Richard Dawkins turns to the Aliens

I recommed greatly the documentary movie of Ben Stein: 'Expelled, no Intellegence allowed'


In a interview with Ben Stein, Richard Dawkins finally admits that the earliest stages of life's development is indeed slightly complicated if we adduce from the bulk of modern wildly imagined postulates that life evolved from utter chaos by nature's random process.


Now our shaken atheist buddy suggests that life on earth might originally be created by some almost incomprehensible alien being which consequently planted this life on earth. Obviously Dawkins presumes that these alien beings were also the products of random evolution.



I am amazed, our atheist friends now believe in aliens and that life on earth was produced by aliens!



After such ridicolous statements should I still expect that atheists believers and exponents will continue to solely follow their highpriest?



At least Dawkins is ready to embrace the fact that a non-earthly being or force intelligently controlled the complexity of human life, unfortunately he hardens his mind and hearth to simply reject the possibility that such a being might be God. Secondly what gives Dawkins the authority to state that such alien beings were evolved through evolution? Seems that Dawkins has an effective explanation to the realm of the universe unknown to us and the mysterious unknown to us.

A Muslim Challenge

On one of the threads of this blog a Muslim who calls himself Ashfaq wrote:

ASHFAQ said...
Dear Sir

Iam asking you, can you read Ezekiel chapter 23 in the meeting hall? I will book the hall for you and you can invite your people and I will invite my people in the hall. I dare you come in the meeting hall and read Ezekiel chapter 23 in front of all the people. Send me message at www.youtube.com/ayuzma

Read the entire thread, comments and response here:

http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-i-am-christian-apologist_31.html

Hogan replies:

Hi Ashfaq

I will most gladly come and read Ezekiel 23 out loud for you. You are mostly welcome to pay my flight tickets, my stay and whatever expanses related and to rent a hall. When you have done so, I will come and read the passage out loud. I also will invite every believer in the area to come and listen.

Now, what is your name and contact number?

If you provide me with that I will quickly arrange a contact person to whom you can give the money.

As soon as the money are provided I will come and read Ezekiel 23 for you
.
Furthermore I would like to challenge you as well. At this same venue and in the same gathering, I would like you read before the entire gathering Sura 33: 50-52:

033.050
PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

033.051
PICKTHAL: Thou canst defer whom thou wilt of them and receive unto thee whom thou wilt, and whomsoever thou desirest of those whom thou hast set aside (temporarily), it is no sin for thee (to receive her again); that is better; that they may be comforted and not grieve, and may all be pleased with what thou givest them. Allah knoweth what is in your hearts (O men), and Allah is ever Forgiving, Clement.

033.052
PICKTHAL: It is not allowed thee to take (other) women henceforth, nor that thou shouldst change them for other wives even though their beauty pleased thee, save those whom thy right hand possesseth. And Allah is ever Watcher over all things.

Wow, that is moral standard or what?

Atheism and the Big Bang theory: Is there coherence?

The Big Bang Theory implies that the universe erupted from nothing or from an infinite state of singularity in which the entire energy and existence of the present universe was confined. Initially as the universe bursts out of this prison it expands through various stages until matter and energy is released in open space and matter is freed to form into gaseous clouds, then into stars gathering into groups of galaxies.

Contrary to the often held notion that the Big Bang is an atheistic model of existence, the Big Bang theory would require the need of an original mechanism, it implies the necessity and need for a creator who powered it, including a cause behind the universe that depends upon intelligence. This has indeed caused concern within the scientific academic world, which otherwise induces natural explanations only (Andrei Linde, The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe, in The Scientific American (ed.) David H. Levy, New York, Macmillan Publishers, 2000, p. 386).

Very few atheists dare to touch this topic in details and most scientists and philosophers either remain silent on the matter or at least indicate the possibility of divine action. The former atheist Antony Flew claims that the Big Bang theory changed everything and disturbed the naturalistic paradigms of the cosmologist and the atheist alike (There is a God, pp. 136-7). Also Hawking records that there were reactions against his work since it upset many physicists while it delighted religious leaders who believed in an act of creation, ‘for here was scientific proof (Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell, p.41).’ Indeed the atheist exponent, Quentin Smith, concedes that among atheists an uncomfortable silence ruled and the response is weak and almost invisible (see Quentin Smith, A Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God’s Nonexistence (Infidel.org, 1992)

Consequently, a number of atheist scientists have embraced as a clear probability the existance of a creator, e.g. Robert Jastrow and Antony Flew (see: Jastrow, Until the Sun Dies, p. 21 and Antony Flew, There is God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper Collins Books, 2007), pp. 136-7).

Exposing Barakah: A rhetoric interrogation by Barakah on Pal-talk’s: ‘Muslim Women are Respected and Not Oppressed’.

On 5 Mars I was contacted by a Christian debater from Pal Talk and after a little chat I decided to journey through a number of rooms on the Social issues.

One particular room of interest was the Islamic room: ‘Muslim Women are Respected and not Oppressed’, which was administrated by an Arabic female Muslim with a French accent, by the name ‘Barakah’ whom I (after 30 minutes experience on the chat room) deem to be a psycho.

As far as I know the name 'Barakah' means blessing, however, the experience was closer to a curse.

I entered the room ‘Muslim Women are Respected not Oppressed’ stayed for a little while whereupon I left a link to a Christian site before entering another room. Leaving a link seemed reasonable to me since it did not seem to be prohibited. After a minute, Barakah virtually hunts me down on pal-talk, sending me at least 15 notifications and a private message.

In the private message Barakah through rather intimidated wordings challenged me to be brave enough to dare enter the room again where she threatened to publically expose me and my religion. It was quite obvious from her wordings that I would be considered a coward unless I acted upon her command.

It was also perfectly obvious to me that entering the ‘Muslim Women are Respected and Not Oppressed’ room, meant entering a room full of Muslims, with debate based upon violent insult, intimidation and Muslim rhetoric including an admin that would continually victimize me by red doting by blocking my text and muting my voice.

After a few minutes I nevertheless decided to take the risk and give the Muslim female debater a chance.

I quickly realised that my expectation of the room were far from exaggerated. Barakah made it very clear that she did not care about me or my religion, or my answers or explanation; in fact she claimed openly that as a Christian I simply had no answers and nothing worth saying, so I could simply spare myself the effort.

So now I was getting really confused, she had called me back into the room to defend my faith, yet after meeting her challenge and being brave (according to her mentality) and entering the room I am immediately informed by her and the room that they have already presupposed that as a Christian I should not be listened to.

This was turning out to get really funny.

Well I still decided to give her a chance.

After several minutes of abuse and rhetoric (only God knows what I had to put up with) she finally asked me to come to the mic and show the room ‘where Jesus says he is God’. I had a good answer to her question, but I refused to enter a debate that reminded about an interrogation (I know that Muslims tend to like it this way, my own experience is an excellent example). I am indeed happy to debate or dialogue, yet if Muslims think that I am or consider myself a ‘dhimmi’ like the Christians they suppress in their own Muslim nations (and from whom they mentally drain all confidence and personal pride), they will quickly find themselves very offended.

Rather than letting Barakah interrogate me and decide my wordings. I asked for five minutes to explain this question but I never got that far; after only 15 seconds I was muted. Barakah came back on the mic and insulted me for being unable to answer and scared to deal with the issue whereupon she challenged me to take the mic again and answer her question.

Again I only managed to speak on the mic for 10 seconds, without being allowed to answer the question. I got muted as before by Barakah, who again resorted to insult my personality, religion and had the audacity to claim again and again that I was a coward. She had even blocked my writing to unable my comments to her insults and abuse.

She challenged me a third time to take the mic and answer her question.

By this time it was clear that this was not a debate or a dialogue but a rhetorical conversation in which I was being interrogated and yet not permitted to answer. This was abuse, intimidation, manipulation a joke. She stated time and time again that she had no interest in my answer and explanation, that it was simply a waste of her time.

The third time I elaborated on the word ‘coward’, this time I literally called her a coward, after all she was the one being too scared to engage me in a proper dialogue without continually red dotting me after 10 seconds and muting my answers. I pointed out that I probably was the only Christian in a room of 60 Muslims who continuously abused my character and religion, muted my answers and blocked my writings; this whole scenario was literally ridiculous.

At this point Barakah accused me of insult (yeah try imagine) and continually called me a coward and chicken for not sharing in her rhetoric games (all I had asked for was for me to answer her question in my own way; but Barakah insisted that my answer would be a waste of time).

I was allowed to the mic a fourth time, this time I challenged Barakah for a proper the debate on any subject but under a different admin, an admin would that play fair games; but Barakah (this blessing of Allah does not like fair games) as before I was muted within 15 seconds. In fact I had already challenged Barakah to debate me properly prior to this, even in writing.

This obviously made Barakah go crazy, I guess the Muslim listeners began realizing that she was running away from a challenge, and she muted me as before, called me a coward and heaped upon me insult upon insult.

I even apologized if I had come on against her too strongly or if she had found me insulting her, and again I asked respectfully if she was interested in debating me under a proper debate format and a fair admin (yeah imagine I even humbled myself to that level).

This dialogue (if we can call it a dialogue) went on for 30-40 minutes, I went on the mic probably ten times, asking her to debate me formally, and every time being red dotted after 10-15 seconds whereup I was insulted and intimidated to every possible length and at the same time prohibited from writing.

Finally I had enough and left.

I have to say that the experience reminded me of my early days in Birmingham, being encircled by 10-20 Muslims and being bombarded with questions and arguments without being given the opportunity to answer.

http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-i-am-christian-apologist_31.html

In fact most Muslims I have encountered in debate and dialogue are not interested in the Christian answering, either due to the ‘dhimmi’ mentality or because they are scared to listen and particularly scared of the answers or objections raised by the opponents (possibly both).

Barakah seems to have all the questions but to dread the answers and the contra attack against her faith.

I would advise Christians not willingly to submit themselves to chat rooms or individuals who resort to such behaviour or rhetoric methods. Yet my challenge to Barakah remains, I am more than willing to meet her in a proper debate with a pre-planned format under an admin which will act fairly toward both of us.

The impression I had of Barakah is: she knew that in a proper debate against me and without her administrative authority to reddot and mute her opponents, her arguments and her faith would have been ripped into pieces (she knew that); hence the reddot was and is her only protection.

However, I seem not to be the only one having experienced the desperately antagonising behaviour of Barakah; here is another example from Youtube (but it reveals far from the level of antagonizing behaviour Barakah experienced by me):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqbRizFjjQk

My only conclusion after 40 minutes on her chat room is: despite her admin authority and reddot she was hiding behind she was in reality on the run.

Illustrations and Examples of the Lack of Logic in Muslim Argumentation

How do Muslims engage in dialogue? Here are three excellent illustrations from the answeringmuslims.org blog; two by David Wood and one example from Fatman (I suggest the reader to read the illustrations in their full context from the that blog; but I am just fascinated how this illustrates so perfectly what we are dealing with and which I myself have experienced firsthand):

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/02/on-proper-and-improper-use-of-extra.html

DIALOGUE #1
CHRISTIAN: The Qur'an says, "Fight those who do not believe" (9:29). This means that Muslims are supposed to fight unbelievers.
MUSLIM: No, it simply meant that one particular group of Muslims was supposed to fight a particular group of Christians that was attacking them at a particular time.
CHRISTIAN: That's not what it says at all.
MUSLIM: But that's what it means.
CHRISTIAN: Can you give me a Muslim source saying that?
MUSLIM: No, but that's what it means.
CHRISTIAN: Well, since you can't give any Muslim sources that agree with your interpretation, let me give you some commentaries that agree with my interpretation. Ibn Kathir says . . .
MUSLIM: Ibn Kathir! Who cares what Ibn Kathir or any other Muslim commentator says!
CHRISTIAN: It seems you don't want to listen to classical Muslim commentators because they say that "Fight those who do not believe" means "Fight those who do not believe."
MUSLIM: Enough of this paranoid, Islamophobic racism!

DIALOGUE #2
MUSLIM: Christianity is a religion of violence and bloodshed!
CHRISTIAN: Nonsense. Jesus said that we are to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:43-48). He said that His followers do not fight, because the Kingdom of God is not an earthly kingdom (John 18:36). When one of His followers used the sword, Jesus condemned the attack (Matthew 26:52). Paul said that we "do not war according to the flesh (2 Corinthians 10:3-4).
MUSLIM: Yes, but all of those verses mean the opposite of what they actually say. They really mean that Christians are to hate their enemies and that they are to spread Christianity through the sword.
CHRISTIAN: That's not what the verses say.
MUSLIM: But that's what they mean. And to show you that Christians are supposed to hate their enemies and spread Christianity through the sword, let me quote a Christian theologian from a thousand years after the New Testament was written.

The third illustration is from Fatman; I am not posting all of it here due to certain inapropriate wordings, but the full quote can be read on the answeringmuslim.com blogspot:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/02/on-proper-and-improper-use-of-extra.html

I once had the following conversation

Muslim: To understand the Quran
you need to use the Hadeeths, but only the hadeeths that agree with the Quran.

ME: Well how am I to know which hadeeths agree with the quran if the
hadeeths are to explain the quran in the first place?

Muslim: Well
that’s were the science of the hadeeths comes in, see we have Scholars, and they
are really smart they study the quran and hadeeths and they know which hadeeths
to use.

Me: Ok then here is what Ibn Ksthir says, or this scholar or
that scholar...

Muslim: Scholars? Those are only men, we don't accept
everything a scholar says only what the quran says....

Me: But wait you
just told me that to understand the quran I need to read the hadeeths but only
the hadeeths that agree with the quran. And to know which hadeeths agree with
the quran I need to read what the scholars say, but now you say scholars are
only men and you don’t listen to men but only the Quran...

Muslim: Yes
you see now you understand... (I'm not making that part up, he really thought I
was getting it and was really impressed started doing the whole MASHALLA thing.
I mean he got really exited)

Pause for laughter because it gets
better...

The Muslim then proceeded to read some verses in arabic... and
then he said...

Muslim: See how beautiful that is (Then he gave the
challange to produce something like it in arabic)

Me: I dont understand
arabic, or have any clue as to what you just said.

Muslim: That’s ok I
understand arabic and I will tell you what the quran says,,, YOU HAVE TO TRUST
ME. (And no I'm not making that part up either

It was at this point that
the conversation really went down hill, because I was unable to control my
laughter at this point.

He finally said...

"Why are you not a
muslim now? I have read for you lots of verses from the Allahs book in his won
language Arabic. You should be a Muslim by now."

Now keep in mind this
conversation started because I was invited by a woman who converted to islam. I
guess these are the arguments that swayed her to leave christ.

Finally
it broke down to the point, where he said I wasted his time, something about my
mother working in a brothel with my sister

I have to say I have had several similar experiences when talking to Muslims. I will never forget debating a Muslim on rape in Islam and quoting a number of passages from the Hadiths in which Muhammad literally permitted his soldiers to rape female war captives whose fathers, husbands, sons had been either killed or captivated; he responded that the text did not say 'rape' but simply that these soldiers of Islam intended to have sex with these women. He somehow assumed that these soldiers had a romantic relationship with these victims.

Now try to imagine the logic: the women have been captured, their familes killed or captured and their lives are devastated forever; are we correctly to assume that these women would fall in love with these terrorists upon the day of their devastation, I simply don't think so!

And even if such would be the case, it would suggest that Islam, the Qur'an and Muhammad (the prophet of Islam) legalised and encouraged immorality, promiscuity and sex prior or outside marriage. Well that ought not to surprise us since Muhammad and his followers originally engaged in the use of prostitutes through contemporary marriages, known as muta marriages (marriages for one or two nights by payment).

My suggestion to Yahya Snow

Since Yahya Snow has not welcomed my rebuttals of his youtube video, in which he criticises my comments made on http://www.answeringmuslims.com/ that Islam is demonic (see link: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/01/pakistan-twelve-year-old-christian-girl.html ), and since Yahya has even removed the comment section on his blog to prevent the links and my responses to his youtube video (read his explanation: http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/02/comment-section.html ), all I am going to do now is to ask Yahya to edit his own post and to provide the links to my blogs under the video.

My rebuttals can be read here:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/02/hogan-elijah-hagbard-responds-to-yahya.html
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/02/my-written-response-to-yahya-do-i.html

This should be fair and honest toward me and the issue that has been brought up.

So far Yahya's readers and viewers are only introduced to his side of the matter and his refutation, which I have refuted into pieces (check the links to my rebuttals).

Other Christian apologists such as Semper Paratus have experienced a similar treatment doing dialogue with Yahya Snow:

http://smprparatus.blogspot.com/2010/01/yahya-snow-challenged-to-debate-trinity.html

So far Yahya Snow has been permitted to post freely on my blogs and the blog of Semper Paratus and he is still free to post there. Yet we do not share in this privilege when entering the blog of Yahya, which is slightly complicated when engaging in a dialogue.

I can only conclude so far that Yahya is probably being afraid of being exposed.

Yahya has contacted me urging me to be patient, however, this is not a matter of being patient, the issue concerns the basic and simple honesty of providing the full picture of our dialogue to the readers; that simply cannot demand all this time.

I will be patient and wait as long as it takes for his next rebuttal of my refutations of his video, but at least I expect him to share with his readers the full scale of this dialogue.

So what is the problem? Why is it so difficult for Yahya to provide the links to my rebuttals on Yahay's blog?

Why is Yahya afraid of comments? He claims that unmoderated comments are chaotic, and I can only say: good grief. I run three blogs and contribute to a fourth, I have never had that problem. But now Yahya states that even moderating the comment sections is an impossible task, mainly due to blasphemous statements (I guess my honest rebuttals) and dubious links (my blogs). Due to this he closed down the comment sections.

See his reason for removing the comment section here below:

'It has been removed. A moderated comment section was in vogue, however seen as I am being further pressed for time I cannot commit to moderated comments...which does require time and effort as many comments contain blasphemy and dubious links.
An unmoderated comment section does notwork...it has been tried in the past and has failed pretty miserably :(

So, for those who wish to interact or have suggestions then please contact me via YouTube.'

See link below:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/02/comment-section.html

All I am asking Yahya to do is to present his rebuttal against me in full context and to allow his readers to know that Hogan has defended himself: that Hogan does not perceive himself as misbehaving nor does he perceive himself as being unwise. Furthermore, his readers and viewers ought to know that Hogan has defended himself against several remarks in the video in which Yahya states that Hogan must know otherwise and that Hogan has not read the Bible. Also the readers and viewers of Yahya should be introduced to the real matter, that is: what Hogan originally reacted to.

I expect therefore Yahya Snow to show honesty in this matter and edit his video or original post on his blog and on the youtube and provide the links to my rebuttals and the original issue I reacted to when I made the comment.

No offence bro, I respect you and I hope we can keep up the dialogue.

God bless

Eight Fundamental Questions to the Christian

1. How do you know God exists?

There are a number of reasons why I believe in God; I will briefly expound on a few of these:

1) the fact that the universe began; 2) that fact there is existence rather than not; 3) the fact that the universe and life reveals organisation, design, symmetry and systems so complicated that nature and random evolution could not possible offer an alternative explanation. This makes God probable and existence without God improbable.

Furthermore, my faith in God is based upon my own experience when becoming a Christian and experiencing the supernatural aspects and side of Christianity, what we describe as the power and presence of the Holy Spirit including (and this is the most vital aspect) its transforming effect upon my life.

A third reason for my belief in God is based upon my own research and studies. Having devoted myself to investigate the Christian faith historically has simply confirmed my faith in God and the Bible.

A fourth reason probably relates more to the field of ethics and logic. I find it utterly repulsive that atheists and post-modernists can refer to ethics as relative or simply genetically inherited, etc. The fact that the human mind incorporates the ability to distinguish between good and evil confirms a law and hence a law giver (of some kind); from this we can adduce that ‘all there is’ is not simply a meaningless and purposeless universe in which we attempt to perceive or make some sense; in fact without God life and nature leaves no room for life-meaning, law, right and wrong. I guess Stalin’s concentration camps and Hitler’s gas chambers are obvious evidences of such a philosophy perceived to its core.

2. What is a Christian?

We need to be cautious about the term 'Christian', while many people would categorize themselves as Christians, the majority falls short to the full Biblical meaning of what constitutes a genuine and true Christian.

A Christian is Biblically to be perceived as 1) an individual who believes in the one God of the Bible; 2) who believes in Jesus as God revealed in flesh who entered the world to atone and save humanity from sin and future judgement. 3) Furthermore, a Christian is someone who has embraced the doctrines of Christianity in faith, repented from a life that opposes the standard of God and consequently devoted his life in service God. This makes a person a follower and disciple of Jesus.

3. Does Christianity make people good?

Well to put it more correctly Jesus Christ transforms an individual to a very different lifestyle; so yes certainly, it makes an individual into a good person. A true Christian has not only devoted his life to submit to and follow God but equally to make a difference in the world and to help and support his fellow human beings.

Christianity is therefore to be perceived as a transforming religion; it transforms the individual and the community he or she lives in. This is the reason why Christianity is so attached to social work and relief work; communal transformation constitutes what his religion stands for.

The Bible makes it rather clear, that Christianity without personal and communal transformation is not Christianity.

4. Do you think Christianity might benefit a society?

In the UK where I live, Christianity is probably one of the major contributors in the society to reach out to the homeless, the broken families, those who are neglected and lonely including the morally neglected population of youth. In various UK locations, the government has commended and urged the church to lay the ground-work socially, where the government has failed, including to provide moral sexual education to a morally bankrupted youth culture. The money and time Christians poor into the community is simply unbelievable.

I would like to see atheists (if atheism really holds the key to the solution of mankind) put less attention into the complaining trend and propaganda and if they really care about society and humanity, to focus more on the everyday problem of decline of the Western civilisation caused by decades of secularist philosophy.

5. What about all the evil and atrocities Christians have committed throughout the centuries?

We need first to clarify which atrocities you have in mind. For example the Crusades, as wicked as they might have appeared, are not correctly categorized as a Christian campaign but more of a political response to Islamic invasion of Christian territory.

Furthermore, the atrocities often ascribed to the Catholic Church also need to be clarified. When Christianity became a state religion it led to an influx within society, the multitudes simply streamed into the church without conversion or proper Biblical understanding of what a Christian is. Many of these initially reached high levels in the so called Christian community, which led to early persecution of pagans. Still in all this, Christianity gradually transformed society even though such a progress took centuries.

Yet the bottom line is, that so called Christians or priests who engaged in the hunting of witches, Jews and heretics were simply not following the teachings of Jesus Christ, hence according to Christian Scripture these were not real Christians.

6. But does the Bible itself not confirm that these misconceived Christians were correct in their conduct?

If you are referring to the Old Testament, then no, not at all! It does not confirm that these people were following Christian conduct. The Old Testament constitutes the Mosaic Law for the nation of Israel in a specific time and in a specific situation including the narrative that accompanies it, followed by additional divine prophecy as the history of Israel proceeds. In Matthew, chapter 5 Jesus clarifies that he has come to fulfil the law and the prophets, which culminated with John the Baptist from which a new era derived, the Kingdom of God (Matthew, chapter 11).

Hence: 1) the Law had ended; 2) the narrative applies to the situation in which it occurred and 3) Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophets by fulfilling its predictions, in which the Servant of God would die as an atonement for the people and be brought to life again (Isaiah 53) and from which the Spirit of God would indwell his people. All these elements of the Kingdom of God were predicted in the Old Testament prophets.

Hence in contrast to the Law given to Israel, in the Kingdom of God, the followers are not told to fight physically for their faith or to engage in the cultural and situational norms that belonged to the Mosaic society due to its time and situation; this should be logical to anyone. Hence committing atrocities in the name of God or Jesus in a Christian context is breaking away from the teaching and ethics of the Kingdom of God.

7. What evidence is available that might support the historical claims of the Christian faith?

It’s an obvious fact that Jesus existed! His teaching and the narrative surrounding it were transmitted down to us by Jesus' own apostles. This resulted initially in 50 AD to 80 AD in two written records of this transmission, written by actual apostles (Matthew and John) and further two written works, one from apostolic dictation (the Gospel of Mark) and the other recorded from oral transmission (the Gospel of Luke). The latter ones were written by two apostolic disciples Mark and Luke. Mark recording the dictation of the Apostle Peter and Luke utilizing already existing written records (Matthew and Mark---sorry I am not convinced about the two-hypothesis theory nor Q) alongside oral transmission. All this occurred while apostles and other eyewitnesses of Jesus were still alive and mutually controlling the information.

These writings were written down between 50 AD and 80 AD only, the written record beginning as early as 20 years after Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension. Based upon the Jewish culture, environment and the Jewish ability and trend of the time to preserve and accurately transmit tradition it is most likely that the transmission was not corrupted nor lost within the 20 years gap between 30 AD and 50 AD. Neither was it lost in the following century, since the methods of preservation were still being applied. Furthermore, since this was the eyewitness era both corruption and loss of transmission is highly unlikely.

If we move toward the early second and late second century into the early third century, we possess a number of manuscripts of these writings. As we move from early third to late third century the number of manuscripts increases. Here we apply textual criticism. Interestingly, textual criticism has not revealed corruption or fabrication expect what we would naturally expect and recognise as typical textual errors.

So think of it this way: based upon the apostolic succession and transmission from 30AD to 90-100 AD and from 100 AD to 180 AD (the era of apostolic disciples) it is unthinkable that the information was corrupted. From that time one we already have empirical access to the information which due to the field of textual criticism confirms that the information was effectively preserved by writing.

Hence the supernatural history of the Gospels is combined effectively with secular history.

8. Why should anyone chose the Christian faith above another religious or philosophical path?

Well, atheism is in decline and has been in decline since the discovery of the Big Bang theory. In Science the fact that the universe has a beginning has not supported the philosophical ground for atheism.

Furthermore atheism has nothing to offer the world, except for the notion that we live in a senseless and meaningless universe in which laws and ethics are relative; these views are contradictory to observation and experience of nature and life in general and are repulsive to human achievements.

These views are not attractive to the human mind; in fact they are dangerous, as they reduce humanity to an animal and from that level to mere atoms. Furthermore, this view fails to strictly distinguish between good and evil, it also lead to individualism, causes moral decline, population decline and initially national breakdown.

This is why humanity needs to consider theism in its aspects, such as God, cosmological order and purpose, absolute morals and ethics, absolute rules, goals, etc.

Yet would not vote for any type of theism on the religious market!

There are a number of theistic religions which are false in their nature and origins. One has to consider which theism is the most original, logical and moral.

Since the Mosaic religion is a temporary religion meant for a certain people in a certain time and under certain circumstances, it is not to be deemed false yet it would be pointless to suggest that Judaism would work on a global scale for all people.

In the same way Islam fails on several grounds! Firstly, its origins are based upon a compilation of a variety of human sources not revelation; this provides evidence that Islam is a fabricated religion. Furthermore, Islam is by nature and from its origin a religion of war, it degrades women, suppresses and persecutes people with other opinions as well as being morally bankrupt in various areas of its view of life, such as permitting concubines, muta-marriages, rape of female captives and marriage to minors.

In the same way we need to consider Hinduism and the caste system.

Yet there is an even more effective way of discovering the theistic religion that by nature and origin presents the truth of divine intervention and revelation.

Considering all the major religions, Hinduism and Sikhism recognise Judaism, Christianity and Islam as alternative paths of salvation. However, Judaism, Christianity and Islam reject both Hinduism and Sikhism as divine revelations and paths to salvation; hence Hinduism and Sikhism annihilate their own credibility.
From here focusing on Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Islam recognises the founders and sacred writings of Judaism and Christianity, but Judaism and Christianity both reject Islam as a religion of God; here Islam annihilates itself.

This leaves only Judaism and Christianity. It is a fact that Christianity recognises the original religion of Israel, but Christianity does not recognise Judaism in its full sense. In the same way Judaism does not recognise Christianity.

However, Christianity has proven itself to be a legitimate continuation of the Old Testament religion of Israel. Which logically then proves Christianity to be most reliable religion on the religious market place.