Thursday, May 31, 2007

To know how non-Muslims can establish Shari'a and advance its concomitant jihad, Iraq's the Model

The news is not as good as it seemed at first, but any time jihadists kill jihadists, that is good for Infidels.

Posted in reply to this:
I respect President Bush and our military. The president was right to remove Saddam. It may even be said that the president's attempt to create a model Muslim democracy in the Middle East was a noble idea . . . at first. Rather than achieve this, we have instead set up a new nation that codifies Shari'a. The democratic process has been used to achieve not our ends, but Allah's.

Nearly six years since 9/11, President Bush and those on whom he depends for information in making his decisions have had more than enough time to realize that the Source and Sustenance of Islamic terrorism are the word of Allah and the example of his false prophet:
Mohammed said, "I have been ordered to fight the people until they confess no one has the right to be worshiped but Allah and Mohammed is his apostle."

He also commanded, "When you meet the Unbelievers . . . invite them to Islam . . . If they refuse, offer them to pay the poll tax (jizya) . . . if they refuse that, then fight . . . ."

Allah commands, ". . . kill the unbelievers wherever you find them . . . ," and, "Fight . . . the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya."

Finally, Mohammed confessed, "I have been made victorious with terror."
In other words, the faithful Muslim is required to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam. No amount of sacrifice, no amount of giving, not even the most creative and generous efforts to "win hearts and minds" will succeed in doing anything other than fueling and financing our own murders.

The sooner President Bush, his Secretaries (most notably of Defense, State, and Homeland Security), and his generals realize this, the sooner our military can do what they do best without sacrificing for those who can never appreciate their service.

Another devilish ideology

Of course, Hillary Clinton is no great evil, but the socialism she advocates is. And only reinforcing the comparison is the Newspeak she uses in trying to deceive the American electorate.

Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

"On your own," as in individual responsibility and achievement? No, that would be cruel and insensitive.

"Shared responsibility," as in it is the hard-working, play-by-the-rules American taxpayer's responsibility to fund amoral, lazy, and incompetent corporations and individuals?

"Shared prosperity," as in take from those who work, earn, and achieve and give it to those who do not?

Where is the justice in this? How is it fair for the government to -- at the point of a gun and with the force of law -- take from those who have acquired wealth by honest means and redistribute it to those who have not? The former first lady is attempting to buy others' votes using your tax dollars.

This is socialism, and it is an enemy of Liberty. It is immoral, for it makes both those who receive undeserved benefit from others' hard work and those from whom the product of their labor is stolen slaves. The former is made dependent upon the State, and the latter is forced to fund without consent people and activities they would not otherwise have chosen.

The senator must use language like this to convince the lazy, selfish, and fearful that she really does care about them. This kind of misrepresentation also serves to discourage criticism, for who could be so heartless? And the reporters who dutifully and uncritically relay such deceit are complicit in her crime.

Here' s the attack on property rights and achievement:

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.

By "we're all in it together," the senator actually means, "we're going to take your hard-earned money whether you like it or not. You don't? What are you, some kind of greedy, racist, Republican?"

As for government "working for all Americans," our Founding Fathers defined what that would look like and set in place laws to sustain it, while simultaneously ensuring our Liberty and Prosperity. It's called the Constitution. It explicitly defines and limits the proper role of the federal government.

Unfortunately, it seems very few Americans have actually read it. Worst of all, the politicians who swear to defend it only misuse it in achieving their own political objectives.

As for that last statement, to socialists, "fairness" means an equality of outcome and not of opportunity, regardless of merit or effort. It means higher taxes and greater dependence on the government. It means the redistribution of wealth.

The Forced Equality of Outcome (F. E. O.) really is ugly.

That is immoral and unjust, but it's good for politicians, because those who promise it are often rewarded with another term in office and the admiration of a like-minded MSM.

"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

The tyranny of "but."

When a normal person hears "promote our values," they naturally assume the speaker means the values shared by the speaker and the audience. Of course, with Senator Clinton and other liberals, "our" here actually means "my and other socialists'."

As for the "right government policies," could the senator possibly be referring to things like laws prohibiting stealing? Fraud? False advertising? Coercion? No, she means, the "right restrictions on Liberty."

"We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this," she said.

Yes, just ask Jon Cary.

Beyond education, Clinton said she would reduce special breaks for corporations, eliminate tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas and open up CEO pay to greater public scrutiny.

Why not just end all entitlement programs, (apart from Social Security to those who've paid for and rightly expect it)?

Clinton also said she would help people save more money by expanding and simplifying the earned income tax credit; create new jobs by pursuing energy independence; and ensure that every American has affordable health insurance.

Another trifecta.

To help people save more money, why not . . . stop taking it?

"Pursuing energy independence" means more wasted tax dollars and greater government. That's a winner!

And of course, Hillary couldn't leave out her baby -- socialized medicine! If at first you don't succeed, get elected president yourself!

. . . In the last six years, productivity has increased, but family incomes have gone down, she said, leading to rising inequality and pessimism in the work force.

There are many reasons for Americans to be pessimistic, but a lack of socialism is not one of them. The senator's cure for these ills created by the meddling of government -- more government -- must be rejected forcefully.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

The president's sense of irony

It was unfunny enough when, in speaking of the actions of the nineteen devils who flew our planes into our own buildings, President Bush accused them of "hijacking" a "great world religion."

Now, just weeks after rightly criticizing the Traitor of the House for meeting with Syria's leadership, President Bush chooses to meet with an avowed enemy of the United States on our Memorial Day. A more grave insult to those Americans (and their families) whose lives and health have been taken by Iranian munitions, personnel, and training can hardly be imagined.

There is one other irony worth noting on this occasion: added to other little things -- like damaging our national sovereignty by refusing to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders six years after 9/11 -- this latest betrayal of the American people will make it necessary for the president to lay a wreath not only in honor of our heroic fallen, but also in memory of his own legacy and the backing even of his most ardent supporters.

Monday, May 28, 2007

The unnecessary sacrificing of American blood and treasure

How many of the Iraqis whom our military valiantly and selflessly risk life and limb to aid believe it is their duty -- just as it was Mohammed's -- 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"? How many of our bravest and best sacrificing for these Iraqi children (and for us) understand that the Ideology which replenishes their enemies' ranks faster than they can deplete them is Islam?

How many of them realize that -- contrary to what our Commander-In-Chief claims -- Islam is not a Great World Religion of Peace but the malevolent dictates of a god of blood? How many realize that the President of the United States, the most powerful man on Earth, is needlessly sacrificing them to the gods of Multiculturalism?

How long will the President persist in this suicidal misapprehension?

Unsurprisingly impeccable judgment from a usual suspect

From here:
. . . even as we provide the global jihad with legitimate justification for attacking the U.S. civilian population by continuing to occupy land that isn't ours.
The moral inversion in this statement is disgusting; it's limited understanding embarrassing.

There is no justification for attacks on our civilians. This author should have said "as we provide the global jihad with another pretext for attacking" our civilian population.

Of course, to Allah and his false prophet, no Infidel civilian is truly innocent (nor, when circumstances require the proper vocabulary, even a "civilian"). Regrettably, to the nescient and self-centered It's All About Us. We Deserve It.

Suicide bombing is just one tactic used in today's Global Jihad. There are many other ways to subjugate or kill Infidels in order to establish the rule of Allah. Just ask the House of Saud, Ahmed Bedier, or Mahmoud A.

How many of those "Communist and Socialist Arab" suicide bombers were Methodists? Of those three-hundred-plus attacks, how many were directed against Israel (wrongly defined by their Islamic, MSM, and European Socialist/Muslim-appeasing enemies as "Occupiers")?

Whose land were we occupying when the Barbary pirates attacked, killed, and enslaved American sailors in the early days of the Republic? What about when a resurgent Jihad exploded against the United States in '79, '83, and throughout the '90's? In 2000? Whom were we oppressing when nineteen devils in the service of Allah used our own planes to slaughter thousands on 9/11?

Whose lands were the ancient pagan, Jewish, Christian, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Hindu, and animist populations of the Old World "occupying" when Islam slaughtered, raped, enslaved, and subdued them?

What this pundit (and those he mocks) fail to understand is that the only "legitimate justification" needed by the faithful Muslim to war against and kill Infidels is the command of Allah, the example of his false prophet, and the fact that we are not Muslim.

To faithful Muslims, all Infidel land is rightly seen as belonging to Allah. It just our fault for being on it before they got here.

Friday, May 25, 2007

The difficulties facing an honest and decent Muslim

How is a statement like the one below received by other Muslims? Judging by the lack of public demonstrations in support of it, not too enthusiastically.

Surely Dr. Hamid has and will face charges of apostasy and blasphemy from his own, and accusations of intolerance from the Infidel Left for his brutally honest critique of Islam (thereby exposing the suicidal worthlessness of Multiculturalism). In fact, at his site he notes a less-than-tolerant reception from fellow Muslims:
For over fifteen years I have tried to preach my views in mosques in the Middle East, as well as to my local community in the West, but have faced the unwavering hostility of most Salafi Muslims in both regions. Muslims who live in the West—who insist to outsiders that Islam is a “religion of peace” and who enjoy freedom of expression, which they demand from their Western hosts—have threatened me with murder and arson. I have had to choose between accepting violent Salafi views and being rejected by the overwhelming majority of my fellow Muslims. I have chosen the latter.
It appears that "tiny minority of extremists" are neither tiny nor misinterpreting Islam.

And as the President reassures us that Islam is a great religion of peace and "conservative" pundits like Hugh Hewitt refuse to even open Islam's sacred texts (or to receive those who have with anything better than contempt and derision), the problem in the West grows:
As time has passed, this violent and threatening behavior has become more common: Dr. Wafa Sultan in the US, Abdul Fatah in Egypt, and many, many others have received and continue to receive death threats. Recently, Dr. Nawal Al-Sadawi, a liberal Muslim thinker and women’s rights activist, was forced to flee Egypt because of her public statements. Dr. Rashad Khalifa was murdered in the United States after he published his own re-interpretation of the Quran which was less violent than was traditional. In Egypt, Dr. Faraq Fuddah was shot to death after publishing condemnations of Jihadists. Egyptian Nobel Prize winner Najib Mahfouz was stabbed in the neck for writing his novel, Awlad Haretna, perceived by Salafists as blasphemous. The list goes on. Still, the majority of members in many Muslim communities have adopted the violent teachings of the Islamists.
Tragically, the difficulties with Islam cited by the good doctor are the direct expression of the will of Allah and the example of his apostle (as recorded in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira). Finding a way for good, decent Muslims to remain so seems an insurmountable challenge, since the problems Dr. Hamid notes are exactly what Allah and his prophet from hell want:
When I discussed the implications of the violent passages with a few Sufi clergy, they suggested that one “should be good and peaceful to all mankind” and that “the understanding of the violent verses will be clarified on the day of judgment.” These views were not based on rigorous Islamic eschatology, however, or on an objective analysis of the religious books. They merely embodied a desired perception of Islam. My secular parents offered the same tolerant perspective, insisting that Islam is a religion of peace. But for me both responses were unsatisfactory because they suffered from the same problem—they were not theologically grounded. My difficulty was not resolved, and I continued to live with a complex dilemma.
From here:
I was born a Muslim and lived all my life as a follower of Islam.

After the barbaric terrorist attacks done by the hands of my fellow Muslims everywhere on this globe, and after the too many violent acts by Islamists in many parts of the world, I feel responsible as a Muslim and as a human being, to speak out and tell the truth to protect the world and Muslims as well from a coming catastrophe and war of civilizations.

I have to admit that our current Islamic teaching creates violence and hatred toward Non-Muslims. We Muslims are the ones who need to change.

Until now we have accepted polygamy, the beating of women by men, and killing those who convert from Islam to other religions.

We have never had a clear and strong stand against the concept of slavery or wars, to spread our religion and to subjugate others to Islam and force them to pay a humiliating tax called Jizia.

We ask others to respect our religion while all the time we curse non-Muslims loudly (in Arabic) in our Friday prayers in the Mosques.

What message do we convey to our children when we call the Jews "Descendants of the pigs and monkeys"…. Is this a message of love and peace, or a message of hate?

I have been into churches and synagogues where they were praying for Muslims. While all the time we curse them, and teach our generations to call them infidels, and to hate them.

We immediately jump in a ‘knee jerk reflex' to defend Prophet Mohammed when someone accuses him of being a pedophile while, at the same time, we are proud with the story in our Islamic books, that he married a young girl seven years old (Aisha) when he was above 50 years old.

I am sad to say that many, if not most of us, rejoiced in happiness after September 11th and after many other terror attacks.

Muslims denounce these attacks to look good in front of the media, but we condone the Islamic terrorists and sympathise with their cause. Till now our ‘reputable' top religious authorities have never issued a Fatwa or religious statement to proclaim Bin Laden as an apostate, while an author, like Rushdie, was declared an apostate who should be killed according to Islamic Shar'ia law just for writing a book criticizing Islam.

Muslims demonstrated to get more religious rights as we did in France to stop the ban on the Hejab (Head Scarf), while we did not demonstrate with such passion and in such numbers against the terrorist murders.

It is our absolute silence against the terrorists that gives the energy to these terrorists to continue doing their evil acts.

We Muslims need to stop blaming our problems on others or on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

As a matter of honesty, Israel is the only light of democracy, civilization, and human rights in the whole Middle East.

We kicked out the Jews with no compensation or mercy from most of the Arab countries to make them "Jews-Free countries" while Israel accepted more than a million Arabs to live there, have its nationality, and enjoy their rights as human beings. In Israel, women can not be beaten legally by men, and any person can change his/her belief system with no fear of being killed by the Islamic law of ‘Apostasy,' while in our Islamic world people do not enjoy any of these rights.

I agree that the ‘Palestinians' suffer, but they suffer because of their corrupt leaders and not because of Israel.

It is not common to see Arabs who live in Israel leaving to live in the Arab world. On the other hand, we used to see thousands of Palestinians going to work with happiness in Israel, its 'enemy'. If Israel treats Arabs badly as some people claim, surely we would have seen the opposite happening.

We Muslims need to admit our problems and face them. Only then we can treat them and start a new era to live in harmony with human mankind.

Our religious leaders have to show a clear and very strong stand against polygamy, pedophilia, slavery, killing those who convert from Islam to other religions, beating of women by men, and declaring wars on non-Muslims to spread Islam. Then, and only then, do we have the right to ask others to respect our religion.

The time has come to stop our hypocrisy and say it openly: ‘We Muslims have to Change'.

Tawfik Hamid

One island of clarity in a vast sea of conservative nonsense

And not just the MSM are blind when it comes the Source and Sustenance of Islamic terrorism and other forms of Jihad, though on this poll some conservative pundits are experiencing mild to moderate cognitive dissonance.

From Diana West: Media bombs.
Funny how small 26 percent sounds when it describes, for example, the number of American voters who support the Senate's mass-amnesty, goody-bag bill for illegal aliens. In this case, the one in four people polled by Rasmussen this week who hope the legislation pass comes off as a minority voice, especially when compared to the whopping 72 percent of voters who favor border enforcement and the reduction of illegal immigration.

But 26 percent looms large when it describes the number of American Muslims, ages 18-29, who support suicide bombings "in defense of Islam" -- one of the sensational, if sensationally under-reported, findings of a recent Pew poll. According to Pew, the total Muslim population in America is 2.35 million, 30 percent of whom are between 18 and 29. By my figuring, the suicide-bomb-approving cohort works out to 183,000 people. The poll also tells us that 69 percent of younger American Muslims say suicide bombings are never justified. While representing a majority almost as great as the percentage of American voters who favor border enforcement, 69 percent in this particular case is wholly inadequate; indeed, it is a strikingly poor showing.

Why? In the case of the immigration bill, the poll reflects public opinion pertaining to a political process, a no-holds-barred, expletive-laced, free-for-all that, loathsome as it may sometimes seem, remains democratically rooted in a non-violent contest of ideas, politics and flim-flam. In such a context, one-quarter of anything pales next to three-quarters of anything.

In the case of suicide bombing, however, the context changes. According to Pew's data, one-quarter of younger American Muslims approve of the presence of skin-ripping, skull-crushing, organ-piercing violence in civilian life as a religious imperative -- "in defense of Islam." (The Pew pollsters declined to define "defense of Islam," but having lived through Pope Rage, Cartoon Rage, Koran Rage, Satanic Verses Rage, etc., I think it's safe to say this is a rather broad category.) Such approval for religious violence is not just another unfettered political opinion finding expression in a poll-taker's tally. On the contrary, the fact that a significant young chunk of American Islam believes such violence has a place in society indicates something closer to the end of unfettered political opinion. It may signal the beginning of physical coercion as a factor in the American political process. This helps explain why the 69 percent figure is no consolation prize; only unanimity is acceptable here.

It's not that a physical fear factor pertaining to mainly Islamic terrorism hasn't long existed -- just take a look at the dispiriting security perimeter erected around the Capitol, for instance. But this Pew poll may mark the first official acknowledgement that such violence, and, equally important, the threat of such violence, actually find approval within the American polity.

Something new and barbarous under the sun, right? This is why it's all the more disturbing to review the happy headline-spin the story received. The blogger Ace of Spades provided an early roundup of the Orwellian tags, which included: "Poll: Most Muslims seek to adopt American lifestyle" (USA Today); "Muslims assimilate better in U.S. than Europe, poll finds" (New York Times); "Poll: US Muslims Feel Post-9/11 Backlash Despite Moderate Outlook" (Voice of America). My personal fave: "Upbeat portrait of US Muslims" (Sacramento Bee). The accompanying stories were no less giddy.

But why the journalistic rush to depict the shocking story as so much happy talk? Therein lies a tale, one of fanatical religious fervor-on the part of the mainstream media (MSM). Like other politically correct elites, the MSM follow their own version of the "true faith": multiculturalism. Multiculturalism preaches that all civilizations are the same, all religions are the same, all peoples are the same. The Pew results, meanwhile, tell them something else again: Some people -- some young American Muslim people -- approve of suicide bombing in defense of Islam. Does this finding perhaps introduce a qualitative difference among civilizations, religions, and peoples?

That is, is there something more desirable about societies that don't inspire and glorify suicide bombings -- something worth preserving? Conversely, is there something about Islam our own society requires protection against? This is very tricky territory for the MSM. The logical answers are multiculturally blasphemous.

The MSM response: it's better to say nothing at all. Or better yet, just smile. Big grin. Happy story. It's one measly quarter, after all. Just one in four. And isn't that something to be upbeat about?

Monday, May 21, 2007

We do not need racial profiling in the War on Terror

For Islam is not a race.

Neither are we in a war against a tactic -- we are engaged in a War of Self-Defense Against Islam, a war which many have had to enter over the centuries, many of whom were too slow to respond, too unprepared to win, and too weak to survive.In baseball, two out of three would make an MVP or a batting champ. Two out of three here is killing us, and neither President Bush, his cabinet, nor his "center-right" pundits show any signs of realizing their fundamental error.

From here.
Hugh Hewitt is right to call for strong measures against allowing terrorists entry into our country. There is a problem, however.

Last week Hugh noted the need for greater scrutiny of Arab immigrants. He couldn’t be more wrong. This blindness—indicative of many in the West—has (and will) cost many American lives.

The problem is not the terrorists’ race, it is their ideology. That ideology is one of war and conquest of the non-Muslim for Allah. Mohammed commanded: “Fight against the people until they confess that none but Allah has the right to be worshiped and Allah is his messenger.” He also instructed the faithful in how to deal with Infidels: “. . . invite them to Islam . . . if they refuse, offer them to pay the poll tax [jizya] . . . if they refuse to pay, then fight . . . .”

Albanians were planning to carry out attacks here in the U.S. A story today notes that Muslim terrorist groups are recruiting among American blacks because, like Hugh, too many people are looking for “Arabs” or “Middle Eastern-looking men.”

The problem is Islam.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Italian bus jihad

The article only identifies the attackers as "Albanian." Buddhists, of course. From here:
MILAN, Italy (AP) - Three armed men hijacked a regional bus Tuesday in northern Italy and set it on fire after freeing the passengers, officials said. An off- duty police officer was injured and two of the three hijackers were apprehended.

The bus was traveling south from Alessandria to Acqui Terme, cities southwest of Milan, when the men—armed with a pistol and knives—took it over and forced the driver to turn off the highway and onto a state road heading in the opposite direction, a carabinieri official in nearby Novara said.

An off-duty police officer who was on board tried to intervene and was stabbed, but was not in serious condition, the official said.

The hijackers allowed the passengers to get off when the bus reached Alessandria again, but then forced the driver to keep going before the bus came to a stop near Trecate, on the outskirts of Novara farther to the north, Sky TG24 reported.

There was an exchange of fire and the gunmen set the bus on fire before fleeing, officials said. Two of the gunmen, both Albanian, were apprehended and authorities were seeking the third, the Novara carabinieri official said.

Another carabinieri official, who declined to give his name, said one of the gunman who was apprehended was being treated for an unspecified injury.

Fire crews and investigators picked through the burned-out skeleton of the bus as it continued to smolder. Sky TG24 said the men had doused the vehicle with gasoline they had brought with them before torching it.

Religious bigotry fueled by ignorance and bitter experience

Unlike that motivating much of the LDS' wolf-crying, this is an unfounded charge. A few comments on Instadhimmi's inaugural post:
My own experience, however, is that Christians can lose it, too. Death threats aren't the same as murder, of course. But I was appalled at the behavior I experienced, which included nasty threats, wishes that my wife would suffer Terri Schiavo's fate, and nasty phone calls to my home as my wife recovered from heart surgery. That behavior, from religious pro-lifers, seemed kind of un-Christian to me. So pardon me if my faith that things can never get worse is weaker than Bryan's.
It appears a certain personal animosity toward "Fundamentalist" Christians motivates the comparison with the Religion of Jihad. In his own words, Instapundit indicates the comparison is unfounded, yet he still makes it.

This brings certain points to mind:

First, isn't it improper to indict an entire religious group because of the actions of a few? Unlike Islam, name any cases of Fundamentalist Christians threatening and carrying out violence in the name of Christ and citing Biblical justifications for their actions.

Second, anyone who would equate Fill-in-the-Blank Christianity with Islam needs to "hit the books" and get it straight. Such an equivalence indicates compromised judgment, a dearth of knowledge, or both.

Third, Islamic violence against Infidels and Apostates is commanded by Allah and his apostle, and for nearly fourteen hundred years has been carried out around the world as Muslim knowledge, belief, resources, and zeal allowed. Though Christians have done evil, that behavior is contrary to the teachings of Christ and atypical.

Fourth, where are Hugh Hewitt's outrage and cries of "bigotry," or is that only reserved for justified theological criticism of his next PotUS?

Fifth, those who would call themselves "Christian" should strive to behavior properly in all circumstances.

Monday, May 14, 2007

When the facts desert you, just claim Religious bigotry

Is it really though? An all-knowing God must have created us certain in the knowledge that most of His children would never accept his word. He knew, before we were even born what our fates were to be. What sort of God creates a soul knowing full well it is destined only for Hell?

More to come.

Out, damned spot! out, I say!

The spot of false doctrine, that is. Persisting in error despite obvious and overwhelming contrary evidence does not wisdom make.

From here:
Latter day revelation has clarified many of the Biblical inaccuracies and inconsistencies that have resulted from translations.
Without the Original Texts (or their numerous manuscript copies, which we have today), how can you possibly know that "inaccuracies and inconsistencies" exist? Without the Originals (or their copies), how can you make any corrections?

Problems with translations are an entirely different category than copying anomalies. Translations can and should be revised using the best information available. Variations in manuscript copies of the Originals are easy to compare because so many copies exist that are from various geographic locations around ancient Christendom.

That a tilde or number in one family of copies is errant is possible to determine by comparing that manuscript with any of the manuscripts from other families.

All of that leads to a high degree of confidence that we know what the Original Manuscripts actually said.

Besides all of that, there is no way the Apostle John's quotation of Christ's statement that "God is Spirit" is a distortion of "god is an obedient, flesh-and-bone being fornicating on another planet."

To continue to promote such nonsense is utterly indefensible.
This is an area where you and I will most likely come to a disagreement. I believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and I believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
You believe that your god is either unwilling or unable to preserve his revelation, or if he is, that he doesn't mind contradicting himself.

Any deity that reveals one thing and then later contradicts his first story is a liar and a fraud.
I'm assuming you either do not believe in continued revelation or, at the very least, you do not believe that there is a living prophet today.
I believe that Jesus Christ will not contradict Himself. If any "prophet" comes along and says something other than what God has said, he is a liar and a charlatan.
I do. I have no tangible evidence of this. I have a personal testimony that it is true.
Subjectivism is no basis for religious faith. One's experience should be interpreted in light of what God has revealed through His Prophets and Apostles. If your personal experience leads you to embrace something contrary to the Word of Christ, you have allowed yourself to be deceived.
I agree with the scripture you mentioned. In the next life they are neither married or given in marriage. Marriage is an Early ordinance and cannot be performed after this life. Thus if you are not sealed on Earth you will not be sealed in Heaven.
No, He said they are not married, as in they are not in the state of being married. If he meant only that unions are not made in the next, He would not have then noted [*see below] . . . .

Also, Jesus specifically compares our state in the afterlife with regards to marriage by comparing us to His angels. Unless you want to say that they are married in this life and that carries over into the next, the only reasonable interpretation of this is that angels are unmarried and so will we be.
My whole intent was to share that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe in the same God and Jesus Christ that the rest of the Christian community does.
It seems unwise to lie about YHWH and His Christ if you want to please Them.

*Correction on Matthew 22:30:

Shane wrote, "In the next life they are neither married or given in marriage."

In Shane's version, Christ seems to be making a contrast between a status and an act. In Christ's version, he notes our celibacy by comparing our marital status to the angels':
"Jesus answered, 'You’re mistaken because you don’t know the Scriptures or God’s power. When people come back to life, they don’t marry. Rather, they are like the angels in heaven.'"
Shane's "sealed on Earth, sealed in Heaven" adds to (and contradicts) Christ's revelation, something He forbids.

Sunday, May 13, 2007

The sound you are about to hear . . .

. . . is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System.

. . .

In the event of an actual emergency --

-the destruction of your Constitutional rights in the name of "the People";

-national, state, and local politicians pandering to a lazy, self-centered, greedy, irresponsible, and ignorant electorate (both groups feeding off your still-warm flesh like vultures);

-our political, media, and academic elites sleeping, lying, and stealing as the West hurtles to the edge of the precipice (with some even getting out to push);

-or the ubiquitous lie repeated ad nauseam, ad infinitum that the ideology inspiring fourteen centuries of global slaughter is actually a "Religion of Peace"

-- you would have been instructed where to tune in your area.

But no, nothing to see here, folks. Nothing at all. Move along now.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

A more important issue

From here:
While some evangelical Christians are defending the presidential candidacy of Mormon Mitt Romney from an attack by Al Sharpton, another prominent pastor is going further in his condemnation – saying a vote for the former Massachusetts governor is a vote for Satan.
The question of whether or not it is appropriate for Christians to vote for a Mormon for president is not nearly as important as making clear the fact that Mormonism teaches and preaches a false god, a false christ, and a false gospel.

Despite LDS protestations to the contrary, one cannot teach that god was an obedient, flesh-and-blood man procreating on an alien planet -- and that his son was a spirit brother to the devil -- and expect to be defined as "Christian."

Neither will a Christian reject the doctrines found in the Church's universal statements of faith: the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds.