Last week, I posted an article for the Aristophrenium entitled Was Mary Sinless?, which was a critical examination of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Therein I compiled various pieces of biblical and historical evidence showing why Mary could not be regarded as immaculately conceived. Now, I deliberately chose to publish the article on the 26th of August because on the 28th of August, Dr. James White had a debate on this very topic against Christopher Ferrara, Roman Catholic lawyer from the American Catholic Lawyers’ Association. I chose to publish my article two days before the debate so that it can serve as a sort of “pre-emptive strike” that will equip other Christians beforehand so that they would know what arguments to expect. The interesting thing is that Ferrara quite predictably went to Luke 1 and egregiously misinterpreted the verses in it. He also threw up a few arguments that I didn’t address in my article. Of course, Dr. White was more than capable of refuting those arguments, but I think it’d be worth going through a couple of these arguments.

Read the rest of this entry

(Continued from part two)

In the first part of this series, we discussed and debunked Balgrim Ragoonanan’s tirades against Christian exclusivism and evangelistic efforts as a form of Religious Bigotry and Exclusivity. In the second part, we refuted his misuse and misrepresentation of Jesus’ teachings in order to promote Hindu pluralism over against what he deems to be The Insidiousness of an Only Pathway to God. In this third part in the series, we will be looking at the third of Mr. Ragoonanan’s articles, entitled, The Whole Truth About Those who Debase and Derogate Other Religions.[1] In his opening paragraph, he writes,

Anyone who thinks that he/she has some kind of corner on religious and spiritual beliefs and practices, and believes he/she can take another person to task for exposing the falsehood of an only pathway to God are welcome to do so. I am prepared to defend the legitimacy of all religions as I research and understand them better, especially when God and religion are purely for the transformation of the human heart to the higher state of the divine. I have been doing studies ever since I joined the membership of the Trinidad & Tobago Online Community, when it was once fashionable to deride, derogate, defame and characterize Hinduism as being outside the frame of legitimate religions.

Read the rest of this entry

Introduction

Because of the atmosphere of ecumenicism that has pervaded the Christian Church in recent decades, many Evangelical Christians are ill-equipped to properly handle the distinctive doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Mariology is one particularly sticky topic. Many misconceptions abound, and there are relatively few Evangelical writings that adequately handle this topic.[1] As such, it is necessary to tackle the Roman Catholic Marian Dogmas with care and accuracy, and this will hopefully be accomplished in this analysis of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Although the Immaculate Conception has an interesting history that goes back to the Middle Ages, it is one of the more recent of the Marian dogmas to have been officially declared a dogma by the Roman Catholic Church. It was declared as such by Pope Pius IX during 1844 in the apostolic constitution entitled Ineffabilis Deus. It is worth looking at the text of this constitution to see how Rome defines this dogma:

From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world. Above all creatures did God so loved her that truly in her was the Father well pleased with singular delight. Therefore, far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity that this mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater, and which, outside of God, no mind can succeed in comprehending fully.

And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent. To her did the Father will to give his only-begotten Son — the Son whom, equal to the Father and begotten by him, the Father loves from his heart — and to give this Son in such a way that he would be the one and the same common Son of God the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was she whom the Son himself chose to make his Mother and it was from her that the Holy Spirit willed and brought it about that he should be conceived and born from whom he himself proceeds.[2]

Read the rest of this entry

So I recently discovered some interesting corners of a web site I was aware of but never really explored before—Reddit.com. And I may have continued in my ignorance about this site, except that one of my various alerts told me that someone there had directed attention to the Aristophrenium. After I checked it out—someone pointing atheists to an article of mine and some colourful commentary following—I was intrigued to find out what other type of sections the site had besides Atheism.

One section that caught my interest (for the time being) is DebateAChristian, and one of the threads I chose to engage was titled, “More un-Christian advice from the word of God” by a gentleman we might safely assume is not a believer who presented what he considered a challenge for Christianity. He cited 2 John 1:9-11 and then contrasted it against Luke 5:29-32, following it with his challenging question, “How are we supposed to call sinners to repentance if we cannot welcome them?”

What follows is the brief conversation between Basilides and myself. (To be updated as the conversation progresses, so check back.)

Last Update: 24 August 2010, 12:45 AM.

Read the rest of this entry

(Continued from part one)

This article is a continuation of a rebuttal to Balgrim Ragoonanan, a writer for the anti-Missionary website Crusade Watch which argues vehemently against Christian evangelistic efforts. In another one of his articles, entitled, The Insidiousness Of an Only Pathway to God,[1] he attempts to twist Jesus’ teachings in order to promote Hindu Pluralism. It would seem that the author believes that he can reconstruct Jesus in order to get around His clear teachings regarding salvation through Christ alone by reading into His statements things that He never taught:

Can it be true, according to the Bible, that God can only have one human form? The answer is obviously no, because Jesus said he will come again as a thief in the night, meaning that he will not be recognized in his new form, but only by his works they shall know him.

It is very clear that Jesus credits God with more than one human form and was fully aware of the principle of other forms of God. He was speaking about another one of his coming as God, consistent with the Hindu principle of the manifestation of God at other points in time for a special purpose at the time.

Read the rest of this entry

This Saturday the 21st of August 2010 is the Australian Federal Election. On this day Australia votes for who they want to run the country for the next three years. It is similar in a way to the U.S. Presidential election in that we too have only two parties that have any chance of winning the election. They also have similar left and right leanings as in the U.S. In Australia they are called the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. In comparison some might say that the Australian Labor Party is similar to the Democrats in the U.S. while the Liberal Party is similar to the Republicans when it comes to conservative policy. In addition there are some minor parties who align themselves with the major parties and form a sort of coalition for a stronger balance of power.

Ahead of this year’s election the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) has provided an excellent summary of the positions of various parties on issues that may be of significant interest to Christian voters. Some of the questions they pose are not likely to be prominently discussed in the wider election coverage. Issues such as abortion, marriage, classification standards, sexualisation of children, religious freedom and chaplaincy, to name a few.

The results of the ACL’s questionnaire can be found here.

One thing I did note with interest was that the Greens Party regularly declined to answer many of the questions – even on the issue of marriage, despite recent unsuccessful attempts to destroy this institution with a Bill that would modify the Marriage Act. I believe many would agree that the Greens are the most Anti-Christian of the more prominent political parties. So perhaps their reluctance in answering many of these questions is due to their concern over losing the Christian vote?

While we will be electing a party to run the country, we will also in effect be voting for Australia’s leader. Sometimes a persons opinion of the would-be Prime Minister can have a large influence in determining a persons vote, regardless of how they feel about party policy. The religious nature of each candidate could be a factor in this election. We have Julia Gillard (Labor) – who will incidentally become our first officially elected female Prime Minister should Labor be returned to power. She currently holds the office of Prime Minister due to a Party coup where she controversially deposed the previous leader. Oh, she is also a confessed atheist. On the opposite side we have Tony Abbott (Liberal) who is a confessed Catholic.

However it turns out, it will be an interesting election. And one that some will believe provides a glimpse into the general direction Australia is heading from a religious perspective. Are we heading down the path of atheism or theism? Some will no doubt believe – perhaps with good reason – that the answer to that question was clear long before Julia Gillard ever stood for Office.

Mark Lamprecht wrote a curious article over at HereIBlog questioning how Christians should react to the building of an Islamic mosque near Ground Zero. And I deem that article “curious” because it largely escapes me how this calls for an internal reflection by Christians. In the final analysis, the matter is a political issue. While there may be something to be said about us being consistent with our Christian faith when it comes to engaging political issues—how we evaluate some legislation, who we consider voting for in elections, how we conduct ourselves in political office, etc.—I really don’t see how the Ground Zero Mosque poses a challenge for Christians and our biblical convictions. Unless, of course, that is precisely what Lamprecht intended with his question; that as followers of Christ we should be careful that we remain consistent with the gospel and our faith as we engage this controversial political issue.

Lamprecht said that his gut reaction was basically, “No way!” But then he walks that reaction back a little, suggesting that it may not be the best reaction. Okay, but why not? What was wrong about that gut reaction—one that is shared by several million Christians all over the United States and beyond? What issue of faith or doctrine does that reaction conflict with, thereby calling for his restraint and perhaps ours?

He does not cite any. Rather, he invokes the freedom of religious exercise protected by the Constitution, tempering the substance of his attitude by that. I have two problems with this. First, as Christians our orthopraxic ‘gut check’ is not predicated on human laws and legal documents. When it comes to tempering our attitude and behavior, the governing authority is the Word of God. In other words, if there is something not quite right about that reaction, we want to see the case made on Scriptures, we want to see something in the Bible which says that reaction is a bit off. Second, the controversial issue of the Ground Zero Mosque does not have anything to do with freedom of religion at any rate. Nobody is saying, “You cannot build a mosque in New York.” As a matter of fact, New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques. Rather, what people are saying is, “You should not build a mosque there in New York.” I have never heard anyone deny Muslims their right to build a mosque near Ground Zero. They most certainly do have that right. To invoke the vocabulary used by the President on this, the conversation is not about the ‘right’ but rather about the ‘wisdom’. When people (like New York City mayor Michael Boomberg) cite the First Amendment they are obscuring the issue with an irrelevant red herring.

Yes, they can build a mosque near Ground Zero; that is their right. No, they should not build a mosque there; that is not wise. And the reasons for why it is not wise are quite numerous, but I do not wish to explore them right now. When Christians react with a loud and strong “No way!” to the idea, it is neither wrong nor inappropriate; they are not in conflict with biblical orthopraxy, nor are they denying anybody their freedoms under the Constitution, for the argument is that the Ground Zero Mosque shouldn’t be built there, which is very different from arguing that it can’t be built there.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has worked hard to portray himself as a ‘bridge-builder’ in the eyes of the American public and the interfaith community, and the location being so close to Ground Zero “was precisely a key selling point” for him, as reported by Ralph Blumenthal with the New York Times. Abdul Rauf wants a presence that close to the World Trade Center “where a piece of the wreckage fell” because he thinks it will send “the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.” However, I have got a message for Abdul Rauf: when the majority of the American public is opposed to the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque, and you proceed with your construction plans in defiance of them, you are not building any bridges. As Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah from the Muslim Canadian Congress wrote for the Ottawa Citizen, “As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens, and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to soothe the pain.”

For those who are unfamiliar with Crusade Watch, it is a website with multiple contributors who all write with the express purpose of denouncing evangelism and missions as an evil act that must be banned and legislated against. Of course, the vast majority of the articles published on this website have no real intellectual merit; being comprised primarily of shoddy logic, unwarranted assumptions and undocumented assertion after undocumented assertion. One of the recurring themes among the writers, though, is the idea of pluralism; the ideology that all all paths to God are equally valid, and that none of them can assert to be correct over and against any other path. In particular, it will be well worth documenting the claims of one Balgrim Ragoonanan, an author from Trinidad and Tobago who strongly favours Hindu ideas of plurality over and against religious exclusivity. The rest of this will be dealing with his article entitled, Religious Bigotry and Exclusivity.[1] We will begin by examining the author’s thesis, which appears in the first few paragraphs of his article:

This presentation may also reflect an aspect of the narrow and restrictive pathway offered for salvation by the Christians versus the broad and expansive pathway of the Hindus, although it is not the gist of the paper.

This paper is to be taken only as a working framework for further discussion against religious proselytizing and the Christian one way doctrine to salvation.

Those who do not support religious proselytizing can find the appropriate lawyers to develop a case against religious proselytizing as an abuse of human rights versus the freedom of speech and the freedom to practice a religion in peace without intrusions.

The freedom of speech argument is a false one when it comes to religious proselytizing and must be debunked at the onset. We know that although freedom of speech is sacred to many, it is still over-ruled under certain conditions that incite violence and family and community disturbances.

Read the rest of this entry

Breaking news from the Assyrian International News Agency:

Muslim Cleric Calls for Jihad, Coptic Christians Attacked in Egypt

(AINA) — On August 13 Sheikh Tobah, Imam of the village of Shimi 170 KM south of Giza, called during Muslim Friday prayers for Jihad against Christians living there. As a result the Christian Copts living in the village were assaulted over two consecutive days. Eleven Copts were hospitalized and many Coptic youths were arrested.

The assaults begain a couple of hours after the Sheikhs incitement. An argument between Copt Maher Amin, who was washing his taxi, and Mohamed Ali Almstaui, a Muslim extremist from the village, escalated into violence as Mohamad assaulted Maher. The altercation was stopped by bystanders. However, after the evening break of Ramadan fast, Ahmad, the brother of the perpetrator Mohamad, who is reported to belong to an extremist organization, together with twenty other men, went to Maher’s family home, breaking down the door and assaulting him and his family with batons, including his old mother and his paralyzed sister, injuring them and breaking their furniture.

Security forces came and took away the Christian victims and kept them at the station in spite of their wounds, to pressuree them into accepting “reconciliation” with their attackers. None of the Muslims were arrested.

Saad Gamal, Egyptian MP for Elsaff, phoned from Gaza, where he is on a visit, and gave orders to the police to force reconciliation on the Coptic parties…

Please read the rest of the article here.

It is sad that these things are happening to our brothers and sisters in Christ, but I guess this is inevitable as long as Muslims take seriously Muhammad’s words in surah 9:29-30. May the Lord be with our brethren and deliver them out of the hands of the oppressors.

I recently ran into this video by a fellow named Farhan who attempts a response to David Wood’s video entitled How Can God Die? I have decided to post a video response of my own, so here it is:

Please excuse the less than perfect video editing. I used a different editing program than I usually use for making this video.

Read the rest of this entry