Monday, June 29, 2009

A beautiful observation about Islam

Succinct, potent, beautiful.

From here:
ahm: also this is a bad site to learn anything about isalm ,full of islamic haters and truth fighters.

Pawn-King-Nine: True, they should visit the sites that only talk about nice things instead of what Muhammad said and did

Genuflecting to a Muslim tyrant

An American president bows to no one.

It used to be that standing up in defiance of tyranny was called "honor," "moral," "good," "duty."


Too many of our citizens are today perverse cowards. They despise such virtues. They appease murderers and rapists and lie in defense of the indefensible.

Naturally, the leaders they choose for themselves are no different.

America's Groveler-in-Chief demonstrated his Leftist (Islamic?) bona fides in bowing to the tyrant of Saudi Arabia, an act that should outrage (and alarm) every man, woman, and child who cherish (or long for) freedom.

Even those who paid no attention to our Slave-in-Chief's (that "abd" is Arabic for both "slave" and "Black man" reflects the Islamic attitude toward those of African descent and makes so many American Blacks' rejection of Christianity as the "White man's religion" in favor of Islam ironic, tragic, and ignorant; How do you think those African nations became Islamic?) Muslim and radical Leftist background, tendencies, and associations should realize now that the man who sits in the Oval Office is no friend of Liberty or America.

B. Hussein Obama is a friend to and demands that we respect Islam and all that entails, including "sacralized" genocide, honor killings, rape, pedophilia, female genital mutilation, slavery, wife-beating, gender discrimination, and religious persecution.

(Sounds like a Christian to me.)

Parvin Darabi, a woman born into Islam, whose sister died in the Islamic paradise of Iran struggling for equality of rights for women under shari'a, lays out clearly why genuflecting to the Saudi wretch was a monumental act of cowardice (or worse) here:

An open letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. President, the Bow Was Wrong.

Today I watched the news about the establishment of Sharia laws in Afghanistan and the demonstrations by Afghani women against the barbaric laws of Islam which makes one member of the society subjugated and enslaved to the other.

Like you I grew up Muslim, unlike you I was a woman, and it is as a woman that I would like to tell you why the bow to the Saudi King and the Olive Branch to the Islamic world is wrong.

Why would you bow to a man who is the custodian of such horrible and outdated laws? Why should a man have the right to rape his wife? Why should a woman have to require her husband’s, father’s, son’s or even her grandson’s permission to leave her house as it is customary in Saudi Arabia? Why shouldn’t women in Saudi Arabia be able to drive a car, go to work, run for office or be elected or even vote? Why should a woman’s life worth, testimony and inheritance be half of her male [counterpart]? A law in all Islamic countries.

Why would you, the representative of the free world bow to the leader and custodian of a religion that allows men to beat, maim and even kill their female siblings for crimes such as falling in love? Haven't you heard about honor killings? I am sure you have seen the horrific news [reel] of the seventeen year old girl being held down by her brother and slashed by a Talib.

Why are you appeasing Muslims and why do you say that we have no animosity to Islam. Why not? What part of Sharia law you admire? The age of maturity for female, which is 9 years of age? The law that women have to be totally subjugated to their male relatives? Or the law that makes father or his family the custodian of young children in the case of death or divorce with no visitation rights for the mother? Or do you honor the law that allows men to have four permanent wives, or honor killing, or the law that women have to be wrapped in fifty yards of fabric when in presence of their male [counterpart]? Is Secretary Clinton going to wear an abaya, a chador or a burka when she meets with her [counterparts] in the Islamic world?

What was there to honor with the king of Saudi Arabia? Weren’t Saudi Arabia and Pakistan the only two countries that recognized Talibans as the legitimate government of Afghanistan? Weren’t the Talibans nurtured, helped and protected by the king of Saudi Arabia? Isn't Saudi Royal family the major contributor to the Muslim Brotherhood?

I am just so baffled[,] so are millions of women in the Islamic world. Thousands of women commit suicide every year in the Islamic world due to the Sharia laws. One such woman was my sister, Dr. Homa Darabi, who self-immolated on February 21st. 1994 in Tehran protesting the inhumane treatment of women under the Sharia laws. She was an American citizen and her story is published in the book, Rage Against the Veil, Prometheus, 1999.

Yes Mr. President, your bow to this dictator was and is an offense to all the women who cherish freedom and long for it in the Islamic world. This is not the change we voted for.

Mr. President, we must help the Islamic world to have their renaissance. We must make them to leave the 7th century and enter into the 21st. Koran must be rewritten. Sharia laws must be banned and freedom and democracy must be our goal in these forsaken places known as Islamic countries. We must help Muslim women to find life, liberty and the pursuit of their happiness not to bow to the Islamic dictators. Now this would be a change I could believe in.

I worked very hard to get you elected as my president and leader and to see you bow to such dictator as king of Saudi Arabia is an offense to me and my dead sister, Dr. Homa Darabi, the [well-known] Iranian Pediatrician, Child and Adolescent Psych[ia]trist.

Parvin Darabi
Co-author, Rage Against the Veil
Dr. Homa Darabi Foundation

Mistaking the bondage of the will for evidence of a god that creates people for Hell

Offered in reply to Ken's defense of Calvin's Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, and Irresistible Grace, which begins by claiming that the verses from Romans 3 that I did not include in my last response means that God predestines people for Hell:
Romans 3:23-24; but you left out verse 22 and 25-26 . . . The text does not say that "every single individual was justified in Christ by His death on the cross".
But it does: "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace . . . ."

Do only some sin? Do only some fall short?

"All" is the subject of the second part of the compound predicate also. Paul was good with words. If he meant to limit the number of people justified (declared "innocent") by Christ's blood, he would have.

In Paul's Ministry of Reconciliation "God was reconciling the world to Himself" in Christ's body on the cross.

"World" means "world."

I think that part of the problem here is a confusion between Objective and Subjective Justification.

What does Scripture say?

God declares the whole world "justified" in Christ (Objective Justification). Only those who trust in Christ will experience this gift (Subjective Justification).
Do you believe that many people do go to hell because of their sin and their unbelief in Jesus?
Again, what does Scripture say?

All die because all sin. All of us are, by nature, sinful and unclean. We justly deserve God's temporal and eternal punishment.

Everyone in Hell deserves to be there, including every Christian.

Judging from his sermon, Piper's fundamental error is in mistaking his realization that we play no part in our salvation for a confirmation of the un-Biblical elements of Calvin's theology.

The fundamental concept of Total Depravity is taught in Scripture, but the idea that God does not call all, send His Spirit to all, seek the salvation of all, long for all to be saved, atone for the sins of all, and justify the "all" who have sinned and fallen short of His glory makes Him a liar.

Jesus warned us that unless we become like little children, we will not enter the Kingdom of God. Part of that is just believing what He said.

It is our duty as Christians to speak all of and only His Word.

Can anyone produce Scripture that says Christ died for only "some"? That He sends His Spirit to only "some"? That Jesus came to save only "some"? That YHWH is willing that "some" perish?

If not, then Calvin's heresies must be rejected as such.

If not, then one can hardly extol God's "sovereignty."

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Troubling truths about Islam

An interfaith dialogue on the Religion of Peace, the kind that our political, media, and academic elites ought to be having, not the suicidal, politically-correct, Saudi-funded, jihad-enabling, ignorant nonsense going on today.

A response to Mohamed Fadly, from here, with slight modifications in format and some added, bracketed commentary:
1) Falsely equating Christ and Allah

Mohamed equates Christ's command to “Love your enemies” with Allah's not forbidding dealing “kindly and justly” with those who do not fight Muslims nor drive them from their homes.

How are those equivalent? How does being kind to someone not harming you even approach loving one's enemies?

To be remotely comparable, Allah would have to state something along the lines of “Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just to those who fight against you for faith or drive you from your homes.”

Even then, that would only allow kindness to one's enemies, not command love toward them, as Christ does.

2) Qur'anic contradictions? Yes, Naskh, the doctrine of Abrogation.

Mohamed talks about the “apparent” contradictions in Qur'an. They exist.

Later “revelations” that contradict earlier ones abrogate them. This is called “naskh”:
“The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath'" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427).

“Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things” (Qur'an 2:106)?
The abrogations most troubling to non-Muslims concern the proper Muslim stance toward them.

Unfortunately for millions (billions?) of “infidels” over the last fourteen hundred years, Muhammad's position on the subject evolved from one of cooperation with non-Muslims, to allowing self-defense, to requiring self-defense, to demanding offensive warfare against those who refuse the “invitation” to Islam (or slavery under it).

3) The tried-but-not-true, "Out-of-context! Out-of-context!"

[The only problem is, no one ever shows how my citations are actually, out-of-context.]

Mohamed makes an argument for understanding passages in their context. I agree.

I've never done otherwise, contrary to his implication.

Mohamed does neglect to make one point regarding context: Since Qur'an is a series of often disjointed, independent sayings – its chapters arranged by size, not chronology – to find the context of many passages it is necessary to go to ahadith (the sayings of Muhammad) and sira (his biographies).

4) Pulling the wool over the eyes of those unfamiliar with the Islamic texts commanding jihad

[Those new to Muhammad's hellish doctrines often jump naturally from The Verse of the Sword (9:5) to the conclusion that Muhammad and his allah want(ed) every non-Muslim dead. This misunderstanding provides the opportunity for the more experienced among jihad's apologists to score points in the eyes of the gullible, foolish, and perverse. Worse, it can confuse and demoralize those rightly alarmed at what they understand intuitively as the threat posed by Islam to all humanity.

Non-Muslims should be aware that yes, Muhammad and his allah love(d) infidel blood, but he also likes converts, which are one good way to swell the ranks of Hell.

I'd guess that Muhammad preferred non-Muslims as sex slaves and punching bags, because they just keep giving and giving and giving.

And attractive infidel women reproduce Muslims just fine.]

Regrettably, it appears that Mohamed is implying that I've claimed that Allah commands Muslims to kill “all non-Muslims.” Or, perhaps, he's hoping someone else who isn't paying attention will think I have.

Mohamed admits (unintentionally, I'd wager) that Allah commands warfare against non-Muslims (“every other verse that clarified how and when to fight against them and when to give peace”).

So, let's look at one of those chronically-taken-out-of-context verses and its actual context[:] Qur'an 9:5.

This is called “The Verse of the Sword,” and with it, Muhammad opened up the entire non-Muslim world to Islamic conquest, making all non-Muslims targets for either conversion, slavery, or slaughter.

Here is The Verse:
"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).
A non-Muslim unfamiliar with the context of that verse would be alarmed (rightly) and may make the logical leap to “all Muslims are commanded to kill all non-Muslims.” This would not be true, and here is why: Muhammad ordered slaughter for those non-Muslims who refuse the “invitation” to Islam and subjugation as dhimmis (an option for the “People of the Book;” pagans are not usually so “lucky”):
"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).
So, no, “all Muslims” are not ordered to kill “all non-Muslims.” Just the ones who resist.

One other important consideration: Since the goal of Islam is the establishment of Allah's tyranny over all mankind, the use of any means necessary is fine. If Islam can subjugate the entire world without firing a shot or lighting a fuse, it will.

This is why you see demographics, media, schools, prisons, politics, the courts, and money used successfully in establishing Islam in Western nations.

If anything, bin Laden and his buddies may have set back the spread of Islam in America.

5) Isn't it ironic (in a sad, suicidal, end-of-civilization-kind-of-way) that you have to take Islamic texts out-of-context to get a message of peace?

Mohamed brings up two passages to illustrate that Qur'anic verses should be taken in context.

Again, I agree, they should.

The first is 2:191, “slay them wherever ye catch them.” Though I have not taken this verse out-of-context, Muslims dealing with inexperienced non-Muslims often use this verse to mislead their audiences.

Yes, the command here is given in the context of retaliation, retribution, even self-defense.

The only problem is, the same command is uttered in the context of offensive warfare against non-Muslims in Sura 9 (quoted above) on the basis of religion, the only “immunity” granted to those “infidels” who've kept their treaties with Muhammad, and only until those treaties expire.

Sura 4 mentions self-defense in verse 91, but look at verse 89: “Do not consider them friends, unless they mobilize along with you in the cause of Allah. If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war. You shall not accept them as friends, or allies.”

Exempted from this violence are those who join groups with extant peace treaties with Muhammad (verse 90).

So the default state according to Mr. Fadly is – without considering the later verses requiring offensive warfare – one of hostility toward non-Muslims on religious grounds.

Again, Mohamed states that, “It's not an absolute permission to annihilate all and everyone who disbelieve in Islam.”

I've never said otherwise.

And isn't it curious that Mohamed doesn't volunteer the rest of the story?

6) "Peace." Muslims keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

[Non-Muslims should be aware that Islam uses words that we find comforting, reassuring.

The only problem is that Islam uses its own dictionary.

Consider "peace," "innocent," and "terrorism."

In Islam, "peace" means that state or condition when all non-Muslims have converted, are enslaved, or dead. It's not hard to be "the world's fastest growing religion" when you're killing the competition. (Microsoft must be mad at the double standard.)

Whatever "innocent" means (usually "Muslim"), it cannot be applied to any non-Muslim, for, by virtue of their unbelief, they are friends of Satan and enemies of Allah (which is ironic, because in the Real World, the two are indistinguishable).

And "terrorism" is whatever a non-Muslim does in defense of himself or others against Allah, especially if they're Jews.]

Instructively, Mohamed concludes this section of his comments with this:
“it's an exceptional solution to treat with those who oppress, fight, and don't aim at establishing peace and maintaining stability. It's restricted by treaties that Muslims held with others.”
With self-defense (“those who fight”) I have no problem. With retaliation, I understand (I don't agree, but I understand).

I do have a problem with “oppress,” and “don't aim at establishing . . . and maintaining stability.” Too often, Muslims – following Muhammad's example – consider non-Muslims not immediately lying down and making every concession demanded of them by the faithful as committing “oppression” or causing “instability.”

Not being Muslim is a threat to the Islamic state!

Here, “disbelief” in Allah is the cause for war:
"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).
Another declares execution, crucifixion, and amputation appropriate punishments for . . . “mischief”:
"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).
[Ibn Kathir says of it: `Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil."]
I always slaughter those with whom I have no peace treaty.

7) Dhimmi "rights," an exemplar of Islam's sick sense of humor

Mohamed makes a passing reference to “dhimmi” rights. That's an oxymoron to any honest person whose done his homework!

Dhimma is “protection” for the “People of the Book,” Jews and Christians (and at times, certain other groups).

Protection from whom? This is the kind of “protection” mobsters offer: You pay us, and we'll protect you – from ourselves!

In fact, mafia look like angels next to what Islam has traditionally offered dhimmis, per Muhammad's command in Qur'an 9:29, which reads: “Fight those who believe not in Allah . . . 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.

“Subdued” is translated variously as “brought low” and “subjection.”

What does this mean in practice? One model of Islamic “protection” is the Pact of Umar, which states in part:
“We [Christians] shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor [h]ide him from the Muslims.

We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists

We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.

We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."
Can't you feel the love?

8) Israelis defending themselves against animals who target innocents (from among their own people) because Allah told them to do so? The Israelis are the terrorists!

Mohamed tries to ameliorate the utter barbarity of Muhammad's being made “victorious with terror” and the implications of that declaration and example for today's non-Muslims concerned with Islamic terrorism with this verse:
“And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah. But the (Wrath of) Allah came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts ..” 59:2
They were hiding in their fortresses.

(By the way, it is not a good idea to bring up Israel and their Muslim neighbors in defense of Islam. If Israel were as bad as Islamic and other anti-Semites claim, they'd have “taken care” of the “Palestinians” a long time ago.

The truth is, since its inception, modern Israel has had to defend itself continually against jihad.)

9) Islamic ideals of tolerance, justice, and safety? Muslims only, please.

Mohamed notes a punishment carried out in Saudi Arabia for heinous crimes. I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem with this: Mr. Fadly does not mention that the way in which the “Islamic religion maintain[s] the safety of the people” applies only to Muslims, even in his beloved Egypt, where Copts are attacked and killed and their daughters kidnapped and raped routinely by Muslims.

Under Islamic law – which is derived from Qur'an and Sunna – non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little children are not afforded the same consideration as Muslim males.

Consider the following passages regarding just non-Muslims; perhaps Mohamed can explain how these texts don't say what they actually say:
"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)."

"Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a decision that when a [J]ew or [C]hristian 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).

"Muhammad - the messenger of GOD - and those with him are harsh and stern against the disbelievers, but kind and compassionate amongst themselves" (Qur'an 48:29).
And, of course, all the passages regarding offensive warfare to make the world Islam.

Theology shapes ideology

For better in the case of Christianity and the American Republic.

For worse in the case of Islam and non-Muslims, apostates, women, and children everywhere.

Spurred by a patriot:
Freedom of speech is an excellent point at which to begin comparing and contrasting YHWH and His Christ -- the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the Prophets -- with Allah, Muhammad's deity.

The American conviction expressed in the Declaration of Independence -- that all rights come from YHWH and are therefore, unalienable (cannot be transferred, sold, stolen, or given away), belong to all equally, and include Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness – is derived directly from the teachings of the Bible, especially the words and work of Christ.

In the Ten Commandments we find YHWH's protection of human life (and other rights), and in the words of the Apostles we find that, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free."

We also receive from Jesus the concept of "Two Kingdoms" -- civil government versus God's rule in the Church, the invisible body of all Christians everywhere. Christ taught, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's [in context, money for taxes, and this to the Roman tyrant!], and give to God what is God's” [faith, obedience, loyalty, everything else].

Because of these doctrines, under the American Constitution all citizens are guaranteed the right to practice freely the non-genocidal, non-totalitarian religion of their choosing, without government interference.

Compare and contrast Christ's doctrines and the form of government derived from them with Allah's:

First, according to Muhammad, Allah's final revelations (these abrogate all previous statements allowing peaceful cooperation with non-Muslims) do not allow freedom of speech or religion. Muhammad slaughtered those who spoke against him (see, for example, Asma bint Marwan, whose murder at Muhammad's instigation is recorded by Ibn Ishaq in his Sirat Rasul Allah). He also commanded that if anyone changes his Islamic religion, “then kill him” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

Second, according to Muhammad, he was ordered (and so are his followers) to fight against the people “until all religion is for Allah.” Muslims are to use any means necessary to establish the rule of Allah over all mankind. This means that unless a non-Muslim accepts the “invitation” to Islam – or slavery under it if they're “lucky” enough to be a Jew or Christian (or perhaps, Zoroastrian, though they've been mostly wiped out by Islam) -- he is to be slaughtered by the faithful:
"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).
Consider the stark contrast between any shari'a state in history and America. Even today's Islamic nations, though not fully shari'a-compliant, are prime examples of utter barbarism, discrimination, and tyranny, while the United States of America (once the most Christian nation on Earth) is still the most free, even to the point of ending slavery within its borders (something of which Muhammad and his allah approve, especially if the infidel slave woman is really “desirable”).

Clearly, when human beings obey the principles found in the religion taught by Christ, freedom results.

Allah's religion results only in slavery and death.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Calvin's lonely god

Christ said that "many" enter destruction, and few find the way to eternal life.

If, as Calvin and some of his defenders argue, God denies the "many" reprobate who end up in Hell knowledge of Him and His grace -- they are "justly left in their sin" by His "sovereignty" -- then Calvin's god is lonely by choice. It chose to save only a few.

The Christian God calls all people to eternal life, not just the "lucky" few.

Offered in response to some thoughts from a kind sir concerned about my understanding of Calvin's unique doctrines:
I realize now that "God's Sovereignty" is code for "I'm a Calvinist."

I did not intend to "go for the throat;" I got the sense that you were someone who was perhaps Lutheran and had moderated your original views on Calvin's doctrines.

Apparently, you have crossed over fully into Calvinism.

As for what Calvin taught and Calvinism teaches, I did not invent, “TULIP.”

With Total Depravity (“T”), I have no problem (the teaching, not the condition!), since Scripture says that we are by nature sinful and unclean. We are dead in our trespasses and sin.

With that Luther would agree, I think.

Perseverence of the Saints (“P”), though contrary to Scripture, does not make God a monster.

It is with the heart of Calvinism (the center of "t U-L-I p") that I have a problem. It contradicts the Word of God and perverts His nature. (That's the nicest way I can say that without lying by omission.)

With respect to Unconditional Election (“U”), yes, Scripture states that God predestines believers to eternal life, and yes, It does make clear that those who end up in Hell deserve it (as do we all).

But judging from the Calvin quote I offered previously -- according to the Modern History Sourcebook, "from John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by John Allen" (sorry, no page number), found here -- it does not seem that he is saying what you are saying he's saying.

Calvin states that God "exclud[es] the reprobate from the knowledge of his name and the sanctification of his Spirit."

God does not say that He “justly leaves us in our sins” (your words). Christ came to save “the world.”

Jesus puts the lie to Calvin's claim by observing, “many are called, but few are chosen.” How many is “many,” according to the context? Those who were invited refused, so the King's servants were commanded to go out into the streets and "invite . . . as many as you find." They “gathered all whom they found.”

Not “some” of whom they found. All were invited. All were called.

No one was "justly left in their sin," alone and helpless.

Similarly, with regard to Limited Atonement (“L”) you wrote, "An atonement that actually saves and purchases us out of sin."

Jesus actually saves. Christ is – “actually” -- the atoning sacrifice not only for our sins, but for the sins of “the whole world.” God was actually reconciling “the world” to Himself in Christ's body on the cross.

Not “some” of the world.

Jesus did not lament, "I longed to gather only 'some' of you." Nor did He declare that His mission was to save "only some." Christ came to seek and to save “the lost.”

Not “some” of the lost.

Lastly, concerning Irresistible Grace (“I”), if God's grace is “irresistible,” then – as Calvin observes above – God does not send His Holy Spirit to those “many” who end up in Hell, or they wouldn't be there.

You call that, "justly leaving people in their sin."

Calvin's god creates people for Hell.

Calvin's god died for only some people.

Calvin's god denies the Holy Spirit to many.

Calvin's god justly leaves many in their sin, helpless and alone.

Christ opened the kingdom of Heaven to all people, but Calvin and his god shut it in people's faces.

They are "denied the knowledge of God and His grace." They are "justly left in their sin."

The justice of God is not how a holy and righteous God punishes sin, but how the merciful God justifies all in Christ: "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus . . . ."
Christ died for all so that all might live.

Update: It was recommended I read Piper's, The Justification of God. Here is my reaction to that:
I had a chance to read the sermon. Piper quotes Jonathan Edwards:
"the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, in choosing whom he would to eternal life, and rejecting whom he pleased; leaving them eternally to perish, and be everlastingly tormented in hell."

"in God’s shewing mercy to whom he will show mercy, and hardening whom he will."
You (plural) are taking Paul's rhetorical argument -- a hypothetical -- and making out of it a doctrine that contradicts the rest of Scripture.

That hardly seems wise.

Piper says that "Romans 9 is an explanation for why the word of God has not failed even though God’s chosen people, Israel, as a whole, are not turning to Christ and being saved."

He claims that the reason for their not turning to Christ is "God's sovereignty."

But Paul says it is because of unbelief in Christ:
"but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame" (Romans 9:31-33).
Piper's misunderstanding of Romans 9 comes from his misidentifying "Israel." They do not have "conditions they must me[e]t to be the 'children of promise.'"

Paul is making the point in Romans 9 that it is by faith -- not works -- that both Jew and Gentile become a part of the true Israel.

This chapter is not about God denying His grace to anyone -- justly leaving people in their sin -- it is about how a person receives the forgiveness of sins and eternal life: Faith in Christ.

Piper concludes by asking:
"Are all Israel the "children of promise" or only some? If only some, what makes one person a child of promise and another not?"
Paul answers -- God answers: "Faith in Christ" -- which is "the gift of God" -- makes a person a child of the Promise.

Friday, June 05, 2009

Murderer of tens of thousands gets a taste of his own medicine

George Tiller received more consideration from his executioner than he offered to his victims.

Perhaps abortion supporters should consider his death just a really, really, late-term abortion.

To them, if it's a baby being slaughtered, it's a "Constitutional right," but if it's one of their own on the receiving end of a "procedure," it's a crime.

What is it that abortionists like George Tiller, Barack Hussein Obama, Notre Dame, and the Democratic Party defend(ed)?

The fiends at Planned Parenthood describe common abortion this way:
"[e]ither a hand-held suction device or a suction machine gently empties your uterus. Sometimes, an instrument called a curette is used to remove any remaining tissue that lines the uterus. It may also be used to check that the uterus is empty. When a curette is used, people often call the abortion a D&C — dilation and curettage.
"gently," "empties," "any remaining tissue." That "tissue" is what's left of the baby.

Euphemisms for cruel slaughter.

Abortionists butcher not only the unborn, but the English language as well, because this is what they're trying to hide:
Suction Abortion Also called vacuum aspiration, this is the most common abortion technique in use today. In this procedure a suction tube is inserted through the dilated cervix into the womb. A powerful vacuum tears the placenta from the uterus and dismembers the body of the developing child, sucking the pieces into an attached jar. There is a risk that the uterus can be punctured during the procedure. Also, the abortionist must take care that all the body parts are removed from the womb, as infection and hemorrhage can occur if fetal or placental tissue is left in the uterus.
You certainly wouldn't want someone dismembering their baby to feel any discomfort.
Dilation and Curettage: In a D&C abortion, usually performed between seven and twelve weeks of pregnancy, the doctor inserts a curette, a loop-shaped steel knife, into the womb through the dilated cervix. As the curette scrapes the wall of the uterus, the baby is cut into pieces. Bleeding can be considerable. As with a suction abortion, there is a risk of infection or hemorrhage, so the abortionist must reassemble the body parts to make sure the uterus is empty.
Can't leave any baby laying around, can we?
Dilation and Evacuation: This method is similar to a D&C, except that forceps must be used to grasp the baby's body because of the child's advanced development. The baby is dismembered as the abortionist twists and tears the parts of the body and slices the placenta away from the uterus. Bleeding is profuse. Although relatively safe for the mother, the procedure is devastating to the hospital staff and many doctors refuse to do advanced D&E abortions.
How bad must it be that exercising this fundamental, Constitutional right is "devastating" to human beings who otherwise have no qualms about butchering younger, more helpless babies?

George Tiller had no problem with any of this.

Neither does B. Hussein Obama, since he opposed protecting those who survived their murderers' vacuums and blades.

Instead of offering assurances of special protection to abortionists, he ought to be fulfilling his oath of office and defending Life.

Here's what made George Tiller a "hero":
Salt Poisoning (Saline Injection): "Salting out" is the second most common method of inducing abortion and is usually used after sixteen weeks. The doctor inserts a long needle through the mother's abdomen and injects a saline solution into the sac of amniotic fluid surrounding the baby. The baby is poisoned by swallowing the salt and his skin is completely burned away. It takes about an hour to kill the baby. After the child dies, the mother goes into labor and expels the dead baby. Saline injections have been outlawed in some countries because of the risks to the mother, which can include lung and kidney damage if the salt finds its way into her bloodstream. In spite of the horrible burning effect, some babies have survived "salting out" and been born alive.

Hysterotomy; Similar to the Cesarean section, the hysterotomy abortion is a surgical procedure whereby the baby is removed from the mother's womb and allowed to die by neglect or killed by a direct act. This method offers the highest risk to the mother and produces the most number of live births. Hysterotomy is used only for late term pregnancies, and is sometimes used if the salt poisoning or prostaglandin abortion has failed.Just as Hitler's mufti -- the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem -- exhorted Nazis at a concentration camp he visited during The War, slaughtering innocents takes diligence!
Prostaglandin Abortion: Prostaglandin is a chemical hormone which induces violent labor and premature birth when injected into the amniotic sac. Since prostaglandin results in an unusually high percentage of live births, salt, urea or another toxin is often injected first. The risk of live birth from a prostaglandin abortion is so great that its use is recommended only in hospitals with neonatal intensive care units. The risk to the mother is also greater with the use of prostaglandin; complications can include cardiac arrest.
Utter barbarity.

Ann Coulter has it right:
Tiller bragged about performing 60,000 abortions, including abortions of viable babies, able to survive outside the mother's womb. He made millions of dollars performing late-term abortions so gruesome that only two other abortionists – not a squeamish bunch – in the entire country would perform them.
Abortionists have murdered tens of millions of innocent, helpless babies. What do those killers receive in return?

Not justice, not condemnation, not even a strongly-worded note. Instead, they get apologies, supplications, and assurances of special protection.

The unborn receive . . . only support for their butchers.

What kind of church allows a monster like that in their congregation? Those are no Lutherans. They're no Christians. They're hypocrites and cowards.

The Canaanites who worshiped Molech sacrificed their children no less brutally than Tiller and his coreligionists.

Who can hope to escape judgment?