Ayaan Hirsi Ali: CONVERT or CULTURE WARRIOR? | Elizabeth Oldfield, Glen Scrivener, Justin Brierley
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มิ.ย. 2024
- Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently announced her conversion to Christianity. The Somali-born ex-Muslim was one of the key voices of New Atheism in the mid 2000s but created a big stir when she published an article titled 'Why I am a now a Christian'.
In this special video edition bonus episode of The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God podcast, Justin Brierley speaks to Elizabeth Oldfield and Glen Scrivener about Hirsi Ali's story, hearing clips from her interviews and responses from critics who claim her embrace of Christianity is politically motivated rather than a spiritual conversion.
🎧 The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God Podcast & Think Faith:
Subscribe to the podcast: justinbrierley.com/surprising...
More info, book & newsletter: justinbrierley.com/surprising...
Support via Patreon for early access to new episodes: / membership
Support via PayPal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/brier...
Support via Tax-deductible (USA): defendersmedia.com/portfolio/...
Buy the book or get a signed copy: justinbrierley.com/the-surpri...
Ep 8 show notes: justinbrierley.com/surprising...
The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God is a production of Think Faith in partnership with Genexis, and support from The Jerusalem Trust & the Christian Evidence Society.
For more thinking faith & a free copy of my audiobook: beacons.page/justinbrierley
🎙️ Guest Links & Sources:
Elizabeth Oldfield: www.elizabetholdfield.com/
The Sacred Podcast: pod.link/1326888108
Glen Scrivener video on Ayaan Hirsi Ali: • What We Learn From Aya...
Speak Life: speaklife.org.uk/
Post-Christianity podcast: www.thegospelcoalition.org/po...
Ayaan Hirsi Ali UnHerd Article: unherd.com/2023/11/why-i-am-n...
ARC panel discussion: • PANEL: WHAT IS THE WES...
Ayaan Hirsi Ali interview on UnHerd: • Ayaan Hirsi Ali: From ...
Alex O Connor response: • Is Religion Even About...
Rationality Rules response: • Why I am now a Christian
▶️ Chapters:
00:00 Episode Intro
00:50 Introducing the guests
07:29 Ayaan at the ARC conference
23:47 The basis of Western values - Unherd Interview
35:11 About The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God podcast
36:59 Alex O'Connor's criticism of Ayaan's conversion
49:57 Rationality Rules & Steven Pinker: why can't Ayaan just be humanist?
55:48 Ayaan's personal journey - Unherd interview
![บุกร้านไอศกรีม VJ วุ้นเส้น !!!! [ดูคลิปเต็มหน้าช่อง] #Short | PANG ORNHIRA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g549nEhKZdc/mqdefault.jpg)
For years I have prayed along with thousands of others no doubt for Ayaan to know the love of our Risen Savior. After following her journey through books and watching her speak with such eloquence and humility while seeking truth and wisdom for a better world. Now to hear she has turned from atheism to Christianity is best news I’ve received in a year. Her story reveals a life that our God has had His hand on her from the beginning. Whatever her present understanding is He will continue to complete His work. Can we trust His grace to do what we cannot do? Pray for Ayaan as she has disrupted the Godless intellects and has taken an honest stand. God keep her close!
Hay, welcome to cliche central, courtesy of Our Risen Savoiur 😂
Same!
God keep her close!
I spent a lot of time with Greek Orthodox Christians and am very close to them, however, over 400 years of Ottoman domination of their church has caused the Church of Greece NOT to actively try to invoke the Gospel in Greece today. When I recently asked a priest do they try to evangelize Muslims today, He pointedly said, No!
Beautiful conversation, Thank you all.
Justin interviews so well. I already listen to Glen Scrivener and now look forward to hearing more of Elizabeth Oldfield.
I seriously doubt that anyone attending ARC would have thought that the most debated and discussed event of the entire conference was Ayaan Hirsi Ali stating that she was now pursuing Christianity. And yet, here we are!
One thing that all the atheist detractors have missed, and probably did so maliciously, is her comments on UnHerd about how she was emotionally and spiritually bankrupt as an atheist. She was NOT motivated solely by reading Dominion, her ultimate motivation for pursuing Christ was her own emptiness. Any American who knows anything about Alcoholic Anonymous would understand that AHA had finally hit the proverbial "rock bottom." And when you are at rock bottom, they only way out is through the power of faith in God.
Hats off to Elizabeth Oldfield talking about the absolute importance of the death of ego in regards to finding faith. That is such a crucially important concept to understand, and yet it's seldom discussed in Christian circles. It seems Ayaan finally came to the absolute end of herself, she reached a point where ego no longer meant anything.
God bless all three of you for this wonderful discussion. And God bless Ayaan as she begins the greatest adventure of her life.
Here's a suggestion for your next episode: the significance of Pope Francis giving the OK to the blessing of same sex couples.
When you’ve been a Christian all your life and hit rock bottom the only way out is to renounce faith in God. So the err you go. It works both ways.
@@markrichter2053 -- It depends on the kind and type of God you have put your faith in. You will find that there is not absolute agreement between Christians as to just who God is and how he works.
A fantastic episode. Thank you to all three of you for bringing your informed perspectives and Christian generosity to the conversation.
Once again, Ayaan shows herself to be a first rate intellect.
Well said Elizabeth!
I admit I was rather skeptical about the genuineness of her conversion and shared some of the concerns Alex O'Connor had, but after watching this, especially starting at the 55:48 mark, I am far less skeptical and very hopeful about her journey. Thanks for putting this together.
I am just as sceptical still about her reasons. Although understandable, her reasons come from personal need rather than external evidence, and is yet another example of a reason for belief in Christianity that has a natural explanation.
Will you agree that the position of atheism - to suspend any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented- to be a natural explanation as well?
@@TheNaturalTheologian I disagree. I actually hold both positions as they are not mutually exclusive. And here is why:
There is _but one_ claim that the position of atheism addresses. And that is the claim asserted by _certain_ theists that some particular god exists in reality.
Like all claims to truth, this claim breaks down on three dichotomous axes: *_truth_* of the claim (true, false); *_acknowledgement_* as to the truth of the claim (acknowledge, fail to acknowledge); and *_sufficiency of knowledge_* as to ascertain the truth of such claim (sufficient, insufficient).
It is the the position we take on these dichotomies that establishes our identity in regard to atheism and agnosticism.
The first dichotomous axis addresses the truth _position._ Like any claim to truth, the 'theistic' claim is either true or _not_ true (false). There is no other possible option as is dictated by the laws of logic (Identity, Non Contradiction, and Excluded Middle).
The second dichotomous axis addresses the acknowledgement _position._ The recipient evaluating the claim either acknowledges the claim as to be true (theism), or fails to acknowledge the claim to be true (atheism). Again, there is no other available option.
The third dichotomous axis addresses the _sufficiency of knowledge_ as to the claim _position._ Either the recipient evaluating the claim has sufficient knowledge or information as to ascertain the truth of such claim (gnostism), or does _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information concerning the claim (agnosticism).
The default 'acknowledgement' position on the claim that "a particular god(s) exists" is _atheism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the theistic claim for the first time. It would be impractical to acknowledge the truth of a claim _before_ hearing it for the first time.
The default position addressing 'sufficiency of knowledge or information' is _agnosticism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim. One can not claim to have sufficient knowledge or information concerning any given claim _until_ he or she hears the claim for the first time.
This presents four populations of recipients evaluating the claim that "a particular god(s) exists."
The 'gnostic theist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) to theism by acknowledging the truth of the claim. Often this population claims to acquire "sufficient knowledge" from revelation from (or personal relationship with) the deity mentioned in the claim.
The 'gnostic atheist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify remaining in the position of atheism (default) by _rejecting to acknowledge_ the claim. This population is sometimes referred to as 'strong atheists'. This population may or may not make the additional claim "god(s) don't exist." If so, like the theists in the original claim, those that make such a claim now encumber a burden of proof to substantiate such claim with evidence.
The 'agnostic theist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) by does so _anyways_ by acknowledging the truth of the claim _through_ 'faith'.
And last, the 'agnostic atheist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their initial position of atheism so they _continue to suspend acknowleging the truth of the claim until sufficent evidence is presented._
Of the four populations, only the 'gnostic theists' and the 'agnostic atheists' are *_justified_* in their final positions. The former is justified in changing their position to theism by 'revelation'. The latter is justified in suspending such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced, and therefore remain atheist.
This is how I can demonstrate that I am indeed an atheist - an _agnostic_ atheist.
@@TheNaturalTheologian Thanks.
credulity, thy name is Testify.
Many Abdools here, Ayaan is a light that they should follow away from the false prophet
Intellectual honesty
Having gone through a lot
Searching for the Truth
You reach Christ
I am The Way, The Life and The Truth
Just came over from Testify. This end part was very encouraging and powerful.
It reminded me of something I listened to yesterday. The way she describes going to psychologists and their counselling, was probably very good advice, but it’s not good news.
Knowing what to do and being able to do the thing are two very different things. I know I should pull myself up on my bootstraps, but I don’t know how to do that.
I need Jesus and he is so beautiful and awesome ❤
Justin I missed you on unbelievable.i am so happy i found your own channel.God bless you brother
For all her geopolitics reason for her conversion, this is a real deal. She did converted to Christianity
No she is not🙂 do some research man, dont let your selfbe fooled by people all the time
@@swerremdjee2769 bruh, you watched the Unherd segment?
@@whm_w8833 i watched the wholething
@@swerremdjee2769 and you are still unconvinced?
@@whm_w8833 Yep dont you see her acting innocent and victim like?
Check her out in the Netherlands, she is is not a victim but a fighter🙂👍
Elizabeth tuned right in to her. Ayaan had known a god demanding total commitment to death and destruction. She yearned for a better god and found Him in Jesus. "By their fruits shall you know them." What better foundation for unshakeable faith.
Love your channel!!
If you have listened to Ayaan over the years, you know that Western civilization's superiority to tribal mindset is one of her great loves. The fact that the West will help the needy without asking anything in return. The fact that the Western ideal is not to kill your opponents, but to treat them well and win them over. She has learned, then, that faith in God is the real source of this goodness. In this sense, she sees Christian-influenced society as a Christian society.
You obviously didn't know the bloody history of Christianity, Catholic and Protestant. And currently the Russian Orthodox church support for Vladimir Putin's genocide in Ukraine.
Christ Jesus teaches a higher way of living. One of Love, Joy.Peace , freedom and gratitude
Welcome to Ayaan Blessings to All
We shouldn’t be criticising an ex-Muslim woman for being political. Her experience of life is a political issue and any response she makes to that experience will be politically charged if it’s going to be meaningful
Are you forgetting that Ayaan said that she has learned she has spiritual needs? That she had been so distressed that she drank enough alcohol to sterilize a hospital. She says she does not have full clarity yet. That she is learning Christianity little by little. You know that Western civilization is important to Ayaan. Is it surprising then, that she sees Christ as being the best hope for civilization?
Do you equally criticize the man who goes to church because that is where the good women are, and then discovers Christ, and becomes a godly husband?
Thank you Elizabeth for making the point that the the European/North American historical civilisational narrative is not an ontological primary.
I hope Ayaan comes back to Africa and I would especially welcome her to come to South Africa where I live, to help us grapple with the challenge of "being in the world but not of the world". Being in this particular context of "the world" is to be in the midst of the "open wound of suffering" as Africa turns into a wasteland that is driving so many immigrants to Europe. If we are looking for Jesus, that is where he is to be found.
I would also like to dialogue with her about the Mystical traditions in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which seem to me to all tap into Right Hemisphere intuitions and paradoxes. I would love to hear a conversation with her and Iain McGilchrist.
How about setting that up Justin?
Attacking a woman for finding Christ and peace is amazingly callous.
The parable of the hidden treasure explains that when a person encounters the greatness of the kingdom of God and all that it carries, he will choose to exchange his possessions for that kingdom and the benefits that are within it. This is how my mind came to the logical conclusion to become Catholic and receive the benefits of doing so.
_Saludos._
There seem to be two primary understandings of the christian story. In one, God acts unilaterally to rescue humanity from itself in order to bring them to himself in heaven. This is the dominant view of those who critique Ali's conversion as politically or more broadly sociologically/culturally motivated. The other take on the christian story incorporates the first, but focuses on God building a kingdom here on earth. In this story believers don't go up to heaven but rather heaven comes down to earth. I'll call them kingdom christians. NT Wright is probably the most well known proponent of this view. For kingdom christians Ali's conversion and her recognition of the civilizational value of christianity is congruent with, even if not epistemically rooted in, the expanding kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus. Perhaps the clearest passage in the New Testament addressing this is the parable of the mustard seed. Jesus says in this tale that God's kingdom on earth will start small but grow until it surpasses all others and that even the birds of the air will shelter within it. Ali and those like her who commit to living as Jesus commands (her "daunting ethical requirements") without 'believing' are perhaps prefigured in this imagery. Kingdom christians half expect these types of conversions and take a longer view of their implications. For them Christianity is more than just a personal relationship with Jesus as a way to get to heaven. It is the restoration of all things and the ripple effect of high status conversion is a sign that God's plan is moving forward. It's supposed to happen. As a kingdom christian (well an 80% one anyway) I take her at her word and pray she will move forward into a deeper knowledge of he saving lord. I'm the last person on earth who should decide whether or not someone else's conversion is good enough.
Christians are gonna have to learn how to integrate someone like Ayaan. She and others like her will make our faith richer.
Richer? I'd sooner say diluted
I fell for one con and now I want the world to know I have fallen for another!
Do not blame her for following the right path.
I agree that the right question is not "Does God exist?" Existence must have begun somehow, or have some kind of foundation. And the first or foundational cause is God. So the question is, "What is God like?"
The Vanity of the man in the
Twin Coloured Coat
SO MANY OF US
USED TO ADMIRE HIM SO SO MUCH FOR SO MANY YEARS
The Vanity of his
"Internal"
reflects in the Vanity of his
"External"
His Drug intake must be certainly influencing his judgement
?🤷♂️
The Aramaic word for God is Alaha. It's the word Isa PBUH (Jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J). Sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels, it is A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), adducted from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum) 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha).
The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes as aforementioned. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. In addition, The word God in hebrew is eloah, is a cognate of the Arabic I-L-H, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it into eloh, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elah. Infact it is written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic cause it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا)
"protosemetic" Alphabet (29), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22)
𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼
ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي
A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y
א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת
Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic:
ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain
س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining
ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining
ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining
ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining
ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining
The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word.
This kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, and then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical.
Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study.
Language; When you look at the actual linguistics, you'll find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" (why in quotes will be revealed later) languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE).
|Classical Arabic | 28 consonants, 29 with Hamza and 6 vowels; some consonants are emphatic or pharyngealized; some vowels are marked with diacritics | Complex system of word formation based on roots and patterns; roots are sequences of consonants that carry the basic meaning of a word; patterns are sequences of vowels and affixes that modify the meaning and function of a word | Flexible word order, but VSO is most common; SVO is also possible; subject and object are marked by case endings (-u for nominative, -a for accusative, -i for genitive); verb agrees with subject in person, number, and gender; verb has different forms for different moods and aspects |
| Akkadian | 22 consonants and 3 vowels; some consonants are glottalized or palatalized; vowels are not marked | Similar system, but with different roots and patterns; some roots have more than three consonants; some patterns have infixes or reduplication | Fixed word order of SVO; subject and object are not marked by case endings, but by prepositions or word order; verb agrees with subject in person, number, and gender; verb has different forms for different tenses and aspects |
| Aramaic | 22 consonants and 3 vowels (later variants have more); no emphatic or pharyngealized consonants (except in some dialects); vowels are not marked (except in later variants such as Syriac) | Simple system of word formation based on prefixes and suffixes; some roots or patterns exist, but are less productive than in Arabic or Akkadian |
Arabic is the only corollary to proto-semitic, infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical for anyone with a somewhat functioning mass between their ears. hebrew, aramaic, rest of madeup dialect continua only have 22 letters of the 29 protosemitic letters Arabic has all 29. The difference betweeen Arabic and the other creoles and Pidgin is the same as that between Latin and pig latin or italian.
"Semitic" is just mumbled Arabic, really. Imagine English with a third of its letters removed and simplified grammar. That's Aramaic, Hebrew, etc. For example, combine T and D into just T; there's no need to have 2 letters. The same goes for i, e, y - they should all be just y from now on, etc., etc. Arabic is the only corollary to proto-Semitic. In fact, the whole classification of Semitic languages is nonsensical for anyone with a somewhat functioning brain. Hebrew, Aramaic, and the rest of these made-up dialect continua only have 22 letters out of the 29 proto-Semitic letters. Arabic has all 29. The difference between Arabic and the other creoles and Pidgin is the same as the difference between Latin and pig Latin or Italian. "Phoenician" is an Arabic dialect continuum, and not only that, it is pidgin. It is simplified to the point of stupidity. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Arabic would see this clearly. What happened was that Arabic handicapped "scholars" saw the equivalent of Scottish Twitter spelling, with added mumbling due to phonemic mergers (22 letters, not 29), and mistakenly thought they were seeing a different language."
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
في البدء كان الكلمة والكلمة كان عند الله وكان الكلمة الله. 2 هذا كان في البدء عند الله. 3 كل شيء به كان وبغيره لم يكن شيء مما كان.
fi albad' kan alkalimat walkalimat kan eind allah wakan alkalimat allahu. hadha kan fi albad' eind allah. kalu shay' bih kan wabighayrih lam yakun shay' mimaa kana.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Allah, and the Word was Allah. This was in the beginning with Allah. All things were made by him, and without him nothing was made that was made. John 1:1-3
If you follow a child rapist it is hard to understand Ayaan
Keep deceiving yourself with false logic. Everything that cannot be proven but you want to force it as the truth. The subject matter here is not related to your false proof. Truth is always simple and self-proven. Falsehood is always complex and its adherents try to make it look like the truth
"Yasua" is the Arabic for Jesus. "Isa" is either "Esau" (the brother of Jacob) or it means Jesus in Mandean Aramaic.
To what extent have other religions in the West accommodated Christian values?
Time will tell .
the credulity demonstrated here is surely evidence for the naturalistic explanation of the origins of Christianity itself.
To make it clear, Ali's 'conversion' is ENTIRELY political, and the ease with which Christians embrace this performance is surely reflective of the ease with which the first Christians clung to the movement that arose in First Century Judea and the wider Roman world.
Influential thinkers living in a culture steeped in the Christian religion, reinterpreting a collection of ancient texts more than 1500 years later, to fit their Humanist ideology. Facing backlash from the church for their ideas centered on human happiness, taking advantage of a wider sphere of influence made possible by increasing urbanization and improved communication. I think that rather than using the Bible to guide Enlightenment values, that Enlightenment values forced an already religious society to reinterpret the New Testament to fit with their new found (and inevitable) ideology as a strategy to convince the population that this is what God meant for us all along.
I've always been a bit confused by the critique of "rationalism" or "rationality" as seen in part of what Glen says at ~52;20 "the failure of a worldview that shows 'rationality rules' " only to a moment or so later (~53;40) "Ayaan is following the evidence where it leads." Isn't following the evidence where it leads, evidence of rationality? In what way is that a critique of, rather than an example of being rational?
What’s psychologically acute about homophobia and misogyny? That’s what most Christian churches and in-fact most religions teach. What’s psychologically acute about original sin, shame and toxic self rejection?
Wha?
Well I pray she becomes born again. Just embracing the Christian tradition does not make you a Christian. And you don't have to believe in 6 day creation to be a Christian, it's faith in the finished work of christ upon the cross and his resurrection from the dead that saves you.
I wonder what impact her conversion has had on her husband, Niall Ferguson.
First of all Christianity is not a religion but its life.The religious people repeat the same things over and over everyday and hours. I congratulate Ayaan but she needs to read more from the bible and to understand it also.
It's definitely not political. She really sees the value for the soul there. She truly seems to wish this value on others, including her enemies. That's not political. It has huge political ramifications of good fruits though, which is a natural consequence of people actually living that value of seeing their neighbours, of seeing God in their neighbours. But political Christians tend to be divisive, pretend to have unshakeable faith, alienate those who wrestle, etc., because they aren't in it primarily for the soul value, but for the stability and safety it provides down stream, but they don't really dee the foundation, so they quarrel over doctrines, and heretics all day, they are reactive to anything that could shake the day to day stability of their lives, because they don't really trust God.
I'm the latter kind, though on good days I manage to be more the former kind.
Ayan strikes me to be more of the first kind.
atheism makes reason impossible
⚠Ask her why the Netherlands revoked her citizenship.
⚠Because she lied to the authorities about her profile.
Very disappointed with this, being so critical seems so wrong. Give the woman a chance, who set you up as judge and jury.
Genesis chapters 1-11 tells us why the world is in such a mess. It was created as a perfect place, but the first 2 humans decided to seek a first hand understanding of what evil is.
As a result the perfect world was destroyed. The resulting world continued to reject God and became so evil that God decided to put 8 people on a very large boat with many kinds of animals and then he washed that world away.
Probably the main reason that Christianity has been dying out in the West is that we have been sold stories about long ages. But a small group of scientists have been noticing that the conditions that laid down over 15,000 feet of sediments in Northern Arizona and Southern Utah involved rapid deposition, with no significant breaks. This is consistent with a world wide flood.
Shouldn't this be an issue for further investigation?
Her atheism failed her. Jesus gave her a hope and purpose
She's just lying just like she lied in order to get Dutch citizenship.
Her religion failed her and now she moving to another failed abrahamic religion. Atheism doesn't call for beheadings nor genocide like Christianity and Islam.
Perhaps.
She was never a true atheist 😅
Atheism is nothing. It has no standard. It actually gives you the right to be your own god and do what you please. So basically your opinion is your standard
I agree disagree that religion has utility for the human species. But, belief in the supernatural, hyperactive agency detection and a fear of death all seem to have evolutionary roots.
“Putin thinks Ukraine belongs to Holy Russia.” ??? Sorry, but that’s a gross mischaracterization of the real geopolitical and national concerns motivating Russia’s war in Ukraine. No need to invent some mythological rationales, all you need to do is pay attention to what Putin has ACTUALLY been saying especially since 2014.
The western media and the War Industry want us to believe otherwise
And intellectual laziness make us believe their propaganda
Agreed. Especially since the CIA-sponsored coup d'etat in 2014.
Pity Elizabeth Oldfield lapses intp the 'raised inflection' every now and then. 8 -' nervous' . Quite distracting particularly as one looses concentration waiting for the next one.
One Jesus. One God. Jesus is the only way to the Father. But MANY WAYS to Jesus. If she wants to come bc of medical reasons or spiritual bankruptcy or culture collapse, what does it matter? Regardless of motivation, she is in the kingdom and Heaven celebrates.
Good for her but for me it was not so straightfoward. There was a lot of pain to redeem.
She’s on a hiding to nothing. Those outside the church the last thing they need is theology. Theology is what makes religions toxic. All the certainty of dogma I’ve been inside some sort of Christianity for 57 years and came out as a atheist last week after deconstructing fur decades. What I feel we need is not religion or dogma. What we need is fellow feeling, empathy, social cohesion and social commitment and justice and kindness. All fhe things Jesus taught without a an ounce of theology or religion.
I’m not sure which God Ayaan is describing?? The God of the Bible (and Jesus NEVER referred to himself as God) is pretty ugly…but, maybe she hasn’t read the Old Testament.
This entire conversation is based on two false assumptions.
1) firstly, that Western values are superior. (Which is hideously arrogant and ignorant), and
2) that Christianity has led to a superior morality in the West. (Equally ignorant and arrogant)
Most of the ills in the rest of the world have their roots in the way they were treated by powerful Christian countries who exploited them for slaves, as colonies, abused them in the Crusades, killed and oppressed their indigenous peoples, set up regimes like the Raj and Apartheid and so on. All in the name of Christ
Conspicuously absent is any _good reason_ to believe it's true. Ultimately, if we value truth, that's the only thing that matters. I couldn't imagine trying to combat anxiety with deliberate self-delusion (but that appears to be what's happening here). Meanwhile reality exists where different decisions can produce better/worse results (with regards to our well-being) and so without mentioning a god at all we can get the vast majority of people on board with pursuing well-being together, cooperatively, empathetically.
Well when does that project start? Because I am waiting for the secular utopia for all my life now and it still ain't here yet. So let me know when your project without god starts. In the meantime I will be pursuing the Kingdom of God with my growing church community. ;)
@@brambes7110 What are you talking about?
A. Do you realize in nearly all countries theists make up the majority of people?
B. Did your non-belief in leprechauns cause you to do something? It didn't. Some people just belief a bad idea (they believe in leprechauns) and you don't. Atheism is exactly like that, and so your expectation that it'll be a full doctrine (instead of just _non-belief in gods_ ) makes it seem like you don't know what atheism is.
C. Are you saying you don't care about truth? That seems to be what you're confirming by "pursuing the Kingdom of God" and not examining whether you have any good reasons to believe it's true.
@@tonygoodkind7858 Just let me know when it starts.
@@brambes7110Why do _you_ think it's so hard to get theist to care about truth? To me it's obvious: if they cared about truth, they wouldn't be theists! If they faced reality, formed beliefs based on evidence, etc, they'd realize they don't have a good reason to believe in a god, and therefore would stop believing (as many have; and many continue to abandon belief over time).
Additionally, you're talking about a project that's been operating for thousands of years. When you look around, 0% of the technologies around you (the things actually improving your life) are the result of religion. 100% are the result of an evidence-based investigation of what's true of reality -- and so secular thinking is in fact responsible for every good part of your life (whether or not the person who did the secular thinking happened to be religious -- sometimes they were, but it wasn't their religion doing the heavy lifting, it was science).
@@tonygoodkind7858 Okay genius, let's say we find out lower IQ is somehow connected to the c0lour of your sk1n. Are you gonna take this into consideration in your secular utopia, or not? If not where the heck do get that "believe" from?
You have a hierarchy of values you cannot "prove", but instead of admitting your religious postion, you just don't talk about it. It is an intellectually joke.
Even the fact that you say technology improved my life is showing a lot. Based what, your implicit believes in values you don't want to talk about?
At one point it was said that Christianity led to socialism. But a closer look shows that it leads through socialism to a capitalistic work ethic.
One of the best examples of this progression was the Plymouth colony. They started with a socialist concept and found that people were kicking back and letting others do the work.
This resulted in there not being enough food and other essentials. The colony was dying off.
Then they switched to a program where each family had their own plot of land and what they produced was their's to use or to sell or to voluntarily give to others.
As a result, the colony turned around and thrived.
If you study the history of other attempts of socialism, you will find similar stories. They either recognized that socialism didn’t work and switched to a system where each individual benefited from their own work, or their society died.
I’ve “seen the fruits of Christian community up close and personal “ and it’s not pretty, I’ll tell you. My gay friends lost their faith as a result of the fruits of Christian community. And I followed them out.
Wrong Christian community then. No need to generalize.
Is embracing Christianity being a Christian? That is the specific requirement that makes a person a Christian?
What is the meaning of an atheist "embracing" Christianity or becoming a Christian?
What is the meaning of a Christian becoming an atheist?
Is there any statistics on how many atheists convert to Christianity and how many Christians convert to atheism each year? Adults only. Not counting the children. They still do not have the criteria to understand the scope of those decisions.
How do you listen to someone literally explaining how she invented a God that would be amenable to her sensibilities and not ask the question - did the first Christians do the same thing?
Because as a Christian that is not how I came to faith ... I experienced what the first Christians experienced ... the presence of Jesus and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit ... just as Jesus said we would
@@malcolmlayton2050
you have literally no idea what the first Christians experienced - and you just watched someone admit that they created a concept of God that fitted their emotional needs. Why is it unreasonable to think the first Christians did the same?
What was this experience that you claim is the 'indwelling' of the Holy Spirit? You realise that there are very robust naturalistic explanations of the sort of high emotional feeling that Christians often attribute to the presence of God, right?
If I told you you would experience euphoria when you first hold your baby child - would you say I was some sort of divine messenger of God figure? Clearly not.
@@bengreen171 I do have a literal idea of what the first Christians experienced .. they wrote it down ... and before I read what they wrote down ... I had the same experience ... lol
@@bengreen171 A faulty generalization is an informal fallacy wherein a conclusion is drawn about all or many instances of a phenomenon on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon. It is an example of jumping to conclusions. ... Try not to jump to conclusions
@@malcolmlayton2050 Good advice. You might like to try it.
Hmmm, she was responsible for the ultimate ending of Niall Ferguson’s marriage. He divorced and married her - all in 2011.
Anyone broke the news to Ali that Jesus drowned children?
Don’t be crazy.
@@1otterclan
Regardless of your interpretation of the scale of the Noachide Flood, God drowned people over a large area indiscriminately.
Unless you're going to ad-hoc appending to the story the unlikely event of everyone suddenly becoming sterile for several years before the Flood, there were children among those drowned
God == Jesus (ref: Trinitarianism).
Therefore, Jesus drowned children.
Hi, im from the Netherlands and you havent got the full story.
She met her husband, she was fine with the mariage, she met up with him once again in the Netherlands after she filed for refugee status, her soon to husband lived in Canada which was also a great liberal country at that time, she lied to her husband from the start she wanted to go to Europe, this is a tactic more women use, its in a Dutch documentary look it up.
She was doing nothing but instagating against islam and in her manner🙂 look it up.
Her friend Theo van Gogh was also pushing the limits like she was and in the same way david wood is look him up.
Theo at a point got a pet pig that he took everywhere and named that pig allah.
I am not saying its oke that someone went after him, but i think its understandable.
Now today, we finally have name for this kind of behaviour, but the name is not set yet.
Toxic feminity or psychological violence as i use to discribe it.
mental bullying, name shaming, character and status distruction exclusion dehumanise.
Now look for these traits in hershi, theo and David🙂👍
I think you'll find that they are not "pushing the limits", they are highlighting real differences between western (Judeo-Christian) values and Islam. They are very distinct differences between the two theologies that need to be discussed.
@@iain5615 they are not, thats not very christian of you🙂 i wish you the best of luck on your yourney, you will need it👍✌️
@@swerremdjee2769they are fundamentally different from each other. The only difference is that they are all monotheistic.
The Allah God of Islam is far, far more offensive than a little piggie!
14:00 "Do I really think the world built in 6 days, do I really believe every word in the Bible...No!"
This proves she is not a Christian, end of story.
“The self dying path that Jesus calls you to “ oh my goodness. This is what’s so appalling about Christianity. This is what’s so toxic about theology.
Please 🙏 come to Jesus come to Islam ☪️ Jesus a beloved prophet of Islam ☪️
No, nobody should do that. Why? Because it doesn't appear to be true. No matter how many believers you ask for evidence of a god, nobody has any. So nobody knows gods exist. So if your goal is truth, you shouldn't believe in a god. I hope your goal is truth.
@@tonygoodkind7858 humanity came from somewhere, Where?
@@mohiruddin8207 1. Are you changing the subject because you agreed with me?
2. *If we don't know, do we know?* This isn't a trick question, it's serious. We don't know how life began. Does that prove we know how life began? No, it doesn't prove it was a god or fairies or space elves. It only proves we don't know how life began.
3. Once life began, we know evolution caused humans to evolve from earlier species. We know that due to overwhelming evidence like the ~340 scientific papers in the references section of "evolution" on Wikipedia.
I mention that huge body of evidence proving evolution is true not just to prove it's true, but also to contrast what it's like to defend (a) actual heavily-evidenced facts vs. (b) non-evidenced nonsense. Be very aware that no believer can ever slam down that many observations of reality that all indicate a god definitely exists. That's because they just don't have evidence. (Which is why they resort to bad, illogical arguments -- because they really don't have anything else!)
By illogical arguments I'm referring to the fact that some believers genuinely make the arugment "we don't know the origin of life, so that proves we know the origin of life [was god]". Some people unironically make that argument (though they don't word it like that, because wording it like that makes it obvious how illogical it is, especially after Question 2 above).
@@tonygoodkind7858 does god exist read the Quran . And make up your own mind
@@mohiruddin8207 Do you see how even the people who believe in a god act like one doesn't exist? You aren't pointing me to evidence of a god. You're telling me about a *book.* A book whose claims include a god (Allah), who you can't prove exists.
By ignoring my earlier points and failing to provide evidence, you're acting like you don't actually believe in a god. Is that the case?
This woman is a blatant example of lying and opportunism. She was expelled from the Dutch Parliament after it was discovered that she had forged many documents. She left Islam and began attacking it and religion in general, because that had become a popular trend in some Western countries. Then she found that embracing Christianity would bring her more sympathy!
She is just a dull opportunist looking for the latest $.
Or, are you just overly cynical?