55, 21:105) seem to say that the law and the gospel were a separate previous revelation from the Qur'an. Sam Shamoun also wrote an article about the Qur'an confirmation of the Bible There is very much evidence to say that the Qur'an affirms the Bible as we know it now as God's word.
I've written down the serious of questions I asked in the above video and the way muslims should be answering below, because it sets up the final question well about scriptural preservation.
1. Does the Qur'an speak of the Bible?
Muslim: Yes (see http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/onbible.htm) (note- though Qur'an 29:46 and others are supposed to be "abrogated" verses.)
2. Does it speak of the Gospel?
Muslim: Yes. (Qur'an 5:46, 19:30, 3:3)
3. Did God give the gospel in the Bible to Christians?
Muslim: Yes (Qur'an 5:47, 5:68, 6:114, 48:29
4. Did God give the Qur'an?
Muslim: Yes (Qur'an 44:1-3, 97:1, 2:185, 17:106)
5. Is Allah sovereign over the preservation of the Quran?
Muslim: Yes (Qur'an 15:9) The Qur'an also says that God's revealed words cannot be changed (6:115, 18:27).
6. Why did Allah preserve the Qur'an and not the Bible?
?
The discussion went into the nature of God, because at the time I knew that the Qur'an says that "Allah is the greatest of the deceivers" (Qur'an 3:54, cf. 8:30) (see also Sam Shamoun's article on this.) which means that the very nature of the Allah of the Qur'an is different than the nature of the God of the Bible.
The above questions bring to light a set of contradictions in documents and beliefs which are a very big mess, but the mess is in Islam. Also, all of this is just the beginning of the discussion. I published a followup video after the first video "A Muslim Tries my Question" on TheReformedapologist, linked here: Question for Muslims, part 2 In this video I followed all the thinking through to its logical consequences.
A lot of hard questions for Muslims will have to do with scriptural preservation and Qur'an preservation. The main question I asked the muslim in this video was, "Why (in his belief system) did God (Allah) preserve the Qur'an and not the Bible?" There are internal contradictions in the beliefs of muslims concerning this point, and it is made more complicated by the fact that the Qur'an may or may not imply that we should find that the New Testament was corrupted. According to this person, the Qur'an never claims the injil (gospel or New Testament) is corrupted - Qur'an Contradiction... A different muslim was telling me in comment boxes on youtube that the Qur'an implies corruption of the New Testament text in what appeared to be Quran 5:72-73. Either way, those who believe in the Qur'an will have trouble answering the question. If they accept that the New Testament was never corrupted, then how are they then going to resolve the obvious contradictions between the Bible and the Qur'an? If they believe the New Testament was corrupted, then how will they deal with the internal contradictions in the Qur'an, because of the various verses dealing with the injil (gospel) and how Allah preserved the "message sent down." And if that verse (Qur'an 15:9) only means the Qur'an was preserved, then why did Allah, (being sovereign over the possible preservation of texts in their point of view), preserve the Qur'an and not the Bible (in Muslims' points of view)?
Not to mention the fact that the Qur'an also says that God's revealed words cannot be changed (Qur'an 6:115, 18:27, 10:64). See also the Sam Samoun article on this. This would seem to be in contradiction with the beliefs of most Muslims that that New Testament was changed, because the Qur'an teaches that the injil (gospel) is from Allah.
I don't think it can be said, either, that the Qur'an depicts that there was a separate different "injil" given to Jesus from what the Christians had at the time, and that this "injil" just got lost, not corrupted. If that was the case (that the original injil was just lost) then why didn't God preserve this, but preserved the Qur'an? If it was the same as the Qur'an, why is it called "injil," a different name and talked about in such terms as Qur'an 3:3, as if there's an old and new testament, a law and a gospel? No, it is talking about the Bible. Qur'an 3:3 and other verses (13:38, 53:36-37, 87:19, 4:163, 17:55, 21:105) seem to say that the law and the gospel were a separate previous revelation from the Qur'an. Sam Shamoun also wrote an article about the Qur'an confirmation of the Bible There is very much evidence to say that the Qur'an affirms the Bible as we know it now as God's word.
I've written down the serious of questions I asked in the above video and the way muslims should be answering below, because it sets up the final question well about scriptural preservation.
1. Does the Qur'an speak of the Bible?
Muslim: Yes (see http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/onbible.htm) (note- though Qur'an 29:46 and others are supposed to be "abrogated" verses.)
2. Does it speak of the Gospel?
Muslim: Yes. (Qur'an 5:46, 19:30, 3:3)
3. Did God give the gospel in the Bible to Christians?
Muslim: Yes (Qur'an 5:47, 5:68, 6:114, 48:29
4. Did God give the Qur'an?
Muslim: Yes (Qur'an 44:1-3, 97:1, 2:185, 17:106)
5. Is Allah sovereign over the preservation of the Quran?
Muslim: Yes (Qur'an 15:9) The Qur'an also says that God's revealed words cannot be changed (6:115, 18:27).
6. Why did Allah preserve the Qur'an and not the Bible?
?
The discussion went into the nature of God, because at the time I knew that the Qur'an says that "Allah is the greatest of the deceivers" (Qur'an 3:54, cf. 8:30) (see also Sam Shamoun's article on this.) which means that the very nature of the Allah of the Qur'an is different than the nature of the God of the Bible.
The above questions bring to light a set of contradictions in documents and beliefs which are a very big mess, but the mess is in Islam. Also, all of this is just the beginning of the discussion. I published a followup video after the first video "A Muslim Tries my Question" on TheReformedapologist, linked here: Question for Muslims, part 2 In this video I followed all the thinking through to its logical consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)