The Failed Atheist

Moving Blogs

2012-01-09T02:58:00.000-08:00

This blog for the foreseeable future will not be updated, however I will still respond to comments on older posts. From now on I'll be based with some friends over at HERE.

Thanks for visiting and reading,

Daniel

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Question Time - A pointless statement from Jesus in Matthews Gospel?

2011-12-16T07:53:00.000-08:00

This weeks question comes from Ogunitracy who asked the following question -

Jesus said "Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God"

I think I follow the logic. God is pure, so to see Him, you should be pure. Only problem is, no one is pure, remember? We're all sinners according to Romans 3. So, wasn't Jesus' statement kind of a waste of time? What pure in heart?

Beatitudes and Memory

The scripture in question is found in Matthew 5:8 in what is known as the 'Beatitudes' which are sayings that describe the attitudes of a true disciple and follower of Jesus. The structure of the way Jesus teaches these beatitudes to his listeners is intentional and purposefully designed to make them easy to memorize [1]. The historical context of those he was teaching were those in an oral culture, in such a culture certain mnemonic devices would be used to aid the hearers to remember what they had heard. Hence Jesus' use of a rhythmic structure and repetition 'Blessed are the....' allows easy memorization but also highlights the importance of what he has to say. Relying on such devices was an important part of an oral culture since many were unable to read and write or such luxuries were not available to the majority of people, so dependency on memory and ways to remember important matters were highly important. Such literary devices as Jesus displays allowed many Jews to remember large quantities of information accurately through an array of literary devices, this allowed some Jews able to recite the whole Torah orally from memory.

Matthew 5:8 and Interpretation

The real thrust of the question if I understand it correctly is that Jesus' statement regarding the pure in heart is essentially a nonsense statement if he's telling us that only those who are morally pure will see God. The questioners right if Jesus is telling us that only those who are morally pure or perfect will see God then none of us will and the saying makes no sense. Having a pure heart means more than just being morally pure, when we understand the gospel and understand Gods grace it should be clear that such an interpretation is mistaken, I don't recommend ever interpreting any scripture in isolation out of its larger context.

Understanding the larger context of a narrative informs us how to interpret the smaller parts, such an understanding here means that interpreting the word 'pure' as moral perfection isn't warranted, and such a suggestion to both Jesus initial listeners and to us today places a demand that everyone knows they can't meet.

The Beatitudes are descriptive statements that describe what Jesus followers are or will be doing which at-least tells us that its not impossible to achieve, which moral perfection is, hence the need for a perfect saviour to stand in our place and represent us before God [Hebrews 8:1-2]. Jesus was telling his listeners something that described what was actually possible to live out, the beatitudes are not a list of impossible character traits, they detail the ways in which Christians should and do live.

When Jesus uses the term 'pure in heart' his listeners would have understood him to be alluding to Psalm 73 where the pure in heart are described as being the 'those in Israel whose hearts were ''clean'' or undefiled, those who recognised that God alone was their help and reward' [2]. Having a pure heart means living under Gods rule, living a life that is pleasing to God and having a heart that is devoted to God.

A pure heart describes a desire and not a state, that is a clear distinction that must be recognised otherwise it leads to a religious idea of condemnation where one can never be good enough, when in fact in light of Gods grace to us through Jesus there is no condemnation [Romans 8:1].

Peter in his letter describes what I think is the best biblical description of what it means to have a pure heart, 'You won't spend the rest of your lives chasing your own desires, but you will be anxious to do the will of God.' [1 Peter 4:3].

What does Jesus mean by being blessed?

The problem of translating foreign words into English can present difficulties when trying to fully comprehend what was meant to be understood. What in English Bibles is translated as just 'blessed' corresponds to the Greek Makarios and Hebrew asher which simultaneously mean 'blessed', 'happy' and 'fortunate' all at the same time [3].

In Conclusion, the syllogism posed in the question is mistaken because although God is pure and morally perfect, its equivocating to suggest that 'pure' in the context means moral perfection and ascribes such a demand to Christians. A pure heart is one in which the believer has undiluted, undivided loyalty to God, a life that is difficult enough without requiring the impossible. This passage understood in the light of the rest of scripture presents us with a challenge but not an impossible one, Romans chapter 3 demonstrates to us that we are all sinners in Gods sight and need someone to save us. God has done just that by living, dying and resurrecting in history for us and when we accept his forgiveness and gift we now 'want' to live and think about the pure things that God wants us to.

And now, dear brothers and sisters, one final thing. Fix your thoughts on what is true, and honourable, and right, and pure, and lovely, and admirable. Think about things that are excellent and worthy of praise. [Philippians 4:8]

Hope that helps a little.

[1] Matthew, R.T France, 1985.
[2] The IVP BIble Background Commentary: New Testament, Keener.
[3] Jewish New Testament Commentary, Stern.

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Monthly Links - December

2011-12-04T07:55:00.000-08:00

The Evangelical Rejection of Reason

Tough Text Thursday - Genesis 6:4

One Minute Apologist - Here's a taster

Say Hello to my Little Friend - Divine Command Ethics: Ontology versus epistemology

Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologists

The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Sceptism - Tim Keller - Its the best £3.60 you will probably spend for some time, however if your not worried about cash please buy it from a bookshop and help keep them open.

Faith and Work - Some great lectures from NT Wright, Tim Keller and others on Christianity, culture and the work-place.

263 Theological Questions and Answers - A great resource from the guys over at Credo House Ministries/Reclaiming the Mind.

Christmas: Pagan Festival or Christian Celebration? - Well it is the season of goodwill when these sorts of accusations start flying around again.

Zeitgeist Refuted

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

The Best Critique of the 'Word of Faith' Movement on the Internet

2011-11-14T11:24:00.000-08:00

This is part 1 of 4 short videos called "A Call for Discernment" A Biblical Critique of the Word of Faith Movement by Justin Peters. Its presentation that he gives to churches all over the US.

I've not found a better critique of the Word of Faith movement anywhere else, some people might not like him because he names people, but if your not persuaded by the examples Justin gives then I don't really know what else can be said. I could write a whole list of problems and make a list of all the reasons the Word of Faith movement is destroying Christianity from the inside out, but Justin says it all better than I could. Please listen! Its easy to waste time on the internet but for a Christian this is 40 minutes well invested.

Here's part 1 -

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

A short Critique of The God Delusion - Christianity and the Sanctity of Human Life parts 1 - 4

2011-11-14T03:45:00.000-08:00

I will be doing a few posts to basically discuss and critique our favourite household atheist Richard Dawkins' section about Christianity, abortion and sanctity of life issues in his best selling book The God Delusion. Now I'm aware that he does attack some other belief systems in this small section but I will however only address his arguments put forth against a biblical Christian viewpoint of these issues. I would ask that if you have a copy to read the pages noted in the title and maybe post a reply at the bottom to ask any questions you may have. As I will explain below I think its important to understand what the Christian view of these issues are, this is because Richard Dawkins seems to specialise in attacking straw men or views of people who are quite clearly the minority within the minority which is easy to do, I could do this against atheism however this would be intellectually dishonest. I will therefore show in future posts that his arguments set forth against Christianity and for abortion are deficient and flawed.

However, before I get started on the book I just want to try and make the true Christian/biblical view of the sanctity of life clear, this is the view that is most clear throughout scripture, throughout church history and held by the majority of Christians today. We believe that all people were created by God, both male and female and equal in value and worth regardless of age, physical or mental capacity, age or stage of human development (Gen 1:27, James 3:9, Isaiah 44:24). This means that we view human beings as persons who have value and worth and should possess the right not to be selectively killed at any stage of life. Psalm 139 highlights Gods involvement even while we were being formed in our mothers womb, king David was known and loved by God whilst in the womb and acknowledges that he was wonderfully made (Psalm 139:13-16).

We believe that God makes himself quite clear that the intentional, unauthorised taking of human life is morally wrong and condemned within the ten commandments, 'Do not murder.'(Exodus 20:13). This encompasses all people of all stages of life, there is no need for the Bible to specify specifically the unborn no more than it would be necessary to say men, women, old people or people of a specific colour, its just all human beings, full stop.

The Christian argument could be stated as the following:

1) The intentional killing of an innocent human being is morally wrong.

2) Abortion is the taking of an innocent human being, however this is not the case when a child's life is lost due to a medical intervention attempting to save the mothers life.

3) Abortion is therefore the taking of innocent life and must certainly be viewed as morally wrong.

This means that as Christians we hold that life should be protected at any stage of human development, whether in the womb or out of it. I'd also like to highlight that this view is not just a modern view but it's a historical one, its just simply always been the dominant view, I'm glad God values life. Christians have always held that it is our duty to protect human life both lovingly and peacefully. John Calvin states that

"The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being and it is a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own home than in a field, because a man's house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light."

Tertullian many centuries earlier said with equal conviction that "It does not matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. In both instances, the destruction is murder" (Apology 9:4).

It was common practice in ancient Greek and Roman cultures to leave unwanted children outside and exposed to the elements to die, it was promoted and practised for hundreds of years. It took practical steps such as rescuing many of the children and bringing them up themselves, and voicing their concerns with the moral depravity of such practices. Christianity was certainly the major catalyst in ending and opposing the common practice of infanticide in western civilisation!

Well now we have had a quick glimpse at the biblical reason behind valuing the life, next time I get round to blogging I'll get into the real meat of the God Delusion and thoughts of Mr Dawkins.

To see the rest of the critique please follow the links below.

Part 2 here
Part 3 here
Part 4 here

Let me know your thoughts as usual.

Jesus the Atheist

2011-11-08T03:21:00.000-08:00

I came across a recent video containing more rigorously tested scientific conclusions by my old friend Richard Dawkins who makes a couple of interesting claims, in a recent interview by John Harris over at the Guardian in his National Conversations series. One of my favourite claims from Oxfords finest was that if Jesus knew what we all knew today he to would have been an Atheist just like Dawkins.

You can listen to a short clip of that particular highlight below:

Jesus and the intelligent Atheists

Richards claim that if Jesus knew as much as he did he would've been an Atheist might be seen by some to be a rather pretentious claim but not Richard. But as we know its never stopped him before, he lives for making outrageous claims or overstating his case, if he were a character in Mortal Combat I think that would be his special move..he'd just throw silly and often unfounded claims in your face.

Being intelligent doesn't necessarily mean you will be an Atheist, history demonstrates to us that many of the greatest minds both past and presently have seen nothing wrong in acknowledging God as their creator and following Jesus, that obviously doesn't make Christianity true. Arguing that clever people don't usually believe in God is equally fallacious, Atheists don't have the monopoly on intelligence. Dawkins statement exposes how Eurocentric many of his views are, since secularization simply hasn't had the same effects around the world as it has here in large portions of western Europe. Many scientists outside of the west are quite capable of practising the scientific method, and are as knowledgeable but without ending up with Dawkins Atheism as are many in North America and many in Europe still remain. Secularization is far more complicated a concept and process than some Atheists usually characterize it as being.

Big brains can defend bad ideas

The intelligentsia of society has defended and advocated all sorts of beliefs and ideologies throughout history, such as the radical programs of Eugenics practised in North America and Europe in the early to mid 20th century, does arguing that they were intelligent justify what they were arguing for? Clearly not, although as an Atheist they could only really argue that these groups had different moral preferences than they might have today. Just in case you don't believe me that very intelligent people can be wrong, look at the case of the Nobel Laureate winning and outspoken Atheist James Watson who argues that Africans are intellectually inferior to Europeans. Should we assume that because he is highly intelligent he must be correct?

Dr Gregory House

Reasons people give for Atheism differ so widely that it would be ignorant to put it purely down to intelligence, some assume Atheism at a young age with no intellectual basis for it, others have a bad experience which pushes them in that direction and some just like the philosophical implications of Atheism. Being an Atheists actually pretty cool nowadays, 'cool' Atheists are everywhere on TV, people watch House and think they can be as bad-ass as he is through attacking religious straw-men and crazy religious people, the sought of which I've never encountered as a Christian. I do love watching House by the way..he is a bad-ass and a moron at the same-time, its very entertaining. House is my opinion is the major PR man for Atheism in the US and even over here in the UK.

Even if the premise were true that most intelligent people are Atheists it doesn't warrant a good argument, argument from intelligence aren't used in philosophical circles nowadays for obvious reasons.

Jesus as a good moral teacher

Richard has claimed before that he likes Jesus, well not the bit about him being God, but some of his moral teachings, he respects him as a great moral teacher. But as CS Lewis noted many moons ago in his popular trilemma, anyone making the claims Jesus made regardless of his moral teachings should be suitably ignored if he wasn't actually God incarnate. He was either a liar, lunatic or Lord, some have tried to add to the three by suggesting that Jesus was a legend or an alien from outer space. Or perhaps Jesus was just honestly mistaken, you know it happens...oops I thought I was God.

Richard can't have his cake and eat it, Jesus was either who he said he was [..and worshipped as by his earliest followers] or he was a fraud or a madman the option of just a good moral teacher is not one that Jesus left open for anyone, even Dawkins. Many people have claimed to be God but they usually reside in psychiatric institutions, unless it was true I doubt you would let them give you moral guidance!

Would Jesus be an Atheist if he was earth today?

Well clearly not, since he acknowledged that he was the son of God, accepted worship as God from his followers, spoke with the authority of God, was crucified and raised from the dead by the power of God. I've got a feeling that Dawkins may be mistaken on this one...but what would I know I haven't got a degree and doctorate in Zoology, nor am I an expert in animal behaviour.

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Apologetics: Dealing with the Problem of Suffering?

2011-11-05T04:38:00.000-07:00

Recently Andrew Wilson, an author, theologian and apologist here in the UK, spoke in a Camberley church about 7 do's and don'ts With Apologetics. One of the 7 points was to make sure that you know the background of the question being asked, don't just jump into answering a question when you haven't got all of the facts.

An example of this was dealing with the problem of suffering. Often times Christians, and I've done this as well, will answer the problem of suffering question by going straight to the fall of man and discussing why sin entered the world and so suffering entered the world with it. Though theologically this may be a correct answer, it leaves nothing for the listener to grab hold of.

The problem of suffering can often come from a personal experience of suffering and the fall of man is such an impersonal response that it falls short of being satisfying as an answer. It is likely that the issue with the problem of suffering actually comes down to the problem of death and with that a question can be given back: why is it that something within us doesn't like death? No matter how long a person has lived, their family still mourns their loss. No matter how often we see suffering on the news something within us still says this is wrong. Why? What solution does their current world view have for this problem?

The gospel holds an amazing answer that death has no place in this world and in the end, pain and suffering will be removed. It is why it is such good news. No other religion's founder has successfully conquered death and no other world view will be able to provide such hope or an intellectually satisfying response as to why we naturally feel that death is a terrible thing. Jesus empty tomb can give us all hope.

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Monthly Links - November

2011-11-01T11:19:00.000-07:00

John Lennox at his best -

The Resurgence - Is a Christian leadership blog that states to promote 1. Gospel Centred Theology 2. Spirit-Filled lives 3. Complementarian Relationships and 4. Missional Churches. Its a great resource with well made videos and insightful articles on a whole host of subjects that range from Preaching to Marriage to eating well, enjoy.

Tim Tebow - For those over here in the UK you probably won't have heard of Tim Tebow [He's an NFL player] before but for those in the US you will either love him or hate him, like Marmite [Which Americans won't understand]! This is a recent article from the USA Today Faith and Reason blog on the controversy that is praying in public, good article and you get a bit of flavour for what Tim's really about.

God and Evolution: A Book review - Great review by Melissa over at Hard-Core Christianity of this collection of essays edited by Jay Richards.

The Case for Apologetics - This a great essay by Brian Auten over at Apologetics 315, which is one of the best Christian Apologetics resources out there. If you are a Christian and you don't know what the word Apologetics means or its role in Christianity is then please read the article.

The Trinity explained in 4 minutes - Justin Holcomb explains the trinity in 4 minutes, lots of Christians may not understand this complicated doctrine so hopefully this video may be of some help.

Why God loves Halloween - Some different insights into how Christians should understand Halloween over at the Blue Fish project.

Jesus and History - New Testament scholar Ben Witherington looks at Jesus in human history with further link to Jesus and women, money and wisdom.

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Whats your worldview?

2011-10-30T01:42:00.000-07:00

What we believe or assume about the world affects how we live in it, what we do, what we don't do and ultimately grounds all the big decisions we make in it. James Sire describes a worldview as:

"A worldview is a set of presuppositions (or assumptions) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously) about the basic make-up of our world."

Our worldview is one of the most important things to test, since if our worldview doesn't stand up to scrutiny then surely we have a responsibility to change it and live in accordance to one which does. What's your world-view and does it stand up to scrutiny?

For a good introductory article on worldviews you can read a great article at Probe here.

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Why should pastors know their bible?

2011-10-28T02:23:00.000-07:00

Joel Osteen has accidentally made it very clear in the video below why pastors should know their doctrine. As a pastor of a mega church, you would have thought he would have known a little bit about the differences between Mormonism and Christianity.

Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to realise that Mormonism denies the most major doctrines of the Christian faith. For a clear response to this video and a comparison of the Christian Jesus and the Mormon Jesus, check out this post here: Joel Osteen on Mormonism.

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Craig v Law - Does God Exist? A Short Review

2011-10-18T13:19:00.000-07:00

So last night was the first stop on 'The Reasonable Faith Tour' which sees William Lane Craig [WLC] touring the UK for a series of debates, lectures and a conference. Last night at the Methodist Hall, Westminster he took on the Atheist Philosopher Stephen Law [SL] in what turned out to be a pretty entertaining evening, and was attended by over 1700 people which demonstrates that this is something people are interested in.

To find out more about William Lane Craig see his website here, for Stephen Law his blog can be viewed here.

WLC didn't disappoint, he was clear, well argued and reasonable and to the surprise of SL he only used 3 main arguments, which were the Cosmological Argument, Moral Argument and the historical facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth. It did appear that SL was expecting WLC to use the Argument from Fine Tuning since he he started to address it then quickly realised that WLC hadn't actually used it. One qualm I have with these types of debates is that they are not always the best sort of events to bring your next-door neighbour to, I did think to myself a few times last night that I didn't have a clue what they were talking about..sometimes it can just go right over your head a little. But I suppose this was an philosophical debate and not 2 school friends arguing about who they like better out of Lady Gaga and Rihanna!

WLC's three main arguments:

There are good reasons to believe God exists.

The origin of the universe
- The universe began to exist
- If the universe began to exist then the universe has a transcendent cause
- Therefore the Universe has a transcendent cause

Objective moral values and duties in the world
- If God did not exist, objective values and duties would not exist
- Objective moral values and duties do exist
- Therefore God exists

The historical facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth
- Jesus' tomb found empty by women and his disciples
- Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus to his followers
- Jesus physical resurrection is the best explanation of all the historical data

Obviously these were all expanded upon but that's a very basic summary of WLC's opening statement, but you'll get more of a feel for it by listening to it, I'll add a link at the end of the post.

As I've said before I like Stephen Law and appreciated him stepping in to face WLC which must be quite a daunting proposition, he did appear a little sheepish at times but I think he made his case well, but he still ultimately failed to make the case for Atheism or provide any philosophical evidence that God doesn't actually exist. His main argument was the evidential argument from the evil God hypothesis, which although emotionally strong ultimately as a philosophical argument against the existence of God fails, as WLC went on to demonstrate. In fact as he openly admitted his argument doesn't really disprove the idea of a deity per se, which made it more of an argument to suspend judgement and not for out and out Atheism.

A few highlights of the evening were the many Atheists in attendance who weren't polite enough to keep quiet and felt the need to either rant out loud or scream 'rubbish' at the points they didn't like in WLC's speech even after being asked not to several times by staff.

SL arguing embarrassingly poorly against WLC's argument regarding Jesus resurrection, his main argument involved some obscure UFO story which he should have kept to himself, followed by letting us all know that the renowned Christian Philosopher Alvin Plantinga doesn't see much merit to the argument. That was really all his response was to the resurrection which didn't really add up to much which was a shame, I was hoping to hear something a little more earth-shattering. To compare his example of a UFO scenario with the mountain of evidence surrounding Jesus' resurrection exposes his lack of familiarity with the strength of the case, which I suppose isn't that surprising for a philosopher. But since WLC uses it in most of his debates it should have warranted more of a response since SL should have been aware that he would be likely be use it during the debate.

Since SL failed to address WLC's Cosmological argument, he pretty much said he didn't know, we were all left with a case for a strange type of Atheism and the conclusion that at least an immaterial, eternal, timeless, space-less and transcendent Good or Evil God exists due to SL's failure to address the Cosmological argument. His lack of engagement with the cosmological argument was almost unforgivable and as you would expect WLC didn't let him forget it.

Whether an Atheist or Christian, at the end of the debate you couldn't really come away with any other conclusion other than the winner was WLC, SL failed to really engage enough with the arguments WLC offered or when he did it just wasn't persuasive. Sadly these sorts of debates tend to leave people with the same beliefs they had coming in regardless of the result, but it's a great spark for discussion and the number in attendance clearly demonstrates that this is something the British public are interested in hearing about!

To listen to the whole debate follow the link here from the Unbelievable Radio Show hosted my Justin Brierley. Enjoy, let me know what you thought of the debate. There's also another link to the debate through Brian at Apologetics315 here.

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

A Micro Book Review - Confessions of a Reformation Rev. Mark Driscoll

2011-10-17T00:55:00.000-07:00

Who? Mark Driscoll is the founding Pastor of Mars Hill Church, Seattle in the USA. He's a popular author and communicator with an emphasis on reformed theology. He's often seen as a controversial figure since he's not afraid to speak his mind, and commonly has his views misrepresented all over the internet although sometimes he doesn't do himself any favours! He's earned much of his notoriety within Christian circles for his sermon series on the Song of Songs known as 'The Peasant Princess' which I actually found quite helpful.

However I personally find him quite refreshing as a young man since he places a fair amount of emphasis on praying, reading the Bible, learning good theology, leading your family, getting married, treating your wife well, living a missional life, loving Jesus and sharing the Gospel, all of which I consider good things.

What? Confessions of a Reformation Rev [CRR] details Driscoll and his wife's journey from starting Mars Hill Church with just a couple of people in a college dorm-room to a multi-campus mega-church and one of the fastest growing churches in the world it is today. It outlines his many struggles, mistakes and trials he went through to build a growing and vibrant church that is faithful to the gospel in what was one of the least churched cities in the USA.

I particularly like Driscolls missional emphasis on the Christian life and found his ideas on Ecclesiology [The branch of theology that is concerned with the nature, constitution, and functions of a church] and Missiology [The area of practical theology that investigates the mandate, message, and mission of the Christian church, especially the nature of missionary work] some of the highlights of the book. I was surprised at the level of openness he shares in the book regarding some of his struggles in being obedient to Gods call on his life, whilst trying to lead an often-times messy church, family life and frankly by the end I couldn't help but think that without God there was no-way he would have got to where he is unless God was involved, because many times it all looked doomed to fail.

In some sense CRR made me excited yet at the same scared about ever planting a church and it made me realise that you really need to know that its something God wants you to be doing because in all likelihood its gonna be a long tough roller-coaster of a ride!

More than anything this is a practical and encouraging book with each chapter recording a different stage in the life of the church usually to do with the size of the church and the challenges that accompany each of those steps. Its also funny, I laughed several times out-loud as did my wife when she read it through, it helps to break-up some of the more serious issues.

The Finer Details? Its 207 pages long or short depending on what you like to read, so its an easy read to get through in a couple of days. It was released in 2006 so if you want to find out what Driscoll and the church have been up-to since then you can check out his personal website here.

Memorable Quotes: 'Jesus Incarnation is in itself missional. God the Father sent God the Son into culture, on a mission to redeem the elect by the power of God the Ghost. After his resurrection, Jesus also sent his disciples into culture, on a mission to proclaim the success of his mission, and commissioned all Christians to likewise be missionaries to the cultures of the world...[p.26]'

'His response was simply, 'If it smells like a church, it is a church.' My response was that sometimes a whore wears the same perfume as a wife, and its no different with the bride of Christ. [p.47]'

'You need to stop watching porno and crying like a baby after-ward and grow-up, man... A naked lady is good to look at, so get a job, get a wife, ask her to get naked, and look at her instead. Alright? [p.60]'

Should you buy it? Yes, definitely worth a read, its earned its place in my library. You can buy it through Amazon right now if you like. Even if your not a fan of Driscoll there's still alot of positive lessons that can be taken from it without you having to agree on his method or with his views.

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Don't worry Richard theres an empty chair waiting for you at the Sheldonian Theatre!!

2011-10-12T14:24:00.000-07:00

I've just read that Richard Dawkins has been banned from speaking at a Michigan Country Club in the US [which I don't agree with!], poor fella. He shouldn't worry too much though if he wants to be heard, there's still an empty chair waiting for him and lots of eager people wanting to listen to him defend his book the 'God Delusion' against William Lane Craig at the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford at the end of the month.

For more about William Lane Craigs UK tour see here.

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Monthly Links - October

2011-10-11T02:49:00.000-07:00

Bespeaking - For those who speak at University's or elsewhere, the Bespeaking website/blog provides some fascinating insights and pointers in making sure your talk/lunch-bar is effective and relevant in getting the Gospel across in what can often be a challenging environment. I have particularly found the tips on dealing with questions in the Q and A time after the talk particularly helpful.

Apologetics 315 - If you didn't know already Apologetics 315 is the place to be for the latest news in Apologetics and provides interviews with some of Christianity s greatest thinkers, the latest debates, book reviews and a whole heap of other resources, if your not a regular reader you should be!

Mark Driscoll [Neither Poverty or Prosperity Theology] - Listen to Mark Driscoll as he explains and exposes two extremes Christians often take in regards to wealth and possessions.

Theology Matters - The Dark Side of Emerging Adulthood - Andrew Wilson discusses a recent book that exposes the slow decay of the moral framework of today's young people.

Top 15 Must Have Books on Apologetics - I've read 8 out of the 15, how many have you read?

Francis Chan - The Balance Beam - Francis Chan talks about suffering, not following the crowd and finishing our race well.

The Life of D L Moody -Find out about the famous preacher who who had a long lasting influence both in Th US and over here in the UK, "If this world is going to be reached, I am convinced that it must be done by men and women of average talent."

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Thrice - Promises

2011-10-10T11:12:00.000-07:00

This is from Thrices latest album Major/Minor and the songs called Promises, enjoy!

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Just be yourself

2011-10-08T04:22:00.000-07:00

This is so true I remember hearing David Pawson speak once, he was old, spoke plainly with no raze-mataz for about 2 hours and I could have listened to him for hours. Purely because of the gifts God has given him, if I try to be David Pawson people would just fall asleep. As much as we look up-to certain people we are us and not them, God made wants all his people to be like Jesus as themselves, not as Mark Driscoll or John Piper. Your favourite preacher isn't where you are, you are! Have a great week-end.

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Apostasy in Islam and Yousef Nadarkhani

2011-10-01T00:01:00.000-07:00

Its good to know that there are millions of Christians around the world praying for Pastor Yousef and hopefully the Iranian government will feel suitably pressured enough by the rest of the world to ignore the Qu'ran and the Hadiths [Sahih Bukhari Vol 9, Book 83, Number 17 etc]. It's easy to forget that were we not in a modern time where its easy to find out the latest news and events Pastor Yousef would probably have already have been executed, its a common practice that's been carried out since the time of Muhammad nearly fifteen hundred years ago. Where most of the world has moved on from such barbaric and insecure practices the developed Muslim world unfortunately looks likely to continue doing so if they are going to take the commands of the Qu'ran and Hadith seriously. Ignoring the holy books of Islam is obviously difficult for Muslims so this looks like a problem thats going to continue, I mean you can't exactly reinterpret this can you... I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" [Sahih Bukhari Vol 9, Book 84, Number 57]?

Please take the time to contact the Iranian embassy on Pastor Yousefs behalf here please, it won't take long!

To find out more about Pastor Yousef Nadarkani please read more here.

Apostasy in Islam

Were a Muslim to become a Christian several consequences would be likely, that person could be threatened with death for leaving Islam [Apostasy], verbally and physically abused, lose their job, lose the custody of their children, and be shunned by both their family and community and ultimately risk being killed. Some believers have to endure all of that and others face a combination. This has been the consistent experience of Muslim back-ground believers in nations with a sizeable Muslim population . Apostasy from Islam is taken seriously for several reasons of which I will go onto discuss, it must be understood that many Muslims see Muhammad as someone whom should be imitated in every-way, this means that if Muhammad took apostasy seriously it should be no surprise to us that Muslims take it equally as seriously! Muslims are commanded in the Qur’an to follow the Prophet Muhammad’s example in Surah 3:32 which reads ‘Obey Allah and his messenger [Muhammad]’.

How did Muhammad deal with Apostasy?

There are two sources that Muslims generally derive their beliefs, practices and laws from, these are the Qur’an and the Hadith [The sayings of the Prophet Muhammad]. There are certain sayings that are considered more authoritative than others; Sahih Bukhari is considered to be the most authoritative along with Sahih Muslim. It is in Sahih Bukhari that we find a clear command where Muhammad makes it clear that it is acceptable to kill a person whom leaves Islam.

Narrated 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." [Sahih Bukhari Vol 9, Book 83, Number 17]

It should come then as no surprise then that if Muhammad himself commanded that death was the suitable punishment for Apostasy then we must, especially in the Western world understand that we are dealing with a practice that is intrinsically part of Islamic practice and that Muslims are expected to follow the example of the prophet Muhammad. To expect Muslims not to practice the punishment set out for Apostasy is to completely misunderstand the fundamental core teachings of Islamic ideology which is clearly to obey Allah and his prophet.

Another example is again found in Sahih Bukhari;

Narrated 'Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" [Sahih Bukhari Vol 9, Book 84, Number 57]

The context surrounding this saying suggests that these ‘Atheists’ were in fact once Muslims who were in fact burned alive for leaving Islam however death by such means is reserved for Allah’s use in hell and in fact they should have beheaded them, a more fitting execution supposedly. In fact it is also stipulated once again in Sahih Bukhari that there will even be a reward for those Muslims whom actually kill Apostates in the ‘last days’. Perhaps this goes some way into explaining how some Muslims can justify taking part in activities that end with the loss of life non-Muslims.

... I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection." [Sahih Bukhari Vol 9, Book 84, Number 64]

The command for Muslims to kill Apostates is most clearly set out in the Hadiths but there are certainly many verses that pertain to the same conclusion being reached in the Qur’an, and as this is not meant as an expansive look into the practice the reader may examine the following texts for themselves found in the Qur’an in Surahs 2:217, 4:89, 5:54, 9:11-12,66, 73-74 and 88:21.

What this brief examination suggests is that there is in fact very little freedom of religion in Islam, specifically for those who were at one time Muslims themselves. This brief examination demonstrates why moderate Muslims often struggle to argue satisfactorily and convincingly against the weight of evidence that suggests that Muslims must imitate their prophet and kill those who turn their backs on Islam. This is not surprising since Islam is primarily focused on external obedience and practice and such barbaric consequences are certainly likely to put people off from committing Apostasy. Of course you won’t catch many Muslims talking about this in the West.

I’m a firm believer that although there are some obvious problems within Western society, those problems, rights and freedoms are worth defending. We clearly have the right to choose what religion or world-view we follow without the fear of death for doing so, and that is indeed something that the West should continue to hold in high esteem.

What about Surah 2:256?

Now assuming you have read to this point some people may be thinking but what about that often quoted passage from the Qur’an which states ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ [Surah 2:256]? However before we just take this at face value we must make sure we are practising a hermeneutic that takes into account the rest of the Qur’an, Hadiths and Islamic history.

Throughout Islamic history it is argued that there have been several different ways to understand this passage. Some of these are that this passage has been abrogated [Abolished or annulled] by later revelations such as Surah 9:73 which states that Muslims should ‘...Struggle against the unbelievers and hypocrites and be harsh with them’. So how can the command to have no compulsion in religion be understood in light of the command to treat ‘unbelievers’ [people of other religions or world-views] harshly? Some Muslims may say they were just being harsh with one specific group, but even taking that into account it still doesn’t seem that one could simply quote the peaceful and tolerant verse in light of the rest of the Qur’an, hadiths and fifteen hundred years of Islamic history, or is that just me?

Some other alternate explanations have included that the toleration is limited to non-Muslims who live under Islamic subjugation [Dhimmitude] but remain believers in their chosen religion, or some have understood it to be referring to non-Muslims but excluding Apostates, prisoners of war and children. This has historically from what I have read been the application and interpretation most commonly applied, in which it gives no hope for those from Muslim-backgrounds whom choose Christianity or other religion over Islam [Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, Bat Ye’or, 2002].

What this demonstrates is that there are some intrinsic problems for those seeking to demonstrate that Islam is a religion of freedom and tolerance, although there are some passages that on the surface seem to be compelling Muslims to be tolerant they must be understood in the context of being around verses and traditions that teach otherwise, along with an early history that is equally troubling. I’m certainly not trying to say I have the answers but as someone who works with the persecuted church it’s important for me and others to understand why Muslim-background believers are looking at such a difficult future after leaving Islam. This is why it is so important that Christians work with Muslim-background believers and give them the help that we are commanded to do in scripture. I find it truly surprising that any Muslims leave Islam at all taking into account the difficulties they will likely incur which is the point of having such serious punishments. There looks to be no easy solution.

Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body. [Hebrews 13:3]

Christian Apologetic

For those reading who may well be thinking but what about the history of violence perpetrated by Christians? Christians have to actually ignore the words of Jesus not follow them [Mat 5:44], historically Christians understand that vengeance is Gods job not ours [Rom 12:19-21]. When Christianity became a political entity in ‘Christendom’ any nation where the king or leader ‘converted’ meant that the whole populace was now considered such and any evil committed would be considered a Christian act. However many times such a conversion was for financial gains rather than an actual belief in Jesus’ atoning work on the cross. This also allowed for the abuse of such 'christian' nations to be used for the selfish means of people in places of power. It can be enlightening to also compare the first one hundred years of both Islam and Christianity, Islam by AD 732 [Muhammad died in AD 632] had conquered its way to present day France culminating in the Battle of Poitiers, whereas Christians were still being torn apart by lions and killed by the early second century.

To find out more about the persecuted Church see – Opendoors and Compass-direct.

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Redeemed rap from Lecrae

2011-09-18T12:41:00.000-07:00

I really can't stand rap music especially all that stuff that about guns, ho's and drugs, not really my thing. But Lecrae, now this is rap music I can listen to, he's down to earth, intelligent and theologically sound, so if you want to hear what redeemed rap sounds like have a listen to two of my favourite Lecrae tracks.

For some people it's a contentious issue, they think Christians should only sing worship songs or hymns, instead of redeeming music they want to get rid of the sort of music they associate with specific types of behaviour, when God is clearly in the business of using people and music for his glory regardless of their back-ground.

Paul used to chase Christians down, imprison them and have them killed and look what God did with him!

ButSaul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison. [Acts 8:3]

Jesus' speciality is redeeming people and things, even rap music!

Oh no you didn't.

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Please ignore - For Technorati

2011-09-18T00:51:00.000-07:00

NQUBFNBMWQG9 - Although I have added the script to the below video so people don't have to watch it.
A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Does Christianity's past prove it wrong?

2011-09-02T11:28:00.000-07:00

Watch as a Christian has a quick discussion with a nice, polite sceptic who discuss whether or not some of the bad things done in the past by 'Christians' discredits the Christian message.

Yes I do make the videos my-self and if people don't have time to watch the video, I've added the script so people can just read through it much more quickly. Hopefully this will be off some help for Christians who have wondered how to answer such objections.

Nice sceptic - Hi, I am a nice sceptic

Christian- Hi, I am a Christian

Nice sceptic - If Christians are right about what they believe, how come so many Christians have committed so many atrocities in the name of Christianity?

Christian - That is a really good question, it’s important to note that even sceptics like yourself notice that what many so called Christians have done is in complete contrast to what Jesus actually taught his followers. Jesus taught his followers to Love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them. He told us to love and treat our neighbour as our selves, and gives an example of this in practice in his parable of the Good Samaritan. People must ignore Jesus words to do horrible things, not obey them!

Nice sceptic - Okay, but surely you must understand that this is a major barrier for some people? You will have to be quick; my bus will be here soon.

Christian - It’s important to understand that the truthfulness of something can't be falsified simply on the basis of what those who have labelled themselves as part of that group have, or haven't done.

Nice sceptic - Go on.

Christian - Well imagine that I just list all the bad things people have done who have labelled themselves as Atheists, and I use that as a reason to dismiss their claims. That would be unfair to Atheists, and it says nothing about whether what they believe is true or false. If we use the bad things people have done to prove them wrong, does that then mean we can name all the good things Christians have been responsible for, and conclude that Christianity must be true?

Nice sceptic - No I suppose not, if the argument cuts both ways and results in different conclusions, I suppose it is really a bad argument to use.

Christian - Christians are not perfect, and thankfully our salvation doesn't rest on us being good enough, but instead on Jesus' perfection and sacrifice on the cross, which allows us to seek God’s forgiveness. It’s important to remember that not everyone who calls themselves a Christian always is. Some people call themselves Christians simply because they live in the West, or they think they are still part of a Christian culture. Not necessarily because they are followers of Jesus, who have sought him for forgiveness and are seeking to obey what he taught. Historically there have always been people who have been part of the Church who have been there out of convenience rather than conviction.

Nice sceptic - Yes I suppose there’s some truth in that, before I was an Atheist my parents used to take me to Church, and I used to describe myself as a Christian, but I never believed any of it. I guess just going to Church doesn't make you a Christian either.

Christian - Yes you are right, but there is no denying that what you believe will have some affect on how you behave. Jesus taught that people will recognise his followers by their love for people, not for committing atrocities.

Nice sceptic - Well I have many other problems with Christianity, so even if I am mistaken with this argument, I still have plenty more questions to ask you when I have time.

Christian - One more quick example before your bus gets here, many people here in the UK considered themselves Christians for hundreds of years, often with little regard to whether or not they obeyed and lived how Jesus taught. Biblical language and rhetoric was simply part of the culture, this was because it was primarily the literature that everyone knew some part of. This is why it was so easy for people to misuse the Bible and use Jesus as the reason for their acts of evil. For every one person who has called themselves a Christian, and been part of some historical atrocity, there will be ten thousand people who have changed the world for the better in ways many people today don't appreciate. Whether that be through founding the first universities, schools for boys and girls, hospitals, charities, putting an end to modern slavery, creating a rational world-view that supported science, or standing up for the rights of infants and women.

Nice sceptic - Thanks for your time; my bus is here now, until next time. Bye.

Christian - Good to talk to you nice sceptic, bye.

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Questions about Zeitgeist and the Christ-myth

2011-08-26T10:32:00.000-07:00

Watch what happens when the stereotypical internet taught New Atheist meets a Christian on the streets of London to discuss some of the claims made in the popular, and thoroughly refuted internet documentary Zeitgeist.This is my first attempt at dabbling in making short apologetic videos, lots of room for improvement.

For a more robust response to Zeitgeist watch the free on-line video aptly named Zeitgeist Refuted.

Close encounters of a New Atheist kind- Part 1

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

British Atheist Philosopher Stephen Law steps up!

2011-08-16T03:24:00.000-07:00

Moving on from Polly Toynbee who joins the long list of British Atheists who have been seen running scared of debating Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, my favourite British Atheist Stephen Law has stepped up to do the job! Clearly I don't agree with his Atheism but from what I know about him and have read of him it will be a real test for WLC which is exactly the type of debate the British public needs.

Had Polly Toynbee taken part in debate with WLC it would have been embarrassing for her and the other British Atheists but this line-up is exactly what real debate is about, two people who know their stuff trying to determine what's true through reason, logic and rhetoric. Buy a ticket.

I've got alot of time for Stephen Law, he's a great philosopher, a good writer and a fantastic communicator so this is looking like its going to be some debate. Stephen Law is a senior Philosophy lecturer at Hythrop College, London and you can find out more about him on his Wikipedia page and more about what he thinks about the debate at his blog here.

The title of the debate will be 'Does God exist' and will be taking place on the 17th of October 2011 at Westminster Hall, tickets are about a tenner and any further details to book a ticket can be found HERE!

For a taster of WLC debating, you can watch him discussing the title 'Does God matter' just follow the link to watch the debate on video vs John Shook.

See you there.

Because a redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Polly Toynbee - Another outspoken Atheist jumps ship!

2011-08-12T10:20:00.000-07:00

The story detailing Polly Toynbees disappointing decision to jump ship can be read here. I had previously praised Polly Toynbees courage for taking on William Lane Craig [WLC] here, but perhaps she should have done a little more research into what exactly she had got herself into, and in some sense her decision is understandable.

Polly Toynbee the president of the British Humanist Association [BHA] and outspoken Atheist appears to have had a revelation of what she was up against in debating Christian philosopher WLC. Before being embarrassed in front of thousands she has decided to throw in the towel before we even get to the first round. She had this to say;

“I hadn't realised the nature of Mr Lane Craig's debating style, and having now looked at his previous performances, this is not my kind of forum”.

When translated this basically means she realised she was going to embarrass the British Atheist community after she realised that because WLC can defend the Christians concept of God robustly, rationally and persuasively it would be best if she declined, and once again leaves the UK Atheist community with their tail between their legs.

New Atheists put believing in God and the resurrection of Jesus in the same category as believing in unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters, yet no doubt Polly Toynbee and Richard Dawkins would be happy to debate defenders of such non-existent beliefs. Unfortunately the New Atheists don't write books about Unicorn delusions and other non-beliefs so it's disappointing to see their lack of courage to debate who many consider to be the best defender of Christian theism.

If your going to write books about the weakness of the Christian world-view and describe believers in Christianity as deluded at least be prepared to defend such a claim. Basic stuff really.

If Christianity presents such a weak case why are UK Atheists running scared? Well whatever the reason I hope they find someone because I've ordered my ticket already.

Ideally Dawkins will change his mind but seems increasingly unlikely as time goes by.

What Dawkins has had to say of WLC - "I've never heard of William Craig. A debate with him might look good on his resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!"

A redeemed mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Chrislam - Can Christianity and Islam mix?

2011-08-09T08:16:00.000-07:00

Original source: unknown (found on multiple sites)

Dan and I (Phil) have now begun to collaborate our blogs. This is the latest post from my blog as a debut on this blog. I hope you find it useful.

I was asked by a friend what I thought of Chrislam. Having heard of it but not formally researched it past looking at wikipedia, I thought I'd take a closer look and post what I find here. My aim here is to explore what Chrislam is, possibly who is involved but more to highlight the dangers it creates for churches but also the incompatibility of the two faiths.

What is Chrislam?
Chrislam is the merging of Islam and Christianity. From what I have found it was born in Lagos, Nigeria by a pastor named Shamsuddin Saka. His inspiration was born out of a Hajj (Muslim Pilgrimage) to Mecca and in response to the horrific violence in Nigeria that has often erupted between Muslims and Christians (these clashes aren't as specifically religious as is often portrayed- click for source). The church has worship similar to any Pentecostal Christian church, Muslim prayers as well as readings and preaches from the Qur'an and the Bible simultaneously.

A similar form of Chrislam is spreading through the states but this is encouraged by an organisation called Faith Shared. Faith Shared's goals are quoted here, taken from their home page:

Faith Shared asks houses of worship across the country to organize events involving clergy reading from each other’s sacred texts. An example would be a Christian Minister, Jewish Rabbi and Muslim Imam participating in a worship service or other event. Suggested readings will be provided from the Torah, the Gospels, and the Qur’an, but communities are encouraged to choose readings that will resonate with their congregations. Involvement of members from the Muslim community is key. We will also provide suggestions on how to incorporate this program into your regular worship services. And we will assist local congregations in their media and communications efforts.

Churches, synagogues and mosques are being encouraged to join together and read each other's scriptures in their own services. Though we are looking at multi-faith, there is a surprising emphasis on involvement from the muslim community. Why? Possibly because it is most likely Muslims that are holding fast to what they believe to be truth and see that worshiping God cannot be a pick and mix affair. Something that many Christian churches are failing at.

There is also a committee in Lebanon called chrislam.org, which seems to be more about dialogue in a violent situation as opposed to mixing faiths and so is irrelevant to this post as far as a quick scan and google translate could tell.

The Issues.
There are many parts to Chrislam that would be considered incorrect by both faiths but the main underlying theme of Chrislam both in Nigeria and in the West is that peace can only be reached if the religions merge. To find a peaceful resolution is a noble prospect but it to merge two religions is misguided. The issues behind the conflict in Nigeria are much deeper ingrained than just religion. In the West it is common to hear disagreement being linked to either hatred or phobia.

This misconception of disagreement is rife for example within the abortion debate, disagree with one side and you are most likely to be labelled hateful or violent (most commonly thrown at people who are against abortion); Christians disagreeing with homosexuality within the church are seen as homophobic and it is becoming more common that if you disagree with Islam you are becoming an Islamophobe. If this idea of disagreement being equal to hate continues discussion and feedom of speech will be severely affected. I love discussing my faith with anyone and everyone. Often times discussions become heated over certain disagreements but this does not mean I hate the person or what they do, it simply means we do not agree.

There are various aspects of both Christianity and Islam that will quite naturally become unbalanced in Chrislam and in the end, it is most likely the Christian elements that will be pushed out. Christians worship Jesus because to Christians Jesus is God (click here to see why). Worshiping Jesus is 'shirk' (idolatry) to Muslims because to Muslims Jesus is just a man and worshiping men is idolatry. Hence why imagery of Muhammed is banned.

"Indeed they do blaspheme those who say that Allah is Jesus, the son of Mary, but Jesus said "O children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord". Whoever joins other gods with Allah, Allah will forbid him heaven and the fire will be his abode. (Al Maidah:72)"

Islam also teaches that Jesus prepared the way for Muhammed. For Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus is central, because it shows that what Jesus taught was true. Since Jesus said that he was the way, the truth and the life and no one gets to the Father except through Him, it doesn't then make sense for God to send another messenger. Islam does not worship Muhammed and therefore it will be easier for Christians to make all the worship songs about Allah, than for Muslims to sing the songs about Jesus dying for their sins.

There are already theological problems with the Christian element to Chrislam in Nigeria such as elements of the prosperity gospel (which can be seen here: click me to go to youtube - disclaimer: the video is inaccurate when it comes to the history of Christianity in Nigeria), let alone all of the other scriptural and theological aspects to mixing the two faiths.

Why does it matter?
One of, if not THE biggest threat to Christianity is not people disagreeing with it, but Christians not knowing the bible or why they believe what they believe. Many believe Jesus died and rose again but they are not sure why and they are not sure if Jesus being God really matters. The difference with Islam is that it is more of a culture and community than Western Christianity and Muslims are more likely to know a) their Qur'an very well and b) how to disagree with Christianity. The Qur'an deals directly with how to live with Christians and respond to their claims while the bible does not say anything about Islam due to it pre-dating Islam. So if a Christian does not understand why Jesus' deity matters, a Muslim will be able to tell them why it isn't true and that Jesus was just a man/prophet who did not rise again. Note that in the majority of these 'interfaith' events, it is the Christian groups changing to accommodate other faiths.

Another major concern is that to back up why interfaith events should happen, texts are cut and paste out of context to show the similarity between the religions. This cutting and pasting shows a lack of respect for the scriptures of all faiths and basically says that the other parts of scriptures that differ don't matter. It is actually the differing parts that matter the most and can be discussed to verify which faith is the truth which it claims. Islam and Christianity claim they are the truth and only way to heaven - both cannot be true.

What do we (Christians) do about it?

Know your bible. Know why certain doctrine is important. Always be learning.
Know the main differences between the religions and figure out which claims can be better verified. Research the common Muslim issues with Christianity and know why they are often unfounded.
Dialogue and relationship between faiths is important. Many pastors are seeking to better understand Muslims (in America especially) and are being lambasted by other Christians for it. Rick Warren's name comes up a lot with the google search 'Chrislam'. I do know Rick Warren is seen as controversial but this interview (click here) allayed many of my concerns about him and think many Christians need to look into their own heart before they blog. A great quote here from the interview:

"People say we worship the same God and I say, 'hold on just a minute, my God looks like Jesus... so if your God doesn't look like Jesus then we don't worship the same God!"

"Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry" 2 Timothy 4:2-5 (emphasis - my own).

I do welcome comments and discussion, please do comment if there is something I have missed out or could clarify.

The Failed Atheist

Moving Blogs

Top 5 Most Viewed Posts of 2011

Question Time - A pointless statement from Jesus in Matthews Gospel?

Monthly Links - December

Christmas: Pagan Festival or Christian Celebration? - Well it is the season of goodwill when these sorts of accusations start flying around again.

The Best Critique of the 'Word of Faith' Movement on the Internet

A short Critique of The God Delusion - Christianity and the Sanctity of Human Life parts 1 - 4

Jesus the Atheist

Apologetics: Dealing with the Problem of Suffering?

Monthly Links - November

Whats your worldview?

Why should pastors know their bible?

Craig v Law - Does God Exist? A Short Review

A Micro Book Review - Confessions of a Reformation Rev. Mark Driscoll

Don't worry Richard theres an empty chair waiting for you at the Sheldonian Theatre!!

Monthly Links - October

Thrice - Promises

Just be yourself

Apostasy in Islam and Yousef Nadarkhani

Redeemed rap from Lecrae

Please ignore - For Technorati

Does Christianity's past prove it wrong?

Questions about Zeitgeist and the Christ-myth

British Atheist Philosopher Stephen Law steps up!

Polly Toynbee - Another outspoken Atheist jumps ship!

Chrislam - Can Christianity and Islam mix?