Following is my response, though a brief one, to a self-proclaimed Muslim apologist who goes by the name of MonkyPox. I have debated this person several times on paltalk. In my opinion, he consistently misrepresents the facts of Christianity and misrepresents what I say.

The occasion of this response arose when I was on Paltalk (www.paltalk.com) one morning and he came into a Christian chat room where I was and posted a link that contained the url with “slick_lies.htm”. He then proceeded to publically call me a liar in the room.

Since I believe that it is a sin to lie, I take it as a personal attack when someone publicly calls me a liar, especially when I have debated this individual before and have seen how frequently he misrepresents the facts. Therefore, I’m offering a brief response to his paper to substantiate my claim.

Incidentally, he gave me permission to reproduce the entire article, which I have done, throughout which I have inserted my comments in green. His article can be found at http://www.examinethetruth.com/slick_lies.htm. Following is his article.

________________

I think we are seeing a pattern here. And that is, when the ship of Christianity starts sinking under the scrutiny of cross-examination, a select group of narrow-minded Evangelical Christian missionaries, will resort to openly telling lies to plug up the hole and defend their “faith”, in an attempt try to salvage their sinking ship.

Please notice how MonkyPox begins his paper with an insult by calling some Christians narrow-minded and stating that they will tell lies. Also, note that he has not begun by addressing the argument. Instead, he has committed the fallacy of the ad hominem. He has attacked peoples’ character (the underlined part above was linked to an article he wrote). This is not how proof of a point is made. It is a mistake on his part.

This pattern of “lying to defend the faith from the challenge of Islam”, has been very accurately documented by ExamineTheTruth.com. The evidence is conclusive and unmistakable. Just as Dr. Robert Morey, Sam “The Sham” Shamoun, and Ali Sina (Atheist) were unveiled as charlatans, who intentionally lied their “flock” to defend faith, now, Rev. Matt Slick B.A., M. Div of the Christian Apologetic Research Ministry has been recently apprehended and added to the list of liars.

Whether or not people’s lies has been accurately documented on his web site is left to be proven. You can examine his site and decide for yourself. But, you will find as you read this article that the so-called proof he offers regarding me and my alleged lies is not proof that all. Nevertheless, again he offers another ad hominem attack as he accuses me specifically of being a liar.

I can’t help but point out a profound irony here. Muhammad himself approved of someone lying:

“Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him [Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf]?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it,” (Hadith Vol. 5, Book 59, #369).” For the context, please go to http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html.
If this MonkyPox is so concerned about my honesty and integrity, then why does his prophet Mohammed advocate lying? Of course, I see this as a problem.

When I brought this issue of Muhammad lying to MonkyPox in the room, he said that I didn’t understand the quote. This has been a common accusation by most every Muslim I have debated. Whenever I bring up something that disagrees with Islam or makes Islam look bad, I’m always told I don’t understand it or it is out of context. Therefore, I strongly urge everyone to read the context for yourself to see whether or not Mohammed did or did not give permission for someone to lie.

The problem is that if Mohammed did do this, then what does that say for those who follow the teachings of Mohammed? Are they also allowed to lie? I’m not saying that they automatically will, and I am not saying that this is what MonkyPox is purposely doing, but the issue of consistency and integrity is raised when a Muslim accuses someone else of lying (without proof), yet his prophet Mohammed advocated doing the very thing the Muslim condemns. To me, that is a problem. Is that a problem for you too?

In our public debate on Islam, Christianity, and Morality, I cornered Matt Slick to admit the obvious truth, which is, that there is nothing wrong with smoking marijuana, cocaine, or doing drugs. There simply is no condemnation in the Bible for this. You can download the debate file from my website so that you can verify what I am saying, here is the audio clip:

Download Now Part 3 (right mouse click and select “Save Target As”)

To be honest, it has been many months since I participated in this debate and cannot recall all the details. Nevertheless, MonkyPox did not corner me, as he claims. Listen to the debate yourself and you’ll see.

Furthermore, the Bible does not have to condemn every single item of every event in order for us to know if something is right or wrong. The Bible clearly tells us to treat our bodies well and to honor God with it. But what this Muslim seems to want to do is try and make a case that because the Bible does not condemn something specifically, therefore it is actually advocating its practice. This is a logical fallacy. It would be like me saying that because the Quran has not condemned speeding on the freeway, therefore the Quran says it is okay. Undoubtedly, this Muslim would state that the Quran says we are to obey the laws of the land (or something like that) and then apply it to speeding. Well, that is exactly the reasoning I used regarding the Bible. But, MonkyPox condemns me when I state that we use biblical principles to address modern-day issues. Also, I stated in our debate, we are not under the law as Christians, but under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I explained very clearly that, the Bible does not condemn using a computer or driving a car, therefore, the logical conclusion is that it must be ok to drive a car or use a computer. Using the same common sense, if the Bible does not condemn drugs, then it is ok to do. Rather, than coming forward and admitting the truth, this is what Matt Slick retorted in an attempt to defend his religion:

(36:03)

“The drug issue in the Bible? You say that because the Bible does not condemn it therefore it is ok to do drugs? Well, where does it say in the Bible that you can do your drugs? See, if you want to say where in the Bible say you can’t do it, therefore, you can’t, and if you don’t… if it doesn’t condemn it, therefore, you can’t do it, well then, where in the Bible does it say it is ok to do drugs? So that it would be ok? It doesn’t say that at all either way.”

I am not sure what he is trying to say in this quote. The issue is whether or not the Bible does or does not teach sufficient morality. In our debate, which this paper is generated from, MonkyPox tried to make the case that if the Bible does not condemn something, then it permits it or even advocates it. But, again, that isn’t true. Silence on a specific topic doesn’t mean it is advocating it. Another example would be using MonkyPox’s logic would be to say that since the Bible doesn’t condemn internet pornography that it, therefore, approves of it. But, that would be ridiculous. There are other biblical principles we know that we can apply to that issue. MonkyPox’s logic is faulty.

Matt Slick attempted to argue that the common sense rule which I used on understanding the Biblical position is false. Again, the rule which I applied to the Bible which I stated above, is if the Bible does not condemn it then it is not a sin to do. Nevertheless, I immediately refuted this nonsense of Matt Slick in the debate. Now, notice what Matt Slick says in his article when asked if there was anything wrong with masturbating. Notice this is the exact same question I asked him in the debate, except the issue was drugs, here is what Matt Slick had to say:

What’s he is trying to do is force the Bible into advocating sin by not condemning a specific action. This is what I was trying to get MonkyPox to abandon. The Bible does not address every ethical situation. But it gives us principles that we use to apply to those various situations and issues. If there is an issue that is addressed in one area of scripture we take that principle and apply it to another area in our lives. Drug abuse, for example, is self-destructive. Since the Bible tells us that our bodies are the temples of God, we know that the misuse of what God has given us in drug abuse is, therefore, wrong since it harms the body. Since the Bible does not openly condemn drug abuse, we don’t have to worry about whether or not it is or is not permissible since we know that the principle of being responsible for our own bodies and honoring God means that we are not to abuse drugs. This is a simple principle and sufficiently answers the Muslim charge that the Bible teaches immorality, a laughable assertion.

“The Bible does not discuss masturbation at all. This seems a little odd since it is such a strong and prevalent human event. And, given that Leviticus has so much to say about sexuality, one would think it natural that the subject would be covered. But it isn’t. Masturbation is not specifically declared to be sinful. Nevertheless, we must be cautious to pronounce something to be sinful or not sinful when God has not discussed it.”

Even though his paper was supposed to be generated out of our debate, he has quoted me from an article I wrote on CARM at Questions About Sex – masturbation. He cited most of the first paragraph in his above quote but omitted something very important. Following is the entire paragraph:

“The Bible does not discuss masturbation at all. This seems a little odd since it is such a strong and prevalent human event. And, given that Leviticus has so much to say about sexuality, one would think it natural that the subject would be covered. But it isn’t. Masturbation is not specifically declared to be sinful. Nevertheless, we must be cautious to pronounce something to be sinful or not sinful when God has not discussed it. Therefore, we have to derive principles from scripture on related sexual issues and see if we can wisely apply them to the subject of masturbation.”

I think the underlined sentence which he failed to quote, clearly exemplifies what it is I have been saying. By not quoting the underlined area he is missing a vital point of this whole discussion on biblical moral instruction. Therefore, he is not representing the issue fairly nor completely, something he has repeatedly erred in doing.

This is outrageous! Matt Slick applied to the Bible the very same common sense rule which he condemned me for in the debate! This is blatant hypocrisy. Therefore, when I stated this rule in the debate, Matt Slick knew that what I had stated was indeed true, but in spite of that, he INTENTIONALLY decided to tell a lie with the intent to mislead the audience, in a futile attempt to defend Christianity. He was also caught lying in the debate, when at one time, he said, the holy ghost convicted his wife to wear a 1 piece bathing suit, then in the question and answer session, he claimed he never said that. But I dismissed that lie as an act of stupidity.

A major problem with MonkyPox’s argumentation style is his attempt at mind-reading. Please notice that in the above paragraph, not only has he not established his point about my hypocrisy (since he is not represented the argument properly), but he has played the role of a mind-reader. He said that I knew that what he had stated was indeed true. First of all, how does he claim to be able to know what I know regarding an issue unless I have stated publicly what my position is? He does not know my heart or my intentions and he should not assert that he does. What he has done is construct a false argument by inserting into the discussion of fabrication of saying what I “knew” what he said was true and that I intentionally decided to lie. This is a ridiculous way to argue a point. But, he has to invent false points in order to convey his own.

He goes on to say, in capital letters, that I “INTENTIONALLY decided to tell a lie with the intent to mislead the audience.” Again, he is now trying to get the reader to believe that I purposely intended to lie and mislead — with no facts to back it up, just his attempt to read my mind. At best, this is nothing more than his opinion — but it is presented as a fact. I must ask how this Muslim justifies his attempt at mind-reading? I certainly hope that any reader would see through this façade of logic and recognize that my opponent is on extremely weak ground. But there is more…

In this paragraph you will see the sentence “at one time, he said, the holy ghost convicted his wife to wear a 1 piece bathing suit.” I draw your attention to this because in our discussion room when he brought this up, the original quote on his paper on his web site was that I had claimed that the Holy Ghost had “inspired” my wife to wear a one-piece bathing suit. In our discussion, with everyone listening, I challenged him on this. I told him that I would not say and did not say that the Holy Ghost inspired my wife to do anything. I told him that if anything, I would say that the Holy Spirit convicted my wife to wear a one piece. (The context of this example in our debate was dealing with the application of moral principles, that we are not under the law, but that we are involved by God who governs our hearts… even though it is not perfect due to our sinfulness). He then stated that he would prove that I was wrong and that I had indeed used the word “inspired.” He reproduce the audio portion of our debate and played it in the room on Paltalk. I wasn’t the only one who heard the debate sample that he gave where I clearly stated on the debate that the Holy Spirit convicted my wife, not inspired her. There is a difference between the two words. In short, he was busted.

Now, you might think this is a minor point. Actually, it is. But in the context of our discussion, it became important because he kept focusing on the “inspiration” of the Holy Ghost in my wife as a proof of my lack of credibility. I kept telling that that is not what I said. Yet, he continued to focus on it. It became an issue and he was proven wrong. Once corrected, he ignored it and tried to go on to something else.

MonkyPox has the audio record of the debate at his disposal and he could listen to it any time. He wrote a paper in response to that debate (which I am responding to here) and in it, he misrepresents the facts. On the other hand, by contrast, I did not have the debate recorded, yet from memory, I accurately recalled what it was I said. I asked him how I am supposed to trust him in his analysis of our debates when he had the actual documentation with him and yet he quoted me incorrectly and even though I did not have it with me, from memory I got it right? This did not help his case. He then proceeded to change the web page from the word “inspired” to the word “convicted.” He has not even corrected the rest of the statement about me never saying it. (As of Aug. 1, 2004)

Anyway, he concludes the paragraph by accusing me of stupidity. Seriously, this gets tiring dealing with him and his constant insults, especially since he repeatedly and consistently misrepresents the facts and is highly illogical.

Note: Those who have had dealings with this mulsim on paltalk don’t take him seriously since they have experienced his frequent misrepresentations and attacks.

In conclusion, we would request Matt Slick to issue an apology to ExamineTheTruth.com for his dishonesty. We would insist that there is indeed a pattern, of “lying to defend the faith from the challenge of Islam”. These are not isolated occurrences. We hope that this sends a strong message to the narrow-minded Evangelical Christian missionaries which is, “we are on to you”, as the ExamineTheTruth.com round up continues.

There will be no apologies coming from me since I have done nothing wrong. However, MonkyPox has misrepresented me, publicly accused me of being a liar, and falsely accused me based upon his failed mind-reading. If anyone owes anyone an apology, it is he that owes me one.