DIALOGUE - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

DIALOGUE

Description:

Title: CIS SEMINAR at LST Dec. 13, 2004 Topic: Missiological Methods (focussing on the debate vs. dialogue paradigms), their application and relevancy in a post ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:276
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 54
Provided by: JayS70
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: DIALOGUE


1
DIALOGUE DEBATE2006(Jay Smith)
2
Introduction
  • Christians and Muslims, for much of the past 1400
    years have been in conflict with each other, both
  • theologically (as has been evidenced in the many
    debates between the two faiths) (Mulder
    1977footnote)
  • physically (evidenced by the numerous wars and
    conflicts between Christians and Muslims)
    (Rippin 1998357)

3
Problem lies in their Primary Doctrines
  • Norman Daniel
  • There are irreducible differences between
    non-negotiable doctrines... The Christian creeds
    and the Quran are simply incompatible and there
    is no possibility of reconciling the content of
    the two faiths, each of which is exclusive, as
    long as they retain their identities (Daniel
    1993335-336)

4
Christian Missiologists have posited 3 broad
theological positions
  • Exclusivism Stresses the uniqueness of the
    gospel as Gods definitive revelation, while
    emphasizing the discontinuity with other
    faiths (debate dialogue)
  • Inclusivism Salvation through Christ, but also
    through other religions as well (irenic
    dialogue)
  • Pluralism All religions are equally imperfect
    human attempts to seek after God, yet they all
    lead equally to God (no discourse) (Hick 19873)

5
  • Majority of Christians and Muslims
    Inclusivists or Exclusivists
  • Thus would use dialogue debate

6
Definitions of DIALOGUE
  • Oxford Dictionary
  • a conversation, a talk, or discussion, in
    written form, or between two groups
  • based on the Greek dialegesthai to
    converse (Webster 2003223)
  • too broad

7
Dr. D. C. Mulder (20TH C. inclusivist
Definition)
  • The essence of dialogue is the meeting between
    people in mutual respect, frankness and
    sincerity. Dialogue can never be an encounter of
    systems or religions in the abstract. In
    dialogue two or more people are meeting and they
    can never be totally identified with the system
    of religion or ideology to which they adhere...on
    the other hand every person in his or her
    religion is deeply influenced by tradition...that
    is why Christianity and Islam as such cannot have
    dialogue, but Christians and Muslims can and will
    be affected by the history of their respective
    religion... (Mulder 1977 WCC Papers on 10
    years of Muslim-Christian Dialogue foreword)

8
1st Century, New Testament
  • Dialegesthai to think different things,
    ponder on them, and then dispute (May 19901)
  • Paul
  • Moved from town to town
  • Entered Jewish Synagogues
  • Confronted their ideas and beliefs
  • A two-way flow of ideas
  • Acts 172-3, 17-18 he sought to prove,
    marshaling arguments to support his case,
    providing evidence, thereby engaging in
    argument, due to his convinced preaching
    (Goldsmith 120)
  • Pauls intent was not that his hearers were
    converted, but that they were persuaded (Acts
    174).

9
Zebiris modern definitions
  • Dialogue of Life, or the dialogue of presence
    (Zebiri 199737)
  • spontaneous dialogue whenever religious
    communities live in proximity to one another
  • 2) Spiritual Dialogue shared prayer
    contemplation, devotional reading of each others
    scriptures and spiritual classics, to better
    understand the world-view of the respective
    faiths.
  • Dialogue of Needs practical co-operation,
  • dialogue on social concerns (Riddell 2004211)
    , shared experience, and shared vision,
    partnership
  • 4) Discursive Dialogue exchange of
    information, debate and intellectual enquiry, in
    order to eradicate distortions and
    misunderstandings and thereby eliminate obstacles
    to conversion (Zebiri 199738)

10
Four Principles of Dialogue (British Council of
Churches)
  • Dialogue begins when people meet each other,
    pointing out that each person needs to be
    approached as individuals, and not simply
    representing a system of beliefs.
  • Dialogue depends upon mutual understanding and
    mutual trust, suggesting that each person should
    be permitted to define themselves concerning what
    they believed.
  • Dialogue makes it possible to share in service to
    the community, alluding to the fact that dialogue
    can be a vehicle to bring about harmony between
    those of separate faiths.
  • Dialogue becomes the medium of authentic witness,
    suggesting that because it begins in a context of
    trust, dialogue allows not only a witness of
    ones own faith, but assumes the freedom of a
    person of any faith, including the Christian, to
    be convinced by the faith of another (Riddell
    2004111)
  • Inclusive Principles

11
Purpose of Dialogue
  • For missions a vehicle to become better
    acquainted with what the other actually
    believes
  • 1) for mutual understanding, since many conflicts
    are the result of ignorance
  • 2) to understand God better, -experience of him
    in the midst of dialogue
  • 3) to witness to ones faith, -implies, the
    other may choose to change their faiths
  • 4) to co-operate in areas -social, or secular
    dialogue (Riddell 2004188)

12
(WCC)
  • to achieve greater mutual respect and better
    understanding
  • to raise questions which lead to deepening and
    renewal of spirituality,
  • to lead Christians and Muslims fulfill common
    practical responsibilities (Christian-Muslim
    Conversation19891)

13
Evangelicals
  • ...to learn to appreciate, but it must chiefly
    be to teach and to tell men and women about Jesus
    Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life
    (Christian Witness to Muslims198023 Note
    even the title Christian Witness to Muslims
    denotes the more robust purpose behind the
    dialogue, in contradistinction to the more
    inclusive WCC title of Christian-Muslim
    Conversation)
  • David Hesselgrave
  • Any form of dialogue that compromises the
    uniqueness of the Christian gospel and the
    necessity that the adherents of other faiths
    repent and believe it, should be rejected and
    supplanted by forms of dialogue that enjoin
    conversion to Christ (Hesselgrave 1981126)

14
Muslims on dialogue
  • al-Faruqi, Dialogue allows the removal of all
    barriers between men for a free intercourse of
    ideas where the categorical imperative is to let
    the sounder claim to the truth win (al-Faruqi
    19929)
  • Khurram Murad, there is no point in entering
    into dialogue unless it is Dawah invitation
    (Siddiqui 199476)

15
History of Dialogue
  • 7th century, Muslims conquered, encountered a
    divided Christianity Byzantium Copts of Egypt,
    Thus, initially, Christians living under Muslim
    rule were rarely persecuted
  • (Dialogue between Patriarch John 1 vs. Amr
    al-As)
  • 8th century, however, Christians suffer a general
    decline in status, converting to Islam. i.e.
    North Africa, the decline became almost complete
    (Siddiqui 199476)
  • Dialogues Leo III vs. Umar II
  • John of Damascus (d.749) vs. Saracen (Moffet,
    200239)
  • Patriarch Timothy I vs. Caliph Mahdi
  • (apologetical, not polemical)
  • 9th century, Muslims, were able to surpass
    Christian sophistication (Zebiri 199725)
  • Christians outside Muslim rule were more
    polemical, as Muslims were seen as a military
    threat
  • Dialogue al-Kindi vs. al-Hashimi Quran the
    prophet Muhammad (Muir 200211 Newman 1993359)

16
20th Century
  • Protestants
  • 1) WCC Created in 1937 all the principle
    Christian denominations (numbering over 330),
    representing about 400 million Christians, in 100
    countries (Riddell 2004107)
  • -Interfaith Movement, but Muslim govt.
    officials, liberals, not religious scholars
    (Siddiqui 199730 Zebiri 199735-36)
  • -Secular and Social, irenical
  • Evangelicals, 1951 World Evangelical Alliance
    (WEA), 114 church alliances, 700 million
    Christians, in 110 nations (Edwards 2003)
  • - discursive dialogues

17
Catholics
  • Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue
  • (PCID) 1964, - irenical approach
  • Anglicans
  • Building Bridges January 2002, dealing with
    the fallout from the 911 attacks (Riddell
    2004153)
  • -Christians organized many dialogues
  • -Muslims were slow to follow suit
  • -Except Muslim governments, such as Libya,
    Tunisia, and Jordan (Zebiri 199735)
  • -Or individual liberal Muslims in the West
    (Zebiri 199736)

18
Rules for Dialogue
  • Claude Geffre
  • respect the differences in the other
  • respect ones own faith, and so
  • speak honestly and candidly about them, even if
    it hurts the sensibilities of their counterparts
    (Geffre 1993101-113)

19
Problems with Dialogue
  • Impractical
  • In 1966 Victor Hayward identified a real problem
  • If dialogue is used to break down barriers of
    prejudice, indifference, suspicion and fear, and
    practical steps are taken to promote
    understanding, co-operation, and relationships
    favourable to genuine dialogue and witness, no
    such agreement was possible with the Muslim in
    the realm of theology (Hayward 197713)
  • The Irenical form of dialogue can rarely publicly
    engage with, in any deep and meaningful way, that
    which is foundational to each faith, yet likewise
    separates them, namely, their conflicting and
    often contradictory belief statements.

20
2. Unequal
  • i.e. WCC sponsored dialogue 1976, Chambésy,
    Switzerland.
  • -Khurshid Ahmad -Islamic Foundation (Leicester,
    England) slung invective and vitriol in the
    direction of Christian missions, pinpointing four
    criticisms of Christian missions 1)
    misrepresentation of the teachings of Islam, and
    the message of the prophet, 2) concentrated on
    the weak and helpless, 3) missions aim was to
    subvert the faith and culture of Islam, and 4)
    that it subjected Muslims to covert
    discrimination and repression), summarized as an
    exercise which failed to commend itself as
    something noble and holy (Christians Meeting
    MuslimsChambésy 1977131-132)
  • -Dr. Kerr apologized, accepting that Muslims were
    justified to feel incensed to the point of
    outrage by certain aspects of Christian action in
    the name of mission (Christians Meeting
    MuslimsChambésy 1977134)
  • Thanked the Muslim participants for attending,
    despite the fact that they had, personal
    experiences of western Christian missionaries
    which had left him suspicious of Christian
    motives (Christians Meeting MuslimsChambésy
    1977135)
  • Nowhere did he seek reciprocity, asking why so
    few Muslim countries even permitted, let alone
    encouraged Christian missions in their respective
    jurisdictions, nor why so many freedoms demanded
    and afforded by Muslims living in the West are
    simply not permitted by Christians in their own
    lands.

21
3. Un-trustworthy
  • Muslims suspect dialogue, as it leads to
    religious syncretism
  • Or compromises the faith (Glasser 1981)
  • Seen as a subtle ploy towards prosletysm
  • A Western Christian initiative.
  • Perceived as an adjunct of colonialism
  • Covert form of evangelism (Christians Meeting
    MuslimsChambésy 1977131-132)
  • Invariably Muslims are invited as guests, not
    able to set the agenda, so they feel they have
    little to gain (Zebiri 199736)
  • Siddiqui It is an extension of a whole Western
    Christian domination (Sidiqqui 199459)

22
4. Unpopular
  • Dialogues simply do not attract Muslims who
    represent their communities, and therefore have
    little impact on those same communities.
  • i.e. Faith and Power conferences, convened in
    1997, all had majority Christians to Muslims, so
    that the final Faith and Society conference,
    convened in June 2003, at the London Central
    Mosque and Islamic Cultural Centre, of the 47
    people who took part, only seven were Muslims,
    five of whom had to be there as they were
    presenters on the day (Riddell 2004157)
  • As Riddell says,
  • there was virtually no participation of the
    rank and file from the Muslim community. The
    reasons are unclear...though there seems to have
    been no attempt to promote the event in the
    British Muslim community (Riddell 2004158)

23
CONCLUSION
  • Dialogues do bring Christians and Muslims
    together, they get the ball going
  • They offer a wide range of models
  • They are usually promoted by Christians only.
  • Attract Liberal-Western elite Muslims.
  • Tend not to be robust, more acquiescent on the
    part of the Christian participants.
  • And most importantly, they dont reach the
    radical Muslims, the ones causing most of the
    problems today.
  • So, whats the solution?

24
DEBATES
  • In the wake of 911, and the consequent growing
    unrest between Christian and Muslims, there are
    those who must be wondering whether inter-faith
    dialogue, while proven adequate in bringing about
    mutual understanding between the two faiths, can
    cope with todays more aggressive and growing
    radical element within Islam. Thus, if we are
    going to confront this more radicalized form of
    Islam, we will need to incorporate new approaches
    to deal with such a paradigm, ones which confront
    the foundations of the more radical elements
    within the Muslim community, particularly those
    theological and historical foundations rooted in
    Islamic scriptures (and the Islamic Traditions),
    to which the radicals look for authority in
    substantiating the actions they carry out.
  • Christian-Muslim debates are a growing part of
    the mosaic of Christian-Muslim interaction in
    recent years to meet just that sort of need.
    These debates primarily relate to a specific
    subset of the Muslim community, namely radical
    Islamists, for whom other dialogical approaches
    have not proved effective in building bridges
    between communities (Riddell 2004162) For them,
    dialogue is simply not an option, because the
    premise behind such an exercise, to build
    bridges, seems irrelevant, if not even
    counter-productive.

25
  • Maryam Jameelah
  • We must crush the conspiracies of Zionism,
    freemasonry, Orientalism and foreign missions
    both with the pen and with the sword. We cannot
    afford peace and reconciliation with the Ahl
    al-Kitab until we can humble them and gain the
    upper hand (Jameelah 1989412)

26
  • With sentiments such as these, it is no surprise
    that across the country, on university campuses,
    over the past few years, Christian and Muslim
    apologists and daists have been coming together
    to engage in 2-3, sometimes even 5 hour debates,
    in front of hundreds, even thousands, on subjects
    ranging right across the apologetical/polemical
    spectrum

27
Muslim Debates
  • Historical precedence for debate
  • Debate is not new to Islam, for this mode of
    exchange fits within its paradigm of Islams
    perception of the West.
  • Lewis speaks to this perception in his book on
    Cultures in Conflict, saying,
  • Since Europe has historically been the Islamic
    worlds most inveterate military adversary, and
    since it has been perceived by Muslims in
    primarily religious terms, references to
    Christians in Muslim writings have usually been
    hostile. In light of Europes military and
    cvilizational inferiority, which endured for
    several centuries, references to Europe or
    Christendom in Muslim writings were often
    disdainful (Lewis 199513)

28
  • This disdain is echoed in Lewiss other treatise
    on the subject, Muslim Discovery of Europe, where
    he noticed that in the Persian, Turkish and
    Arabic languages, Christians have commonly been
    referred to as Kafirin (infidels), while in
    Ottoman usage in particular, when referring to
    Europeans, it was customary to add curses or
    insults to the names (Lewis 1982172-174)

29
Reasons Muslims, today, Debate
  • Due to the political and economic dominance of
    Western countries, there is some dignity in
    claiming moral and religious superiority.
  • Polemical debates help to reinforce the lines of
    demarcation between Islam and Christianity.
  • Debates can be used to convert Christians to
    Islam.
  • The Quran provides a model for polemics,
    engaging Christians, Pagans Jews in arguments
    over their beliefs
  • (an example often used is that found in Surah
    361, which was supposedly spoken to a deputation
    of Christians from Najran, and says, If anyone
    disputes with you concerning i.e. Jesus after
    the knowledge which has come to you, say Let us
    gather together our sons and your sons, our women
    and your women, ourselves and yourselves, and
    pray and invoke the curse of God on those who
    lie)

30
Who Debates?
  • Transnational Islamic organizations incorporating
    dawah as their primary aims
  • Muslim World League
  • World Islamic Call Society
  • Islamic Council of Europe (Siddiqui 1994148ff)
  • FOSIS in the UK

31
Ahmed Deedat
  • Most prolific
  • Most popular
  • Gujarati origins
  • Lampoons Christian Missionaries
  • He employs a flamboyant style which seems as
    much designed to entertain as to edify he
    employs ridicule and sarcasm, and not
    infrequently raises laughter from the Muslim
    section of his audience. He also utilizes crude
    language, and images which seem designed to
    shock (Zebiri 199747)
  • However, the quality of his work, which after
    all hardly aspires to go beyond the level of
    rhetoric and apologetic, is poor even by the
    standards of religious polemic (Zebiri 199747)

32
Dr. Maurice Bucaille
  • The Bible, the Quran and Science
  • -Scientific Exegesis
  • -Most popular in breadth of circulation
  • -Employs Eisegesis

33
Current Debaters
  • Shabir Ally (Christology of Jesus)
  • Abdul Raheem Green (Source Criticism)
  • Dr. Zakir Naik (Trinity Science)
  • Dr. Jamal Badawi (Quran vs. Bible)

34
Where are the Debates
  • University Campuses
  • University Unions (Parliamentary style)
  • FOSIS (Federation of Students Islamic Societies)
  • ISOC (Islamic Societies)
  • Christian Unions (Universities and Colleges
    Christian Fellowship UCCF)
  • Why?
  • They are culturally relevantpassionate form of
    communication!
  • They attract large numbers of Muslims
  • They are neutral and central
  • They are non-threatening
  • They are cheap
  • They are Conducive to students

35
Methodology of Muslim Debate
  • Always Polemical, quoting Liberal Christian
    scholars
  • Adolph von Harnack (d.1930), the most often
    quoted Christian scholar, due to his liberal
    opinions (Zebiri 199785)
  • Bousset and Loisy 19th and early 20th century
    scholarship concerning St. Pauls Hellenistic
    influences, rather than his Jewish roots (Zebiri
    199785)
  • Edward Carpenter Pagan sources
  • J.M. Robertson Pagan Christianity (Zebiri
    199786)
  • Edward Gibbon Christianitys black history in
    Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Zebiri
    199785)
  • Bertrand Russell Why I am not a Christian is
    used to expose the history of the church
  • Ernest Renan New Testament criticism, and
    anti-supernaturalism (a criticism which also
    hurts their Islamic paradigm).
  • Robert Briffault and William Draper to show the
    debt the West has on Islam (Zebiri 199785)

36
Problems with Muslim Debate
  • 1) Negative bias both in selection of data to be
    presented and in interpretation of that data
    (Zebiri 199784)
  • Sources are often used selectively. From the
    broad spectrum of opinion which is represented in
    Western scholarship, it is often the extreme end
    of the spectrum which is chosen in this way
    authors can usually find what they set out to
    look for (Zebiri 199785)
  • 2) Muslims, who speak often about misinformation
    are often guilty of the same. Muslim
    anti-Christian polemic goes relatively
    unnoticed...because it occurs within an almost
    exclusively Muslim market
  • Rarely is Islam subjected to critical scrutiny
    (Zebiri 199789)

37
Christian DebatesChristians Critical of Debates
  • Henry Martyn (d.1812),
  • I lay not much stress upon clear arguments.
    The work of God is seldom wrought in this way
    (Cragg 199223)
  • Brown, missionary to the Sudan and Jordan,
  • The natural reaction of any man when his
    beliefs are attacked is to maintain them the more
    resolutely and even to discover better reasons
    for doing so. The results of missionary
    preaching during the past century and a half
    demonstrate with tragic clearness how
    unproductive such a method really is (Brown
    196290)

38
Colin Chapman (7 Criticisms)
  • 1854 Munazara in Agra between Carl Pfander
    Valpery French vs. Rahmat Allah Dr. Wazir Khan
  • 1) Attacks against Islam sometimes degenerate
    into polemics, resulting in nothing more than a
    tit-for-tat criticism of Christianity by
    Muslims, and vice versa.
  • Yes, however, culturally good for communication,
    exchange of ideas, since the Gospel is
    confrontational, so should expect tit-for-tat
    and let people compare, and come to their own
    conclusions.
  • Zwemer, If the missionary to Moslems has a creed
    of less content and holds it less passionately
    than the loyal and orthodox Moslem holds his
    own-so much the worse for the missionary (Zwemer
    1941225)

39
  • 2) Debates appealed too much to the reason and
    the intellect, and not enough to the heart
  • Yet, Muslims instigate reasoned intellectual
    challenges, geared towards auth. of Bible,
    Jesus
  • 3) Christian debaters are not aware of the latest
    Biblical critical research ongoing in the West,
    and so become helpless when Muslim opponents use
    them.
  • Shame on us! Learn it, always be a student, in
    praxis

40
  • 4) Debates are conditioned by the social and
    political context in which we work, i.e. freedom
    to be critical.
  • Yes, so lets use those freedoms, and not run
    away, or only allow Muslims these freedoms!
  • 5) We should question the validity of public
    debates which concentrate entirely on theological
    issues at the expense of the many social and
    political issues which both Muslims and
    Christians share in common
  • Be involved in social gospel, but introduce
    Jesus crucified, and debates will naturally
    evolve.

41
  • 6) Responding in a polemical fashion merely
    mimics the agenda of the Muslim protagonist,
    which merely forces the Christian on to the
    defensive, and we fall into a scriptural paradigm
    we probably dont even accept ourselves.
  • Confuses content and methodology, Jesus is our
    revelation, but debate helps us convince them so.
  • 7) Chapman argues for a complete cessation of
    polemics itself, believing it to be not only
    disrespectful, but unloving.
  • Define disrespect and love, was Christ
    disrespectful or unloving in chasing out the
    money-changers (Mat.2112-13), or confronting the
    Pharisees (Matt.2313-33)?

42
Christians Supportive of Debates
  • Jesus (against the Pharisees Matt. 2313-33)
  • Paul (Mars Hill, Aeropagus, Lecture Hall of
    Tyrannus Acts 19)
  • Paul disputed in the synagogues (Acts 1717) in
    the school of one Tyrannus, daily (Acts 199) for
    two years. In Jerusalem he disputed against the
    Grecians until they sought to slay him (Acts
    929)...II Corinthians, Galatians and Colossians
    could be classified as controversial literature
    of the first century...His military vocabulary is
    proof enough that he was no spiritual pacifist
    but fought a good fight against the enemies of
    the Cross of Christ and all those who preached
    another gospel (Zwemer 1941225)

43
  • Catholic creeds, such as the Nicene and the
    Athanasian Creeds, came out of Polemics.
  • The Reformation a religious controversy.
  • The Gospel of John Nearly all the discourses
    were begun by controversy

44
19th and 20th Century Examples
  • Dr. Carl Pfander (d. 1865)
  • -Agra Munazara of 1854
  • -Balance of Truth (Mizan ul-Haqq)
  • William St. Clair Tisdall (d.1928)
  • -Critiqued the origins of Islam
  • -Sources of Islam
  • Samuel Zwemer
  • -Arabia and Egypt
  • -Muslims worshiped a different God
  • -Muhammad was insincere and opportunistic
  • -Controversy, so long as it was not
    discourteous, was an appropriate method of
    evangelism to Muslims

45
Westerners Supportive of Debates
  • Maxine Rodinson regrets that any criticism of
    the Prophets moral attitudes are becoming
    increasingly taboo (Rodinson 197959)
  • Andrew Rippin, The Irenic approach has led to
    the unfortunate result of a reluctance on the
    part of many scholars to follow all the way
    through with their insights and results,
    particularly concerning the historical dimensions
    of the faith that conceives itself as having a
    stake in that very history (Rippin 1985159)

46
Examples of Recent Debates
  • Date Debaters Venue Title
  • 01-93 Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally Univ. of
    Toronto Is Jesus the Divine Son of God?
  • 06-94 Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally Univ. of
    Toronto Is the Qur'an the Word of God?
  • 08-95 Jay Smith vs. Jamal Badawi Cambridge
    Univ. Is The Quran the Word of God?
  • 02-97 Jay Smith vs. Dr. Musa Pidcock Tynneside
    Univ. Bible vs. Quran
  • 04-97 Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally Univ. of
    Manchester Christ. vs. Isl. Relevancy sin
  • 11-97 Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally Univ. of
    Waterloo Who is God?
  • 02-98 Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally Birmingham
    Univ. Historicity of the Quran
  • 04-98 Jay Smith vs. Sh. Abdul Green South Bank
    Univ. Is the Quran the Word of God?
  • 10-99 Jay Smith vs. Sh. Omar Bakri Friends
    Mtg.Hse Khilafa vs. Kingdom of God
  • 01-00 Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally Ryerson
    University Who is the Historical Jesus?
  • 02-00 Jay Smith vs. Benazir Bhutto Oxford
    Union Is Islam Relevant to the UK?
  • 03-00 Peter Saunders vs. Shabbir Ally Glasgow
    Was Jesus a Muslim?
  • 03-00 Keith Small vs. Shabbir Ally Bradford Scrip
    tures-Jesus-Trinity
  • 10-00 Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally Ga.Tech Univ.
    Atl Who is the Historical Jesus?
  • 02-02 Jay Smith vs. Zaki Badawi Oxford Union Is
    Islam Compatible w the West?
  • 04-02 Jay Smith vs. Imam Sahib Kingston
    Univ. Bible vs. Quran
  • 10-02 Jay Smith vs. Min. Ishmael Muh. Trinity
    Univ., Dublin Oppose Islamic Law?

47
Problems with Debates
  1. Fear of Muslims Sensibilities
  2. Fear of ones security
  3. Rarely done with Reciprocity in mind
  4. Tendency towards apologetics only
  5. Few experienced Debaters
  6. Little teaching or preparing for debates
  7. Debaters good talkers w/ little knowledge
  8. Unable to use cut and parry
  9. Marriage.

48
Advantages with Debates
  1. Attracts many Muslims
  2. Makes a greater impact (i.e. Al-Azhar)
  3. Confronts Islam publicly
  4. Starts the agenda moving
  5. Pre-Evangelistic
  6. For many the first time Muslims have heard
    legitimate criticism of the Quran Muh.
  7. Muslims tend to initiate them (fits their
    cultural paradigm)
  8. Creates a Christian Public Presence

49
Impromptu Speakers Corner Debates
50
(No Transcript)
51
Heckling (Triangulization)
52
Formal Debates
53
What weapons will we use?
For though we live in the world, we do not wage
war as the world does. The weapons we fight with
are not the weapons of the world. On the
contrary, they are divine power to demolish
strongholds. We demolish arguments and every
pretension that sets itself up against the
knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ (II
Corinthians 103-5)
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com