User Menu Search
Close

Scott Cherry's Assessment of the 4/9 Debate Between Ted Barham and Ozair Tahir


 

Last Friday I attended an informal debate between Ted Barham and Ozair Tahir on the question, "Is the trinity logical, rational?"  This is my assessment of that debate and my personal rebuttal of Ozair’s argument including a summary of the doctrine of the trinity. Ozair assumed the standard Muslim position that the trinity is non-rational/illogical. But although he is a Muslim, he did not overtly argue his position on the basis of the Qur'an, rather on the pretense of logic and reason. But what he thought was good logic and sound reasoning was, in fact, fallacious. Throughout the course of the debate Ozair repeatedly demanded of Ted, "If the Bible said there were squared circles, would you believe it?" It was a trap that Ted would not fall into. Although Ted could have been much more assertive in putting forth biblical examples of the trinity, Ozair seemed generally disinterested in such evidence anyway. Instead his mind was made up that the trinity was a "squared circle" as he repeatedly resorted to this pet question.

  • 14 April 2021
  • Author: Scott Cherry
  • Number of views: 40
  • Comments: 3

Is God Consistent in His Moral Standards? Does He Have to Be?


The God of the Torah is consistent, it is one of his divine attributes. God is not arbitrary or random. He is consistent in both his attributes and His moral standards. That's why passages about his love for foreigners matter, and why they are not irrelevant. Nothing about God is irrelevant. The LORD is consistent in his love. We Christians don't just ascribe love to God because we want him to be loving. It's because HE said he is loving. God gave Moses his divine truth in the Tawrat, or Torah. In it God revealed much about His nature. He revealed his essential attributes to Moses who penned them for the Jews, the Muslims, and the world: Power, Holiness, Compassion, Righteousness, Mercy, and Love, for example. Who are we to question what God says about Himself in His own words? 
  • 17 March 2021
  • Author: Scott Cherry
  • Number of views: 127
  • Comments: 0

Two different perspectives on the nature of biblical justice and the social justice movement

Social justice entails a philosophical theory that asserts dimensions to justice that impact politics, economics, civil and criminal law, and even theology. What does the Bible have to say about the precepts of the social justice movement.

Please join us for a great discussion by registering hereThe vent is free and a zoom link will be sent to registered attendees on the day of the event. 

We have 2 separate views to consider.

Matthew Jackson is 34 years old, he is a native of Fort Worth Texas, he currently resides in Hot Springs Arkansas and is working on two Masters degrees at Liberty University and Trinity College of the Bible & Theological Seminary while also working with At-Risk Youth. You can find his content on youtube at the Urban Christian Institute.

Mike Moses is the Associate Pastor of Discipleship and Administration at Harvest Bible Church in Westland, MI. He has an MDiv. & ThM from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. He lives in Michigan with his wife,two young sons with a 3rd on the way. Mike will be taking the position that social justice, as commonly practiced in our culture is not biblical. You can check out some examples of his published work on topics like intersectionality and transgenderism.

 


 

A Reaction to Kelly Smith's Attribution of Reason to the Universe

Dilbert: And we know mass creates gravity because more dense planets have more gravity.
Dogbert: How do we know which planets are more dense?
Dilbert: They have more gravity.
Dogbert: That's circular reasoning.
DilbertI prefer to think of it as having no loose ends.

–Scott Adams, Dilbert (March 1, 1999)

Apparently there are universal rules of good thinking. They seem to apply to everyday living and to academic disciplines like science and others. We don’t get to choose them; they are imposed on us, but science doesn’t know for sure by whom or what. The rules seem to be very rigid such that if you break them other people might scold you and bad things can happen. One of these rules is called circular reasoning, also called begging the question. It says that your conclusion cannot be part of your premise. It’s just not allowed. Another rule is that if you make a claim about something you have to be able to back it up. You need evidence. 

  • 8 January 2021
  • Author: Scott Cherry
  • Number of views: 412
  • Comments: 1

John Locke vs. Thomas Hobbes

by Christian Ledford

In analyzing the creation of Adam by God, Locke made two arguments. The first argument is relatively simple; Locke argued that humans have rights and are free because God created Adam with explicit intention for him to have rights and be free. Specifically, Locke said that, although natural, rights of humans do not come randomly from nature itself or natural processes but as a direct endowment by God to mankind. The second argument is a bit more nuanced; Locke argued that, because God granted the Earth not to Adam specifically as some sort of divine monarch but to mankind in general, all of whom would come to possess the exact same rights that God endowed upon Adam, no individual has the right nor allowance to violate the rights of another. Specifically, rejecting and rebelling against the brutish Hobbesian notion of rights, Locke said that the rights of one man end where the rights of another man begin.
  • 22 December 2020
  • Author: Guest Blogger
  • Number of views: 338
  • Comments: 0
RSS

Article Search

Terms Of UsePrivacy StatementCopyright 2021 by Tao and Tawheed
Back To Top