Twisting Divine revelation to in order to make YHWH a monster

Just like the prophet from hell Mohammed/Mohammad/Muhammad.

Another odd and hostile comment from someone enamored with Calvin's capricious and malevolent deity (must have struck a nerve!), this time from Go Share Your Faith (the author did not leave a link; I assume that is his/her site. If not, let me know, and I'll fix it).

He/she writes:

It would be nice if your bias was a little less severe so that you could quote scripture accurately:

"I longed to gather you like a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing."But it's actually:

"I longed to gather your children like a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing."what's the difference?

One is a false proof text taken out of context.

The other is Jesus rebuking the pharisees for their behavior and pronouncing woe's upon them...no mention of Him weeping over their ability to "resist his attempts at saving them"

You accuse others of bias but you have a streak of bias a mile wide and it's showing.

The woes precede the lament.

Here is Matthew 23:37 according to the English Standard Version:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!"

Jesus said, "I longed to gather your children . . . but you were not willing."

You make Christ a liar.

If you want to make a distinction, what is the difference between "Jerusalem" and "your children" in this verse?

Jesus said, "the city" murdered prophets. How? Parking fines?

Cities don't kill prophets, people do.

(Would its "children" be suburbs?)

Or are you claiming that the Pharisees and their fellow hypocrites are "Jerusalem"? If so, when Jesus warns the "Daughters of Jerusalem" to weep for themselves and their children, is He actually calling them, "Daughters of the Pharisees"?

If you limit Jesus' comments to the hypocritical religious authorities He was condemning, who are their "children"? The people of Jerusalem, or just their converts -- "twice the children of hell"?

Even under that misinterpretation, Christ longed to gather the Pharisees' proselytes, but the Pharisees were not willing. (The Pharisees were able to disbelieve for their converts?)

Does not "Jerusalem" here represent the people of Israel in general?

The point of my citing that verse is that YHWH longed to save unbelievers, but they refused.

And that's why you don't like the passage.

You and your buddy John Calvin are like the older brother in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. You think that you alone deserve Heaven, and you're mad that anyone else is going to be there.

God's mercy should not be a source of anguish for you. His love extends to all people. Christ died for all. He is the atoning sacrifice not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world.

In trying to prove that God creates people for hell, you twist an expression of God's grace into an expectation of perdition.

You make Gospel into Law and His words meaningless.

Just like Rome. Just like much of Evangelicalism.

Just like . . . the Pharisees.

In your zeal to make God a monster, you jump to conclusions regarding the verse not necessarily supported by the rest of Scripture.

You are correct that here in Matthew, the preceding verses have Jesus pronouncing condemnation against the religious authorities opposing Him (the condemnation brought on them by their own refusal of His "gathering," not "divine" whim!).

But what do you do with Luke 13?

Here the same lamentation follows a number of different topics, including Christ's teaching and preaching.

Rather than a series of woes, the last part preceding the lament is a comment intended for Herod. Notice its conclusion:

At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, "Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you."

And he said to them, "Go and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.'

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord'" (Luke 13:31-35)!

An observation about Israel's tradition of murdering God's messengers is followed by an expression of the sorrow that that God feels for (even) His rebellious people.

Jesus takes Herod's bloodlust (and the Pharisees' warning) as an opportunity to foreshadow His own Passion and the events of Holy Week, which leads into His lament for those whom He longed to save and for whom He was about to die.

But that's not good enough for you. You have to make this about Christ creating on a whim people for destruction.

In your effort to defend your heresy, you make the Son of God a son of hell.

So, I have a question for you: According to your theology, how do you know whether or not you're going to Heaven?

For if Calvin's god arbitrarily chose before the foundation of the world some for Life and some for Hell, how can you know of which group you are a part? You know that some will be sent to destruction who worked in Christ's name, to which defense He will reply, "I never knew you."

You can't be good enough, you can't try hard enough, you can't resist sin enough or do enough good works to know that you've been picked, because you still sin.

The Scriptural answer to my question is this:

Christ has died for the sins of the whole world, so I know that He died for mine, too.

Thanks be to God!

B. Hussein Obama only cares about school kids when they advance his agenda

Pomona high school students make a video articulating how the failing economy hurts them (just about everyone is affected), and Obama rushes out to the West Coast like a lawyer chasing an ambulance.

Why not waste thousands of taxpayer dollars even though we're facing "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression"? It's a chance for a photo-op and an opportunity to bash the former president! You might even find a female, Hispanic-with-hyphenated-surname superintendent for your administration.

But little kids from Virginia coming to the White House for a visit, a trip they've planned for a year?

No, he can't.

It's good to see that the Chief Executive has his priorities straight: Terrorists can get into the U.S., but five- and six-year-old schoolchildren can't get into the White House:

Parents say they tried to make it on time, but their chartered buses hit heavy traffic that slowed them down substantially. They thought they were supposed to show up by 10:15, but they say they arrived at 10:25 instead, and couldn’t get in.

"The person who headed this White House trip up came out and said, 'I’m sorry, the White House tour's off.' There were a lot of crying kids," parent Barbara Stine said.

. . . "Here we have President Obama and his administration saying, 'Here we are for the common, middle class people,' and here he is not letting 150 5- and 6-year-olds into the White House because he’s throwing a lunch for a bunch of grown millionaires," Stine said.

FDR to extend hand in friendship to world's Nazis in speech from Hitler's bunker this June 4th, 1943

The following weekend, he'll be in Japan attempting to repair relations with the island nation through a talk delivered from Emperor Hirohito's palace.

This comes on the heels of the President's comments made outside Auschwitz that Nazism deserves "respect." Mr. Roosevelt also suggested that the nations of Europe and Asia should advance the Peace Process by making sacrifices, including "Land for Peace."

"We must dialogue with the moderate elements of the Waffen-SS, kamikaze, and banzai units," he declared.

The White House has announced details of Mr. Roosevelt's charm offensive. He plans to bow deeply to both Hitler and Hirohito as a sign of mutual respect, apologize for Pearl Harbor, Midway, and the Holocaust, and reassure both empires of his continued commitment to bankrupting and disarming America in the name of "Main Street."

As a sign of the United States' good will, the President will release members of the German and Japanese militaries captured in combat into American society at taxpayers' expense.

Additionally, American successes in Doolittle's Raid, the Battle of the Coral Sea, and Midway have now been redesignated "Embarrassing Failures of Diplomacy;" the methods used to decipher Japanese communications leading to the American "victory" at Midway have been published in the New York Times, and the Cryptanalytic Unit responsible for the intelligence that gave America the advantage there has been accused of lying by one of Mr Roosevelt's closest allies in Congress.

Plans for actions at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, and Normandy have all been postponed and await Nazi and Japanese approval.

President Roosevelt also unveiled Executive Order #12071941 establishing "Overseas Contingency Operations Relocation Camps." Americans opposing the President's policies will be designated "extremists" and evaluated for the confiscation of their First through Tenth Amendment Rights.

The Order also gives the president the authority to monitor and suspend all radio, telegraph, and pen-and-paper communications.

Allied leaders could not be reached for comment.

No genetic basis to homosexuality

Whether homosexuality is genetic or not -- and it appears now that there is no evidence of a genetic component -- it is an expression of our sinful human nature.

The Sixth Commandment (in the Roman Catholic and Lutheran traditions), "You shall not commit adultery" is speaking not only of the physical union of one person with another who is not their spouse. This fact Christ makes clear in His Sermon on the Mount: Even looking at a woman lustfully, a man is guilty of breaking the commandment in his heart. The Apostles wrote also by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the body is His temple; therefore, we should honor God with our bodies. Numerous passages relate God's expectations for holiness, purity, and decency.

The Sixth Commandment not only restricts behavior, it shows us that we are to use our bodies as gifts from God for His glory and according to His will, and that is within one marriage between one man and one woman.

For those who want to argue that "they can't help it," yes, who can help sin? All of us break God's commandments, we all violate His will in thought, word, and deed every day. None of us is innocent. None of us has the right to condemn others for their sin. However a desire contrary to God's design enters into the human heart -- whether through an accident of biology, indoctrination, victimization, or the desire to do evil -- we must tell the truth.

All honest people have a responsibility to tell speak God's Word, to uphold His commands, to obey them, and to encourage others to do the same. Christians especially.

The APA is an interesting case. Homosexuality and other perversions of God's design used to be classified as mental illnesses; with enough political pressure, it removed the designation. What will they say now that there is no evidence of a genetic basis?

A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no "gay" gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.

A. Dean Byrd, the past president of NARTH, confirmed that the statement from the American Psychological Association came in a brochure that updates what the APA has advocated for years.

Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

However, in the update: a brochure now called, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," the APA's position changed.

The new statement says:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. ..."

"Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to 'prove' that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed," Byrd wrote. "The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality."

Byrd said the APA's documents both new and old "have strong activist overtones," but the newer document "is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care."

"On the question of whether or not therapy can change sexual orientation, the former document offered a resounding 'no,'" Byrd wrote. "However, the current document is much more nuanced and contains the following statement: 'To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective.'"

A spokesman for NARTH said the change in statements, although not new, is considered significant for the organization. The APA declined to return a WND call requesting comment.

Byrd questioned whether the APA now plans to study the effectiveness of a variety of therapies for homosexuality.

"Many are entirely without validation, yet practitioners regularly receive Continuing Education credits for teaching these same therapies through APA-approved courses. Perhaps it is time for APA to hold all therapies and all therapists to the standard which they advocate for reorientation therapy," he said.

But he wrote that the changes are substantial, with even a change in the APA's recommendations for additional information.

"Most intriguing are the recommended resources for further reading. The former brochure referred readers to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; to Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and to Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), all activist groups," Byrd wrote. "The current brochure refers readers to the American Psychological Association, Mental Health America, and the American Academy of Pediatrics."

NARTH documents other evidence of a lack of a "gay" gene, too.

For example, Douglas Abbott, a University of Nebraska professor, concluded, "If homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms, their children would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction. But they aren't more likely, so therefore it can't be genetic."

NARTH also rebuts some of the advocacy positions taken by homosexual proponents.

"The term 'homophobia' is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds," NARTH explains. "Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia – or irrational fear – of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled 'homophobia.'"

WND has reported on those who have left the homosexual lifestyle, and the opposition they face, including when a homosexual advocate attributed the crime of rape to the "sickness" of the ex-"gay" movement.

Among other recent developments in the ongoing argument over the 'innateness" on homosexuality:

* A New England organization reports members of a transgender lobby promised to shadow grandmothers and others who will be collecting petition signatures on a traditional marriage amendment.

* Actions by members of the homosexual community prompted the American Psychiatric Association to cancel what was to be a discussion of the lifestyle.

* And prominent leaders of the homosexual community have stated that only they benefit from hate crimes laws, laws that enhance a penalty for crimes already covered by other statutes based on the thoughts that accompany the criminal act.

Regina Griggs, the executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, said her organization and staff members repeatedly have been attacked simply because of their message: that there are such individuals as former homosexuals.

Some attacks have been physical, such as a 2007 incident at the Arlington County Fair. Police told WND, there was a confrontation between an individual who got upset over the PFOX message about leaving homosexuality and a volunteer at the fair booth.

"One officer told me today he was on patrol at the fair when a woman approached him and told him a man had knocked over pamphlets at the PFOX booth and assaulted another man there. The officer then spoke to the alleged victim. He did not want to press charges and therefore no written report was filed," said a statement issued by John Lisle, media relations officer for the Arlington County police department.

"Based on the description the officer was given, he located the suspect at the fair. Another officer escorted that gentleman off the fair grounds," his statement continued.

The result? Pro-homosexual activists vigorously condemned Griggs for "making up" the story when she alerted supporters about the situation.

"Regina Griggs has lost all credibility and must resign in shame for her dishonest behavior," wrote Wayne Besen, executive director of the homosexual advocacy group Truth Wins Out. "What PFOX did was warped, twisted and an insult (sic) real hate crime victims."

Those who condemn homosexual behavior also face electronic badgering. When Sally Kern, an Oklahoma lawmaker, vocally rejected the homosexual lifestyle, she was inundated with tens of thousands of e-mails in a coordinated attack on her beliefs. Some of the e-mails threatened her.

Brangelina and Muslim terrorists indistinguishable?

Disregarding the Left's general alliance with Islam in dismantling stone-by-stone the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western Civilization, the attempt below to transfer the Islamic predilection for child slavery to wealthy Western celebrities doing who-knows-what is ill-conceived.

It seems defensive.

Another reply to Mr. Appel here:

Adoption is not human-trafficking.

Even though I believe a lot of what “Hollywood celebrities” espouse is harmful, I don’t believe equating well-intentioned entertainers with wealthy Arab sheikhs is at all justified.

What’s the worst that can happen in either scenario? With Brangelina, you might develop a sense of entitlement (or retinal damage from the paparazzi). With a sheikh? How about being a nine-year-old “wife,” per Muhammad’s example with little nine-year-old Aisha?

That little [actress] was not offered as chattel because of Western tourists’ indifference. That was something her father chose.

(And even though it’s a bit of a tu quoque argument, and a false one at that) How many “Westerners” sell their children for any reason? At any price?

Hijabs on the move

Can you imagine individuals walking American streets, going about their business, proudly displaying swastikas or the Rising Sun of Imperial Japan?

In 1942?

Neither can I.

Something odd occurred this past Sunday. During an Arabian horse show's climactic demonstration, a group of brightly-clad Muslimas wheeled their strollers and hijabs from one side of the stadium to the other directly in the view of the entire audience, paused once they reached the other side of the stadium, and then left.

They were making a statement.

Islamophobic? Not in light of the Muslim Brotherhood's declared intention to subvert the American Constitution from within and subjugate the West to Allah.

Approaching eight years after 9/11, many Americans are ignorant still regarding Islam. How many Muslims are?

A "Christian" who married what I thought was a decent, Muslim-in-Name-Only Muslim once defended the hijab from my charge that it was a symbol of slavery and death by asserting stupidly that "Mary covered her head."

Lots of people cover their head. Only one covering symbolizes fourteen centuries of global slavery, rape, and slaughter.

From here:

Mr. Appel,

I disagree . . . kindly, openly, and nicely.

I quoted the words of Muhammad and his allah, yet you call them “cheap shots,” “anger,” and “prejudice.” What does that say about what you believe about those passages?

I was not attacking the author; the fact that my comment was allowed here speaks to her respect for freedom of speech and her generosity. I am attempting to alert all people of good will to the Source and Sustenance of fourteen centuries of suffering and death for billions of non-Muslims and Muslim women, children, and apostates.

With regard to the hijab, I realize that some Muslim women choose to wear it for their own reasons. That does not change the fact that since Muhammad practiced covering his property (wives, concubines, slaves), and Allah calls him “a beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please” him, the hijab/niqab/abaya are mandatory for the devout:

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex . . .” (Qur’an 24:31).

“Aisha used to say: ‘When (the Verse): “They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms,” was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces’” (Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 282).

“Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘Allah’s Apostle used to offer the Fajr prayer and some believing women covered with their veiling sheets used to attend the Fajr prayer with him and then they would return to their homes unrecognized’” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 368).

[Explanatory note: Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin in tafseer of this hadith explains: "This hadith makes it clear that the Islamic dress is concealing of the entire body as explained in this hadith. Only with the complete cover including the face and hands can a woman not be recognized. This was the understanding and practice of the Sahaba and they were the best of group, the noblest in the sight of Allah . . . with the most complete Imaan and noblest of characters. so if the practice of the women of the sahaba was to wear the complete veil then how can we deviate from their path?"]

“Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. ‘Umar used to say to the Prophet “Let your wives be veiled,” but Allah’s Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam’a the wife of the Prophet went out at ‘Isha’ time and she was a tall lady. ‘Umar addressed her and said, “I have recognized you, O Sauda.” He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “Al-Hijab” (A complete body cover excluding the eyes)’” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148).

On a related note, I would ask you to produce from any other major religion’s sacred texts open-ended, universal commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the “invitation” to conversion. This is unique to Islam.

On the other hand, Jesus taught and practiced, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and, “Love your enemies.”

Muhammad butchered those who resisted him. Christ died for the sins of all people, including Muslims.

There is no moral equivalence between the two.

Just whose side is he on?

If Allah and his apostle command the subjugation, humiliation, and slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam, what is the difference between Islam and "militant" Islam?

The American "president"

-bows to the tyrant of Saudi Arabia,

-apologizes to Iran (for their taking American citizens hostage?),

-cajoles the radical Venezuelan dictator Chavez,

-and courts the murdering Castro brothers of Cuba,

but according to a report from his administration, it is patriotic Americans who believe in Individual Liberty and limited government -- especially heroes returning from war -- who pose a potential terrorist threat.

The Founding Fathers would be under house arrest, but jihadists are to be released into America itself?

Just in today's news:

Obama will release Uighur Muslim terrorists into the United States and release new photos of Americans being mean to bloodthirsty monsters; but Tony Blair calls for the world to wage war against "militant" Islam.

If an illegal immigrant from Kenya/Indonesia can be president, why can't Tony Blair? Even if his definitions need some refining, at least he wants to put up a fight.

Genocide in Canaan?

Those who seek to defend Islam often engage in the false tu quoque argument, "Well, look at Israel and Canaan."

Their error is two-fold. First, whether or not Israel even existed has nothing to do with what Islam's "sacred" texts state. Second, YHWH's command to displace and slaughter inhabitants of Canaan is in no way morally equivalent to Allah's commands to rape, enslave, and slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam and the demand for jizya and submission.

So, what was the command to Israel? It was not genocide YHWH intended:

"I will send my terror before you and will throw into confusion all the people against whom you shall come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. And I will send hornets before you, which shall drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites from before you. I will not drive them out from before you in one year, lest the land become desolate and the wild beasts multiply against you.

"Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased and possess the land. And I will set your border from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the Euphrates, for I will give the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you.

"You shall make no covenant with them and their gods. They shall not dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you" (Exodus 23:27-33).

Here is another proof that YHWH did not want everyone dead:

"the angel of the LORD . . . said, 'I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your fathers. I said, 'I will never break my covenant with you, and you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall break down their altars.' But you have not obeyed my voice. What is this you have done? So now I say, I will not drive them out before you, but they shall become thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare to you'" (Judges 2:1-3).

What was the purpose? To kill innocent men, women, and children?

No, its purpose was to punish evil -- such as child sacrifice and the type of rampant, violent, sexual perversion for which Sodom and Gomorrah had been destroyed earlier -- and to set apart Israel as holy. This also prepared the way for the Messiah:

"And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the LORD your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you . . . .

"None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of . . . your mother . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife's daughter . . . since she is your sister. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's relative. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of your . . . aunt. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are relatives; it is depravity. And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.

"You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor's wife and so make yourself unclean with her. You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.

"Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people. So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the LORD your God" (Leviticus 18:1-30).

Here's one more:

"When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD. And because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out before you. You shall be blameless before the LORD your God, for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, the LORD your God has not allowed you to do this. "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers--it is to him you shall listen-- " (Deuteronomy 18:9-15).

More to come, including Israel's approach into Canaan from the east across the Jordan, other commands, and Israel's facing the same fate at the hands of the Babylonians.

Steve adds:

Comparing the Canaan texts in Scripture to Islamic Jihad texts is apples vs. oranges.

Historically, God has used one nation to execute judgment on another. The Israelites to Canaan, The Assyrians and Babylonians to Israel, Persia to Babylon, etc.

This is a function of God's holiness. For example, He told Abraham in Genesis 15:16 that the sin of the Amorites had not yet reached a point where God was going to judge them, but it would come later. God cannot be mocked.

Ultimately, I think the jihadists are attempting to employ the same principle. The "infidels" have turned their backs on "god" and must be judged by the jihadist who is representing the "true faith".

Besides the enormous problem that they have a made-up "god" and a deeply flawed "holy text", there is also the problem of the moral chasm between YHWH judging child sacrificers and demon worshippers vs. jihadists forcing people to convert or die.

Here is the Genesis 15 passage relating YHWH's promise to Abraham regarding his descendants: Slavery in Egypt; the Plagues, Passover, and Exodus; and the conquest of Canaan when the sin of the Amorites would reach "full measure."

"As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."

"When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river [d] of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates- the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites" (Genesis 15:12-20).

Deuteronomy 7 sums up the topic well:

"When the LORD your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than yourselves, and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you [Israel] quickly. But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and chop down their Asherim and burn their carved images with fire.

"For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations, and repays to their face those who hate him, by destroying them. He will not be slack with one who hates him. He will repay him to his face. You shall therefore be careful to do the commandment and the statutes and the rules that I command you today.

"And because you listen to these rules and keep and do them, the LORD your God will keep with you the covenant and the steadfast love that he swore to your fathers. He will love you, bless you, and multiply you. He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your wine and your oil, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock, in the land that he swore to your fathers to give you. You shall be blessed above all peoples. There shall not be male or female barren among you or among your livestock. And the LORD will take away from you all sickness, and none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which you knew, will he inflict on you, but he will lay them on all who hate you. And you shall consume all the peoples that the LORD your God will give over to you. Your eye shall not pity them, neither shall you serve their gods, for that would be a snare to you.

"If you say in your heart, 'These nations are greater than I. How can I dispossess them?' you shall not be afraid of them but you shall remember what the LORD your God did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt, the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, the wonders, the mighty hand, and the outstretched arm, by which the LORD your God brought you out. So will the LORD your God do to all the peoples of whom you are afraid. Moreover, the LORD your God will send hornets among them, until those who are left and hide themselves from you are destroyed. You shall not be in dread of them, for the LORD your God is in your midst, a great and awesome God. The LORD your God will clear away these nations before you little by little. You may not make an end of them at once, lest the wild beasts grow too numerous for you. But the LORD your God will give them over to you and throw them into great confusion, until they are destroyed. And he will give their kings into your hand, and you shall make their name perish from under heaven. No one shall be able to stand against you until you have destroyed them. The carved images of their gods you shall burn with fire. You shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them or take it for yourselves, lest you be ensnared by it, for it is an abomination to the LORD your God. And you shall not bring an abominable thing into your house and become devoted to destruction like it. You shall utterly detest and abhor it, for it is devoted to destruction." (Deuteronomy 7).

President Obama's foreign policy is so effective, now even run-of-the-mill jihadist pirates attack Americans

"Precondition-free Dialogue" and "Overseas Contingency Operations" really scare our enemies, don't they?

-North Korea fires its missiles.

-Iran gets its centrifuges.

-And the Barbary Pirates, crushed by the Marines two hundred years ago, see it's safe again to attack Americans.

Hussein's Secretary of Submission cuts the F-22, perhaps the only plane to avoid Russian radar being sold to Iran, and the Airborne Laser program capable of stopping North Korean and Iranian missiles.

King George III, the Barbary Pirates, Emperor Hirohito, and Adolph Hitler must be kicking themselves. If only they had waited a little longer!

What a disgrace.

Jihad's gremlins working their magic at Blues News

Under the heading "Safety Dance," Stephen Heaslip included a link to a link to an article about hundreds of "youths" in the U.K. either actually or in danger of becoming "radicalized." (For those of you who'd prefer that in English, it means, "made into good Muslims.")

I posted a few quotations from Qur'an and Sunnah, illustrating just what it is that "radicalizes" so many misunderstanderers of Islam. You can guess the response that drew.

An Islamic scholar there who goes by the name "InBlack" (as in, the preferred color of her abaya?) responded with the name-calling and profanity one typically endures for stating facts.

Disappointingly, my original post was removed, and I was banned from commenting there by Mr. Heaslip.

Though I don't wish to abuse anyone's hospitality -- even someone ignorantly facilitating the surrender of Western Civilization to Allah -- I added a few more comments in reply. Undoubtedly, jihad's gremlins are working as I type to remove them.

So, for posterity, here's the exchange, beginning with what is left of my original comment:

* REMOVED *
This message was deleted on Mar 30, 2009, 08:26.

Later, the perspicacious InBlack fired this razor-sharp volley (rapier wit and insurmountable logic masked to avoid intellectual overload):

I could quote sh[**] like that from the Bible all day long a[**]hole.

A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist, regardless of which bloody brainwashing religion he is from.

Go tell it to some other flock, I doubt people on Blues will put up with your sh[**] for long.

1. Re: Safety Dance Mar 30, 2009, 00:17 Amillennialist

To which I replied:

So, a Christian "fundamentalist" who obeys Christ's command to, "Treat others the way you want to be treated," is morally-equivalent to the Muslim "fundamentalist" who obeys Allah's command to, "Fight against . . . the Jews and Christians until they are brought low and pay the jizya" (Qur'an 9:29)?

That's some persuasive logic and quite a response, InBlack. Where shall we start?

1. False tu quoque argument? Check.

2. Name-calling? Got it.

3. Generous amount of profanity? You bet.

4. Utter lack of anything substantive? Of course.

On the chance that other readers here are not as erudite as you, let me explain:

1. You cannot quote Biblical commands for offensive warfare to make the world Hebrew or Christian, but even if you could, that would have no bearing on whether or not Allah and his apostle require offensive warfare against all who refuse conversion to or subjugation under Islam.

2. Am I supposed to be intimidated? Embarrassed? Name-calling does not an argument make.

3. See point 2.

4. Even if "Christians" slaughter men, women, and children, they cannot do so in obedience to Christ's command, for He taught His people to love even their enemies.

You prefer to remain in ignorance regarding the motivations of those who will enslave and slaughter you and yours in obedience to their god and prophet. Perhaps others here do not.

Rather than attack those who expose the vile ideology motivating fourteen centuries of death and destruction, why not direct your considerable rhetorical skills against that ideology instead?

4. Re: Safety Dance Mar 30, 2009, 07:25 InBlack

Here are a few follow-ups on the chance that Mr. Heaslip (or his readers) might be persuaded, ending with a quick look at his rules for posting:

Banned for quoting Allah and Mohammed?

I agree those were statements full of hate. The only problem is, the hate is not from me, it is from the one who commands, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

Whose side are you on, Blue?

5. Re: Safety Dance Mar 30, 2009, 20:54 Amillennialist

Later . . .

Blue, why are you obfuscating for jihad?

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).

"Allah's Apostle was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause.' The questioner again asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To perform Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). . .'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25).

6. Re: Safety Dance Mar 30, 2009, 20:57 Amillennialist.

And, finally . . .

1. Disagree all you want but attacks of a personal nature will not be tolerated. Treat others as you want to be treated.
2. Do not post links to warez sites or instructions on how to obtain pirated software.
3. Abusing the forums in any manner that could be construed as 'griefing' will not be tolerated.
4. Ethnic slurs and homophobic language will not be tolerated.

1. I did not attack anyone personally. I quoted texts.
2. No warez nor pirating.
3. I posted comments highly-relevant to a link you posted, Blue.
4. What ethnicity is Islam?

So, we can notice "Islamic extremism" (your link's link's words, not mine), but we can't examine its source. Whom does that aid, exactly?

Can you point out where I've erred? Where I've violated your rules?

No, yet you allow InBlack's puerile ad hominem's and profanity to stand.

What does that say about you, Blue?

7. Re: Safety Dance Mar 30, 2009, 21:00 Amillennialist

Taking ecumenism a little too far

Doorman-Priest calls himself a "Lutheran," but he promotes a false gospel by claiming that a person who does not believe in Christ but is sincere and "good enough" will be saved.

In this respect, he aligns himself with Roman Catholic doctrine (and others) and contradicts the Word of God (which he dismisses as meaningless, so I doubt he'll feel any consternation about this).

An interesting little tidbit to add to the "good enough gospel," from here:

Another reason that it would be correct to say the Catholic church teaches salvation by works is that it teaches that non-Christians can be saved by works without faith in Christ (Catechism of the Catholic Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation (Paragraph 847)).

Endorsing Islamic moral inversion

Seeking to solve a software issue, I discovered an interesting comment here:

Thanks a lot for this information, k? I used this to edit a recording of the Quran; so you probably earned yourself some good deeds

In response I posted a few examples of what Allah and his prophet from hell call "good."

The owner of the 'blog removed my comments. Curiously, he has not removed the misrepresentation of Islam. Is that because he has been deceived by the common lie that "Islam means 'peace,'" or does he actually promote it?

In either case, how can one defend (actively or passively) open-ended, universal commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse conversion to Islam?

"Say to the Unbelievers . . . if they persist [in unbelief], the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world)" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).

In the highly-likely event the owner removes my latest comment and desires no further discussion, this will be my last there:

The deleted comments were not 'about' the religion of one of the commenters, they were quotes from that religion's authoritative texts.

You allow his post asserting that you 'earned yourself some good deeds' by aiding his [editing] of Qur'an; isn't it only natural to find out what Qur'an calls 'good deeds'?

And doesn't tacitly endorsing the commenter's assertion by allowing it to stand only harm your non-Muslim readers?

Does one allow an infection to go untreated, especially when that disease maims and kills?

I respect your wanting to control the tone of your 'blog. I hope you will consider aiding Allah's War Against Humanity no longer.

Religious pluralism in Islam? Allah's last word on it was offensive

As in "warfare" and "vile."

Another reply to a post from there.

Erika,

I checked out your link. Thank you.

From your earlier comments I infer that your essay is supposed to serve as a refutation of my statements regarding Islam (or of what you assume are my thoughts pertaining to Muslims).

Quoting a Muslim who contradicts the perfect, eternal, literal word of Allah and the words and deeds of uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, the Perfect Man, Mohammed, is not persuasive.

Heresy is not revelation. Subjective, wishful thinking is not objective truth-telling. Contradicting a god's clear word does not prove anything about that deity; it only demonstrates a lack of intellectual honesty. Worse, you may be citing as an authority someone seeking to deceive and harm you and yours.

How does your author contradict Qur'an and Sunnah, the foundation for all of mainstream, traditional, historical Islam? He states early on, "Quran does not merely 'celebrate' Christmas, but also celebrates 'religious pluralism'."

Islam celebrates a false christ in order to deceive non-Muslims. It uses words like, "tolerance" and "pluralism," but I do not think those words mean what Muslims think they mean.

This is why: In contrast to your misleading author (not that you intended to mislead, but even a cursory examination of Islam's "sacred" texts would show your authority's comments to be inconsistent with those documents), here is some of what Allah and his apostle say about their tolerance of other religions:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [extortion money tied to dhimma]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians initially], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

Clearly Mohammed and his allah tolerate people of other faiths, as long as they have something useful to offer like money, labor, or their bodies. Ask Aisha, the prophet from hell's favorite "wife." He "married" her when she was six and began raping her when she was nine (and he in his fifties). And Allah calls him a "beautiful pattern of conduct"!

Following is more of the language that informs and motivates the ummah in their attitudes and actions toward non-Muslims. I wonder: What must be the cumulative effect of such "revelations" on Muslim thought and practice? And this doesn't even touch on the brutality and tyranny aimed at women and children:

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world)" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).

"O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him" (Qur'an 9:123).

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'" (Qur'an 8:12).

When non-Muslims are listening, jihad's apologists like to claim the passages above are taken "out-of-context" (curiously, they never demonstrate that). Mohammed's early "revelations" did include self-defense (no problem there) and retaliation, but as 9:5 and other passages show, Allah's last word on warfare against non-Muslims was offensive (in both senses of the word).

Here is a little more showing the false prophet's intention to conquer the non-Muslim world, carried out after his death by the most devout of his followers. Notice that what makes these non-Muslim nations "enemies of Allah" is the fact that they are non-Muslim:

"Narrated Jubair bin Haiya: ''Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans . . . 'Umar said to him [Al-Hurmuzan] "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade."

'Al-Hurmuzan said, "Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs . . . if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless.

'The head stands for Khosrau [Persia], and one wing stands for Caesar [Byzantium, which fell finally in 1453] and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau."

'So, 'Umar sent us (to Khosrau) . . . When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, "Let one of you talk to me!" Al-Mughira replied, "Ask whatever you wish." The other asked, "Who are you?" Al-Mughira replied, "We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us.

'Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master."

'(Al-Mughira, then blamed An-Numan for delaying the attack and) An-Nu' man said to Al-Mughira, "If you had participated in a similar battle, in the company of Allah's Apostle he would not have blamed you for waiting, nor would he have disgraced you. But I accompanied Allah's Apostle in many battles and it was his custom that if he did not fight early by daytime, he would wait till the wind had started blowing and the time for the prayer was due (i.e. after midday)" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386).

Here are a few more passages demonstrating Islam's long and rich tradition of religious pluralism toward non-Muslims who refuse conversion and slavery (and no, those non-Muslims were not "aggressors" attacking innocent victims, they were defending themselves against the false prophet and his minions):

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'" (Qur'an 8:12).

"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them) . . . Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah, - He will never let their deeds be lost" (Qur'an 47:4).

"...he [Muhammad] said [to Abu Sufyan], ‘Isn’t it time that you should recognize that there is no God but Allah?’

He answered, ‘You are dearer to me than father or mother. How great is your clemency, honour, and kindness! By God, I thought that had there been another God with God he would have continued to help me.’

He said, ‘Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn’t it time that you should recognize that I am God’s apostle?’

He answered, ‘As to that I still have some doubt.’

I said to him, ‘Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head,’ so he did so" (Ishaq, 547).

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

That's why apostates are persecuted under Islamic law.

Muslims and their Useful Idiots often allege that Jews and Christians enjoyed a special, elevated status under Islamic rule (Al-Andalus, anyone?). Though the passages cited so far obliterate that myth utterly, here are a few more showing Mohammed's love for "the People of the Book." Yes, rabid Islamic Jew-hatred and anti-Christian violence began thirteen centuries before the "Palestianian holocaust" or the birth of George W. Bush:

"Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah" (Qur'an 3:28).

"Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (Qur'an 5:82).

"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected" (Qur'an 2:65).

"Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil; these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path" (Qur'an 5:60)!

"Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

". . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.

[. . .]

"he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa' (the tribe of 'Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

[. . .]

"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366)."

"Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Apostle . . . said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. 'Umar b. Abd al-'Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah's Messenger . . ." (Muslim Book 37, Number 6666).

"Those who disbelieve, neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah: They are themselves but fuel for the Fire" (Qur'an 3:10).

"Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a decision that when a jew or christian was killed, his blood-money was half the blood-money of a free muslim.

"Malik said, 'What is done in our community, is that a muslim is not killed for a kafir unless the muslim kills him by deceit. Then he is killed for it.'

[. . .]

"Malik said, 'The blood-monies of the Jew, Christian, and Magian in their injuries, is according to the injury of the muslims in their blood-moneys. The head wound is a twentieth of his full blood-money. The wound that opens the head is a third of his blood-money. The belly-wound is a third of his blood-money. All their injuries are according to this calculation'" (Muwatta Book 43, Number 43.15.8b).

"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust" (Qur'an 5:51).

"Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak" (Qur'an 4:76).

"Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures" (Qur'an 98:6).

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them" (Qur'an 5:73).

"The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth" (Qur'an 9:30)!

When you've got tolerance like that, who needs holy war?

If accurate translation is impossible, how is it that foreigners are able to speak English well enough to accommodate ignorant Americans?

Jesus read the Scripture in Hebrew in synagogue and spoke Aramaic (and must have spoken also Latin and Greek). When He was murdered, the Roman governor had placed above His head the charge against Him (and confession of Him) in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament was in common use in Jesus' day. At Pentecost, the Apostles spoke to their hearers in their own languages.

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the New in everyday -- not classical -- Greek. Was Hebrew suddenly inadequate? Or does God speak to people in a way they'll understand?

What does God think of translation?

More from You-Know-Where.

renzmqt,

“in this country we have an appalling track record of teaching our citizens to be bilingual.”

Perhaps that is because Americans have been too busy creating the most powerful nation on Earth and have not needed previously to accommodate superior foreign economies.

Once President Hussein bankrupts the nation and surrenders to Islam, you'll have your wish of a bilingual America: We'll all be speaking Arabic.

(Some of us will learn Caribou when we go hide in the tundra.)

You know, your comments really sound like an ugly stereotype born of ignorance and hate. How many Americans do you REALLY KNOW? Doorman-Priest finds most often that people who speak of others that way have little or no experience with such individuals.

So, do YOU have any American friends? I have a co-worker who's an American. She speaks two languages. She's in tears right now, but I can't understand what she's saying because it isn't in English.

(Who says I haven't learned anything visiting here?)

"Americans" are notorious for traveling the globe and demanding that people speak English.”

Right. Americans can't even get Americans to speak English.

You should have seen me when I was in Italy, demanding English everywhere I went. Even when I yelled, people just stared.

“As such Americans are notoriously ignorant at thinking about the difficulties of translation”

Didn’t you really want to stop at “ignorant”? And aren't your comments proof of the civilizational self-loathing multiculturalist indoctrination produces?

“how often it is not possible to come up with a word that truly defines and captures the essence of a foreign expression or term.”

If it's true that it is often impossible to translate from one language to another, how is it that foreigners are able to speak English well enough to accommodate ignorant Americans?

“I believe you can see this at it's worst in the Biblical literalists who like to rattle off "sound bites" of scripture, often taken out of context”

If it's impossible to translate adequately the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek biblical texts, how can you know that anything in them is being taken "out-of-context"?

If it's impossible to translate accurately, how can anyone know that a translation is inaccurate?

“from a flawed American modernization of the King James Bible which is a flawed translation of a Latin Bible”

No translation can transfer perfectly the meaning of every word from one language to another. That doesn’t mean it is impossible to have reliable, accurate renderings or to understand to a high degree of certainty what an author intends. One of the things I like about the New International Version (though that is not my main translation) is that the translators note in the texts when the original meaning of a particular word, phrase, or number is unclear or there are discrepancies between manuscripts.

The King James Bible was not translated from a “Latin Bible." Its New Testament was based on the Textus Receptus, which was the best available Greek text at the time (Erasmus did have to resort to the Vulgate to translate from the Latin back into Greek for a few passages).

In the centuries since the first publication of the KJV, more ancient and reliable manuscripts have been discovered and our knowledge has improved, allowing much more accurate English translations than previously possible.

Just to show the competence and integrity of its translators, the original King James Version contained over six thousand marginal notes in the Old Testament alone, mostly on variant readings.

"which is a flawed translation of archaic Greek and Hebrew texts - many of which were flawed copies of copies of copies or oral traditions finally put to papyrus."

That there are flaws in the thousands of manuscripts we possess is true, but those flaws do not mean that we are unable to determine to a high degree of certainty what the documents' original authors intended.

The flaws are natural errors in copying, the accidental incorporation of a scribe's commentary into the text during copying, or occasional editing. The good news about this is that the thousands of texts belong to several different families of manuscripts from around the Mediterranean. By using the oldest and most reliable manuscripts from these different sources and comparing differences between them, it is largely possible to see what errors were introduced where.

Whether difficulties in translation or copying and editing errors, the worst that happens is that we're unsure of a particular number of soldiers in a battle, or we don't know what a musical term means. No doctrine, significant historical fact, or truth claims are compromised.

In other words, we can be confident that we have reliable renderings of the Word of God.

"Individuals who are educated enough to be multi-lingual have a much better grasp of the challenges and pitfalls of relying on literal translation. I think it would be rare to hear someone with that background, parrot snippets of a translated text as the sole basis for their argument."

Jesus quoted the Word of God as the sole basis for His arguments. The Bible in common use in His day and used by the Apostles (and it appears He quoted from it or the Hebrew text on which it was based) was the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament.

I think you'd call that "parroting snippets of a translated text."

Misguided priorities

A playful little bit from here in response to a defense of Doorman-Priest, who admits in another post at his site:

"I have been thinking a lot about this topic over the last few days since contributing to another blog dicussion. Now I know I shouldn't do this. I shouldn't comment on a blog where the original post and the content of the subsequent string is clearly entrenched beyond the point of hearing an alternative perspective. It isn't just that I enjoy being the voice of dissent . . . ."

And in the "About Me":

I am a Candidate-Pastor within the Lutheran Church, and have oscillated between evangelicalism and radical liberalism. A radical liberal with Lutheran, Anglican and evangelical tendencies? I know. It is something of a niche market. Many Christians I meet seriously irritate me and I sometimes think I am a misanthrope.

Obviously someone for whom Truth is paramount.

In response to that defense:

Erika,

The greatest commandment can only be fulfilled if we are telling the truth about God.

Yes, we should give others the benefit of the doubt (which you'd see I did if you read my first reply to Doorman-Priest over at Steve's site), but what do you do when experience, common sense, and the author's own words tell you that seeks not to edify but to cause trouble?

As for the meaning of "lie," here are two definitions: "A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood," and, "To convey a false image or impression."

How is, “There is only one God . . . Allah, YHWH, God the Father, Waheguru . . . I doubt she gives a stuff,” not blasphemy?

And again, is it "rude" to point out error? Is it "rude" to point out persistent error forcefully?

You wrote recently about Christ using a whip to chase out thieves. Was He "rude" too?

And I've not yet called anyone a "viper."

Regarding Jesus driving the money-changers out of the Temple . . .

"And then he lays into the worshippers and tips over the tables.... you know, someone like that would get an ASBO these days.
He might be tried for inciting hatred, for GBH."

He might even be called "rude."

And after referring to me as a "street urchin," without knowing anything about my motivations . . .

So, is "street urchin" "rude"?

Isn't it our first duty to "accept the integrity of those we disagree with"?

Apparently, one can blaspheme the Living God and that's okay, but woe to the one who points out the blasphemy!

Reading sacred texts and other inconveniences

More from you-know-where:

Elena,

“your analysis of Muslims is ill informed”

Where have I “analyzed Muslims”?

I have cited specific texts. Can you point out from those texts where I've erred?

"Have you read the Quran?" is as silly a question as "Have you read the Bible?"

By “read” I do not mean making up whatever meaning makes you happy; I mean understanding the texts as they were intended to be understood.

Words have meaning. Authors intend their work to be understood in a particular way. If you want to claim that it is impossible for reasonably-intelligent, intellectually-honest people to determine an author's intent, then every word you've ever written is utterly worthless.

“The same is true of a selective literal reading of the Quran. D.P's colleague got it right: there are many types of Christian and there are many types of Muslim”

By this it is clear that you do not understand how both major sects of Islam (Sunni and Shia, up to somewhere around 95% of Muslims or more, depending on whom you ask) officially interpret the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed. Of course individual practice and devotion varies, but I'm not talking about “all Muslims.” I've been addressing the texts and how Islam officially understands them.

Do you have actual knowledge of Islamic texts, doctrine, theology, and law? If you do, then this should be easy to answer: Which major school of Islamic jurisprudence rejects offensive warfare against non-Muslims?

(The answer is: None. Ask the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at – who reject offensive warfare – what happens when you break ranks. Even “moderate” Indonesia calls them “heretics.”)

“Do you (either of you or anyone else for that matter) believe that the inspirational work of the Holy Spirit has stopped? Surely she (Sorry but she it will always be for me) did not stop her work of inspiration once the canon of scripture was set. The Bible is only one revelation and not the final word or we would all be living very different lives today.”

The Holy Spirit works continually through Word and Sacrament: “He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not a good way to prove that the Spirit works in you.

“We learn all the time about the nature and will of God.”

Not if you're denying His clear revelation.

“Of course C.S. Lewis isn't Christ but that does not mean he has not had inspiration from the Spirit. Theology exists outside the Bible and so does the Spirit.”

Theology that contradicts Christ is inspired, but not by God.

If someone's “revelation” contradicts the Word – which comes to us by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then that “revelation” is false, for why would God contradict Himself?

“As I understand it the process of the construction of the Canon of Scripture would not stand up to much close scrutiny today and seems to have been dangerously arbitrary.”

That's a serious misunderstanding, since the Canon was set (for the most part; squabbling later over the Apocryphal texts was primarily political) by the brightest minds of the early Church, and they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

“I don;t think we help ourselves by a slavish reliance on scripture to the exclusion of the promptings of the Spirit. The Bible is 2000+ yrs old but the Spirit is with us today.”

What does God say?

To imply that one can have Scripture without the Holy Spirit is false, for, “no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21), “the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word” (Acts 10:44), and “take . . . the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:17).

A slavish reliance on Scripture is the only prudent position, for Christ said, “everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it” (Matthew 7:26-27).

And as for the efficacy of the Biblical texts, no matter their age:

“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever” (Isaiah 40:8).

“so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11).

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Luke 21:33).

“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17).

“the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

Sincerity saves, civil discourse, and xenophobic Islamophobes

More from here:

Doorman-Priest,

I. Civil discourse

I assure you that I never intended to harm or offend you with my earlier comments.

I did intend to prick your pride (Luther calls it “sharp mercy,” I think), because you entered the discussion at Steve’s with “There is only one God . . . Allah, YHWH, God the Father, Waheguru . . . I doubt she gives a stuff.” Couple that with claiming that all “moral” people worship the same god and that sincerity saves, and I recognized someone putting a stumbling block before others.

You might notice my first reply to you there began with, “On the chance that your comment is offered in good faith . . . ,” because what you wrote was not something that would be welcomed by anyone who believes Christ’s Word is true. What you posted subsequently did not indicate a desire for dialogue either. All of that is more appropriate to a place like belief.net.

Would you admit my “Doorman-Priest (Saddam Hussein? Walt Disney? Diana Ross? What does it matter? There is only one Man, and she doesn’t care what we call it, does he?)” was funny?

II. All gods are the same god

You’ll have to forgive me if I thought you meant all gods were the same god, since you wrote: “There is only one God . . . that God is Allah, YHWH . . . Waheguru and so on.”

There are several problems with saying that all religions worship the same God, however imperfectly:

1) YHWH doesn’t say that. Can you show us where He does?

2) YHWH speaks of many false gods, describing them as “demons.” Is it rude of God to call others’ sincere, if flawed, efforts at knowing Him, “demons”?

3) Saying that, “all who do the best they can, God will accept,” is contrary to Scripture, and leads to people’s destruction, for salvation is in Christ alone.

4) If people can be saved by the sincerity of their effort, then Christ died for nothing.

Unbelievers need to hear (just as we believers do) that their sin is great and leads to Hell (Law), but God has forgiven their sins in Christ (Gospel).

(By the way, have you noticed your supporters arguing for NOT trusting the Word of Christ? Do you support that?)

III. Freedom of speech

As to free speech, its only limitation should be where truth ends (and even then, you have to be careful). Freedom of Speech is one of the first unalienable, God-given rights to be curtailed and then extinguished by tyrants (along with the Right to Bear Arms). If you don’t have the freedom to say something that offends someone, then you don’t have freedom of speech at all.

I agree that we should not “incite hatred.” That phrase, though, raises a red flag, for I hear it used most often by Muslims and their Useful Idiots to silence criticism of those aspects of Islam that promote the enslavement or slaughter of all non-Muslims, the abuse and degrading of women, the violation of children, and the denial of freedom of speech and conscience to all.

So, is it “hatred” to point out error that leads to Hell? Is it “hatred” to warn others that an ideology which has warred against non-Muslims for 1400 years is coming to town (or, in the case of Europe, is now mayor)? Is it “hatred” to expose the fact that Islam’s god and founder require or endorse genocide, murder, rape, slavery, pedophilia, theft, and deceit against non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls?

Wouldn’t it be “hatred” toward God and Man to remain silent in the face of all this?

IV. Christ is Allah?

You’ll have to forgive me for thinking that you said Christ is Allah. It might have something to do with your writing, “God is Allah, YHWH . . . .”

V. Interpreting Scripture

Being a Lutheran, you understand the Analogy of Scripture. We use Scripture to interpret Scripture as its authors (and Author) intended. In this, we use our God-given Reason and our knowledge of language, culture, history, etc.

It would be misinterpreting the Word of God to take literally a excerpt intended as symbolic. It would be wrong to understand poetry as history (though there may be historical content within it). It would be heresy to take a portion of the Old Covenant and apply it to those under the New.

(And since you are a teacher and minister, you must be familiar with my understanding of Revelation, for what’s in a name?)

I would make one more point about the Old Testament: Jesus said that all of it testifies of Him.

VI. Xenophobic Islamophobes

You write that I “generalise and give the impression that all Muslims are fundamentalists who act as one.” I disagree strongly.

I have quoted Allah. I have noted Mohammed’s words and deeds according to Islam’s own authoritative documents, those very texts on which Islam is founded.

The fact that citing Qur’an and Sunnah sounds to you like demonizing all Muslims says more about those texts and your reaction to them than it does about my words.

I would ask again, where have I erred? These documents are easily available to the Infidel with an ISP. And I wouldn’t rely on Muslim friends. Just like Christians, there is much variability among Muslims in terms of their knowledge, zeal, and veracity.

Because it is unfair to paint with a broad brush, I do not attack all Muslims; I do expose their prophet from Hell and his Allah.

I’m curious. You repeat many of the propaganda points jihadists and their apologists use to deceive non-Muslims (not intentionally, I believe; President Bush did this all the time). Have you never investigated these texts for yourself?

As to your friend, I will not accuse her of taqiyya (did you look that up yet?). It is notable that she uses several of the same “arguments” that jihad’s apologists do. I’d like to share with you what she didn’t say . . .

“Jihad” is Arabic for “struggle.” It is true that one use of jihad refers to the struggle against sin, unbelief, etc. What those Muslims Who Know (I’m not saying your friend is one of these) never tell non-Muslims is that this particular teaching is based on one hadith of questionable authority and that “jihad” is used usually to describe warfare against non-Muslims using any means necessary, including “qital” (combat) to establish the rule of Allah.

Are you aware that no major school of Islamic jurisprudence rejects warfare against non-Muslims?

As for “Christian fundamentalists,” what do they have to do with jihad? A Christian who thinks dancing is a sin is a far cry from a Muslim who carries out his Allah-given duty to separate your head from your body. Neither is a “Christian fundamentalist” who interprets literally even the symbolic parts of the Apocalypse going around blowing people up for Christ.

I notice also that you’re using (I don’t think intentionally) a common ad hominem attack used by Muslims to try to demonize those exposing their god and prophet: I must not know any Muslims.

This is a variant of the: “I’m not a racist because I have a [insert non-Caucasian ethnicity here] friend.” Who I know makes no difference to the truth of what I write, since I am not talking about people I don’t know, I’m talking about texts and history and current events that are available for study to all with the courage to examine them honestly.

And no, it isn’t pretty.

Again, I ask, where have I erred? Please show me from Qur’an, any of the ahadith collections considered most reliable by mainstream Islam, or Sirat Rasul Allah (I have a copy here in my bookcase; do you?).