This is "God Needs A Quality Control Department," Part I(f), which is Part 6 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 conclude my discussion of Dr Craig's first rebuttal and move on to Ally's first rebuttal.
Ally, in his opening statements, had alluded to the Muhammadanismist belief that the Apostle Paul was an evil heretic who invented Jesusianismistism. He suggests that Jesus and Muhammad were in far more agreement than Jesus and Paul. As an aside, I have to agree with him. I noticed a zillion times while working on my New Testament videos that Jesus' philosophy is very much like Muhammad's. Dr Craig responds to Ally:
Wow, this guy is brazen. He has already told a big, fat lie about how you can't derive doctrine from the "poetic passages," rendering the book of Hebrews utterly worthless. Obviously, he thinks he can get away with it. Obviously, he does get away with it. Why? Because the average Jesusianismist doesn't even know what he believes in the first place, much less what the bible tells him to believe.
But even if we pretend that Dr Craig did not tell this lie, that he does in fact have some respect for the book of Hebrews, he's spouting nonsense anyway. The Apostle Paul himself was also Jewish. Is Dr Craig trying to say that the fact that this author was Jewish and was not Paul suggest that the author was more likely a member of one of the non-Pauline camps? I can't figure out why Dr. Craig would even bring this up, except, employing his polished debating skills, to draw attention away from the fact that his entire argument is bullshit, that he doesn't even believe in any god, but makes all these public appearances for the money.
Ally's First Rebuttal
Ally, with no comment whatsoever, completely abandons his earlier claim that all of the Qur'anic verses saying that god hates sinners were figurative. He switches over to this idea instead.
Wait a second, what kind of debate is this? You present an argument that you're willing to concede with no comment at all? Doesn't that suggest that you knew in the first place that the point was worthless, and you were just hoping that Dr. Craig (or at least your audience) would let it slide? This is a contemptible way to debate, and it really dishonors the god that you claim to be glorifying.
This is perhaps the only good point made by either speaker in the entire debate. This is something that has bothered me about Jesusianismistism for a long time: god "loves" everyone, but treats some unspeakably badly. How can that be called love? There is a serious cognitive dissonance associated with this god. At least Muhammadanismistism is honest: god hates certain people and will punish those whom it hates.
That's Part I(f). Thanks for watching.