A Dialogue Worth Watching

I started watching this video that's a dialogue between a Christian group and a Muslim group. If you have a couple hours of time (I know, it's long), it's definitely interesting to watch.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1254885045777648482&hl=en

Couple points to note:
The "dialogue" is structured in sort of "debate" style.
The Christian talks for 30 minutes
Muslim panel questions him for 10 minutes
The Muslim talks for 30 minutes
Christian panel questions him for 10 minutes

It was interesting to me that after having heard the Christian position on Christ (that Christ is divine), the Muslims immediately brought up the question of the Trinity--"How can God be one and yet God the Father and Christ both be God?"

Also interesting to see how the Muslim speaker revered the Bible--he warns his fellow Muslims to not misquote the Bible.

It seems the fundamental contradiction of Christianity--for the Muslim--is our belief in the divinity of Christ.

What is also of great interest (and irony) to me is how the Muslims started drawing up passages of the Bible that Josiah, Mickey, and I were reading in our early Christian doctrines class. For example, at one point, the Muslim said, "Jesus says, 'Why do you say I am good? No one is good except God.'" I chuckled to myself. But, I think it is interesting that the dialogue (granted, my sample size of 1) between Christians and Muslims looks a lot like early Christian dialogue among themselves regarding the divinity of Christ.

Other points to note from the Muslim stance: God cannot have "children" (sons), God cannot have "feelings", God--being one--should know about everything that happens to himself (i.e., Jesus should know, if he is God, when he will return), God is not a God of confusion--the Trinity is a confusing doctrine (and therefore erroneous), Christ is God's begotten son but to "beget" requires sex and sex is a lowly animal function and God is not animalistic, the crucifixion of Christ is not supported by the Bible (because Christ was not willing to die--a sacrifice should be willing), etc.

Conclusion? Some Muslims know the Bible (and its history) better than the average Christian. For the American church and all its programs, we lack a basic training in the Bible--a basic training that someone of another religion, with another holy book, could learn better than we. I think there's something fundamentally wrong with a church that seeks to entertain its congregation, than to prepare them in the very rudiments upon which our faith stands. And it is a great travesty that the average Christian does not question as much as he ought, taking for granted a great number of doctrines which have taken hundreds of years and a great amount of intelligence (Augustine, et al.) to develop.

I'm sometimes put to shame how well people outside the church scrutinize the Bible, wrestle with its "inconsistencies," put forth great questions (which have been dealt with by Scripture in history), and yet the people of the church don't know the Bible beyond John 3:16 or anything of church history.

And not just that--we don't care to learn those things. It's like some sort of response to ultra-stiff Christians who quote Scripture or the self-righteous Christian that knows doctrine inside out; we've settled for emotive religion.

"Why am I Christian? Because it makes me feel good."
"Christianity works for me. I don't know if it will work for you."
etc. etc.

Whatever happened to "honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15)? It seems, in history, that the Christian is either always prepared to give a defense (but never exudes any hope) or is always hopeful (but never has a defense). We may be the generation of Christians who champion the idea of living a Christian "life," but forget that it includes a "Christian" (self-)education.