Home > Christian apologetics, Ian Punnet > Ian Punnet Equates Lying and Racism In the Quran With ”Killing” In the Bible

Ian Punnet Equates Lying and Racism In the Quran With ”Killing” In the Bible

On Saturday, very early in the morning, on Coast to Coast AM, the heretic Ian Punnet, whose ears God struck, once again defamed and slandered God. A caller called in to say that he had great concern as to whether or not Muslims could be trusted in general anymore because of their repeated extreme violence in contrast to the reaction of Christians (when things like a “holy book” are burned). Ian’s idiot response was right out of the Shallow Handbook of Atheist and Pagan Arguments Against Christians. Yet Ian claims to be a Christian deacon, and makes himself out to be a scholar and a good person. The caller added to his reasoning was that the Quran says that Muslims are not to befriend Christians or Jews and to lie to them, which is a fact. Ian then replied that he would hope that Christians wouldn’t be judged the way this man was judging Muslims, and that the Bible for example (Ian’s false example) gives “Christians the right to kill people of cities they conquered.” That’s nearly the exact statement with no meaningful difference. Ian’s terrible argument is the argument of atheists and pagans who take verses out of context. Ian might as well have said, “The Bible is not all right, it has mistakes” which is a lie, and negates the authority of the Bible, and makes man the ultimate judge over what God’s word and what is morally right or wrong. First of all, the verse or passage he is referring to does not say, “Christians have the right to conquer and kill you.” Second, it’s not implied. Third, it’s GOD’S RIGHT to have “Christians” or Jews or anyone conquer or kill whomever he wants unless God had said before that he would not do so, especially if he promised not to. Ian obviously disagrees that God has the right do change the leadership a person has or to take away their life, why else would he have said that? Fourth, think about how evil Ian’s comparison is, he compared conquering and killing (not murdering) to being something evil like lying, racism and hatred. Is conquering necessarily equal to lying, racism and hatred? Was ancient Rome when it was conquering, being racist? Did they say, “We are trying to conquer you Celts because you are white.”? No they didn’t, that isn’t why they tried to conquer them. What about killing, is killing a sheep or a person in war no different than lying? Obviously these aren’t the same things. Further, killing a person won’t necessarily send them to right to Hell, but if you lie to them, and tell them that it’s good to murder, and to take verses in the Bible out of context and to obey the Quran when it says not to befriend Christians or Jews, and to lie to them and randomly terrorize them, and to heavily tax non-Muslims, no matter what, you could provoke someone to hate the true God and everyone else and to then end up in Hell from having been corrupted. Ian, as a deacon, and not a mere Christian, is required to know easy-to-figure-out things like that about the Bible and morality. And does killing equate to not befriending a person necessarily? Is it necessarily an unfriendly act? Even the heretic Ian, a liberal heretic who believes homosexuality is good, and that demons don’t exist (because there couldn’t possibly be bad angels, because… why?!) would probably agree that if you kill someone to end their chronic pain if it’s preventing a person from enjoying life, and that there’s no sign of it stopping, is a good thing too. So then he most likely contradicted himself that killing can only be a bad thing. Further, if God commanded a Christian to execute a Christian friend of that Christian for having murdered some liberal narcissist like Ian Punnet, would the Christian doing the executing necessarily be doing a hateful thing to his friend, or could he simply be carrying out God’s justice? The answers are obvious to anyone who has a decent understanding of Bible basics and morality, and God, all of which Ian doesn’t have, and yet he points out often, that he’s a deacon.

When the caller said that Christians didn’t have the same reaction as Muslims to things like the burning of a holy book, Ian said as if it were fact that that wasn’t true by saying to go to the deep south (of the US) and to announce that you’re going to burn a Bible and give your name and number out and I think he said address. He repeated that, and then said, “We can go on like this all night” which to me implied that Ian had memorized cheap shot attacks against Christians, and not just that stereotype. Question: Why has Ian memorized the attacks against Christianity, and not the defenses? What kind of Christian deacon is that? Is he possibly sick in the head with a deep hatred for Christians? Why else would he stereotype “deep southern Christians” so emphatically? What is his evidence that Christians there will become physically violent and go on a days long murder spree if you announce, merely announce you will burn a Bible? Muslims in all areas of the world have a long endless history of severe violence and racism towards Jews, this isn’t true with a large majority of Reformed Christians (who are a large minority, not a small cult, and therefore are significant and Christians cannot simply be generalized as all being the same), whose violence has been sporadic and contained to small areas. The bad spots were entirely from the Dutch, who in their attempt to free themselves from Catholic control, made war with them, and it wasn’t some endless war spanning hundreds of years and in which the Dutch tried to conquer any Catholic cities, again, it was a war to gain independence. The other was the Salem Witch Trials, and another was when a few Quakers were executed when they kept trespassing onto their land and preaching their version of the gospel to them (which is also harassment). Another possible spot is when Willem Kieft, a psychopath hired by the Dutch West India Company to make peace with the Native Americans (for business reasons, not religious), instead, brutally massacred between 80-120 of them and later about 500 more using the help of the Mohawks and some Dutch military troops. And his fighting was not without protest from other Dutch. He was later fired. There is no evidence that Willem was a Christian, let alone one held in high esteem, or that anyone who participated in the massacre was either. And even if the Dutch in general who approved of being brutal to and robbing Native Americans were Christians, it doesn’t necessarily mean they were forgiven and had God dwelling in them, because, the Bible says, that “whoever hates his brother is a murderer” and doesn’t have eternal life. The Bible also makes it clear that there will be false Christians, including ones who will betray other Christians and teach demonic things. Further, all Christians are not Dutch, and racism has not been a major problem, unlike with cults like the Mormons. Also, it is a myth that John Calvin (a Dutch Christian who rebelled against the Catholic Church) was for burning witches and anyone teaching that is myth-spreading.(1)(2) Reformed Christians are known for their charity to impoverished countries in Africa and South America and to Haiti. Mormons, despite the racism being pointed out, DEFEND IT. For example the narcissist(s?) of the FAIRMormon wiki when referring to their former leader Joseph Fielding Smith does not say that when he implied “darkies” (blacks) were inferior was wrong to do so, but instead points their finger at the writers of a magazine called “LOOK”, by virtually saying, “But look, they are racist too because they have no pictures of blacks except in one page where they are getting charity.” And wow, how wrong to inspire charity for blacks, right? Wrong. So, let no one say that the sinful Catholics are representative of the entire church, or that the Protestants so called for protesting against them are also represented by them, especially not the distinct Reformed ones among them, so called “Calvinists” who are despised by the Catholics and other Protestants who side with the ancient heretic rival of Calvin, Jacob Arminius.

Other facts about Ian: he claimed that the KJV was NOT literal and that it was a paraphrase (I wrote about that many months ago). Ian is stupid, ignorant and despite claiming to know the Bible, is obviously a person who hates who is against the clear rules God made. If Ian doesn’t know the basics of how to defend the Bible, what is he doing playing teacher of the Bible and calling himself a deacon for? What evil people elected him deacon if he’s ignorant about how to defend God’s will? He is what the Bible calls a “false teacher” and a heretic, and is one millions of others spreading hatred of God and confusion.

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: