Friday, October 15, 2010

God Needs A Quality Control Department 1.4

This is "God Needs A Quality Control Department Part I(e)," which is Part 5 of my thoughts on the debate between William Lane Craig and Shabir Ally, held at York University in Toronto on March 5, 2002. The focus of the debate is this question: Which doctrine of salvation is correct, that of Jesusianismistism or that of Muhammadanismistism? In this video I continue to discuss Dr Craig's first rebuttal.

Before I start, I'd like to let everyone know that starting now I will publish the scripts that I use in making these videos, in case anyone has trouble understanding me. After growing up in Texas, I found that no one outside that state could comprehend a word I said. I visited a specialist to have my accent surgically removed. The operation went horribly wrong, as you can tell. I'll always put links to my scripts in the love bar. I have scripts for all my videos but I don't feel like posting them all. If you'd like the script for any given video, send me a PM and I'll post it.

Now, to the debate. Shabir, in his opening statements, had responded to Dr. Craig's point that the Qur'an drills it into our heads that god does not love sinners. His response was of a type that I hear from a lot of Muhammadanismists: "Our god is no worse than yours!" To get this point across, Shabir points out Psalm 5:5, which he quotes as saying that god hates evildoers. Dr. Craig responds:


This is probably the most egregious error in Dr. Craig's entire presentation--no, let's admit it: the man has multiple degrees in theology and therefore knows better; this is what we in the atheist community call a lie. Funny that I've been told so often that atheists have no morals. Hold in your mind the statement that Craig is considering "doctrine": the doctrine that "god hates evildoers". Now consider these doctrinal points from the New Testament book known as Hebrews:
  • From 1:1-14, Jesus is far superior to angels (this is more relevant than modern Jesusianismists may realize; my understanding, although I haven't done any serious research on the matter, is that the author was trying to put a stop to some angel worship that was going on at the time; therefore, it's important doctrine, intended to inhibit idolatry)
  • From 2:8, Everything is subject to Jesus
  • From 2:11, Jesus calls his followers "brothers"
  • From 3:7-19, Unbelievers will never enter god's rest
  • From 4:9, There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of god
  • From 5:10, Jesus is designated by god to be the high priest for the saved
  • From 7:22, Because of god's oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant
  • From 10:9-10, God has set aside the old covenant and replaced it with the new one
"Everybody knows" that you can't take doctrine from "poetic passages", you say? Obviously, the author of Hebrews didn't know it. Every one of these points of doctrine, some of them clearly foundational to the entire structure of Jesusianismistism, is based on verses from the Psalms, and Dr. Craig knows it. In fact, in the book of Hebrews, I count some 39 references to verses in the Old Testament; 17 of those are from the Psalms and two are from Proverbs. Just under half of the Old Testament foundation for some of the most important doctrine in Jesusianismistism comes from "poetic passages". Shame on you for lying, Dr. Craig. For anyone who's interested, I've put some details in the love bar concerning which Psalms are used by the author of Hebrews.


You think it's morally reprehensible. Wow, so we get to interpret the bible based on our own morality? Human morality is qualified to pass judgment on religious claims? That's great; I have quite a few moral objections to the bible myself, too many to mention here. Check out all my bible series on my YouTube channel if you're interested. An easy summary of all my videos would go like this: Yahweh itself, I think, is morally reprehensible. Do I win the debate?

That's Part I(e). Thanks for watching.

No comments:

Post a Comment