A few days ago, I posted a response to a review of my recent debate with Dr. Shabir Ally on the doctrine of the Trinity vs. Tawhid, written by Muslim blogger Ijaz Ahmad. Not long after my article appeared, so did Ijaz’s response. I noted previously that Ijaz appears to have developed a peculiar habit of mishearing or misreading things that I say and write. I make it my policy to be charitable whenever possible, and so I am not going to at this point allege any malintention on the part of Ijaz. What we are talking about, however, is not merely one or two instances of misrepresentation of my statements, views and arguments — it is a habit that plagues much of his writing. At the very least, this does seem to impugn his competence in basic reading comprehension skills (that is the only alternative I can envision to the charge of dishonesty — which I would rather not consider). Even more unfortunate is that Ijaz often continues to defend his incorrect readings even after he has received correction.
Yesterday, a debate broke out on Ijaz’s “Calling Christians” Facebook page when he posted a statement claiming that Modus Ponens is circular reasoning, and that, since I had used this argument form, I was guilty of circular reasoning. Note that this comment appeared after I had already corrected him on this matter in my previous blog. In his blog post responding to my article, he even went so far as to say,
“Unfortunately, all he had to do was think about what he argued, or at the very least, read what he wrote and he’d realise why it was circular. I’ll try to help him in this case. If X, then Y. X, therefore Y.This is the exact form his argument takes, and this is known as circular reasoning. Ergo, Jonathan does not know what circular reasoning is, and was unable to break down his argument into syllogistic form to understand what he was saying in logical terms.”
I and some others took Ijaz to task on Facebook for this ridiculous claim, but Ijaz was adamant that he was right, and that I clearly did not understand logic. Finally, after much tooth pulling, Ijaz admitted to being in error on this point — but only after he had attempted to settle the matter by blocking myself and his other critics from commenting on his page and deleting our comments. He has since deleted the entire thread from his Facebook page. After having consulted his “resident scholar” and being told that I was right and he was wrong, he went into damage control mode. The above-quoted statement from his blog has now been replaced with the following:
“I incorrectly referred to this form of argumentation as circular because I viewed the first premise as entailing itself, “If Tawheed is inconsistent”, which is self-reliant and thus circular. In other words it entailed itself, despite being in the form of modus ponens. After discussing with our resident scholar, I (Br. Ijaz) am indeed wrong. Although the first premise is indeed invalid (it does not logically follow if Tawheed could be inconsistent, that the Trinity is true), and needs to be qualified, the form is valid, but the first premise needs to be proven. So the argument itself is invalid, but the form correct. Apologies to Jonathan for this error.”
Well, that’s all well and good. Ijaz exercised some humility in conceding and correcting his mistake. But notice that in his correction he still manages to misrepresent me. Again. When did I ever state that it logically follows that “if Tawheed could be inconsistent, that the Trinity is true”? I didn’t. He also asserts that “the argument itself is invalid” — which is a technical inaccuracy (I think he means to claim it is unsound). On his Facebook page he also seemed to confuse a circular argument with Agrippa’s Trilemma, which is something quite different. As one Christian apologist put it to me, “Ijaz is a perfect example of someone who tries to sound logical by looking up logic terms and posting them in his responses without having the slightest clue how to use them.”
So what other blunders did Ijaz make in his response to me at his blog? The first two paragraphs were nothing more than a personal attack on yours truly. He starts by saying,
“After finding no one from the Christian community willing to perform a review of his debate with Dr. Shabir Ally, Jonathan McLatchie has finally taken the onus upon himself to “review” my review of their debate.”
Firstly, so far as I know, Ijaz is the only person to write a review of the debate in toto. I know of no other reviews, whether from Muslims or Christians. Second, how does Ijaz come to the conclusion that no one from the Christian community are “willing” to write a review? Perhaps they are just busy. By the same token I could also argue that no one from the Muslim community, besides Ijaz, has been “willing” to write a review of the debate. He goes on:
“It is unfortunate that Jonathan believes that I “misheard” or “misread” him, as this is a common excuse he uses when confronted with any criticism.”
That’s not quite true. Most of my critics read and comprehend what I say and write just fine. It is only a small number who seem to have this problem. He continues:
“Last month it was brought to the inter-faith community’s attention that Jonathan had described Muslim communities in France as a virus and a cancer to European society. If one were to compare his “review” of his debate, with the excuses used when confronted with his xenophobic statements, we’d quickly realise that Jonathan is being perpetually misunderstood by everyone. At first he claimed he never made such a statement, everyone had simply lied about him! Then, it was a statement he made, but everyone simply misunderstood him! Then, it was a statement he made, but it was not referring to Muslims but a cultural structure of extremism, everyone simply hadn’t given him enough time to explain himself!”
Wrong again. As I explained here, I did not make the statement attributed to me at all. Although my word-choice was unquestionably unfortunate, I neither described Muslim communities nor any individuals as “cancer” or a “virus”. Ijaz, as he always does, simply represented what I said in the most uncharitable way conceivable. As far as I recall, I never claimed that anyone had “lied” about me. In fact, I have correspondence with those responsible for propagating these claims wherein I specifically said that I did not think they were being deliberately deceitful, but that they had simply misunderstood what I said. Given that I have now clarified what I said several times and the claim nonetheless continues to be made, I am frankly starting to wonder. He goes on:
“Then, he posts a video in which Muslims who practise Islam are compared to ISIS terrorists and we’re not supposed to be offended by that. The 19,000 people who viewed that article and the 3500 people that watched that video, all seem to have “misheard” and “misunderstood” him.”
Wrong again. I defy anyone to show me where “Muslims who practice Islam are compared to ISIS terrorists” in any video I have shared. He then claims that,
“As one Christian apologist put it, “Jonathan is simply oblivious to any form of self criticism”.”
I am doubtful of this, since I often seek criticism from other apologists of my arguments, presentations and writing. But we can be charitable and give him the benefit of the doubt. He goes on:
“When I announced news that a Christian had accepted Islam following the debate between Dr. Shabir and Jonathan, Jonathan found it impossible that anyone would disagree with his remarks in that debate, such to the extent their faith would be questioned. I remarked to him at that point, that it doesn’t matter what you think of your own arguments, it is up to the audience to decide that. He disagreed, that just could not be a possibility, his remarks were without fault.”
Wrong again. I never said this at all. Nothing I have ever written could be construed as having said that. The relevant thread was a while ago though, and so we can put it down to a failure on Ijaz’s part to accurately recall the conversation. What I did remark is that I was highly surprised that any Christian’s faith would be rocked by Shabir’s presentation at that particular debate. I said nothing, so far as I recall, about my own remarks in the debate. Ijaz continues:
“Jonathan lives in a world, where everyone who disagrees with him, either perpetually misunderstands him, or they misread him, or they mishear him. It’s almost never the case that he has said something wrong, or that he has made a mistake, and this is exactly what we find in his “review” of my review.”
That’s not true either. Shabir Ally, for example, is quite capable of interacting with what I say. Most of my critics are.
“What sort of debater, reviews someone’s review? I mean, there’s the occasional post-debate rejoinder, but I’ve never seen anyone who considers themselves to be a professional, review their own debate. That’s what the community does, that’s not what the debaters themselves do. Jonathan though, does not like to be criticized, and so when my review criticized him, he could not contain himself.”
Well, Shabir Ally has reviewed some of his own debates for example (see this one for instance). William Lane Craig often does as well. So does James White. So Ijaz is simply wrong about this. My response to Ijaz, however, was not really a review of the debate per se, but a response specifically to criticisms of my opening presentation raised by Ijaz. Furthermore, the fact that I respond to criticism in no way entails that I do not like to be criticized.
Ijaz Ahmad accuses me of deception because I stated that he failed to mention any of Shabir’s weaknesses in his opening statement, such as his misuse of Greek grammar in relation to John 1:1 (documented here). Ijaz says that I am dishonest because he did mention John 1:1 in his review of the debate. Here’s what he wrote:
At this point, Dr. Shabir began to speak on the language used in regard to Jesus in the Gospel ascribed to John. John 1:1c is problematic as the attribution of total deity to the Word (later identified as Jesus), is uncertain due to Colwell’s rule. Grammarians do dispute about the definiteness of attributing deity to the Word in this verse due to the absence of a defining article which the original author purposely left out, this opened the wording and subsequent understanding of the verse to dispute. If the author wanted to ascribe total deity to the Word, then they would not have intentionally left out the defining article and thus, total deity cannot be ascribed to Jesus the Christ given the author’s grammatical intentions.
But this is precisely the point. Ijaz simply repeated this poor argument, despite the fact that it has been refuted ad nauseum.
Ijaz then quotes one of my critiques of his review:
The first point to note here is that I never stated that “the Bible is a wholly Trinitarian text”. It is my view that one can demonstrate a multiplicity of divine persons from both the Old and New Testaments, while the doctrine of the Trinity reaches its fullest expression in the New Testament where we read of the incarnation of the Son of God.
He accuses me again of not correctly representing what he said. He claims that “Yet, this is exactly what he said.” He then directed his readers to a timestamp on the debate video where I had stated that “the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is thoroughly Trinitarian.” Ijaz further remarks,
If Jonathan believes that the words “thoroughly” and “wholly”, are different, then he must consult a dictionary. They mean the same thing. He should also note, that in my very review, I quoted him as saying, “thoroughly”, so on that basis, where exactly does he believe this was something he did not say? Strangely enough, he proceeded to argue that Dr. Shabir did not pre-empt his appeal to the Bible (read as “scripture”), but he did. One of Dr. Shabir’s most important points was “the texts of scripture”. So while Jonathan may disagree, it doesn’t make him right, to the contrary it makes him seem desperate to create points of imaginative disagreement.
The issue of contention, however, is not over the meaning of “thoroughly” and “wholly”, but over the difference between “the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” and “the Bible”. Those are not the same thing. I never claimed that Shabir did not argue that the Trinity was contrary to the Old Testament. He did claim that. I happen to think he is wrong in claiming that, but Ijaz contends that Shabir in claiming this pre-empted this statement from my opening remarks, which is simply not the case.
He then claims that he did not in fact misrepresent my syllogism regarding Tawhid, even accusing me of being “deceitful”. He simply reasserted what he had said before, however, and failed to interact with my criticism. I did not say “If Tawhid is true, then it must be consistent.” I said, “If Tawhid is true, then it must be consistent with the Qur’an.”
Ijaz then back peddles with his claim from his review that I had made the argument about the eternality of the Qur’an in my opening statement. He said “In my review, I did not claim that he made this argument, I specifically said that he referred to it.”
Really, Ijaz?
Let’s have a look at his original review. Here is what he wrote:
“In attempting to do this, Jonathan disappointed me greatly. All he did was refer (timestamp in video, he says “Those who saw Shabir’s debate with Nabeel Qureishi would’ve been exposed to the problems with reconciling the eternality of the Qur’an with the doctrine of Tawhid.”) to the argument that Nabeel used regarding the Qur’an being the eternal word of Allah, yet physical and created. I was disappointed because this is an argument copied from Jay Smith, which Samuel Green tried to use on me in my debate with him, which Nabeel later picked up and tried to use against Dr. Shabir. The problem here is that Dr. Shabir already addressed this argument, and so have I. Jonathan merely repeated Nabeel’s poor argument. He did not try to revamp the argument, he did not add anything to the argument, he did not articulate it differently, he did not try to incorporate Dr. Shabir’s response to Nabeel into the argument. He quite literally just repeated the argument, which was already responded to. Naturally, I would expect, that if he did his homework and decided to use an argument which was already refuted, that he’d adjust the argument in some way. He didn’t do that. He presented nothing new. It was at that point I wondered why he even offered to debate the same topic if he was merely going to repeat the same points from the previous debate of the same topic by offering nothing new.”
I will leave it to readers to judge for themselves.
He then goes on to say that “Reading comprehension is not difficult and it should not be this difficult for Jonathan.” Oh the irony.
He then claimed that,
“He then spent an inordinate amount of time attempting to validate his bad argument that the Spirit (of God) is the same as Allah. Yet, he does not validate his bad argument, he merely repeats it without meaningfully responding to the criticism leveled against it.”
I will allow my readers to go back to my previous article and determine for themselves whether or not I interacted with the criticism.
Ijaz points out that the Qur’an uses “Spirit” in different contexts. I am quite aware of this, but in the texts that I cited, the Spirit is an agent that is breathed out by Allah in order to create life. This same Spirit is also identified as a personal, conscious, entity in Surah 19. Ijaz also contends that, if I am consistent, I would have to say that the angel of death is a fourth member of the Trinity. But this is simply mistaken — there is no verse in the Bible to my knowledge where we are told that God alone actively brings about death, whereas there are many verses in the Qur’an that emphasise that Allah alone is the sole life-giver, and that Allah has no partners. If Allah had a partner in the creation of life, what might that look like? If one divine God, comprised of at least two divine persons, creates, then this conundrum is resolved.
The next portion of his response is the part we have already addressed regarding his false charges of circular reasoning, which he later had to retract.
He then comments on Surah 3:55 and 61:14. He writes,
“Where does it specify what form the dominance would take? It doesn’t. Which is what I mentioned in my review of the debate. Where does it specify in the Qur’an what form the dominance takes? He chose not to answer this question, even though claiming this is what he was doing, rather he chose to mention that some Tafseer commentators agreed with him. Perhaps he should mention that those commentators presuppose that belief, with first believing that Paul’s true teachings, like Christ’s, became corrupted by later Christians. I fully believe he did not do his research on this topic and at this point, he’s repeating himself without addressing my criticisms.”
I am giving the historical interpretation of this text. Is Ijaz really prepared to say that ibn Kathir, al-Tabari, al-Qurturbi and ibn Ishaq all got it wrong, and that we had to all wait for Ijaz to show up in order to give us the correct meaning of the text? The meaning of the text that I gave seems to me to be clearly the most plausible and the most clear-reading of the texts. Ijaz’s explanation seems rather ad hoc. In any case, even if Ijaz is completely correct about this, he still needs to address my argument that the disciples (whom the Qur’an purports to have been Muslims) were quite clearly not subscribers to Islamic doctrines such as Tawhid.
Ijaz then quoted my statement that,
“Ijaz offered no comment on the third argument I presented in the debate, namely that the Injeel (i.e. the gospel) is Trinitarian and that the Injeel is affirmed by the Qur’an.”
He then replies,
“I actually did offer a comment on it, from my review, I said:
“If we were to identify his main arguments, they would be easily recognizable by anyone who is familiar with Islamic and Christian inter-faith discourse,namely that the Qur’an validates the New Testament, that the disciples believed Jesus was God and that the Bible is historically accurate. He did not present any new arguments, nor any new research, nor did he seek to upgrade any of the arguments he copied from other Christian debaters.””
He may have mentioned it, but he certainly offered no comment by way of response to the argument.
With a large grain of irony, Ijaz concludes:
In conclusion, Jonathan’s review of my review, is a bad attempt at trying to defend his poor arguments used in his debate with Dr. Shabir. At the most, he merely repeated himself, and at the worst he claimed he was misheard. Unfortunately for him, I was able to quote him word for word, and cite numerous places from my review in which I did address the concerns outlined in this review of his. All in all, this comes down to a lack of professionalism. If the Christian community is unwilling to do a review of his debate, and he is left to respond personally to everyone who criticizes him, this says a lot about the community’s perception of his role as a Christian apologist.
I have to say that I am rather disappointed with Ijaz’s review and his interaction with my criticisms. I was even more disappointed to see Ijaz’s original tagging of his blog post (which he subsequently changed). Still, here is the screen shot:
That’s right. He called me a “nazi” and a “racist”. I hope that, if Ijaz continues to further interact with my material, that he can exercise greater maturity in the future.
Do Objective Moral Truths Exist in Reality?
2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsThe moral argument for God’s existence is often presented as follows:
Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
As with any valid syllogism, the moral argument can be defeated by proving one of the supporting premises to be false. In many conversations with atheists, I’ve encountered several who agree with premise 1, but deny the truth of premise 2. Is this a rational position, or do we have good reason to believe that objective moral values and duties do in fact exist?
Before we look at the evidence, let’s define clearly the boundaries of the premise. The claim is that our universe contains moral categories of values (good and evil) and duties (right and wrong actions) that exist independently of the opinion of anyone and that apply to the actions and motivations of all persons. Therefore, the topic at hand is a question of ontology—whether these categories actually exist, and not epistemology—how we know these categories. How we come to knowledge of morality is irrelevant to the question; whether we know the speed limit on the streets of our city has no effect on the existence of such a limit. In my hometown, you will still be cited for speeding, even if the road is not posted with speed limit signs!
Secondly, the claim is not interested in whether one believes in objective morality. Belief in, or lack of belief in a truth claim does not make the claim true or false. You may not believe that our town has a speed limit; you can still be given a citation in spite of your lack of belief. What the claim addresses is whether these moral categories exist in reality, not in someone’s belief system.
So the question on the table presents us with two different types of realities; a moral universe in which objective moral categories exist, and an amoral universe that contains only subjective moral categories (where each person’s standard of right, wrong, good, and evil is defined by themselves and applies only to themselves). In order to determine which of these descriptions applies to our own universe, let’s take a look at what both of these realities would be like, and then see which most closely describes the features of our own universe.
In an Amoral Universe, objective moral categories do not exist. No action can be called objectively evil; while one might dislike another’s action, no external standard exists by which any action can be called good or evil. In the overall scheme of things, feeding your child is no better or worse than beheading your child, and any feelings one has to the contrary is simply opinion. In this universe, these moral opinions have no basis in reality; that is to say, nothing objective exists on which to base such a concept.
In a Moral Universe, objective moral categories do exist. Any action can fall into one of three categories:
While legality is not a synonym for morality, the two are somewhat analogous. It is legal in the United States to peacefully and publicly speak against an policy implemented by our government. It is illegal to murder the government official who is responsible for creating this policy. It is a-legal to read the public information related to the policy. Freedom of speech is expressly permitted by the law, murder is expressly forbidden by the law, and reading public documents is simply not addressed by the law.
As an objective feature of the universe, and not of an individual human, these categories apply to all humans, just as the law of gravity applies to all humans. Just as there’s no escaping the laws of physics for physical creatures, the laws of morality are just as binding on moral creatures. However, the moral categories are necessarily different from other laws of the universe in that they are prescriptive (describing how things ought to be) and not descriptive (describing how things are).
Having described these two universes, let us now consider our own. Which of these two descriptions best describes what we see in our own actual universe? I offer here two reasons why I contend that the description of the moral universe more accurately describes our universe.
The idea of an amoral universe is existentially self-refuting.
The concept of an amoral universe, thought not logically self-refuting, is existentially self-refuting. There is no logical incoherence in the statement “No objective moral values and duties exist.” The problem arises when one attempts to describe how one should live in such a universe… for the instant one makes such an attempt, they have invalidate the concept. In an amoral universe, “how one should live” is meaningless… no standard exists to describe how one should live.
Without considering the implications of such a universe deeply, it’s easy to claim, “Objective moral truths do not exist; I have the right to do as I please!” Yet, this statement makes a moral claim to a “right” while denying moral reality. If you believe that others ought to allow you to live according to the dictates of your own will and your own conscience, then you are appealing to objective morality to justify what others “ought” to do.
The logically correct view in an amoral universe is that everyone will do as they do with no moral implications at all. Yet, atheists commonly make moral demands; for example, that theists “stop imposing their morality”. This demand certainly assumes that theists “ought” to act in a particular way. Yet, without objective morality, no such “ought” can exist.
Or think of it this way; we are beings who can conceive and consider many different possible courses of action. Does any course of action exist that should always happen, if possible? Does any course of action exist that ought never to happen? Ought theists to never torture atheists for fun? Ought atheists to rebut theists who claim that objective moral categories exist?
If one single course of action ought never to happen, then objective morality must exist. But let’s not get ahead of the evidence; whether it is immoral to torture atheists for fun (a question of epistemology) is irrelevant to the point—the only way that such a statement can logically be true is if there is an applicable objective standard by which we can judge the action in question.
The idea of moral categories would be unintelligible in an amoral universe.
In an amoral universe, one is hard-pressed to determine how the idea of moral categories would come to be. While in such a universe, any moral standard is necessarily subjective, such a subjective morality could have absolutely no basis in reality.
While we certainly conceive of ideas that are fictional, most, if not all of these fictional concepts have their roots in reality; unicorns are an extension of horses; werewolves are a blending of human and animal, a cyclops is an oversized human with a single eye. None of these concepts are completely manufactured out of nothingness.
Yet for the concept of subjective morality to appear in an amoral universe is similar to the idea of blue and green appearing in a colorless universe. It is impossible to convey the richness and experience of color to a man blind from birth, because such a man has no basis on which to relate to such a description. While you might explain that blue is a certain wavelength of light, that doesn’t convey to the blind man what light is, or the experience of seeing blue. To the blind man, color and light do not exist in his experience.
But in an amoral universe, moral categories have no basis of existence in reality. In a world where color had no basis of existence in reality, all would be as the blind man above, completely incapable of understanding the concept of color. Even if one conceived of such a thing as green or red in their imagination, they could never communicate this idea to others without a shared reference point. For purely subjective concepts, such shared reference points cannot exist.
It’s been argued that the fact that different cultures and religions have differing concepts of morality is evidence against objective morality. However, this is not the case. My wife and I frequently disagree on colors; I’ll say something is blue, while she insists that it is green. When it’s brought in to sunlight, we usually find that she’s right!
But notice that while we may disagree on the color of the object, neither of us is claiming that it has no color at all! In order for us to have a meaningful conversation about the object’s color, both of us must assume that color exists, and that the object does have a color. If color does not exist, then our conversation is meaningless, unexplainable, and could only be called delusional.
So the fact that every single person who has reached age two seems to have conversations about what men should and should not do seems to be strong evidence that they actually perceive something in the universe that actually exists. Whether politician, priest, parent, or protester, all make the claim that men should behave in a certain way. It seems remarkably myopic to consider all who hold such views to be sharing the same delusion!
For example, Christianity teaches that we should love our enemies, and as much as it is possible, we should live in peace with all men. Some branches of Islam believe that one should behead their enemies. Again, for this point, which view is correct is irrelevant; but in order for anyone to have a meaningful conversation about which view (if either) is correct, one must assume that a correct view does in fact exist. This requires an objective moral standard.
The implications of these two lines of evidence seem inescapable; unless objective moral categories of good, evil, right, and wrong actually exist in reality, our tendency to think in these terms is unexplainable. But to be fair, we’ve only looked at one side of the evidence. In a later post, I will address the arguments against this view.
The Wisdom Chronicle
Wisdom ChronicleThe Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon
The mention of “thanks” here is pivotal. Saying “thank you” to someone indicates a certain dependence upon them. Expressing gratitude to God is likewise an acknowledgment of indebtedness and dependence upon him. It is here that humans in their pride tend to go wrong. They will not acknowledge that they are dependent upon someone higher than themselves. We have no masters, is their cry.
Paul claims that rejection of God has a detrimental effect on reason. Many atheists, who think that their position is an oasis of reason and clear-headedness, would loudly protest. It is important for me to say that I am not suggesting that atheists cannot think. Some, however, particularly those of the “New Atheist” brand, make a great fuss of what they think is the damage that belief in God does to the mind. Their descriptions of religious belief (like “virus of the mind”) are not uncommon. It does not seem to occur to them that the shoe could be on the other foot.
When it comes to thinking about God, why do some otherwise rational, intelligent people seem unaware that they become irrational? For instance, some of them persist in claiming that Jesus never existed, even though the overwhelming weight of ancient historical scholarship is to the contrary. They insist on offering the public a choice between God and science, when elementary logic should tell them that theology and science are not alternatives but complementary.”
Excerpt From: John C. Lennox. “Against the Flow.”
Excerpt From: Flavel, John. “The Mystery of Providence.”
Excerpt From: Lucado, Max. “Outlive Your Life.”
Excerpt From: Marx, Jeffrey. “Season of Life.”
“The greatness of a nation, its true civilization, is measured by the extent of its obedience to the unenforceable.” –Lord Moulton
Excerpt From: Guinness, Os. “A Free People’s Suicide.”
–Mike Huckabee
–Dennis Prager
The answer leads us back to the question of visibility. We have many photos and films of Auschwitz and other Nazi death camps, some of them taken by Allied soldiers liberating the camps. (During the war, when no such visible images existed, there was little concern in the West for the Nazis’ victims.) Yet, because the Soviets were on the victorious side in World War II, there were no photographs or films of the Soviet labor and death camps (the Gulag Archipelago) shot by liberating troops.
To regain some balance in the sympathy we apportion to those who suffer, we must become conscious of our natural tendency to care more about the suffering of those whom we see, and consciously sensitize ourselves to concern ourselves with the suffering of those whom we cannot see. One way to begin achieving this is by not relying on television news, especially of international events. The more one relies on television for one’s perceptions of the world and its evils, the more skewed one’s perceptions of human suffering will be.”
Excerpt From: Prager, Dennis. “Think a Second Time.”
The Wisdom Chronicle
Wisdom ChronicleThe Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon
Princeton bio-ethicist Peter Singer vehemently disagrees, and he traces many of our contemporary problems in practical ethics to the biblical view that human beings are a special creation. Singer writes:
“Whatever the future holds, it is likely to prove impossible to restore in full the sanctity-of-life view. The philosophical foundations of this view have been knocked asunder. We can no longer base our ethics on the idea that human beings are a special form of creation made in the image of God, singled out from all other animals, and alone possessing an immortal soul. Our better understanding of our own nature has bridged the gulf that was once thought to lie between ourselves and other species, so why should we believe that the mere fact that a being is a member of the species Homo Sapiens endows its life with some unique, almost infinite value?
There is no reason to think that a fish suffers less when dying in a net than a foetus suffers during an abortion, hence the argument for not eating fish is much stronger than the argument against abortion. (1995, page 209.) The life of a newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog or a chimpanzee. (1979, pages 112–13.)”
On closer inspection Singer’s view rests on a profound misunderstanding of biblical teaching. He imagines that God made humans to be arbiters of everything so that they can do what they like, including the exploitation of animals. However, this is not the biblical view. Human beings, made in the image of God, are answerable to God as stewards – even for their attitude to animals and their use of the earth.”
Excerpt From: John C. Lennox. “Against the Flow.”
This is the working definition of hypocrisy: “to be seen by men.” The Greek word for hypocrite, hupokrites, originally meant “actor.” First-century actors wore masks. A hypocrite, then, is one who puts on a mask, a false face.
Jesus did not say, “Do not do good works.” Nor did he instruct, “Do not let your works be seen.” We must do good works, and some works, such as benevolence or teaching, must be seen in order to have an impact. So let’s be clear. To do a good thing is a good thing. To do good to be seen is not. In fact, to do good to be seen is a serious offense. Here’s why.
Hypocrisy turns people away from God.”
Excerpt From: Lucado, Max. “Outlive Your Life.”
How the child feels should be important to the child, to the parents, and to a handful of others. But to the rest of the world’s more than five billion people, the only thing that matters is how the child acts.
To be a good person, self-control is infinitely more important than self-esteem. The child-rearing expert John Rosemond has coined the term “Vitamin N” to describe parents saying no at appropriate times. Our children’s characters need Vitamin N as much as their bodies need Vitamin C, and as much as their psyches need self-esteem.
Many parents are more interested in being loved than in being responsible parents. But just as it is impossible to be an effective leader if you are afraid of being disliked, you cannot be an effective parent if you need never to be disliked.”
Excerpt From: Prager, Dennis. “Think a Second Time.”
That is why radio is far more capable of supporting sustained thought. The ear can be satisfied by thought, but the eye cannot be. Thoughts do not intrigue the eye.”
Excerpt From: Prager, Dennis. “Think a Second Time.”
Excerpt From: Flavel, John. “The Mystery of Providence.”
Excerpt From: O. S. Hawkins. “The Joshua Code.”
Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”
When professional golfers missed their putts for a birdie, they tended to leave the ball disproportionately short rather than long. This was evidence of their conservative approach. They were content to set up an easy par by leaving it short and not risk overshooting, which might leave a more difficult putt for par. When the same putts for par were missed, it wasn’t because they fell short.”
Excerpt From: Tobias Moskowitz & L. Jon Wertheim. “Scorecasting.”
The Wisdom Chronicle
Wisdom ChronicleThe Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon
Don’t let Satan convince you otherwise. He will try. He will tell you that God has an IQ requirement or an entry fee. That he employs only specialists and experts, governments and high-powered personalities. When Satan whispers such lies, dismiss him with this truth: God stampeded the first-century society with swaybacks, not thoroughbreds. Before Jesus came along, the disciples were loading trucks, coaching soccer, and selling Slurpee drinks at the convenience store. Their collars were blue, and their hands were calloused, and there is no evidence that Jesus chose them because they were smarter or nicer than the guy next door. The one thing they had going for them was a willingness to take a step when Jesus said, “Follow me.”
Excerpt From: Lucado, Max. “Outlive Your Life.”
On the global level, assessing motives rather than actions has led to serious moral distortions. Take, for example, the differing assessments of capitalism and Communism.
Communism resulted in the loss of freedom by more nations, and the deaths of more individuals, than any other doctrine in history’. Yet because it was perceived by many people as emanating from good motives—abolishing poverty, achieving greater equality, etc.—many people refused to accord it the revulsion that its deeds deserved.
On the other hand, capitalism has enabled more people to experience freedom and prosperity than any other economic doctrine. It should therefore be widely admired. Yet it is often vilified. The reason? It is based on selfish motives—profit.
Defenses of Communism and opposition to capitalism have emanated from the same flawed logic—judging motives, not deeds.”
Excerpt From: Prager, Dennis. “Think a Second Time.”
Excerpt From: Belsky, Gary. “Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes and How to Correct Them.”
Excerpt From: Lucado, Max. “Outlive Your Life.”
Excerpt From: John C. Lennox. “Against the Flow.”
Excerpt From: Ben Carson, M.D. “America the Beautiful.”
“Sorry, officer,” the driver explained. “We just left our youngest son, our baby, there in the dorm. It’s the first time Mother and I have been alone for twenty-seven years.”
Excerpt From: Hodgin, Michael. “1001 Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking.”
Excerpt From: Gladwell, Malcolm. “The Tipping Point.”
And I think the second criterion—the only other criterion for masculinity—is that all of us ought to have some kind of cause, some kind of purpose in our lives that’s bigger than our own individual hopes, dreams, wants, and desires. At the end of our life, we ought to be able to look back over it from our deathbed and know that somehow the world was a better place because we lived, we loved, we were other-centered, other-focused.”
Excerpt From: Marx, Jeffrey. “Season of Life.”
Excerpt From: Flavel, John. “The Mystery of Providence.”
The Wisdom Chronicle
Wisdom ChronicleThe Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon
What Jesus said is of immense importance:
“Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.” (Matthew 10:17–20.)
“Of course, Jesus did not mean that his disciples were to face every situation unprepared. Jesus is speaking of situations where believers are threatened by court appearances, persecution, or worse, and have no opportunity to make special preparation. He promises to give them the courage and the wisdom to say the right thing. That promise means much to believers in many parts of the world today.
The cost of resisting idolatry is high. But it does not compare with the cost of rejecting God
Excerpt From: John C. Lennox. “Against the Flow.”
Amid a purposeful blur of cultural perspectives—among which only the anti-Western is deemed superior—the principles of multiculturalism have flourished and spread, undermining both our attachment to and confidence in Western culture across the land. Hence, Columbus’s remarkable voyage of discovery to the western hemisphere is taught to fourth-graders through the eyes of a mocking West Indian girl (Chevy Chase, Maryland); the father of our country is deconstructed into a slaveholder unfit to name elementary schools after (New Orleans),8 or hang portraits of in government offices (Brooklyn)9; and on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., the National Museum of American History showcases permanent exhibitions that emphasize American slavery, slaughter, and strife. (Just next door, interestingly enough, a permanent exhibition at the Natural History Museum called African Voices omits mention of African slavery, slaughter, and strife.)”
Excerpt From: West, Diana. “The Death of the Grown-Up.”
The world of sense intrudes upon our attention day and night for the whole of our lifetime. It is clamorous, insistent and self-demonstrating. It does not appeal to our faith; it is here, assaulting our five senses, demanding to be accepted as real and final. But sin has so clouded the lenses of our hearts that we cannot see that other reality, the City of God, shining around us. The world of sense triumphs. The visible becomes the enemy of the invisible; the temporal, of the eternal. That is the curse inherited by every member of Adam’s tragic race.
At the root of the Christian life lies belief in the invisible. The object of the Christian’s faith is unseen reality.
We must shift our focus from the seen to the unseen.”
Excerpt From: A. W. Tozer. “The Pursuit of God.”
— Max Lucado
– The fifth commandment is: Humor thy father and mother.
– Lot’s wife was a pillar of salt by day, but a ball of fire by night
– Mary was the mother of Jesus, and sang the Magna Carta.
– Salome was a woman who danced naked in front of Harrods.
– Holy acrimony is another name for marriage.
– Christians can have only one wife. This is called monotony.
– The First Commandment: Eve told Adam to eat the apple.
– It is sometimes difficult to hear what is being said in church because the agnostics are so terrible.”
Excerpt From: Hodgin, Michael. “1001 Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking.”
Excerpt From: Stanley, Andy. “When Work and Family Collide.”
Excerpt From: O. S. Hawkins. “The Joshua Code.”
Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”
Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”
The Wisdom Chronicle
Wisdom ChronicleThe Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon
Excerpt From: Hodgin, Michael. “1001 Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking.”
Television: “While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially, I consider it an impossibility, a development of which we need not waste time dreaming.”(Lee Deforest, scientist and inventor, 1926)
Transportation: “As a means of rapid transit, aerial navigation could not begin to compete with the railroad.” (William Baxter, Jr., Popular Science, 1901)
Automobiles: “The ordinary ‘horseless carriage’ is at present a luxury for the wealthy; and although its price will probably fall in the near future, it will never, of course, come into as common use as the bicycle.” (The Literary Digest, 1889)”
Loyalty in the marketplace is rarely reciprocated. It’s sad when men or women are forced out of organizations they bled for to return home to the families they’ve neglected.
Why give your ultimate loyalty to an organization where your value is conditional upon your ability to perform? Why betray those whose loyalty is unconditional? Why devote so much of yourself to something you know you’ll leave, and so little time to those you’ll eventually come home to? It doesn’t make sense, does it? Yet without a conscious decision to do otherwise, that’s exactly what most of us are prone to do.”
Excerpt From: Stanley, Andy. “When Work and Family Collide.”
There is an important matter of principle here. God is a great deliverer – but he will not deliver us from having to make our own decisions. This is not because he is impotent but because he wants us to be strong. The development of our character depends crucially on the fact that we make responsible decisions before God for ourselves. For God to “decide” for us would be to de-humanize us and essentially turn us into amoral robots.
When children are very small, parents often have to decide for them in order to teach them. But it is sad when we see a situation where parents have to decide for grown-up children, since that is often a sign that something has gone wrong in the development of their character.
So there is a sense in which God, precisely because he loves us, will not save us either from the need to make such decisions or from the decisions themselves. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego had to make up their own minds as to whether they were going to put God first. That does not mean they had no guidance. Their guidance was all the accumulated experience of God’s trustworthiness up to that fateful moment. They therefore had decided to trust him once more, no matter what it cost. Then God convincingly vindicated them.”
Excerpt From: John C. Lennox. “Against the Flow.”
The modality for change is so easy – communicate. And when it is done in a personal way with a note – preferably handwritten – the influence we can have is tremendous. Go out of your way to communicate encouragement to one person a day by sending them a snail mail note, and see what life-changing things occur. [jw]
and do not lean on your own understanding.” — Prov. 3:5
“With all your heart indicates that trust goes beyond intellectual assent to a deep reliance on the Lord, a settled confidence in his care and his faithfulness to his Word. Do not lean on your own understanding further explains trusting in the Lord. One’s “understanding” in Proverbs is his perception of the right course of action. The wise will govern themselves by what the Lord himself declares, and will not set their own finite and often-mistaken understanding against his.”
Excerpt From: Crossway. “ESV Study Bible.”
Because of this large array of influences in their daily experience, today’s young people tend to be more conflicted about who they are and what they value. It’s even harder for parents to know their kids well—and for teens to benefit from the opinions and wisdom of the parents who love them because they’re listening to so many voices.”
Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”
Excerpt From: O. S. Hawkins. “The Joshua Code.”
Excerpt From: O. S. Hawkins. “The Joshua Code.”
The Pope: Income Inequality or Poverty?
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsWhat’s really the problem with which the Pope should be concerned: is it income inequality or poverty? Philosopher Ed Feser, who happens to be Catholic himself, brilliantly points out that inequality is not only a reality, but a necessary one. Society would be impossible without certain inequalities in talents and income.
Quoting scholars and previous Popes, Feser makes the case that it’s poverty not income inequality that is the problem. Here’s an excerpt from Feser’s post:
The basic idea is very simple and not really original (I’ve made it before myself, e.g. here) but cannot be restated too often given that so many people appear to lack a grasp of the obvious. It is that equality as such is not a good thing and inequality as such is not a bad thing. Suppose everyone was so poor that it was difficult for anyone even to secure basic needs like food, shelter, and clothing, but no one had any more than anyone else. It would be ridiculous to say “Well, at least there’s a silver lining here for which we can be grateful: Everyone’s equal.” Or suppose everyone had a standard of living at least as good as that of the average millionaire, but some were multi-billionaires. It would be ridiculous to say “It is unjust that so many have to make do with mere millions while a few get to enjoy billions.”
When people complain about economic inequality, this can make sense from a moral point of view only if talk of inequality is really a proxy for something else. Most obviously, it certainly makes sense to lament that some people live in poverty, and it makes sense to call on those who have wealth (and indeed in some cases and to some extent to require those who have wealth) to help those who live in poverty. But the problem here is not that the poor have less than others. The problem is that they have less than they need. The problem, that is to say, is poverty, not inequality.
It’s well worth reading his entire post here. Also, download the CrossExamined App to listen to my interview with Dr. Feser on the “Unmoved Mover.”
For the best book I’ve seen on the intersection between economics and Christianity, pick up a copy of Money Greed and God by Jay Richards. You can also hear my interviews with Jay on the app.
The Wisdom Chronicle
Wisdom ChronicleThe Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon
Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”
The gleam in your eyes is from the sun hitting your bifocals.
Your little black book contains only names ending in M.D.
You get winded playing chess.
Your children begin to look middle-aged.
Your mind makes contracts your body can’t meet.
You know all the answers, but nobody asks you the questions.
You look forward to a dull evening at home.
You’re turning out lights for economic rather than romantic reasons.
Your knees buckle and your belt won’t.
The best part of your day is over when the alarm goes off.
Your back goes out more than you do.
A fortune teller offers to read your face.
You’ve got too much room in the house and not enough room in the medicine cabinet.
You sink your teeth in a steak, and they stay there.”
Excerpt From: Hodgin, Michael. “1001 Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking.”
Excerpt From: O. S. Hawkins. “The Joshua Code.”
Excerpt From: John C. Lennox. “Against the Flow.”
For 27 years, the International Bulletin of Missionary Research has published an annual Status of Global Mission report, which attempts to quantify the world Christian reality, comparing Christianity’s circumstances to those of other faiths, and assaying how Christianity’s various expressions are faring when measured against the recent (and not-so-recent) past. The report is unfailingly interesting, sometimes jarring, and occasionally provocative. The provocation in the 2011 report involves martyrdom. For purposes of research the report defines “martyrs” as “believers in Christ who have lost their lives, prematurely, in situations of witness, as a result of human hostility.” The report estimates that there were, on average, 270 new Christian martyrs every 24 hours over the past decade, such that “the number of martyrs [in the period 2000–2010] was approximately 1 million.”
Excerpt From: John C. Lennox. “Against the Flow.”
Excerpt From: Tobias Moskowitz & L. Jon Wertheim. “Scorecasting.”
— Andy Stanley
“I thought the crying and whining would drive me crazy at first,” she explains, “but my boss eventually calmed down.”
–Michael Hodgin
The Wisdom Chronicle
Wisdom ChronicleThe Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon
Friend Parents are so devoted they almost worship their kids. They want to be their children’s friends! They allow their teens to do what they want, believe they can do no wrong, and have a hard time saying no. These parents either don’t bother teaching standards for right and wrong, or they do try to establish such standards but in confusing ways. These children don’t experience much authority, if any, and this freedom communicates to them, You don’t need authority. You can do what you want.
The children of Absent Parents draw the same conclusion but for different reasons. These parents just aren’t there for their kids. They’re too busy with work or with personal problems, or they can’t be bothered. They force early independence upon their children and cause them to parent themselves. Essentially these teens become their own authority by default.
Inconsistent Parents might treat children like friends one minute, but not the next. They may be heavy-handed one day, but then lighten up as they feel guilty over the way they just responded to their children. Sometimes they may order their kids around and at other times be completely absent. These children have a warped view of authority and may think, If that’s what authority is and does, I don’t need any. In these situations, the children will be confused, drifting, and argumentative.”
Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”
Recently a NASA scientist speculated about the possibility of alien life on other planets. I have news for him. There is alien life on our planet. Those of us who are Christians are aliens in this world for “our citizenship is in heaven” (Philippians 3:20). We are citizens of another kingdom. We are simply passing through on our way home.”
Excerpt From: O. S. Hawkins. “The Joshua Code.”
Excerpt From: Hodgin, Michael. “1001 Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking.”
My informal manifesto to our first woman executive ran something like this: “We will never meet alone with the door closed. If at the end of a day we are the last two in the office, one of us goes home. No lunches or dinners alone together. No shared rides to the airport, and no sitting together on the flight” (forfeiting valuable pre-meeting time). “When renting cars out of town,” I said, “we’ll rent two—our client will reimburse us for one, and our firm will pay for
the other.”
Excerpt From: DeMoss, Mark. “The Little Red Book of Wisdom.”
student about his future plans. The conversation went something like this:
“Son, tell me about your plans after law school.”
“I hope to get a job with a good firm and start making some money.”
“That sounds fine. And then what?”
“Well, at some point, and hopefully not too late, I want to get married.”
“I hope you do, son. And then what?”
“I want to get a nice house and start a family.”
“Of course, and then?”
“And then I want to raise my kids in good schools and earn enough money to save for a second home.”
“Right . . . right. What then?”
“Then I hope to be making enough money to slow down and take vacations with my wife and children.”
“And then?”
“Well, I guess I’d like to see my kids get married and start their own families. I’d like to see them become independent and financially secure.”
“Good goals, all. But what then?”
“If I’ve taken care of myself, I can hope to live long enough to raise my grandchildren. I hear that’s even better than having children.”
“I hear that, too. Then what?”
“Well, I hope I’ll be healthy enough to enjoy my later years, maybe travel some with my wife and see the world. I want to make the most of retirement and pass along my money to my children so they can benefit as I have.”
“And then?”
The young man paused. “I guess, eventually . . . I’ll die.”
“Yes, you will. And then what?”
The compelling thing about this story is that it chronicles the standard-issue American Dream. Who doesn’t identify with some or most of the scenic overlooks on this young man’s life path? Maybe you’ve long since graduated from college, married happily, are well into your career,
and just bought a vacation home. Maybe you’re already blessed with grandchildren and an investment portfolio Charles Schwab would like to see. But somewhere on the inexorable line of time, every one of us will face the final “and then what?”
What would your answer be?”
Excerpt From: DeMoss, Mark. “The Little Red Book of Wisdom.”
Author Joan Peters says that 50 percent of marriages end in divorce when couples do not balance their lives at home with the demands of work.
In the end, the biggest thought about your career has to be what it is and what it is not. It may be your livelihood, but your family is your life. If you’re smart, you’ll never forget the distinction.”
Excerpt From: Reiman, Joey. “Thinking for a Living.”
“Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. . . . And consequently . . . it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. . . . It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this. . ..”
Excerpt From: Lee, Richard. “In God We Still Trust: A 365-Day Devotional.”
truth beyond us, we have to answer to it. Jesus claimed to be that truth. And people did not want to answer to Him then, and they don’t want to answer to Him today.
Our current generation is being raised to believe that there is no moral plumb line (absolute truth), so we do whatever we “feel” is right based on any number of influences we allow into our lives to mold and shape those beliefs. PC thinking opens the floodgates of the dam because of the belief that there are no boundaries. Problem is, if anything goes, you’ll get drowned in the
aftermath.
That’s what we are experiencing today. We are being drowned in the flood of moral decay, and I’m not talking about sex, drugs, or rock ’n’ roll. I’m talking about the decay that comes as a result of deciding there’s no longer “true” truth. And when that happens, the crumbling begins.”
Excerpt From: Battaglia, Joe. “The Politically Incorrect Jesus.”
it.”
Excerpt From: Al Ries & Jack Trout. “Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind.”
Ijaz Ahmad Continues To Misrepresent Me
IslamYesterday, a debate broke out on Ijaz’s “Calling Christians” Facebook page when he posted a statement claiming that Modus Ponens is circular reasoning, and that, since I had used this argument form, I was guilty of circular reasoning. Note that this comment appeared after I had already corrected him on this matter in my previous blog. In his blog post responding to my article, he even went so far as to say,
I and some others took Ijaz to task on Facebook for this ridiculous claim, but Ijaz was adamant that he was right, and that I clearly did not understand logic. Finally, after much tooth pulling, Ijaz admitted to being in error on this point — but only after he had attempted to settle the matter by blocking myself and his other critics from commenting on his page and deleting our comments. He has since deleted the entire thread from his Facebook page. After having consulted his “resident scholar” and being told that I was right and he was wrong, he went into damage control mode. The above-quoted statement from his blog has now been replaced with the following:
Well, that’s all well and good. Ijaz exercised some humility in conceding and correcting his mistake. But notice that in his correction he still manages to misrepresent me. Again. When did I ever state that it logically follows that “if Tawheed could be inconsistent, that the Trinity is true”? I didn’t. He also asserts that “the argument itself is invalid” — which is a technical inaccuracy (I think he means to claim it is unsound). On his Facebook page he also seemed to confuse a circular argument with Agrippa’s Trilemma, which is something quite different. As one Christian apologist put it to me, “Ijaz is a perfect example of someone who tries to sound logical by looking up logic terms and posting them in his responses without having the slightest clue how to use them.”
So what other blunders did Ijaz make in his response to me at his blog? The first two paragraphs were nothing more than a personal attack on yours truly. He starts by saying,
Firstly, so far as I know, Ijaz is the only person to write a review of the debate in toto. I know of no other reviews, whether from Muslims or Christians. Second, how does Ijaz come to the conclusion that no one from the Christian community are “willing” to write a review? Perhaps they are just busy. By the same token I could also argue that no one from the Muslim community, besides Ijaz, has been “willing” to write a review of the debate. He goes on:
That’s not quite true. Most of my critics read and comprehend what I say and write just fine. It is only a small number who seem to have this problem. He continues:
Wrong again. As I explained here, I did not make the statement attributed to me at all. Although my word-choice was unquestionably unfortunate, I neither described Muslim communities nor any individuals as “cancer” or a “virus”. Ijaz, as he always does, simply represented what I said in the most uncharitable way conceivable. As far as I recall, I never claimed that anyone had “lied” about me. In fact, I have correspondence with those responsible for propagating these claims wherein I specifically said that I did not think they were being deliberately deceitful, but that they had simply misunderstood what I said. Given that I have now clarified what I said several times and the claim nonetheless continues to be made, I am frankly starting to wonder. He goes on:
Wrong again. I defy anyone to show me where “Muslims who practice Islam are compared to ISIS terrorists” in any video I have shared. He then claims that,
I am doubtful of this, since I often seek criticism from other apologists of my arguments, presentations and writing. But we can be charitable and give him the benefit of the doubt. He goes on:
Wrong again. I never said this at all. Nothing I have ever written could be construed as having said that. The relevant thread was a while ago though, and so we can put it down to a failure on Ijaz’s part to accurately recall the conversation. What I did remark is that I was highly surprised that any Christian’s faith would be rocked by Shabir’s presentation at that particular debate. I said nothing, so far as I recall, about my own remarks in the debate. Ijaz continues:
That’s not true either. Shabir Ally, for example, is quite capable of interacting with what I say. Most of my critics are.
Well, Shabir Ally has reviewed some of his own debates for example (see this one for instance). William Lane Craig often does as well. So does James White. So Ijaz is simply wrong about this. My response to Ijaz, however, was not really a review of the debate per se, but a response specifically to criticisms of my opening presentation raised by Ijaz. Furthermore, the fact that I respond to criticism in no way entails that I do not like to be criticized.
Ijaz Ahmad accuses me of deception because I stated that he failed to mention any of Shabir’s weaknesses in his opening statement, such as his misuse of Greek grammar in relation to John 1:1 (documented here). Ijaz says that I am dishonest because he did mention John 1:1 in his review of the debate. Here’s what he wrote:
But this is precisely the point. Ijaz simply repeated this poor argument, despite the fact that it has been refuted ad nauseum.
Ijaz then quotes one of my critiques of his review:
He accuses me again of not correctly representing what he said. He claims that “Yet, this is exactly what he said.” He then directed his readers to a timestamp on the debate video where I had stated that “the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is thoroughly Trinitarian.” Ijaz further remarks,
The issue of contention, however, is not over the meaning of “thoroughly” and “wholly”, but over the difference between “the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” and “the Bible”. Those are not the same thing. I never claimed that Shabir did not argue that the Trinity was contrary to the Old Testament. He did claim that. I happen to think he is wrong in claiming that, but Ijaz contends that Shabir in claiming this pre-empted this statement from my opening remarks, which is simply not the case.
He then claims that he did not in fact misrepresent my syllogism regarding Tawhid, even accusing me of being “deceitful”. He simply reasserted what he had said before, however, and failed to interact with my criticism. I did not say “If Tawhid is true, then it must be consistent.” I said, “If Tawhid is true, then it must be consistent with the Qur’an.”
Ijaz then back peddles with his claim from his review that I had made the argument about the eternality of the Qur’an in my opening statement. He said “In my review, I did not claim that he made this argument, I specifically said that he referred to it.”
Really, Ijaz?
Let’s have a look at his original review. Here is what he wrote:
I will leave it to readers to judge for themselves.
He then goes on to say that “Reading comprehension is not difficult and it should not be this difficult for Jonathan.” Oh the irony.
He then claimed that,
I will allow my readers to go back to my previous article and determine for themselves whether or not I interacted with the criticism.
Ijaz points out that the Qur’an uses “Spirit” in different contexts. I am quite aware of this, but in the texts that I cited, the Spirit is an agent that is breathed out by Allah in order to create life. This same Spirit is also identified as a personal, conscious, entity in Surah 19. Ijaz also contends that, if I am consistent, I would have to say that the angel of death is a fourth member of the Trinity. But this is simply mistaken — there is no verse in the Bible to my knowledge where we are told that God alone actively brings about death, whereas there are many verses in the Qur’an that emphasise that Allah alone is the sole life-giver, and that Allah has no partners. If Allah had a partner in the creation of life, what might that look like? If one divine God, comprised of at least two divine persons, creates, then this conundrum is resolved.
The next portion of his response is the part we have already addressed regarding his false charges of circular reasoning, which he later had to retract.
He then comments on Surah 3:55 and 61:14. He writes,
I am giving the historical interpretation of this text. Is Ijaz really prepared to say that ibn Kathir, al-Tabari, al-Qurturbi and ibn Ishaq all got it wrong, and that we had to all wait for Ijaz to show up in order to give us the correct meaning of the text? The meaning of the text that I gave seems to me to be clearly the most plausible and the most clear-reading of the texts. Ijaz’s explanation seems rather ad hoc. In any case, even if Ijaz is completely correct about this, he still needs to address my argument that the disciples (whom the Qur’an purports to have been Muslims) were quite clearly not subscribers to Islamic doctrines such as Tawhid.
Ijaz then quoted my statement that,
He then replies,
He may have mentioned it, but he certainly offered no comment by way of response to the argument.
With a large grain of irony, Ijaz concludes:
I have to say that I am rather disappointed with Ijaz’s review and his interaction with my criticisms. I was even more disappointed to see Ijaz’s original tagging of his blog post (which he subsequently changed). Still, here is the screen shot:
That’s right. He called me a “nazi” and a “racist”. I hope that, if Ijaz continues to further interact with my material, that he can exercise greater maturity in the future.