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?).

A "good enough" gospel just isn't good enough

All gods are not the same god.

Christ is not Allah, for how can the One Who taught and practiced, "Love your enemies," be the same demon which commanded, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them"?

God does not accept us on the basis of an imagined piety or reverence, but on the basis of the blood of Christ.

How can a faithful Christian contradict the Word and mislead those in need of salvation into thinking they're going to make it into Heaven because they're "reverent" and "pious"?

From here:

Doorman-Priest,

"You accuse me of multiculturalism. Thank you."

No, I speculated that the motivation for your “all gods are the same god” was “multiculturalist intellectual cowardice.”

If I am wrong, I apologize.

If I am right, will you admit it?

“According to my (albeit ENGLISH) English language dictionary”

In America, "multiculturalism" is often used to refer to the elevation of foreign cultures (in whole or in part) over traditional American culture whether or not they merit it.

Truth is sacrificed out of fear of offending others, and that fear is used by special interests for political advantage.

“the word you were so fruitlessly groping for in that context was PLURALISM as I suspect you felt I was arguing that in some way all religious roads lead equally to God.”

No, you were saying all gods are the same god. That is irrational on its face and contrary to Scripture.

When you say “Christ is Allah,” that is blasphemy.

“I am perfectly clear on the issue of repentance/confession and atonement following the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus who is Christ and Messiah and God’s guarantee of salvation. I am very sorry if you have misunderstood my position.”

I can only judge by what you write.

When you say everyone worships the same god (“Christ is Allah”) what interpretation can one reasonably make but that you believe all gods are the same god?

“I think where your confusion has arisen is over the universality of that salvation – not as a key doctrine itself but as a current reality or as an unrealised potential.”

Salvation is not universal, atonement is. Christ has paid for the sins of the whole world, but many reject this gift through unbelief.

“I have been able to accept Christ’s saving substitutionary sacrifice.”

Then why do you contradict Him?

“My Sikh, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Agnostic and I suspect some Atheist friends (I know no Hindus) have certainly not understood and probably not properly heard. The odds are also stacked against those of a non-Christian background for a variety of reasons: not the least language, culture, family attitudes and religious upbringing. As someone who is an out and proud Christian and who works closely with people from a number of faith backgrounds I know how unlikely it is that they will truly hear or understand the gospel, although I do not seek to set limits on the working of the Spirit.”

First, I commend you for helping others.

Second, I would point out something that deserves your attention: You say that you have non-Christian friends and work closely with people “from a number of faith backgrounds” who are highly “unlikely” to hear the Gospel.

You are an “out and proud Christian,” teacher, and minister. How then can you have any friends who will never hear the Gospel proclaimed?

It is your duty to speak the truth (Law and Gospel) so that they might come to faith, even if some (or all) of those friends are offended, even if your co-workers start calling you names, even if your devoted fans at your site suddenly find you “intolerant.”

Jesus said that if we love anyone more than Him, we are not worthy of Him.

“I am wondering Amillennialist, if your concept of God’s justice requires him to judge people by the same standards.”

My concept?

Here we approach the essential conflict: Instead of speaking the Word of God as He has revealed it to us, you offer instead your own opinions.

What does God say about that? In Deuteronomy 29:29 Moses writes, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” Where's the room for speculation?

In Revelation 22:18 the Apostle John warns: “if anyone adds to them [the words of this book], God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

That should cause every man to be cautious in how he treats Divine Revelation, especially teachers, who will be judged more harshly (James 3:1).

“My understanding of scripture suggests that God does apply his standard consistently, but that he accepts a variety of pleas.”

Where does He say that?

Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

“1 Cor 15.22, 2 Cor 5.19, Col 1.20, 1Tim 2.6, 1Tim 4.10, Heb 2.9,1 Jn 2.2, Rom 11.32, Rom 3.23/24, Rom 5.18, Jn 1.9, Jn 1.29, Jn 12.32 and Jn 12.47 . . . the weight of which suggests that there is a universal salvation.”

No. In their entirety the declare the mercy that God has had on all people. Christ paid for the sins of the whole world.

(Great passages, by the way.)

That many through unbelief reject this gift is a fact stated by Christ Himself. In Matthew 23:37 He laments, “How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” In Chapter 22:14 He states, “many are called, but few are chosen."

“scripture is not clear cut here and . . . It won’t change the fact that scripture seems to suggest something which some Conservative Evangelicals are not comfortable with.”

Scripture is clear cut: Christ has reconciled the whole world to His Father, but through unbelief many reject that gift. In those cases, the only payment left for sin is the one a person must make himself, and that isn't pretty.

“Now, remember that I am not arguing that all spiritual roads lead to salvation. Some will clearly NOT be saved. However, as I have said before it is not for me to put limits on God’s grace.”

None of us should. But it is for you to say what He says, no more, no less.

“There ARE those who earnestly search for God who will never hear or fully understand the gospel through no fault of their own.”

What does Christ say? “Whoever believes in him [Christ] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18). In Romans 10: “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for 'Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.'"

“Regardless of the mad and evil things some others may do in the name of the same religion – and they are probably not saved – we must not forget the many good, honest, decent, pious folk who seek to live with compassion and integrity and at peace with their neighbours. There are, after all, universal moral laws.”

Which we all violate.

We all do “mad and evil things.” No one is “good, honest, decent, or pious” in the sight of God, for He declares:

“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." "Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.", "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Romans 3:10-18).

You're promoting a “good enough” gospel, but that's not good enough. You remember what the Apostle Paul said about those who preach a false message of salvation (Galatians 1:8), right?

“if I were a Muslim, I would not find my way to the gospel via your particular witness. Your comments on Islam offended me and I am not a Muslim: they showed a crass prejudice and a simplistic desire to demonise others while failing to see the faults in front of our faces.”

Speaking of “simplistic prejudice”!

Your words here are an example of suicidal ignorance in service to multiculturalism, for what did I write that was untrue?

Have you studied Qur'an? Ahadith? Sira?

What did I say here about your Muslim friends? Or all Muslims?

According to Islam's own “sacred” texts, Allah and his apostle require the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse to convert:

"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).

That Muslims slaughter non-Muslims to shouts of “allahu akbar” is a common occurrence. Are you really unaware of Indonesian Muslims beheading Christian schoolgirls on their way to school? These are not random psychotic or sociopathic episodes; these acts are committed in obedience to Allah and in accord with Mohammed's example.

As for his raping little Aisha, that fact is amply attested to by numerous ahadith. Here's one:

“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

The reason Mohammed's example is such a problem for non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls is because Allah says of him: "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah" (Qur'an 33:21).

What does that imply for the faithful Muslim?

Instead of being offended at my telling the truth, why are you not offended at Islam's “divinely”-sanctioned barbarism and depravity?

“My Muslim friends say “Not in my name” to the lunatic fringe”

There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. If you'd like to know if your friends are truly not “lunatic,” share with them the passages I've posted here. A decent person can only be horrified at such filth.

Based on my experience, odds are their heads will explode, or you'll get a good dose of taqiyya (look it up).

“just as I do to the historic Crusaders”

Every atrocity committed by Crusaders should be condemned. At the same time, it should be remembered that the original call was made in response to desperate pleas for help from eastern Christians enduring centuries of jihad.

“quisling clergy in Nazi occupied Europe”

And every act of un-Christian cowardice should be condemned.

You might also want to recall that many Christians – including Lutherans – risked and gave their lives to save their fellow human beings.

And it wasn't “Hitler's pope,” it was, “Hitler's mufti.”

“the IRA and on to the Topeka Baptists, all who have done untold evil in the name of Christ. There is no monopoly on evil.”

That is true.

Taken individually, the crimes commanded by Allah and committed by Mohammed – and therefore mandatory for faithful Muslims – are not unusual. What makes Mohammed's “religion” especially vile is that he took all of the worst of Man's impulses, made them “divine,” indulged them, and required others to do the same.

“In my personal experience unless someone has made it clear to me by word or deed, that he is my enemy, he remains my friend.”

That is commendable.

“If someone earnestly seeks God in the only way they know how, and have no chance of hearing with understanding the saving works of Christ, Does God condemn them?”

What does God say?

The soul that sins is the one who will die (Ezekiel 18).
No one seeks God (Romans 3).
Christ is the only way to the Father (John 14).
We are saved through faith alone (Ephesians 2).
Faith comes by hearing the Word of Christ (Romans 10).
Whoever does not believe in Christ is condemned already (John 3).

“If you believe he does, I must ask you: Is that the God of Christianity or the God of Right Wing Republican Evangelicalism, given that the two may not be the same?”

What did Jesus say? “Whoever believes in [Christ] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18).

You've implied that I'm a “Conservative Evangelical” and a “Republican.” Neither are true in the sense that you intend.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but here I sense again the antagonism toward Christianity that led me in my first reply to you at Steve's to say, “On the chance that your comment is offered in good faith . . . .”

“Unless someone has shown in word or deed that he is God’s enemy is not God right to ascribe righteousness to him as a friend as he did to Abraham?”

But we are by nature God's enemies (Romans 5:10).

And as for Abraham, what does God say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness" (Romans 4:3).

“Of course Christ is the benchmark and standard of our salvation”

That sounds like something we do, in which case it is again a false gospel.

Christ is neither a “benchmark” nor “standard,” He is Our Salvation.

“but the Biblical passages above reveal to me that while God indeed judges us on our discipleship of Christ it is possible to be an unknowing or anonymous disciple.”

God judges us either on the basis of Christ's payment for sin, in which case we are declared “just,” or He judges us on the basis of our own sin, in which case we are doomed.

Your option is contrary to Scripture.

“I leave the last word to the theologian and writer C.S. Lewis and his Narnia stories:”

I like and admire C.S. Lewis.

He is not Christ.

“Lewis is suggesting that God’s grace is, indeed, extended beyond the limits we might expect. But that is down to God’s grace and not our judgement. God may well choose to act towards others in ways which surprise us and it is not for us to question God’s grace. We do not know the mind of God.”

Yes. That is another reason you should say only what God has said, and not contradict His clear word.

Making things up to suit your sensibilities is not faith.

“those who we reject because they don’t fit into our self imposed pigeonholes of who God accepts.”

Whom have I rejected? Pointing out error is not limiting God; He calls us to that. Both Law and Gospel must be preached.

What was Christ's message? “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.”

“we approach God by the name we have been taught and if that isn't the "correct" or given name, God doesn't care providing we approach in reverence and penitence.”

But God says, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” (1 Timothy 4:1), and:

“what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he” (1 Corinthians 10:20-22)?

A last encouragement to say only and all of what God has said:

Thus says the LORD of hosts: "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD. They say continually to those who despise the word of the LORD, 'It shall be well with you'; and to everyone who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, 'No disaster shall come upon you.'" For who among them has stood in the council of the LORD to see and to hear his word, or who has paid attention to his word and listened? Behold, the storm of the LORD! Wrath has gone forth, a whirling tempest; it will burst upon the head of the wicked” (Jeremiah 23:16-19).

Peace be with you.

More Muslim moral inversion

In response to comments here:

"you don't leave a predator with the prey surrounding it and expect that nothing would happen."

The predator is Islam, the prey Israel.

"There is no such thing as antisemitism infusing Islam. That you still insist on this baseless argument after my previous reply implies that either you didn't went through my replies or else are blind to rational thought."

Or, I can read, think for myself, and tell the truth.

What about:

"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).

That's funny. I quote Allah and Mohammed's murderous tirades against Jews (and other non-Muslims), but you say I don't read or reason.

"If you are so insistent on badmouthing Islam and Muslims"

I insist on telling the truth to save lives in this world and souls for the world to come. If telling the truth is "badmouthing Islam and Muslims," then what does that say about what you defend?

"history reveals that the Jews from the time of Prophet Muhammad lived peacefully with Muslims until the time they went back on the treaties they had with Muslims of the time."

No, turning the pages of Qur'an, ahadith, and Sira show that Mohammed coexisted with Jews until they rejected his false revelation and he had the martial force to make them pay.

Have you not read your own texts?

"It is also a fact that the Jewish scriptures don't even accept Christianity or Islam as being valid religions when both Islam and Christianity validate Moses as a Prophet. Which is the religion here which is deliberately creating differences?"

Does that line of "reasoning" actually work on anyone?

The Jewish Scriptures are the Christian Scriptures. Jesus is a Jew. The Apostles were all Jews. The first Christians were Jews. Traditional Christian worship still maintains elements of its ancient Hebrew/Jewish roots.

The religion causing problems is the one that commands its adherents to enslave or slaughter all who refuse to convert:

"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).

Please, tell the truth.

"You talk about the Turks and their predecessors. Tell me; is the land Israel occupies only significant to Jews?"

Non sequitur. The fact that the Turks possessed the area for centuries before the West crushed the caliphate was mentioned only to point out that the victor had the right to do with the land as it wished. Israel did not invade and occupy, Islam was humiliated and the land dealt with as the victors [chose].

"The sites are equivalently important to Christians and Muslims"

False. The land only became significant to Muslims after modern Israel was formed. Before that, it was a arid wasteland.

But to a Muslim, once part of Dar al-Islam, always part of Dar al-Islam, right?

"but Israel wants to systematically deny Muslims any right to the holy sites."

More falsehood. Considering there is a mosque where the Temple used to stand, who is denying whom?

"Who really is propagating the hatred here? It is pretty obvious who wants a perpetual cycle of hate here."

Yes, that would be Mohammed and his allah:

"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).

[Asad continues:]

"My analogy is not flawed. Your arguments are based on false presumptions."

I quote Allah, Mohammed, and historical fact, all of which make Islam and Muslims look hellish, so you don't like it.

It's a whole lot easier to tell the truth. The pain is temporary, the benefits eternal.

"Who exactly is supposed to pay penance for crimes against another entity? Is it the perpetrator of the crime or some totally unrelated entity. The genocide of Jews was committed by Europe and Hitler, not Muslims or Arabs in particular."

Again with the Hitler/European Guilt. As I mentioned before, Islam has been committing genocide against Jews, Africans, Europeans, and Asians for more than a millennium.

"Is it that Israel cannot face off against Europe and wants to subjugate Muslims of Middle East in an attempt to get same misdirected sense of revenge?"

That doesn't even make sense. Considering Europe's cowardice and Muslim bloodlust, it looks like Israel will be facing off against two continents soon.

I implore you to be honest. Rather than serve a god which offers you Paradise for killing for it, turn to the Son of God Who loved you and gave His life for your sins.

What does it mean when one names himself proudly after a genocidal butcher and homosexual, pedophilic rapist?

It means you've got a Muslim, since Allah calls the monster Mohammed a "beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please" him (Qur'an 33:21).

Yes, that warning screaming in your head is telling you the truth. Listen to it. Don't suppress it. And don't blame me. Yes, a Muslim who wants to please Allah should slaughter, rape (including little girls as young as nine), enslave, lie, steal, and teach others to do the same and call it "divine."

Not too long ago I found a review of a game dealing with a conflict in the Middle East (also known as the jihad against Israel) here. I left a comment wondering if the game touches on the Source and Sustenance of Islamic bloodlust against our only ally in the region.

A comment from one calling himself Mehmed II appeared asking:

İs it here the right place to make comments about political sitıations?

or

write reviews about games, which will be played by all the people from all religions?

Here is my reply:

Mehmed,

You name yourself after the perverted butcher and boy-rapist who sacked Constantinople in 1453. That's the kind of class I expect from a Muslim.

Nice touch. You really get a kick out of insulting non-Muslims when they don't know it, don't you?

As to your question, until people of one religion stop slaughtering members of other religions at their god and prophet's command, games like this will be made.

On Mehmed II and the fall of Constantinople:

"Thousands of civilians were enslaved, soldiers fought over young boys and young women . . . the invaders broke the heads of those women who resisted on the floor of the churches and they raped them dead. The famous icon of Apostole Loukas was totally destroyed.

"The sultan asked for the young sons of Duke Loukas Notaras. Their father refused and Mehmed was ready to take their heads. Notaras asked him to kill him after his sons so that he was sure that they were dead and not disgraced from the . . . sultan.

"And this is what happened."

What's in a name? When looking for clarity about God, everything

My first comment here in response to the person below was offered with the thought that perhaps he was well-intentioned but confused. From his response, it seemed necessary to demonstrate to him his error a little more emphatically.

His basic argument consists of three parts: 1) Since every religion calls its deity "god," then all gods must be the same being; 2) Since so many contradictory religious opinions exist, it must be that no one really knows who God is; and 3) Since so many contradictory religious opinions exist, every religious opinion is as good as every other (except of course, the one that says they aren't).

The essential answer comes in my last comment:

“Only one of those is his given name but he answers to them all.”

You’re confusing multiple names for one person to mean that one name for many persons makes them all the same person.

My first reply:

Doorman-Priest,

On the chance that your comment is offered in good faith . . .

If your wife were to indulge her marital urge with Bob or Kevin or Derek, would that be a problem? Would her defense of, “They’re all men” satisfy you?

You are confusing the use of the common noun “god” for all deities being the same one.

Christ is not Vishnu is not Allah is not Abaangui.

And later . . .

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?),

That’s quite a few errors for so brief a post. I’ll address each one:

“There is only one God”

According to you, but as you admit, you don’t really know, so why should we listen, right?

YHWH says there are many gods. And none of them shall you have before Him.

Only one god is true, and He has revealed Himself to us. His name is I AM That I AM.

His Son, Jesus, claimed that name for Himself also.

“therefore whatever name we call him/her”

As I just noted, He told us His name. At least have the decency to respect what Someone wants to call Himself.

“whatever we perceive that God to be”

Here, as later, you imply that everyone’s opinions of god(s) are equally true. Even if our knowledge of God came only from Nature and Conscience, that would be false.

Since YHWH has revealed Himself to Humanity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you’ve gone past natural, human ignorance and self-deception and into outright blasphemy.

You call YHWH a liar.

So, you claim that Christ ordains genocidal prophets marry their best friend’s daughters when they’re six-years-old and begin raping them when they’re nine.

You’re a liar.

“and however inadequate that revelation”

YHWH’s revelation is sufficient. The only inadequacy is your willingness or ability to tell the truth about it.

“(or perhaps more to the point in this context however inadequate we believe that revelation to others to be), it can only be the same God.”

Equating a god commanding the slaughter of all who refuse to submit to its rule with the Christ Who taught, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” is not “inadequate revelation,” it is [a] lie straight from the pit of Hell.

“Why do we think God cares what we call him”

Something along the lines of, “You shall not take the name of [the LORD your God] YHWH in vain,” perhaps?

“when people are trying to have communion with him”

So, monsters ripping Christian schoolgirls’ heads from their bodies to shouts of “allahu akbar!” is “communion” with the one, true god?

You’re sick.

“and are approaching in reverence and faith?”

So, was Mohammed approaching the one, true god in “reverence and faith” when he began raping little nine-year-old Aisha? He said he was: “If this is from Allah, then it must happen.”

“We may not believe “others” have got it quite right”

What does Christ say?

“it’s a good job God isn’t bound by our prejudices and shortsightedness”

Isn’t denying the clear word of Christ, isn’t denying the truth, “prejudiced and shortsighted”?

“and can apply his grace wherever he chooses. I am not going to put limits on the grace of God.”

Your lies limit the grace of God by denying it to billions.

True humility would say what Christ says. It would definitely *not* blaspheme YHWH by equating Him with deities from Hell.

True humility, true religion, would say what Christ says, not multiculturalist, intellectual cowardice.

“You have made God in your own image when his enemies are exactly the same as yours.”

The faithful Christian makes Christ’s enemies — the devil, all his works, and all his ways — his own. The devil was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. And sons of hell bar Heaven to those who want to enter it.

Presidential transparency from the Hypocrite-in-Chief

So, let me get this straight: President Hussein won't release his birth certificate, but he will release secret memos from the previous administration?

When Obama talked about transparency and ethics, he meant that he'd be transparent with other people's affairs because he lacks any ethics. Shame on voters for thinking otherwise.

Deceitful wretch.

The Justice Department has released a long-secret legal document from 2001 in which the Bush administration claimed the military could search and seize terror suspects in the United States without warrants.

The legal memo was written about a month after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. It says constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure would not apply to terror suspects in the U.S., as long as the president or another high official authorized the action.

Even after the Bush administration rescinded that legal analysis, the Justice Department refused to release its contents, prompting a standoff with congressional Democrats.

The memo was one of nine released Monday by the Obama administration.

Christ our Righteousness

Offered in response to a friend:

"I have read all of the Gospels . . . and understand what is required of one who is seeking salvation of the Christian variety."

Respectfully, this indicates a lack of understanding of the faith. The Bible's clear teaching is that by observing the Law, no one will be saved, but because of God's great mercy, Christ died for us. There is nothing required of us, for God's Son has done everything.

"what I read in both the Bible and the New Testament and do not find a seamless thread connecting the two."

The one unifying theme of the Old Testament writings is the Messiah-to-Come; the New Testament writings all testify to the Messiah-Who-has-Come-and-Will-Come-Again.

Jesus said, "You search the Scriptures [the Old Testament] because in them you think you have life, but they testify of Me."

A post-Resurrection account describes Jesus showing to two Christians that the Law and Prophets ([the] Old Testament) all spoke of Him.

"I did not get from the last prophet in the Bible the same impression that is expounded upon by Paul about Jesus as the Messiah as well as other topics."

By "last prophet," do you mean an Old Testament prophet? In that case, John the Baptist was the last prophet, and he said of Jesus, "Behold, the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world!"

If you meant the last book written, Revelation, then that was the Apostle John, author also of one gospel and three epistles.

Every author has his own style, audience, and purpose for writing.

Revelation, as apocalyptic (and therefore highly-symbolic) literature gives an overview of the New Testament period. Basically, the Church will suffer terrible persecution, but those who remain faithful to the end will receive eternal life.

(I'd be happy to discuss Revelation further with you. Do not expect it to be like any other book except Daniel and Ezekiel.)

"for the Jews there is a criteria that is to be fulfilled by the Messiah and ALL OF IT was to be fulfilled."

Yes, except for those parts that have to do with the End of the World.

"Christianity and Judaism are religions each in their own right and not connected in any way.

That is not true.

Again, Jesus is the Messiah promised since Adam, His Scriptures [are] all Hebrew/Jewish, His Apostles were all Jews, the first Christians were Jewish, [and] traditional Christian worship comes from its Hebrew/Jewish roots.

The faithful Jew -- as Paul points out powerfully; see his comments on the true Israel, the true children of Abraham who are circumcised in the heart and not necessarily in the flesh -- is the one who believes in the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. It is the unfaithful, rebellious, and apostate (or ignorant) Jew who rejects the Messiah.

Jesus made that clear when He said, "Before Abraham was born, I AM."

"Christians would be Jews--and not the other way around since the Messiah is intended to bring the all of God's people to the Jews either in righteousness or conversion, while the Jews fulfill their covenant with God as the intended priests of the world."

And the Jews did not keep their part of that covenant. Recall the conditions of that agreement: Israel had to keep all of YHWH's commandments. They did not. They broke the Covenant, which is why the Messiah came to institute a New Covenant, a New Testament in His blood for the forgiveness of sins!

As I noted above, Christ came to reconcile the whole world to His Father, both Jew and Gentile. Paul actually describes Gentile Christians being grafted into the plant (of God's people): If God does not spare natural branches for their unbelief in the Messiah, then neither will He spare those grafted-in branches.

Again, Paul talks about all who trust in Christ -- whether Jew or Gentile -- as being the true Israel. Peter also makes the same point calling Christians -- Jew and Gentile -- ["]a chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, a people belonging to God [. . . ."]

I hope you will look into these things more deeply. Jesus said, "salvation is of the Jews," and "I AM the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except by Me."

Seven hundred years before the Messiah appeared, the prophet Isaiah wrote, "He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed."