Social Ethics For A Social Network: An UnApologetic Presence On Facebook

Social Ethics For A Social Network: An UnApologetic Presence On Facebook

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com


For those of you that are interested, click here to view the paper I presented at the Evangelical Philosophical Society’s(EPS) Annual Meeting today. EPS recorded it, as well as all of the others, and will have them available later. Click here to access the EPS site.

Thank you to those of you who took the time to proof the paper and add critique to it. The questions I received today added much to the theme of the paper. I was encouraged by the turnout and interest in the subject matter.

*UPDATE (January 24th, 2010): I saw this from the Pope today 🙂 Granted, I am an Evangelical, but found his ‘commandment’ to fit right along with my paper. Check it out HERE.

*UPDATE (June 9th, 2010): Ed Stetzer ways in!

National Geographic Blunders on Islamic-Christian History

National Geographic Blunders on Islamic-Christian History

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

A friend of mine brought to my attention a problematic article in the National Geographic of June 2009. Apparently, National Geographic featured an article on Arab Christians entitled, “The Forgotten Faithful.” Although the article is mainly focused on modern Arab Christians, the author reports this inaccurate historical record:

“Such scenes reflect the Levant’s history of coexistence between Muslims and people of other faiths, which dates from the earliest days of Islam. When the Muslim Caliph Omar conquered Syria from the Byzantine Empire around 636, he protected the Christians under his rule, allowing them to keep their churches and worship as they pleased. But many Christians converted to Islam anyway, preferring its emphasis on a personal connection with God to the oppressive hierarchies of the Byzantine Church.” [emphasis mine] You can read this for yourself on the seventh page of the article by clicking here.

This statement is wrong and can be quickly checked against the Omar Agreement (aka Umar Agreement). Click here for source. Under Caliph Omar, Christians were given three choices: death, conversion, or agreement to pay jizya tax. Here is the agreement:

The Status of Non-Muslims Under Muslim Rule

We heard from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanam [died 78/697] as follows: When Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, accorded a peace to the Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows: In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:

  • We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells,
  • nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
  • We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers.
  • We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
  • We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
  • We shall not teach the Qur’an to our children.
  • We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it.
  • We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
  • We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
  • We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair.
  • We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
  • We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
  • We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
  • We shall not sell fermented drinks.
  • We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
  • We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
  • We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims.
  • We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly.
  • We shall not raise our voices when following our dead.
  • We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets.
  • We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
  • We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
  • We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
  • (When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, “We shall not strike a Muslim.”)

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct. If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition. Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: “They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims,” and “Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact.” from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.

[This was a from hand out at an Islamic History Class at the University of Edinburgh in 1979. Source of translation not given.]

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html

It is disappointing that the journalist, who wrote, The Forgotten Faithful, did not report on Omar’s Agreement at all. To give him the benefit of the doubt, he may not have known that this agreement existed. However, notice the term dhimma in the text. This is a term for second class citizens under Sharia Law (Islamic Law). This is not how these people are portrayed in the National Geographic article when the author reports these people worshiped “as they pleased.”

As Nabeel Qureshi of Acts 17 Apologetics pointed out, in reference to this same article:
“Unfortunately, there is a problem with this [the author’s] perspective: it ignores virtually everything about Islam. As we have pointed out before, Sharia stems from the Qur’an, and in its final days of revelation, the Qur’an commanded that Christians and Jews be fought until they are humiliated (9:29). Sharia thus calls for active antagonism towards non-Muslims.”

Also, it is unfortunate how the article presented an imbalance of religious violence, focusing more on historical Christian violence without a balanced assessment of the Muslim violence in history, as well. And so it appears as if the article is attempting to persuade people about an ideology under the guise of reporting history; that is a real misfortune. We should all try our best to understand and report what really happened in history so we can all learn from it.

MJ

Christian Writing Contest 2009

Christian Writing Contest 2009

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

Did you know that Confident Christianity was a sponsor of Athanatos Christian Ministries’ Christian Writing Contest? The writing contest aims to promote the Christian worldview through fictional literature. We were the sponsors of the 2nd place prize in the high school (ages 13-18) category, called the Dorothy Sayers Award. We also sponsored the International (or English as a Second Language) category, called the John Wycliffe award. We had a great time reading through the entries and were pleased with the results. You can read our two award winners’ stories online at:

1) Dorothy Sayers Award: Kimberly Hanson, Waikoloa, Hawaii – Way Out West
2) John Wycliffe Award: Adel Emmanuel, Cairo, Egypt – Oracle of the Wicked Land

To see the winners of all categories (19 and up, high school, international, and poetry) and read their stories, please click here.

One of the best aspects of participating in this contest was getting to read fiction again! Plus, we were reading fiction that taught foundational Christian doctrine, such as the nature of God.

If you are interested in writing, I highly encourage you to take a look at the contest. Registration is currently being accepted for the next round. You can find more information at the Christian Writing Contest website: click here.

MJ

Mary Jo Sharp and Ehteshaam Gulam Debate

Mary Jo Sharp and Ehteshaam Gulam Debate

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

If you have not seen my debate with Ehteshaam Gulam on the death of Jesus, you can still check it out by clicking below:

NEW: A very gracious blogger, Tilde Prolix, put together a compilation of the Scriptures used during the debate organized by topic. If you would like to read them, click here.

Thanks,
MJ

Stand to Reason Radio Show

Stand to Reason Radio Show

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

The podcast of my interview on Greg Koukl’s radio show is up on the Stand to Reason website. Click here.

I had a wonderful time with Greg on the show! He is a great host.

His interview basically consisted of how I became a Christian apologist, my degree through Biola University, the Certified Apologetics Instructor program through the Southern Baptist Convention, the uniqueness of a female apologist(and my call for more of us ladies), my ministry, and my recent debate and encounter at the Arab Fest up in Michigan.

Thanks to the staff at the studio – Barbara, Melinda, and Greg – for making this a relaxed and enjoyable event!

MJ

Mary Jo Sharp vs. Ehteshaam Gulam “Did Jesus Die on the Cross?”

Mary Jo Sharp vs. Ehteshaam Gulam “Did Jesus Die on the Cross?”

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

My debate with Ehteshaam Gulam from www.answering-christian-claims.com has been posted on www.answeringmuslims.com.

Again, thanks to Ehteshaam and to David and Nabeel for making the debate possible.

If you’d like to see a larger version, go to www.answeringmuslims.com.

Thanks,
MJ

*Note: There have been two working titles for this debate, “Was Jesus Crucified?” and “Did Jesus Die on the Cross?” They are the same debate.

Arabfest in Dearborn, Michigan 2009

Arabfest in Dearborn, Michigan 2009

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

Greetings!  Some of you by now have heard about the incident at the Dearborn Arabfest with David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi of www.answeringmuslims.com and myself (camerawoman). If not, here’s is a brief description of the events or you can read the article in The Texan here.

At the festival, there was a booth entitled “Islam: You Got Questions, We Got Answers” that was handing out a pamphlet with the title, “Islam’s War on Terror.” Nabeel wanted to ask a question about the pamphlet with reference to Surah 9:29 in the Qur’an and video tape the response to put on their blog. So we went to the booth and asked the question. The first reaction from the booth was to ask us to turn off the cameras. After Nabeel made a comment about their unwillingness to answer on video and questioned if this was deception, the gentleman with whom he was speaking agreed to be filmed. Shortly thereafter, the security guards for the festival (not Dearborn policemen) showed up at the booth and a woman associated with the security guards told me I had to turn off the camera several times. When I did not turn off the camera, she then proceeded to hit the camera, closing the LCD display window. Then she put her hand on the front of the camera. She asked me if I was no longer recording. I showed her on the display that it was not recording, but she did not believe me. So I turned the camera off.

Our encounter with the security guards did not end here. We had a much worse encounter later on, after verifying with police and security that we were well within our rights to videotape a response to the question. This time there was more hitting of our cameras, plus threats. David and Nabeel have not posted this video as of yet.

The encounter can be viewed in parts at David and Nabeel’s blog, www.answeringmuslims.com.
Scroll down to VideoBlog #3 for the first part.

You can also view a Muslim response to VideoBlog #3 at thefotfoundation.
Title, “Arabfest Invasion 2009 – Dearborn, USA”

Thanks,
MJ

Debate Overview #1

Debate Overview #1

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

This weekend, Acts 17 Apologetics held a series of debates with Osama Abdallah and Farhan Qureshi. I moderated the debates, but was able to take some notes as well. So here are some general comments.

Osama Abdallah vs. Nabeel Qureshi
“Is the Qur’an Miraculous?”

Abdallah’s entire opening argument centered on the scientific accuracy of the Qur’an as evidence of the Qur’an’s miraculous nature. Generally, his argument flowed as such:
1) The Prophet Muhammad was not a scientist
2) The Prophet Muhammad made scientifically accurate statements in the Qur’an
3) The Prophet could not have known these scientific facts well before these facts were confirmed by scientific investigation
4) Therefore, the Qur’an is a miraculous book

He proceeded to give various examples of these scientific facts from the Qur’an: reduction of the earth to dust, the big bang (Surah 21: 30), a coming “cosmic crunch” (Surah 21:104), the moon reflecting the sun’s light (Surah 10:5) and the moon having cracked (Surah 54:1), the earth as spherical (Surah 79:30), and etc.

Qureshi’s opening statement included much background information on the formation of the Qur’an. He utilized a medical diagnosis analogy to “diagnosis” the Qur’an as not a perfect revelation of God. Also, Qureshi argued that the seven ahruf mentioned in Sahih Al-Bukhari amounted to an escape clause for problematic textual variants. His focus here was refuting the claim that the Qur’an had been “perfectly preserved.” He then challenged the Muslim arguments from literary excellence, mathematical marvels, and scientific accuracy. In responding to the argument from scientific accuracy, Qureshi commented that these “facts” found in the Qur’an were either 1) taken out of the context of the Qur’an, or 2) blatantly scientifically inaccurate, or 3) obvious to the average person (not valid as evidence to the miraculous nature of the Qur’an).

Abdallah compared Qureshi’s sources for Islam to a Muslim utilizing the Nag Hammadi or Gnostic sources for Christianity. However, Qureshi’s sources were early and trusted Hadith (such as Sahih Al-Bukhari). Abdallah, though, referenced the Gospel of Judas; in other words, he seems to demand one methodology for approaching Islam and another for approaching Christianity. He then committed the tu quoque fallacy by arguing along the lines of “so what if the Prophet did things that falsify his prophethood, so did the Biblical prophets…are you going to reject them too?” Abdallah’s actual statement was, “how do you know none of the other prophets had a similar experience [to Muhammad]?” This kind of statement does not answer the problem for the prophet Muhammad. Instead, it diverts the same argument to another focal point, the Biblical prophets; thus, the tu quoque fallacy. His Biblical prophet example, however, was King Solomon. He then pointed to an apparent contradiction in 2 Chronicles 22:42 and 2 Kings 8:26 on the age of King Hezekiah when he became ruler (22 years old versus 42 years old), but left out the source and explanation of the problematic variant; which is important for textual criticism.

In Qureshi’s rebuttals, he re-emphasized his earlier refutation of the argument from scientific accuracy, addressing Abdallah’s “facts” one by one. Plus, Qureshi pointed out more evidence that the Prophet Muhammad does not fit the criteria for a prophet. For example, Muhammad used black magic to remove a spell on him. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 54, Num. 490).

Generally, Osama Abdallah’s presentation centered on the argument from scientific accuracy and Nabeel Qureshi answered each of Abdallah’s points, demonstrating that this argument is indeed not strong for the miraculous nature of the Qur’an. Further, Qureshi’s arguments that remained unanswered were 1) Muhammad’s original reaction to this revelation (thoughts of demon possession), 2) the problematic historical transmission of the Qur’an, 3) the apparent mathematical marvels, which can be found anywhere if one is looking for them, and 4) the challenge from literary excellence, which has already been met several times over.

The debate is posted on www.answeringmuslims.com, under “Is the Qur’an Miraculous?”

MJ

Muslim-Christian Debates this Weekend

Muslim-Christian Debates this Weekend

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

This weekend, Acts 17, the ministry of David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi will be hosting a series of four Muslim-Christian debates in Virginia Beach. David and Nabeel are two friends who debated the validity of Islam for four years while Nabeel looked into the truth of Christianity. Both are well-researched in Islam, having debated and spoken on the religion all over the country. You can find more biographical information here (click the “About Us” tab). They are also enjoyable to watch as they always provide a rigorous debate!

I will be the moderator this weekend at all four debates. If you are in the area, I would love to see you there! Please find the specific information on the debates below:

Debates:

  • Saturday’s Debates Will Take Place on the Glenwood Campus of Coastal Community Church
  • 05.09.09 3:00-5:45 PM Osama Abdallah vs. Nabeel Qureshi: “Is The Qur’an Miraculous?”
  • 05.09.09 7:00-9:00 PM David Wood vs. Osama Abdallah “Was Jesus Crucified?”
  • Sunday’s Debates Will Take Place at Jackson Memorial Baptist Church
  • 05.10.09 3:00-5:45 PM Farhan Qureshi vs. David Wood: “Who Was Muhammad?”
  • 05.10.09 7:00-9:00 PM Nabeel Qureshi vs. Farhan Qureshi: “Who Was Jesus?

For the Acts 17 website, click here.
For more debate information click here.

MJ

Book Review: The Reason for God

Book Review: The Reason for God

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

What struck me the most was that Pastor Timothy Keller uses his theological studies with everyday people in New York. Timothy Keller’s book, The Reason For God, is a combination of his education in Christian doctrine, theology, history, and apologetics and on his experiential use of this knowledge with people. In combining the two, Keller creates a book with a cumulative, though introductory, argument for God’s existence that is as moving as it is reasonable. I was a bit skeptical at the beginning of the book. Keller makes a generalized claim that the discourse between the church and secular culture was completely polarized (which is too overarching of a claim—found on page xv). Though, as I read on, I realized he did not really accept this view. His own church is a testimony to the crossing over supposed “barriers” between secular and sacred. His book is thoughtful, yet accessible, and his doctrine is conservative. Keller does not apologize for the foundational tenets of Christianity: the sin nature, atonement, the imputation of righteousness, sanctification, Jesus’ actual death and resurrection as the Son of God, and the Trinity, to name a few. Instead, he explains the necessity for each with part formal argumentation and part common sense argumentation (i.e. no one can live out certain ideology). There is much material in his book I would like to discuss, but for practicality I will only touch on the highlights. First, Keller presents a cumulative defense of God in a very readable way; he covers the bases—or what I would consider as “need to knows.” He discusses religious and moral relativism, the problem of evil and suffering, human rights in a naturalistic evolutionary worldview, the compatibility of religion and science, and the reality of great human failing in the history of the Christian church. Second, he combats faulty views of the Christian God. This is a battle in which I participate frequently. A person, usually unknowingly, will set up an unorthodox view of the Christian God and then proceed to attack that version. Keller clears up misconceptions according to Christian views and then demonstrates the practical problems with these versions of God, as well. He also reminds the readers to set the Christian concept of God, as found in the Scripture, back into the cultural-historical context of the earliest followers. This is an extremely important reminder for understanding Christian ideas such as resurrection. Third, Keller defines “sin” and “religion” as appropriate to the Biblical understanding of these two terms. Sin is “not just the doing of bad things, but the making of good things into ultimate things. It is seeking to establish a sense of self by making something else more central to your significance, purpose, and happiness than your relationship to God.”(page 162) Religion is referred to as “salvation through moral effect.” (page 175) He contrasts religion with the Christian term, “gospel,” which is referent to “salvation through grace.” Keller reminds us that “religion” was spoken against by Jesus where it meant man’s works to get to God or to gain approval. He even described a kind of avoidance of Jesus as Savior through the keeping of all “the rules.” Very morally upright people can place their trust in their own actions rather than solely in the action of God’s grace through Jesus. Fourth, Christians fail to use the resources available to them in Christ. The reality of the gospel is the possibility of a radically different life. Keller states, “Christians are people who let the reality of Jesus change everything about who they are, how they see, and how they live.” (page 231) However, he reminds us that at the core of that reality is a freeing grace, not conforming people to certain cultural standards, but allowing for the full expression of culture through freedom found in Christ to be exactly who God made you. Finally, what struck me the most was that Keller uses his theological studies with everyday people in New York. To cite a couple of clichés, he is not holed up in an ivory tower or waxing poetic from a philosopher’s armchair. He is amongst people; and his concern for the individual pours from the words of his book. Thanks, MJ