Can one be both Hindu and Christian?

Faith & Science Conversation
,
142

,

I am not interested in the word for world, I am more interested in the word for “Condemned,”. In My translation i it is"Judged". Your version assumes a certain verdict. I am not claimng there is no judgement, only a summary conviction or condemnation,

Just because Christians might bypass summary judgement does not mean they avoid it altogether. We will still be juded by our intentions and motivations. I am glad that I do not have to judge you on those.

Regardless of your homage to loving your neighbour and dng right by them, you also judge them as if you were God. And that, I am afraid negated your imunity.

Leave the judgement toGod, and that includes your insistance that the world is corrupt. It is not. And it is not your place to say otherwse.

Richard

143

Don’t dodge – your assertion was that God has no standards for humanity in general. The word use indicates otherwise.

I only judge as we are admonished to do: analyze, assess, speak truth.

Scripture says it is – that’s where we are told death comes from. Jeremiah tells us that the human heart is deceitful and desperately sick. The Psalmist says that all are corrupt, that no one does good. Isaiah says that we have all gone astray like sheep, and Peter confirms that this means everyone, not just Jews. John 3 tells us that apart from Christ everyone is going to perish – that doesn’t come from being spiritually healthy!

It is not my place to deny it since the scripture affirms it.

1 Like
144

Is this thread still going? I would have thought it should have died a quick death by now its a simple question with a straightforward answer…and yet nitwits are still debating what is blatantly obvious!

If you wish to discredit a scientist, then id suggest you do so with science of your own. Remind me which part is wrong?

I wish to also make a significant observation here…

I have gone back through 143 posts on this topic. Out of those 143 posts, i am the only one who has consistently referenced his responses. Other than approximately 4 other referenced posts (one of which is about the movie Narnia and has nothing to do with this thread), another illustrating the Greek for Revelation 14:!2 (which I’m not sure who that post is responding too because the Greek there doesn’t change the text in any way)…

Do you guys really not understand that your answers without references are useless? I mean for all the supposedly university-educated individuals on these forums and 143 flaming answers and I’m the only one consistently citing references…you guys are making ■■■■ up as you go along. Im one of the most poorly educated on these forums and yet you guys self publish your own comments as authoritative and have the audacity to call others who don’t agree with your habits here pseudo-scientists, conartists, and liars?

honestly guys, you are not doing the Biologos name any credit there. when i read back through the above 143 posts im reminded of the following:

Pirates of the Caribean…“Do you think he [Jack Sparrow] plans it all out, or just makes it up as he goes along?”

145

So the first of those patterns looks like the artificial pattern of design, so that is the YEC prediction, right? The second of those look like the natural random nested hierarchy pattern (nodes all over the place), so that would be the prediction of evolution.

The scientific method is make the testable predictions first and then you do the measurements. It is certainly not just matching what you want to believe to results of the measurements, the way this guy has done.

2 Likes
146

instead of saying “it looks like”…how about you actually cite the data and reference the errors in it!

How hard would it be for you to use your own expertise to obtain the data from Kurt and check it?

again…145 posts now and mine are the only consistent references.

oh BTW…Do you know where the data for Jeansons mtDNA research comes from? Isnt it not also inclusive of data from the United Nations database, African national records sources?

Dr. Jeanson tested the origin of the mtDNA differences in Africans using available databases of mtDNA sequences and marriage data Nations.Origin of Mitochondrial DNA Differences | Answers in Genesis

So if Kurt Wise data is wrong…how do you think that bodes for your data sources given they are the same (ie government databases) Or are you a conspiracy theorist who doesnt use government records because all world governments are under the control of the Rothschilds?

Here are the references Jeason used in some of his research:
(i would suggest its got a pretty fair spread of world views included)

References

Al Rawi, S., S. Louvet-Vallée, A. Djeddi, M. Sachse, E. Culetto, C. Hajjar, L. Boyd, R. Legouis, and V. Galy. 2011. Postfertilization autophagy of sperm organelles prevents paternal mitochondrial DNA transmission. Science 334, no. 6059:1144–1147.

Behe, M. J. 1996. Darwin’s black box. New York, New York: Touchstone.

Behe, M. J. 2007. The edge of evolution: The search for the limits of Darwinism. New York, New York: Free Press.

Bendall, K. E., V. A. Macaulay, J. R. Baker, and B. C. Sykes. 1996. Heteroplasmic point mutations in the human mtDNA control region. American Journal of Human Genetics 59, no. 6:1276–1287.

Bergman, J. and J. Tomkins. 2012. Is the human genome nearly identical to chimpanzee?—A reassessment of the literature. Journal of Creation 26, no. 1:54–60.

Carroll, S. B. 2005. Endless forms most beautiful. New York, New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Cavelier, L., E. Jazin, P. Galonen, and U. Gyllensten. 2000. MtDNA substitution rate and segregation of heteroplasmy in coding and noncoding regions. Human Genetics 107, no. 1:45–50.

Criswell, D. 2009. Neandertal DNA and modern humans. Creation Research Society Quarterly 45, no. 4:246–254.

Cutter, A. D. 2008. Divergence times in Caenorhabditis and Drosophila inferred from direct estimates of the neutral mutation rate. Molecular Biology and Evolution 25, no. 4:778–786.

Dawkins, R. 2009. The greatest show on earth. New York, New York: Free Press.

Denver, D. R., K. Morris, M. Lynch, L. L. Vassilieva, and W. K. Thomas. 2000. High direct estimate of the mutation rate in the mitochondrial genome of Caenorhabditis elegans. Science 289, no. 5488:2342–2344.

Drosophila 12 Genomes Consortium. 2007. Evolution of genes and genomes on the Drosophila phylogeny. Nature 450, no. 7167:203–218.

ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature 489, no. 7414:57–74.

Futuyma, D. J. 2009. Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.

Gibbons, A. 1998. Calibrating the mitochondrial clock. Science 279, no. 5347:28–29.

Haag, C. R., S. J. McTaggart, A. Didier, T. J. Little, and D. Charlesworth. 2009. Nucleotide polymorphism and within-gene recombination in Daphnia magna and D. pulex, two cyclical parthenogens. Genetics 182, no. 1:313–323.

Haag-Liautard, C., N. Coffey, D. Houle, M. Lynch, B. Charlesworth, and P. D. Keightley. 2008. Direct estimation of the mitochondrial DNA mutation rate in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Biology 6, no. 8:1706–1714.

Heyer, E., E. Zietkiewicz, A. Rochowski, V. Yotova, J. Puymirat, and D. Labuda. 2001. Phylogenetic and familial estimates of mitochondrial substitution rates: Study of control region mutations in deep-rooting pedigrees. American Journal of Human Genetics 69, no. 5:1113–1126.

Hillenmeyer, M. E., E. Fung, J. Wildenhain, S. E. Pierce, S. Hoon, W. Lee, M. Proctor et al. 2008. The chemical genomic portrait of yeast: Uncovering a phenotype for all genes. Science 320, no. 5874:362–365.

Howell, N., I. Kubacka, and D. A. Mackey. 1996. How rapidly does the human mitochondrial genome evolve? American Journal of Human Genetics 59, no. 3:501–509.

Howell, N., C. B. Smejkal, D. A. Mackey, P. F. Chinnery, D. M. Turnbull, and C. Herrnstadt. 2003. The pedigree rate of sequence divergence is the human mitochondrial genome: There is a difference between phylogenetic and pedigree rates. American Journal of Human Genetics 72, no. 3:659–670.

Janzin, E., H. Soodyall, P. Jalonen, E. Lindholm, M. Stoneking, and U. Gyllensten. 1998. Mitochondrial mutation rate revisited: Hot spots and polymorphism. Nature Genetics 18:109–110.

Jeffery, C. J. 2003. Moonlighting proteins: Old proteins learning new tricks. Trends in Genetics 19, no. 8:415–417.

Kamath, R. S., A. G. Fraser, Y. Dong, G. Poulin, R. Durbin, M. Gotta, A. Kanapin, et al. 2003. Systematic functional analysis of the Caenorhabditis elegans genome using RNAi. Nature 421, no. 6920:231–237.

Kim, H. L. and S. C. Schuster. 2013. Poor man’s 1000 genome project: Recent human population expansion confounds the detection of disease alleles in 7,098 complete mitochondrial genomes. Frontiers in Genetics 4:1–13.

Kim, J. and C. V. Dang. 2005. Multifaceted roles of glycolytic enzymes. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 30, no. 3:42–50.

Larkin, M. A., G. Blackshields, N. P. Brown, R. Chenna, P. A. McGettigan, H. McWilliam, F. Valentin, et al. 2007. Clustal W and clustal X version 2.0. Bioinformatics 23, no. 21:2947–2948.

Lisle, J. 2010. Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem. Answers Research Journal 3:191–207. Retrieved from Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—Distant Starlight | Answers Research Journal.

Lodish, H., A. Berk, S. L. Zipursky, P. Matsudaira, D. Baltimore, and J. Darnell. 2000. Molecular cell biology. New York, New York: W. H. Freedman and Company.

Lynch, V. J., G. May, and G. P. Wagner. 2011. Regulatory evolution through divergence of a phosphoswitch in the transcription factor CEBPB. Nature 480, no. 7377:383–386.

Madrigal, L., L. Castri, M. Melendez-Obando, R. Villegas-Palma, R. Barrantes, H. Raventos, R. Pereira, D. Luiselli, D. Pettener, and G. Barbujani. 2012. High mitochondrial mutation rates estimated from deep-rooting Costa Rican pedigrees. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 148, no. 3:327–333.

McGee, D. 2012. Creation Date of Adam from the Perspective of Young-Earth Creationism. Answers Research Journal 5:217–230. Retrieved from Creation Date of Adam from YEC Perspective | Answers Research Journal.

McLaughlin Jr., R. N., F. J. Poelwijk, A. Raman, W. S. Gosal, and R. Ranganathan. 2012. The spatial architecture of protein function and adaptation. Nature 491, no. 7422:138–142.

Mumm, S., M. P. Whyte, R. V. Thakker, K. H. Buetow, and D. Schlessinger. 1997. mtDNA analysis shows common ancestry in two kindreds with X-linked recessive hypoparathyroidism and reveals a heteroplasmic silent mutation. American Journal of Human Genetics 60, no. 1:153–159.

Moore, G. 2004. Rapid post-flood speciation: A critique of the young-earth model. Retrieved from http://www.reasons.org/articles/rapid-post-flood-speciation-a-critique-of-the-young-earth-model on November 28, 2012.

Morrison, D. A. 2006. Multiple sequence alignment for phylogenetic purposes. Australian Systematic Botany 19:479–539.

Obbard, D.J., J. Maclennan, K.-W. Kim, A. Rambaut, P.M. O’Grady, and F.M. Jiggins. 2012. Estimating divergence dates and substitution rates in the Drosophila phylogeny. Molecular Biology and Evolution 29, no. 11:3459–3473. Retrieved from http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/08/10/molbev.mss150.full.pdf+html. on August 29, 2012.

Parker, G. 1980. Creation, mutation, and variation. Acts & Facts. 9, no. 11.

Parsons, T. J. and M. M. Holland. 1998. Mitochondrial mutation rate revisited: Hot spots and polymorphism. Nature Genetics 18:109–110.

Parsons T. J., D. S. Muniec, K. Sullivan, N. Woodyatt, R. Alliston-Greiner, M. R. Wilson, D. L. Berry et al. 1997. A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nature Genetics 15, no. 4:363–368.

Pendragon, B. and N. Winkler. 2011. The family of cats—delineation of the feline basic type. Journal of Creation 25, no. 2:118–124.

Ramani, A. K., T. Chuluunbaatar, A. J. Verster, H. Na, V. Vu, N. Pelte, N. Wannissorn, A. Jiao and A. G. Fraser. 2012. The majority of animal genes are required for wild-type fitness. Cell 148, no. 4:792–802.

Santos, C., R. Montiel, A. Arruda, L. Alvarez, M.P. Aluja, and M. Lima. 2008. Mutation patterns of mtDNA: Empirical inferences for the coding region. BMC Evolutionary Biology 8:167.

Santos, C., R. Montiel, B. Sierra, C. Bettencourt, E. Fernandez, L. Alvarez, M. Lima, A. Abade, and M. P. Aluja. 2005. Understanding differences between phylogenetic and pedigree-derived mtDNA mutation rate: A model using families from the Azores Islands (Portugal). Molecular Biology and Evolution 22, no. 6:1490–1505.

Sato, M. and K. Sato. 2011. Degradation of paternal mitochondria by fertilization-triggered autophagy in C. elegans embryos. Science 334, no. 6059:1141–1144.

Sigurðardóttir, S., A. Helgason, J. R. Gulcher, K. Stefansson, and P. Donnelly. 2000. The mutation rate in the human mtDNA control region. American Journal of Human Genetics 66, no. 5:1599–1609.

Soares, P., L. Ermini, N. Thomson, M. Mormina, T. Rito, A. Röhl, A. Salas, S. Oppenheimer, V. Macaulay, and M. B. Richards. 2009. Correcting for purifying selection: An improved human mitochondrial molecular clock. American Journal of Human Genetics 84, no. 6:740–759.

Soodyall, H., T. Jenkins, A. Mukherjee, E. du Toit, D. F. Roberts, and M. Stoneking. 1997. The founding mitochondrial DNA lineages of Tristan da Cunha islanders. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 104, no. 2:157–166.

The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. 2005. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature. 437:69–87.

Theobald, D. 2012. 29+ evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. Retrieved from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ on September 7, 2012.

Thompson, J. D., D. G. Higgins, and T. J. Gibson. 1994. CLUSTAL W: Improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Research 22, no. 22:4673–4680.

Tomkins, J. P. 2011. Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86–89%. Answers Research Journal 4:233–241. Retrieved from Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried Against Human Genome | Answers Research Journal.

Tomkins, J. P. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal 6:63–69. Retrieved from Comprehensive Analysis of Chimp & Human Chromosomes | Answers Research Journal.

Tomkins, J. and Bergman, J. 2012. Genomic monkey business—estimates of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated using omitted data. Journal of Creation 26, no. 1:94–100.

Vardiman, L., A. A. Snelling and E. F. Chaffin, eds. 2005. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Research Initiative. Vol. 2. El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society.

Winzeler, E. A., D. D. Shoemaker, A. Astromoff, H. Liang, K. Anderson, B. Andrew, R. Bangman et al. 1999. Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae genome by gene deletion and parallel analysis. Science 285, no. 5429:901–906.

Wood T. C. 2002. The AGEing process: Rapid post-Flood, intrabaraminic diversification caused by Altruistic Genetic Elements (AGEs). Origins (GRI) 54:5–34.

Wood, T. C. 2003a. Perspectives on AGEing, a young-earth creation diversification model. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. L. Ivey, pp. 479–489. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Research Society.

Wood, T. C. 2003b. Mediated design. Impact #363.

Wood, T. C. 2006a. The chimpanzee genome and the problem of biological similarity. Occasional Papers of the BSG 7:1–18.

Wood, T. C. 2006b. The current status of baraminology. Creation Research Society Quarterly 43, no. 3:149–158.

Wood, T. C. 2012. Ancient mtDNA implies a nonconstant molecular clock in the human holobaramin. Journal of Creation Theology and Science Series B: Life Sciences 2:18–26.

Wood, T. C. and D. P. Cavanaugh. 2001. A baraminological analysis of subtribe Flaveriinae (Asteraceae) and the origin of biological complexity. Origins 52:7–27.

Xu, S., S. Schaack, A. Seyfert, E. Choi, M. Lynch, and M. E. Cristescu. 2012. High mutation rates in the mitochondrial genomes of Daphnia pulex. Molecular Biology and Evolution 29, no. 2:763–769.

147

I am not the one dodging

You ignred this, I wonder why?

our views are everything i hate about Biblical Christianity…

To make myself very clear.

It is not the Bible I reject.

I reject the cruel, ungodly doctrines that people like you claim to find in it…

Richard

148

What is wrong has already been stated by people here who know what they’re talking about. I don’t grasp it anywhere near as well as they do, but even I can see that what Wise presents as the evolutionary view just isn’t, it’s totally contrived.

I think the problem is that any solid references would be beyond what you or I would understand (T Aquaticus and others lose me frequently in posts about biology), and as working scientists they probably don’t bother with popular presentations of the matter for the public. I find myself frequently wishing that biology had someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson who can make the science understandable to us peons – maybe one of our people here knows of someone?

No, mostly they’re communicating as is normal between people who know a field. I’m actually rather impressed at how well they present stuff in ways that people not so “high up” in the field(s) can follow, but most of the time it still takes a university science education to follow them. I’m glad I indulged my penchant for trying to take classes in everything that looked interesting and so ended up with almost a physics degree, almost a geology degree, and almost an earth sciences degree plus enough for a major in botany, because it armed me with enough to follow most science material – I’d be lost here if I had to rely on just my ancient language and ANE studies!

One last thing: when you have reached an advanced level in some subject, you absorb so much information that you take a lot of it for granted and would have to work to find sources for a lot of it – not so much information overload as information abundance.

Anyway, guys: can someone do a more detailed analysis of why Wise’s “evolution model” is screwed up? preferably on a high school level for us peons?

1 Like
149

You pretty much said you were – “I am not interested” in a critical point, so you skip to something else.

I skipped it because I didn’t feel like going into a long exposition of the Greek word at issue.

Sorry, but it’s the text and what it says that you reject. Scripture tells us that the world of man is corrupt, that humans are corrupt. Since the statements are plain, that makes them godly doctrine, not ungodly.

150

@St.Roymond

No.

It is your view and understanding that is at fault.

If the net result is ungodly then you are reading it wrong.

Original Sin is ungodly. It claims man is more powerful than God.

You are claiming the definitive version of Scripture. If that is not arrogant I do not know what is.

Richard

151

How about you just answer the questions I posted.

…though from your reaction I guess the answers are no… that it is not what seems to be the case.

You do science like you do religion throwing a lot of quotes (whether it has anything to do with the discussion or not) at people like that is going to shut them up. Where did you copy them from?

Oh… I found it. This is the list of footnotes on a site posted by [Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson] (Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson | Answers in Genesis) from answers in Genesis, entitled “Recent, Functionally Diverse Origin for Mitochondrial Genes from ~2700 Metazoan Species” The abstract explains that this in answer to the lack of an explanation in YEC for molecular diversity. It is not about providing a single shred of evidence for YEC but simply justifying a bunch of empty rhetoric.

There are interesting parts of this paper…

The evolutionary model is so robust that it leads to predictions of molecular function. Under the assumptions of this model, species will grow more and more distant molecularly over time, unless some natural force constrains random variation. For proteins that have evolved differences rapidly, evolutionists predict that these proteins have fewer functional constraints than proteins which have evolved differences slowly (Futuyma 2009).

The evolutionary model also predicts that sequences which are highly conserved among distantly related species are functional. Natural selection is the only available mechanism under this model by which sequence identity can be maintained over time, and if two species that diverged early in evolution still share some level of sequence identity, natural selection must have preserved this commonality. Since natural selection requires a function upon which to act, shared sequences between these species must be functional.

In contrast, the creation model offers a very different explanation for molecular unity and diversity. Creationists explain shared sequences among diverse species either by God’s initial creation act or by convergence since the Creation week. In either scenario, the creation model—like the evolutionary model—predicts that highly similar sequences in different species exist for a functional purpose.

Unlike the evolutionary model, the creation model lacks a clear, predictive explanation for molecular diversity. Because Scripture is silent on the identity of the sequences that God created during the Creation week, a number of competing explanations still exist. For example, molecular differences between two individuals might be due to the initial creation of sequence differences between them, or to the accumulation of random changes since the Creation week. These contrasting explanations make opposite predictions about the function of the sequences in question. Data to date have not resolved the precise relationship between these explanations, and this ongoing ambiguity makes the creation model weak on the question of molecular diversity.

This conundrum intensifies when considering hierarchical sequence patterns. For example, different species of Drosophila are more genetically distant from one another (Drosophila 12 Genomes Consortium 2007) than humans and chimpanzees are from one another (again, debates over the precise sequence identity notwithstanding [Bergman and Tomkins 2012; The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium 2005; Tomkins 2011; Tomkins 2013; Tomkins and Bergman 2012; Wood 2006a]). Yet, the Drosophila species likely share a common ancestor since they belong to the same biological family (Wood 2006a), whereas humans and chimpanzees clearly have separate ancestries (Genesis 1:26–28). Why would differences between the related species exceed differences between unrelated ones?

This puzzle becomes even more challenging when considering genes that are thought to perform the same vital function in very diverse creatures (i.e., “house-keeping” genes). For instance, the sequence for the house-keeping gene cytochrome c is more similar between humans and primates than between humans and insects. From a creation perspective, it is tempting to immediately invoke function as an explanation for these differences since humans share more anatomy and physiology with chimpanzees than with fruit flies. But what does cytochrome c have to do specifically with the shared features (e.g., with the presence of four limbs)? Furthermore, since many positions in protein sequences appear to be functionally redundant (McLaughlin et al. 2012), why do “house-keeping” genes have any sequence differences at all? This dilemma is so penetrating that evolutionists have exploited it in their criticism of the creation model (Theobald 2012).

So this scientist has been paid by AIG to find a way of justifying YEC in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

No. Nor am I someone who hijacks threads which have absolutely NOTHING to do with all this nonsense you are posting.

2 Likes
152

All I’m doing is claiming that words mean what they say.

LOL

But what is godly is defined by scripture, by definition. Anything else is syncretism.

1 Like
153

He writes well, a lot better than most of the AiG and Creation-com stuff I’ve read. There’s also an honest streak in there that is refreshing.

154

Incorrect.

Creationist: altered Bible = worldview.

Evolutionist: someone who accepts the findings of science in biology.

Naturalist: science = worldview

evolutionary theist: term made up by adam which he can define however he likes, though it probably doesn’t refer to any actual people.

theistic evolutionist: someone who believes that God created the universe and life through natural processes, such as evolution

evolutionary creationist: term made up by biologos to replace theistic evolutionist to emphasize the belief that God created the world while accepting the scientific finding of science in biology.

The latter two of these can include a large number of worldviews and religions.

155

I searched for that term and the browser asked if I meant “evolutionary theorist”.

Given it didn’t show up in the top thirty results, I agree with your definition.

156

IOW you have the correct meaning (and no one can argue withthat))

Only if you read it correctly.

Your claim fails when the understanding is false.

Richard

157

Your entire argument boils down to you claiming the authority to decide when words are fuzzy in meaning and when they aren’t. You want to be able to dismiss the statement “none is righteous” by claiming the words don’t actually mean that none is righteous, while keeping what other statements mean. You want to be able to dismiss large swaths of scripture because they are “Jewish” (clue: it’s all Jewish). And when anyone disagrees with you, you just assert that their view is false. What that boils down to is that you set yourself up as a judge over scripture rather than a disciple under it.

158

It is nothing to do with anything Fuzzy.

If the net result is a false and disgusting doctrine then you must be reading it wrong. THe alternative is that Scripture might have got it wrong, anf that opens a nasty can of worms, for you at least.

Richard

159

I read something recently which seriously calls into question the possibility of compatibility between Hinduism and Christianity – and indeed the whole idea I had that Hinduism was just a label we put on religion in India. This is the laws they have in India right now against conversion. It suggest that the Hindus themselves don’t see compatibility. I am not saying this settles the issue because I still have questions about some of the words used: “conversion,” “allurement,” and “inducement.” Then there is the possibility that this can largely about the lack of compatibility (even hostility) in the minds of Moslems and Christians, which can cause concern that conversion has a large political and security component.

1 Like