He complains about James White giving Muslims a platform. Yet he’s doing the same as James White. To be fair unlike James White he will refute some of the articles. But he is also praising Muslims apologist like James White.
This shows Emma has no clue what she is talking about. I condemned White for bringing a Muslim into the household of God to preach his propaganda without challenging him. Now when you see me do that for Williams then whine and throw a tantrum.
Moreover, as Williams can confirm he and I have gone at it for years and have an entire section devoted to responding to his posts. So Emma stop trying hard to find a splinter in my eye in order to justify White’s beams and yours.
But those elders/pastors/leaders of that local church agreed on that evangelistic / apologetic dialogue strategy for a Tuesday evening for Yasir Qadhi to explain Islam in a respectful manner, which gave Dr. White opportunity to explain the gospel, Trinity, Deity of Christ in a mosque in the USA on the following Wed. evening. So “church” or the “household of God” is not a physical building. Since you are not an elder of that local church, you really have no authority to criticize it, because it was not a Sunday or worship service or prayer meeting. It was an evangelistic – apologetics-dialogue and a good and wise way of engaging Muslims without being side-tracked by the complicated political / Jihad issues. (Those are important, and personally, I would have tried to arrange another dialogue with Yasir Qadhi on the Jihad / political Islam issues in a second separate meeting; and of course, now that we see how so many conservative Christians reacted to badly to that Dialogue, I would not have the debate / dialogue in a church building anymore – there would have to be a neutral meeting place.)
It was not a worship service or prayer meeting, not a Sunday meeting or Wed. evening prayer service. Dr. White challenged all the gospel doctrinal issues on Wed. evening.
He just did not do your style of “in your face”, ad hominem, insulting, name- calling, bravado, pugnacious spirit – immediately. Sometimes we have to let some statements go in order to get to more important and foundational issues – we have to use wisdom on how we deal with people as people in evangelism / apologetics.
Of course, I would like to see a separate encounter / follow up of getting into the Muslim Brotherhood / Jihad / political type stuff (which Dr. White agreed with Robert Spencer, in a later debate on Dr. Brown’s podcast, that Qadhi’s view is standard Islamic doctrine. It is just that people like Dr. White (and I agree) put the spiritual and gospel issues first. But I agree that another dialogue / debate should be done on the Jihad type issues. But Dr. White does not desire to get into the Jihad and politics type issues, although he did have several debates on those issues (the nature of true peace vs. the Islamic ideas of peace which seem to be more related to politics/society/cultural “welfare”) with Abdullah Al Andolusi, Yusuf Ismail in South Africa, and I think with Abdullah Kunde in Australia. The one with Yusuf Ismail did not go well because at the end, he threw out all sorts of complicated political issues related to the Palestinian – Israel issue and USA politics that would take 30 more years to work through. (exaggeration intended)
What Dr. White did was very commendable, given the history of the conflict and tension between our 2 communities.
But, I agree that another dialogue should be done on the Jihad / politics issues; but the terrible reactions of conservative Christians who have lost their balance and over-criticized Dr. White’s dialogue with Yasir Qadhi, – IMO, they ruined the whole chance of that happening. I doubt he would agree to dialogue or debate with anyone on those issues. (since we also learned a lot of more of the conferences and connections to Muslim Brotherhood / stealth Jihad type speakers at other conferences of Muslims in the USA.)
Also, you (Sam) and many other conservative Christians do not know how to interpret 2 John and I John properly, on the issues of hospitality outreach kinds of efforts. see the details below and links.
Notice my interaction with Steve Hays in the comboxes as Triablogue in one of the links about “Civilizational Jihad” / Muslim Brotherhood type issues. I am not one to totally avoid those issues; but they should be done in a wise manner.
Your lengthy response to a short paragraph illustrates why I don’t engage people in comments section.
Ken, the fact is that you and your idol butchered 2 John to justify what White did. In fact, care to come to my room and debate me on White’s manhandling of the passage to justify his behavior? I will even quote White himself from one of his own debates to refute you and him.
With that said, can you answer the following in a manner where you don’t write a 50,000 word post filled with fluff? Let’s see if you can. Please cite where any of the apostles or their followers invited an unbelieving Jew or Greek to espouse their views without them ever questioning, challenging and refuting their claims? And please cite a text where the Bible writers it is ok for a believer to allow a heathen a platform in the congregation of believers to espouse his blasphemies, false views without being challenged and refuted if that same false teacher then permits you to come to his group and preach the truth.
FYI, Robert Spencer absolutely owned White and embarrassed him in their debate, which is what I’ll end up doing to you if you agree to dialogue with me. That’s a promise.
I clearly wrote unlike James White I expect you will refute some of his articles. But I guess you missed that part. Unlike you I don’t have a favourite muslim apologist. In other words, I don’t have a favourite blasemphemer of the triune God. And I don’t call people who will distort my scripture and misquote scholars as well versed. This may give people the false impression he is a reliable source of information. Pay attention to the plank in your own eye before you judge others.
Emma let me remove the boulders from your eyes to help you see better. The reason why I recommend Williams is because, unlike you, I want Christians to be aware of the issues that they will face if they actually engage the culture, unlike you who choose to stick your head in the sand. And whether you like it or not Williams does represent what much of critical scholarship has to say in the world of academia.
The other reason I like Williams is because he is fair in condemning and exposing the misfits from his own camp, much like I’m doing with you here.
And the final reason I like him is because he is willing to allow someone like Denis Giron, a top notch Christian philosopher and apologist, to provide a dissenting view and corrective to what Williams posts.
Now did that help or are the boulders still blinding you from understanding the point? Or maybe it’s all that sand in your eyes and ears from having your head buried in the sand for so long, that has skewed your thinking.
Since you did not address my point on him distorting our scriptures. I guess we agree on my first point. As for the second point, he is on camera giving false information on scholarship to “prove ” his point. I don’t think he is fair as he still uses some old arguments, which has been refuted. However, he still uses the same arguments on Christians who are not knowledgeable on certain topics. I never said Christians should not study those material. That was a strawman. What I would say is take those information with a grain of salt. I would also warn the readers. So don’t misrepresent me. Unlike you, who is only full of praise for him in the original post and the comments section.
Finally, about the misfits comment. You’re the one who gets criticized continuously by other Christians. You admit yourself, you have issues. If anyone is a misfit, its you not me.
Let’s try this for a third time Emma. I’ll start with your last comment first. Since your attitude from the get go has been nasty and rude you are in no moral position to be talking about my problems or what others say. At least I admit to it, unlike you who again attacked me when I called you out for your beams. Man are they long!
Secondly let me correct you on logic since you obviously don’t know anything about straw manning someone but, being full of yourself, you think you do. No straw man was committed in highlighting why your slander of me was false and misguided by noting what is a fact. The fact is Williams does know his stuff in respect to biblical critical scholarship, unlike you. And contrary to your lie and slander, though you may not like what he says, I’ve yet to see him misquote these scholars. He may use them inconsistently but he does not misquote them. You are a wicked liar for suggesting he does.
Now pretend to be a Christian and stop commenting here with your lies, ad hominems and nasty arrogant rants. No one cares for your opinion even though in your arrogance and self-estimation of how important you think you are, you think we do.
The last comment must have hurt you for you to start with it. The truth hurts. I try to be polite, but you asked for it. You did that to yourself.
Still you did not mention anything about him distorting our scriptures. You know I’m right. Secondly, you just admit he use scholars inconsistently. Everytime you reply, your making it worst for yourself.
You claim not to care about my opinion. Yet you keep replying. You should ignore my original post and replies if you truly don’t care.
And again your using names and titles that you get by other Christians on a regular basis not me: nasty, rude, no moral position, slander, arrogant, and so on. Its like your middle names. Stop describing yourself.
I could have spank you harder. But be thankful for the love of christ I end up not embarrassing you more.
I’m done talking to you, your wasting my time. Your not worth my time. I’ll just ignore your messages. Send one more message if it makes you feel better after you embarrass yourself.
Thank you for confirming you are a hypocritical egomaniac who thinks her opinion must be heard. Spank me? How Christ and ladylike! I guess me calling you out for being a vile, nasty egomaniacal hypocrite really hurt you. So pretend you are a Christian and more spiritually mature than me and ignore my response. But being a narcissistic egomaniac with control issues we both know you can’t contain yourself. So here is my prophesy about you. You are going to write another rant in order to sooth your ego and attempt to save face after the shellacking you just took, thereby confirming you are the very thing you decry. So go ahead and make my day narcissist. 😉
Unfortunately, what the “current state of biblical scholarship is saying” about the Christian scriptures is not something most Christians want to hear. In short, it’s bad. If Christians were objective and looked at the facts, they wouldn’t be Christians very long.
That, honestly, has not been my experience. I would agree that if Christians merely accepted the conclusions put forth by a number of prominent scholars, that could deliver a serious blow to their faith, but the question of whether they should accept those conclusions remains open. I have found that discussing methodologies and discussing the precise lines of argument supporting certain positions can be illuminating, and reveal that a number of apparent knocks against the classical Christian faith are not as obvious or certain as some of their proponents depict them. Moreover, relevant to more specifically Christian-Muslim dialogue, I have found that a number of positions held to by critical secular scholars are underpinned by assumptions that conservative Muslims don’t actually hold (and thus looking closer at some arguments can result in Muslims and Christians at least finding common ground on why certain secular arguments against the Bible are open to dispute).
Hi Denis. But that is the problem, isn’t it? Christians have to pick and choose what aspects of scholarship they want to emphasize. Most Christians don’t even want to hear what scholars say UNLESS they are “conservative” scholars. If it is someone who does not adhere to Christianity, these Christians will simply reject such scholars on that basis along. For example, just recently, I responded to your fellow Catholic apologist Allan Ruhl about the alleged “prophecy” about the Messiah being called a “Nazarene”. Allan refused to even deal with the “liberal” scholars, so I decided to write a rebuttal using only “conservative” scholars to show that even Christians cannot agree on the origin of Matthew’s bizarre prophecy.
Now of course, one cannot simply say “well scholars say this or that” and then move on. it must be based on evidence, and what I have found is that the evidence should convince an objective person that the Christian scriptures are not reliable.
I agree with your statement in your second paragraph, that ‘one cannot simply say “well scholars say this or that” and then move on.’ I, personally, do not appeal to broad categories of “liberal” and “conservative,” as, much like with political positions, various scholars can be all over the map on a variety of issues. That said, I don’t think there is any scholar whom I would consider infallible, and if we can agree to the fallibility of the scholars, then there is room for disagreement with any scholar. If there is a particular position taken by a scholar that you or I would be unwilling to just accept on faith, then we have the option of discussing actual arguments (not merely appealing to scholars as a final demonstration).
No, Sam – it is you who butcher 2 John and all your bravado and ad hominem and name calling – you are bad witness for Christ because of your sinful anger.
And I already refuted you on 2 John if you take the time to read all the links. You have been refuted already. And your sinful anger and style of throwing out barbs like “your idol”, etc. is the reason why no one wants to debate you anymore, because your style and anger is sinful. You violate 1 Peter 3:15 and Ephesians 4:15 and I Peter 3:8-13 and Matthew 5:21-26 and 5:43-48 constantly. You ruin your credibility of your good articles and content, because you mix in such other sinful tendencies of anger, etc.
Spoken like a vile coward. That’s why you have always disgusted me since you think your attitude is Christlike but you are a vile idolater who assaults anyone who attacks your idols and/or dysagreed eith your way of doing things which you think is biblical. You’re a disgrace which is why I never even bother mentioning you as a serious evangelist or apologist.
I know in your fantasy world you think that you wrote is a refutation. However be msn enough to defend your “refutation” against me in a live debate. If you want I’ll come to your social venue of choice to do it. So instead of hiding behind your article debate me. But we both know you are all bark and no bite.
I also remember that Dr. White agreed with Robert Spencer in that debate, that Muslim Brotherhood / Civilizational Jihad in the west is standard Sunni traditional Islam.
The issue is that Spencer NEVER talks about Gospel / Doctrinal / Spiritual issues (Roman or Byzantine Catholic or EO preaches a false gospel anyway); whereas Dr. White put Gospel / doctrinal apologetic issues first; and assuming that our law enforcement / FBI will be able to the right things on finding out what evil plans that potential Muslim terrorists may have in the west.
Sam Shamoun wrote: Emma let me remove the boulders from your eyes to help you see better. The reason why I recommend Williams is because, unlike you, I want Christians to be aware of the issues that they will face if they actually engage the culture, unlike you who choose to stick your head in the sand. And whether you like it or not Williams does represent what much of critical scholarship has to say in the world of academia.
The other reason I like Williams is because he is fair in condemning and exposing the misfits from his own camp, much like I’m doing with you here.
And the final reason I like him is because he is willing to allow someone like Denis Giron, a top notch Christian philosopher and apologist, to provide a dissenting view and corrective to what Williams posts.
Now did that help or are the boulders still blinding you from understanding the point? Or maybe it’s all that sand in your eyes and ears from having your head buried in the sand for so long, that has skewed your thinking.
That was a very good post and 3 good reasons why Paul Williams’ has a good blog.
So Denis can read Arabic! Interesting!
He complains about James White giving Muslims a platform. Yet he’s doing the same as James White. To be fair unlike James White he will refute some of the articles. But he is also praising Muslims apologist like James White.
This shows Emma has no clue what she is talking about. I condemned White for bringing a Muslim into the household of God to preach his propaganda without challenging him. Now when you see me do that for Williams then whine and throw a tantrum.
Moreover, as Williams can confirm he and I have gone at it for years and have an entire section devoted to responding to his posts. So Emma stop trying hard to find a splinter in my eye in order to justify White’s beams and yours.
But those elders/pastors/leaders of that local church agreed on that evangelistic / apologetic dialogue strategy for a Tuesday evening for Yasir Qadhi to explain Islam in a respectful manner, which gave Dr. White opportunity to explain the gospel, Trinity, Deity of Christ in a mosque in the USA on the following Wed. evening. So “church” or the “household of God” is not a physical building. Since you are not an elder of that local church, you really have no authority to criticize it, because it was not a Sunday or worship service or prayer meeting. It was an evangelistic – apologetics-dialogue and a good and wise way of engaging Muslims without being side-tracked by the complicated political / Jihad issues. (Those are important, and personally, I would have tried to arrange another dialogue with Yasir Qadhi on the Jihad / political Islam issues in a second separate meeting; and of course, now that we see how so many conservative Christians reacted to badly to that Dialogue, I would not have the debate / dialogue in a church building anymore – there would have to be a neutral meeting place.)
It was not a worship service or prayer meeting, not a Sunday meeting or Wed. evening prayer service. Dr. White challenged all the gospel doctrinal issues on Wed. evening.
He just did not do your style of “in your face”, ad hominem, insulting, name- calling, bravado, pugnacious spirit – immediately. Sometimes we have to let some statements go in order to get to more important and foundational issues – we have to use wisdom on how we deal with people as people in evangelism / apologetics.
Of course, I would like to see a separate encounter / follow up of getting into the Muslim Brotherhood / Jihad / political type stuff (which Dr. White agreed with Robert Spencer, in a later debate on Dr. Brown’s podcast, that Qadhi’s view is standard Islamic doctrine. It is just that people like Dr. White (and I agree) put the spiritual and gospel issues first. But I agree that another dialogue / debate should be done on the Jihad type issues. But Dr. White does not desire to get into the Jihad and politics type issues, although he did have several debates on those issues (the nature of true peace vs. the Islamic ideas of peace which seem to be more related to politics/society/cultural “welfare”) with Abdullah Al Andolusi, Yusuf Ismail in South Africa, and I think with Abdullah Kunde in Australia. The one with Yusuf Ismail did not go well because at the end, he threw out all sorts of complicated political issues related to the Palestinian – Israel issue and USA politics that would take 30 more years to work through. (exaggeration intended)
What Dr. White did was very commendable, given the history of the conflict and tension between our 2 communities.
But, I agree that another dialogue should be done on the Jihad / politics issues; but the terrible reactions of conservative Christians who have lost their balance and over-criticized Dr. White’s dialogue with Yasir Qadhi, – IMO, they ruined the whole chance of that happening. I doubt he would agree to dialogue or debate with anyone on those issues. (since we also learned a lot of more of the conferences and connections to Muslim Brotherhood / stealth Jihad type speakers at other conferences of Muslims in the USA.)
Also, you (Sam) and many other conservative Christians do not know how to interpret 2 John and I John properly, on the issues of hospitality outreach kinds of efforts. see the details below and links.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2017/07/21/does-2-john-19-11-forbid-hospitality-outreach-in-our-homes/
Notice my interaction with Steve Hays in the comboxes as Triablogue in one of the links about “Civilizational Jihad” / Muslim Brotherhood type issues. I am not one to totally avoid those issues; but they should be done in a wise manner.
Your lengthy response to a short paragraph illustrates why I don’t engage people in comments section.
Ken, the fact is that you and your idol butchered 2 John to justify what White did. In fact, care to come to my room and debate me on White’s manhandling of the passage to justify his behavior? I will even quote White himself from one of his own debates to refute you and him.
With that said, can you answer the following in a manner where you don’t write a 50,000 word post filled with fluff? Let’s see if you can. Please cite where any of the apostles or their followers invited an unbelieving Jew or Greek to espouse their views without them ever questioning, challenging and refuting their claims? And please cite a text where the Bible writers it is ok for a believer to allow a heathen a platform in the congregation of believers to espouse his blasphemies, false views without being challenged and refuted if that same false teacher then permits you to come to his group and preach the truth.
FYI, Robert Spencer absolutely owned White and embarrassed him in their debate, which is what I’ll end up doing to you if you agree to dialogue with me. That’s a promise.
I clearly wrote unlike James White I expect you will refute some of his articles. But I guess you missed that part. Unlike you I don’t have a favourite muslim apologist. In other words, I don’t have a favourite blasemphemer of the triune God. And I don’t call people who will distort my scripture and misquote scholars as well versed. This may give people the false impression he is a reliable source of information. Pay attention to the plank in your own eye before you judge others.
Emma let me remove the boulders from your eyes to help you see better. The reason why I recommend Williams is because, unlike you, I want Christians to be aware of the issues that they will face if they actually engage the culture, unlike you who choose to stick your head in the sand. And whether you like it or not Williams does represent what much of critical scholarship has to say in the world of academia.
The other reason I like Williams is because he is fair in condemning and exposing the misfits from his own camp, much like I’m doing with you here.
And the final reason I like him is because he is willing to allow someone like Denis Giron, a top notch Christian philosopher and apologist, to provide a dissenting view and corrective to what Williams posts.
Now did that help or are the boulders still blinding you from understanding the point? Or maybe it’s all that sand in your eyes and ears from having your head buried in the sand for so long, that has skewed your thinking.
Since you did not address my point on him distorting our scriptures. I guess we agree on my first point. As for the second point, he is on camera giving false information on scholarship to “prove ” his point. I don’t think he is fair as he still uses some old arguments, which has been refuted. However, he still uses the same arguments on Christians who are not knowledgeable on certain topics. I never said Christians should not study those material. That was a strawman. What I would say is take those information with a grain of salt. I would also warn the readers. So don’t misrepresent me. Unlike you, who is only full of praise for him in the original post and the comments section.
Finally, about the misfits comment. You’re the one who gets criticized continuously by other Christians. You admit yourself, you have issues. If anyone is a misfit, its you not me.
Let’s try this for a third time Emma. I’ll start with your last comment first. Since your attitude from the get go has been nasty and rude you are in no moral position to be talking about my problems or what others say. At least I admit to it, unlike you who again attacked me when I called you out for your beams. Man are they long!
Secondly let me correct you on logic since you obviously don’t know anything about straw manning someone but, being full of yourself, you think you do. No straw man was committed in highlighting why your slander of me was false and misguided by noting what is a fact. The fact is Williams does know his stuff in respect to biblical critical scholarship, unlike you. And contrary to your lie and slander, though you may not like what he says, I’ve yet to see him misquote these scholars. He may use them inconsistently but he does not misquote them. You are a wicked liar for suggesting he does.
Now pretend to be a Christian and stop commenting here with your lies, ad hominems and nasty arrogant rants. No one cares for your opinion even though in your arrogance and self-estimation of how important you think you are, you think we do.
The last comment must have hurt you for you to start with it. The truth hurts. I try to be polite, but you asked for it. You did that to yourself.
Still you did not mention anything about him distorting our scriptures. You know I’m right. Secondly, you just admit he use scholars inconsistently. Everytime you reply, your making it worst for yourself.
You claim not to care about my opinion. Yet you keep replying. You should ignore my original post and replies if you truly don’t care.
And again your using names and titles that you get by other Christians on a regular basis not me: nasty, rude, no moral position, slander, arrogant, and so on. Its like your middle names. Stop describing yourself.
I could have spank you harder. But be thankful for the love of christ I end up not embarrassing you more.
I’m done talking to you, your wasting my time. Your not worth my time. I’ll just ignore your messages. Send one more message if it makes you feel better after you embarrass yourself.
Thank you for confirming you are a hypocritical egomaniac who thinks her opinion must be heard. Spank me? How Christ and ladylike! I guess me calling you out for being a vile, nasty egomaniacal hypocrite really hurt you. So pretend you are a Christian and more spiritually mature than me and ignore my response. But being a narcissistic egomaniac with control issues we both know you can’t contain yourself. So here is my prophesy about you. You are going to write another rant in order to sooth your ego and attempt to save face after the shellacking you just took, thereby confirming you are the very thing you decry. So go ahead and make my day narcissist. 😉
Unfortunately, what the “current state of biblical scholarship is saying” about the Christian scriptures is not something most Christians want to hear. In short, it’s bad. If Christians were objective and looked at the facts, they wouldn’t be Christians very long.
Greetings Faiz
That, honestly, has not been my experience. I would agree that if Christians merely accepted the conclusions put forth by a number of prominent scholars, that could deliver a serious blow to their faith, but the question of whether they should accept those conclusions remains open. I have found that discussing methodologies and discussing the precise lines of argument supporting certain positions can be illuminating, and reveal that a number of apparent knocks against the classical Christian faith are not as obvious or certain as some of their proponents depict them. Moreover, relevant to more specifically Christian-Muslim dialogue, I have found that a number of positions held to by critical secular scholars are underpinned by assumptions that conservative Muslims don’t actually hold (and thus looking closer at some arguments can result in Muslims and Christians at least finding common ground on why certain secular arguments against the Bible are open to dispute).
Hi Denis. But that is the problem, isn’t it? Christians have to pick and choose what aspects of scholarship they want to emphasize. Most Christians don’t even want to hear what scholars say UNLESS they are “conservative” scholars. If it is someone who does not adhere to Christianity, these Christians will simply reject such scholars on that basis along. For example, just recently, I responded to your fellow Catholic apologist Allan Ruhl about the alleged “prophecy” about the Messiah being called a “Nazarene”. Allan refused to even deal with the “liberal” scholars, so I decided to write a rebuttal using only “conservative” scholars to show that even Christians cannot agree on the origin of Matthew’s bizarre prophecy.
Now of course, one cannot simply say “well scholars say this or that” and then move on. it must be based on evidence, and what I have found is that the evidence should convince an objective person that the Christian scriptures are not reliable.
Greetings Faiz
I agree with your statement in your second paragraph, that ‘one cannot simply say “well scholars say this or that” and then move on.’ I, personally, do not appeal to broad categories of “liberal” and “conservative,” as, much like with political positions, various scholars can be all over the map on a variety of issues. That said, I don’t think there is any scholar whom I would consider infallible, and if we can agree to the fallibility of the scholars, then there is room for disagreement with any scholar. If there is a particular position taken by a scholar that you or I would be unwilling to just accept on faith, then we have the option of discussing actual arguments (not merely appealing to scholars as a final demonstration).
Hi Denis. I agree, but the disagreement would have to be on the basis of actual evidence.
No, Sam – it is you who butcher 2 John and all your bravado and ad hominem and name calling – you are bad witness for Christ because of your sinful anger.
And I already refuted you on 2 John if you take the time to read all the links. You have been refuted already. And your sinful anger and style of throwing out barbs like “your idol”, etc. is the reason why no one wants to debate you anymore, because your style and anger is sinful. You violate 1 Peter 3:15 and Ephesians 4:15 and I Peter 3:8-13 and Matthew 5:21-26 and 5:43-48 constantly. You ruin your credibility of your good articles and content, because you mix in such other sinful tendencies of anger, etc.
Spoken like a vile coward. That’s why you have always disgusted me since you think your attitude is Christlike but you are a vile idolater who assaults anyone who attacks your idols and/or dysagreed eith your way of doing things which you think is biblical. You’re a disgrace which is why I never even bother mentioning you as a serious evangelist or apologist.
I know in your fantasy world you think that you wrote is a refutation. However be msn enough to defend your “refutation” against me in a live debate. If you want I’ll come to your social venue of choice to do it. So instead of hiding behind your article debate me. But we both know you are all bark and no bite.
Why would anyone want to debate you, seeing with how many insults you throw out even before a potential debate might happen?
You prove everything I have said. It is you who are use “coward” and insults to manipulate.
You are a bad witness to Muslims. You are a coward for not repenting of all your sinful anger and pugnacious style.
Spoken like a keyboard warrior. You have a lot more in common with unitarian than a true Christian. And thanks for proving my point.
I also remember that Dr. White agreed with Robert Spencer in that debate, that Muslim Brotherhood / Civilizational Jihad in the west is standard Sunni traditional Islam.
The issue is that Spencer NEVER talks about Gospel / Doctrinal / Spiritual issues (Roman or Byzantine Catholic or EO preaches a false gospel anyway); whereas Dr. White put Gospel / doctrinal apologetic issues first; and assuming that our law enforcement / FBI will be able to the right things on finding out what evil plans that potential Muslim terrorists may have in the west.
Sam Shamoun wrote:
Emma let me remove the boulders from your eyes to help you see better. The reason why I recommend Williams is because, unlike you, I want Christians to be aware of the issues that they will face if they actually engage the culture, unlike you who choose to stick your head in the sand. And whether you like it or not Williams does represent what much of critical scholarship has to say in the world of academia.
The other reason I like Williams is because he is fair in condemning and exposing the misfits from his own camp, much like I’m doing with you here.
And the final reason I like him is because he is willing to allow someone like Denis Giron, a top notch Christian philosopher and apologist, to provide a dissenting view and corrective to what Williams posts.
Now did that help or are the boulders still blinding you from understanding the point? Or maybe it’s all that sand in your eyes and ears from having your head buried in the sand for so long, that has skewed your thinking.
That was a very good post and 3 good reasons why Paul Williams’ has a good blog.