Culture Intelligent Design Science

CS Lewis, COVID-19, and scientism

Spread the love

Seventy-five years ago, C.S. Lewis published his novel ”That Hideous Strength,” which explored the dangers of government in the name of science. What relevance does Lewis’s advice on the promise and perils of science-based public policy have in the age of COVID-19 and beyond? Political scientist John West, editor of the book The Magician’s Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society, explores what we might learn from Lewis about the abuses of science during emergencies and how we might harness the benefits of science while avoiding the drawbacks of “scientism.” This online talk was originally delivered as part of a webinar held by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute on May 16, 2020.

70 Replies to “CS Lewis, COVID-19, and scientism

  1. 1
    bill cole says:

    I completely agree with Dr West. I would say that he was very generous to Dr Fauci. The selling against hydroxycholorquine was morally suspect.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    The promotion of HCL before its efficacy has been demonstrated is also ethically suspect.

  3. 3
    jerry says:

    The promotion of HCL before its efficacy has been demonstrated is also ethically suspect

    But this never happened. So what is ethically suspect? What is ethically challenged is not providing it early for everyone with virus.

    Probably 140,000 dead in US because of this and a similar number in Europe. But no one cares. They’re just dots.

  4. 4
    john_a_designer says:

    The promotion of HCL before its efficacy has been demonstrated is also ethically suspect.

    By the same logic:

    The mandate of a nationwide lock down before its efficacy has been demonstrated is also ethically suspect.

    The mandate of social distancing and mask wearing before its efficacy has been demonstrated is also ethically suspect.

    Well actually the only thing that is ethically suspect is the logic. But it doesn’t take much to convince the lemmings.

  5. 5
    BrunoAr says:

    We can see what kind of scientists are rising to the top, like scum on stagnant water – narcissistic socialists.

  6. 6
    ET says:

    It’s as if there are people who think that President Trump made up the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for covid-19. I am sure that history will show that the efficacy for hydroxychloroquine was demonstrated first and all the President did was promote it as a hopeful solution, given the medical data at the time. And it appears that when it is used properly, it is very effective.

  7. 7
    AaronS1978 says:

    The fact of the main paper that defaced hydroxychloroquine was retracted should be a clue to everybody that is a big push against it willing to promote inaccurate science and that is a problem political in nature

    there’s no reason why I can know your political perspective and be able to predict whether you support the drug or not accurately, Which speaks more to the political perspective and not to the effectiveness of the drug one way or another

    It was no surprise that Seversky said what he said

    Personally I’m neutral to the drug
    But I am not neutral to the vehement attack on the drug from the other side and it got attacked viciously the moment Trump supported it

  8. 8
    Bob O'H says:

    AaronS1978 – I don’t think there was one paper that “defaced hydroxychloroquine”. Even before it came out there was a drip, drip of papers saying that HCQ wasn’t a cure (e.g. the VA study). What the retracted paper did was (before it was retracted) to cause other trials, such as the Recovery trial, to pause and look at their data, and find no effect.

    I think Trump’s support and the reaction will be used as a case study in why politicians should be careful before leaping into one side of a scientific debate. When he did that, the data weren’t clear, so the issue became politicised. But now thee is a consensus, certainly amongst reglulatory bodies, that HCQ isn’t effective, but it will be more difficult for them to get that message across.

  9. 9
    ET says:

    Bob O’H- You don’t know what you are talking about. HCQ has proven to be effective when used properly. Perhaps you should learn how to read and understand that science

  10. 10
    Bob O'H says:

    Thank you ET. And we should accept that you’re a capable judge of science… why?

  11. 11
    ET says:

    Unlike you, Bob, I can read for comprehension. Also, unlike you, I am not stupid enough to think that nature can produce coded information processing systems like the genetic code.

    So there’s that

  12. 12
    Bob O'H says:

    Ah, so not because you have any demonstrable scientific expertise.

  13. 13
    ET says:

    Ah, I will take my scientific skills over yours any and every day, Bob. You have yet to demonstrate an understanding of science.

  14. 14
    Bob O'H says:

    I’ve over 100 scientific publications, and am a professor. What demonstration of scientific skill do you have?

  15. 15
  16. 16
    ET says:

    So what, Bob? You think nature can produce coded information processing systems- all without any evidence or a way to test the claim. You had no idea how different humans and chimps are.

    My scientific skills are in the fact that I know and understand cause-and-effect relationships. I am able to determine the root cause of most effects. Science 101. I bet your papers are just puff pieces that have nothing to do with actual scientific research.

  17. 17
    ET says:

    Tell us Bob, how can we test the claim that blind and mindless processes produced any bacterial flagellum? And if you can’t then tell us why you believe they did.

  18. 18
    Bob O'H says:

    ET –

    My scientific skills are in the fact that I know and understand cause-and-effect relationships. I am able to determine the root cause of most effects. Science 101.

    I was asking for a demonstration of scientific skill, not hubris.

  19. 19
    ET says:

    Facts aren’t hubris, Bob. I noticed that you failed to answer my question. Very telling, that.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob O’H: “I’ve over 100 scientific publications, and am a professor.”

    And yet Dr Bob, without a shred of empirical evidence that it is possible, believes that mindless processes produced his ‘beyond belief’ brain,

    The Half-Truths of Materialist Evolution – DONALD DeMARCO – 02/06/2015
    Excerpt: but I would like to direct attention to the unsupportable notion that the human brain, to focus on a single phenomenon, could possibly have evolved by sheer chance. One of the great stumbling blocks for Darwin and other chance evolutionists is explaining how a multitude of factors simultaneously coalesce to form a unified, functioning system. The human brain could not have evolved as a result of the addition of one factor at a time. Its unity and phantasmagorical complexity defies any explanation that relies on pure chance. It would be an underestimation of the first magnitude to say that today’s neurophysiologists know more about the structure and workings of the brain than did Darwin and his associates.
    Scientists in the field of brain research now inform us that a single human brain contains more molecular-scale switches than all the computers, routers and Internet connections on the entire planet! According to Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, the brain’s complexity is staggering, beyond anything his team of researchers had ever imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief. In the cerebral cortex alone, each neuron has between 1,000 to 10,000 synapses that result, roughly, in a total of 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies!
    A single synapse may contain 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A synapse, simply stated, is the place where a nerve impulse passes from one nerve cell to another.
    Phantasmagorical as this level of unified complexity is, it places us merely at the doorway of the brain’s even deeper mind-boggling organization. Glial cells in the brain assist in neuron speed. These cells outnumber neurons 10 times over, with 860 billion cells. All of this activity is monitored by microglia cells that not only clean up damaged cells but also prune dendrites, forming part of the learning process. The cortex alone contains 100,000 miles of myelin-covered, insulated nerve fibers.
    The process of mapping the brain would indeed be time-consuming. It would entail identifying every synaptic neuron. If it took a mere second to identify each neuron, it would require four billion years to complete the project.
    http://www.ncregister.com/dail.....evolution/

    Though Dr Bob apparently personally believes that he himself is a ‘scientist’ of a very high caliber since he believes that such unfathomable complexity can, essentially, be an accident, the fact of the matter is that Dr Bob has, in reality, lost his mind

    “It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.”
    – Jay Homnick – 2006 American Spectator

    As Professor J. Budziszewski stated,

    “Though it always comes as a surprise to intellectuals, there are some forms of stupidity that one must be highly intelligent and educated to commit.”
    – J. Budziszewski

    Verse:

    Romans 1
    21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

  21. 21
    Truthfreedom says:

    Bob O’H

    Thank you ET. And we should accept that you’re a capable judge of science… why?

    Well, you should ask an a-theist HOW the hell they can consider themselves rational beings and capable of judging anything (and that includes asking yourself such a question if you are one of them):

    Atheists Can’t Trust Reason — Or Anything

    1. Anyone who accepts atheism accepts naturalism.
    2. On naturalism, the reliability of human reason is astronomically improbable.
    3. Therefore, anyone who accepts naturalism has a defeator for any conclusion whatever reached on the basis of reasoning, including the conclusions of naturalism and atheism.
    4. Therefore, atheism can never be accepted by anyone on a rational basis, since every atheist eo ipso has a rational defeator for his own acceptance of atheism.
    5. Therefore, all atheists accept atheism on wholly non-rational grounds.
    6. Therefore, every atheists just as such places himself outside the sphere of rational discourse.
    7. Therefore, it is pointless to attempt to engage an atheist qua atheist within the sphere of rational discourse.

    https://wmbriggs.com/post/22122/

    A REAL scientist does not despise his/ her own thinking processes (because without them, “science” is dead in the water). But being honest and materialism are sworn enemies.

  22. 22
    AaronS1978 says:

    Science is only as good as the people doing it
    If you have a crap perception it’ll be crap science

    By the way peer review doesn’t escape this either this has been proven multiple times

    But just because of a group of Hominids agree on a conclusion, doesn’t mean that conclusion is correct, it means the group has a surviving gene that brought them to that conclusion. You can think of science can as from of tribalism. Why not everything else is according to scientists

    I think it would be quite interesting to start doing evolutionary science and psychology on the scientists and the reasons for their conclusions I’m sure there are many genetic predisposition to their conclusions and results

    And throughout that we must take a very hard materialistic and naturalistic position on the science everyone does

    Remember everyone including science is based off natural selection and survival

  23. 23
    Querius says:

    Bob O’H,

    First of all, congratulations on the hard work you’ve put into your field and the scientific rigor required to have your work published!

    I think where the problem lies is in the assumption that all previous work in all scientific fields have the same rigor. Many studies in the social sciences and medicine have been found to be irreproducible. This fact has been recognized in what’s called the replication crisis.

    A 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported that 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist’s experiment (50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments). In 2009, 2% of scientists admitted to falsifying studies at least once and 14% admitted to personally knowing someone who did. Misconducts were reported more frequently by medical researchers than others. – Wikipedia article, The Replication Crisis

    So, with that in mind, should the efficacy of the quinine-like antimalarial drug, hydroxychloroquine, in prevention of COVID-19, be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt before someone with the very real risk of dying from COVID-19 can resort to it under medical supervision?

    Many articles on the subject adamantly (and correctly) oppose any claim that it cures COVID-19, but they also include a self-righteous fury that President Trump should dare to articulate an opinion on it, much less take it himself.

    Fine.

    But the fact remains that both the claims and counter-claims are premature and will take years to determine. All we have is anecdotal evidence, which is notoriously unreliable.

    So, let me ask you this. If you tested positive for COVID-19 and you were warned by your doctor that you would most likely die from COVID-19 after months of excruciating pain and suffering, what would you do?

    -Q

  24. 24
    Truthfreedom says:

    AaronS1978,

    But just because of a group of Hominids agree on a conclusion, doesn’t mean that conclusion is correct, it means the group has a surviving gene that brought them to that conclusion.

    Or according to evos, it is not necessarily a “surviving gene”. It could be one that got along for the ride (“spandrel”), although it had not survival value per se.
    How can you prove then what is an “adaptation” and what is a “spandrel”? (That’s very problematic, since we are talking about events that occurred hundreds of thousands of years ago).

  25. 25
    MatSpirit says:

    BrunoAr
    August 20, 2020 at 1:39 pm

    “We can see what kind of scientists are rising to the top, like scum on stagnant water – narcissistic socialists.”

    The President is NOT a socialist!

  26. 26
    Truthfreedom says:

    MatSpirit,

    The President is NOT a socialist!

    No. He is a biological automaton. And so are you. And so am I (according to the corrupt materialist philosophy you automatically love so much).
    Becsuse hey, that is what automatons do.

    Teleology anyone?

  27. 27
    JVL says:

    I wonder if ET is an atheist? I’m not sure he’s said . . .

  28. 28

    1. Anyone who accepts atheism accepts naturalism.

    I was wondering how the author supported that premise. Turns out, he doesn’t. he says,

    (#1 is obviously true),

    Uh, what? How on Earth is #1 “obviously true?”

  29. 29
    ET says:

    I wonder is JVL is a troll…

  30. 30
    JVL says:

    ET: I wonder is JVL is a troll…

    Not according to the NHS.

    Anyway, I seem to remember saying you weren’t a Christian so I was wondering if you are an atheist.

  31. 31
    ET says:

    So not a christian = atheist? Really?

  32. 32
    JVL says:

    ET: So not a christian = atheist? Really?

    Nope, but I just wondered if you were an atheist. You don’t seem like a Buddhist or a Jane or a Zoroastrian or a Hindu or a Muslim . . . Jewish maybe.

  33. 33
    ET says:

    Islam is the religion, not Muslim. You can be a Muslim and not be a member of Islam. Jewish people are Muslims.

  34. 34
    daveS says:

    🤔

  35. 35
    JVL says:

    ET: Islam is the religion, not Muslim. You can be a Muslim and not be a member of Islam. Jewish people are Muslims.

    I’ll have to check that out.

    Are you a Muslim then? Oh, maybe Morman?

    From Wikipedia:

    Muslims are people who follow or practice Islam, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion. Muslims consider the Quran, their holy book, to be the verbatim word of God as revealed to the Islamic prophet and messenger Muhammad. The majority of Muslims also follow the teachings and practices of Muhammad (sunnah) as recorded in traditional accounts (hadith).[29] The derivation of “Muslim” is from an Arabic word meaning “submitter” (to God).[30]

    The beliefs of Muslims include: that God (Arabic: ????? All?h) is eternal, transcendent and absolutely one (tawhid); that God is incomparable, self-sustaining and neither begets nor was begotten; that Islam is the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that has been revealed before through many prophets including Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Moses, and Jesus;[31] that these previous messages and revelations have been partially changed or corrupted over time (tahrif)[32] and that the Quran is the final unaltered revelation from God (Final Testament).[33]

  36. 36
    ET says:

    All members of Islam are Muslims. Not all Muslims are members of Islam.

  37. 37
    daveS says:

    ET,

    Is Benjamin Netanyahu a Muslim?

  38. 38
    ET says:

    If he practices Judaism, yes.

  39. 39
    ET says:

    The word “Muslim” means, literally, “one who submits to Allah (God)”.

    That’s it.

    Islam tells you how to submit. Judaism tells you how to submit

  40. 40
    daveS says:

    Are Christians Muslims as well?

  41. 41
    ET says:

    Muslims have ONE God. The Trinity is not allowed. Jesus as God is not allowed.

    Unitarians would be considered as Muslims

  42. 42
    daveS says:

    I guess Mormons also would qualify as Muslims?

    Edit: Or perhaps not! My bad.

    Anyway, I don’t think orthodox Christians would agree that they worship more than one god, despite the puzzles around the Trinity.

  43. 43
    ET says:

    The Trinity is a contrivance. Christians worship Jesus as God.

  44. 44
    JVL says:

    ET: The Trinity is a contrivance. Christians worship Jesus as God.

    I’m thinking you’re a Muslim then, one that follows Islam.

    Lots of people have gotten confused over the Doctrine of Trinity. And lots of Christian scholars have discussed it. I can never quite get my head around it myself.

  45. 45
    Querius says:

    Christians believe in one God, YHVH (“I Am Who I Am” in Hebrew), not three.

    YHVH manifests himself in three ways. The Tanakh (aka Old Testament) makes reference to “the Son” and “the Son of Man” (Psalm 2, Daniel 7), to “Messiah” (Daniel 9), and to “a man of suffering” (Isaiah 53).

    In the B’rit Chadashah (aka New Testament/Covenant), the Gospel of John refers to Yeshua (aka Jesus) as “the Logos” (the Word/Concept of God personified), the Son of Man (32 times in the Gospel of Matthew; 14 times in the Gospel of Mark), and the book of Hebrews describes Yeshua as follows:

    God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. – Hebrews 1: 1-4 NASB

    Christians in India sometimes refer to Jesus as “the only begotten avatar of God.”

    Allah is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who revealed himself to Moses as YHVH two thousand years before Muhammed.

    -Q

  46. 46
    ET says:

    JVL:

    I’m thinking you’re a Muslim then, one that follows Islam.

    Except that I don’t follow Islam.

  47. 47
    ET says:

    Q:

    Christians believe in one God, YHVH (“I Am Who I Am” in Hebrew), not three.

    Three as One. That is what the Trinity symbolizes. God, the Father; God the Son (Jesus); God the Holy Spirit)

  48. 48
    ET says:

    Q:

    Allah is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who revealed himself to Moses as YHVH two thousand years before Muhammed.

    Allah is the God of Ishmael and Abraham. The Hebrews are alleged descendent of Isaac and Abraham. The Arabs from Ishmael an Abraham. Ishmael was the older 1/2 brother of Isaac. Ishmael was the son that was the only son, for a time. Isaac was never an only son.

  49. 49
    Querius says:

    People can also be “a trinity,” although we might not put much emphasis on such a concept. For example

    A. You might be the Director of Engineering at a company. You might have 300 employees working for you in your capacity. Your relationship to them is in a professional and technical management capacity.

    B. You might be a husband to your wife fulfilling your wedding vows to be a protector, provider, and companion to her.

    C. You might be a father to your children fulfilling your responsibility to help raise, guide, and mentor them for productive, responsible, and cooperative lives in society.

    Would you say you are three people or do you commonly refer to yourself as a trinity among your friends and family?

    The Bible doesn’t ever use the word “trinity” although God and the Spirit of God are first mentioned in Genesis 1.

    Please understand that I’m not presenting a complete, precise, or definitive explanation of God, and I doubt that any human can do so, especially considering how little we truly understand of God’s creation. This is why I rely only on the Bible and analogies implied by the Bible, and I resist going much further.

    -Q

  50. 50
    ET says:

    I know the Bible doesn’t mention any Trinity. I said it is a contrivance. I know that I cannot be my own child. I know That I cannot be my own father. A man can be many things with those exceptions.

  51. 51
    Querius says:

    ET,

    Many scholars believe that Allah is a title derived from the Arabic Al ilah, which means “the God.” This title might have its origin in Elohim, which again is the title for God in Hebrew. It is not the name of God, which God revealed to Moses as YHVH in Exodus 3: “This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.”

    There were many gods worshiped in the Ancient Near East. As you might know, Abraham (Avram) was originally from Mesopotamia. He was most certainly familiar with the three primary gods of the region:

    – An/Anu/El – the supreme god of heaven
    – Enlil/Elil – the god of air, wind, earth, and storms
    – Enki/Ea – the god of wisdom, magic, incantations, arts, and crafts

    The title Elohim or Allah might have originated from El as a title, “God,” but not the name of God, YHVH. Even our English title “God” derives from Germanic and possibly a Sanskrit word loosely translated, “one to whom sacrifices are made.”

    -Q

  52. 52
    JVL says:

    ET: Allah is the God of Ishmael and Abraham. The Hebrews are alleged descendent of Isaac and Abraham. The Arabs from Ishmael an Abraham. Ishmael was the older 1/2 brother of Isaac. Ishmael was the son that was the only son, for a time. Isaac was never an only son.

    Definitely sounds like Islamic tendancies to me. Which is just fine; I’m good with that. I do like to know what perspective people are speaking from so I don’t misjudge them.

  53. 53
    jerry says:

    I met Catholics from Bethlehem in the United States about 10 years ago at a local Christmas fair. They identified as Catholics. They were trying to sell artifacts that were hand carved as a way of providing money for their extended families back in Bethlehem.

    I asked them what their native language was. They said Arabic. I asked them their name for God. They said Allah. So my guess is that if you went to a Catholic service in Arabic you would hear the word “allah” mentioned several times.

    So the term “god” like “allah” are just words indicating a supreme being. They don’t imply equivalence for everyone using the word just as we don’t consider the Greek gods the same as the Judeo/Christian God.

  54. 54
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Definitely sounds like Islamic tendancies to me.

    So knowledge is an Islamic tendency? All knowledgeable people are members of Islam? Really?

    Everything I said about Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac are all parts of history. Anyone can read about it. Does that make everyone who read about it and understood it is now a member of Islam?

  55. 55
    ET says:

    Yes, Q, I understand that people have this need to find a difference between Allah and Yahweh. But in reality it is just a different perspective of the same One.

  56. 56
    JVL says:

    ET: So knowledge is an Islamic tendency? All knowledgeable people are members of Islam? Really?

    It’s not knowledge that indicates beliefs; it’s the interpretation of knowledge.

    Anyway, why are your afraid to state your beliefs? If you’re afraid of how you’ll be judged then can you be said to be a true and faithful believer? There must be a reason for being deceptive.

    Why are you ashamed of your convictions?

  57. 57
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Anyway, why are your afraid to state your beliefs?

    I am an IDist. I accept that there isn’t any viable scientific alternative to Intelligent Design. I believe that people who think nature produced the codes that rule living organisms are demented and should never be taken seriously.

    Happy?

  58. 58
    Mac McTavish says:

    ET

    Yes, Q, I understand that people have this need to find a difference between Allah and Yahweh. But in reality it is just a different perspective of the same One.

    I have to agree with ET on this. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all worship the same being. Their respective writings Clearly acknowledge this. What everyone is quibbling over is the numerous ways that each of the three major sects choose to worship and what the supreme being expects of us.

  59. 59
    Querius says:

    ET: Yes, Q, I understand that people have this need to find a difference between Allah and Yahweh. But in reality it is just a different perspective of the same One.

    Mac McTavish: Judaism, Christianity and Islam all worship the same being.

    What do you find in the Quran that leads you to logically arrive at this conclusion?

    In Acts 4, we read the following account of what the Apostle Peter said to the Judean religious leaders when on trial regarding his attributing a miraculous healing to the name of Jesus.

    Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers and elders of the people, if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by this name this man stands here before you in good health. “He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone. “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

    Was Peter lying when he said “for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”?

    -Q

  60. 60
    Seversky says:

    Mac McTavish @ 58

    I have to agree with ET on this. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all worship the same being. Their respective writings Clearly acknowledge this. What everyone is quibbling over is the numerous ways that each of the three major sects choose to worship and what the supreme being expects of us.

    I would say, rather, that each is insisting they are the one and only true faith while spending considerable intellectual effort trying to explain away what should be fatal flaws in such beliefs.

  61. 61
    ET says:

    Nice non-sequitur by seversky. Any of those three religions are more coherent than materialism. Talk about fatal flaws.

  62. 62
    ET says:

    Umm, did Peter come before or after Mohammed wrote the Qur’an?

    The God of Abraham is the Allah of Islam. That is a historical fact.

  63. 63
    Querius says:

    ET,

    You have simply repeated a groundless assertion. Where in the Quran does it support your assertion? I have already provided a refutation from the Bible.

    -Q

  64. 64
    ET says:

    History supports my claim. Look it up. Abraham was the father of both Ishmael and Isaac. The angel Gabriel is linked to Ishmael and Hagar- helping them get water. This is in the OT.

    Also, Billy Graham wrote:

    “The angel spoke as an oracle of God, turning her mind away from the injury of the past with a promise of what she might expect if she placed her faith in God. This God is the God not only of Israel but the God of the Arabs as well (for the Arabs come from the stock of Ishmael). The very name of her son, ‘Ishmael,’ meaning ‘God hears,’ was a sustaining one. God promised that seed of Ishmael would multiply and that his destiny would be great on the Earth as he now undertook the restless pilgrimage that was to characterize his descendants. The angel of the Lord revealed Himself as the protector of Hagar and Ishmael.”

    BOOM

  65. 65
    Querius says:

    “Boom” must be the sound of your balloon popping. Billy Graham did not have the authority to change the message of the Bible, nor does any theologian.

    Genesis 16 reads in part as follows:

    The angel of YHVH said to her further, “Behold, you are with child, and you will bear a son; and you shall call his name Ishmael, because YHVH has given heed to your affliction

    Most Bibles substitute “the LORD” for YHVH, the name of the one and only God of the universe.

    The Tanakh refers to YHVH over 6,000 times, but the Quran doesn’t mention the name of God even once. Surely, if Muhammad was the prophet of YHVH, he would have known his name! He didn’t, so he wasn’t.

    Maybe you can find something in the Quran to support your opinion.

    -Q

  66. 66
    ET says:

    Again, the historical facts speak for themselves. That you cannot accept that speaks against you, not me. You are not a theologian. You are not a Biblical authority.

    Did Peter come before Mohammed? Yes. Was the OT before Mohammed? Again, yes. Do the OT and Peter have any bearing on what Mohammed said? No. But the OT does speak of Abraham, Ishmael and Hagar. There isn’t any doubt that the God of Abraham was also the God of Ishmael and therefore the same God as the Bible.

  67. 67
  68. 68
    ET says:

    God in Abrahamic religions:

    Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are called Abrahamic religions because they all accept the tradition of the God (known as Yahweh in Hebrew and Allah in Arabic) that revealed himself to Abraham. The theological traditions of all Abrahamic religions are thus to some extent influenced by the depiction of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible, and by the story of Abraham, acclaimed as the Father of monotheism in the history of Judaism.

    BOOM

  69. 69
    mike1962 says:

    HCQ:

    My body my choice.

  70. 70
    Querius says:

    Mike1962,
    Yes, I agree. I think this also extends to opioids being denied to people in extreme pain at the end of their life apparently for fear that in their last few moments, they might become a drug addict.

    ET,
    I just hear more balloons popping. You haven’t bothered to read what it says in the Quran nor have you addressed the clear message recorded in the Bible. Whether a false religion is founded before, during, or after an apostle proves exactly nothing. Just look up Jim Jones or David Koresh to refute your point.

    Ok, I’ll help you along with the following words from Jesus as recorded in John 14: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me.” Think about it.

    Frankly, I don’t care if the Pope, Billy Graham, Mother Teresa, or Nancy Pelosi tries to rewrite or reinterpret the Bible, what Jesus taught is crystal clear to everyone who can read.

    Still waiting for you to lift a finger and find something in the Quran for us . . .

    -Q

Leave a Reply