I know I'm more than a week late to the party, but this might be one of the most important videos online now, and not just because I found out about it due to Nameless Apologist taking offense at yet another thing that Manly Men do. I encourage you to watch the entire video to get the full context of David Wood's actions here, but it is a bit long. If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, you should at least familiarize yourself with the immediate context starting around the 1:40:00 mark. But for the portion everyone is interested in, begin around 1:49:00.
That's right, David Wood...oh wait, I almost forgot. DOCTOR David Wood--who went to an actually accredited university (as opposed to an "unaccredited online university")--ate a page he tore out of the Quran!
To be fair, he spat it out after chewing for quite some time so he didn't actually eat it.
But now Doctor Wood is being attacked by the girlie men who are afraid the feels of those who wish to murder ex-Muslims, to violate their wives, and to do unspeakable things to their children might be pained by seeing the satanic verses that inspired them to engage in such depravity gnawed on. Especially since Allah couldn't even be bothered to cut the good Dr. Wood's aorta in retaliation.
Yes, that's right. Nameless Apologist is once again upset, not by the depravity that the demonic book drives people to commit, but by the fact that Dr. Wood did not show respect toward that evil book. Consistency is only virtuous when you're actually hitting the target though.
How dare Dr. Wood not show at least the same respect that King Josiah showed to the Asherah poles in 2 Kings 23:14! How dare Dr. Wood not show the same reverence that King Hezekiah showed the pagan altars in 2 Chronicles 31:1! I mean, Nameless Apologist does not wish for us to use the example of Elijah and how he treated the prophets of Baal--he was quite adamant on this point since, he boldly declares, our hearts are black and wicked and we're not prophets. So let Josiah and Hezekiah be our examples then! They were also not prophets, and their hearts were just as "black" as ours are, having been redeemed.
But but but 1 Peter 3:15 says respect!
Yeah, and "respect" must mean what Nameless Apologist declares it to mean and it must be applied 100% in all circumstances no matter what. Yes. But...how much respect did Paul show Peter in Galatians 2:11-14, opposing him to his face in a shame-based society?
You're not the apostle Paul!
Okay, but clearly you can still see that respecting a person doesn't mean respecting their idols. Right? When someone views an evil text as sacred, it is not respecting them to give RESPECT to those evil scriptures!
But they'll eat the Bible in retaliation!
So?
You know, I realized something. David Wood is a hero. Girlie men are sobbing about it.
I think 2020 is getting back to normal.
This is beneath you, on many levels.
ReplyDeleteYes, this will convince me.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSuspect whatever you want. I can't read your mind and you've provided no reason for me to think anything I said was false. If the truth hurts your idol, that says something about your idol, not me for saying the truth.
DeleteI suspect you already know it.
DeleteYes, you behaving and arguing on the level of a village atheist makes White my "idol."
DeleteI never said I agreed with White.
I can show, and already did, that my response is on par with Josiah and Hezekiah, and I would also include Elijah in there too (although I purposely did not use him because it offended a certain someone).
DeleteYou CLAIM I am behaving and arguing like a village atheist.
Demonstrate it. Where am I arguing like a village atheist, WittenbergsDoor? If you think it's apparent, then it should be easy to demonstrate it, no?
"I can show, and already did, that my response is on par with Josiah and Hezekiah, and I would also include Elijah in there too (although I purposely did not use him because it offended a certain someone)."
DeleteYour response to White? Where have you demonstrated that? I don't take issue with the very limited amount of actual argumentation in your post because I suspect I half way agree with you. That's why I said this type of post is "beneath" you. As in "You're better than this." I respect your work and I find it annoying to see you stoop to this level, especially addressing a fellow Christian. I haven't watched either Wood's video or White's response and I don't care to do so. I have no interest in this debate. I find it tiresome. My issue is with this post. This post reads like a village atheist or bargain basement Catholic response to White. And since you need me to name the obvious, let's go through the list of tactics pulled directly from that playbook:
1) Apparently James White is Voldemort now because you feel free to attack him but won't use his name, nor do you link to or cite his comments. I suppose you're attempting to be ironic, but why do you assume everyone reading you knows who you're talking about? As you know, this is a common tactic of the most juvenile of White's opponents. It doesn't somehow become a stronger rhetorical strategy because you've decided to take it up.
2) The nauseating tactic of attacking White's education. Again as you know, this is perhaps the most common low blow used by White's more juvenile opponents. And coming from a (I believe) politically Conservative Christian the idea that academic credibility in the Church must be blessed by Big Brother is an especially weird position. And it's an especially odious attack because it not only disrespects Dr. White but also the work of every student, pastor, professor, and Christian primary school, co-op, college, and seminary that is working to set up quality education shielded from the system set up by the U.S. Department of Education. A system that is increasingly weaponized against anyone that holds to traditional Christian beliefs. Not to mention those that supported every seminary that was originally unaccredited (most of them). Not to mention those Christians currently getting seminary education outside the government structure in places like Russia and China. Again, a very odd position for for a Christian to take, but hey, you could bash "girly men" with it.
3) Speaking of the "girly men" attack: For myself I think labeling someone who has put himself in a number of precarious situations, both physically and socially, for the gospel a "girly man" over a disagreement in apologetic approach is more than slightly unfair. But let's say it's not. It's certainly shoddy argumentation. Dr. White is *wrong* because he's "girly?" I think this shades into several logical fallacies, ad hominem not being the least of them.
Hello WittenbergsDoor:
Delete"Your response to White?"
Sorry, in the original quote I typed the wrong pronoun since I started the sentence with "I". It should read: "I can show, and already did, that [his] response is on par with Josiah and Hezekiah, and I would also include Elijah in there too (although I purposely did not use him because it offended a certain someone)."
You wrote:
"Apparently James White is Voldemort now because you feel free to attack him but won't use his name, nor do you link to or cite his comments."
There's a reason (actually several) that I called him Nameless Apologist instead of providing a name. I wrote several drafts of this post before I posted it (usually I write a single draft, edit typos, and submit it, but this one I spent over a day on and probably had five different versions). Every word I wrote, and every word I did NOT write, I did so intentionally.
"I suppose you're attempting to be ironic, but why do you assume everyone reading you knows who you're talking about?"
I didn't make that assumption. One of the reasons I didn't name him was precisely because anyone who didn't already know the relevant details didn't NEED to know who I was talking about. I knew there was a risk comments would unmask his name, but that would actually feed into another one of my underlying reasons for writing this post (one not expressed in this post, but which is relevant for something else which I need to be a bit vague about for the moment).
"The nauseating tactic of attacking White's education."
I didn't attack White's education. I pointed out that *Wood* has a PhD from an accredited university instead of an online unaccredited university. I said nothing about White. That someone might INFER that my statement must somehow have been an attack on White, even though he's not mentioned, was predicted though. Note that I didn't even say "Nameless Apologist has a degree from an unaccredited online university." Because my point wasn't to make that connection--it was to let you make it.
"And coming from a (I believe) politically Conservative Christian the idea that academic credibility in the Church must be blessed by Big Brother is an especially weird position."
That's not why I pointed it out though. Wood has an accredited PhD and rarely ever is even referred to as Doctor, and never asks to be called Doctor either. But if we're discussing respect, he's earned the title, even in the eyes of secular organizations.
"Dr. White is *wrong* because he's 'girly?'"
No. I think he's wrong and that he's a girlie man, not that either one is causative of the other. What I mean specifically by "girlie man" is the offense that White takes over perceived slights, which he responds to in a very emotive way instead of using reason. It is an effeminate response. Real men drop gloves at center ice and resolve their problems (and I use the hockey metaphor precisely because there ARE RULES in it--it's not like I'm advocating for a free-for-all).
"There's a reason (actually several) that I called him Nameless Apologist instead of providing a name. I wrote several drafts of this post before I posted it (usually I write a single draft, edit typos, and submit it, but this one I spent over a day on and probably had five different versions). Every word I wrote, and every word I did NOT write, I did so intentionally.
Delete...
I didn't make that assumption. One of the reasons I didn't name him was precisely because anyone who didn't already know the relevant details didn't NEED to know who I was talking about. I knew there was a risk comments would unmask his name, but that would actually feed into another one of my underlying reasons for writing this post (one not expressed in this post, but which is relevant for something else which I need to be a bit vague about for the moment)."
Since I can only evaluate what you actually wrote,, it's hard for me to know what to make of this response. You didn't name White because reasons. And yet you decided to attack him, a public figure, publicly and without allowing his own words to speak for themselves. I certainly have my issues with White but one thing I've always respected about him is that he doesn't do this type of thing. So who is this post for then? It's not meant to inform people or allow them to make their own determination. You seem to imply that you have some motivation for this post beyond just mocking a man behind his back in such a way that it won't get back to him, but that's not evident from the post itself. I'm having a hard time squaring this approach with your own words:
"Real men drop gloves at center ice and resolve their problems."
"I didn't attack White's education. I pointed out that *Wood* has a PhD from an accredited university instead of an online unaccredited university. I said nothing about White. That someone might INFER that my statement must somehow have been an attack on White, even though he's not mentioned, was predicted though. Note that I didn't even say "Nameless Apologist has a degree from an unaccredited online university." Because my point wasn't to make that connection--it was to let you make it."
I don't understand this line of argumentation. If by your own admission you wrote it in such a way so as to make the reader infer that (indeed, it's the only possible inference to make) then you're responsible for the inference. And the only possible rhetorical utility of guiding the reader to that inference is to make a value or legitimacy comparison between the two. By your own admission you were purposeful in every word of the article. You can't say that and then claim the comparison is just there for window dressing or shift responsibility to the reader for connecting the dots you laid out.
"That's not why I pointed it out though. Wood has an accredited PhD and rarely ever is even referred to as Doctor, and never asks to be called Doctor either. But if we're discussing respect, he's earned the title, even in the eyes of secular organizations."
Has White refused to use Wood's honorific or something? I can't swear to it but I'm pretty sure I've heard him use it in the past. My understanding is that Wood prefers people not use it so I'm not sure what the complaint is. I don't know who is disputing that Wood has earned the title. I'm also not sure what the secular world's opinion has to do with it. Also my impression is that White's current doctoral work in textual studies is with an accredited institution, or whatever the South African equivalent would be.
"Since I can only evaluate what you actually wrote,, it's hard for me to know what to make of this response."
DeleteThat's okay from my end.
"You seem to imply that you have some motivation for this post beyond just mocking a man behind his back in such a way that it won't get back to him, but that's not evident from the post itself."
The fact that you think this is "mocking a man behind his back" is interesting. Is it more respectful to provide his name so that people who don't know who I'm referring to now know who it is so if they happen to come across one of his books in the future they may not want to read it because of what they've heard, or is it more respectful for his name to be shielded such that ONLY people who already know certain facts will see it points to him, especially since the people who know these fact will have already made up their minds as to his usefulness to apologetics so my criticisms will not possibly change how they view him?
Also, White said in the past that he doesn't read Triablogue and when he and Steve got into it, I had also posted a response to White that several people on Twitter asked him to respond to and he ignored it completely. I don't expect anything I write here to get to him even if I used his full name, so you can rest assured that that is NOT the reason I didn't use it.
In fact, some might reason that the way I wrote this is the only way it would get back to him.
"I don't understand this line of argumentation. If by your own admission you wrote it in such a way so as to make the reader infer that (indeed, it's the only possible inference to make) then you're responsible for the inference."
Oh yes, I never said I wasn't responsible for the inference. But I also intentionally wrote it so that only certain people who know certain facts could possibly make the inference.
"You can't say that and then claim the comparison is just there for window dressing or shift responsibility to the reader for connecting the dots you laid out."
It's not "just there for window dressing." Some people will not know what the inferences mean, and they don't need to know it. And let's be honest, that "some people" is the vast majority of people on Earth. Is it the vast majority of readers here? I don't know.
"Has White refused to use Wood's honorific or something?"
Not that I'm aware of. But White chose to frame this in terms of respect, so the fact that Wood has earned a PhD is something that should be respected. White certainly didn't show any respect toward Wood when he gave his objections, so that made it a valid reason to point out that there are even academic reasons to respect Wood. I don't normally rest on that sort of thing, but I'm also not the one who brought respect into the equation.
"Also my impression is that White's current doctoral work in textual studies is with an accredited institution, or whatever the South African equivalent would be."
At some point he and his followers need to address why pointing out the fact that his current degree is from an unaccredited university stings them so much. I didn't even pass a value judgment in my post on it. I pointed out the *distinction* between Wood having an accredited degree as opposed to an unaccredited degree, and let you infer both that I was talking about White's degree *AND* that I was concluding unaccredited degrees were somehow lesser. Given that I didn't say they were, if you felt that just mentioning the fact of the difference makes one more valued than the other, then wouldn't that mean that you hold the various degrees in different esteem yourself?
"Is it more respectful to provide his name so that people who don't know who I'm referring to now know who it is so if they happen to come across one of his books in the future they may not want to read it because of what they've heard..."
DeleteYes, it would be more respectful to name and accurately cite him. If you fear your post might unjustly poison readers to the value of his work then that only supports my original evaluation of the piece.
"Not that I'm aware of. But White chose to frame this in terms of respect, so the fact that Wood has earned a PhD is something that should be respected. White certainly didn't show any respect toward Wood when he gave his objections, so that made it a valid reason to point out that there are even academic reasons to respect Wood. I don't normally rest on that sort of thing, but I'm also not the one who brought respect into the equation."
This argument would only work if the respect in question had to do with academic qualifications, or if White had disrespected Wood's academic qualifications in some way. I have yet to hear evidence of that.
"At some point he and his followers need to address why pointing out the fact that his current degree is from an unaccredited university stings them so much."
Not as much as you need to explain what the rhetorical point of bringing it up is if not to draw a negative comparison between the two. You are the one who made a point of being purposeful in your wording. You're also a writer if I'm not mistaken. So either you are not competent in your rhetorical composition, which you have already denied and I don't believe, or you drew the comparison for a purpose. So what purpose would that be if not to disparage White's academic credentials in the context of the post (either because that's what you actually believe or for some hidden purpose)?
Besides I have already detailed my objections to the tactic so the "some point" the explanation would be "at" was two posts ago in my case. I support decoupling Christian education from the state and think academic credibility should be based on the merit and rigor of the work.
"I pointed out the *distinction* between Wood having an accredited degree as opposed to an unaccredited degree, and let you infer both that I was talking about White's degree *AND* that I was concluding unaccredited degrees were somehow lesser."
You keep trying to shift responsibility for your compositional choices to the reader, as if the inference of the reader is not based on picking up on the intention behind those compositional choices. The fact that only some readers will pick up on those choices makes no difference in terms of what you intended to communicate to those readers who would.
"Given that I didn't say they were, if you felt that just mentioning the fact of the difference makes one more valued than the other, then wouldn't that mean that you hold the various degrees in different esteem yourself?"
No, it would not. The fact that I am aware of a cultural stigma and also aware that said stigma is often utilized as a rheotorical weapon against Dr. White does not mean I share the stigma. I've already detailed above why it's not legitimate to attempt to blame me for the inference.
Hello WittenbergsDoor,
DeleteOkay, I can be a bit more explicit with part of my aims with this post then, especially as enough time has passed from the initial posting. One target of this post was quite clearly the James White fanboy. You know, the kind of person who can't see any flaws in him at all, and who functions as his echo chamber online. That's why I couched so much about him in terms that a fanboy would understand, but which the average person would not know the references to.
See, as I stated in the original post, I first heard about Wood's actions because someone forwarded me the critique White made--if you can really even call it a critique. So I'd seen his response before I even watched what Wood did, and when I saw the actual video of Wood I saw quite clearly how badly White misrepresented EVERYTHING (I haven't even gotten to the parts he completely butchered in claiming Sam Shamoun challenged Mohammed Hajib to a physical fight, etc.).
So when I prepared to post about Wood's video, it was very easy to see the ironic parallel between how Muslims treat the Quran and how the James White fanboy treats James White. I knew that by simply not naming White, it would cause his followers to instantly believe I had been disrespectful to White, even though there's no Biblical requirement to name an opponent, or to even quote them directly instead of just paraphrasing. When I made the comparison between Dr. Wood's degree and Dr. White's degree, I knew that even though I made no negative judgement about it, James White's fanboys would treat it as an "attack" on White--despite every word I said being 100% true. The fact is, if White didn't make such a big deal out of his degree, it wouldn't even be an issue. Even the "girlie man" reference was because of how much respect White demands and how he behaves when he doesn't get it, or even just perceives that he doesn't get it.
To follow up on one thing you said:
---
The fact that I am aware of a cultural stigma and also aware that said stigma is often utilized as a rheotorical weapon against Dr. White does not mean I share the stigma.
---
Then what makes you think *I* share that stigma? I knew that the James White fanboys would automatically assume that I do, and banking on that fact is not the same thing as thinking there *IS* such a stigma.
I'll also say if, for any reason, you doubt this was part of my original intentions, just know after your first responses I had thought you were a JW Fanboy. That's why I said: "If the truth hurts your idol, that says something about your idol, not me for saying the truth." I believe anyone who accepts anything from any man without the ability to critically think on it is dangerous, whether that be someone who accepts the Quran verbatim, or someone who accepts James White verbatim, and when someone's sacred cow gets skewered they will almost always play the "shame on you" card instead of providing a reasoned argument.
Given you said there are things that you criticize White for as well, I don't now think that you're a JW Fanboy, although I would say you probably are in a group that is tangential to them.
I've not seen this video, but I've never liked watching David Wood because, frankly speaking, he comes across to me as a total jackass.
ReplyDeleteHe may actually be a great guy, I have no idea, but I've only ever gotten the complete jerk vibe from his videos.
Similarly I like a lot of what James White says, and I've own several of his books. For example I think "The Forgotten Trinity" is excellent, but he also gives off a smarmy pseudo-intellectual vibe that's off-putting to me personally.
I realize all this could just be my own sin nature, and that maybe I should try to love them more *because* they are brothers in Christ towards whom I don't naturally gravitate.
Last but not least I assume you're employing hyperbole because chewing on the Q'uran on YouTube doesn't put one on similar footing with Elija or the prophets or the Apostles. If it's not hyperbole, then it's a completely asinine statement.
Well, in one video he explains that he saw his Muslim friend, Nabeel, decided who won a Christian/Muslim debate based on the debater's aggression and realized being milquetoast makes people look weak.
DeleteAnd he's a psychopath, might help too.
"Last but not least I assume you're employing hyperbole because chewing on the Q'uran on YouTube doesn't put one on similar footing with Elija or the prophets or the Apostles."
DeleteThis is the quote I'm responding to when it comes to that:
"And I'm sorry, I know you guys who's out there go, 'Yeah but I'm like the prophet Elijah.' No you're not! Look at your heart! Your heart's black. You know it. Stop it. Quit deceiving yourself. You're no prophet. Quit, quit pretending like you can do that kind of stuff. They were holy men. You know your heart. Stop it."
So yeah, it's nice to know that the examples of "holy men" are things we shouldn't be doing, because apparently having the Holy Spirit indwelling us means our hearts are black and we're not holy men.
TheFlyingCouch,
DeleteYes, I agree that Wood's psychopathy gives him an advantage here in that he does not have any fear. And I suspect fear is what really drives the condemnation of his approach--fear that Muslims who see what he did will try to kill us. Despite the fact that the Muslims Wood was responding to ALREADY HAVE threatened his life numerous times.
But your point about how Nabeel is also accurate. I've seen that video before as well, and it's true. Islam is largest in the Middle East, and there are massive cultural differences between the Middle East and the West--primarily concerning this very issue. Milquetoast attracts very few people anywhere, but it is especially so in the Middle East. And one need only view the fact that there are hundreds of testimonies of former Muslims pointing to Wood as the reason they left Islam, and I've yet to see ANY Muslim say that of the other apologist (yes, everyone knows who I'm talking about, but I'm not naming names for a reason). That doesn't mean he's not done anything to win souls out of Islam, but I think it clearly means that Wood's tactics are far more effective. Far more Muslims have been saved via Acts 17 Apologetics than via the other ministry, at least insofar as it is possible for us, who cannot see the heart, to tell.
Actually, I scrolled down into some of the comments in one of the videos where he was munching on a page and there was a Christian saying it's thanks to David Wood that he's no longer a Muslim.
DeleteTheFlyingCouch,
DeleteYes, there are hundreds of those types of comments on his various videos. You don't see many of those types of comments on the other person's videos...
Yes, David Wood should have been more respectful and not chewed on a page that calls for killing non-Muslims. You have to respect that.
ReplyDeleteAnd in the follow-up video he rips out (I'm thinking) the same page containing Sura 9:29. Oh he does it again.
DeleteI saw clips from his follow up video, but haven't watched the whole thing yet. I will say that the reality is that the Quran is objectively evil. It is objectively something to be abhorred, not respected. But when a Christian apologist acts like it's some kind of travesty that someone treats the book with disdain, that makes Muslims think, "Even Christians know that the Quran is really the Word of Allah and true, because mistreating it offends even them!"
DeleteNowhere in Scripture are we ever told to respect idols or the cultic trappings of false religions. The Bible continually mocks false idols. God made the idol Dagon fall face-first before the Ark of the Covenant in 1 Samuel 5. Isaiah consistently wrote about how idols had ears but could hear, eyes but couldn't see, and hands but couldn't act. There was a continual mockery of all those false religions.
But what is the proper response to someone who says they believe Sura 9:29, "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."
What are you to say? "I disagree with that passage, but respect to you for believing it"? No! God forbid, never! What you say is: "That's an objectively evil passage and ONLY an objectively evil person would accept it as truth. Submitting to THAT only shows your heart is evil and heaps burning coals of judgment upon you. YOU ARE CONDEMNED for accepting that as truth."
I shall quote the rebuttal provided by the otherside:
ReplyDelete"...Muh Feelings..."
That's not actually fair. It is more like pious ranting with nothing really addressed.
DeleteAgreed. That's why I said: "Yeah, and 'respect' must mean what Nameless Apologist declares it to mean and it must be applied 100% in all circumstances no matter what." Because what this apologist is defining "respect" by is not the Bible, but by the way a 1960s Conservative American upbringing would define it. This was pointed out many times over the years, because that card is always the one he plays, and he's still never addressed it. Even the time he claimed to provide exegesis on 1 Peter 3:15, he didn't show how the definition of what is or isn't "respectful" comes out through the Bible, but instead he consistently injected his own definition of "respect" back into the text, as if it was reality.
DeleteIn the end, his "rebuttal" boils down to "this offends me, therefore it must be objectively wrong, therefore anyone who would support it is evil." Or, as you put it: "Muh feelings!"
I understand why you have your concerns (albeit I disagree with your conclusions), but I strongly suspect that if Muslims weren't tied to the back of pickup trucks after 9/11, they won't be because David Wood ate a Quran either.
ReplyDeleteI dropped James White’s YouTube channel when he yoked himself to Doug Wilson’s plow. There is no way I’m going to listen to a Federal Vision works righteousness heretic.
ReplyDeleteYour comment showed up several times so I removed the duplicates. I don't believe James White (nor Doug Wilson, for that matter) is a heretic. He's wrong and severely flawed, but not a heretic.
DeleteNot sure of all the details, but I believe that Wilson has also disavowed the Federal Vision.
DeleteNo, he hasn’t. He just said he won’t use that label anymore. He never recanted or repented.
DeleteHello Roger,
ReplyDeleteA couple of points. First, I focused on the word "respect" because that's the word that he was focused on in his complaint. Secondly, you actually make my point for me. My rhetorical claim was that N.A. was taking this verse as "applied 100% in all circumstances no matter what." As you point out here, it wouldn't apply to those who are in the church.
As to what you then said: "For those outside the church, it should always be with gentleness and respect." Yes, I agree. But as I said in my original post, respecting the PERSON is not the same thing as respecting THEIR FALSE TEXTS. I don't see anywhere in Scripture where God commands us to show respect toward any false religious trappings. I think it strongly offended worshippers of Baal when their altars were destroyed, and the worshippers of Asherah when their poles were burnt.
You might say that there's a difference between the Old and New Testaments. Okay. I would point out first that what was in the Old that has not specifically been abrogated in the New (e.g., dietary laws) we have no reason to reject today. But that aside, if someone falsely believes that something vile is sacred, is it respecting them to pretend along with them that it is sacred? Or is it actually respectful to show them the truth, knowing the Jesus said "The truth shall set you free"? Is it respectful to give honor to a text that orders you to kill unbelievers, or is it respectful to show dishonor to that text? I believe the latter. You may believe the former, and we may never come to agreement, but I hope you can at least see why someone might disagree with you as to what constitutes respect when an objectively evil text is in play.
And you don't see the problem with them honoring such an evil text as if it were practically God? I don't see any of the apostles or prophets ever showing respect toward a false god. In fact, read 1 Corinthians 8. Paul has no problem pointing out that idol are not real (verse 4) but he cautions about eating the food: "[I]f anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols?" (verse 10). To which I say, if anyone sees a Christian giving honor to the Quran, will he not be encouraged that Islam is true? Eating food in the temple of an idol was seen as an act of worship, of you honoring that idol. If we engage in behavior that mimics the false beliefs of idolaters, why should they change their minds?
ReplyDeleteBut let's put it more to the point: given, as you said, that Muslims believe the text of the Quran is practically God himself, then why shouldn't I do as much as possible to show that if their text is God, it's a worthless and weak God indeed. What kind of god can be destroyed by man? And if the Quran is so important, why doesn't Allah step in? If Allah does not strike me dead for disrespecting the Quran, then that will show the Muslim that his view of the Quran is a lie, no?
And if the Muslim decides to do the same back to me, dishonoring the Bible--or even calling curses down on Christ Himself--that affords me the opportunity of showing how the God of Christianity is not like the God of Islam, in that our God is a forgiving God who was willing to give up the life of His Son to save us. How are you going to have that conversation if the Muslim believes you secretly agree with him that the Quran is really basically God already, which is why you revere it even though you claim not to believe it?
I can easily see Elija's mocking of Ba'al and his followers being analogous to Wood's mocking of Islam, Muhammed, et al. I think it's possible to press the analogy too far, but there's certainly Biblical precedent for mocking derision of false religion by God's men. As far as "respect" goes, there are levels of duties even there. In the church we're called to "highly honor" those who labor faithfully in the Word and in prayer and to "shame" those *brothers* who are idle busybodies who refuse to work with their own hands. Likewise we're called to honor the king and pray for our leaders regardless of them being in the faith or opposed to the faith, yet Jesus Himself characterizes Herod as "that fox", hardly a "respectful" title.
ReplyDeleteSo it requires wisdom and discernment, "respect" is not a one-size-fits-all thing.
And FWIW I agree with the gist of what you're saying Peter, I just thought your "hero" language comparing Wood with Elija, the prophets, and Apostles was over the top. I understand better since you added the context in which you made the allusion now was in response to someone else who has made that comparison in objection, and you were merely responding on his terms.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Roger said:
ReplyDelete---
David Wood appears to see himself as a Christian apologist going up against another Christian apologist.
---
On the contrary, it's the exact opposite. Wood wasn't going against any Christian at all with what he did. Mohammed Hijab posted several tweets threatening his wife and Apostate Prophet's wife, among others, and Wood said that until Hijab deletes the tweets, he's going to treat the Quran disrespectfully because of how Hijab is using the Quran to harass women in particular. His stated goal is to force Muslims who disagree with Hijab's interpretations of the Quran to force him to change his behavior, making THEM police their extremists. It had nothing to do with going against another Christian apologist, nor even Islam in general. Wood was targeting a specific individual who has made specific threats, and Wood is eating specific Surahs in response to that (such as Surah 9:29).
It's the OTHER apologist who consistently attacks Christians, particularly Wood, on behalf of Muslims every chance he gets. It is the OTHER apologist who would prefer women being sexually assaulted and murdered by Hajib to someone disrespecting the evil text that tells Hajib to behave in that manner.
I have a huge problem with anyone who decides to come down on THAT side of this issue.
Face to Face with Pastor Hines #015 - Review of Doug Wilson - Were Chesterton and Tolkien Saved?
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/SKfxULUZUmE
Wood also pointed out in one of his videos that when Charlie Hebdo published a cartoon of Mohammed, they were murdered. That prompted the response of Everyone Draw Mohammed Day. Now, because there were so many cartoons drawn, he has even used the very cartoon Charlie Hebdo published in the thumbnails of some of his videos (from Mohammed's Boom Boom Room, I believe) and it's caused exactly ZERO riots. Enough people doing something that is "verboten" ended up causing a change for the good in how Muslims interact with Westerners.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, it stands to reason that if enough people were to eat passages of the Quran, Muslims would be required to shift their thinking on that topic too--and they would. The vast majority of Muslims are not extremists and will conclude that it is not reasonable to kill other people due to what happens to paper and ink, but the mentality that this sort of action cannot be done must first be broken to get to that point.
Quoting a passage as if it self-evidently means what you believe it means, instead of you providing an argument, is pointless. You need to provide an ARGUMENT for your position.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible is full of instances of people who engaged in behavior that YOU are saying violates 1 Peter 3:15. I think that alone is already enough evidence that your interpretation of the words is flawed. Josiah, Hezekiah, and Elijah--just to name the examples already listed--did things that you would apparently condemn them for doing.
Oooh, I love this game!
ReplyDeleteIt’s too bad you don’t get the gist of 1 Kings 18:20-40. Do you see anything about meekness and fear there
20 So Ahab sent to all the people of Israel and gathered the prophets together at Mount Carmel. 21 And Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.” And the people did not answer him a word. 22 Then Elijah said to the people, “I, even I only, am left a prophet of the Lord, but Baal's prophets are 450 men. 23 Let two bulls be given to us, and let them choose one bull for themselves and cut it in pieces and lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it. And I will prepare the other bull and lay it on the wood and put no fire to it. 24 And you call upon the name of your god, and I will call upon the name of the Lord, and the God who answers by fire, he is God.” And all the people answered, “It is well spoken.” 25 Then Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose for yourselves one bull and prepare it first, for you are many, and call upon the name of your god, but put no fire to it.” 26 And they took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and called upon the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, “O Baal, answer us!” But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped around the altar that they had made. 27 And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.” 28 And they cried aloud and cut themselves after their custom with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them. 29 And as midday passed, they raved on until the time of the offering of the oblation, but there was no voice. No one answered; no one paid attention.
30 Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come near to me.” And all the people came near to him. And he repaired the altar of the Lord that had been thrown down. 31 Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of the Lord came, saying, “Israel shall be your name,” 32 and with the stones he built an altar in the name of the Lord. And he made a trench about the altar, as great as would contain two seahs of seed. 33 And he put the wood in order and cut the bull in pieces and laid it on the wood. And he said, “Fill four jars with water and pour it on the burnt offering and on the wood.” 34 And he said, “Do it a second time.” And they did it a second time. And he said, “Do it a third time.” And they did it a third time. 35 And the water ran around the altar and filled the trench also with water.
36 And at the time of the offering of the oblation, Elijah the prophet came near and said, “O Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that you are God in Israel, and that I am your servant, and that I have done all these things at your word. 37 Answer me, O Lord, answer me, that this people may know that you, O Lord, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back.” 38 Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. 39 And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces and said, “The Lord, he is God; the Lord, he is God.” 40 And Elijah said to them, “Seize the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape.” And they seized them. And Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon and slaughtered them there.
Your turn!
"This isn’t just disrespect, it is gross disrespect. Try to imagine the apostle Paul evangelizing in this way.
ReplyDeleteYou mean like- ironically enough considering the OP - Acts 17 where Paul tells the Athenians they worship in ignorance and provides evidence of their ignorant worship by pointing to the utter absurdity of worshipping "the unknown god", and then proceeding to tell them the truth? Like *that* kind of evangelism you mean? Literal lol! I think you must just be trolling at this point.
Roger,
ReplyDeleteWhat about Galatians 5:12 then? Paul very clearly connects the party of circumcision with an attack on the Gospel itself. That's why he opposed Peter to his face in chapter 2. It's why he insists in Galatians 2:21 that if works of the law could save then Christ died needlessly. It is in the context of evangelism to the Jews that Paul says he wishes the circumcision party would chop off everything.
Or his derision of the "super-apostles", or his calling the Jewish high-priest a white washed wall, or Jesus mocking Herod as "that fox", or John the Baptist insulting the Pharisees as "a brood of vipers", or God on His throne laughing in derision at His arrayed enemies. It's trivially easy to multiply examples that cut against your myopic view.
ReplyDelete"I don’t see the apostle Paul mocking or deriding anyone. I see him applying his own standards."
ReplyDeleteOk, that's nice. I see him as mocking them. See how this works?
As Peter has already pointed out you're merely making assertions in search of an argument. That may cut it in your private world, but it doesn't cut it in the real world of ideas.
ReplyDeleteActually entire books have been written on the Decalogue and its meaning and application, and terms must be defined because people use different interpretations and definitions, so it would seem to me the answer to your question is "yes".
ReplyDeleteYou need to understand that your moral intuition isn't absolute. You seem to think it is, which is the root cause of your spiritual mypopia.
ReplyDeleteAgain it's trivially easy to deploy examples and counterexamples. Let's play along and consider your "plain sense" take on the 8th commandment.
Let's say you witness a purse snatching in broad daylight. Classic case of an old lady hobbling along the sidewalk as a wiry young punk runs past her and snatches her purse never slowing down his stride. She had her life's savings in the purse and was headed from withdrawing it from her bank to give it to her grand-daughter to help pay for cancer treatments for her gravely ill 3 year old great grand-daughter. She can't pursue because she lacks the physical ability. She calls for help, but no one is around. You see it all from a vantage point down the lane and just around the corner as you're filling your gas tank at the local Quik-Stop.
It just so happens that the punk had his getaway car parked at the gas station, he has no idea you saw or heard anything, he nonchalantly tosses the old lady's purse in his back seat through an open window, and saunters into the Quik-Mart to grab himself a Tastee-Freeze as a reward for his score and to cool down from his run.
He'll walk back out in 3 minutes and be gone. You can see the purse laying there. You can grab it and return it to the old lady and both be gone from the scene before the punk even knows what happened.
But you say remind yourself, "Thou shalt not steal". You can't bring yourself to "steal from the "stealer" because that would be immoral and a violation of the 8th Commandment. So you whistle softly to yourself, top off your tank and drive home.
The end.
If you do nothing to offset the evil actions of an evil person when you are in a position to, then that makes you complicit in his evil.
You might say, "I'd call the cops!", but by the time they arrive in this analogy the perp is long gone with the money. Sure they may nab him later, but the opportunity for justice is lost because he's had time to squander, spend, or drink up and smoke up the money.
Your passivity aids evil. Unless of course you'd be willing in this scenario to snatch the purse back - "steal" it from the punk - and give it back to its rightful owner.
I agree with Roger, for whatever my opinion is worth. There is a difference between how we are to engage those outside the covenant, from those inside the covenant.
ReplyDeleteThe idols were problematic, but they were problematic because they were in Israel. The prophets were sent to the covenant people, not to Egypt, to exhort them to rid themselves of idols. This is synonymous with calling the church to rid itself of idols... not the world.
Jesus rebukes the covenant people. Paul rebukes the covenant people, but when Paul visits Aeropagus in Acts 17, he did not communicate a rebuke or call them to repentance. He shared the Gospel, and the reason for the hope he had within him; and he did so with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15).
If Dr Wood found out Islamic doctrine infiltrated his church, and when the church was assembled, he ate a page or two of the Koran to purge the evil from among them... that would be different because he would be directing his efforts toward protecting the covenant people from error.
Well, there's been a lot said since I last refreshed this page. I'll just add that I still don't see ANYWHERE in Scripture where we are to respect false religious symbolism, texts, or practices. Giving a respectful answer to someone who asks you to explain the hope that is within you--which is what 1 Peter 3:15 is ACTUALLY talking about--is not the same thing as giving respect to an objectively evil book. The fact that 1 Peter 3:15 is being used as if it applies in contexts that are NOT someone asking you to provide a defense of your views, without anyone bothering to provide any argumentation or evidence as to why it SHOULD apply when, for example, a Christian is calling out a Muslim for the evil behaviors that Muslim has done on Twitter, should give pause. 1 Peter 3:15 clearly on its face doesn't say to respect all people at all times, and it certainly doesn't say to respect false religious practices at ANY time.
ReplyDeletePeter, writing in charity - being a respecter of persons is different than a respecter of their false religion. The approach is at the heart of the argument. Dr Wood intentionally incited aggression in response to what he felt was aggression. That’s not the way we learned Christ.
ReplyDeleteRespectfully, I believe my example of Paul with Aeropagus stands. Paul did not go to the Gentiles and tear down their statues or incite aggression. He preached the Gospel and he was respectful. He knew when the Holy Spirit got to work, they would tear down their own idols.
I also believe, though I concede you are right there was no direct question, 1 Peter 3:15’s context can be understood a little more broadly. Dr Wood is/was engaging in apologetics, so even if no one specifically asked him a question about the Gospel, I think the verse is certainly applicable using the context. The surrounding context of that passage assumes there is an opponent of the faith, and a defender; the overall message is to be respectful and gentle in our approach. 1 Peter 3:8-17 teaches us broadly to do good to our adversaries...
Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. - 1 Peter 3:9
Surely we are not only to be concerned about being gentle and respectful when we are directly asked a question about the Gospel, as if any other time it is appropriate to cause offense in order to return evil for evil. I truly believe our conduct should be above reproach always so that our opponents may be put to shame. We can, like Paul, speak truth in love without intentionally inciting aggression.
No Christian “should” disagree with you about false religions. We don’t have to respect false religions or practices, we don’t have to give them merit or a place of honor, or dignity... but it’s a leap from not respecting to attacking. I don’t see the Apostles inciting aggression in like manner. They actually cited Christ as not reviling when He was reviled. Dr Wood knows full and well what his actions meant to Islamists, he even claimed it was in response, indeed escalation to being reviled by Mohammed Hijab.
Finally, I think we do have to show charity to all people all the time, the best we can as is evident in Paul’s Romans 12:14-21 exhortation; in it he exhorts us to live at peace with all people and to treat our enemies well, giving thought to do what is honorable to all.
I haven't read or seen everything, but here are my thoughts on what I have read and seen:
ReplyDelete1. Morality.
a. I agree with Peter there's nothing necessarily morally wrong with destroying the Quran. It's no different than destroying Mao's Little Red Book, Hitler's Mein Kampf, LaVey's Satanic Bible, or the like. And in general I don't see anything morally wrong with destroying these works.
b. Sometimes it may even be morally right to destroy these works. But I'll simply hold to the position that it's not necessarily morally wrong to do so.
c. Perhaps there are exceptions. For instance, perhaps one could argue it's morally wrong to destroy these works if it entails wiping out these works forever so future generations no longer have access to these works (cf. censorship, though censorship itself is not necessarily always wrong). But exceptions are, of course, exceptional. It depends on the particular case, but at this point I'm speaking generally.
2. Offensiveness.
a. No one would or should be offended if Hitler's Mein Kampf was destroyed except for Nazis and fascists. No one would or should be offended by destroying the Satanic Bible except Satanists.
b. I grant sometimes it's morally wrong to be offensive, but is it always wrong to be offensive? Is it always wrong to offend communists, fascists, or Satanists? Is it always wrong to offend Muslims?
c. Along these lines, consider that in any conversation between two worldviews there will be some point of offense. The apostle Paul notes this in saying the cruficixion of Christ is "a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles" (1 Cor 1:23). This can often be true no matter how gently, respectfully, and reasonably we do so. Simply take the example of the Trinity. Muslims regard the Trinity as polytheistic (tritheistic), which would be offensive to Muslim sensibilities.
d. Now, there is (a) David Wood's act of destroying the Quran. But there is also (b) people getting offended by Wood's act of destroying the Quran. If (a) is not necessarily wrong, then why (b)? Where's the logical connection between (a) and (b) if (a) is not necessarily wrong? After all, (a) could have ocurred without (b) occurring. People could have just been like: "Oh, Joe destroyed Mein Kampf. Okay, who cares?" Again, I don't see a logical connection between the two, though I can see an emotional connection between the two.
e. Again, no one needs to get offended by Wood destroying the Quran. Everyone including Muslims could just act like it's not a big deal. For one thing, didn't Wood eat an English translation of the Quran and don't Muslims think it's only the Arabic that's special?
3. Prudence.
Deletea. The fundamental issue might not be morality. Rather the fundamental issue might be prudence.
b. I grant it is not always prudent to take an action, even if the action is moral or not immoral. It might be morally licit to burn the US flag, but it may not be prudent to do so if someone is attempting to dialogue with a patriotic American. Likewise, it might be morally licit to destroy the Quran, but it might not be prudent to destroy the Quran if the goal is to dialogue with a Muslim.
b. As such, a relevant question is what Wood's goal(s) is in destroying the Quran. Is he attempting to dialogue with Mohammad Hijab? It doesn't look that way because Hijab is so irrational that dialogue seems impossible. Is Wood using Hijab as a foil against Islam? That seems plausible. Is Wood attempting to win over Muslims to Christ? Perhaps, albeit it seems a secondary goal at most if so.
c. At least as far as I'm aware, Wood's stated goal is he wants Hijab to delete his tweets that threaten to rape women. That may not be Wood's only goal, but it is his stated goal.
d. Is it prudent to destroy the Quran in order to get Hijab to delete his tweets which threaten to rape women? I think a reasonable debate can be had over this.
e. There can be apologetic value in destroying the Quran in a similar way there can be apologetic value in destroying Mein Kampf, a photo of Hitler, the swastika, or other neo-Nazi symbols, relics, or idols. Sometimes removing or destroying an idol snaps the hypnotized or entranced awake. It's like the famous "1984" Apple commercial where the woman throws a hammer into a huge screen, smashes the screen with big brother broadcasting his message to everyone, and sets the people free.
f. I think this may point to the real issue. The real issue is not the offensive action, per se, but the target of the offensive action. The goal of burning Mein Kampf or depicting Chairman Xi Jinping as Winnie the Pooh is to call neo-Nazism or Chinese communist totalitarianism into question. Likewise perhaps one of Wood's primary goals is to call Islam into question (over its treatment of women and other innocents) by destroying the Quran. That is, if people are offended by the destruction a portrait of Chairman Xi, then what about the greater offense of the CCP violating the rights of and even murdering their own people, expanding their regime into foreign lands, and so forth?
4. Witness.
a. In general, I agree we should try to be respectful toward non-Christians when doing apologetics and evangelism.
b. However, this doesn't imply there aren't times or situations when we can't be more vigorous in our persuasion. Perhaps even provocative. The Bible itself uses polemics.
c. For example, should we always be gentle and respectful toward neo-Nazis who have threatened to rape and murder non-Aryans? The only Christian tradition I'm aware of which might fully favor this is pacifists. But I don't think most the commenters on Triablogue would defend pacifism.
d. Wood has done plenty of direct evangelism with and to Muslims. Perhaps most infamously, Wood was arrested for sharing the gospel and passing out tracts in Michigan along with Nabeel Qureshi. And Wood evangelized Nabeel so Nabeel became a Christian who has won many Muslims over to Christ. And Wood's own ministry continues to win many Muslims to Christ. So if the allegation is Wood isn't loving toward Muslims by telling them the gospel, then it's clearly false. And blunt words or actions can sometimes be "loving".
Nameless Apologist takes issue with Dr. David Wood not respectfully evangelizing Muslims:
Delete1. Dr. Wood has done plenty of respectful debates and has had plenty of respectful conversations with Muslims. He has evangelized Muslims in the past and he continues to evangelize Muslims in the present. Many Muslims are saved through his ministry.
2. However, it doesn't look like evangelism is Dr. Wood's primary goal in this particular case. Rather it seems Dr. Wood might be conducting a polemical apologetic campaign against Islam in his "desecration" of the Quran.
3. Apologetics is often a kind of pre-evangelism which ideally leads to evangelism. But apologetics likewise has other valuable purposes in addition to evangelism. Here are a few:
a. Apologetics sharpens minds. It can improve our reasoning, critical thinking, etc. It can help us think more clearly about important issues.
b. Apologetics promotes Christian knowledge. It helps us know what we believe and why we believe.
c. Apologetics edifies the Christian and/or the church. It can strengthen the faith of individual Christians as well as Christians in general.
d. Apologetics protects the Christian and/or the church. It protects the faith of individual Christians as well as Christians in general. In this respect, apologetics is like getting immunized by a vaccine against a virus.
e. Apologetics silences unbelievers. I think it was Cornelius Van Til who said: apologetics doesn't open the hearts of unbelievers, but apologetics closes the mouths of unbelievers. Only the Holy Spirit can open hearts, though the Holy Spirit can use the means of apologetics to open hearts. Nevertheless a good apologetic can silence unbelievers so they can no longer respond.
4. If it's true Dr. Wood isn't primarily evangelizing Muslims, and if it's true he is conducting a polemical apologetic campaign, then what he's doing may still be quite valuable. For example, Dr. Wood may be sharpening people's minds to get them think more clearly about Islam's treatment of women or whether the Quran is really divinely inspired.
He may be getting Christians to think more clearly about the fundamental differences between the Quran and the Bible or how Muslims treat women vs. how Christians treat women.
He may be showing that Mohammad Hijab and many other Muslims have no reasonable response to him but can only call down curses and threats upon him, including physical violence against him and his family, which means their mouths have been silenced, and they are reacting irrationally. What reasonable-minded person would want to follow such a religion? Dr. Wood may be dissuading people from following Islam even if he is not evangelizing them directly in this particular case, which, if so, would be a good thing that people leave Islam or don't follow Islam, even if they don't become Christians (yet).
Hawk wrote:
Delete---
However, it doesn't look like evangelism is Dr. Wood's primary goal in this particular case.
---
He has said as much.
But....
Having reflected on this some more, I think what many people are missing is the Apostate Prophet is an atheist. It would not surprise me at all to find out that Dr. Wood is actually evangelizing AP by showing him support when Muslims call for his death, for the rape of his wife, and all of that. Wood is showing a witness to AP that not all Christians are going to be so gullible that they'll let fanatics have their way with ex-Muslims.
In one of the follow up videos--the one where Wood actually ate and swallowed Surah 9:29--AP tore out every page of a Quran, and Wood joined him in tearing out pages from his own as well. At the end of it, AP mentioned how he was feeling a lot better having done it.
Given how much emphasis Muslims place on the supposed "sacredness" of the Quran, I do think it was liberating for AP to be able to destroy one. And he's going to remember that it was a Christian who helped him reach that point. Only God knows if AP will be saved in the end, of course, but is it worth "offending" the jihadists to have him saved? Clearly, yes.
That's interesting! I didn't know that. Good point, Peter.
DeleteI just noticed David Wood has another goal in mind:
1. On the one hand, Wood warned Mohammad Hijab that if Hibab did not take down his tweets about abusing women, then Wood would implement Surah 6:108 of the Quran. Surah 6:108 says if a Muslim is insulting an unbeliever, but the unbeliever tells the Muslim they are going to start insulting Islam in return, then the Muslim must stop insulting the unbeliever.
On the other hand, Wood notes Islam also allows Muslims to execute unbelievers who insult the Quran.
Hence Hijab has two choices according to his own religion: either Hijab can stop insulting unbelievers and remove the tweets or Hijab can execute Wood. Which is it going to be? If neither, then Hijab is not truly committed to Islam.
In short, Wood's goal in desecrating the Quran is to push Muslims like Hijab to a stark decision-point. Muslims like Hijab must ask themselves how committed to Islam they are. Will they obey Surah 6:108 and stop insulting Wood so Wood will stop desecrating the Quran? Or will they execute Wood for being an infidel?
2. It's funny how Hijab and other Muslims are asking fellow Christians to condemn what Wood is doing even though it's Wood who is the one attempting to make Muslims more consistently faithful to their own faith. Perhaps Nameless Apologist has unwittingly played into Muslim hands by condemning Wood.
And for the people already not liking the Quran eating. How about...Quran shoes https://youtu.be/IIgeMI2VyTE?t=285
ReplyDeleteI just watched that as well.
DeleteFollowing.
ReplyDeleteYou don't do that to the Quran or the book of Mormon or whatever, not because you want to show respect to those works, but because you want to show respect to the people you're trying to reach. The apostles didn't go around creating disturbances intentionally and smashing idols, etc
ReplyDeleteI also have to bring up another issue here. I've learned a lot from David Wood, but his ministry is more anti-Islam than pro-gospel. Negative attacks have their place. What's the point of them if you can't tell a Roman Catholic that justification by faith alone is necessary? This is a common problem with a lot of modern apologists.
I've seen a number of apologists also assume that if you attack something that automatically means that the person deconverts and become Christian. They can just as easily become atheist.
Hello Geoff,
DeleteYou wrote:
---
You don't do that to the Quran or the book of Mormon or whatever, not because you want to show respect to those works, but because you want to show respect to the people you're trying to reach.
---
But that's part of the question, isn't it? Who are you trying to reach? It becomes more relevant given you last paragraph:
---
I've seen a number of apologists also assume that if you attack something that automatically means that the person deconverts and become Christian. They can just as easily become atheist.
---
As I wrote in a comment above (which you may not have seen):
---
I think what many people are missing is the Apostate Prophet is an atheist. It would not surprise me at all to find out that Dr. Wood is actually evangelizing AP by showing him support when Muslims call for his death, for the rape of his wife, and all of that. Wood is showing a witness to AP that not all Christians are going to be so gullible that they'll let fanatics have their way with ex-Muslims.
In one of the follow up videos--the one where Wood actually ate and swallowed Surah 9:29--AP tore out every page of a Quran, and Wood joined him in tearing out pages from his own as well. At the end of it, AP mentioned how he was feeling a lot better having done it.
Given how much emphasis Muslims place on the supposed "sacredness" of the Quran, I do think it was liberating for AP to be able to destroy one. And he's going to remember that it was a Christian who helped him reach that point. Only God knows if AP will be saved in the end, of course, but is it worth "offending" the jihadists to have him saved? Clearly, yes.
---
So that's the thing. Who are you trying to reach? If you're trying to reach a jihadi or a devout (but still peaceful) Muslim, then insulting the Quran may not be the best tactic. But if you're trying to reach someone who needs to break free from the bondage of an evil, satanic religion, then breaking that evil down might not just be the best tactic, it might be the only tactic. Apostate Prophet knows he has a genuine friend and ally in David Wood now, one who understands the evil of Islam. Wood successfully worked with Nabeel to bring him to Christianity, and I would not at all be surprised if the same thing happens with AP.