tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8059900119147604324..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Muslim mockumentaries Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84246650791022460052018-06-10T10:55:41.277-04:002018-06-10T10:55:41.277-04:00Nope, you are WRONG. Only White knows how to deal ...Nope, you are WRONG. Only White knows how to deal with Islam, because his approach is 100% Biblical. He is an elder in a good standing church, he is a scholar, he is learning Arabic, he has authored many books, he has debated several dozens of highly informed Muslims, preached gospel in a mosque.... did I miss anything? (lol)<br /><br />Seriously though, I think there is a place for different approaches here. The ISLAMACISE ME would work wonders on those who are horribly ignorant about their faith (majority of Muslims) yet who have not be "radicalised", and also those non-Muslims thinking of converting to Islam. But it would not work on some of the other type of Muslims. There has to be a mix of approaches, and yes Muslim converts to Islam will have a lot to add to this topic.James McCloudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02155211190204661934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39653249825818438772018-06-10T03:15:00.961-04:002018-06-10T03:15:00.961-04:00P.P.S I was amused to here White emphasize "p...P.P.S I was amused to here White emphasize "positive" teachings in scripture. Are there negative teachings too, to make that distinction? One can only wonder. James McCloudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02155211190204661934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-14171394730880335802018-06-10T03:11:01.178-04:002018-06-10T03:11:01.178-04:00Okay - I agree on the two points. I was referring ...Okay - I agree on the two points. I was referring largely to White. <br /><br />Btw, since I mentioned White, I saw his reply to the gang. For a man who wants to be consistent, he engaged in firing at strawman within the same hour he decried one against him (for example David's YouTube metrics dictating his ministry, or some similar nonsense) . Strangely, that is consistent with his past behavior. While he noted that David "advertises" his jihad threats, can we note White "advertises", not to mention brags, about him debating/preaching in a mosque?<br /><br />And finally, according to White, David and gang are anti-Muslims. Wow. Is it a wonder White is shunned by most of his peers in the apologetics community? (He mentioned once that he is not invited in major apologetics conferences. One wonders why? And I suspect is not his erudition that's the problem). What a disgraceful thing to say. <br /><br />P.S. According to me White was right in pointing out David not going through with his rebuttal. During the live chat by the Islamacise Me! gang,me and many others had to remind them of the objections by White. Ideally, when you want to rebut someone, especially in a video presentation, you should let the man you are rebutting speak for himself (i,e. play his case) or at least make a systematic points that you can go through. The gangs' live chat was severely disorganised, and White is right to critique that, even if he gets the rest of the things hopelessly wrong especially Wood being an anti-Muslim.<br /><br />And if our code of conduct is from the New Testament alone - why not tear the OT and get rid of it altogether? Can White show that any of the apostles saw their teachings ALONE being the code of conduct for Christians? And coming to White asking them, on whether any apostles ever preached without mentioning the gospel, did White ask himself if any apostle ever invite an anti-Christ (Yadhi - according to the definition of 1 John, not to mention White's presentation of Islam as an anti-Christ religion) among the faithful without rebutting them? Consistency? Fair measures? Not applicable to White I guess. How saddening it is that a premier Christian apologist is reduced to such low standards now. His scholarship is top-notch, but his attitude sucks - Biblically. If the Lord's bondservant must not be quarrelsome, White fails thats. I have only seem him quarrelsome with regards to other apologists, and resentful in this specific video. That is failing on two counts on 2 Tim2:24!<br /><br />“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." (Matt 7:3-5)<br />James McCloudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02155211190204661934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86857797175733273722018-06-10T03:02:55.863-04:002018-06-10T03:02:55.863-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.James McCloudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02155211190204661934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87731745344804300292018-06-09T17:37:05.500-04:002018-06-09T17:37:05.500-04:00I don't think the point is that many difficult...I don't think the point is that many difficult passages get mocked, especially in the OT (see the blog at a Muslim blog above, Blogging Theology) and also the NT.<br /><br />The point is, in my opinion, 2 fold:<br />1. Some of them take a long time to explain and take away from explaining the main things, like the gospel truths, Deity of Christ, Trinity, etc.<br />2. Some of them are a mystery and I don't have a good answer for some of them. It is easier to understand some things in the Mosaic law as part of Theocratic Israel that have been abrogated. (Civil and Ceremonial law - Hebrews chapter 8-9 & 10, Colossians 2; Mark 7:19; Matthew 22:43-46Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25171111460829911162018-06-09T17:11:51.731-04:002018-06-09T17:11:51.731-04:00I personally would not care if the OT is satirised...I personally would not care if the OT is satirised. I dont know which planet White lives on, but the OT, and even the NT, is mocked left, right and centre day in and day out. And frankly, if the OT is mocked, and we are unable to defend it, it deserves to stay mocked.<br /><br />But we will defend that later. First, we get on with the current agenda and critique Islam. Even if the OT turns out to be foul, that does nothing to change the fact that Islam is proven to be foul by their own source. The tu quoque would work only on novices who dont know a thing about staying on topic - the basis of any argumentation. White sadly is not a novice, but "bad company corrupts good morals," or in this case, good judgment in argumentation.James McCloudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02155211190204661934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63305250709002374222018-06-09T16:36:08.611-04:002018-06-09T16:36:08.611-04:00Over at Blogging Theology (now run by Ijaz Ahmad. ...Over at Blogging Theology (now run by Ijaz Ahmad. Paul Bilal Williams old blog.<br />When I pointed out the Hadiths themselves are what is ridiculous; the response I got was what Dr. White was talking about. Of course all of those verses are defensible; but it would take too long and too much time to type it all out.<br /><br />https://bloggingtheology.net/2018/06/06/inspired-plagiarism/#comment-70253<br /><br />It looks like I hit a hornet's nest after that.<br />:)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34181143482264064602018-06-09T16:10:59.218-04:002018-06-09T16:10:59.218-04:00One final comment: to suggest that all criticism o...One final comment: to suggest that all criticism of the false religions must be necessarily followed by a presentation of the gospel is lame. I have already provided the sower and the reaper analogy, but we can also learn from scripture itself. There are two scriptural books that don't explicitly mention God, but underscore his working: Ruth and Esther. One can also reference James who is largely silent on Christ.<br /><br /><br />I firmly believe that since there is one Truth, an objective Truth, undermining all other competitions to that Truth underscore that objective Truth - even when that Truth (i.e. the Gospel) is not referenced. This is why I believe sharp criticism of Islam on factual grounds aid the gospel even if the gospel is not necessarily preaches. It aids the gospel in clearing the way, and making the soil fertile.James McCloudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02155211190204661934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33788039554009849042018-06-09T16:09:22.039-04:002018-06-09T16:09:22.039-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.James McCloudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02155211190204661934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65320223793128935672018-06-09T15:51:51.097-04:002018-06-09T15:51:51.097-04:00Third, White's stance is inconsistent. On the ...Third, White's stance is inconsistent. On the one hand he states that the gospel needs to be presented, and to let God do his work - but on the other hand he goes about studying other religions in order to effectively present the gospel. This necessarily implies that merely mechanically presenting the gospel and hoping God would do his job converting the heart of people is unrealistic and ineffective. Yet when others want to try out other approaches to share the gospel, White critiques them as implying they dont have confidence in the gospel message. My goodness! What double standards! He has done that with Dr. Craig and Licona and a host of others. <br /><br />Fourth, White, it appears, stubbornly refuses to believe that undermining Islamic theology FIRST -- is a necessary step which can, and does many times, precede the preaching of the Gospel. That that step is a preparatory work, much akin to John 4:38 in which Jesus suggests that the sower and the reapers are different people. The sowers do the preparatory work. Just as one has to till the ground, and see its nutritional content before even thinking of sowing seeds, with Muslims one must first shake their confidence in Islam (till the ground) and then sow seeds (preach the gospel). White conflates both these, and wants the tilling and the sowing to be done on the same day/preaching/presentation. Even Paul did not expect to convert people at first preaching! There can be a lot of time - years - that goes before a Muslim is receptive to the Gospel, especially with Islam which corrupts the gospel. White just does not seem to come to grasp with this. He is stuck in his myopic world where only his method is scripturally supported - which by the way he has not demonstrated. According to him, one must just present the beauty of the gospel and leave the conversion to God, without critiquing Islam. But we already saw that he himself does not believe in such a simplistic approach (point three above).<br /><br />Fifth, White's misapplication of 1 Peter 3:15 is glaring. The verse in question reads, "...always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." His exegesis introduces two problems which defeat White's criticism. One, the verse in question addresses the behavior of defending one's belief when one is approached to defend it. The Islamicise Me! project does not remotely fall in that category. The project seeks to expose Islamic beliefs and practices, not defend the gospel. Two, if Peter's command is to be understood as universally addressing everyone with gentleness and reverence, Peter himself falls short of that standard, not to mention also Jesus - his (and our) Lord. To escape this dilemma, if one suggests that the Biblical figures were exempt from this command, apart from that being an arbitrary statement, it would insinuate at the double standards of God as described above.<br /><br />Merely asserting, "we are not prophets," wont do. That is not an argument, and frankly not worth the time of any serious Christian on the other side contemplating the issue. Ah, perhaps for his choir this might suffice.<br /><br />In closing, unless we are given sound exegetical reasons of why the precedent of harsh communication like that of Elijah, or that mentioned in Ezekiel, or in the rest of scripture is not available to us, it would be unscriptural to refrain from those approaches. Scripture uses this sparingly, and in dire situations, and so must we. <br />James McCloudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02155211190204661934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33965382417830674692018-06-09T15:50:51.798-04:002018-06-09T15:50:51.798-04:00First, if one would scripturally want to assert th...First, if one would scripturally want to assert that what the prophets of old said or how they behaved is invalid for Christians post the New Testament, one would have to show how the said practice fell into one of the four categories above. There could be more categories, I am merely laying out the ones that immediately jump at me.<br /><br />So let us consider the case of Elijah: when Elijah was mocking the prophets of Baal insinuating the imagery of a toilet, was that behavior authorised by God "only" for him? Can that be shown from scripture? Or did Jesus correct Elijah or such behaviors from any of the prophets? Or was Elijah just expressing what was acceptable in his culture? You see, to be taken seriously, Dr. White will have some demonstrating to do. He is a scholar for crying out loud - does he expect his thesis, exegesis to just be accepted at his word? Similar is the case with Ezekiel, and God asking him to cook his meals on human excrement. My goodness, if ever there was anything that was the most repulsive, it was this. Even Ezekiel revolted and asked for God's mercy! Sure, in this case the content of the satire was specific to Ezekiel, but was the need of satire specific to only him? Can this be shown from scripture? Can it be shown that there is no other way in which God could have communicated that message (maybe our God admitting that)? No.<br /><br />Second, there is a problem of moral double standards here. To suggest that such behavior was morally acceptable of God and his prophets/apostles, but is not acceptable of us - are people REALLY suggesting that God has double standards of morality: one reserved for him and his prophets and the other for us? Does the Christian God have double standards? Don't we get our own moral standards from him? <br />So, if he, the Master of the Whole Universe, thinks there is a time for very harsh talk (and at times (seemingly) profane talk?) to jolt people out of their apathy, does that not suggest moral acceptability of such a direct, harsh approach in some situations? Example: The shocking street-play of Ezekiel 4-5 precedes Ezekiel 14, 18 and 20, and ultimately the sack of Jerusalem in chapter 33. (Not to forget the the explicit mention of penises in chapter 23). John the Baptist's and Jesus' utterly harsh, and contemptuous rebuke of the leadership in Jerusalem comes 40 years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Peter and Paul used harsher words also (eg. Acts 13:10). The point is that in some circumstances, usually the ones closer to some disaster but not restricted to it, God did allow for very strong (read explicit) language. Many would interpret the Islamic threat as such a problem approaching a tipping point in the coming decades.<br /><br />Is White suggesting that because they were apostles of God, God gave them morally convenient privileges, not to mention to himself, like Allah gave Muhammad? Where is White going with this?<br />James McCloudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02155211190204661934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69793723246703513152018-06-09T15:49:53.630-04:002018-06-09T15:49:53.630-04:00Dr. White mentioned Ephesians 5 as a conduct of Ch...Dr. White mentioned Ephesians 5 as a conduct of Christian living in all circumstances, and invoked the standard apologetic verse of 1 Peter 3:15 to assert that satirical messages, especially those bordering on profanity, are not allowed by scripture to be used under any conditions. He dismissed other similar precedents in scripture by suggesting something on the lines of, "we are not prophets and apostles, so we are not authorised to repeat those precedents."<br /><br />Well, that is White's opinion and by all means, he is entitled to it - but if he wants Christians to take his position seriously he ought to make a stronger Biblical case than merely asserting, "We are not prophets."<br /><br />What does that even mean apart from cherry-picking the code of conduct from scripture with what is inline with one's upbringing and cultural mores? The Old Testament is as valid in its teaching as the New Testament (eg. 10 commandments, Messianic prophecies, God's promises to his faithful, God's warnings etc.), except when it describes specific history and distinct cultural practices no longer upheld, or it strictly communicates precepts of the Mosaic covenant, or when Jesus or his apostles improve on it (Eg. Sermon on the Mount), or it was a specific commandment to a specific person (Isaac's sacrifice). These are at least the 4 categories I can logically think of, if I were to avoid cherry picking verses to suit my motives. Scripture in its totality is the yardstick of the Christian life, not just the NT. <br />James McCloudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02155211190204661934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68533006526329337592018-06-09T15:47:36.598-04:002018-06-09T15:47:36.598-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.James McCloudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02155211190204661934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49215846157782797382018-06-09T12:23:23.298-04:002018-06-09T12:23:23.298-04:00“Francis and Edith Schaeffer led many to Christ th...“Francis and Edith Schaeffer led many to Christ through their ministry at L’Abri in Switzerland. In my view, the power of their ministry was found in the combination of a thoughtful apologetic (“honest answers to honest questions”) and a loving ministry of hospitality.”<br /> <br />John Frame, “Presuppositional Apologetics”, in Five Views on Apologetics, (Zondervan, 2000, edited by Steven B. Cowan), p. 220, footnote 17.<br /> <br />Cornelius Van Til in a letter to Francis Schaeffer:<br /> <br />“You have the advantage over me. You converse constantly with modern artists, modern existentialists, etc. as they eat at your table, you study their literature; whereas I am only a book-worm”<br /> <br />Cornelius Van Til, “A Letter to Francis Schaeffer”, in The Works of Cornelius Van Til: 1895-1987, edited by Eric Sigward. (Jackson Heights, NY: Labels Army, 1997) Cited in CRI Journal, “Armchair Apologetics, Eric Brook, volume 25, number 4, 2003, p. 62.<br /> <br />This is what is greatly needed today in the Evangelical church; both equipping in sound Biblical apologetics and Evangelism; along with hospitality and listening and love.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44632432391701989192018-06-09T12:22:46.654-04:002018-06-09T12:22:46.654-04:00David and Vocab and Jon also have good points that...David and Vocab and Jon also have good points that God uses all sorts of different methods and personalities and there are different audiences, etc.<br /><br />I also see that even though I am Reformed/ Calvinistic (Baptist / Credo-baptism like Dr. White); I don't always agree with the way some people apply Presuppositional Apologetics to every situation (like a cookie cutter method) and I also don't agree that street preaching is the only Biblical example of evangelism in the Scriptures. (some people seem to think that - it seems some Reformed Evangelists think you just yell and scream the gospel for 10 minutes or so and that's it - they walk away and shake the dust off their feet, etc.) Some don't see the need for relational or friendship evangelism. That is sad to me. the late Francis Schaeffer in the LaBri Fellowship model had a great combination of hospitality and answering questions. Even Cornelius Van Till admitted to Schaeffer that he was the one who applied apologetics rightly. (see quote below in next post) The reality of people and relationships just does not usually work that way. God can convert someone in a second if He wants to, with a few minutes of the person understanding the issues; but that is not how is usually happens in history and with people. Usually it is a long process of people hearing the truth and wrestling with it over time. (until God finally gives the grace of regeneration, faith and repentance.)<br /><br />I think we can legitimately start with the more classical apologetic approach like R. C. Sproul advocated; and also use lots of the evidential content along with Presuppositional methods; depending on the issue, the circumstances, person we are talking to, and the audience.<br /><br />For example (on a different issue of "Evolution vs. Creation/ Creator), in the debate of Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye, I think Ken Ham should have used Intelligent Design and the Moral argument and Design arguments first in dealing with him, rather than starting from the beginning with the 6 day 24 hour view. (even though that view has the best exegetical evidence among Bible Believers; with an unbeliever I would start with the other 3 arguments and work from there in discussion, etc.<br /><br />Which, I think relates to some aspects of David Wood's arguments, it that usually, it is a process with people over time in which they think over what they hear and wrestle with Scripture. I cannot relate to the Reformed folks who seem to think that everything will happen in one second. Regeneration is like that, true; but most people go through a process of wrestling with Scripture in their heart and mind before the actual event of regeneration takes place in the heart. (that we don't see) <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34685413490262946372018-06-09T12:03:39.657-04:002018-06-09T12:03:39.657-04:00"I changed my mind" = on at least one as..."I changed my mind" = on at least one aspect - that is - David's point that there can be 2 goals to doing what he is doing- 1. expose Islam (and see violent Muslims leave Islam - a good result for peaceful society / less Islamic terrorism in this world; and 2. preach the gospel / answer questions with apologetics about truth and Biblical issues, etc. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49952999768341359172018-06-09T09:07:25.823-04:002018-06-09T09:07:25.823-04:00After listening to David Wood, Vocab Malone and Jo...After listening to David Wood, Vocab Malone and Jon McCray's explainations - stayed up late just to finish listening. After that one tweet last night; I tweeted some more this morning: (beginning at bottom) <br /><br />I guess the biggest difficultly, because of the nature of the internet, is that each side ( White side vs. Wood side) has to explain to Muslims, when the Muslims ask about /criticize/ get angry about aspects or statements of each other's different styles and different emphases.<br /><br /><br />Iranians are already disillusioned with Islam, so that is a different situation than the kind of Muslims you are trying to "shock". Iranians have already been shocked for almost 40 years. They are more open to the gospel now because they don't like Islam as exposed to them by government <br />(The late Ayat'ollah Khomeini / current leader Ali Khaumenei Regime)<br /><br /> <br />The Live You Tube explanations last night was necessary to hear and see you guys explain yourselves in a rational way. I actually thought the urination scene was real - explaining that it was apple juice from a squirt bottle helped me; but still I could not do that kind of humor<br /><br />I still have problems w/ depicting the adult breastfeeding along with sexy music; & "I have changed my mind" meant on the aspect of getting Muslims to leave Islam-that is a good thing for the world; and hopefully, by God's grace,& word & Spirit, get the gospel and also be saved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85308481163286604832018-06-09T02:38:44.076-04:002018-06-09T02:38:44.076-04:00Just as a general note (which applies to me too; a...Just as a general note (which applies to me too; and just to be extra clear this is not at all directed at Ken whose work I highly respect):<br /><br />I think there could be a danger in some Christians presuming to speak on behalf of Muslims. It's like how some white liberals attempt to speak on behalf of minority groups. Self-appointed spokepersons for what this or that minority group thinks, which is really what white liberals think, not what the minority group thinks.<br /><br />It might be better to ask and consider what Muslims who have converted to Christianity think. For example, what do they have to say about evangelism to Muslims? Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69190355735951408402018-06-09T02:28:55.345-04:002018-06-09T02:28:55.345-04:00Here is what I tweeted to David Wood on Twitter af...Here is what I tweeted to David Wood on Twitter after listening to him and Vocab Malone and Jon McCray's explanations of why they did what they did on the "IslamicizeMe" video series:<br /><br />After listening to your explanations on You Tube tonight, I have changed my mind; you are right- if Al Qaedah /Isis/ Taliban / Hamas types - if they leave Islam, the world is better. I think you are both (Dr. White & you guys) working in your respective areas of giftedness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1708587155174686272018-06-09T02:13:13.589-04:002018-06-09T02:13:13.589-04:00I agree. I think that's likewise why there'...I agree. I think that's likewise why there's no one-size fits all approach to evangelizing Muslims (or anyone else), because each person or group is different. Some Muslims might take offense at Dr. David Wood's approach, others might find it engaging. Some Muslims might find James White's approach informative, others might find it staid and dry. It just depends. That's why (as I've mentioned earlier) I think it's good to have a multi-pronged approach. Sometimes serious, sometimes satirical, etc. Know the audience, love the people, convey the truth. These are the main things.<br /><br />Of course, I'm assuming all this is within the bounds of orthodoxy. However, as we know, the problem is White thinks Dr. Wood's approach transgresses Christian ethical boundaries. <br /><br />By the way, I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but it looks like Dr. Wood, Vocab, and Jon have responded to White in a nearly 3 hour Q&A available <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQPPljv4hO4" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Epistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5323115638700788872018-06-08T22:01:35.025-04:002018-06-08T22:01:35.025-04:00I agree that you have to be passionate and not afr...I agree that you have to be passionate and not afraid. They can sense fear, and prejudice , and they respect you when you stand on principle.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86597981886820096332018-06-08T21:59:17.787-04:002018-06-08T21:59:17.787-04:00I think it depends on the language and culture and...I think it depends on the language and culture and the depth of personal trust one has built with the people you minister to. They can sense when you are treating them like a project or if you are just doing ministry like a business.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83376678425432289802018-06-08T17:14:23.590-04:002018-06-08T17:14:23.590-04:00I saw this YouTube comment:
Yakup Korkmaz
David...I saw this YouTube comment:<br /><br /><br />Yakup Korkmaz<br /><br />David [Wood], I have been a missionary in the Muslim world for over 15 years. Doing apologetics with Muslims in their native languages. I have been using similar arguments for years. (Negative apologetics.) and no one has ever been offended. They also have never heard of any of these Islamic teachings and it makes them consider the problems in Islam. I could go on about this but, in the Muslim world, in their languages you can be up front, passionate and confrontational, and then walk away friends. This is normal speech for them. <br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7ViV3GMaJUEpistle of Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07779184015407034200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23191784193782265982018-06-08T15:50:43.612-04:002018-06-08T15:50:43.612-04:00"But Dr. White pointed out that he has a seri..."But Dr. White pointed out that he has a series of lessons/sermons on the holiness code in Leviticus/Deut. were he does deal with some of the most difficult passages for all us in today's society and time to understand." <-- Yes, this is what I mean. Christians can do that. Islamic scholars don't have the ability to do that. So, there is objectively a difference between Christianity and Islam and, in my opinion, it is therefore missing the point to say, "They can do the same thing back to us" since Muslims cannot defend their Hadiths the way we can defend the OT.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9236526236228379922018-06-08T15:20:31.488-04:002018-06-08T15:20:31.488-04:00Thanks for your comments, Ken. They definitely gi...Thanks for your comments, Ken. They definitely give me more things to think on! And I should point out that I only watched up through episode 9 of the videos, as well as watching #23 because I wanted to see why it was the one that got banned by YouTube, so there could have been lots of other things I have not viewed that could be worse than what I did look at.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.com