Richard Dawkins was recently challenged to a debate with William Lane Craig. He declined. Craig, he said, was a “deplorable apologist for genocide” with whom he would not share a platform. The genocide in question is that of the Canaanites in the Old Testament Book of Deuteronomy (see link).

One of Richards more famous quotes from “The God Delusion” on this issue is:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

One of the biggest problems that many people have with God as detailed in the Bible, which Richard has so clearly demonstrated above, is that of His judgment against nations like the Canaanites. One only has to read Biblical history to find God commanding the slaughter of the Canaanite men, women and children. Not even the livestock are spared. So what are we make of this? Is God a moral monster?

Paul Copan has attempted to answer this challenge in his book “Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God.” His answer to the charge that God commanded the genocide of the Canaanites is that this was not the genocide that it appears to be from a simple at face value reading of the text; that the text is hyperbolic and an exaggeration of what actually happened; that these were more like disabling raids of the military bases/cities and religious centers and not the leave no survivors destructive conquest that one might assume from a face value reading of the text. The passages on the women and children are just sweeping language being used as a disabling metaphor where central structures are undermined so that the Canaanite influence is disabled. For a more thorough explanation you can check out this interview (3rd hour) with Greg Koukl on his radio show at STR or their blog. Otherwise you can get his book.

While Paul Copan’s explanation on the issues of slavery, bigamy, child sacrifice and the treatment of women in the Old testament seems sound to me, I think Clay Jones comes to the correct conclusion on the issue of the “divine genocide” of the Canaanites. He argues in his treatise, “We Don’t Hate Sin. So We Don’t  Understand What Happened to the Canaanites”, that the face value interpretation of the text is the correct interpretation. Clay also appeared on Greg Koukl’s radio show in an interview that can be found here (3rd Hour) which is where I got most of his answers for the rest of this blog post.

The first thing that needs to be examined is the culture and behavior of the Canaanites to see if there could be any justification for their obliteration as described in the Old Testament. Archeologist William Allbright tells of an ancient Canaanite poem where the Canaanite God Baal, rapes his sister while she is in the form of a calf 77 even 88 times. We have here rape, incest and beastiality in the same act. Baal also has sex with his mother and daughter. If this is who the Canaanites worshiped, if this is their God whom they emulate, then according to Jones, this is certainly what they themselves are doing. And these acts are borne out with further study of Canaanite culture. God outlaws these practices in Leviticus and this sin is punished when both the Canaanites and Israel committed them. And that punishment was harsh. Sodom and Gomorrah were examples of Canaanite cities who were judged by God with good moral justification.

So how does Clay Jones answer the complete destruction passages of the Canaanites in the Old Testament? Clay starts off by making an observation of our own culture. We seem to have been inoculated to sin. Average people just does not care anymore about many sins. Our culture does not even recognize them as sin, let alone understand what the term sin actually means. We have become so Canaanite-like in our own culture to the point where, as Clay put it, “Studying these things over the years has led me to wonder if the Canaanites might stand up at the Judgment and condemn this generation”.

Livestock

Why kill all the livestock? You do not want to be around animals that are used to having sex with people. In Clay’s article he gives an example of a female gorilla sexually attacking a psychologist.

Women

If you want to erradicate these practices from a culture, then why would you leave women who were just as guilty and as equally dangerous as the men in participating in these practices.

Children

Yes the children too. Firstly what age do you start separating children from adults? 18? 12? Clay tells of fostering children because he and his wife could not have their own children. They learned that kids coming into your house at from as young as 4 years old were bringing their culture with them. Now, what if you had killed their parents? What would teenage rebellion look like for those children who were spared. Certainly they were exposed to a highly sexualised culture and were very much likely to have been molested by that time.

So how do you stomp out that culture in order to prevent if from affecting the Israelites adversely? If you want to erradicate the sinfullness of the Canaanites, how else can you do it?

But wait, I hear you say, the Bible talks of the continued Canaanite presence in the region after this “divine genocide” occurred. How does Clay answer that? Clay directs our attention to those “divine genocide” texts and points out that Gods command was only for a specific region. There was still a Canaanite presence outside the region that the Israelites were to inhabit and that’s why there were commands still in place not to take wives from outside the Israelite culture etc. But as we read further into the text, the likes of Kings David and Solomon did not uphold these commands perfectly (by taking wives from outside the Israelite community) and thus the Canaanite culture was reintroduced into the Israels culture and corrupted them to the point where God then dealt harshly with the Israelites via the Assyrians and Babylonians.

So in conclusion, I think we can accept the text at face value. The question that remains is what do you think of God for commanding such a thing? Does God have a right to do with His creation as He pleases? If you have a problem with the selective judgment of the Canaanites then how do you feel about the almost complete destruction wrought by God of the whole world during the Flood? And how do you feel about the impending destruction of everything at Armageddon?

Update (26 Nov 2011): Evidently Matt Oxley has taken issue with being described as “a former charismatic Christian from the Word of Faith movement” and wishes for that to be changed. Unfortunately, I do not yet understand how it is an inaccurate description nor do I know what to change it to. Consequently, I have written a letter to Oxley asking for clarification on this matter and will modify this article appropriately upon receiving that clarification.)

~ * ~

Matt Oxley, a former charismatic Christian from the Word of Faith movement who is now an evangelist for atheistic skepticism at RagingRev.com, had thrown down the gauntlet to Christians at his web site. When it comes to his writing and other efforts, his goal is not “to simply debate and argue,” he said. “I’m holding the believer to the standards and expectations set forth in the New Testament,” a goal he tries to pursue by asking people the sort of questions he found himself asking not too long ago as he spiraled into the depths of doubt, in order to challenge the beliefs Christians hold to (Oxley, 2011, para. 2). He then points to 2 Peter 3:15 to make his case, suggesting that it is in fact the duty of Christians to provide an answer for the sort of objections raised by such people as himself (para. 4). At the risk of disappointing Oxley, this may be yet another circumstance in which he has not understood the context of the passage he is drawing upon, for it does not say that Christians are called and duty-bound “to answer the objections that people like [him] have to [our] faith.” Rather we are called to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope we possess.

And we certainly ought to be ready to give an answer or a defense (pros apologian) when we are asked about the hope we possess—and that hope is nothing other than the faithfulness of Christ Jesus, whose perfect atoning sacrifice redeemed us from death and brought us to the eternal light of reconciliation with God. As those purchased by Christ in the covenant of grace we overflow with love and praise for God and all his handiwork, glorifying his name in everlasting thanksgiving. And all of it, that love and gratitude and hope, rests upon our sovereign Lord and Savior. And this should not be unfamiliar to someone like Oxley who has devoted so much time to the study of Scripture, especially in reference to this very passage which begins with the following statement, “Set apart Christ as Lord in your hearts.” In other words, not only is Jesus Christ the hope we possess but he is also the reason for it; so when we as Christians give an answer or a defense to those who ask, we will do so by setting apart Christ as Lord in our hearts in defending and confirming the gospel. Everything begins and ends with Christ Jesus, including our very reason; that is, we will not reason apart from him, but in everything set him apart as Lord.

Oxley seems to either ignore this or fundamentally misunderstand the passage, for he lurches suddenly beyond its context to suggest Peter is saying that Christians should provide “empirical evidence and sound logic” when asked for (para. 6). Although Oxley seems to think Peter is saying that Christians should be ready to defend their faith in terms that are consistent with the worldview of their objector, Peter is actually saying something that is entirely antithetical. Indeed we are to always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope we possess, but it is in the context of setting apart Christ as Lord in our hearts; in other words, we are to defend the faith in terms that are consistent with the biblical worldview that has Jesus Christ at center. This is how every single apostle and disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ engaged people; they never took their eyes off the gospel or compromised the centrality of Christ in all things, even when it meant their imprisonment or being put to death. Their every proclamation and every defense was given in the context of Jesus Christ as Lord. And that is what Christians are called to imitate, that is how they are to engage. And indeed “very few today are willing to engage in such a way.”

I am just telling you what the Bible says. No one has to like it (cf. para. 8).

Christians should certainly be willing and ready to give an answer or defense for the hope they possess, but people like Oxley should not be surprised that Christians will set apart Christ as Lord in their hearts when they do so. He is their hope, their reason, the very ground of all reality, their everything. He is the way, the truth, and the life. He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. All things in heaven and on earth were created through him and for him; he is before all things and all things are held together in him. Such is also what the Bible says, as well as:

“Therefore, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, rooted and built up in him and firm in your faith just as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form, and you have been filled in him, who is the head over every ruler and authority” (Colossians 2:6–10).

Incidentally, there was a bit of irony in Oxley’s post that was too good to pass over. In addressing the charge that he has taken some scripture or other out of context, Oxley says that it comes from people who have not spent one-tenth of the time that he has in Bible study; so it amounts to “blind faith about my understanding,” he said (para. 1). But how does he know that they did not spend as much time as he did on studying Scripture? Does he have evidence for this claim that others can corroborate? He must, for surely he is not making a “blind faith” assumption about their time spent in study; that is, surely it is a conclusion drawn from empirical evidence which others can corroborate. Or is this indeed a delicious bit of irony?

References:

Matt Oxley, “Taking the Bible out of context—apologia,” RagingRev.com [blog] (2011, October 18). He has also started a new web site for preaching atheistic skepticism at EmbracingDoubt.com. Although he claims that the target audience is believers “from any faith at all” who are struggling with doubt and difficult questions, it is by no means a Christian apologetics resource; his aim is to encourage doubt, not to provide empowering answers that alleviate it. For believers who actually want answers for their doubts and questions, I encourage you to write me and ask. You are not the first to struggle with perplexing questions, and there are solid answers to be had.

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful (Sura at Tawba 9:5).[1]

Although there are over a hundred ayat (verses) in the Qur’an that that pertain to jihad and warfare against the unbelievers, Sura 9:5 is perhaps the most well known among these. For this reason, it has often been called the “Ayah of the Sword.” This comes right in the heels of Sura 9:1-4, which declares the cancellation of any treaties between the Muslims and the Pagans (except those who cooperate with the Muslims), as shown in the preceding four verses:

A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Apostle, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:- Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him. And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Apostle dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous (Sura at Tawba 9:1-4),

Read the rest of this entry

The following reflection is based on a article by the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen, called Ready to Reason. I found it particularly helpful and I hope that you will also, regardless of the particular approach to apologetics that you favour most.

Paul writes to the Christians at Corinth, “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” – 2 Cor 10:5 (NIV)

Similarly Peter writes, But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” – 1 Peter 3:15 (NIV)

Apart from being the two of the most popular passages used in support of the need for apologetics, they are also a key focus of our ministry here at The Aristophrenium. We believe that God has called upon us as believers to be prepared to defend the faith in the face of challenges and questions which come from unbelievers. Similarly, Dr. Bahnsen says that the necessity of apologetics is not a divine necessity, but a moral one. “God has chosen to do His work through us and called us to it. Apologetics is the special talent of some believers, and the interested hobby of others. But it is the God-ordained responsibility of all believers.” Later in the article Dr. Bahnsen explains it this way:

Read the rest of this entry

Every once in a while, those who deny the biblical witness concerning the nature of Jesus Christ (especially Liberals and Muslims) will try to appeal to the theory that the four Gospels reflect an evolution in the understanding of who Jesus was, and their authors did not view Him the same way. As the theory goes, Mark’s gospel, being the earliest, presents Jesus as a mere human being. Later authors embellish His story until we finally arrive at the Gospel of John, which affirms the full deity of Christ.

While this theory sounds neat at first glance, it misses the mark at various points. First of all, there is an inherent anti-supernatural bias in its explanation. It denies the possibility that there is progressive revelation involved in the increasing understanding of who Jesus was, and reduces the progression of revelation to mere legendary development. It is particularly telling that some Muslims have actually latched on to this theory. The ones who do so do not seem to realize that they are borrowing a theory that was produced by liberal scholars who deny the possibility of supernatural revelation. If the progressive revelation in the Gospels can be explained away naturalistically, what is to stop the proponents of this theory from applying the exact same standards to the Qur’an?

Be that as it may, it is not even true that Mark regarded Jesus as a mere human being. Sure, he does not emphasize that aspect of Jesus’ person as much as the other biblical authors, but that does not mean, however, that the doctrine was totally absent from Mark’s gospel. To demonstrate this, we must go through the relevant sections of Mark to see what kind of Christology is presented in his account. The first section to go through is the story of the healing of the paralytic in the second chapter. It begins thus:

A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
(Mark 2:1-7)

The scribes knew what was going on here. Jesus was claiming to have the power to forgive sins; something that only God can do. Now what is Jesus reaction to this? He does another thing that only God can do! Moving on:

Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . .” He said to the paralytic, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”
(Mark 2:8-12)

Pay close attention to what the eighth verse says about Jesus: He perceived the thoughts of the scribes. Those who read the Old Testament would know that only Yahweh is capable of doing that (cf. 1 Samuel 16:7, 1 Kings 8:39, Jeremiah 20:12). Clearly, if Jesus was a mere human being, He would not be capable of doing these things.

The next relevant passage comes later on in the same chapter, when the disciples are picking grain in the fields:

One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
(Mark 2:23-28)

Here is one example of an idea that is implicit in Mark but becomes more explicit later on. Those who have read the story of Jesus healing on the Sabbath in the Gospel of John would know that for Jesus to call Himself Lord of the Sabbath would be considered blasphemous because Yahweh was the Lord of the Sabbath: Yahweh was exempt from having to rest on that day because He was upholding the universe even on Sabbath day (John 5:17-18). Incidentally, this fits in well with the author of Hebrews’ understanding of Jesus as the One who “upholds all things by the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3, NASB). It is clear here that for Jesus to claim to be the Lord of the Sabbath is tantamount to blasphemy unless He was actually Yahweh incarnate.

And then there is the episode in the country of the Gerasenes where Jesus encounters the demoniac. As Mark reports, “[w]hen he [the demoniac] saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped [προσεκύνησεν] Him” (Mark 5:6, NKJV). Some translations water down this particular verse by saying the demoniac merely “fell down” or “bowed down” at Jesus’ feet. Such a watered-down translation is unnecessary and unhelpful, though, since the same Greek word (προσκυνέω) is used by the other three Gospel writers to refer to the worship of God (cf. Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:8 and John 4:20-24). The KJV and NKJV are the most consistent in rendering προσκυνέω as worship here. Thus, the conclusion that we get from this verse is unavoidable: Jesus accepted worship, and Mark affirms this.

And then there is a passage which Jehovah’s Witnesses and Muslims try to twist in order to make it seem that Jesus is denying His divinity. In Mark 10:18, we find Jesus questioning the rich young man who walked up to Him:

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.
(Mark 10:17-18)

Jesus is not, at this point, denying the man’s description of Him as good. What He is doing, rather, is that He is trying to get the man to realize what he is just saying. In effect, He is telling the man, “Do you understand what you are calling Me? Or are you just calling me good to get closer to Me?” In an attempted response, it has been claimed (and by no less a debater than Muslim apologist Bassam Zawadi) that since the rich young man stopped calling Jesus “good” afterwards, that can’t be what He meant. If anything, this is just grasping at straws. The rich young man had only one other line after this (Mark 10:20), so this is too weak a case to stand on such limited evidence. Besides, Jesus affirms His goodness elsewhere. For example, when He is accused by the Jews, He asks them rhetorically in John 8:46, “Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?” There is also the fact that Jesus calls Himself the Good Shepherd (cf. John 10:11,14). The fact that those who deny the deity of Christ appeal to this passage is somewhat humorous, given that many of them would contend that Jesus is indeed good!

Another passage from Mark that opponents of biblical Christianity try to use is Mark 13:32, where Jesus says “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32). Of course, since Christianity has historically affirmed that Jesus took on a true human nature during the incarnation, it would come as no surprise to us that in His self-emptying, He would choose not to avail Himself of some of His powers. However, this does not mean that He lost them completely, but merely restrained them.

The difference is akin to the difference between a person restraining his right arm by tying it behind his back and chopping it off. In the former case, the person only temporarily restrains his usage of his arm, and can regain it at any point in time by untying his arm. In the latter case, however, he loses usage of his arm completely, and cannot get it back. Jesus’ temporary self-emptying is analogous to the former case. His temporary restraint was cast off after His resurrection, since in His glorified resurrection body, He is said to “know all things” (John 21:17).

Also telling is the verse that comes immediately before this, where Jesus says “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Mark 13:31). This is significant, for Whose word is it, according to the Old Testament, that will never pass away? The answer:

The grass withers and the flowers fade
beneath the breath of the Lord.
And so it is with people.
The grass withers and the flowers fade,
but the word of our God stands forever.
(Isaiah 40:7-8)

So once again, we have here another prerogative of Yahweh that Jesus is claiming for Himself. Surely it is becoming quite unnecessary at this point to belabour the point any further, yet there is one more significant passage that needs to be addressed, which is the dialogue between Jesus and the High priest:

Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”

“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

They all condemned him as worthy of death. Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him.
(Mark 14:60-65)

First of all, note that this is an “I Am” (ἐγώ εἰμι) statement. It is mistakenly thought by many that “I Am” statements are unique to John, yet we see that Mark has at least one as well (and it is repeated in Luke 22:70). Second, Jesus alludes to a significant messianic passage from the book of Daniel:

I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.
(Daniel 7:13-14, NASB)

The description given here could not be that of an ordinary person, for such a person would not have an “everlasting dominion.” Not only that, but in Jewish thinking, only one who is divine could be regarded as “sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” This is borne out by the fact that the high priest tore his robes upon Jesus saying this (something which the high priest is not allowed to do unless he is grieved from hearing a blasphemous remark), and condemned Him as deserving death. This passage could only make sense if Jesus was claiming divine prerogatives.

In conclusion, one can see that the Gospel of Mark has a high Christology, and can hardly be regarded as promoting the view that Jesus Christ was a mere human prophet. It is only by selectively using evidence and ignoring the context of the entire Gospel account that one can sustain such a questionable assertion.

(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

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

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 paths to God are equally valid, and that none of them can assert itself 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

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