Ergun Caner in The Master's Pulpit - Spring 2003 (apparently April 2, 2003)
All times approximate:
(0:15) "Many of the misconceptions that we have, who are foreigners, about America, is we thought all of America was going to be like California. I will explain a little more as we go. My full name is Ergun Michael Mehmet Giovanni Caner. "Canner" is an Americanization of Caner. I was born in Stockholm, Sweden. I am Turkish, obviously. You can tell by looking at me, I'm not Swedish. I am fully Turkish. Twenty-one generations of Muslims in my family. My father is Acar Mehmet Caner. I only tell you that because in my culture, that is how you introduce yourself. My father was a muezzin in the mosque, that is the one who does the call to prayer - the one who is an ulema, and teaches as well."
a) It would be interesting to see Dr. Caner's birth certificate with such a name on it. The only official documents we've seen have "Ergun Michael Caner," but perhaps there is some more official record out there.
b) It's hard to see how Caner, with a Swedish mother, could be "fully Turkish."
c) Ulema is plural - it means "scholars." You can't be "a scholars."
d) In what culture do you introduce yourself by providing your full name and that of your father?
(1:10) "Everything, I'd ever thought about your country and your culture, I thought I understood, solely through television. Everything that we understood about your culture, we understood through television, and of course that led to misconceptions. I'm sure you have misconceptions about my people. Some of them are true, some of them are simply caricatures. Some of them are true. My first job was in fact, in a convenience store, which - alright. I am Apu."
a) He was apparently 2 or 3 years old when he came to America. How much conception, much less misconception, could he have had?
b) Recall that in a previous clip, Caner said: "My first job was not a convenience store."
(1:45) "But everything I knew about your country, I learned through television. So the first thing I watched - they would translate it into our language, into Turkish or into Arabic - and we would watch it, and this is how we saw America. The first thing we saw, we got ubiquitously, was Andy Griffith. Andy of Mayberry. So, I thought all of America was like Mayberry. I came to America through Brooklyn, NY. Yeah, you can see this."
a) Notice how Caner makes it sound like he speaks Turkish and/or Arabic.
b) And again, how much does a toddler really grasp from Andy Griffith?
(3:10) "The third thing is a bit of an embarrassing admission, especially for one who is supposed to be a professor and I've been now a professor for going on five years. But we used to addictively watch American professional wrestling, and nobody told me it was fake. You understand, so I would watch - I thought Americans were the toughest people on the planet. Because you'd get hit in the head with shoes and chairs and such and then you'd get back up - you know - and talk about meeting you at the Omni - you know, and things of this nature. So, I was addicted to this."
I wouldn't doubt he was addicted to wrestling TV, but presumably this developed some time after his toddler years.
(3:40) "I come to America, and I see all these misconceptions are gone. One of the things my father said -- I am the oldest of three sons, and we came here when we were entering - I was already in high school, but my brothers were entering into high school...
As mentioned above, from what we can tell, it seems Caner actually came as a toddler, not a teenager.
(5:05) "I knew nothing about America - I learned English very very very rudimentarily, and so I had to become an American, and I became an American citizen...
I guess this may be technically true, if he was a toddler. But considering his "Turkish" and "Arabic" claims earlier, what kind of impression does it convey?
(7:15) "You can obviously tell that my wife does not call me Ergun Michael Mehmet Giovanni Caner - she calls me 'Butch.'"
As did a lot of people, apparently, before 9/11.
(8:20) "Inevitably, we run into Muslims who will debate us. They will even come to our churches. The have rushed stages in Sacramento at Arcade Baptist Church. They have, in Springdale, Arkansas, come forward at the invitation to argue. In Atlanta, Georgia, they have protested us."
It would be great if any of these supposed events could be corroborated. If you witnessed any of these things, please let me know.
(32:40) "I came to this country to be a missionary of Islam to you."
Hard to see how to justify that kind of claim, if he came here as a toddler.
(32:50) "My father was an architect, and so we built mosques. And he worked on the mosque in Brooklyn, and then he worked on the Mosque in Columbus, Ohio, and then Toledo, Ohio. He did this his entire life."
The web of different stories regarding the Toledo mosque is particularly complex. (see this previous entry, for example)
(33:00) "We were so devout - we were there - I was the equivalent of a P.K. so to speak. I was in the mosque, every time the doors opened - every time. We read the Koran, kissed it, placed it to our foreheads, put it on the highest shelf. We read the Hadith, Al-Bukhari's hadith on the laws and jurisprudence of Allah.
(33:40) "Surah 4:101 Know that the infidels are open enemies unto you - that's you - Surah 5:32 Take no friends from among the Jews or the Christians. Surah 9:29 Sieze them and slay them, where you will find them. So, I came to this country, to try to get you. We lived and died by the five pillars of Islam: Abinadab, Salat, Zakat, Swan, Haj."
a) Caner does surely make it sounds like he came to America to kill Christians. But he was two or so when he came, and there is no evidence that his father was a radical Islamist.
b) The first pillar is Shahada, not Abinadab - Abinadab is not even the name of one of the pillars. It's frankly a little bit of a mystery why Caner uses that term for it.
(35:40) "It was through one high school who wouldn't shut up. One high school kid - One kid who wouldn't leave me alone. I dressed differently. I spoke differently. I ate differently. I lived by halal and haram. I wore my keffiyah - my robes. I had nothing to do with him, he had nothing to do with me, why wouldn't he leave me alone?"
Note the repeated claim to dress differently. Also, this bit about speaking differently - why? He grew up in Ohio. Why would he have an accent?
(36:50) "I walked into the Stelzer Road Missionary Baptist Church in Columbus, Ohio in full garb with my Koran."
More of the dressing differently claim.
(38:50) "Pastor Clarence had his eyes closed and he was preaching. And he opened his eyes and there stands this boy in front of him, 17 years old, in full gear."
Yet again - more of dressing differently. Also, this age does not fit his November 4, 1982, alleged conversion date.
(40:05) "In the years that followed, both my brothers got saved."
I hope that they were saved, and I should note that in some cases the story is "the following year," as opposed to "years that followed," but I suppose that is of little significance.
-TurretinFan
Saturday, March 01, 2014
Friday, February 28, 2014
Caner's Father - An Architect who "Came to Build Mosques"?
In describing his father, Ergun Caner has repeatedly referred to him as an "architect" and claimed he came to America to "build mosques." I doubt this account for a number of reasons.
First, Acar Caner's death certificate lists his occupation as "engineer." Unfortunately, this certificate has not been posted on-line.
Second, the Turkish article we previously reported (here) stated: "His father's family had its roots in Istanbul. His father was an engineer and a religious man who was also attached to his secular values. Acar Caner studied engineering in Sweden and then moved to the capital of Ohio, Columbus, in 1969, with his Swedish wife who had converted to Islam."
Third, although the building that is now the "Islamic Foundation" on Broad St. in Columbus, Ohio was renovated in the 1980's, the architect listed was not Acar Caner.
Of course, lots of things are possible. Still, if Acar Caner was actually an architect, there surely must be some evidence of it out there. There's an aspect of "wait and see" about this, but I would encourage people not to automatically assume that Acar Caner was an architect or that his primary role was building mosques.
-TurretinFan
Of course, lots of things are possible. Still, if Acar Caner was actually an architect, there surely must be some evidence of it out there. There's an aspect of "wait and see" about this, but I would encourage people not to automatically assume that Acar Caner was an architect or that his primary role was building mosques.
-TurretinFan
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Ergun Caner at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary
Friday evening:
Around 6:20, Caner claims that his father-in-law is from "Possum Kill, NC."
We can't find any place by that name.
Around 15:40, Caner said, "When I got saved, it was later in life. And then going into college - I got saved in my teens - but then going into college, I have switched from an urban church to a country church - and it caught me off guard."
It is nice to see that Caner quickly corrected his "later in life" to "teens."
Around 19:50, Caner said, "There was never any singing in the mosque. Not in Sunni mosques, not in Shia mosques. It is forbidden. There is no singing in the mosque."
No, it is not forbidden to sing in mosques. (See discussion here.)
Around 33:40, Caner said, "I've been tasered live on stage as a sermon point. And it worked, nobody forgot it. That was four years ago, nobody's ever forgot it. I haven't forgot it either, it hurt like crazy."
Around 43:55, Caner said, "People always hit you up, 'what is it that reached a Muslim?' In my case, grace and the atonement, but it was worship. I had never heard singing - not in the mosque - I didn't know why you were so happy."
Keep in mind that Caner was in A Capella his sophomore, junior, and senior years and in Freshman choir in high school (see the discussion here).
Around 51:50, Caner said, "Jerry Tackett in my life for four years, freshman, sophomore, junior, going into my senior year. Every time I told him, 'no,' he kept coming back. I dressed differently, spoke differently, and worshiped a different god."
Caner's claim that it was his senior year is inconsistent with some of his other claims, like his claim that it was 1982.
Caner's claim that it was his senior year is inconsistent with some of his other claims, like his claim that it was 1982.
Around 52:15, Caner said, "When I got saved I lost my family, I lost my loved ones, I became murtad, an object of scorn, and one anonymous church loved me."
Caner apparently was disowned by his non-custodial father, but he apparently continued to have a close relationship with his mother and grandmother.
Caner apparently was disowned by his non-custodial father, but he apparently continued to have a close relationship with his mother and grandmother.
Around 53:00, Caner said, "I couldn't understand her, because she was from Japan. And her English was worse than my English."
This may be true, but considering that Caner grew up in Ohio, it is a strange comment.
This may be true, but considering that Caner grew up in Ohio, it is a strange comment.
Around 53:40, Caner said, "A year after my salvation, while I'm in college, both my brothers get saved. My father has other wives, other children, but from our mom, three boys - all three born again ..."
Caner's father did not, as far as we can tell, have other wives.
Around 55:10, Caner said, "I have brothers and sisters that I'll never see again, I've cousins and uncles and nephews and such that hate me. But my nuclear family is changed, because of one boy."
Caner does not, as far as we can tell, have other brothers than Emir and Erdem.
Caner does not, as far as we can tell, have other brothers than Emir and Erdem.
Saturday morning:
Around 9:50, Caner said, "I learned English, to all my immigrant friends, you can learn English simply by studying their dialects. And even in the south, they have variant dialects."
Caner came when he was about 2 years old. I doubt he learned English by studying dialects.
Caner came when he was about 2 years old. I doubt he learned English by studying dialects.
Around 10:15 Caner said, "My full name is Ergun Mehmet Caner."
No, his full name is Ergun Michael Caner.
Around 12:05 Caner said, "I have lived in Korea. No one speaks Korean as quickly a Southerner speaks English."
I'm sure Caner has visited Korea - but that's not quite the same thing as living there.
I'm sure Caner has visited Korea - but that's not quite the same thing as living there.
Around 22:45 Caner said, "I spend a large portion of my time in front of hostile crowds."
Really? Where is the evidence of this.
Around 23:00 Caner said, "I got saved in the '80's ..."
I wish we could verify this - partly in terms of verifying that he really professed faith in 1982 as he has claimed - and partly in terms of seeing repentance for his autobiographical embellishments.
I wish we could verify this - partly in terms of verifying that he really professed faith in 1982 as he has claimed - and partly in terms of seeing repentance for his autobiographical embellishments.
Around 1:05:00 Caner described his interview at Liberty University. He claimed he was asked about liquor and tattoos. He claims that he told them that he had 12 tattoos. More particularly, Caner said (around 1:06:00): "All of mine are anabaptist and church history and - I have a mark from when I was a Muslim, and so, when I got saved, I wanted something that - I got Arabic that says 'Jesus is Lord,' I've got Athanasius' creed, Contra Mundum across my back- If you ever see me get captured, I don't want to be in an orange jumpsuit before they cut off my head, I want to be sleeveless, so that the last thing they see is 'Jesus Christ alone is Lord' in Arabic on my arm."
a) Did Caner really get tattooed before his professed conversion to Christianity? He would have been under 18 at the time.
b) Also, most Muslims think that permanent tattoos are forbidden (link).
b) Also, most Muslims think that permanent tattoos are forbidden (link).
c) The pictures at right show all the tattoos (or lack thereof) that I've seen (I'm linking to his twitter pics, so the pictures should disappear, if he pulls the pictures from his twitter site).
Around 1:10:20, Caner said: "Then, I was told I couldn't get a masters, because I was a straight C student, until one professor - one - one guy grabbed me by the nape of the neck and said 'Stop coasting.'
Caner was a "Presidential Scholar" at Cumberland (as we reported here).
Saturday evening:
Around 10:00 "In 1978 when my people moved here - when we moved here - Ayatollah Khomeini had said, 'We will not stop, until America is an Islamic nation.'
Around 10:20 "When we started - in '78 - when my father set up the Islamic Foundation in Columbus, Ohio, there was 1000 Islamic houses of worship."
From what we know, Caner came in 1969, not 1978.
Around 46:20, Caner said: "So we are repeating, in Islam, six verses of the Koran - the first chapter - the first Surah of the Koran. Over and over."
Actually, the first Surah has seven verses. (see here)
Around 47:05, "This Islamic form of hyper-calvinism. You fall down, you break your leg, you are supposed to say what? 'Inshallah' - Allah willed it. He broke my leg. It was supposed to happen. It's fatalism - it's absolute fatalism."
Caner is wrong - the Muslim exclamation would be alhamdulillah or perhaps allahu akhbar - "inshallah" is forward-looking.
Around 50:50, Caner said: "Are you saying that Islam is inspired by the devil? That's exactly what I'm saying, so you can quote me."
I figure we should go ahead and quote him. I would think that the devil would know the Trinity better than the view that is reflected in the Koran.
Around 52:20, Caner said: "In the 61st chapter of the Koran, Surah 61, Mohammed has Jesus saying I must go so that I will send a Paraklĕtos - not klātos - Paraklĕtos and in Arabic it is shortened to Ahmed which is the nickname or the shortened version of Mohammed ."
Caner has conflated a few things here. The Koran says that Jesus claimed he would send a messenger or an apostle and that the person would have the name Ahmed (short for Mohammad). Certain Muslims claim that when John 16:7 reports that Jesus said he will send a Comforter (παράκλητος - parakletos), that this is a textual error and the text should read "περικλυτος" (periklutos), which allegedly would mean "praised one," which is the meaning of Ahmed/Mohammad.
Around 53:05, Caner said: "Ibrahim, goes to the top of Mt. Moriah to sacrifice his son. Lays his son on an altar - so far so good - Genesis 22, right? lays his son on the altar, raises up the knife, because Allah has told him to kill his son. Plunges it down, and at the last minute, Allah prepares an animal in the thicket and saves the life of Ishmael. You get it? 2200 years after Moses writes it - 2700 years after it actually happened - Mohammad changed the story. He changed the characters."
As discussed elsewhere, it appears that the replacement of Isaac with Ishmael in the story is a post-Mohammad development in Islamic history (see the detailed discussion here).
Around 1:07:50, Caner said: "I will never move. If I ever leave Liberty, you know where I'm going? State school. Put me on the floor at a community college - where I'm with every leftist, loser, liberal, lesbian, everything, surrounded by heathens - what better place to be!"
Of course, Caner didn't know the future, but since he's left Liberty - he has apparently only worked at Christian colleges.
-TurretinFan
Monday, February 24, 2014
Ashburn Baptist Church (Chicago, Illinois) Sermons
Ergun Caner apparently gave a number of speeches/sermons at Ashburn Baptist Church in Chicago, Illinois, from 2003-2005.
"My full name is Ergun Michael Mehmet Giovani Caner, born in Stockholm, Sweden, where my parents were going to school. ... Raised in Turkey, and in Cairo, Egypt, and in Beirut, and then I came here .. and I came here when I was 12."
He came at about 3 years old, having been born in Sweden. He was raised in Ohio. His name is Ergun Michael Caner.
Caner claims he learned about America, thinking it was all like Mayberry from Andy Griffith. As mentioned above, he was raised in the U.S.
Around 25 minutes in he continues with autobiographical material:
"I was raised for the first 17 years of my life as a Sunni Muslim. Acar Mehmet Caner, my father, was a muezzin, he was a mulima. A muezzin is the one who does the call to prayer in the minaret, the mulima is the scholar of the hadith. I was raised in the mosque. And raised and brought here to America to be a missionary to you. My father was an architect by trade. He built and renovated mosques. In Brooklyn, New York, in Toledo, Ohio, and eventually in Columbus, Ohio he built and renovated mosques. I was the equivalent of a PK in Islam."
The Islamic Foundation on Broad St., where Acar Caner apparently went, did not have a minaret. There is no evidence that he was a muezzin or an alim (ulima is a plural noun, and mulima is bad). There is no evidence (that we can find) that Caner's father was actually an architect by trade or that ever built a mosque.
"Even in high school, I would take my prayer rug out of my locker and put it in the bathroom, and begin [Islamic prayers]."
A bathroom is one of the last places a devout Muslim would pick for prayers.
"I came here to be a Muslim missionary to you."
He came as a toddler.
"You have heard of the five pillars of Islam, Abinadab, the Kalima, Salat, Zakat, Swan, Haj, ... we will talk about jihad being the 6th pillar of Islam."
Abinadab is not a pillar of Islam.
"I wore my keffiyah, my gear ..."
Most of Caner's childhood photos show him and his father wearing normal western clothes.
He talks about his first sermon being very short but he claims that both his brothers came forward.
Other times Caner has said that his brothers were saved while he was away in college.
We can't find evidence of these debates.
"I can no longer travel to the countries. I mean I can't travel to my home country, to Turkey. I cannot go to Lebanon or to Syria or to UAE or Qatar, and neither can my brother." This is allegedly the result of his publishing against Islam.
I doubt Caner could substantiate these claims, but it is hard to prove that they are not true. Nevertheless, UAE and Turkey are relatively tolerant of non-Muslims, so it seems surprising that they would care he wrote a book on Islam.
"I have debated in 13 colleges and universities. I have never once found one Muslim ulima, scholar, who would ever say that Allah and Jehovah are the same god."
As noted above, we cannot find evidence of these debates.
Caner claims that Mohammed's first vision was on his 40th birthday.
Muslims, however, say that Mohammed's first vision was during the month of Ramadan (9th month of the calendar), whereas Mohammed's birthday is int he month of Rabi-al-Awwal (3rd month of the calendar)
Around 18:50: "In a debate at the University of North Texas, there were thousands of people there, and there was two Christians and two Muslims. I was the Christian who formerly was a Muslim. I was offensive to the Muslims. And in the middle of this, what was most interesting was that most of the questions that were hostile were not coming from Muslims, they were coming from the media. WFAA in Dallas, Texas the television station - the guy just hammered me, just boom boom, hit me with questions over and over."
We can't find any evidence of this debate. The only references we could find to Caner on WFAA's website were to Caner getting caught. One example is shown here:
Around 20:50: "So, in the middle of the debate, after getting hit five or six times with questions, I step back from my podium and I say, 'Abi,' speaking to the imam, I said, 'Abi, may I ask you a question.'"
We cannot locate any imam named "Abi" whom Caner ever debated.
Around 25:50: "I was a jihadeen. That was my youth group. Do you hear the word? Jihad. Jihadeen is a little boy who trains in the protocols of jihad. If I would have reached the age of 18 as a jihadeen, and I would have made the pilgrimage to Mecca, doing haj, I would have become a muj- put them together mujihadeen."
There is no evidence to confirm that Caner was trained as a jihadist.
Around 30:50: "By the way, let me cite to you what the Hadith is. This is interesting. The Koran is supposedly the words of Allah. But the Hadith is different. The Hadith is not just one book, it's actually a large encyclopedia - nine volumes. You can buy one. It's about $100 to buy the full set. It is not the words of Allah, but it is the words and sayings and examples and protocols and judicial laws of Mohammed."
That's not a very accurate picture of the Hadith. There are nine volumes in the English translation of one of the hadith collections (Sahih al-Bukhari). But there are a number of other hadith collections besides that one. That's why, when one cites the hadith, one should specify the collection (see the discussion here).
Around 32:50: "I wanted to become an American. I learned your language. Do know how difficult your language is? Do you have any clue? And I was in high school when I did it!"
Caner came to America as a toddler, not as a high school student.
Around 38:50: "My father said, 'When you come to America, marry an American woman. More specifically, marry a blonde.'"
One really doubts that Caner's dad had such a discussion with a 3 year old, or that Caner would have remembered it.
Around 42:30: "On open line radio with Wayne Shepherd I was debating a Muslim woman scholar and this was the Moody show, the Wayne Shepherd thing, and he said, 'Well, she's on the line, and she wants to disagree with what you have to say,' and she called in and she said, 'You do not understand, you have quoted this verse three times, and you do not understand. In the Arabic, that means to tap her lightly.' I have two answers: number one, I do understand the Arabic, I do read the Arabic, and no it does not mean to tap her lightly. And secondly, are you insane?"
As far as we can tell, Caner may be able to pronounce the Arabic, but he does not know the language. I even wonder if this supposed radio discussion ever took place.
Around 43:50: "My mother found out late in her marriage that my father was married to more than one woman."
Caner's mom apparently married his dad while at university. They were divorced nine years later and we cannot find evidence of Caner's mom alleging polygamy as the ground of divorce. Also, compare this statement to what we see below in some of the other messages at this same church. Caner's father apparently remarried after the divorce, but we cannot find evidence of any other wives.
Around 50:00: "Strict Muslims do not allow their pictures to be taken, because they consider it to be idolatry."
Sounds like Caner may be confusing Muslims and Amish.
Around 58:10 "That's what those video tapes are for. Have you seen those video tapes of them reading before they go and bomb? This is what they are reading: [Some kind of gibberish that is supposed to be Arabic] I declare who I will send."
It's sad that Caner makes people think he speaks Arabic.
Around 1:10:50 "I think America will survive if, and only if, it's the country I thought I was coming to. Everywhere I lived, I was a majority, Muslims were in the majority. I come to America, I was in the minority."
The evidence we have is that Caner lived in Sweden and then the US, neither of which is a majority Muslim country.
The evidence we have suggests he was not fat until after high school, at the earliest.
Around 2:20: "Braxton is after my father-in-law, Paige is after Dr. Patterson, who is my mentor."
I wonder what Patterson thinks of Caner's autobiographical embellishments?
Around 3:30: "I make my living getting yelled at. I spend my time, on purpose, in front of secular audiences. I go into state colleges, Ohio State University, Portland State most recently, UCLA, I go into places where I am not surrounded by sweet, kind gracious kids like I just heard sing and gave testimony. I figured if Jesus was a friend to sinners, and we're here to help those who are sick with sin, I don't want to hang out in the rehab center, I want to hang out where the lepers are. And there are a ton of lepers on our state university campuses. I debate. I go in and a Muslim, or a Bahai, or a Buddhist, or a Hindi, and I get in front of a bunch of people and debate."
We cannot find evidence of these supposed debates.
Around 9:00, Caner claims that his father-in-law was from Possum Kill, NC.
There is no "Possum Kill" in North Carolina, according to google maps.
Around 11:50, Caner claims to have watched Chicago Cubs baseball abroad before coming to America. Caner then claims to have watched American football. He also claims to have watched the Dukes of Hazard and to have wanted to marry Daisy. He further claims to have watched Andy Griffith.
It's literally impossible he watched the Dukes of Hazzard as he claims (see discussion here). And, of course, keep in mind he was a toddler when he came to America.
Around 12:50: "But my favorite show came out of Georgia. Because Atlanta, GA, small station television station there was shipping its tapes to Europe. And Turkey being half European and half Persian, we would receive these tapes, and it didn't need to be translated. And every two weeks we got to watch Georgia Championship Wrastlin' - and I thought it was real, because nobody told me it was fake."
There is no evidence that Caner lived in Turkey and watched Pro Wrestling on Turkish TV via internationally shipped tapes.
Around 13:50: "All the Turks you see on television are what? We are either devout, which I was, wearing the robes ..."
As mentioned above, from the photos we have, Caner dressed like a typical Western person.
Around 14:30 "I did, however, work at a convenience store. My first job was at a place called 7-11. The only place that would hire me. I was Apu."
Elsewhere, he has claimed he didn't work at a convenience store. (see here, for example)
Around 14:50: "I came to this country as a 13 year old boy, and I came here with a father as the oldest of three sons of my father, and my father said, 'Marry an American.'"
He came as a 3 year old boy, and his youngest brother was born in Ohio.
Around 21:40 "Because in debates that I've had in philosophy classes, in theology classes, in divinity schools, among a bunch of heathens, among coffee houses, I only go to Christian coffee houses when I want to get coffee. I go to secular coffee houses when I want to have a good evangelical encounter."
Where are these debates?
Around 30:00 "I came over during the Iranian crisis. Ayatollah Khomeini had taken control. The shah had of Iran had been kicked out. And Ayatollah Khomeini said this: 'We will not stop, until America is an Islamic nation.' And so in 1978, my father, my mother, my two brothers, my father's other wives, and my half-brothers and sisters came to this country."
Remember above where supposedly his mom only late in their marriage found out about the supposed "more than one woman"? Also, while Caner does have two half-sisters, we cannot find any evidence of any half-brothers. Caner came to America in 1969, long before the Iranian crisis, and the Ayatollah was of a completely different sect of Islam (Shia), which is at odds with the Sunni sect that Caner was allegedly part of. Furthermore, Caner's half-sisters were born after his father and mother divorced. Caner's youngest brother was born in the USA.
Caner continued: "How is that Muslims can come to this country with other wives? Well, it's called the Abraham lie. This is my sister. It explains our last names being the same. And so he would say, 'these are my sisters.' We settled in Brooklyn, NY, and moved to Columbus, OH, for the express purpose of what? My father was an architect and he built mosques. We would build mosques. And my father in the mosque on Fridays, would climb to the top of the minaret and there at the top of the minaret - that's a long tower - he would begin, 'Alahu akhbar, Alahu akhbar, Alahu akhbar, Alahu akhbar' the call to prayer."
As mentioned above, there was and is no minaret at the Islamic Foundation on Broad St. where Caner's father went. There is no confirming evidence that his dad built any mosques. Likewise, there is no evidence that Caner's father was a polygamist.
At 31:30, Caner said: "We moved from Brooklyn, NY, to Toledo, OH, where we saw the big mosque there, off of I-75. We moved south to Columbus." If they lived in Brooklyn or Toledo, it could not have been long. Emir Caner was born near Columbus.
At 32:45, Caner said: "We were devout Muslims. Now devout - that's a word that's thrown around a lot today, isn't it. Let's just say we were following the dietary restrictions, praying five times a day, we wore the hijab, my mother wore the chador, we wore the keffiyah, and I took the Koran very seriously."
Other places, we learn that Caner's mother was not a devout Muslim by the time Caner professed faith.
Around 34:00, Caner said: "You fall down and break your leg, you say, 'inshallah,' it's how you live."
Muslims would instead say Al-Hamdolilah or Alahu Akhbar. Inshallah is a forward-looking statement.
Around 36:05, Caner said: "It's why there's no shortage of young men, going to be trained in a Madras, like I was - and now, young women. It is not act of devotion, it is an act of desperation. We believe that by dying, we get hope."
It's "madrasa" not "madras" and there is no evidence we can find that Caner went to anything more than the Muslim equivalent of Sunday school.
Around 38:40, Caner said: "For three years: Freshman, Sophomore, Junior years, I said 'no.' Three years. He didn't stop. In the summer of the year between my junior and my senior year, I finally got sick of it. 'Would you quit!' 'Dude, we got a lock-in.' You all know what a lock-in is? Do you guys know what a lock in is? They are evil. A lock-in is the Protestant equivalent to Purgatory. It is time served. Because you are, 3 a.m. in the morning, wondering who did you offend to get stuck doing this. You have been covered in shaving cream by some obnoxious kid, you are filled with horribly cheap check cola, you have eaten things that don't even taste like oreos, and you're tired and you want to show a carmen video, hoping they all go to sleep! And then you find out, 'umm, Tommy's missing, and so's Sally,' 'Get the flashlights!' So you're searching through the church, lookin' in Sunday school classrooms, and you find them under a stairwell somewhere. 'What are you doing!?!' 'Uh, dude, uh, she needed somebody to pray with.' 'Yeah, well you're praying tongues. How about coming out of there if you would, please. Punk! She is not a hollah-back girl.'
In other places, he has claimed his conversion experience was in November 1982. In any event, the summer between junior and senior years would be 1983.
Caner continued: "I said 'no,' I said 'no,' I said 'no,' I said 'no,' a hundred times I said, 'no.' He wouldn't quit. I have no idea to this day why he made me his topic. Finally, I was going to show him. So I walked into the Stelzer Road Baptist Church in Columbus, Ohio, mad. Have you ever walked into church mad? A lot of people were made that day. I found out since, a lot of people come to church mad. But I was going to show him, and I came in full gear, and I came in, Koran in my hand, about as thick as a Jack Hyle study Bible, that thick, and I carried it big, and I walked to the front, and that little, store-front church loved me to the cross. Didn't make fun of me, didn't make fun of my name, didn't call me names, didn't make fun of my accent, didn't call me a towel-head or a camel-jockey and they didn't call me a sandn*gger. The meaner I was, the nicer they were."
What accent? Caner was raised in Ohio.
Around 42:25, Caner said: "All I'd ever heard was that Baptists were snake handlers, and I was looking around for a box. I don't like snakes, neither do camels."
What do camels have to do with it? Caner is not from the desert.
Around 42: 40, Caner said: "And the minute the service was over, Jerry Tacket took me to Clarence Miller and he - Clarence Miller was the pastor of the church - he said, 'Clarence, here he is!' like you've gotta point out the boy wearing the dress."
It seems unlikely Caner wore a dress to the church, since photos of him from that time period show him wearing normal western clothes.
Around 45:00, Caner said: "One of the number one arguments I get in debate, is when a Muslims will say, 'What does his death have to do with my blood.'"
Where are any of these debates?
What does that mean?
Around 30:00, Caner said: "When I was in baptist student union in college, we went to a retreat - I had only been saved about one year. And we went to a retreat, and I was excited about being discipled. I had been saved one year, I'm a minister of the gospel, I barely know the Bible, I wanna be taught, I wanna be fed. I want somebody to step on my toes."
Notice this implicit claim that he was born again his senior year of high school.
Around 43:30, Caner said: "If I'm doing a debate, and there's an audience, someone will raise a well-intentioned hand and say, 'Dr. Caner, ...'"
Where are any of these debates?
Mormor is a Swedish term for grandmother. That's appropriate, because this grandmother was Swedish. Isn't it interesting how Caner suggests that his grandmother spoke another language, rather than English, but he never mentions here that the language was Swedish?
Around 23:25 "I lost my father at my salvation, because I was disowned. That wasn't hard. In my country, you are killed for becoming a Christian. So I had no family."
In what country? Turkey didn't have sharia law, nor did Sweden, and obviously neither does the USA. He had his mother and grandmother even after he lost his father, as far as we can tell.
Around 24:15 "One tiny little church that doesn't even exist any more, I stand here because they invested in me."
The Stelzer Road Baptist church evidently does still exist.
Around 30:00 "I was a faithful and devout Muslim my entire life, into my teenage years."
You have to chuckle about the "my entire life," coupled with "into my teenage years." And we certainly can question how devout he was, although it is difficult to definitively prove.
Around 30:10 "We watched in our madras, our training center, we watched Christian television to critique it."
As noted above, it's "madrasa" not "madras." Granted that Christian TV is pretty bad, but surely he would not get the impression that "you hated me" from that TV. One really doubts, however, that Caner was in a "training center" that encouraged watching Christian TV.
Around 30:35 "It took three years for me to enter the church. A year later both my brothers got saved after I was saved. Took them four. My mother didn't get saved until 1991, it took her nine. My grandmother didn't get saved until 1995, it took her 13 years. I have half-brothers and half-sisters in Chicago, in New York, and in Turkey, who live here, who are still lost as geese. Still in the slavery of Islam. But I will not give up. How dare I give up! My father died in '99. His wives are still alive. How dare I give up! My half-sisters are still alive. How dare I give up! My half-brothers, my uncles, my aunts, How dare I give up! He didn't give up on me. He didn't stop. God didn't stop hunting me down."
Here he says "three years," which suggests his senior year of high school. Also, as mentioned above, we don't have any evidence of these alleged half-brothers. Likewise, while Caner's mother and Caner's step-mom may both be alive, Caner's comment seems to refer back to his father's alleged polygamy.
We have yet to see Caner produce this alleged commentary.
Around 6:25: "I want to speak to you as somebody who did not pick up a Bible until he was 18 years old."
Interesting how he's supposedly critiquing Christian TV in a madrasa, but yet he never picked up a Bible. Likewise, "18" seems an unlikely number. Caner graduated from high school in 1984 and was born in November of 1966. Thus, Caner would have been already graduated from high school before he turned 18.
Around 10:25: "In the last semester, UCLA, Otterbein, University of South Florida, Mingut(?) College, Winthrop University, one more, Mitney(?) State, I walk into those schools and - I want to set the stage for you, pretend with me if you would, please, that we are not a church, but we are in some sort of a hallway, an auditorium, as you enter in, if it is a debate, you are searched. Behind the scenes, I sit in a room with the imam, who is the pastor of the mosque, or a Hindi priest, or a Buddhist priest or monk, or maybe even a mulima, a Muslim scholar, or an atheist. We sit in the back and we discuss the protocols and rules of this debate. They go as follows: both of us go by making a 10 minute introduction explaining our position. We then answer and rebut the other person's statement and launch into a defense of our position that is allowed to last up to 35 minutes. A final ten minute rebuttal is offered by either one of us, and then the fun starts. We open the floor to questions."
When has Caner ever done this kind of formal debate? Notice that Caner cannot claim that he just means some kind of informal dialog or a chat in a taxicab. He's referring to a structured debate with timed speeches.
Around 12:00: "It's often hostile, it's certainly tense, there's often catcalls, they try to shout you down, they have rushed the platform on me. I have had to have, you know, men line up at the front. Sometimes they scream, sometimes they threaten, sometimes they're just mad, they don't know why they're yelling."
When did any of these things happen? Where is any record of them?
Around 22:30: "I had to speak, I started crying. There's my boy - my boy - my little half-breed. What?! I speak Turkish to him, Jill speaks redneck to him, we teach each other."
It is hard to believe Caner knows any appreciable amount of Turkish.
Around 49:00, Caner said, "After 12 years of doing these debates, seeing no results, none, I had my first. A Hindu boy, a sophomore in college, waited for afterwards and said, 'I want Jesus as my only God.'"
Which debate was this? And since when has Caner been debating for twelve years? Caner was speaking in 2005, so that would be since 1993 or so.
Around 49:15, Caner said, "I will never be the guy who has those great testimonies ..."
Sadly, Caner had a very dramatic testimony that included a lot of information that doesn't check out.
As mentioned above, there does not appear to be any such place.
Around 8:10: "I was raised a Sunni Muslim until I was almost in college."
If the November 1982 date is correct for Emir's conversion, and if Ergun was converted the previous year (as in their book), then Caner still had several years of high school to go before college.
Around 9:40: "It just isn't part of my culture. I lived in Istanbul - it's a city." (Explaining why fishing is not his thing.)
As far as we can tell, Caner never lived for any significant amount of time in Istanbul.
Around 29:25: "And where Hussein was killed in Iraq, Muslims who are Shia will make this pilgrimage and you will see us, cutting ourselves with machetes. Cutting on this flesh. And they say [gibberish] umm - Turkish - [more gibberish] the - the - what is the word I'm looking for - blood guilt - we should have defended you - By our blood, we should have defended you."
Caner wasn't a Shia, so the "we" doesn't seem very appropriate. And the gibberish does not sound to me like the Turkish words for "blood guilt."
Around 32:25, Caner said: "I lived my entire life assuming that I was going to die for Allah, that my blood would buy my pardon, that my blood would deal with my guilt."
There is nothing we have found to confirm that Caner had an expectations of dying as a martyr. Also, notice the "entire life" language.
Where is the evidence of these debates?
Around 14:35, Caner said: "Sometimes I'll get a Muslim who has bought into the American culture a little bit, and they say, 'When you speak of Allah, you're speaking of God, and when you're speaking of God, you're speaking of the God.'"
The Koran itself makes the claim that Christians and Muslims worship the same god. The particular one is the one that is most relevant to the field of apologetics with Muslims. You would think that Caner would have run into it if he had actually debated many Muslims, or if he knew the Koran from being "devout", and especially if he wrote a 2.3 million word commentary on it:
Surah 29:46 And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."
Around 14:35, Caner said: "We fall down, we say, inshallah, God willed it." (just after comparing Kismet to Caner's concept of hyper-Calvinism) As mentioned above, Muslims would instead say Al-Hamdolilah or perhaps Alahu Akhbar. Inshallah is a forward-looking statement.
Around 24:30, Caner said: "August the 21st, I was in San Diego, David Jeremiah's church - at Shadow Mountain, and at Shadow Mountain, one of my best friends, Charles Billing has become their worship guy. Charles for some reason was being stupid, he announced on television, 'Former Muslim coming.' Well if a former Muslim's coming, present Muslims are going to show up too, to yell at me! And so they showed up, and what did I hear? [some kind of hissing sound] Why? Because I met something I had never in my life ever met - ever. It's only been two weeks, I met something I had never met - gay Muslims. I met gay Muslims. And see I offended both of them, because I make fun of both, you know, in my normal speeches. And, uh, I got mocked by gay Muslims. And there is nothing like hearing Arabic with a lisp. I've never in my life dealt with this type of thing."
I could find some evidence that Caner has been a speaker at the Shadow Mountain church, but I couldn't find any recording of this particular speech. The speeches from the 2009 conference (including Caner's speech, but not just his) are linked on the church's website, but seem to be missing. That's too bad, as it would have been interesting to see what he said there. If anyone has either of those recordings, please let me know. I'm not sure how Caner would know the difference between Arabic pronunciations, given that he doesn't speak the language.
Around 26:45, Caner said: "If you speak Swedish, and you read a Swedish Bible, it's not called Genesis or Exodus, it's called Första Moseboken, Andra Moseboken, Tredja Moseboken, because it's the first book of Moses, the second book of Moses, and like that ..."
This does seem to check out. That's probably because the foreign language spoken in Caner's household was the Swedish of his grandmother, who evidently never learned English. It's remarkable that he leaves out this reference to his own heritage, though less remarkable given how poorly it fits in with the persona he had crafted in the other remarks we've seen here.
Around 27:15, Caner said: "One of our celebrations, one of our Eids, that's what the word for celebration E-I-D, you spell it in English, is the celebration, the commemoration of a story you and I know. Abraham goes to the top of Mount Moriah. At the top of Mount Moriah, he's going to sacrifice his son. He plunges the knife down and at the last minute, according to the Koran, Allah spares the life of Abraham's son, Ishmael. Y'all know the story from Genesis 22, doncha? It was Isaac! 2200 years after Moses wrote it down, and 2700 years after it actually happened, Mohammed flipped the script."
As we've discussed elsewhere, the Koran doesn't specify Ishmael, and Mohammed himself does not appear to have specified Ishmael - or at least the Hadith is inconsistent with respect to whether he said Ishmael or Isaac.
Around 28:30, Caner said: "That's why the dome of the rock stands on top of the rock! When I take tours - I'm leading a tour to Israel in March, of students, March 12th-20, I'm taking like 300 students to Israel. And I can't take all of them at once, but I take them. And if you've ever gone down, it's a stairwell down to the rock, where there's two Muslims sitting - both are ulimas, scholars - and it's the rock quote-un-quote supposedly where the sacrifice took place. I tell them before we go in, we're going into the mosque, you have to take your shoes off - you have to take your shoes off whenever you walk into an Islamic mosque. And when you take your shoes off, we're going to go downstairs, I am going to tell the story in Arabic, just to make them mad. You crackers won't understand a word I'm saying, but I'm telling the story. And I will say here is where Abraham sacrificed Isaac, and they lose their mind."
It's hard to see how this could possibly be true, since Caner is not fluent in Arabic. Also, the plural of alim is ulima - not "ulimas."
Around 37:15, Caner said: "He [a Muslim] comes, he says, 'I want to speak - he's lying - I want equal time,' you say, 'Man, I would love to let you,' 'this Sunday,' I will let you do it the Sunday after I get to preach in the mosque.' You can't. Not every one of y'all, can speak in a mosque. Because if you stand on the stone, we don't have pulpits, we have the stone, if you stand on the stone and share the testimony of Christ, you have defiled the stone, they have to tear it all down, because you are an unbeliever. They cannot do wudu on the stone, they can't clean the stone, they have to tear down the mosque."
There is a pulpit-like structure in mosques, called the minbar. If Caner's dad was really an architect of mosques, one would expect Caner would know this. Caner may never have spoken in a mosque, but other Christians have. In fact, my friend Dr. White has debated in mosques, even in the same room where the minbar is located (though not from the minbar).
Around 39:30, Caner said: "In Islam, Surah 61 of the Koran says, when Jesus said I must go so that a comforter, the word for comforter is messenger, and messenger is Mehmet in Turkish, Mohammed in Arabic."
Caner seems to be conflating several things. The Koran claims that Jesus promised to send an apostle or messenger. Moreover, the Koran claims that Mohamed is the messenger. However, the typical Islamic argument is that John 14 and 15 have the term "comforter" as a textual transmission error. According to some Muslims, the original word should be "exalted one," which is the meaning of the name "Mohammed."
Surah 61:6 says: And remember Jesus the son of Mary said: "O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you confirming the Law (which came) before me and giving glad Tidings of an Apostle to come after me whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs they said "This is evident sorcery!" (previously discussed similar issue here)
Around 0:25, Caner said, "Being the dean of a seminary is more of a distraction to me - I love doing debates - I love being in the midst of the world, and I have told the men before, that if you ever hear that I leave Liberty Seminary, it's not going to be because I'm going to another seminary, I would love, eventually, to end up some day in a secular university. Surround me at a state school and let me be the only Christian on one floor. Surround me with leftists, and liberals, and lesbians, and I'm happy, because I feel like that's where we are the most effective."
We know he didn't end up at a state school, but rather at more Christian colleges. Furthermore, despite his professed love of debates, we don't actually see the evidence of him debating, except - apparently - for one engagement with rational response squad.
Around 1:15, Caner said: "The one we are working on right now is going to take us years to finish. We are completing the commentary on every verse of the Koran from a Christian perspective. Every single verse of the Koran that a Christian could read, if somebody cites it to them, and so that they may understand it and know how to refute it."
Over eight years later (i.e. in 2014), this commentary has yet to surface.
Around 1:55, Caner said: "This sermon came out of a debate point. Now, when I debate, I do not allow Christians to ask me questions. When we debate, its on state campuses, community colleges, I only allow non-Christians - cynics, skeptics, etc. - to ask me questions, because I like the engagement there - that they know I have nothing to fear, and we have no set up. And during a most recent debate, in May of this year, I heard an argument, by a Muslim, that caught me off guard, and I have to be very honest, he was correct. We were discussing American culture, and I had said that as a husband and as a father here in America I think that Christianity is the only hope that we have for American survival. And I had just thrown in the husband and the father parenthetically - everywhere I go I speak about my family, my wife of 11 years, our two children Braxton who is 6 and Drake who is now 9 months. But he caught on to the parenthetical phrase and he said, and I quote, 'If you Christians believed that Jesus is the only hope, why is it that in your churches you cannot even get your men to come.' I had no response. I asked him if he had statistics to back that up. And so, he emailed them to me."
It would be great if we could locate this supposed debate.
Around 12:45, Caner said: "I knew how to be a Christian, because I'd been a Christian then for 12 years." (referring to when he got married at age 30, implying he became a Christian at age 18)
Caner's own claims about when he got saved are quite a mess.
Around 25:45, Caner said: "In my culture, in Turkey, in Istanbul, a woman's husband - his love for her, is measured by her shoes. What I mean is, if a woman is wearing rubber-soled shoes, she works in the fields; if she wears full shoes, she works in walking much, if she wears heels, however, it means that her husband makes enough money that he can afford to work alone - and she doesn't have to work - she wears these high heels - the higher the heel, the richer the husband. We had been married about a month, I talk half my paycheck and went and bought her six inch stiletto heels. I put them in a box, I bring them to her. I let her open it. I said, 'Baby, this is for you.' 'What? I couldn't wear these!' I said, 'I want you to wear them.' 'What you want me to dress like a hooker?' 'No, no, no, I give these to you because I want to show you that I want to care for you.' 'You better give me this to make you wear them!' Now the culture wears toe rings. Do you know that in my culture we wear toe rings to show that we're single. A woman wears a toe ring because it's the only thing that you can see. She is covered. And so when Jill started wearing a toe ring, I said, 'Baby, you advertising - what's the deal here?' I didn't understand."
Clearly Caner's stories get a laugh, but Caner was raised in Ohio. His Turkish family would not have been dressed in such extreme amounts of covering as to have only their toes visible. And, of course, Caner went to public high school, and so on. Is any of this true?
Around 34:50, Caner said: "It was hard because I had been raised, my father referring to his wives as 'woman.'"
Notice the implication that his father was a polygamist. Yet, as far as we can tell, Caner's father had only one wife at a time.
-TurretinFan
- "Dr. Ergun Caner" by Ergun Caner March 3, 2003 (link to mp3) Title: "When the Jailhouse turns into the Churchhouse"
"My full name is Ergun Michael Mehmet Giovani Caner, born in Stockholm, Sweden, where my parents were going to school. ... Raised in Turkey, and in Cairo, Egypt, and in Beirut, and then I came here .. and I came here when I was 12."
He came at about 3 years old, having been born in Sweden. He was raised in Ohio. His name is Ergun Michael Caner.
Caner claims he learned about America, thinking it was all like Mayberry from Andy Griffith. As mentioned above, he was raised in the U.S.
Around 25 minutes in he continues with autobiographical material:
"I was raised for the first 17 years of my life as a Sunni Muslim. Acar Mehmet Caner, my father, was a muezzin, he was a mulima. A muezzin is the one who does the call to prayer in the minaret, the mulima is the scholar of the hadith. I was raised in the mosque. And raised and brought here to America to be a missionary to you. My father was an architect by trade. He built and renovated mosques. In Brooklyn, New York, in Toledo, Ohio, and eventually in Columbus, Ohio he built and renovated mosques. I was the equivalent of a PK in Islam."
The Islamic Foundation on Broad St., where Acar Caner apparently went, did not have a minaret. There is no evidence that he was a muezzin or an alim (ulima is a plural noun, and mulima is bad). There is no evidence (that we can find) that Caner's father was actually an architect by trade or that ever built a mosque.
"Even in high school, I would take my prayer rug out of my locker and put it in the bathroom, and begin [Islamic prayers]."
A bathroom is one of the last places a devout Muslim would pick for prayers.
"I came here to be a Muslim missionary to you."
He came as a toddler.
"You have heard of the five pillars of Islam, Abinadab, the Kalima, Salat, Zakat, Swan, Haj, ... we will talk about jihad being the 6th pillar of Islam."
Abinadab is not a pillar of Islam.
"I wore my keffiyah, my gear ..."
Most of Caner's childhood photos show him and his father wearing normal western clothes.
He talks about his first sermon being very short but he claims that both his brothers came forward.
Other times Caner has said that his brothers were saved while he was away in college.
- "20 Things You Must Know to Witness to a Muslim" by Ergun Caner March 3, 2003 (link to mp3)
We can't find evidence of these debates.
"I can no longer travel to the countries. I mean I can't travel to my home country, to Turkey. I cannot go to Lebanon or to Syria or to UAE or Qatar, and neither can my brother." This is allegedly the result of his publishing against Islam.
I doubt Caner could substantiate these claims, but it is hard to prove that they are not true. Nevertheless, UAE and Turkey are relatively tolerant of non-Muslims, so it seems surprising that they would care he wrote a book on Islam.
"I have debated in 13 colleges and universities. I have never once found one Muslim ulima, scholar, who would ever say that Allah and Jehovah are the same god."
As noted above, we cannot find evidence of these debates.
Caner claims that Mohammed's first vision was on his 40th birthday.
Muslims, however, say that Mohammed's first vision was during the month of Ramadan (9th month of the calendar), whereas Mohammed's birthday is int he month of Rabi-al-Awwal (3rd month of the calendar)
Around 18:50: "In a debate at the University of North Texas, there were thousands of people there, and there was two Christians and two Muslims. I was the Christian who formerly was a Muslim. I was offensive to the Muslims. And in the middle of this, what was most interesting was that most of the questions that were hostile were not coming from Muslims, they were coming from the media. WFAA in Dallas, Texas the television station - the guy just hammered me, just boom boom, hit me with questions over and over."
We can't find any evidence of this debate. The only references we could find to Caner on WFAA's website were to Caner getting caught. One example is shown here:
Around 20:50: "So, in the middle of the debate, after getting hit five or six times with questions, I step back from my podium and I say, 'Abi,' speaking to the imam, I said, 'Abi, may I ask you a question.'"
We cannot locate any imam named "Abi" whom Caner ever debated.
Around 25:50: "I was a jihadeen. That was my youth group. Do you hear the word? Jihad. Jihadeen is a little boy who trains in the protocols of jihad. If I would have reached the age of 18 as a jihadeen, and I would have made the pilgrimage to Mecca, doing haj, I would have become a muj- put them together mujihadeen."
There is no evidence to confirm that Caner was trained as a jihadist.
Around 30:50: "By the way, let me cite to you what the Hadith is. This is interesting. The Koran is supposedly the words of Allah. But the Hadith is different. The Hadith is not just one book, it's actually a large encyclopedia - nine volumes. You can buy one. It's about $100 to buy the full set. It is not the words of Allah, but it is the words and sayings and examples and protocols and judicial laws of Mohammed."
That's not a very accurate picture of the Hadith. There are nine volumes in the English translation of one of the hadith collections (Sahih al-Bukhari). But there are a number of other hadith collections besides that one. That's why, when one cites the hadith, one should specify the collection (see the discussion here).
Around 32:50: "I wanted to become an American. I learned your language. Do know how difficult your language is? Do you have any clue? And I was in high school when I did it!"
Caner came to America as a toddler, not as a high school student.
Around 38:50: "My father said, 'When you come to America, marry an American woman. More specifically, marry a blonde.'"
One really doubts that Caner's dad had such a discussion with a 3 year old, or that Caner would have remembered it.
Around 42:30: "On open line radio with Wayne Shepherd I was debating a Muslim woman scholar and this was the Moody show, the Wayne Shepherd thing, and he said, 'Well, she's on the line, and she wants to disagree with what you have to say,' and she called in and she said, 'You do not understand, you have quoted this verse three times, and you do not understand. In the Arabic, that means to tap her lightly.' I have two answers: number one, I do understand the Arabic, I do read the Arabic, and no it does not mean to tap her lightly. And secondly, are you insane?"
As far as we can tell, Caner may be able to pronounce the Arabic, but he does not know the language. I even wonder if this supposed radio discussion ever took place.
Around 43:50: "My mother found out late in her marriage that my father was married to more than one woman."
Caner's mom apparently married his dad while at university. They were divorced nine years later and we cannot find evidence of Caner's mom alleging polygamy as the ground of divorce. Also, compare this statement to what we see below in some of the other messages at this same church. Caner's father apparently remarried after the divorce, but we cannot find evidence of any other wives.
Around 50:00: "Strict Muslims do not allow their pictures to be taken, because they consider it to be idolatry."
Sounds like Caner may be confusing Muslims and Amish.
Around 58:10 "That's what those video tapes are for. Have you seen those video tapes of them reading before they go and bomb? This is what they are reading: [Some kind of gibberish that is supposed to be Arabic] I declare who I will send."
It's sad that Caner makes people think he speaks Arabic.
Around 1:10:50 "I think America will survive if, and only if, it's the country I thought I was coming to. Everywhere I lived, I was a majority, Muslims were in the majority. I come to America, I was in the minority."
The evidence we have is that Caner lived in Sweden and then the US, neither of which is a majority Muslim country.
- June 3 "Dr. Ergun Caner and the Teen Choir and Orchestra from the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Florida" by Ergun Caner June 3, 2005 (link to mp3)
The evidence we have suggests he was not fat until after high school, at the earliest.
Around 2:20: "Braxton is after my father-in-law, Paige is after Dr. Patterson, who is my mentor."
I wonder what Patterson thinks of Caner's autobiographical embellishments?
Around 3:30: "I make my living getting yelled at. I spend my time, on purpose, in front of secular audiences. I go into state colleges, Ohio State University, Portland State most recently, UCLA, I go into places where I am not surrounded by sweet, kind gracious kids like I just heard sing and gave testimony. I figured if Jesus was a friend to sinners, and we're here to help those who are sick with sin, I don't want to hang out in the rehab center, I want to hang out where the lepers are. And there are a ton of lepers on our state university campuses. I debate. I go in and a Muslim, or a Bahai, or a Buddhist, or a Hindi, and I get in front of a bunch of people and debate."
We cannot find evidence of these supposed debates.
Around 9:00, Caner claims that his father-in-law was from Possum Kill, NC.
There is no "Possum Kill" in North Carolina, according to google maps.
Around 11:50, Caner claims to have watched Chicago Cubs baseball abroad before coming to America. Caner then claims to have watched American football. He also claims to have watched the Dukes of Hazard and to have wanted to marry Daisy. He further claims to have watched Andy Griffith.
It's literally impossible he watched the Dukes of Hazzard as he claims (see discussion here). And, of course, keep in mind he was a toddler when he came to America.
Around 12:50: "But my favorite show came out of Georgia. Because Atlanta, GA, small station television station there was shipping its tapes to Europe. And Turkey being half European and half Persian, we would receive these tapes, and it didn't need to be translated. And every two weeks we got to watch Georgia Championship Wrastlin' - and I thought it was real, because nobody told me it was fake."
There is no evidence that Caner lived in Turkey and watched Pro Wrestling on Turkish TV via internationally shipped tapes.
Around 13:50: "All the Turks you see on television are what? We are either devout, which I was, wearing the robes ..."
As mentioned above, from the photos we have, Caner dressed like a typical Western person.
Around 14:30 "I did, however, work at a convenience store. My first job was at a place called 7-11. The only place that would hire me. I was Apu."
Elsewhere, he has claimed he didn't work at a convenience store. (see here, for example)
Around 14:50: "I came to this country as a 13 year old boy, and I came here with a father as the oldest of three sons of my father, and my father said, 'Marry an American.'"
He came as a 3 year old boy, and his youngest brother was born in Ohio.
Around 21:40 "Because in debates that I've had in philosophy classes, in theology classes, in divinity schools, among a bunch of heathens, among coffee houses, I only go to Christian coffee houses when I want to get coffee. I go to secular coffee houses when I want to have a good evangelical encounter."
Where are these debates?
Around 30:00 "I came over during the Iranian crisis. Ayatollah Khomeini had taken control. The shah had of Iran had been kicked out. And Ayatollah Khomeini said this: 'We will not stop, until America is an Islamic nation.' And so in 1978, my father, my mother, my two brothers, my father's other wives, and my half-brothers and sisters came to this country."
Remember above where supposedly his mom only late in their marriage found out about the supposed "more than one woman"? Also, while Caner does have two half-sisters, we cannot find any evidence of any half-brothers. Caner came to America in 1969, long before the Iranian crisis, and the Ayatollah was of a completely different sect of Islam (Shia), which is at odds with the Sunni sect that Caner was allegedly part of. Furthermore, Caner's half-sisters were born after his father and mother divorced. Caner's youngest brother was born in the USA.
Caner continued: "How is that Muslims can come to this country with other wives? Well, it's called the Abraham lie. This is my sister. It explains our last names being the same. And so he would say, 'these are my sisters.' We settled in Brooklyn, NY, and moved to Columbus, OH, for the express purpose of what? My father was an architect and he built mosques. We would build mosques. And my father in the mosque on Fridays, would climb to the top of the minaret and there at the top of the minaret - that's a long tower - he would begin, 'Alahu akhbar, Alahu akhbar, Alahu akhbar, Alahu akhbar' the call to prayer."
As mentioned above, there was and is no minaret at the Islamic Foundation on Broad St. where Caner's father went. There is no confirming evidence that his dad built any mosques. Likewise, there is no evidence that Caner's father was a polygamist.
At 31:30, Caner said: "We moved from Brooklyn, NY, to Toledo, OH, where we saw the big mosque there, off of I-75. We moved south to Columbus." If they lived in Brooklyn or Toledo, it could not have been long. Emir Caner was born near Columbus.
At 32:45, Caner said: "We were devout Muslims. Now devout - that's a word that's thrown around a lot today, isn't it. Let's just say we were following the dietary restrictions, praying five times a day, we wore the hijab, my mother wore the chador, we wore the keffiyah, and I took the Koran very seriously."
Other places, we learn that Caner's mother was not a devout Muslim by the time Caner professed faith.
Around 34:00, Caner said: "You fall down and break your leg, you say, 'inshallah,' it's how you live."
Muslims would instead say Al-Hamdolilah or Alahu Akhbar. Inshallah is a forward-looking statement.
Around 36:05, Caner said: "It's why there's no shortage of young men, going to be trained in a Madras, like I was - and now, young women. It is not act of devotion, it is an act of desperation. We believe that by dying, we get hope."
It's "madrasa" not "madras" and there is no evidence we can find that Caner went to anything more than the Muslim equivalent of Sunday school.
Around 38:40, Caner said: "For three years: Freshman, Sophomore, Junior years, I said 'no.' Three years. He didn't stop. In the summer of the year between my junior and my senior year, I finally got sick of it. 'Would you quit!' 'Dude, we got a lock-in.' You all know what a lock-in is? Do you guys know what a lock in is? They are evil. A lock-in is the Protestant equivalent to Purgatory. It is time served. Because you are, 3 a.m. in the morning, wondering who did you offend to get stuck doing this. You have been covered in shaving cream by some obnoxious kid, you are filled with horribly cheap check cola, you have eaten things that don't even taste like oreos, and you're tired and you want to show a carmen video, hoping they all go to sleep! And then you find out, 'umm, Tommy's missing, and so's Sally,' 'Get the flashlights!' So you're searching through the church, lookin' in Sunday school classrooms, and you find them under a stairwell somewhere. 'What are you doing!?!' 'Uh, dude, uh, she needed somebody to pray with.' 'Yeah, well you're praying tongues. How about coming out of there if you would, please. Punk! She is not a hollah-back girl.'
In other places, he has claimed his conversion experience was in November 1982. In any event, the summer between junior and senior years would be 1983.
Caner continued: "I said 'no,' I said 'no,' I said 'no,' I said 'no,' a hundred times I said, 'no.' He wouldn't quit. I have no idea to this day why he made me his topic. Finally, I was going to show him. So I walked into the Stelzer Road Baptist Church in Columbus, Ohio, mad. Have you ever walked into church mad? A lot of people were made that day. I found out since, a lot of people come to church mad. But I was going to show him, and I came in full gear, and I came in, Koran in my hand, about as thick as a Jack Hyle study Bible, that thick, and I carried it big, and I walked to the front, and that little, store-front church loved me to the cross. Didn't make fun of me, didn't make fun of my name, didn't call me names, didn't make fun of my accent, didn't call me a towel-head or a camel-jockey and they didn't call me a sandn*gger. The meaner I was, the nicer they were."
What accent? Caner was raised in Ohio.
Around 42:25, Caner said: "All I'd ever heard was that Baptists were snake handlers, and I was looking around for a box. I don't like snakes, neither do camels."
What do camels have to do with it? Caner is not from the desert.
Around 42: 40, Caner said: "And the minute the service was over, Jerry Tacket took me to Clarence Miller and he - Clarence Miller was the pastor of the church - he said, 'Clarence, here he is!' like you've gotta point out the boy wearing the dress."
It seems unlikely Caner wore a dress to the church, since photos of him from that time period show him wearing normal western clothes.
Around 45:00, Caner said: "One of the number one arguments I get in debate, is when a Muslims will say, 'What does his death have to do with my blood.'"
Where are any of these debates?
- June 4 "Dr. Ergun Caner and the Teen Choir and Orchestra from the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Florida" by Ergun Caner June 4, 2005 (link to mp3)
What does that mean?
Around 30:00, Caner said: "When I was in baptist student union in college, we went to a retreat - I had only been saved about one year. And we went to a retreat, and I was excited about being discipled. I had been saved one year, I'm a minister of the gospel, I barely know the Bible, I wanna be taught, I wanna be fed. I want somebody to step on my toes."
Notice this implicit claim that he was born again his senior year of high school.
Around 43:30, Caner said: "If I'm doing a debate, and there's an audience, someone will raise a well-intentioned hand and say, 'Dr. Caner, ...'"
Where are any of these debates?
- June 5 A.M. "Dr. Ergun Caner and the Teen Choir and Orchestra from the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Florida" by Ergun Caner June 5, 2005 (link to mp3)
Mormor is a Swedish term for grandmother. That's appropriate, because this grandmother was Swedish. Isn't it interesting how Caner suggests that his grandmother spoke another language, rather than English, but he never mentions here that the language was Swedish?
Around 23:25 "I lost my father at my salvation, because I was disowned. That wasn't hard. In my country, you are killed for becoming a Christian. So I had no family."
In what country? Turkey didn't have sharia law, nor did Sweden, and obviously neither does the USA. He had his mother and grandmother even after he lost his father, as far as we can tell.
Around 24:15 "One tiny little church that doesn't even exist any more, I stand here because they invested in me."
The Stelzer Road Baptist church evidently does still exist.
Around 30:00 "I was a faithful and devout Muslim my entire life, into my teenage years."
You have to chuckle about the "my entire life," coupled with "into my teenage years." And we certainly can question how devout he was, although it is difficult to definitively prove.
Around 30:10 "We watched in our madras, our training center, we watched Christian television to critique it."
As noted above, it's "madrasa" not "madras." Granted that Christian TV is pretty bad, but surely he would not get the impression that "you hated me" from that TV. One really doubts, however, that Caner was in a "training center" that encouraged watching Christian TV.
Around 30:35 "It took three years for me to enter the church. A year later both my brothers got saved after I was saved. Took them four. My mother didn't get saved until 1991, it took her nine. My grandmother didn't get saved until 1995, it took her 13 years. I have half-brothers and half-sisters in Chicago, in New York, and in Turkey, who live here, who are still lost as geese. Still in the slavery of Islam. But I will not give up. How dare I give up! My father died in '99. His wives are still alive. How dare I give up! My half-sisters are still alive. How dare I give up! My half-brothers, my uncles, my aunts, How dare I give up! He didn't give up on me. He didn't stop. God didn't stop hunting me down."
Here he says "three years," which suggests his senior year of high school. Also, as mentioned above, we don't have any evidence of these alleged half-brothers. Likewise, while Caner's mother and Caner's step-mom may both be alive, Caner's comment seems to refer back to his father's alleged polygamy.
- June 5 P.M. "Dr. Ergun Caner and the Teen Choir and Orchestra from the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Florida" by Ergun Caner June 5, 2005 (link to mp3)
We have yet to see Caner produce this alleged commentary.
Around 6:25: "I want to speak to you as somebody who did not pick up a Bible until he was 18 years old."
Interesting how he's supposedly critiquing Christian TV in a madrasa, but yet he never picked up a Bible. Likewise, "18" seems an unlikely number. Caner graduated from high school in 1984 and was born in November of 1966. Thus, Caner would have been already graduated from high school before he turned 18.
Around 10:25: "In the last semester, UCLA, Otterbein, University of South Florida, Mingut(?) College, Winthrop University, one more, Mitney(?) State, I walk into those schools and - I want to set the stage for you, pretend with me if you would, please, that we are not a church, but we are in some sort of a hallway, an auditorium, as you enter in, if it is a debate, you are searched. Behind the scenes, I sit in a room with the imam, who is the pastor of the mosque, or a Hindi priest, or a Buddhist priest or monk, or maybe even a mulima, a Muslim scholar, or an atheist. We sit in the back and we discuss the protocols and rules of this debate. They go as follows: both of us go by making a 10 minute introduction explaining our position. We then answer and rebut the other person's statement and launch into a defense of our position that is allowed to last up to 35 minutes. A final ten minute rebuttal is offered by either one of us, and then the fun starts. We open the floor to questions."
When has Caner ever done this kind of formal debate? Notice that Caner cannot claim that he just means some kind of informal dialog or a chat in a taxicab. He's referring to a structured debate with timed speeches.
Around 12:00: "It's often hostile, it's certainly tense, there's often catcalls, they try to shout you down, they have rushed the platform on me. I have had to have, you know, men line up at the front. Sometimes they scream, sometimes they threaten, sometimes they're just mad, they don't know why they're yelling."
When did any of these things happen? Where is any record of them?
Around 22:30: "I had to speak, I started crying. There's my boy - my boy - my little half-breed. What?! I speak Turkish to him, Jill speaks redneck to him, we teach each other."
It is hard to believe Caner knows any appreciable amount of Turkish.
Around 49:00, Caner said, "After 12 years of doing these debates, seeing no results, none, I had my first. A Hindu boy, a sophomore in college, waited for afterwards and said, 'I want Jesus as my only God.'"
Which debate was this? And since when has Caner been debating for twelve years? Caner was speaking in 2005, so that would be since 1993 or so.
Around 49:15, Caner said, "I will never be the guy who has those great testimonies ..."
Sadly, Caner had a very dramatic testimony that included a lot of information that doesn't check out.
- "Men's Steak Fry" by Ergun Caner September 3, 2005 (link to mp3)
As mentioned above, there does not appear to be any such place.
Around 8:10: "I was raised a Sunni Muslim until I was almost in college."
If the November 1982 date is correct for Emir's conversion, and if Ergun was converted the previous year (as in their book), then Caner still had several years of high school to go before college.
Around 9:40: "It just isn't part of my culture. I lived in Istanbul - it's a city." (Explaining why fishing is not his thing.)
As far as we can tell, Caner never lived for any significant amount of time in Istanbul.
Around 29:25: "And where Hussein was killed in Iraq, Muslims who are Shia will make this pilgrimage and you will see us, cutting ourselves with machetes. Cutting on this flesh. And they say [gibberish] umm - Turkish - [more gibberish] the - the - what is the word I'm looking for - blood guilt - we should have defended you - By our blood, we should have defended you."
Caner wasn't a Shia, so the "we" doesn't seem very appropriate. And the gibberish does not sound to me like the Turkish words for "blood guilt."
Around 32:25, Caner said: "I lived my entire life assuming that I was going to die for Allah, that my blood would buy my pardon, that my blood would deal with my guilt."
There is nothing we have found to confirm that Caner had an expectations of dying as a martyr. Also, notice the "entire life" language.
- "21 Similarities between Islam and Mormonism" by Ergun Caner September 5, 2005 (link to mp3)
Where is the evidence of these debates?
Around 14:35, Caner said: "Sometimes I'll get a Muslim who has bought into the American culture a little bit, and they say, 'When you speak of Allah, you're speaking of God, and when you're speaking of God, you're speaking of the God.'"
The Koran itself makes the claim that Christians and Muslims worship the same god. The particular one is the one that is most relevant to the field of apologetics with Muslims. You would think that Caner would have run into it if he had actually debated many Muslims, or if he knew the Koran from being "devout", and especially if he wrote a 2.3 million word commentary on it:
Surah 29:46 And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."
Around 14:35, Caner said: "We fall down, we say, inshallah, God willed it." (just after comparing Kismet to Caner's concept of hyper-Calvinism) As mentioned above, Muslims would instead say Al-Hamdolilah or perhaps Alahu Akhbar. Inshallah is a forward-looking statement.
Around 24:30, Caner said: "August the 21st, I was in San Diego, David Jeremiah's church - at Shadow Mountain, and at Shadow Mountain, one of my best friends, Charles Billing has become their worship guy. Charles for some reason was being stupid, he announced on television, 'Former Muslim coming.' Well if a former Muslim's coming, present Muslims are going to show up too, to yell at me! And so they showed up, and what did I hear? [some kind of hissing sound] Why? Because I met something I had never in my life ever met - ever. It's only been two weeks, I met something I had never met - gay Muslims. I met gay Muslims. And see I offended both of them, because I make fun of both, you know, in my normal speeches. And, uh, I got mocked by gay Muslims. And there is nothing like hearing Arabic with a lisp. I've never in my life dealt with this type of thing."
I could find some evidence that Caner has been a speaker at the Shadow Mountain church, but I couldn't find any recording of this particular speech. The speeches from the 2009 conference (including Caner's speech, but not just his) are linked on the church's website, but seem to be missing. That's too bad, as it would have been interesting to see what he said there. If anyone has either of those recordings, please let me know. I'm not sure how Caner would know the difference between Arabic pronunciations, given that he doesn't speak the language.
Around 26:45, Caner said: "If you speak Swedish, and you read a Swedish Bible, it's not called Genesis or Exodus, it's called Första Moseboken, Andra Moseboken, Tredja Moseboken, because it's the first book of Moses, the second book of Moses, and like that ..."
This does seem to check out. That's probably because the foreign language spoken in Caner's household was the Swedish of his grandmother, who evidently never learned English. It's remarkable that he leaves out this reference to his own heritage, though less remarkable given how poorly it fits in with the persona he had crafted in the other remarks we've seen here.
Around 27:15, Caner said: "One of our celebrations, one of our Eids, that's what the word for celebration E-I-D, you spell it in English, is the celebration, the commemoration of a story you and I know. Abraham goes to the top of Mount Moriah. At the top of Mount Moriah, he's going to sacrifice his son. He plunges the knife down and at the last minute, according to the Koran, Allah spares the life of Abraham's son, Ishmael. Y'all know the story from Genesis 22, doncha? It was Isaac! 2200 years after Moses wrote it down, and 2700 years after it actually happened, Mohammed flipped the script."
As we've discussed elsewhere, the Koran doesn't specify Ishmael, and Mohammed himself does not appear to have specified Ishmael - or at least the Hadith is inconsistent with respect to whether he said Ishmael or Isaac.
Around 28:30, Caner said: "That's why the dome of the rock stands on top of the rock! When I take tours - I'm leading a tour to Israel in March, of students, March 12th-20, I'm taking like 300 students to Israel. And I can't take all of them at once, but I take them. And if you've ever gone down, it's a stairwell down to the rock, where there's two Muslims sitting - both are ulimas, scholars - and it's the rock quote-un-quote supposedly where the sacrifice took place. I tell them before we go in, we're going into the mosque, you have to take your shoes off - you have to take your shoes off whenever you walk into an Islamic mosque. And when you take your shoes off, we're going to go downstairs, I am going to tell the story in Arabic, just to make them mad. You crackers won't understand a word I'm saying, but I'm telling the story. And I will say here is where Abraham sacrificed Isaac, and they lose their mind."
It's hard to see how this could possibly be true, since Caner is not fluent in Arabic. Also, the plural of alim is ulima - not "ulimas."
Around 37:15, Caner said: "He [a Muslim] comes, he says, 'I want to speak - he's lying - I want equal time,' you say, 'Man, I would love to let you,' 'this Sunday,' I will let you do it the Sunday after I get to preach in the mosque.' You can't. Not every one of y'all, can speak in a mosque. Because if you stand on the stone, we don't have pulpits, we have the stone, if you stand on the stone and share the testimony of Christ, you have defiled the stone, they have to tear it all down, because you are an unbeliever. They cannot do wudu on the stone, they can't clean the stone, they have to tear down the mosque."
There is a pulpit-like structure in mosques, called the minbar. If Caner's dad was really an architect of mosques, one would expect Caner would know this. Caner may never have spoken in a mosque, but other Christians have. In fact, my friend Dr. White has debated in mosques, even in the same room where the minbar is located (though not from the minbar).
Around 39:30, Caner said: "In Islam, Surah 61 of the Koran says, when Jesus said I must go so that a comforter, the word for comforter is messenger, and messenger is Mehmet in Turkish, Mohammed in Arabic."
Caner seems to be conflating several things. The Koran claims that Jesus promised to send an apostle or messenger. Moreover, the Koran claims that Mohamed is the messenger. However, the typical Islamic argument is that John 14 and 15 have the term "comforter" as a textual transmission error. According to some Muslims, the original word should be "exalted one," which is the meaning of the name "Mohammed."
Surah 61:6 says: And remember Jesus the son of Mary said: "O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you confirming the Law (which came) before me and giving glad Tidings of an Apostle to come after me whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs they said "This is evident sorcery!" (previously discussed similar issue here)
- "Mighty Men of Valor" by Ergun Caner September 5, 2005 (link to mp3)
Around 0:25, Caner said, "Being the dean of a seminary is more of a distraction to me - I love doing debates - I love being in the midst of the world, and I have told the men before, that if you ever hear that I leave Liberty Seminary, it's not going to be because I'm going to another seminary, I would love, eventually, to end up some day in a secular university. Surround me at a state school and let me be the only Christian on one floor. Surround me with leftists, and liberals, and lesbians, and I'm happy, because I feel like that's where we are the most effective."
We know he didn't end up at a state school, but rather at more Christian colleges. Furthermore, despite his professed love of debates, we don't actually see the evidence of him debating, except - apparently - for one engagement with rational response squad.
Around 1:15, Caner said: "The one we are working on right now is going to take us years to finish. We are completing the commentary on every verse of the Koran from a Christian perspective. Every single verse of the Koran that a Christian could read, if somebody cites it to them, and so that they may understand it and know how to refute it."
Over eight years later (i.e. in 2014), this commentary has yet to surface.
Around 1:55, Caner said: "This sermon came out of a debate point. Now, when I debate, I do not allow Christians to ask me questions. When we debate, its on state campuses, community colleges, I only allow non-Christians - cynics, skeptics, etc. - to ask me questions, because I like the engagement there - that they know I have nothing to fear, and we have no set up. And during a most recent debate, in May of this year, I heard an argument, by a Muslim, that caught me off guard, and I have to be very honest, he was correct. We were discussing American culture, and I had said that as a husband and as a father here in America I think that Christianity is the only hope that we have for American survival. And I had just thrown in the husband and the father parenthetically - everywhere I go I speak about my family, my wife of 11 years, our two children Braxton who is 6 and Drake who is now 9 months. But he caught on to the parenthetical phrase and he said, and I quote, 'If you Christians believed that Jesus is the only hope, why is it that in your churches you cannot even get your men to come.' I had no response. I asked him if he had statistics to back that up. And so, he emailed them to me."
It would be great if we could locate this supposed debate.
Around 12:45, Caner said: "I knew how to be a Christian, because I'd been a Christian then for 12 years." (referring to when he got married at age 30, implying he became a Christian at age 18)
Caner's own claims about when he got saved are quite a mess.
Around 25:45, Caner said: "In my culture, in Turkey, in Istanbul, a woman's husband - his love for her, is measured by her shoes. What I mean is, if a woman is wearing rubber-soled shoes, she works in the fields; if she wears full shoes, she works in walking much, if she wears heels, however, it means that her husband makes enough money that he can afford to work alone - and she doesn't have to work - she wears these high heels - the higher the heel, the richer the husband. We had been married about a month, I talk half my paycheck and went and bought her six inch stiletto heels. I put them in a box, I bring them to her. I let her open it. I said, 'Baby, this is for you.' 'What? I couldn't wear these!' I said, 'I want you to wear them.' 'What you want me to dress like a hooker?' 'No, no, no, I give these to you because I want to show you that I want to care for you.' 'You better give me this to make you wear them!' Now the culture wears toe rings. Do you know that in my culture we wear toe rings to show that we're single. A woman wears a toe ring because it's the only thing that you can see. She is covered. And so when Jill started wearing a toe ring, I said, 'Baby, you advertising - what's the deal here?' I didn't understand."
Clearly Caner's stories get a laugh, but Caner was raised in Ohio. His Turkish family would not have been dressed in such extreme amounts of covering as to have only their toes visible. And, of course, Caner went to public high school, and so on. Is any of this true?
Around 34:50, Caner said: "It was hard because I had been raised, my father referring to his wives as 'woman.'"
Notice the implication that his father was a polygamist. Yet, as far as we can tell, Caner's father had only one wife at a time.
-TurretinFan
Monday, February 17, 2014
Tom McCall - Conversation with Dr. Ergun Caner
This conversation, between Tom McCall and Ergun Caner, was recently posted to Youtube, but appears to be from several years ago, while Ergun Caner was with Liberty Theological Seminar (not sure how many years ago, exactly) (link to video). It has some of the usual claims, and some interesting situations.
Around 45 seconds in, the host says that he believes Caner was originally from Turkey. Caner responds: "Well, I am Turkish, 100% Turkish, and came to America as an immigrant, and as the son of a muezzin. My father was a leader in the mosque and we built mosques - this was part of our background. And so, because of this, we came here to work on the mosques."
Caner was a toddler when he came and we have found no evidence to corroborate this claim that his father built any mosques. Possibly, Caner's father helped remodel the building that served as the Islamic Foundation on Broad St. in Columbus, Ohio. As for being a "muezzin," we again have nothing to substantiate this claim.
Also, Caner now admits that his mother was Swedish. Even if his mother were Turkish but merely a Swedish citizen, or something like that, it still pops out that Caner does not correct McCall's wrong impression that Caner is from Turkey, but instead provides information that will lead McCall to continue to think what he thought.
Around 1:30, the host asks what the reaction of Caner's family was to his conversion. Caner responds: "Well, I was saved on a Thursday night. And so, the next night I went back to the mosque, masjid is on - you know - jumiyat is on Friday prayer, and told them that I was a believer in Jesus. That was not well received. But I was disowned by my father, and disowned by my family. Did not see my father until 1999, till right before he died. But my church was my new family."
Apparently, Caner was disowned by his non-custodial father. However, Caner was not - as far as we can tell - disowned by his hippy-universalist mother nor by his Swedish Lutheran (background, at least) grandmother, who raised him.
Around 5:30, Caner states: "I get to Genesis, and Abraham, in Genesis 22, sacrifices his son, Isaac. This is exactly opposite - the polar opposite - of what the Quran teaches, that Abraham sacrifices Ishmael." The host mentions how he first heard that this was the Muslim view. Caner then responds, "And the Quran is explicit in this, and Mohammed's teachings in the Hadith are explicit in this. And then, I find out, 2200 years after Moses wrote it, and add 500 years to that, 2700 years after it actually happened, Mohammed changed the story."
As I previously wrote:
Around 8:15, Caner states: "Those with lies can only threaten, because the truth is its greatest danger. ... Those that don't have the truth, the only thing they have left are lies and threats and screaming."
This cliche seems oddly appropriate in these times where Caner has threatened action against those who are presenting the truth.
Around 8:30, Caner states: "Most of my life I spend with people yelling at me in debates and such, but that's ok, you know."
Where are any of these debates? We cannot find any evidence of these happening.
The host then asks Caner about the fact that Caner had indicated that he likes to debate and spends a good deal of time debating on college campuses and elsewhere. Caner replied, "I go into debates - open debates - which means pro bono, nobody makes any money. We don't want any Christian sponsorship for them. I debate anyone who comes: Buddhist, Bahai, Zoroastrian, Sunni, Shia, Suffi, Nation of Islam, I debate anyone."
Again, we cannot find any evidence of these debates actually happening.
The host then asks Caner who invites him to these debates. Caner replied, "Sometimes it's college ministries and churches. But I tell them, you know, if you're going to set this up, this needs to be with the approval of the school and it must be an open forum - anybody can speak. And my only rule is that no Christian can ask me a question. Only the unbelievers can ask me questions, because I think if I'm going to spend my life planting seeds, I'm not going to plant a seed in a Christian, he's already saved. And the Muslim will suspect it, or the Buddhist, he will suspect the question. I let them ask whatever question they think. They spend their lives thinking they are going to stump us, you know, and so throw your best shot."
Yet again, we cannot find evidence of any of these debates actually occurring.
The host then asks what happens at the debates. Around 9:50, Caner replied: "Well, sometimes it becomes the gospel according to Jerry Springer. Sometimes it becomes yelling and cussing and etc. But not on my end. You know, we have to be bold but not brash. The difference is bold, you attack the lie, but if you're brash, you attack the person."
We definitely have noticed the tendency of Caner and company to attack the people who point out Caner's untrue statements. Regarding Jerry Springer, recall this previous post (link).
Around 12:45, Caner says: "I love my job at Liberty, but if I was ever to leave Liberty University, it would be to teach at a secular school. You know, put me on a floor where I'm surrounded by lesbians, and liberals, and idiots, and potheads, because where else is Christianity going to be effective? We have never been called, God never called us to apathy, he never called us to sedation. He called us to engagement. And it's not jihad, like I lived, it's an engagement of converting the enemy, loving the enemy, who is not really the enemy, but is someone for whom Christ died."
Now, since Caner has left Liberty, he's served - as far as we can tell - only at Christian colleges. Of course, he could not predict the future, so we can't totally hold this against him. Still, one wonders what efforts Caner has made to try to teach at a secular school, if any.
Also, note Caner's claim to have lived "jihad." Of course, that claim could presumably be justified by treating jihad as an internal struggle, but Caner has elsewhere objected to using the term jihad that way.
Around 17:10, Caner says, "The Josh McDowell of the Islamic world, Shabir Ally, is famous for asking the question in debate, he always says, 'Well, what does his death have to do with me?' You have to find a way to explain the atonement to a Muslim."
If only Caner had stuck with this version of the story rather than inserting himself into the story in other versions of this story! Still, one wonders if Shabir Ally ever even said this in any of his debates. I have listened to some of Shabir's debates and I don't recall hearing this line.
-TurretinFan
Around 45 seconds in, the host says that he believes Caner was originally from Turkey. Caner responds: "Well, I am Turkish, 100% Turkish, and came to America as an immigrant, and as the son of a muezzin. My father was a leader in the mosque and we built mosques - this was part of our background. And so, because of this, we came here to work on the mosques."
Caner was a toddler when he came and we have found no evidence to corroborate this claim that his father built any mosques. Possibly, Caner's father helped remodel the building that served as the Islamic Foundation on Broad St. in Columbus, Ohio. As for being a "muezzin," we again have nothing to substantiate this claim.
Also, Caner now admits that his mother was Swedish. Even if his mother were Turkish but merely a Swedish citizen, or something like that, it still pops out that Caner does not correct McCall's wrong impression that Caner is from Turkey, but instead provides information that will lead McCall to continue to think what he thought.
Around 1:30, the host asks what the reaction of Caner's family was to his conversion. Caner responds: "Well, I was saved on a Thursday night. And so, the next night I went back to the mosque, masjid is on - you know - jumiyat is on Friday prayer, and told them that I was a believer in Jesus. That was not well received. But I was disowned by my father, and disowned by my family. Did not see my father until 1999, till right before he died. But my church was my new family."
Apparently, Caner was disowned by his non-custodial father. However, Caner was not - as far as we can tell - disowned by his hippy-universalist mother nor by his Swedish Lutheran (background, at least) grandmother, who raised him.
Around 5:30, Caner states: "I get to Genesis, and Abraham, in Genesis 22, sacrifices his son, Isaac. This is exactly opposite - the polar opposite - of what the Quran teaches, that Abraham sacrifices Ishmael." The host mentions how he first heard that this was the Muslim view. Caner then responds, "And the Quran is explicit in this, and Mohammed's teachings in the Hadith are explicit in this. And then, I find out, 2200 years after Moses wrote it, and add 500 years to that, 2700 years after it actually happened, Mohammed changed the story."
As I previously wrote:
This is actually a widespread modern Islamic view, namely that Abraham nearly sacrificed Ishmael, not Isaac. Sam Shamoun points out, however, that the early Islamic literature actually supports the fact that it was Isaac. The idea that nearly sacrificed son was Ishmael is apparently a later Islamic development (see Sam's excellent discussion here). So, it's probably not accurate to say that Mohammed changed the story, but rather that his followers did.In short, it's not explicit in the Quran, and it's not even clear from the Hadith.
Around 8:15, Caner states: "Those with lies can only threaten, because the truth is its greatest danger. ... Those that don't have the truth, the only thing they have left are lies and threats and screaming."
This cliche seems oddly appropriate in these times where Caner has threatened action against those who are presenting the truth.
Around 8:30, Caner states: "Most of my life I spend with people yelling at me in debates and such, but that's ok, you know."
Where are any of these debates? We cannot find any evidence of these happening.
The host then asks Caner about the fact that Caner had indicated that he likes to debate and spends a good deal of time debating on college campuses and elsewhere. Caner replied, "I go into debates - open debates - which means pro bono, nobody makes any money. We don't want any Christian sponsorship for them. I debate anyone who comes: Buddhist, Bahai, Zoroastrian, Sunni, Shia, Suffi, Nation of Islam, I debate anyone."
Again, we cannot find any evidence of these debates actually happening.
The host then asks Caner who invites him to these debates. Caner replied, "Sometimes it's college ministries and churches. But I tell them, you know, if you're going to set this up, this needs to be with the approval of the school and it must be an open forum - anybody can speak. And my only rule is that no Christian can ask me a question. Only the unbelievers can ask me questions, because I think if I'm going to spend my life planting seeds, I'm not going to plant a seed in a Christian, he's already saved. And the Muslim will suspect it, or the Buddhist, he will suspect the question. I let them ask whatever question they think. They spend their lives thinking they are going to stump us, you know, and so throw your best shot."
Yet again, we cannot find evidence of any of these debates actually occurring.
The host then asks what happens at the debates. Around 9:50, Caner replied: "Well, sometimes it becomes the gospel according to Jerry Springer. Sometimes it becomes yelling and cussing and etc. But not on my end. You know, we have to be bold but not brash. The difference is bold, you attack the lie, but if you're brash, you attack the person."
We definitely have noticed the tendency of Caner and company to attack the people who point out Caner's untrue statements. Regarding Jerry Springer, recall this previous post (link).
Around 12:45, Caner says: "I love my job at Liberty, but if I was ever to leave Liberty University, it would be to teach at a secular school. You know, put me on a floor where I'm surrounded by lesbians, and liberals, and idiots, and potheads, because where else is Christianity going to be effective? We have never been called, God never called us to apathy, he never called us to sedation. He called us to engagement. And it's not jihad, like I lived, it's an engagement of converting the enemy, loving the enemy, who is not really the enemy, but is someone for whom Christ died."
Now, since Caner has left Liberty, he's served - as far as we can tell - only at Christian colleges. Of course, he could not predict the future, so we can't totally hold this against him. Still, one wonders what efforts Caner has made to try to teach at a secular school, if any.
Also, note Caner's claim to have lived "jihad." Of course, that claim could presumably be justified by treating jihad as an internal struggle, but Caner has elsewhere objected to using the term jihad that way.
Around 17:10, Caner says, "The Josh McDowell of the Islamic world, Shabir Ally, is famous for asking the question in debate, he always says, 'Well, what does his death have to do with me?' You have to find a way to explain the atonement to a Muslim."
If only Caner had stuck with this version of the story rather than inserting himself into the story in other versions of this story! Still, one wonders if Shabir Ally ever even said this in any of his debates. I have listened to some of Shabir's debates and I don't recall hearing this line.
-TurretinFan
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Back to Blogger Comments ...
Unfortunately, the use of more elaborate commenting schemes was slowing down the blog. So, we're back to Blogger comments for now. Unfortunately, that means many pearls of wisdom posted on the blog are not fully lost, but also may not be visible to the public. If some one of your comments is gone and you want to repost it, please feel free.
Monday, February 10, 2014
On the 24 Hour Days "Argument" in Genesis
Arguing 24 hour days in Genesis is hardly necessary - the text doesn't just say day - it specifies the kind of day - the kind with evening and morning. It's not so much a question of arguing as just basic reading comprehension.
I posted the above on Facebook recently, and got some objections. I've posted the objections with my responses. I've tried to use some color coding to help highlight what words came from the objectors, although I've taken a little bit of liberty in terms of simplify, rewording, or omitting portions of the objections. I have not named the objectors, but would be happy to do so, if either of them wants to be named.
An objector might respond that the text specifies the pattern of the day but uses the evening and morning pattern, not the hour by hour pattern.
The value of this objection is low. If the objector's point is that a day could have been 25 hours or 23.5 hours - and didn't have to be precisely 24 hours - fine. But if the point is that "day" could have meant a billion years - that's an entirely different thing. Such a meaning for "day" is totally unreasonable.
The objector may respond that the argument is overstated in the sense that there is no way one can prove the 24hr day theory from the text.
Nevertheless, the text says day. Moreover, the text specifies the morning/evening kind of day. That kind of day is approximately 24 hours long. It's hard to see what could possibly be missing in that proof.
The objector may respond "That kind of day is approximately 24 hours long" is a scientific assumption you are reading back into the text. It assumes that the days as we observe today are exactly the same as the days of Genesis.
But no, it is not a "scientific" assumption. Instead, it is the plain meaning of "evening/morning" to the Israelites to whom God through Moses wrote the text. In other words, the only way to try to poke a hole in the argument is to throw out grammatical/historical hermeneutics.
Another objector might respond that the method I just mentioned is exactly what I am suggesting we do with our current Scientific understandings.
Instead, I am just suggesting that the assumption of indefinite uniformity in the past is unjustified.
In response to "No, it's not a "scientific" assumption - it's the plain meaning of "evening/morning"" the first objector may respond that this is exactly the same prima facie proofing dispensationalists use for their eschatological theories. No one reads scripture in the sense of a strict grammarian, there are more factors that are involved in reading the text.
First, the only reason for not reading it according to the plain meaning is a desire to harmonize it with some ideas the objector got outside the text. Furthermore, there is no need to falsely associate my objector's view with someone else to point out that error.
Now, regarding dispensationalists and some of their interpretations - typically those errors the objector is pointing out arise in the context of trying interpret prophecy: statements about future events. That's a different genre from history. IF(!) dispesnationalists apply the same kind of interpretation to prophetic passages as to historical passages, it is no surprise that they have errors.
The objector may respond that he is just pointing out the methodological approaches to reading scripture. Appeals to a "plain sense" reading are similar to the arguments heard from dispensationalists. It doesn't mean the argument is invalid, it just means that particular methodology needs to be avoided.
Of course, the fact that people who come to wrong conclusions (let's just assume they do, to avoid turning this into an eschatology discussion) sometimes use a specific form of argument does not make that argument wrong or suggest that the form of argument should be avoided.
Still, the objector may ask about "The plain sense of x": What do you mean "plain sense"?
What I mean is not some secret meaning, like in a parable or prophecy; nor some specialized technical meaning, like in some detailed discussions of theology or other technical writing. It's the ordinary meaning people normally associate with the word.
So, for example, when God says he made Eve from Adam's rib, rib means one of those bones around Adam's lungs: it is not a code word for something else. On the other hand, when God speaks of the "Lion of the Tribe of Judah," that's a prophetic reference to Jesus. Different genres, different ways of looking at words.
The objector may then ask: would you argue that because Genesis 1-3 is describing events that are historical, that there are no other literary elements at work? The text is giving us a history, but it isn't doing just that, nor is it doing it strictly chronological (more emphasis on the word strictly). It is providing us a theological understanding of the beginning of the universe, the world, and mankind.
You can have multiple literary elements at work in a single writing. For example, the gospels and Acts are historical accounts, but they are also providing a theological understanding of redemption, of Christology, and so on. We don't hold the third day resurrection as being somehow doubtful, just because there are other purposes to the gospels than just to provide history. So, we also shouldn't hold the sixth day Creation of man to be doubtful just because the purpose of Genesis is not just to provide history.
Now, if your point is that Genesis 1-3 is not "strictly" chronological, because after Genesis 1 describes the 6th day closing, Genesis 2 then provides more detail about the 6th day, ok. Likewise, if you are pointing out that God says first that "in the beginning" God created the heavens and the earth, before then explaining the day-by-day events of that, ok. In both cases, that's a departure from strict chronology. But Genesis 1 does present a sequence of events that are described as occurring chronologically, with explicit relative and absolute chronological references.
And recall that while much of the Pentateuch was Moses writing under inspiration, there is a section where God himself wrote the text, in his own hand, in stone. There he wrote: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is ... ."
The objector may respond that Ken Ham demonstrates that YECers rely on scientific models, so it's a bit odd to attribute that conclusion to OEC speculation.
They rely on scientific models in different ways, as Ken Ham also explained during the debate. For example, scientific models are sometimes offered to hypothesize how people lived such enormous lengths of time before the flood, or how the animals dispersed to places like Antarctica, South America, and Australia.
The objector may respond that it's quite a stretch to absolve Ham from placing how he reads on his scientific understandings, it would be a double standard. It all comes down to "Well since I agree with YEC, then Ham gets off the hook".
Maybe the objector thinks it is a stretch because he has overlooked that Ham's starting point is the text of Scripture, whereas for others the starting point is backwards extrapolation with a variety of assumptions, especially the assumption of indefinite uniformity.
The objector may respond that Ham asserts that his starting point is the text of scripture, but that's a verbal fiat. It doesn't carry over into all of his argumentation consistently.
He does, in fact, start with the text of Scripture. Now, if you are saying that at some points in his arguments he loses track of that starting point - ok - but that doesn't change his starting point, it just leaves room for improvement in his argument.
I posted the above on Facebook recently, and got some objections. I've posted the objections with my responses. I've tried to use some color coding to help highlight what words came from the objectors, although I've taken a little bit of liberty in terms of simplify, rewording, or omitting portions of the objections. I have not named the objectors, but would be happy to do so, if either of them wants to be named.
An objector might respond that the text specifies the pattern of the day but uses the evening and morning pattern, not the hour by hour pattern.
The value of this objection is low. If the objector's point is that a day could have been 25 hours or 23.5 hours - and didn't have to be precisely 24 hours - fine. But if the point is that "day" could have meant a billion years - that's an entirely different thing. Such a meaning for "day" is totally unreasonable.
The objector may respond that the argument is overstated in the sense that there is no way one can prove the 24hr day theory from the text.
Nevertheless, the text says day. Moreover, the text specifies the morning/evening kind of day. That kind of day is approximately 24 hours long. It's hard to see what could possibly be missing in that proof.
The objector may respond "That kind of day is approximately 24 hours long" is a scientific assumption you are reading back into the text. It assumes that the days as we observe today are exactly the same as the days of Genesis.
But no, it is not a "scientific" assumption. Instead, it is the plain meaning of "evening/morning" to the Israelites to whom God through Moses wrote the text. In other words, the only way to try to poke a hole in the argument is to throw out grammatical/historical hermeneutics.
Another objector might respond that the method I just mentioned is exactly what I am suggesting we do with our current Scientific understandings.
Instead, I am just suggesting that the assumption of indefinite uniformity in the past is unjustified.
In response to "No, it's not a "scientific" assumption - it's the plain meaning of "evening/morning"" the first objector may respond that this is exactly the same prima facie proofing dispensationalists use for their eschatological theories. No one reads scripture in the sense of a strict grammarian, there are more factors that are involved in reading the text.
First, the only reason for not reading it according to the plain meaning is a desire to harmonize it with some ideas the objector got outside the text. Furthermore, there is no need to falsely associate my objector's view with someone else to point out that error.
Now, regarding dispensationalists and some of their interpretations - typically those errors the objector is pointing out arise in the context of trying interpret prophecy: statements about future events. That's a different genre from history. IF(!) dispesnationalists apply the same kind of interpretation to prophetic passages as to historical passages, it is no surprise that they have errors.
The objector may respond that he is just pointing out the methodological approaches to reading scripture. Appeals to a "plain sense" reading are similar to the arguments heard from dispensationalists. It doesn't mean the argument is invalid, it just means that particular methodology needs to be avoided.
Of course, the fact that people who come to wrong conclusions (let's just assume they do, to avoid turning this into an eschatology discussion) sometimes use a specific form of argument does not make that argument wrong or suggest that the form of argument should be avoided.
Still, the objector may ask about "The plain sense of x": What do you mean "plain sense"?
What I mean is not some secret meaning, like in a parable or prophecy; nor some specialized technical meaning, like in some detailed discussions of theology or other technical writing. It's the ordinary meaning people normally associate with the word.
So, for example, when God says he made Eve from Adam's rib, rib means one of those bones around Adam's lungs: it is not a code word for something else. On the other hand, when God speaks of the "Lion of the Tribe of Judah," that's a prophetic reference to Jesus. Different genres, different ways of looking at words.
The objector may then ask: would you argue that because Genesis 1-3 is describing events that are historical, that there are no other literary elements at work? The text is giving us a history, but it isn't doing just that, nor is it doing it strictly chronological (more emphasis on the word strictly). It is providing us a theological understanding of the beginning of the universe, the world, and mankind.
You can have multiple literary elements at work in a single writing. For example, the gospels and Acts are historical accounts, but they are also providing a theological understanding of redemption, of Christology, and so on. We don't hold the third day resurrection as being somehow doubtful, just because there are other purposes to the gospels than just to provide history. So, we also shouldn't hold the sixth day Creation of man to be doubtful just because the purpose of Genesis is not just to provide history.
Now, if your point is that Genesis 1-3 is not "strictly" chronological, because after Genesis 1 describes the 6th day closing, Genesis 2 then provides more detail about the 6th day, ok. Likewise, if you are pointing out that God says first that "in the beginning" God created the heavens and the earth, before then explaining the day-by-day events of that, ok. In both cases, that's a departure from strict chronology. But Genesis 1 does present a sequence of events that are described as occurring chronologically, with explicit relative and absolute chronological references.
And recall that while much of the Pentateuch was Moses writing under inspiration, there is a section where God himself wrote the text, in his own hand, in stone. There he wrote: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is ... ."
The objector may respond that Ken Ham demonstrates that YECers rely on scientific models, so it's a bit odd to attribute that conclusion to OEC speculation.
They rely on scientific models in different ways, as Ken Ham also explained during the debate. For example, scientific models are sometimes offered to hypothesize how people lived such enormous lengths of time before the flood, or how the animals dispersed to places like Antarctica, South America, and Australia.
The objector may respond that it's quite a stretch to absolve Ham from placing how he reads on his scientific understandings, it would be a double standard. It all comes down to "Well since I agree with YEC, then Ham gets off the hook".
Maybe the objector thinks it is a stretch because he has overlooked that Ham's starting point is the text of Scripture, whereas for others the starting point is backwards extrapolation with a variety of assumptions, especially the assumption of indefinite uniformity.
The objector may respond that Ham asserts that his starting point is the text of scripture, but that's a verbal fiat. It doesn't carry over into all of his argumentation consistently.
He does, in fact, start with the text of Scripture. Now, if you are saying that at some points in his arguments he loses track of that starting point - ok - but that doesn't change his starting point, it just leaves room for improvement in his argument.
- TurretinFan
Thursday, February 06, 2014
High Priest Argument for Definite Atonement aka Particular Redemption aka Limited Atonement
Sometimes it is hard to explain to people why the sacrificial nature of Christ's death is relevant to the question of the scope of the atonement: i.e. whether the atonement was made for all, hypothetically all, or particularly the elect. One way to explain this is by reference to the fact that Christ is not just the lamb of God, whose death takes away the sins of the world, but that Christ is also the High Priest who makes the offering. The following provides an easy explanation of this argument, so that you can present it to your friends, without requiring them to know everything about the Old Testament sacrificial system.
At the heart of it, the offering of a lamb as a burnt offering involved killing the lamb and roasting it in fire. That's quite similar, as hopefully you've noticed, to the core of having lamb for dinner. What then differentiates lamb chops from a sacrifice?
It's not the fact that the lamb can still be eaten in the dinner context. Yes, there were "whole burnt offerings" where the entire animal was fully consumed by the fire, but the more typical context of animal sacrifices involved the cooked animal being eaten - partly by the priest and partly by the person offering the sacrifice. That's why the apostles taught gentile Christians, you may recall, to buy their meat without asking whether it was a sacrifice to one of the gods. So, it is not the degree of cooking that distinguishes the sacrifice from the dinner.
Instead, what distinguishes the two is the ritual, especially the prayer. The prayer asks God to accept the animal as a sacrifice and consequently to accept the person for whom the sacrifice is offered.
Furthermore, sacrifice could be made for one person or a group of people. For example, when sacrifices were made on behalf of Israel as a nation, sometimes lots of animals were killed, but there was not a one-to-one relationship between the animals and the people of Israel. Likewise, in some cases a sacrifice might involve more than one animal, but only one person. How could these situations be distinguished?
Again, the answer lies in the ritual - particularly in the prayer. The prayer is what distinguishes a sacrifice from one person from a sacrifice for a family, tribe, or nation.
Now, apply that principle to Christ's death. For whom does Christ pray? Does Christ pray for all mankind indiscriminately? Or does Christ pray for all the believers - all the elect? Does Christ specifically pray for those given to him by the Father?
In theological terms, this is the "impetration" aspect of the atonement - for whom does Jesus ask the Father for forgiveness of sins and eternal life? Without any request, the sacrifice is just a tasty meal. With the request, the sacrifice is made for the people identified in the request.
Now, someone might try to claim that Jesus asks for life for everyone, but the Father turns Jesus down except in the case of those who make the difference and autonomously cooperate in some way. Such an idea, though, lacks any Scriptural testimony and drives a wedge between the Father and the Son, which contradicts the idea that "I and my Father are one."
Indeed, the Scriptures do not describe that Jesus prays for each and every individual, that the Father would accept His sacrifice on their behalf. For example, Jesus says: "Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: as thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. ... For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them." (John 17:1, 2, and 8-10)
-TurretinFan
At the heart of it, the offering of a lamb as a burnt offering involved killing the lamb and roasting it in fire. That's quite similar, as hopefully you've noticed, to the core of having lamb for dinner. What then differentiates lamb chops from a sacrifice?
It's not the fact that the lamb can still be eaten in the dinner context. Yes, there were "whole burnt offerings" where the entire animal was fully consumed by the fire, but the more typical context of animal sacrifices involved the cooked animal being eaten - partly by the priest and partly by the person offering the sacrifice. That's why the apostles taught gentile Christians, you may recall, to buy their meat without asking whether it was a sacrifice to one of the gods. So, it is not the degree of cooking that distinguishes the sacrifice from the dinner.
Instead, what distinguishes the two is the ritual, especially the prayer. The prayer asks God to accept the animal as a sacrifice and consequently to accept the person for whom the sacrifice is offered.
Furthermore, sacrifice could be made for one person or a group of people. For example, when sacrifices were made on behalf of Israel as a nation, sometimes lots of animals were killed, but there was not a one-to-one relationship between the animals and the people of Israel. Likewise, in some cases a sacrifice might involve more than one animal, but only one person. How could these situations be distinguished?
Again, the answer lies in the ritual - particularly in the prayer. The prayer is what distinguishes a sacrifice from one person from a sacrifice for a family, tribe, or nation.
Now, apply that principle to Christ's death. For whom does Christ pray? Does Christ pray for all mankind indiscriminately? Or does Christ pray for all the believers - all the elect? Does Christ specifically pray for those given to him by the Father?
In theological terms, this is the "impetration" aspect of the atonement - for whom does Jesus ask the Father for forgiveness of sins and eternal life? Without any request, the sacrifice is just a tasty meal. With the request, the sacrifice is made for the people identified in the request.
Now, someone might try to claim that Jesus asks for life for everyone, but the Father turns Jesus down except in the case of those who make the difference and autonomously cooperate in some way. Such an idea, though, lacks any Scriptural testimony and drives a wedge between the Father and the Son, which contradicts the idea that "I and my Father are one."
Indeed, the Scriptures do not describe that Jesus prays for each and every individual, that the Father would accept His sacrifice on their behalf. For example, Jesus says: "Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: as thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. ... For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them." (John 17:1, 2, and 8-10)
-TurretinFan
Saturday, February 01, 2014
Bryan Cross versus the Evidence
Bryan Cross writes: "All the historical evidence Lampe cites in his book, even when taken together in aggregate, is fully compatible with there being a monarchical bishop in Rome. Twelve times zero is still zero; it isn’t greater than one times zero." (source) This response appears to combine sophistry and ignorance in a particularly insidious way.
In what way is the Evidence "Fully Compatible" with a Roman Monarchical Episcopate?
By "fully compatible" Bryan simply means that there is some possible way to view the evidence as fitting in with his hypothesis of a monarchical bishop in Rome. So, for example, when confronted with the Eusebius says he created a succession list when he came to Rome, Bryan speculates that Eusebius may have used a pre-existing list to make his own list.
Similarly, regarding the evidence of the role of presbyters in particular ancient Roman controversies, without reference to any monarchical bishop, Bryan argues: "This is an argument from silence, which is a fallacy when there is no objective standard by which to know the likelihood of non-silence given the truth of the hypothesis [e.g. that there was a monarchical bishop]." (bracketed material is Bryan's.)
In short, even if every historical account of first and early second century Rome is silent regarding any monarchical bishop there, and even if some of those accounts actually do make reference to an authority structure of presbyters/elders, Bryan is going to call this "fully compatible."
Why is Bryan's "Fully Compatible" Claim Absurd?
Put this in perspective: suppose my hypothesis is that Abraham Lincoln's identical twin brother delivered the Gettysburg Address. The fact there is no contemporary account of Lincoln having an identical twin brother is "fully compatible" with my hypothesis in exactly the same way that the absence of contemporary historical evidence of a monarchical bishop in Rome is "fully compatible" with such a bishop actually existing. In other words, the "fully compatible" bar as used by Bryan is such a low bar it permits all kinds of absurd hypotheses.
So, it is sophistical for Bryan to respond that the evidence is "fully compatible" (in such a sense) with his hypothesis. Such a response suggests that the historical evidence is not problematic with respect to his hypothesis, when - in fact - it is devastating to his hypothesis.
What about the Twelve-Times-Zero Argument?
This argument seems to stem from Bryan's ignorance. When it comes to the question of whether the hypothesis of a monarchical bishop is true, the amount of inconsistent evidence matters. So, for example, if we had no contemporaneous accounts of Rome, the silence of such accounts on any particular issue would be of very little significance. It might be surprising that such information would be lost (had it existed), but that would be the extent of the problem.
On the other hand, when there is a positive account of Rome and it omits any mention of the supposed monarchical bishop of Rome, this is more problematic for the monarchical bishop in Rome hypothesis. When there are two or more such accounts and they all fail to mention this alleged bishop, the problem is increasingly worse. Obviously, if we had 10,000 such accounts and none mentioned the alleged bishop, well - that would be that much stronger.
The reason, of course, is that such "silence" is not a zero.
Furthermore, not all of the evidence is silence. For example, some of the evidence is evidence of the life of the church in Rome at the time. Rome was an enormous city by ancient standards. Furthermore, Rome was a city with a lot of immigrants. There is evidence that the Christians in Rome did not all meet together for worship, but instead that they met in different groups, in house churches. For example, Paul writes:
Indeed, this evidence suggests that at least initially there probably was not a central authority of any kind in Rome - not just that there was no monarchical bishop, but that there was not necessarily even any well-established presbytery. Rather individual churches were governed by presbyter/elders, as the apostles taught churches should be governed.
This kind of evidence is not a "Zero." On the contrary, it paints a picture of Rome in which Bryan's hypothesis becomes increasingly implausible and unfeasible. In fact, there wasn't a single monarchical bishop of Rome in the first century or early second century. Eventually there was such a bishop, but such a development required things like organization of the Roman churches.
Is Bryan Really Looking at the Evidence like an Historian?
No. For a historian, the aggregation of historical evidence is used to paint a picture of what existed at the time. Silence is important to historians. Moreover, historians are also interested in historical context that lends credibility (or contrariwise) to historical claims.
The problem for Bryan is that Rome's historical claims are not historically credible. On the contrary, history contradicts Rome's historical claims. Not only was there no papacy from the beginning - there was not even a monarchical bishop of Rome from the beginning.
Keep in mind, historians are not infallible. The only infallible writings we have are Scripture -- and Scripture is an even worse enemy of the papacy than history is.
-TurretinFan
In what way is the Evidence "Fully Compatible" with a Roman Monarchical Episcopate?
By "fully compatible" Bryan simply means that there is some possible way to view the evidence as fitting in with his hypothesis of a monarchical bishop in Rome. So, for example, when confronted with the Eusebius says he created a succession list when he came to Rome, Bryan speculates that Eusebius may have used a pre-existing list to make his own list.
Similarly, regarding the evidence of the role of presbyters in particular ancient Roman controversies, without reference to any monarchical bishop, Bryan argues: "This is an argument from silence, which is a fallacy when there is no objective standard by which to know the likelihood of non-silence given the truth of the hypothesis [e.g. that there was a monarchical bishop]." (bracketed material is Bryan's.)
In short, even if every historical account of first and early second century Rome is silent regarding any monarchical bishop there, and even if some of those accounts actually do make reference to an authority structure of presbyters/elders, Bryan is going to call this "fully compatible."
Why is Bryan's "Fully Compatible" Claim Absurd?
Put this in perspective: suppose my hypothesis is that Abraham Lincoln's identical twin brother delivered the Gettysburg Address. The fact there is no contemporary account of Lincoln having an identical twin brother is "fully compatible" with my hypothesis in exactly the same way that the absence of contemporary historical evidence of a monarchical bishop in Rome is "fully compatible" with such a bishop actually existing. In other words, the "fully compatible" bar as used by Bryan is such a low bar it permits all kinds of absurd hypotheses.
So, it is sophistical for Bryan to respond that the evidence is "fully compatible" (in such a sense) with his hypothesis. Such a response suggests that the historical evidence is not problematic with respect to his hypothesis, when - in fact - it is devastating to his hypothesis.
What about the Twelve-Times-Zero Argument?
This argument seems to stem from Bryan's ignorance. When it comes to the question of whether the hypothesis of a monarchical bishop is true, the amount of inconsistent evidence matters. So, for example, if we had no contemporaneous accounts of Rome, the silence of such accounts on any particular issue would be of very little significance. It might be surprising that such information would be lost (had it existed), but that would be the extent of the problem.
On the other hand, when there is a positive account of Rome and it omits any mention of the supposed monarchical bishop of Rome, this is more problematic for the monarchical bishop in Rome hypothesis. When there are two or more such accounts and they all fail to mention this alleged bishop, the problem is increasingly worse. Obviously, if we had 10,000 such accounts and none mentioned the alleged bishop, well - that would be that much stronger.
The reason, of course, is that such "silence" is not a zero.
Furthermore, not all of the evidence is silence. For example, some of the evidence is evidence of the life of the church in Rome at the time. Rome was an enormous city by ancient standards. Furthermore, Rome was a city with a lot of immigrants. There is evidence that the Christians in Rome did not all meet together for worship, but instead that they met in different groups, in house churches. For example, Paul writes:
Romans 16:3-5Similarly, there is evidence that there was an absence of a central structure to the Roman church. Thus, for example, Onesiphorus could not easily locate Paul when he came to Rome:
Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my well-beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
and then again:
Romans 16:14 Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them.
and again:
Romans 16:15 Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.
(and, of course, Paul does not mention in his salutations any of the men set forth as purportedly the early monarchical bishops, but that brings us back to this silence that Bryan is trying hard to suppress)
2 Timothy 1:16-17In short there is evidence that the Christian groups were scattered around the city in various groups. It would have been administratively challenging for a single monarchical bishop to govern such scattered house churches. So, the very historical situation of the churches in Rome weighs against having such a mode of government in Rome.
The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me.
Indeed, this evidence suggests that at least initially there probably was not a central authority of any kind in Rome - not just that there was no monarchical bishop, but that there was not necessarily even any well-established presbytery. Rather individual churches were governed by presbyter/elders, as the apostles taught churches should be governed.
This kind of evidence is not a "Zero." On the contrary, it paints a picture of Rome in which Bryan's hypothesis becomes increasingly implausible and unfeasible. In fact, there wasn't a single monarchical bishop of Rome in the first century or early second century. Eventually there was such a bishop, but such a development required things like organization of the Roman churches.
Is Bryan Really Looking at the Evidence like an Historian?
No. For a historian, the aggregation of historical evidence is used to paint a picture of what existed at the time. Silence is important to historians. Moreover, historians are also interested in historical context that lends credibility (or contrariwise) to historical claims.
The problem for Bryan is that Rome's historical claims are not historically credible. On the contrary, history contradicts Rome's historical claims. Not only was there no papacy from the beginning - there was not even a monarchical bishop of Rome from the beginning.
Keep in mind, historians are not infallible. The only infallible writings we have are Scripture -- and Scripture is an even worse enemy of the papacy than history is.
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Restore Balance in the Two Kingdoms
This is the kind of comment that leads people to call an unbalanced view of the two kingdoms, "radical two kingdoms":
That's the same R. Scott Clark who was recently stumping for civil magistrate on his blog as discussed at this link.
Clark further states:
a) The duty of submission is a mutual duty of the brethren, not a one-way duty toward elders.
Peter, in his first catholic epistle, says:
b) We are explicitly told to submit ourselves unto those who have worldly authority:
That same Peter in the same book we mentioned above - earlier in the book - says:
c) Clark seems to have in mind the following passage from Hebrews:
d) Furthermore, while there may not be an explicit command for kings to pray for those entrusted to them, that surely is a logical inference to be drawn from the duties of superiors to inferiors.
e) Moreover, the Scriptures do explicitly norm kings and those in authority:
f) Certainly, we should not fall into the opposite extreme from Clark, of some kind of democratic congregationalism and denial that those who have rule over us in the church do not have any rule over us in the church. I hope no one will take my criticism of one imbalance to suggest the opposite imbalance.
g) Rather, neither magistrates nor elders of the church are priests whose job it is to stand between us and God. While those who rule over us bring the Word of God to us and set a good example for us (Hebrews 13:7) the great Shepherd of the sheep is Christ (Hebrews 13:20). Christ is Lord over all - both Lord of the Sword and the Gospel. The cattle on a thousand hills are his.
- TurretinFan
Indeed, in general terms, it seems from the New Testament that the less we have to do with the magistrate, the better it will be for us.(source R. Scott Clark)
That's the same R. Scott Clark who was recently stumping for civil magistrate on his blog as discussed at this link.
Clark further states:
Nevertheless, when it comes to the visible, institutional church, the Scriptures enjoin on us an attitude of submission and a desire to protect those who look after the welfare of our souls that it does not require of us regarding the civil magistrate, who looks after our outward, common, shared life. The magistrate, in his office, is not enjoined to pray for us.I respond:
a) The duty of submission is a mutual duty of the brethren, not a one-way duty toward elders.
Peter, in his first catholic epistle, says:
1 Peter 5:5Likewise, Paul teaches us:
Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
Ephesians 5:21
Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
b) We are explicitly told to submit ourselves unto those who have worldly authority:
That same Peter in the same book we mentioned above - earlier in the book - says:
1 Peter 2:13-14Likewise, still earlier:
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
1 Peter 2:17Similarly:
Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
Colossians 3:22-24Indeed, these commands are quite closely paired with obedience to the Lord.
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God; and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.
c) Clark seems to have in mind the following passage from Hebrews:
Hebrews 13:17-18But this resembles Paul's exhortation regarding kings:
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. Pray for us: for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly.
1 Timothy 2:1-4Incidentally, the structure of Hebrews 13 is quite beautiful - it includes "Remember them which have the rule over you ... Obey them that have the rule over you ... Salute all them that have the rule over you ...."
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
d) Furthermore, while there may not be an explicit command for kings to pray for those entrusted to them, that surely is a logical inference to be drawn from the duties of superiors to inferiors.
e) Moreover, the Scriptures do explicitly norm kings and those in authority:
Psalm 2:10-12
Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
f) Certainly, we should not fall into the opposite extreme from Clark, of some kind of democratic congregationalism and denial that those who have rule over us in the church do not have any rule over us in the church. I hope no one will take my criticism of one imbalance to suggest the opposite imbalance.
g) Rather, neither magistrates nor elders of the church are priests whose job it is to stand between us and God. While those who rule over us bring the Word of God to us and set a good example for us (Hebrews 13:7) the great Shepherd of the sheep is Christ (Hebrews 13:20). Christ is Lord over all - both Lord of the Sword and the Gospel. The cattle on a thousand hills are his.
- TurretinFan
The "We Dressed Differently" Claim
Dr. Ergun Caner has sometimes claimed that he "dressed differently" than typical Americans back when, as a young boy, he was allegedly a devout Muslim. One reason to question this claim is the photo of his father in front of the Islamic Center that he supposedly "built."
Someone dressed as an imam is near the center of the picture, and Caner's father is allegedly to his right (our left). But wait, if the Caners dressed differently than typical Americans, wouldn't that appear in photos like this one? I mean - the one surely safe place to wear Islamic garb would surely be right in front of a posted Islamic Center, wouldn't it? Yet even for this picture, Caner's father is wearing typical Western clothes.
Also, notice that except for the imam, all the men are in Western clothes. In other words, Caner's father looks like the rule, not the exception, for the Muslims of this particular Islamic Center.
Recall that Norm Geisler tried to defend Caner this way (link to source):
-TurretinFan
Notice that Caner proudly posts this picture as his background on his full twitter page (link).
UPDATE: I should add that the only leadership position we've been able to document Acar Caner holding is as President (at least twice) of the Turkish American Association of Central Ohio (TAACO) (link to site). That page also includes a picture of Acar Caner:
(sorry about the low quality)(previously reported here)
Now, not only does Acar plainly not wear any kind of Lawrence of Arabia style headgear, even in this role in a Turkish-American association, he doesn't appear to be wearing Sunni-style robes. In fact, if you look at the page and see all the presidents (including women presidents), you'll see that none of them seem to be wearing distinctively Sunni clothing. Indeed, the women aren't even wearing headscarves. Of course, as we've said elsewhere - dressing in Western style was normal for Turkish Muslims in that era. If Caner had dressed differently, he would have been an unusual Turk indeed.
Also, see this picture:
And this picture:
And notice how the sons are dressed in those same pictures: western style clothes.
Likewise, remember the yearbook photos from my "Who is Dr. Caner" post (link to post).
Further Update:
Also recall this photo allegedly of Caner in the mosque with a rifle:
Notice that although the girl does seem to be dressed up, Caner and all the other males in the picture are wearing typical western clothes.
Also, notice that except for the imam, all the men are in Western clothes. In other words, Caner's father looks like the rule, not the exception, for the Muslims of this particular Islamic Center.
Recall that Norm Geisler tried to defend Caner this way (link to source):
5. Caner claims to have worn a Muslim "keffiyeh"(head covering) before his conversion to Christianity, yet photos show him with his head uncovered. This reveals that he was not a devout Muslim and that he intended to deceive when claiming to be one.Whether or not Caner was a "devout" Muslim is one question - whether Caner regularly dressed like Lawrence of Arabia, is another question. Given that his father apparently did not so dress, even for a posed photo at the Islamic Center with the imam, what are the odds that Caner himself regularly wore Islamic garb to highschool?
Response: Ergun’s brother Emir vouches for their devout Muslim background. He has provided a picture (below) of Ergun with his head covered (sitting down). Of course, there were other times when he had no covering on which would be natural.
[TFan note: link to photo is broken]
Other evidence of his being a devout Muslim is available, such as Ergun’s circumcision ceremony and participation in the reading and recitation of the Qur’an. Further, that Ergun was reared a devout Muslim is proven by his father’s testimony recorded in the divorce proceedings documents which ironically Ergun’s critic placed on the internet.
-TurretinFan
Notice that Caner proudly posts this picture as his background on his full twitter page (link).
UPDATE: I should add that the only leadership position we've been able to document Acar Caner holding is as President (at least twice) of the Turkish American Association of Central Ohio (TAACO) (link to site). That page also includes a picture of Acar Caner:
(sorry about the low quality)(previously reported here)
Now, not only does Acar plainly not wear any kind of Lawrence of Arabia style headgear, even in this role in a Turkish-American association, he doesn't appear to be wearing Sunni-style robes. In fact, if you look at the page and see all the presidents (including women presidents), you'll see that none of them seem to be wearing distinctively Sunni clothing. Indeed, the women aren't even wearing headscarves. Of course, as we've said elsewhere - dressing in Western style was normal for Turkish Muslims in that era. If Caner had dressed differently, he would have been an unusual Turk indeed.
Also, see this picture:
And this picture:
And notice how the sons are dressed in those same pictures: western style clothes.
Likewise, remember the yearbook photos from my "Who is Dr. Caner" post (link to post).
Further Update:
Also recall this photo allegedly of Caner in the mosque with a rifle:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
