panelarrow

My Strange Obsession with Death on Mondays

| 73 Comments

One man, an atheist of course, accused me of being a necromaniac; that is, one who has an abnormal tendency to dwell with longing on death (from Dictionary.com).

No.

I actually have an abnormal tendency to remind people of the fact that they can have eternal life.

Or eternal punishment in Hell.

I have a valid reason for posting these Sudden Death articles every week: to remind people that there is a Day of Judgment coming when God will make the pronouncement that one is either “Guilty” or “Not Guilty” after they die.

For some it may be years from now, for others, possibly tonight. Don’t play that “Prove it” game with me. Your conscience continually reminds you that you have done wrong. You know the standard: The Ten Commandments. Break one and that’s called sin. Sin one time and you’re guilty deserving of Hell.

Yes, one lie makes you a liar; one theft a thief; one OMG makes you a blasphemer. Jesus says that one X-rated thought toward another is adultery, and hatred murder. You don’t stand a chance. You will not just rot in the ground. You will not disappear out of existence. The Bible is clear: You will end up in Hell for all eternity. Unless…

Unless you repent of your sin and trust in Christ for forgiveness. While we were still sinners Christ died for us.

Will you trust him today?

Jonathan Edwards had a few words to say about God’s creative ways in taking people out of this world and catapulting them into the next. Read his perspective by clicking here.

73 Comments

  1. Richard C. wrote:

    If your true to your atheist religion you cannot use laws that immaterial, unchanging and universal

    I guess I have to repeat myself:

    atheism is neither faith nor is it religion. It is simply the non-acceptance of supernatural claims of theists. That it.

    I’ll also add this: atheism is not a worldview. It is simply the non-acceptance of supernatural claims of theists. That’s it.

    You make an unsupported claim, such as:

    God upholds the universe by his power which is consistent, universal and does not change.

    But you don’t give us a reason to accept the claim. Therefore we remain, as we were before the claim, in non-acceptance of the unsupported claim.

    Both you and Muslims claim that your God (and for the Muslims, Allah) exists. That has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction. Therefore I do not currently accept your claim. Therefore, I’m an atheist. That’s it.

    As long as you claim to believe in miracles, I see a contradiction when you claim that these “laws” are unchanging; a miracle is the breaking of one of these laws, in which it has been changed.

  2. Richard C. wrote:

    So, if there is imperfection there must perfection. This implies the consistent Christian God of the Bible.

    Please show how your conclusion follows from your premise (assuming the premise is even correct, which I’d argue that you need to show how it follows from its own premise).

    Because I don’t see it.

    I could just as easily say, “This implies the consistent Islamic view of Allah from the Qur’an”.

  3. Mr. Chavarria,
    (May I call you Richard? I’m okay with being called Michael, though I dislike Mike or other abbreviations.)

    Yes, your understanding of materialism is a bit different from mine. I think that all we can directly or indirectly observe is, basically, matter and energy in various states of organization. The laws of logic are neither matter or energy; they are, for our purposes here, patterns of thought that beings of matter and energy have found to yield reliable results. This is, if you want to look at it this way, one kind of organization found among material (i.e. made of matter) beings. They are not some Platonic ideal floating outside space and time; they are principles that human beings have formulated because they work. Logic is not a spiritual quality; it has a history, just like religions do.

    So, if there is imperfection there must perfection. This implies the consistent Christian God of the Bible.

    I’m sorry, I mean no offense, but this is Underpants Gnomes logic. You remember the Underpants Gnomes? They appeared in an early episode of South Park, and they had a business plan… sort of. It looked like this:
    1. Collect Underpants.
    2. ???
    3. Profit!

    If there is a supreme Creator of the Universe, and if that Creator is perfect – neither of which we’ve actually established – you’ve offered me exactly no reason whatsoever to believe that the Bible in any way describes such a being. In fact, the likelihood of such a Creator being even vaguely comprehensible to spacial, temporal species like human beings is so close to zero as makes no difference.

    For God is perfect and we are made in his image and therefore we should not lie. Repent and believe the Gospel.

    I’ve never been entirely clear on what “we are made in his image” means in this context. We’re certainly not perfect, and He’s certainly not humanoid. (Again, I’m not conceding that such a being exists, I’m just considering what we might expect if He did.)

    I… I feel like we’re a little bit sidetracked here. Because really, when you tell me I should repent of my sins and find Jesus (that is, I should become a Christian), I tend to respond with questions. Which questions depend on which reasons you’re using to try to convince me. But all my questions can be reduced to one basic question: why should I believe that? Because Christianity, as I’ve mentioned before, doesn’t make sense to me.

    The rest of my questions (about the fellow who modeled Christ and convinced you to repent, for example – and I’d still like to hear that story) are only slightly different: they all boil down to, Why do you believe that?

  4. @Richard

    Yes we are passing past each other. It’s ok though, no hard feelings. We are online so it’s hard to have a real discussion. As I said in the other thread, this is entertainment mainly, for myself at least, so let’s just enjoy what we can get from that, and one day we might get to discuss that in person, who knows, I will be much closer to your area in a few months time 😉

    Ok, so, concerning your last comment, look, I can do that to…

    In order for you to use logic, you must assume my worldview, because my worldview starts with:

    – Logical absolutes exist (laws of logic)
    – I exist
    – Other minds exist

    Without assuming these first, nothing makes sense. If logical absolutes don’t exist, we cannot make truth statements such as A is A, or ‘I exist’. (1) has to be true.

    If I don’t exist, or if you don’t exist, I cannot interact with you. (2) and (3) have to be true.

    Make sure you read Vagon’s comment on the other thread by the way…

    Moreover, just to make sure, this is completely useless for discussing beliefs in God, science, morality, etc… I don’t go through life constantly reminding myself of these logical absolutes, and you don’t either. So please stop acting as if you have some sort of unbeatable rhetoric that can nail all non-Christians. You did not even know what ‘to falsify’ meant, lol.

    To push a bit farther, I will try to explain to you, in my own words, the difference between the 3 types of “laws” you mentioned.

    – Science laws: They are descriptive laws, manmade, they are not laws at all actually. They approximate the way the universe works, in a certain context, in order to describe what will happen next. Remember Newton’s laws? They were pretty good right? We could send humans to the moon using them! Did you forget however that they are “wrong”? Newton laws fail on very large distances or at speeds close to the speed of light…

    – Mathematic laws: These are absolute in their framework, but they are still manmade, and depend on the context and on the existence of logical absolutes. (You cannot make a statement that is consistent if ‘A = A’ is not always true, thus math depends on logical absolutes.) Moreover, 2+2=4 works in base 10, but in base 3 you would get 2+2 = 11, or in base 4 you would get 2+2=10. I probably lost you already but anyway… the point is that they are not all black or white as you pretend they are, and they are definitely a human construct used to represent the physical quantities we see in real life. That’s why we need to constantly adjust our understanding of mathematics to fit the observations.

    – Logical laws: As mentioned above, these are the only laws that are truly absolute from our point of view. The second we start making a statement, we use these laws. We cannot even say ‘I exist’ without respecting these laws. Trying to argue for their existence or trying to account for them is absurd and futile. BUT, some people have done it! It’s interesting but again, you probably don’t care since you say that we have to accept your simplistic views on God before we can discuss them… Life is complex Richard. Why are you trying to dumb it down?

  5. Mr. Nohm,
    Ok, so you have a new broader personal definition for atheism. Additionally, your definition says that atheism is not a worldview. And I perfectly know why your definition is ever changing. That makes sense to me as you are moving albeit slowly. OK, next time I’ll quote the scripture verse. I hope it will help.

    Here’s how I know that God promises to support the world. Genesis 8:22 “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease”.

    Ok, here’s the argument for miracles: Jesus preformed miracles, he turned water into wine, he healed the blind, and he raised the dead from the grave. In the Old Testament, God open the Red Sea to allow the Hebrews to walk on dry ground. These miracles are a demonstration of his power and where accomplished not for his benefit but for ours so that we might believe. Now which man can say that God violated the laws of nature. Man does not know all the laws of nature, such as DNA, which was recently discovered. The Christian can account for laws that govern the world and when there are exceptions (miracles) they can be accounted for in the Christian worldview. The atheist cannot account for the laws of nature because they are law like. The atheist, apart from your definition, says that the world came about by accident of cooling gases and we came from pond slime. How then can atheism account for the universal laws of science and math and morality. Where do these laws come from?

    Now if you have an open mind you will need to look at both claims to determine which to believe. Islam claims to be a religion of peace. How then do you account for the verses in the Koran such as this one from Sura 9:5 “Then when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due the leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful.

    Now you decided is Islam a religion of peace? I have made up my mine.. what about you?

  6. Michael,

    You cannot be saying that logic was formulated by humans because they work. This implies that humans can change laws of logic to suit his every whim. Yesterday I thought it was OK to lie, steal, and cheat. Today I understand that it is wrong to do these things. NO, laws of logic don’t change? Do you have a better reason for the laws of logic?

    I have never watched South Park. By your understanding does Gnomes apply logic in the sense that I understand what it is: immaterial, universal, and unchanging? If so, then I need to watch that show.

    No, I have established that there is a creator, you are the one who has doubts. Since God is eternal as the Bible says, he lives outside of time. Since God is able to see time, he knows the beginning from the end. Now, God attributes are omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. These attribute he has not given to us. What he has given to us is an understanding of his moral attributes. His justice, his wrath, his love and his plan of salvation. God is sovereign. That means he can do what ever does not conflict with his nature. God cannot lie. God said in Genesis let us make man in our image. The reason we don’t lie is because God doesn’t lie. We are made in his image. Now when you become a Christian I will certainly tell how I became one.

    I hope this helps.

  7. Richard wrote:

    Ok, so you have a new broader personal definition for atheism.

    No, Richard; my definition on that word has not changed.

    Atheism is the non-acceptance of the supernatural claims of theists.

    Please show how that has changed.

    Additionally, your definition says that atheism is not a worldview.

    That has nothing to do with the definition.

    As I’ve mentioned many times on this blog before, the word “atheist” describes what I am not. It does not describe what I am.

    I am not a theist. Therefore I am an atheist. Theist accept claims of that one or more gods exist. I currently do not accept any of those claims.

    And I perfectly know why your definition is ever changing.

    No, it is not.

    Please support your assertion that it is. When did I define it as anything else? If anything, I’m simply clarifying it, since it appears you continue to misunderstand it.

    That makes sense to me as you are moving albeit slowly.

    I have no idea what you mean by that.

    OK, next time I’ll quote the scripture verse. I hope it will help.

    I have no idea why it would.

    Ok, here’s the argument for miracles: Jesus preformed miracles, he turned water into wine, he healed the blind, and he raised the dead from the grave. In the Old Testament, God open the Red Sea to allow the Hebrews to walk on dry ground.

    Yes, I understand that you believe that these things actually happened. But, for the same reason that you don’t believe in the scientific miracles of the Qur’an, or the miracles of the Greek gods, I have a hard time believing these stories. They appear to be mythology to me.

    The Christian can account for laws that govern the world and when there are exceptions (miracles) they can be accounted for in the Christian worldview.

    You haven’t demonstrated this. You haven’t even attempted to demonstrate this. You just state it, by fiat. I don’t find that method to be persuasive.

    The atheist cannot account for the laws of nature because they are law like.

    Why would an atheist not be able to account for the laws of nature because they are “law like”? What prevents an atheist from doing so?

    And what in the blue blazes does “law like” even mean?

    The atheist, apart from your definition, says that the world came about by accident of cooling gases and we came from pond slime.

    Oh my goodness. :-O

    Seriously?

    Like, seriously?

    Where do you get these ideas?

    You’re going to sit here, someone who seems to have never actually met an atheist outside of the internet (and I’m not even sure about that part), and tell me what atheists believe?

    Pond slime? Do you get all of your information about atheists from anti-atheist and creationist sources? Don’t you think that might be a bit biased?

    You’re not making sense, Richard.

    How then can atheism account for the universal laws of science and math and morality. Where do these laws come from?

    Ok, let’s make one point clear: your understanding of atheists does not match reality.

    “Atheism” can account for anything besides the existence of one or more gods. You still appear to think that it’s a worldview or a set of beliefs.

    Richard, please understand that it is not. It is simply the non-acceptance of the supernatural claims of theists. That’s it.

    (I’d also point out that you’re equivocating greatly on the word “laws”, but that’s a quibble for a later time.)

  8. Oh, and as for whether or not Islam is a religion of peace, it doesn’t matter to me. It either is true, or it is not true.

    My point is that when you ask me to come to Christ in faith, and the Muslim asks me to come to Allah in faith, what method should I use to determine my choice?

  9. Mr. Chavarria,

    This is not really relevant to our conversation, but that Sura you quoted puts me very much in mind of Deuteronomy 21:18-21. I mention this to caution you: a religion is more than its writings. Islam is a difficult religion to study, in part because English-language information about it tends to be very biased, in part because the way the Koran is read is not always linear, and in part because Islam, like Christianity, can be practiced in very different ways by different people.

  10. Bit by bit, again:

    You cannot be saying that logic was formulated by humans because they work.

    Really? Why not? (I’m neither arguing nor making fun of you, here. I genuinely don’t understand your objection. It’s quite possible, incidentally, that some of my fellow unbelievers would agree with you on this point; Nohm seems to believe otherwise, for example.)

    This implies that humans can change laws of logic to suit his every whim. Yesterday I thought it was OK to lie, steal, and cheat. Today I understand that it is wrong to do these things.

    Two things:
    1. You seem to have jumped from logic (the structure of valid argument) back to morality (the nature of right action). These are related topics, but not the same.
    2. There is, as I’ve pointed out before, a difference between changing one’s system (or morality, or worldview) to incorporate new information and/or greater understanding of existing information; and altering it to suit one’s every whim. The second practice is not generally what people consider a “system.”

    I have never watched South Park. By your understanding does Gnomes apply logic in the sense that I understand what it is: immaterial, universal, and unchanging? If so, then I need to watch that show.

    You’ve lost me. I don’t understand what you’re trying to convey here. So instead of wasting time on pop-culture references, let me back up and explain exactly what I meant when I mentioned the Underpants Gnomes.

    You said, “So, if there is imperfection there must perfection. This implies the consistent Christian God of the Bible.”

    Breaking that down for the actual structure of the argument (that is, its logic), I get the following:
    1. People are imperfect. (I had said that we agree on this much.)
    2. Therefore, there is imperfection. (That follows.)
    3. Therefore, there must be perfection. (This is a reasonable inference from the definition of “imperfection,” though I’d argue that the fact that we can conceive of perfection does not necessarily mean it exists in a tangible sense. But ignore that for now, because it’s beside the point.)
    4. Therefore, the Bible (and in particular your reading of it) is true in all its particulars.

    The problem with this argument is that point 4 does not follow at all from point 3. This is why I referred to it as “Underpants Gnomes logic” – there are a huge number of steps necessary to get from point 3 to point 4, and you’ve simply skipped over them and asserted that point 4 must be true. For example, you’d have to show that perfection can have a real, rather than conceptual existence; you’d have to show that perfection must exist in the form of an all-powerful being that exists outside of space and time; you’d have to show that the Universe must necessarily have been created by such a being; and then you’d have to show that the Bible must necessarily be a message from that being to humanity. You haven’t done any of that.

    Is that any clearer?

    No, I have established that there is a creator, you are the one who has doubts.

    I’m not sure how much we’re arguing logic, and how much we’re arguing semantics, but… No. You haven’t established any such thing. You’ve asserted it, but you haven’t shown me that it’s true. You haven’t even shown me that it’s likely. You believe it, and it may very well be so blindingly obvious to you that it’s hard to imagine how anyone could doubt it, but you haven’t actually shown it.

    Since God is eternal as the Bible says, he lives outside of time. Since God is able to see time, he knows the beginning from the end. Now, God attributes are omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. These attribute he has not given to us. What he has given to us is an understanding of his moral attributes. His justice, his wrath, his love and his plan of salvation. God is sovereign. That means he can do what ever does not conflict with his nature. God cannot lie. God said in Genesis let us make man in our image. The reason we don’t lie is because God doesn’t lie. We are made in his image.

    I realize that you’re trying to answer my question about what “made in God’s image” means in terms of the nature of human beings. I would have answered the question slightly differently back when I was a Christian, but I can see that this is an answer for that question. But… and I’m sorry if this feels like a sucker-punch… I’m going to take this as a useful point at which to change the subject. This isn’t meant to avoid addressing what you just said (I will, if you want), but rather to move us to something that I think is more important.

    Here’s the thing I don’t think you understand: none of that means anything to me. I have no reason to believe that an entity even remotely resembling your description of God actually exists, and if such a being does exist I have no reason to believe that the Bible describes Him accurately at all. In fact, I have some reason to believe that the Bible’s explanations of How Things Are, while not entirely without merit, are not actually the most accurate depictions of human nature or man’s place in the world.

    I’m not being obstinate; I genuinely don’t see it. And one of the difficulties you have in addressing atheists is that you seem to have trouble understanding that.

    You could be right about all of this. (As you suggested in relation to atheists behaving morally, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.) But that is not the same thing as giving the rest of us any reason to think it might be true.

    Now when you become a Christian I will certainly tell how I became one.

    This is puzzling to me. Why would you hold out on telling me what persuaded you? Admittedly, it’s probably very personal, and admittedly it might not be persuasive to me. And if you’re uncomfortable trying to explain it to an unbeliever, that’s… well, honestly, that’s more understandable than I was originally going to suggest. So… really, that’s fine. I’d like to know, but that does not in any way obligate you to tell me.

  11. Michael Mock wrote:

    It’s quite possible, incidentally, that some of my fellow unbelievers would agree with you on this point; Nohm seems to believe otherwise, for example

    Hi Michael. I have no idea what you’re talking about here, but that’s less a problem of my reading comprehension of what you’re writing than it is…

    To be clear, with someone that I thought I could have a deep and non-antagonistic philosophical discussion with (like yourself, Michael), I would say that it seems to me that logic was formulated by humans because it works. But then I’m also a determinist, so… yeah. Basically, I think that the illusion works well enough.

  12. Hugo,

    You are absolutely right. I don’t know everything. Only God does. Nor do I pretend to know everything. Your are right about that. I don’t see how you showed I was dumbing down life, by the points you stated. I do not disagree with you when you say life is complex.

    You did a fine job of outlining the laws of math. However the laws of logic cannot be interpreted from one’s point of view. In order to live we assume them to be true.

    Are you saying that the existence of the laws of logic is absurd and futile. Yet at the same time you want to be logical. I could see that you would turn away from trying to explain the laws of logic, but why would you say they are absurd and futile.

    One thing you did not do is to explain how these laws came into existence. Did they come about by human invention or by his convention?

  13. @ Nohm – Honestly, at this point, arguing about the fundamental nature of logic is probably just a huge distraction. Something you wrote earlier seemed to describe logic as having more of an independent existence, but I may simply have misread you (or you may have simply been going along with that view of it because it wasn’t worth arguing about). So, um, nevermind?

  14. “Here’s the thing I don’t think [Richard et al.] understand: none of that means anything to me. I have no reason to believe that an entity even remotely resembling your description of God actually exists, and if such a being does exist I have no reason to believe that the Bible describes Him accurately at all. In fact, I have some reason to believe that the Bible’s explanations of How Things Are, while not entirely without merit, are not actually the most accurate depictions of human nature or man’s place in the world.”

    AMEN!

  15. Richard said:
    “….However the laws of logic cannot be interpreted from one’s point of view. In order to live we assume them to be true.

    Are you saying that the existence of the laws of logic is absurd and futile. Yet at the same time you want to be logical. I could see that you would turn away from trying to explain the laws of logic, but why would you say they are absurd and futile.

    One thing you did not do is to explain how these laws came into existence. Did they come about by human invention or by his convention?”

    First, thank you for taking the time to consider what I wrote.

    Second, what I find absurd is simply the fact that you keep asking how we can account for the laws of logic.

    Third, they did not come into existence. They just are, by definition. They are axioms. They are eternal and not dependant on any mind. They transcend space and time, etc…

    Ok, I ran out of synonym, but that’s the simplest way to put it. Wihtout logical absolutes, you cannot assess the truth of any statement.

    You know what I find really weird with all this though? It’s that saying ‘God created them’ does not account for them at all. It actually creates more problems…

    By saying that God created the logical absolutes, you are basically saying that they are not absolutes, because God could have made them otherwise, since he had the choice.

    If God did not have a choice, it means he was bound by the logical absolutes Himself, which does not make sense right?

    But then again, God, according to some Chrisitian (I don’t know about you) can do anything he wants, as long as it’s logical. Some come up with that explanation to solve the ‘Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it’ problem. This could then be apply to the logical absolutes to say that God could design them the way he wants, as long as it’s logical. but wait! We are saying he created the logical absolutes themselves, but had to be logical when creating them?

    Don’t you see how having a mind that generates the logical absolutes does not work?

    In other words, either God created the logical absolutes, which makes them non-absolutes and make the entire enterprise of logic fail.

    or

    God did not create the logical absolutes, is bound by them, and he did everything else.

    NOTE: This is not, in any way, a proof that God exists, it is, in the simplest way that I can, a way to express why I find the whole debate on ‘accounting for logic’ absurd.

    We all use logic and reason to discuss. Saying that one person cannot account for logic and reason is dishonest. We are all in the same position regarding to them.

    Where we differe is concerning morality, and that’s another complete different subject, with completely different ways of approching it. That’s a problem that Mock has noted in a previous comment by the way, because you, Richard, seens to be confusing the logical absolute with moral absolutes.

    I am not a philospher or specialist in any of this so correct me if I made mistakes…

  16. (correction)
    NOTE: This is not, in any way, a proof that God **does not** exists, …

  17. Michael wrote:

    Honestly, at this point, arguing about the fundamental nature of logic is probably just a huge distraction.

    Agreed.

    Something you wrote earlier seemed to describe logic as having more of an independent existence, but I may simply have misread you (or you may have simply been going along with that view of it because it wasn’t worth arguing about).

    Either of those explanations are likely, especially the latter. 🙂

    So, um, nevermind?

    All good. 🙂

  18. Nohm,

    Which scientific miracles are in the Koran? I do not know of any. It is my understanding that years later in Islamic history like 200 years after Mohamed. The copies of the existing Koran where compiled into one version and the exigent copies were than burned. That’s why one does not see foot notes in the Koran. Additionally, since the issue of miracles was clearly written into the Bible, the critics of (the Koran) that day would argue for such proofs (miracles) of the prophet Mohamed being a true prophet. Hence, miracles were inserted into the revised version of the Koran.

    For a clearer understanding you can view: Dr. James White on the Reliability of the New Testament text.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuiayuxWwuI&feature=player_embedded

    Beyond this than you would definitely agree that the Koran is not a religion of peace. And by the way, Christianity is not a religion. Religion implies that we must do something to earn salvation. The Bible clearly teaches that it is by grace we are saved not by works.

  19. “Religion implies that we must do something to earn salvation.”

    What? Where are you getting this?

    Definitions of Religion.

    I’m now officially baffled.

  20. Richard wrote:

    Which scientific miracles are in the Koran? I do not know of any.

    Well, earlier you stated that you had never read the Qur’an so… I’m not sure why this (you not knowing of the scientific miracles in the Qur’an) is supposed to be a surprise.

    Is there a reason why looking stuff up appears to be anathema to you? I mean, all you have to do is type in “scientific miracles of the koran” into google. It would take you five seconds.

    Here’s the link: http://www.google.com/search?aq=0&q=scientific+miracles+in+the+quran

    Additionally, since the issue of miracles was clearly written into the Bible, the critics of (the Koran) that day would argue for such proofs (miracles) of the prophet Mohamed being a true prophet.

    And Muslims would tell you that Mohammed displayed these proofs.

    Again, I’m at an absolute loss as to why you wouldn’t look this stuff up.

  21. Michael,

    I know you are baffled because you are a non-believer.

  22. No, I’m baffled because you are defining the word “religion” in a way that’s completely different from the way everyone else in the world uses it. I’m pretty sure that has nothing to do with me being a non-believer.

  23. Nohm,

    I am not really a lazy person, as your post seems to imply. I have worked very hard all my life from the age of 7 and only recently have I retired. I have a family and I pay my taxes. I would consider myself to be very responsible. (there goes my humbleness, I repent)

    You failed to understand my argument. The argument is, the original writings in the Koran do not contain miracles. It is only the revised version written hundreds of years later that they (miracles) where inserted. Why do you not understand this? This subject has been debated on various forums.

    This information is available to you or you can accept my word on it. Again, when evaluating a worldview, if there are contradictions within it, it should be tossed out. Would you not agree with this?

    I put forth the argument that the Koran if a false religion. This is my premise based on the contradictions which I have already shared, and others that I have come to learn. Of which, you have agreed. Once an open minded person finds contradictions then one need not study it to find or explain and answer the reasons for man’s existence. The Christian worldview explains life questions completely and absolutely and ultimately.

    What Muslims will tell me is not the issue. The issue is which worldview do you believe to make more sense the Islam or Christianity. Based upon the passage I have pointed out from the Koran so far. It seems to me that you are throwing out the baby with the bath water.

    I challenge you to see if you find any contradictions in this:

    “The Lord is a jealous and avenging God; the Lord takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The Lord takes vengeance on his foes and maintains his wrath against his enemies. The Lord is slow to anger and great in power; the Lord will not leave the guilty unpunished”.

    I hope this helps.

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.