This Week in Review - 3/31/2017

Some more links to share!

What Does Semper Reformanda Mean? from Ligonier Ministries - Pretty much what the title says; it's an explanation of the historical background for the phrase Semper Reformanda.

Moses Was Not Abraham from The Heidelbog - A good explanation of baptism in regards to the covenants in church history. Namely, between the distinction of the Abrahamic covenant (which became a spiritual one under Christ, but not undone) and the Mosaic covenant (from which we were freed by Christ).

Seven Reasons Why We Should Not Accept Millions of Years from Answers in Genesis - A simple, brief explanation on why taking a position of millions of years is not a biblical one.

If the Quran Is True, Then It’s False from Stand to Reason - A brief discussion on the Quran's teaching regarding Allah's sending down the Law and the Gospel, and how, if the Quran is correct in that Allah sent them down, then it's untrue, as the Quran contradicts the Law and Gospel

What is moral relativism and how can Christians respond? from Coffeehouse Questions - We've all heard people say "That's true for you, but not for me," and similar statements. What's so fallacious about that reasoning, and how do you respond to it? This blog post gives some answers.

New Atheism’s Undead Arguments from Saints and Sceptics - An analysis of Richard Dawkins' argument that God can't exist because the universe is too complex, and that would require a super-complex creator, which is improbable. As the article points out, this philosophical contention has been refuted by theists and atheists, and for good reason.

You’re Not as Dumb as You Think You Are: Five Reasons to Put Down that Devotional and Pick Up the Actual Bible from Michelle Lesley - Ms. Lesley gives encouragement to women on how to get spiritual nutrition, not candy. My wife read this post and was very encouraged by it - and I found it to be on the level, so...

Don't Get Your Theology from the Movies from Michelle Lesley - A brief explanation on why movies can be detrimental to your understanding of theological matters or biblical stories.

Parents Are the First Apologists Your Child Should Ever Meet from Southern By His Grace - A warning to parents that you shouldn't rely on a pastor or the church in general to teach your kids how to handle the conflicts within our culture - it's up to you to prepare them, just as it was commanded in scripture.

Motherhood–You Are Not Enough from Reform Like a Woman - Good discussion on how feminism, and indeed modern society, looks down on motherhood, as well as how our sinful nature can affect our motherhood.

And in the humor corner...

Cecile Richards Thanks Ancient God Molech For Continued Government Funding Of Planned Parenthood from The Babylon Bee - I seriously thought this was a real story for a moment. Talk about Poe's Law...

Did Pope Francis Goof? A Follow Up Post

Last month, I wrote a post on Pope Francis inviting Muslim and Jewish leaders to pray to God together with Christians. Recently, I've come across a post on Patheos entitled Muslim Prayers in the Vatican…Shock Horror?!!? Written by Fr. Dwight Longenecker, it attempts to lighten some of the shock that came out in response to the news (even from clear thinking Roman Catholics). After some explanation, the author explains what really unfolded at the Vatican meeting (the words of the article are in purple). Fr. Longenecker writes, in an attempt to explain why letting Muslims worship under the auspices of the pope isn't such a bad thing:

In other words, this is a time for some Muslims, Jews and Christians to meet together for a time of prayer each in their own traditions.

Critics will say this is a subtle distinction, but it is in the subtle distinctions that true discernment lies. Others will complain that we have yet another example of the Pope’s defenders having to scurry to explain away something he should not be doing.

Hogwash.

The explanations are only necessary because of the ignorance of the press who are sensationalizing what is a low key spiritual event.

Bottom line: The Pope is meeting with two world leaders to pray together for peace. This is part of his role as the premier spiritual leader in the world.

There’s another problem however, many people are uneasy at the idea that Muslims, Jews and Christians pray to the same God. While we may find Muslim extremism to be repellent and we may have a gut level dislike of Islam it is still necessary to consider the question of who they pray to.

So think it through: First of all, there is only one God. Then there are demons who masquerade as gods, goddesses and demi-gods.

You can therefore only worship either the one God–Creator of All Things or you worship demons.

Islam is not a pagan religion. It is a Christian heresy. It formed in Christian lands and is a legalistic oversimplification of Christianity. The closest comparison we have in our culture to Islam is the Mormon religion. Both are heretical offshoots of Christianity. They therefore worship the same God we do–albeit in a defective way.

I was utterly flabbergasted when I read this, and could not believe the error that was being presented in defense of permitting Muslims to pray under Vatican authority.

Firstly, we are told that Islam was "formed in Christian lands" - in actuality, Islam was founded in predominantly pagan Arabia. It was true that there were Jewish and Christian Arabs present in the region; some of these were even among Muhammad's in-laws. It was also true that some Arabs were picking up on monotheism. However, the governments, merchants, and majority religions of the Arabian peninsula were pagan. They worshiped idols. They engaged in polytheism. The fact is, Islam was founded outside of Christian lands, not inside.

Secondly, we are told that Islam is a "legalistic oversimplification of Christianity." This is actually an oversimplification of Islam. While it would require a longer post to explain, suffice to say Islam is a conglomeration of local religions and Arabic practices, mixed with legalism and peppered with Judeo-Christian names and concepts. Many Christian concepts such as covenants, atonement, sins, and the very role of Christ, are wildly different. In short, it is as much a "Christian heresy" as Baha'i is a Muslim heresy.

Thirdly, we are told that the "closest comparison we have in our culture to Islam is the Mormon religion." This makes me ponder if Fr. Longenecker is aware of Mormon theology itself: Mormonism is, at its heart, a polytheistic religion. If anything, it is closer to the pagan religions Muhammad condemned than it is orthodox Christianity. This is not even considering that it is erroneous (as we already outlined) to say both Mormons and Islam are "heretical offshoots of Christianity."

Fourthly, the author states that Muslims "worship the same God we do-albeit in a defective way." I would like to know what our definition of "defective" is. The Allah of Islam condemns the Trinity as a damnable heresy (S. 5:73-74), supposedly quotes Jesus himself as saying he never told anyone to worship him as God (S. 5:116-117), and completely denies the historic, Biblical account of the crucifixion (S. 4:157-158). To say Islam worships the same God in a "defective way" is akin to saying Adolf Hitler handled relations with minority communities in a "defective way." God is not the author of contradiction, and would not teach contradictory doctrines - ergo, either Muhammad truly heard from the true God, and God is the author of contradiction, or Muhammad heard from false spirits, and taught the worship of a false deity.

Islam is a false religion. Muslims worship a false god. Worship of false gods is worship of demons. Muslims worship demons. QED.

While Pope Francis himself may not partake in any Muslim prayers, his permission for Muslims to come and pray and to pray alongside with Christian prayers not only puts him at odds with Decree 25 of the Ecumenical Council of Vienne (see my post here), but is simply permitting the worship of a false deity to occur under his direction. As I said in the previous blog post on this subject, peace is a noble endeavor, and tolerance between two groups is likewise a noble endeavor...however, what Pope Francis is doing is not only unbiblical in its presupposition, but in its execution as well. This attempt to soften it only makes it worse, because it continues to present the false teaching of the Second Vatican Council (Nostra Aetate; 3) as well as the Roman Catholic Catechism (841) that Muslims worship the same god as Christians. As politically incorrect it might be to say such a thing, it simply isn't true, and to try to argue otherwise is to compartmentalize historical and doctrinal facts.

Papal Fallibility: Pope Francis, Jews, Muslims, and God

I did not intend to follow Pope Francis' visit to Israel and Palestine, but something I read in an article regarding statements he had made caught my eye. I began to look for more detailed, original sources, and found them at the official Vatican website. The first quotation here comes from Pope Francis' meeting with the leaders of the Palestine, from May 25, 2014:

Mr President, you are known as a man of peace and a peacemaker. Our recent meeting in the Vatican and my presence today in Palestine attest to the good relations existing between the Holy See and the State of Palestine. I trust that these relations can further develop for the good of all. In this regard, I express my appreciation for the efforts being made to draft an agreement between the parties regarding various aspects of the life of the Catholic community in this country, with particular attention to religious freedom. Respect for this fundamental human right is, in fact, one of the essential conditions for peace, fraternity and harmony. It tells the world that it is possible and necessary to build harmony and understanding between different cultures and religions. It also testifies to the fact that, since the important things we share are so many, it is possible to find a means of serene, ordered and peaceful coexistence, accepting our differences and rejoicing that, as children of the one God, we are all brothers and sisters. [source; emphasis mine]

That same day, Pope Francis addressed Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, inviting them to pray together at the Vatican:

In this, the birthplace of the Prince of Peace, I wish to invite you, President Mahmoud Abbas, together with President Shimon Peres, to join me in heartfelt prayer to God for the gift of peace. I offer my home in the Vatican as a place for this encounter of prayer.

All of us want peace. Many people build it day by day through small gestures and acts; many of them are suffering, yet patiently persevere in their efforts to be peacemakers. All of us – especially those placed at the service of their respective peoples – have the duty to become instruments and artisans of peace, especially by our prayers.

Building peace is difficult, but living without peace is a constant torment. The men and women of these lands, and of the entire world, all of them, ask us to bring before God their fervent hopes for peace. [source; all emphases mine]

Let me make it clear I'm not against cooperation between various groups of people, be it religious, ethnic, racial, or national. I'm not against peace. I'm not against getting along. Do not misunderstand where my contention lies.

However, let's speak about the serious spiritual implications of this. Pope Francis has asked Peres and Abbas, neither of whom worship Christ, to come to the Vatican and join him in prayer to God. What God, however, do Peres and Abbas worship? Peres worships a unitarian god, and not Christ, who is the Son of God within the Trinity; Peres is a Jewish individual who denies Christ as his Lord and Messiah. Meanwhile, Abbas is a Muslim who worships Allah, a supposed deity that taught his followers a number of things that either contradict or outright condemn Christianity. Pope Francis desires to pray together with them to God...and yet neither of them worship God!

Let me make it clear here that I am not against people praying according to their faiths. That is, if a Jew desires to pray to peace, let him pray for peace; if a Muslim desires to pray for peace, let him pray for peace. I do not believe they should be forbidden from practicing their religion. However, when it comes to cooperation, it ends at religion because it then becomes a question of who God is. Pope Francis seems to believe that all three of them can pray to God together; no they cannot, for they do not all worship the same God. Pope Francis seems to believe that they are all children of God, and brothers and sisters in faith; scripture, however, teaches that the children of God are those regenerated by God the Father to worship Christ (John 1:12-13).

Scripture teaches that any worship not offered to the true God is offered to demons (Deu 32:17; 1 Cor 10:20). Pope Francis has, in essence, asked two men to come to the Vatican and offer worship to demons. Some might protest that it is for a good cause (ie., peace), and yet scripture makes it clear such worship means nothing (1 Cor 10:19; Gal 4:8-9). A Jew or a Muslim can pray all day, but - unless they pray for repentance of their sins and confess Christ as their Lord, Savior, and King - it will ultimately mean absolutely nothing to God.

This form of syncretism (rather, the worship of various gods alongside the true God, or treating them all as one and the same) was the very thing that earned the people of ancient Israel continual condemnation throughout the days of the prophets. It was what earned so much condemnation by God against the people. It was likewise a problem which Christians have continually fought against since the days of the early believers...and yet Pope Francis (even if with good intentions) has invited this kind of syncretism to happen at the Vatican.

Last week, I wrote a post on how the Roman Catholicism's teachings regarding Islam have changed over the centuries (one proof of Luther's accusation that popes and councils have "frequently erred and contradicted themselves"). The bishops of the Council of Vienne (the Fifteenth Ecumenical Council to Roman Catholics, and therefore binding), who, in Decree 25, called Muhammad an "infidel" and ordered Christian princes "to remove this offence [of Islam] altogether from their territories," would be shocked to hear Pope Francis calling Muslims (let alone unbelieving Jews) "children of God" and "brothers and sisters," then inviting them to St. Peter's in order to pray together with him, the supposed Vicar of Christ. However, this is (as I showed in the aforementioned post) the fruit of the past century, when Rome began to soften its language towards Islam and Muslims, so that it not only decreased any unnecessary intolerance, but likewise began to eat away at religious discernment regarding true and false worship of God.

Again, peace is a noble endeavor; tolerance between two groups is likewise a noble endeavor. However, what Pope Francis is doing is not only unbiblical in its presupposition, but in its execution as well.

Transformation of the Roman Catholic Teaching on Islam

A few years ago, I wrote a post examining the Roman Catholic catechism's teaching on Muslims in relationship to God's plan of salvation and whether or not Muslims worship the true God. In my studies, I've come across some quotes and teachings from Rome that have led me to revisit this topic - namely, a clear sign that Rome's teaching regarding Muslims and Islam has dramatically changed over time.

First, a quote from the Second Vatican Council:

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God… [Second Vatican Council; Nostra Aetate; 3; source] 

Next, from the Catechism itself (cited in my previous post):

The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day. [Roman Catholic Catechism; 841] 

And finally, from a pope:

Then we see another circle around us. This too is vast in extent, yet not so far away from us. It comprises first of all those men who worship the one supreme God, whom we also worship...we have those worshipers who adhere to other monotheistic systems of religion, especially the Moslem religion. We do well to admire these people for all that is good and true in their worship of God. [Pope Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam; 107; source]

The Roman Church, however, did not always have such kind words to say regarding the religion of Islam. A Roman Catholic ecumenical council, held during the middle ages, wrote these words regarding the Holy Land:

Alas! the very land in which the Lord deigned to work our salvation and which, in order to redeem humanity by payment of his death, he has consecrated by his own blood, has been boldly attacked and occupied over a long period by the impious enemies of the Christian name, the blasphemous and faithless Saracens. [Second Council of Lyons; First Constitution; source]

Whereas the Roman Catholic church, its leaders, and its faithful today claim that Muslims worship the same true God, the Roman Catholic church of the middle ages called Muslims "impious enemies of the Christian name," saying they were "blasphemous and faithless Saracens" (the medieval name for Arabic Muslims). They would not have agreed with the Roman Catholic Catechism that "together with us [Muslims] adore the one, merciful God."

The Roman Church likewise taught a number of things throughout history regarding interaction with Muslims...much of it not very friendly. For example, Christians were commanded not to work for them, or live with them - in fact, you could be excommunicated for doing so:

Jews and Saracens are not to be allowed to have Christian servants in their houses, either under pretence of nourishing their children or for service or any other reason. Let those be excommunicated who presume to live with them. [Third Lateran Council; Canon 26; source] 

Likewise, Christian leaders were commanded to forbid the worship of Muslims:

It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place, in the hearing of both Christians and Saracens and there make public declarations in his honour. There is a place, moreover, where once was buried a certain Saracen whom other Saracens venerate as a saint. A great number of Saracens flock there quite openly from far and near. This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated any further without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council's approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on catholic princes, one and all, who hold sovereignty over the said Saracens and in whose territory these practices occur, and we lay on them a pressing obligation under the divine judgment that, as true Catholics and zealous for the Christian faith, they give consideration to the disgrace heaped on both them and other Christians. They are to remove this offence altogether from their territories and take care that their subjects remove it, so that they may thereby attain the reward of eternal happiness. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet. They shall also forbid anyone in their dominions to attempt in future the said pilgrimage or in any way give countenance to it. Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness. [Council of Vienne; Decree 25; source]

In addition to clear commands to "Catholic princes" to forbid the worship of Islam (indeed, to expel it from their lands in an "obligation under the divine judgment"), we likewise see strong language against Islam. Muhammad is called an "infidel," and the worship presented by Muslims is called an "offence," with toleration of their worship and pilgrimages being displeasing to "divine majesty." Christian leaders permitting Muslims to worship freely and without hindrance is said to not only be an "insult to the holy name," but "a disgrace to the Christian faith." No doubt the clergy who penned the words at Vienne would be shocked to hear the words of Pope Paul VI that Muslims and Catholics together "worship the one supreme God," as well as his words that Catholics "do well to admire these people for all that is good and true in their worship of God."

No doubt some will desire to pull a tu quoque and argue that non-Roman Catholics (even some of the first Protestants) have likewise said hostile words regarding Muslims and other non-Christians. The point, however, is that Roman Catholics deny the statement from Martin Luther that popes and councils contradict one another...yet here, they plainly do. Keep in mind these are not general councils, but rather they are considered ecumenical to Rome (and hence binding), and we have quoted a legitimate pope (not an "anti-pope"). Yet reviewing the teachings in one and then the other, it almost seems as if these are two separate churches.

Some will also probably argue that these are merely referring to specific events in history, and hence should be seen in that context. While it is true some of these canons and decrees were written during the Crusades (or were during a time when another crusade was trying to be started up), they clearly use general language in regards to Muslims, their worship, and Christian interaction with them. Some (such as the quote from the Third Lateran Council) likewise includes the Jews alongside the Muslims. Again, there is a clear contradiction not only in how Christians are told to interact with Muslims, but (more importantly) how the religion of Islam is seen by the Roman Church. On the one hand, Muslims are called faithless and blasphemous; on the other hand, Muslims are said to worship the same God as Christians do. On the one hand, Catholics are commanded not to work for Muslims, live with Muslims, or let Muslims worship; on the other hand, Catholics are told "to work sincerely [with Muslims] for mutual understanding...social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom" (Nostra Aetate).

While I don't deny Christians should treat Muslims with grace, we have to use this to examine the claim by Roman Catholics that their church has been preserved by the Holy Spirit from error, and has always been consistent in their teaching. What we see here, however, is a clear development and change in Rome's understanding of how to respond to Muslims and the false religion that is Islam, as well as whether or not to even consider them a completely false religion. I've spoken to Roman Catholic laymen online who become appalled if you even suggest Muslims worship a false God, and do so by providing the quotes given at the start of this post. One can only imagine what they would think if the quotes from the Church of Rome in centuries past would be presented to them. They would either have to rationalize how the two groups work together (which would require some serious mental compartmentalization), or they would have to borrow the Muslim teaching of abrogation to forsake the more embarrassing decrees and canons (which would contradict the notion that popes and ecumenical councils can teach error).

The unfortunate truth is that the Roman Catholic church is like any other church: it is subject to change and modify its beliefs and expressions according to the winds of time, unless some kind of anchor is put in place. Roman Catholics attempt to put their faith in the magisterium, but the magisterium is made up of men, like you and I, and men can prove fickle. This is how you can get a Roman bishop hundreds of years ago calling Muslims "impious enemies of the Christian name," while a Roman bishop hundreds of years later says of Muslims "together with us they adore the one, merciful God." It is not an anchor which can prevent one from teaching error, just as any Roman Catholic is erring who thinks Muslims, in any way, shape, or fashion, are worshiping the true God.

The question therefore is, if your church, which you claim has not changed or cannot change, does indeed change and transform its beliefs, is it being led by the Holy Spirit, or is it being led by men and the rationality of men? No church is perfect, of course - only Christ is perfect. However, if you find yourself attempting to compartmentalize, you must realize that you are being dishonest. If your church forces you into dishonesty, is it truly led by God? These are things for Christian faithful to meditate on.

"When a Jihadist Calls"

Christian apologist David Wood goes through some 40+ messages on his phone...

Do Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God?

Some time ago, I had written a post regarding the Roman Catholic Catechism and Islam, dealing with the Catechism's statements on whether or not Muslims are fellow worshipers of the true God of Abraham. Since then, I've come across many people (mostly Roman Catholics) who continue to say that they, and Jews, do worship the same God as Christians. Mostly they will try to rationalize an argument in order to say this (and we will get to some momentarily) - however, the question ultimately boils down to this question: how do all three religions treat God the Son, aka Jesus Christ?

We must remember that Christians uphold God as a Trinitarian God. That is, God is one Being, made up of three co-equal, co-existent and co-eternal but distinct Persons in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity, it must be noted, is not Tritheistic with three separate gods, but rather each Person, while being distinct, represents the fullness of God. This is seen in scripture, where in Christ it is said "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col 2:9). God the Son, while being distinct from God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, still represents the fullness of God. Christ was not one third of God (which is tritheism), but he was God the Son made flesh.

Jews and Muslims, on the other hand, believe in a Unitarian God. That is, God is not one Being found in three distinct but equal Persons, but rather one Being and one Person. On this basis alone, we can see that the Christians worship a God that is already very different than the Jewish and Islamic gods. To Jews and Muslim, God is not a Trinity, and therefore they would deny not only the Messianic status of Christ (for the Jews) and the deity of Christ (for the Jews and Muslims), but they would deny, and reject worship of, God the Son.

What does scripture say about those who deny God the Son? The overall teaching of scripture is that those who deny the Son are denied by the Father as well. Christ stated that those who denied him before men, he would deny them before his Father (Mt 10:33). He told the unbelieving Jews: "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also" (Jn 8:19); and likewise, "If God were your Father, you would love me" (Jn 8:42). He told the disciples: "No one comes to the Father except through me" (Jn 14:6); and likewise, "Whoever hates me hates my Father also" (Jn 15:23). The apostle John put it in the most blunt manner when he wrote "no one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 Jn 2:23). According to the resounding testimony of scripture, those who deny God the Son and reject worship of him reject worship of the true God. Why is this? It is because, as God the Son represents the fullness of God, denial of one Person of the Trinity is denial of God in toto. Those who choose not to worship one Person of the Trinity refuse to worship God in toto.

Many will of course try to rationalize out of this. Some responses to such arguments:

Did the people in the Old Testament worship a Trinitarian God? The fullness of the Trinitarian revelation was not yet given to those under the old covenant, however God still existed as a Trinity, and the people under the old covenant therefore worshiped a Trinitarian God. There are moments in the Old Testament where a pre-incarnate God the Son was even encountered by believers.

Wasn't Jesus a Jew, and didn't he worship as a Jew? Didn't he pray to YHWH, just as the Jews today do? Such questioning, in fact, is ironically similar to arguments made by Muslims against the Trinity (ie., "If Jesus was God, who was he praying to?", etc.). That Jesus lived under the Mosaic Laws is, of course, clear to be seen in scripture, but this was out of the necessity that, as the perfect sacrifice before God, he live post-incarnation as the perfect man, and therefore had to fulfill the Mosaic Law and all it required. Yet if we ask then, whether or not he prayed to YHWH, we have to first realize we are heading down a dangerous road, theologically speaking. That is, we have to ask if we are suggesting that Jesus prayed outside his role in the Trinity? When Jesus prayed, it was the Son praying to the Father - Jews of today do not have this ability. We have to also remember that Jesus, as God the Son, was himself YHWH - those who have evangelized to Jehovah's Witnesses realize how important it is to prove that the holy name of God was attributed to Jesus Christ. To be certain, those who argue "Jesus was Jewish" are simply giving a non sequitor.

Don't Muslims claim to worship the God of Abraham? Let's first ask ourselves from where Islam came - to put it bluntly, it was from a false prophet in ancient Arabia who heard demonic lies in the desert. The god of Islam taught his people teachings so woefully different than the God of Christianity that, on this basis alone, one has to wonder how one can logically conclude the god of Islam and the God of Christianity are the same God, as God would not contradict himself in such a blatant manner. Simply claiming that you'd like to worship the God of Abraham does not automatically mean you are - I could claim my car was the God of Abraham and worship it, that wouldn't mean I was worshiping the same god as that of Christians.

Scripture says rejection of the Son will lead to rejection by the Father, but it says nothing for those who simply don't know any better. Where, however, in all of scripture is this such a distinction made? Such a question demands we find a gray area where the word of God sees only black and white. I am aware there are many pet verses taken by people out of context to prove inclusivist beliefs, therefore I might direct the rest of this conversation to this post.

More importantly, all of these arguments ignore the clear teaching of scripture on this matter. Those who forsake the teaching of scripture for human reasoning in essence forsake God's authority for the authority of man. Especially with Roman Catholics, who are fond of opening up arguments on this subject with "The pope said..." or "My church says...", they seem to unwittingly desire to quote a pope or church over and against the words of scripture. I'm sorry, but scripture trumps any words of man.

It must be noted here, as we conclude this post, that we should still witness to and pray for our Jewish and Muslim friends. They must hear who the true God is, and be invited to worship Him, for only God the Son can purify them of their sins and be made righteous before God the Father, sanctified and sealed by God the Holy Spirit. God bless.

Re: Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus; Muslim Version

After the "I hate religion but love Jesus" became viral, it was just a matter of time before people attempted to do their own take on. There was a Roman Catholic version I came across, and then there was this...a Muslim version. The video itself can be watched below:


While I wasn't an overly huge fan of the original video (see here), this video literally made me fall out of my chair (yes, literally). The best way I could sum it up is that it is every bad Muslim argument made against Christianity that has been refuted over a hundred times already. I write that last sentence not to be disrespectful, but to speak plainly - anyone who has studied apologetics against Islam in the past twenty years (indeed, since the time of John Damascene) knows that everything mentioned in this video has already been responded to a thousand times over.

I decided to write a response precisely to give that: a response. This video is not just a "Hey I'm Muslim and this is what I believe," but it's clearly an evangelizing tool to bring people to Islam, and it is specifically aimed against Christians. Therefore, I present this for anyone wondering if what the gentleman says in the video is truthful, or perhaps they just want to see a response from the other side.

Let me give just a few notes on my method for this. I've transcribed the entire video and written down the lyrics, which I'll respond to in piecemeal. As I'll be quoting scripture, I put the lyrics in bold so that people can visually see when I'm quoting the video and when I'm quoting something else. Whenever a passage from the Quran or the Bible is sourced in the video, I'll put it in brackets.

You say Jesus was God, and God had descended
We say Jesus was man, for Jesus was dependent

Here's the first sign of a problem: we're dealing with Muslim presupposition versus Christian presupposition.

Some people might read that last sentence and think, "Well duh, genius." There is, however, a point in my making that statement: Muslim comparative religion is an exercise in circular reasoning. In Judeo-Christian history, God always revealed forward: what came before confirmed what came later (for example, Messianic prophecies fulfilled in Christ). In Islam, however, God reveals backwards: all previous revelations (the Bible) must be read in the context of a future revelation (the Quran). The man says "you say...but we say...", and the Muslim point of view is accepted as the accurate one. This, despite the fact that Islam's view of Christ and God's teachings takes place 600-years after the final revelations of God, in a land separated from Christ's people, and dealing with men who had no connection with God's people at all. We are supposed to forgo the writings of men who were eyewitnesses to the events for the opinion of a man who claims to have spoken to an angel and who had no other way of confirming himself except by his own revelations.

Despite what many Muslims might say in regards to Christians and blind faith, all Muslim presupposition boils down to "I believe the Quran is the final revelation because the Quran says so." Whereas Christians can freely look backwards and read the Old Testament in context to confirm gladly the New Testament (just as the apostles did to the Jewish people), Muslims are forced to essentially rewrite and reword the Bible in order to have it fit the Quran. Keep this in mind as we progress through this video, as it will become more and more apparent.

Our God is all great, and cannot be comprehended
You say God was murdered - or do you believe that he pretended?
You see God gave us brains, and God gave us logic,
But I guess God wanted us to use them in everything else except for this topic

I find it interesting that the gentleman in the video leads us to question whether or not God died or "pretended," given that all four gospels (which he will quote from as the video progresses) confirm that Jesus died on the cross (Matt 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30), something the Quran explicitly denies (S. 4:157). Even secular or non-Christian history is against the Quran on this. For example, the Talmudic traditions concerning Jesus - while denying his messianic status - confirm that he was, indeed, executed.

Yet to get to the heart of the matter, the man asks us "Can God be murdered?" and guesses that God wants us to use our logic on everything except this topic. The very nature of the question, however, comes at the crucifixion from a Gnostic mindset: either Jesus was fully man and could die, or was fully God and couldn't die. He seems to not understand the basics of the hypostatic union, which has been talked about for centuries and which many have used their "logic" to examine and discuss.

The basics of it is this: Christ was fully man and fully God. At the Incarnation, the Son in the Trinity did not cease being God, nor did he become half-man, half-God like the demigods of Greek mythology. The eternal Word took on flesh and dwelt among us, as scripture says:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. [John 1:14]

The word used for "dwelt" (ἐσκήνωσεν) is the same language used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) in regards to the Tabernacle, the place where God dwelt within the Holy of Holies. Here, now, God dwells among men not in a building, but in Christ, the Incarnate Word.

So yes, it would be impossible for God, as an entire entity, to be murdered - it would not, however, be impossible for the God-man - the eternal God taking on flesh and dwelling among us - to be murdered.

It's like wearing a cross and proclaiming that you love Jesus,
Well if God was murdered on the cross, the cross really shouldn't please us
I mean would you be wearing an axe if it was used to chop your mother up into pieces?
You see this is what happens when you believe in faith but fail to believe in reason

Let's ponder for a moment: what does the cross represent? If all it represented was an empty murder with no meaning, then I suppose the gentleman would have a point. However, that isn't the case: the cross represents the great humility of the Son in the Trinity, and the victory of God over sin, conquering death through death and sanctifying His true chosen people.

Cross symbolism, in fact, did not start with the later Christians, but with Christ himself. He said that those not willing to take up their cross and follow him were not worthy to be believers (Matt 10:38; Luke 14:27). He said those desiring to follow him had to take up their cross (Matt 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). The earliest Christians spoke of the power of the cross (1 Cor 1:17; Gal 6:14), and said that by it we are reconciled to God (Eph 2:16; Col 1:20). So the cross as symbol was not an invention 200 years after Christ nor 2000 years after Christ - it was right there in the midst of Christ's ministry and the early church itself.

I will concede there are those who wear the cross and blaspheme doing so. Many celebrities and false Christians wear the cross yet knowingly act against for what it stands, and thus they quite literally "walk as enemies of the cross of Christ" (Phi 3:18). Many more treat the cross as a kind of idol, forgetting he who died upon it and what that death stood for. That does not, however, mean the use of cross as symbolism is in and of itself disrespectful to God, as if we are enjoying the murder rather than what came about from that murder.

Permit me to put it another way. When I go to the Vietnam Wall and run my fingers along the names imprinted there, I am not doing so to glorify death and destruction in war, nor am I doing so because I believe running my finger along a few names is going to do something magical or spiritual to the person whose name that represents. Rather, I do it out of respect for what that wall represents. I run a finger along a name and act in a respectful manner because I recognize behind that name was an individual like myself (if not younger than my current age) who made the ultimate sacrifice which I could never imagine giving myself. I recognize that the wall represents a memorial to those who died during the war, and I honor it as much as I can in that regard.

In like manner do I glorify in the cross. I do not do so because putting two sticks together will heal me of diseases, or because I think it's cool that Romans used to drive nails through people's bodies. Rather, I glorify in the cross because it was on that cross another person took the full brunt of God's wrath on my behalf and paid in full the debt that was owed to God for my sins.

You see we used to worship the creator until Satan turned us to the creation
We began to worship the people, and neglect the one who made them

On the contrary, we don't worship creature over creation, because the Son of the Trinity is not creation. That was the position of some historical heresies, such as Arianism (which believed the Father created the Son), but not historical Christianity. Scripture confirms that the Son coexisted with the Father before all existence - indeed, it was through the Son that creation came into being. Scripture tells us:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. [John 1:1-3]

Christ himself confirmed this - first to the Jews, by confirming that he held an eternal nature similar to God:

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." [John 8:58]

And then in his prayers to the Father:

"And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." [John 17:5]

No mere creature would ever speak this way. If they did, then they were either serious about what they said, or they were great blasphemers (as the Jews thought Jesus was in John 8:58). If, however, Christ was serious in saying what he said, then Christians are in their perfect rights to worship him, and not as creature but as eternal creator.

We begin to believe that God had died, but how can a god even be created?

This was the first sign to me that the gentleman in the video either has absolutely no idea what Christians have already said in response to these kinds of arguments, or he is completely ignoring them. No one believes that God was "created," either at the incarnation or elsewhere. Various heresies throughout history have often taught that (for example, Arianism), but that is not what historical Christianity has believed. Neither God nor the Trinitarian Son came into existence at the incarnation (see previous responses). To argue this way is to misunderstand what Christians believe.

A miraculous birth, and therefore the Son of God was begotten
See, the creation of Jesus was easy, but you seem to have forgotten
That God says "Be," and it is, just like with Adam, [S. 3:59]
A concept too complex for the church to merely fathom

I believe what the gentleman is trying to argue here is that you don't have to be God to be virgin born, but God can just make a man born if He so wills this. This is certainly true, but in arguing this way he ignores everything in scripture that attests to the deity of he who was incarnated, as well as Christ's own statements regarding his eternal nature (again, see my responses above). Whether or not God could make a man be virgin born is not an issue to anyone, and therefore to argue this way is just a non sequitor.

By the way, I find it interesting the gentleman says the incarnation was "a concept too complex for the church to merely fathom," when I highly doubt this man has read any of the historical Christian works. How many Church Fathers has he read? How many of the Reformers has he read? How many of the most famous Christian theologians in the past 300 years has he read? I invite him to read works on the incarnation by Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Charles Spurgeon, and then tell me that the church is unable to "fathom" the incarnation.

But he was the creator of the universe, for all we know even more
And so what if we can't see him, I mean what you acting like, our universe is small? I mean there's still so much we've still yet to explore
I mean there's still so many things as human beings we still haven't seen, touched, heard or saw
I mean our eyes can't even handle the sight of the sun
So how can we possible handle the sight of our Lord?

I would wholeheartedly agree that we cannot fully comprehend God. However, the explicit purpose of Christ is to truly make God known to us. As scripture says:

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. [John 1:18]

The language in this passage emphasizes that no one has literally seen God in a deep, knowing sense, but the "only God" (the true meaning of μονογενὴς) who "is at the Father's side" - that is, Christ has a close relationship with the Father, one that emphasizes his coeternal and coexistent nature. This is why Christ, and only Christ, can say "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). No mere prophet could ever make such a claim.

Just to add something else Christians have often brought up: it is somewhat ironic that Muslims claim we can't fully know God on any major level...when Allah has ninety-nine names that describe who he is. Clearly from the Muslim perspective, there is some level by which we can understand God.

You see Jesus used to pray [Matt 26:39], but in your opinion who'd he pray to?
I mean if Jesus was God, surely prayer would be of no use

This is a common argument for Muslims to make on the internet, but - like so many others we've already covered - has already been responded to countless times by Christians. What we have here is the presupposition of unitarianism rather than Trinitarianism. That is, we cannot assume it is the Son praying to the Father (as it in fact was); rather, we have to assume Jesus is either completely God, or isn't God at all. This presupposition says that God is one Being and one Person, not God in Trinity. Therefore, it is no surprise for the gentleman to argue that if Christ was God he could not pray, because he is not coming from a Trinitarian mindset wherein the Person of the Son can pray to the Person of the Father.

I am also curious how this gentleman would respond to one of the previously cited verses of scripture, where Jesus prays these words:

"And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." [John 17:5]

Some Muslims are quick to say, "Yeah, but that's still Jesus praying!" They seem to completely ignore what he prayed, which is: 1) a request to be glorified alongside God the Father; 2) a declaration that Christ had this glory before the world existed - in other words, before creation. What mere creature would dare to ask God to glorify them along his side, and then declare that they had this same glory before all creation even existed? Again, if Jesus was a mere prophet, then he was a great blasphemer. If, however, he was the divine Son within the Trinity, and was praying to the Father within the Trinity, then all of this makes perfect sense.

In fact, John 17:5, along with John 8:58, are two passages of scripture to which I have yet to see Muslims give an adequate response. What these verses say is crystal clear, and only with blind eyes can one ignore the truth therein.

Or did he only require it when he needed to know the truth?
Like when God wasn't sure if it was the season of the fruit? [Mark 11:12-14]

This is another popular argument for some Muslims, and is known by Christian apologists as the "fig tree argument." The idea is that if Jesus is God, he must be omniscient, and if he's omniscient, then surely he must have known that it wasn't the season for fig trees.

This argument, however, blinds us to the larger picture. That the fig tree had leaves (v. 13) suggests that it should have had fruit. The fig tree was also a popular representation of Israel (Isa 5:1-7), which was, by then, supposed to have born fruit of repentance and accepted the Messiah. The condemnation of not bearing fruit was representational of what would eventually happen to the nation of Israel, which was they would be punished for their unbelief and rejection of the Messiah, and the fruits of God's favor would be given to someone else (Matt 21:43). This is the significance of the gospel writers mentioning it was not the season of figs; the fig tree itself represented something far greater, and Christ's omniscience was completely irrelevant.

We can see a similar lesson in the parable of the barren fig tree (Luke 13:6-9). There, a man has a fig tree that has not born fruit (representing the search for repentance among Israel). He mentions that he has sought fruit for three years from the tree and found none (representing the three years of Christ's ministry). The vinedresser asks to dig around it and put in manure (representing the preaching of the gospel), and if it does not bear fruit, then it can be cut down (representing the coming judgment of the Jewish nation with the destruction of Jerusalem). As with the previous fig tree, this too represents Israel and God's search for those who would turn away from their sins, and if the people as a whole reject God, then they shall bear no more fruit.

Or maybe he prayed when there was something he couldn't do
Like when he said "I, of myself can do nothing," but you took it as "There's nothing he couldn't do" [John 5:30]

John 5:30 is a popular passage for Muslims on the internet to throw around to attempt to show that Jesus was merely a man. The problem is that it ignores the much larger context of what Christ is talking about. It's a pretty big chunk of scripture, so please bear with me here. In the end, it will show us the full context of what Jesus is saying. Shortly after the healing of the man at the pool of Bethesda, the following occurs:

The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. And this is was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."

This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who send me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

"I can do nothing on my own..." [John 5:15-30]

Now let's review the true context of Christ's statement "I can do nothing on my own."

Jesus has just healed a man, and has done so on the Sabbath. This was a violation of resting on the Sabbath, as God had ordered his people to rest in honor of the climax of creation, and hence the Jewish leaders believed this was the perfect chance to end Christ's ministry (v. 16). Jesus tells them something you would never tell devout Jews regarding your working on the Sabbath: "My Father is working until now, and I am working" (v. 17). What does this verse mean? Obviously, the only being in the universe permitted to continue working on the Sabbath was God, and Christ just said, "Just as my Father (God) is working, so too am I working." Christ just put himself on equal with God.

Those who want to soften the impact of this, or deny the verse is saying that, forget that in the very next verse John signifies this is exactly what Christ is saying. He says that "the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God" (v. 18). Christ was not calling God "Father" in any kind of metaphorical sense, as clarified by the wording "his own." John doesn't clarify they were mistaken, as he does with other sayings of Christ (see John 2:20-21) - rather, he states this matter of factly, demonstrating that, yes, this was in fact what Christ was doing, and it was upsetting the Jews greatly.

Christ then goes into one of the seven great monologues of John's gospel, with Christ saying "the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing," adding: "For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise" (v. 19). Now wait a minute...what creature can say that? If Jesus is talking about God here, then he just stated that whatever God does, he can do too. Again, the Jews were right - Jesus was making himself equal with God.

We see this again two verses later with Christ's statement: "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will" (v. 21). Now the Son, Jesus, is saying that, like the Father, he can raise the dead and give life. Again, what mere creature or mere prophet can talk this way? Could Mohammad say, "Just as Allah raises the dead and gives them life, so too can I give life to whom I will"?

We see this yet again: "The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him" (v. 22-23). Some Muslims might quickly say, "Yes, you're supposed to honor God's prophets," but that is not what Christ is talking about here. Christ is stressing that honoring him and honoring God are the same thing. They're two sides of the same coin. Obviously there are many people in my life that I honor - my parents, the police, military servicemen, the president, etc. - but none of them do I honor in the same way I honor God.

We see this yet again with: "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself" (v. 26). Christ is stating that, just as God the Father has life in himself, so too does he, the the Son, have life in himself. Again, no mere creature can say that, and no mere prophet would say that.

At long last, we've come to verse 30, where Christ says, "I can do nothing on my own." Yet what is the full context? Is Christ saying he's weaker than the Father? On the contrary! Christ is telling the Jews that his healings, his teachings, and everything he does is not something he's done on his own unilateral accord - rather, he and the Father are working together with equal authority and power. Christ's statement "I can do nothing on my own" is treated as a sign of weakness, and yet it is perhaps one of the greatest statements of his power and divinity in scripture!

You see no one used to worship Jesus, so ask yourself why do you
A concept so straightforward, but has left so many confused

"No one used to worship Jesus?" Really? Why do the disciples worship him after the he calms the storm? (Matt 14:33) Why do the women worship him after the resurrection? (Matt 28:9) Why do the disciples worship him after the resurrection? (Matt 28:17; Luke 24:52) Why does the man born blind worship him? (John 9:38) Why does the apostle Thomas identify Christ as his Lord and his God? (John 20:28)

Here is the funny thing about all these incidents...in not one does Christ tell the person, "Stop! Worship God alone, not me!" We find precedence for this elsewhere in scripture: Peter accosts Cornelius for worshiping him (Acts 10:25-26); Paul and Barnabas get upset with the Greeks of Lystra because they mistake them for Zeus and Hermes (Acts 14:11-15); an angel accosts the apostle John for worshiping him (Rev 19:10) - in fact, this happens twice (Rev 22:8-9).

Here we have several occurrence where biblical characters openly rebuked others for worshiping someone other than God. Yet when we look at the instances where Christ was worshiped by others, Christ did not stop them, rebuke them, or even gently reprimand them. In other words, three apostles and an angel are all able to tell someone not to worship them, and yet one of the greatest prophets (according to Islam) never did so. We can only come to two conclusions: either Christ was a false prophet who accepted worship meant for God, or Christ did not stop these individuals from worshiping him because he was deserving of worship.

So you see, this concept is straightforward, but the only time people become confused is when we introduce extra-biblical concepts, such as those in the Quran.

You see Jesus preached one God [Isa 45:5], but the church has failed to practice
And I mean you don't have to be that dumb to know that one plus one plus one equaling one isn't necessarily going to give you a pass in mathematics

Quite frankly, here is the part where I wanted to bang my head, hard, against my computer desk. The gentleman in the video just pulled the "one plus one plus one doesn't equal one" fallacy. However, no knowledgeable Christian throughout history has ever argued that one plus one plus one equals one. God is one Being (monotheism) revealed through three distinct but unified Persons (Trinitarianism). The historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity from the time of Christ has always been that there is one Being of God revealed through three individual Persons connected by a unified Essence. These are not three gods, and to continue arguing that way is simply to ignore what Christians have been saying for over 2000 years.

To my Muslim friends, let me be frank: this might win you points if you're trying to look good in front of other Muslims, and it might get you views for your video, but if you're trying to open dialogue with a Christian - and I mean meaningful, serious dialogue - don't resort to this sort of thing.

You see the church said three, and Jesus said one
Jesus said God, and the church said Son

On the contrary, Christians have been saying "one" for thousands of years. The Nicene Creed, formed in the early fourth century, opens up with the words: "I believe in one God." The only person who claimed otherwise was the writer of the Quran, who clearly did not understand the Trinity in any way, shape or form. For a greater discussion on this, please see this post.

Jesus never said worship me, rather he said pray [Matt 6:6]
But you've chosen to worship Jesus despite everything He used to say

Here we have the repetition of the old Ahmed Deedat argument, "Jesus never said, 'Worship me.'" Is this the case? We've already seen (in the previous responses) that Jesus fully accepted worship aimed at him while others rejected worship aimed towards them. Even if Christ never said "Worship me," he never once condemned the act of doing so.

In regards to Matthew 6:6, this is simply a command from Christ to pray with humility, rather than the hypocrites among the Jewish leadership who prayed openly to be seen and adored by men (see Matthew 6:5-8 for a full context). It is true that Christ told his followers to pray, but that was not all that he said (we'll get to that later on).

You began to think with your emotion, and forgot to think with your mind
I guess you didn't pay attention when Jesus said "Our father," yet never says mine [Matt 6:9]

This was an argument made popular through Khalid Yasin (and I'm sure others), but it's incredibly fallacious. The "our father" is referring to the Lord's Prayer, which Jesus was giving to followers, not Him. Hence the Christ's words "and when you pray" (Matt 6:7).

Also, that Jesus never said "mine" in regards to the Father is simply erroneous. One need only find a scripture search engine and type in "my father" for the New Testament to see this is completely incorrect. Heck, just read the fifth chapter of John's gospel and count how many times Christ says "my father." This kind of great error is an ironic one to make when we are told in the same breath to "think with our mind."

You claim to be a follower of Christ, yet you still choose to eat swine [Deu 14:8]

That's because Jesus said himself that it wasn't what entered a man that defiled him, but what came out, for it revealed their heart (Mark 7:18-19). It is then added in verse 19: "Thus he declared all foods clean." We see this likewise in Acts, when God tells the apostle Peter regarding animals: "What God has made clean, do not call common" (Acts 10:15). The reason for this change was that with the coming of Christ came the new covenant, wherein the Law was written upon your heart and not upon tablets, and the ritual laws of old Israel (including the dietary laws) were no longer relevant.

So yes, sir, I am a follower of Christ and I choose to eat swine, because both the Father and Son have said my salvation is not in jeopardy for doing so.

And you call yourselves Christians, but in your churches you're busy drinking wine [Lev 10:9-11]

First, what kind of statement is that? "Busy drinking wine"? That makes it sound like Christians get drunk during Sunday services, which is a complete straw man, and quite frankly a disrespectful one. Also, the only churches with wine are those denominations that use wine for communion. Many Protestant churches today use grape juice, so for a large portion of this man's target audience, that statement is completely irrelevant.

Second, Leviticus 10 is regarding the Nazirites, a special branch of religious Jews who let their hair grow and abstained from wine and other practices. It is not talking about all believers. Nowhere does scripture give a complete prohibition on alcohol or wine as Islam does - in fact, some passages of scripture clearly have God saying it is all right to drink wine. In one of the passages speaking of the tithe, it reads:

"Then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household." [Deu 14:25-26]

Either there is a contradiction in God's word, or the gentleman in the video has used the Leviticus passage out of context. Given the proper context of both, we have to go with the latter option.

And just to clarify, I do love Jesus, matter of fact I love him more than you
Because when Jesus said do something, I actually do

Oh really? Is that so? You know, this statement reminds me of someone else - another young gentleman who actually met and spoke to Jesus. One account of the story:

And behold, a man came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." He said to him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The young man said to him, "All these I have kept. What do I still lack?" Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. [Matt 19:16-22]

The man comes before Jesus and asks about eternal life. Christ reminds him about the commandments, which the man boldly proclaims he has done. Like the young man in the video, this young man would likewise say, "When Jesus said do something, I actually do it!" Yet Christ then adds something: give up everything and follow him. Not God, but Jesus. The man refuses to do so because of his wealthy possessions - a sign that all he had claimed to have done before was an out and out lie. Indeed, it is impossible for anyone to perfectly follow God. This is why, in the verses following, you have the disciples lamenting, "Who then can be saved?" to which Christ replies, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matt 19:25-26).

Let me now ask the gentleman in the video: you say that you love Jesus more than Christians because when Jesus says "do something," you actually "do." All right, have you ever been angry with your fellow believers? Christ says that makes you guilty of murder (Matt 5:21-22). Have you ever looked at a woman with lust? Christ says that makes you guilty of adultery (Matt 5:27-28). So according to Christ's own words, you have not done all the things you've claimed to have done. Before the eyes of God, my friend, you are not a doer, but a sinner.

I am not writing this out of a spirit of self-righteousness. I myself am guilty of both of those a thousand times over and so much more. If I was reliant upon my doing alone, I would be on a one-way trip to hell, and God would have every right to do so. The fact is anyone who says they are a true doer of what God commands are themselves a liar, and deceive themselves (1 John 1:8).

You see, I would love to be able to never, ever get angry with my brother again, or never look at a woman with lust again, but I know, because I was born in sin and iniquity (Psa 51:5), that this is just an impossibility. I want to do good, but the evil inside me compels me to continue sinning (Rom 7:19). That is why I can proudly declare, along with the apostle Paul: "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Rom 7:24-25)

However, I'm not connected with the church, or with the Bible,
See I love Jesus as my prophet, but refuse to worship him as an idol
Just like he wants it, and proclaims it as sin [Exo 20:4]
So it doesn't really matter if they don't let him in
Because Jesus wouldn't even want to be in the presence of people worshiping an idol of him

I find it interesting the gentleman says he's not connected "with the Bible." Does the Quran not confirm that God sent down the Torat (Torah) and Injil (Gospel) to the people to be used by them as a clear message? (S. 3:3) Does the Quran not say Mohammad is confirmed in the Torat and Injil? (S. 7:157) Hasn't this gentleman been quoting the Bible this entire time to confirm what he believes? Doesn't he cite the Bible just two verses later?

The video here cuts to a news footage of lightning striking a statue of Jesus, apparently as a suggestion that it was an act of God. However, giant statues of Jesus cannot be used to attack Christian worship of Jesus. There is a world of difference between Christian worship of Christ as the Eternal Son and the abuses that might stem from that. It is comparable, say, to the Muslim's respect of the Quran and abuses that might stem from that.

Before I move on, there's something I need to mention
The worshiping of Jesus is a man-made invention
He never asked for your worship so he can grant you protection
Rather he asked you to alternate your prayers towards another direction

Here we have the (unfortunately common) case of Muslim apologetics: ignore practically all of Christ's message and focus only on his monotheistic message. Did Christ teach there was only one God? Of course he did - but we do a dishonor to anyone if we focus solely on one aspect of their overall message. To do so is like saying Abraham Lincoln only wrote the Gettysburg Address to remind people how old America was.

So what else did Christ teach? He taught that he was to die and be resurrected for the forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:46-47). He taught that those who believe in he himself would not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16) and would not be condemned (John 3:18). He taught that he himself was the resurrection and the life, and that those who believe in him would never perish but have eternal life (John 11:25-26). He taught that he himself was the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one came to the Father but through him alone (John 14:6).

Many of these teachings are things the Jews had previously only attributed to God, and which Muslims would most certainly only attribute to God. Which mere prophet ever said belief in him, and not God, was mandatory for eternal life? Which mere prophet taught that he himself, not God, was the resurrection and the life, and that belief in him, not God, was dependent for eternal life? Which mere prophet taught that he himself, not God, was the way, the truth, and the life?

You see, when you isolate part of a man's message and ignore everything else he said, it's easy to warp it into whatever you desire it to be. Yes, Christ did come to tell us to alternate our prayers towards another direction, but he said: "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:40). Christ himself is asking people to look towards him, and only then will they find eternal life. Again, what mere prophet ever spoke this way?

To God and God only and pray that he accepts them

This part stuck out to me. Whether or not the gentleman intended it to be this way, it was worded interestingly. He says that we should pray to God and "pray that he accepts them." So I am first to pray to God, then I am supposed to pray God accepts my prayers? Might I ask where the hope in this is? That's like saying you have to pay $100 to the court for a speeding ticket, then pay them another $100 in the hopes that they'll accept your previous payment.

This reminds me of an encounter John MacArthur had with a Muslim man on an airplane. When MacArthur asked the man if he sinned, the man said yes, and that he was actually on his way to meet a woman and possibly sin some more. When MacArthur asked the man if God would forgive him for his sins, the man replied, "I hope so."

And know that just because you love Jesus doesn't mean he feels the same way about your affection
See what you believe in is exactly what he resented, matter of fact it's everything he despised
See the worshiping of creation went against the very message he supplied

On the contrary, what I and many other Christians do is exactly what he asked us to do. We've clearly seen that in the previous responses.

So you began to follow a religion and call it love in disguise
Because love can be good, but love can be blind

I agree love can be blind, but love of Christ is not the kind of blindness we have seen in this video. No, my friend, there is a different kind of blindness here. Blindness is ignoring what the other side has said for thousands of years. Blindness is accepting the teachings of a prophet unconditionally, even when his teachings clearly contradict all the revelations that came before him. Blindness is picking and choosing verses, ignoring their true context, and ignoring all the verses that contradict your entire theology. Blindness is focusing only on the part of a person's message that you choose to accept.

To any Muslim reading this post, let me say that this video does not teach you anything edifying nor truthful. I encourage you to truly read God's word (not just peruse a search engine or look for verses that prove your point) and study what He says therein. You will find that Christ is God, that he is Judge, and that one day every tongue will confess and every knee will bow and acknowledge God as Lord - not as prophet, nor as simply messiah, but as Lord. This will be done either out of love, or out of shock and awe. For those who embrace him as Lord and God in this life - as the apostle Thomas did - they will have life everlasting, and will be forgiven for their sins thanks to the atoning sacrifice of Christ. If, however, you are outside of Christ, you will be judged for all your sins, and God will judge righteously.

I hope and pray that God uses this post to edify the people of God, and I hope and pray that Muslims who read this come to a knowledge of the truth. If you are Muslim and reading this, I pray that - even if we never get to meet face to face in this life - we get to meet face to face after the resurrection, in the company of Christ. God bless.

Early Muslim Heresies

A common tactic for Muslims holding discussion over the early Christian church is to bring up the many heresies that existed around that time. Arianism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Modalism...they're all brought in as if they're all equally "Christian," especially if, such as the case of Docetism, they hold beliefs similar to Islam.

However, was the history of Islam free from such early heresies? Ignoring the Sunni/Shia split (although it could be just as relevant) or the existence of Ahmadi Muslims, was there an isolated consistent stream of belief from Mohammad to today? In fact, there existed heresies even within the first few centuries of Islam's existence, as we will soon see.

My point in this post is not to present a kind of tu quoque fallacy, as if to argue, "Well you had early heresies, so we can have early heresies too!" Rather, it is a call for consistency: would the discerning Muslim be willing to hold the early Muslim heresies by the same standard they hold the early Christian heresies? It is simply an attempt to create more progressive and open discussion.

Ghulat (the extremists) and Ghuluww (extremism): those sects which hold either the opinion that any particular person is God or that any person is a prophet after Muhammad, are called by this title. Certain other doctrines such as tanasukh (transmigration of souls), hulul (descent of God or the Spirit of God into a person) and tashbih (anthropomorphism with respect to God) are also usually ascribed to these groups. [pg. 45]

Ulyaniyya or 'Alya'iyya...who appear to have been active around AD 800 and are also called adh-Dhammiya (the blamers) because they stated that 'Ali was God with Muhammad as his Apostle and that Muhammad was to be blamed in that he was sent to call the people to 'Ali but called them to himself. Others of this group assigned divinity to both Muhammad and 'Ali. [pg. 46]

Muhammadiyya or Mimiyya. This sect are a counterpart to the 'Ulaniyya and stressed the divinity of Muhammad. [ibid]

Karibiyya...They considered that Ibn al-Hanafiyya [a descendant of 'Ali] had not died but was concealed on Mount Rawda...and would return to fill the earth with justice. Because they believed that prior to the return of the Imam, the drawing of swords was forbidden, they fought with sticks...Two of the most famous of Arab poets belonged to this sect, Sayyid al-Himyari and Kuthayyir. [pg. 47]

The Janahiyya...In 127/744 'Abdu'llah ibn Mu'awiya rose in revolt against the last Umayyad Caliph. 'Abdu'llah was... accused of holding a number of extreme opinions: the incarnation of God in a succession of Prophets and Imams...some of his followers asserted that he had not died but was concealed in the mountains of Isfahan and would appear again. [pg. 51]

The Mansuriyya or Kisfiyya...followers of Abu Mansur al-'Ijli...The name Kisfiyya arose because Abu Mansur believed himself to be the piece (kisf) of heaven falling down which is mentioned in Qur'an (52:44). He maintained that the first thing created by God was Jesus and then after him 'Ali. He held to an allegorical interpretation of the Qur'an which among other things meant that those things forbidden in the Qur'an were nothing but allegory for the names of certain evil men. Thus his followers are accused of all manner of immorality and sin. [pg. 52]

The Khattabiyya. [Founded by] Abu 'l-Khattab Muhammad ibn Abu Zaynab al-Asadi al-Ajda'...Central to Abu'l-Khattab's doctrines appears to have been an allegorical interpretation to the Qur'an. His followers also believed that they would not die but would be lifted up to heaven. They are accused of having disregarded all religious observances and regarded everything as lawful. [pg. 52-53]

Bazighiyya. The followers of Bazigh ibn Musa, the weaver, who followed Abu'l-Khattab's doctrines and claimed that a man who had reached perfection should not be said to have died and that the best of his followers were superior to the angels. [pg. 53]

Mu'ammariyya. The followers of Mu'ammar ibn Khaytham, the corn dealer, who claimed prophethood...and asserted that the present world would never come to an end but that both paradise and hell were to be experienced here. [ibid]

Ghurabiyya. The followers of this group...are said to have held that since Muhammad and 'Ali were as indistinguishable from each other as one raven (ghurab) is from another, when the angel Gabriel was sent with the divine revelation from God for 'Ali, he gave it by mistake to Muhammad. [ibid]

Momen, Moojan. An Introduction to Shi'i Islam. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1985. Print.

White Horse Inn: Abrahamic Faiths

The gentlemen at White Horse Inn discuss the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and how they relate to God's plan of salvation according to scripture.

WHI-1036 | Abrahamic Faiths - White Horse Inn Blog

More Arguments Muslims Should Not Use

This is a continuation of my Top Five Arguments Muslims Need to Stop Using Against Christians (link). It is, like that post, written for the benefit (and not insult) of Muslim readers, and with the hopes of improving dialogue between the two religious groups.

6. You can't trust the Bible because of all the translations.

For some odd reason this is a popular argument, used by apologists such as Yusuf Estes and even lay Muslims defending the authenticity of the Quran. Basically, the argument is that while there are dozens of translations of the Bible, there is only one Arabic Quran, and because of the countless translations you can't trust what the Bible says, as it must have been tarnished over time.

I say "odd" not out of intent to insult, but because...well...it's just so fallacious. Translations have nothing to do with the original language of a document, and generally we have the original document to go back to in order to know what it originally said. In fact, there are many translations of the Quran itself, and therefore by the Muslim's own logic the Quran itself cannot be trusted.

7. Every prophet has a sign related to the people: Moses did signs against Pharaoh's sorcery; Jesus did healing miracles during a time of great medicine; so of course, Mohammad gave a well written book during a time of great literacy.

This is another popular argument, and one that I've seen float around the internet in various Muslim circles. In the past few months I've seen it used maybe around three times.

The main fallacy here is that it is based off a presupposition: the prophets were always giving signs correlating to the golden ages of their times. Quite simply put, that's nowhere to be found in scripture. This argumentation did not come about until Islamic apologists began to seriously deal with the contradictions between their religion and the revelations given before it, and had to deal with them. In an attempt to show how the only great "miracle" of Mohammad's prophethood (the Quran) could still be valid with what came before, this argument had to be invented.

Stating that Moses was given signs of wonder to counteract the sorcery of Pharaoh's magicians is simply false. It is not found in God's words to Moses concerning the first few miracles:

Then Moses said, "What if they will not believe me or listen to what I say? For they may say, 'The LORD has not appeared to you.'" The LORD said to him, "What is that in your hand?" And he said, "A staff."

Then He said, "Throw it on the ground." So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from it. But the LORD said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand and grasp it by its tail"--so he stretched out his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand--"that they may believe that the LORD, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you."

The LORD furthermore said to him, "Now put your hand into your bosom." So he put his hand into his bosom, and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous like snow. Then He said, "Put your hand into your bosom again." So he put his hand into his bosom again, and when he took it out of his bosom, behold, it was restored like the rest of his flesh.

"If they will not believe you or heed the witness of the first sign, they may believe the witness of the last sign. But if they will not believe even these two signs or heed what you say, then you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground; and the water which you take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground." [Exodus 4:1-9]

The signs were given not to confront Pharaoh's sorcerers, but to prove to the people who Moses was sent by. This is seen later on in the same chapter:

Then Moses and Aaron went and assembled all the elders of the sons of Israel; and Aaron spoke all the words which the LORD had spoken to Moses He then performed the signs in the sight of the people. So the people believed; and when they heard that the LORD was concerned about the sons of Israel and that He had seen their affliction, then they bowed low and worshiped. [Exodus 4:29-31]

Now, the argument that Jesus did healing miracles because He lived in a time of great medicine is likewise fallacious, and for two reasons:

1) If Christ was supposed to have come at a time of great medical advancements, He came at the wrong time and in the wrong place. Medical studies had advanced thanks to Hippocrates at the turn of the fourth century BC (some 400 years before Christ's birth), but afterward stalled, and the study would not advance again until the middle to late second century (more than 100 years after Christ's ministry) with the Roman physician Galen. Likewise, it was mostly appreciated among the Greeks and Gentiles, not first century Palestinian Jews...who, incidentally, are the only people Muslims claim Christ came to address. Therefore, Christ came during a period of medical stagnation, not growth, and He came to the people who would have appreciated medicinal advancements the least.

Some might argue, "But still, there was a lot better medicine during Christ's time than before Hippocrates's time." However, it was hardly the time of "great" medicine, and if we're going by the standards of how great medicinal practices were, then why didn't Christ appear today? After all, isn't medicine much better now than it was 2000 years ago? Especially with the fact that so much of it is done with technological methods - just imagine how much awe would come from a man who could heal simply by human touch. You see, when you take this argument and really analyze it, you discover just how incredibly subjective it truly is.

2) In regards to Christ and His miracles, it must first be noted that His healing miracles were not solely for healing, but to prove who He was. When confronted by the Pharisees over His forgiving of the paralytic's sins, Christ replied that it was done "so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt 9:6). When Christ performed miracles in John's gospel, it was written that these were done to manifest His glory (cf. John 2:11). No where does Christ say, "I'm healing people because a lot of good doctors live around here."

Also, Christ's miracles were not isolated to physical healing. Many of His miracles, such as with the loaves and the fish, involved food. In fact, in the gospel of John it is one of the seven major signs that Christ performs to show His power - are we to say that Christ was a prophet sent at a time of great feasting? Or that Christ gave signs with food because He lived in a time of great culinary arts? Or that Christ had come to a people who would appreciate a good dinner?

Again, this argument is inventing a new standard which is completely foreign to the revelations that came before the Quran, and is entirely subjective to the person making it.

8. You can't say Mohammad met a false angel because angels are loyal messengers of God and follow him faithfully.

While this argument will immediately sound strange to Christians, the root of this thinking may be in the Muslim understanding of what an angel is. Whereas in Christianity a demon is a fallen angel that rebelled against God, in Islam there are angels and jinn, with the jinn having been created separately from the angels. Unlike in Christianity, where some of the angels rebelled against God and thus became demons, in Islamic theology the jinn were created by Allah from fire separately from the angels, who were created from light. Some verses regarding this:

He [Allah] said: What hindered you so that you did not prostrate when I commanded you? He [Iblis/Satan] said: I am better than he: Thou hast created me of fire, while him Thou didst create of dust. [S. 7:12; M. Shakir]

And the jinn We created before, of intensely hot fire. [S. 15:27]

And He created the jinn of a flame of fire. [S. 55:15]

And to quote a hadith:

According to one prophetic narration that was narrated by 'Aa'ishah may Allaah be pleased with her the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam (may Allaah exalt his mention) said: "The angels were created from light, the jinn were created from fire, and Aadam was created from that which has been described to you (soil)." [Muslim] [source]

To a Muslim, an angel cannot fall and cannot disobey God, and therefore the idea that the demons (or jinn) are fallen angels is foreign to them.

Yet even with this distinction, the mere fact that we are simply supposed to accept the word of an angel is deeply erroneous and incredibly fallacious. According to this, Muslims should become Mormon because Joseph Smith received special instructions and revelation from an angel. Also, any Word of Faith preacher who claims to have met an angel who taught them heretical doctrine must, by the Muslim's logic, be telling the truth. In fact, any cult leader or founder of a false religion who claimed to have received revelation from an angel must be telling the truth. Any Muslim, therefore, who wishes to make this argument must then explain to us why they are not Mormon or a member of any Word of Faith or pseudo-Christian cult. That is, if they wish to remain consistent with this logic.

Christians, of course, have very important standards when it comes to supposed revelations from angels:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! [Galatians 1:8]

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. [2 Corinthians 11:13-14]

The Roman Catholic Catechism and Islam

A common passage from the Roman Catholic Catechism often used by Roman Catholics to present a kind of semi-universalism is from the section regarding Muslims:

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Let's review this statement bit by bit, and review the various strengths and weaknesses of it.

The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims...

What is the "plan of salvation"? Is it not the gospel (Eph 1:13), from wherein we learn that the Good Shepherd, by the will of the Father, laid down His life for His sheep (John 10:11, 18), that all given by the Father to behold the Son will never be lost nor be cast out (John 6:39-40)? This Christian plan of salvation is one centered around Christ and His salvific sacrifice on the cross.

Therefore, to say that the plan of salvation includes those who acknowledge "the Creator" seems very vague and universalist in its approach. Many religions outside of Judeo-Christian tradition and Islam could be said to believe in a "creator," but the question then is who is that creator and how do we identify him? Likewise, where in this "plan of salvation" is there room for Christ and His cross, or a declaration in faith in Christ? The true plan of salvation involves a very specific Creator, and therefore the identification of this Creator is a very important matter.

That brings us to the next point.

...these profess to hold the faith of Abraham...

Note something: Muslims profess to hold the faith of Abraham. That is true, Muslims do claim to be in line with Jews and Christians, and that they worship the same God they do, but the question is: is that true? Some have said that the Catechism is trying to exactly make this very simple point: the Muslim claim to hold the faith of Abraham is merely a profession. If this is true, I personally believe any further publications of the Catechism should clarify this point further. I say this because, in the following section, this argument is hurt by these words:  

...and together with us they adore the one, merciful God...

Do they? Both Christians and Muslims are monotheists, yes, but does that mean they worship the same God?

Let's stop and think for a moment how both Muslims and Christians define God: Muslims are inherently unitarians who believe God is one being and one person; Christians are Trinitarians who believe that God is one Being revealed through three distinct Persons. Within this body of Persons are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - the Son is Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word. This second Person in the Trinity is believed by Muslims to have simply been a man and a mere prophet, not divine. They deny He is God.

Many respond to this fact with a kind of "two out of three ain't bad" mentality, but the fact is each Person within the Trinity represents the fullness of God's divinity, and to deny one is to deny them all. To deny the divinity of Christ is to deny the Godhead entire. The apostle Paul wrote that "in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells" (Col 2:9), signifying that to deny the Deity of Christ is to deny the very Deity of God. As I've written before, the Trinity is not a buffet: you don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Trinity you want to believe and which you don't; it's all or nothing.

Some key passages in regards to the truth of Solus Christus in scripture.

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." [John 14:6; NASB]

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?" [John 11:25-26]

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." [Acts 4:12]

Muslims therefore do not worship with Christians the one true God, because they (Muslims) deny the very revelation of God's Being as God has revealed it to His people. They deny the divinity of the Son and the Personhood of the Holy Spirit. Just to remind everyone about the beliefs taught within the Muslim's own holy book:

• The Trinity is a damnable heresy (S. 5:73)
• The Trinity is a lie (S. 5:74)
• Christ is not divine, and any one who says so, according to the own words of "Jesus", is lying (S. 5:116-117)
• Christ was merely a prophet (S. 5:75)
• Christ did not die on the cross (S. 4:157)

If this is given by the same God of Christianity, then God is the author of confusion.

...mankind's judge on the last day.

It is indeed true that Muslims and Christians both believe that God will judge men in a great day of judgment and eternal life. The problem is the God of Islam will not judge Christians the way Christians will expect Him to judge them:

They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. [S. 5:74; Yusuf Ali; emphasis mine]

They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. [S. 5:73; emphasis mine]

According to Islam, Christians will be condemned to hell for their belief in the Trinity. If this is the "one, merciful God" which the Catechism claims both Muslims and Christians worship, then we are to believe that God is a sadist, creating Islam and Christianity and letting them go at each other like a brute child wiles up red and black ants against one another.

As offensive as this might be to some people, the Roman Catholic Catechism is absolutely, positively dead wrong on this issue.