Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Math even an "academic" can do

A few lines in response to Timothy Behrend, a Muslim attacking those who rape, maim, and slaughter in Allah's name.  No, scratch that. He's attacking the Biblical God.

From here:
(Notice, dear readers, that Timmy isn't dealing with you honestly. He thinks you're idiots. Rather than address forthrightly the jihad ideology and its Source and Sustenance -- the command of Allah and the example of Muhammad -- he's deflecting, making a false moral equivalence between YHWH and Muhammad, and by implication, a false moral equivalence between Jews/Christians and his coreligionists, which is itself an admission of their depravity. Thanks, for helping out, Timmy!)

Are ancient Hebrews blowing up innocent Gentiles to shouts of "YHWH is great!"? Trying to equate the God of the Bible with your fellow Muslims . . . is that supposed to elevate Muslims, denigrate YHWH, or shame us into silence? (How sad.)

The God of Abraham is the God of Moses. The difference between the Exodus/Canaan and jihad is that the Creator of the universe has a right to punish sin and to preserve His people in anticipation of the coming Savior of all. The God of Moses is not a genocidal, pedophilic warlord promising fellow degenerates a cosmic brothel with perpetual virgins and "boys like pearls" if they kill or are killed fighting to expand his empire. The God of Moses is the one Who gave humanity the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, not the one who "sacralized" their violation. He is the One Who became flesh, committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, commanding His people to love even their enemies. He is not the one who made a sex slave out of a little, prepubescent nine-year-old girl and claimed, "Allah made me do it."

One God gave His life to give heaven to all; one god gives heaven to those who take others' lives. The God Who punished sin by taking the firstborn of Egypt paid for the sins of all by giving up His One and Only Son. Even an "academic" can do that math, Tim.

You hoped that we would confuse the means for the end by focusing on your coreligionists' auto-detonating, not on the reason for their slaughtering non-Muslims, whatever the tactic. Of course, when Muslim armies are stronger, they use more conventional weapons of war. Terrorism is not the issue -- jihad is.

But of course, you knew that.

Monday, September 20, 2010

Everyone gets angry, but only one group of people flies planes into buildings while praising their deity

More from here, this time in response to the claim that one can use Qur'an and Sunnah to persuade others that violence in Islam's name is illegitimate, a strategy effective with the uninformed but not with those who actually know Islam's texts, tenets, and timelines.

Every verse from Muhammad speaking of peace toward non-Muslims has been abrogated (the doctrine of Naskh) by the numerous later verses of blood:
Naskh. As long as Muslims read Islamic 'sacred' texts in-context, you lose -- we lose -- every time.

So, 'turmoil' causes jihad? Everyone gets angry. Only one group of people fly planes into buildings while praising their deity, finding ample scriptural justification for their atrocities.

Claiming that jihad has nothing to do with Islam -- some might call that "really stupid"

In another feeble attempt to excuse Muhammad from responsibility for the hell he unleashed, a Muslim refers ambiguously to what his coreligionists do "in the name of Islam" as "really stupid."

The last time I checked, "boys being boys" did not include genocide, pedophilia, slavery, or treason.

Of course, I asked for clarification:
What do you call "really stupid"? Were they sticking their tongues into electrical outlets? Jumping off of garage roofs? Voting Democrat?

Or is that just your extenuating the evil practiced in obedience to Allah's command and in emulation of Muhammad's example?

And if those 'really stupid' acts are actually things like 'killing pagans,' 'striking terror into the hearts' of non-Muslims, or 'being harsh to unbelievers' -- all of which are Muhammad's commands -- then how is attribution to Islam anything but "valid"?

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Answering the unthinkable question

Offered in response to an apparent Muslim who answered "Islam is as Islam does" with "christianity is what christianity does...child molester," implying that Christianity is "just as bad as Islam," or worse:
Analogies can be helpful in showing the essence of a thing, and one might add clarity here: If this were 1943, you'd be arguing to firebomb London since murder occurs in the UK, too, rather than admitting the inhuman barbarism of National Socialism and the need to defeat it.

Evil is found in all societies: All non-Muslims sin and not all Muslims butcher, rape, and maim their neighbors to shouts of "Allahu akbar!" But the issue is not idiosyncratic religious expression which varies by knowledge, zeal, resources, and opportunity and may or may not reflect accurately the will of a particular deity, but what a god requires of its followers as defined by its authoritative texts.

If Islam really is a "religion of peace" no more likely to inspire violence than any other faith, then fine. Nuns must be patted-down by hijab-clad TSA employees, and we've all got to get body-scanned at the airport because there's just no way in the world of predicting who's going to explode until they're trying to land the plane.

If, however, Islam is a system of beliefs that requires the utter depravity committed in its name around the world for the last fourteen hundred years, then you're suggesting that we ignore that explosives-laden elephant-in-the-room and base our self-defense on your assertion that Christians are "just as bad." (At least that's an admission that Muslims rape children.)

This is the unthinkable question: Is Islamic "extremism" condoned, encouraged, or commanded by the religion, or not? If jihad and shari'a are legitimate expressions of Allah's will and Muhammad's life, then your moral equivalences and tu quoques are not only false, but murderous.

When a Christian does evil, he or she does so in violation of Christ's commands. When a Muslim rapes little, prepubescent nine-year-old girls, he does so in emulation of Muhammad's example and with Allah's approval, for Muhammad boasted that Allah not only willed his raping the baby but declared his actions to be a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for those who want to please him.

(Did you catch that? Allah calls Muhammad's raping little children "beautiful." Will you condemn Muhammad's making poor, little, prepubescent 'Aisha his sex slave beginning when she was only nine-years-old? If not, why not?)

Jesus committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, commanding His people to love even their enemies and warning that "anyone who causes a little one to sin" would be better off having a large stone tied around his neck and being thrown into the depths of the sea.

On the other hand, Muhammad "pleased Allah" by committing genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, wife-beating (commanded, at least), polygyny, religious and gender apartheid, the murder of critics, deceit, blasphemy, sedition, and treason, claiming that "the devil made me do it, and so will you -- or else."

We face an existential threat, one that has devoured civilizations for nearly one and one-half millennia. Defending Islam by attacking Christianity is not only irrational and immoral, it sends more Muslim souls to hell and advances hell-on-Earth for non-Muslims and Muslim apostates, women, and little girls.

Whose side are you on?
Update: Amazon's courageously deleted the above post.  Whom does that aid?

Sunday, September 12, 2010

First-century Jewish-Roman historian Flavius Josephus confirms essential elements of the Apostles' testimony regarding Jesus of Nazareth

Jesus declared that if someone won't believe Moses, they won't believe even if Someone rises from the dead. For those who care about the truth and question honestly, the Prophets' foretelling and the Apostles' reporting should be enough; but if you need more, below is an authoritative, non-Christian, Jewish, Roman, extra-biblical historical reference to Jesus. Note that all three versions of the passage (one "reconstructed" -- that's scholar-speak for "I made stuff up!") confirm what the first Christians reported regarding Jesus.

Here's the first version of the passage from a Greek translation in which Josephus describes Christ as "wise," "a doer of wonderful works," "a teacher of men who receive the truth," attracting "many" Jews and Gentiles, and that "he appeared to them alive again the third day" (end notes in the original):
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Next is the same passage from an Arabic translation. This one adds "virtuous" to the descriptors. Even though a bit less personal in tone, it confirms the fact that His "many . . . disciples . . . reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive":
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.
And for those who don't mind impugning the integrity of the Christian scribes who preserved Josephus' works, here is a "reconstruction" of the passage in a much more hostile tone. Even when mocking Christ and His followers, the same basic facts regarding Jesus are admitted: His miracles ("wizard of a man," "if indeed he may be called a man," "most monstrous of men," "having done wonders such as no man has ever done," "astonishing tricks"), His being called "Son of God" and "Messiah," His many followers ("seduced many Jews and many also of the Greek nation"), and His resurrection from the dead ("it seemed to them . . . he had appeared to them alive again"). Note also that even this fictional, antagonistic version of Josephus admits that the "divinely-inspired prophets had foretold -- these and ten thousand other wonderful things -- concerning him."

R. Eisler's "scholarly reconstruction":
Now about this time arose an occasion for new disturbances, a certain Jesus, a wizard of a man, if indeed he may be called a man, who was the most monstrous of men, whom his disciples call a son of God, as having done wonders such as no man has ever done.... He was in fact a teacher of astonishing tricks to such men as accept the abnormal with delight.... And he seduced many Jews and many also of the Greek nation, and was regarded by them as the Messiah.... And when, on the indictment of the principal men among us, Pilate had sentenced him to the cross, still those who before had admired him did not cease to rave. For it seemed to them that having been dead for three days, he had appeared to them alive again, as the divinely-inspired prophets had foretold -- these and ten thousand other wonderful things -- concerning him. And even now the race of those who are called 'Messianists'[*] after him is not extinct.
*"Christ" is Greek for the Hebrew "Messiah."

Friday, September 10, 2010

Why shouldn't his magnum opus receive the same honor as its author?

While I am not generally in favor of burning books, if any text does deserve a fiery end, it's Qur'an. Poetically, that's where Muhammad is, too.

Would anyone oppose a public burning of Mein Kampf? In 1943? Both Muhammad and Hitler were genocidally-anti-Semitic, wanted to rule the world, and preached a murderous, totalitarian, tribal supremacism. Yet Hitler was only a cheap, secular imitation of Muhammad. Adolf's six million Jews? Muhammad would call that "a start."

The only real difference between the two is that Hitler lacked Muhammad's "spirit" and imagination.* Since the genocidal pedophile cloaked his depravity in a stupid, paper-thin, obviously-false "religious" veneer, his hateful ideology has had a staying power that the fuhrer's lacked. In fact, Hitler lamented Germany's being a Christian nation rather than an Islamic one.

How can anyone call burning hell-in-a-book "disrespectful" or "boneheaded"? Why are both Left and Right trying to suppress anyone's defiance of evil? If "Americans" can burn American flags in acts of "patriotism," then why can't current and potential victims of Islam burn the book which slays them? When the epithet "Muslim" elicits the same shame, derision, and revulsion as does "Nazi," then the West will have preserved what is left of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, of equality under the law for all regardless of creed or gender.

*Since Muhammad feared that his first audience with the demon "Gabriel" indicated that he was demon-possessed, I do not doubt that the idea for Allah and Islam did not come originally from within. Considering the completely self-serving nature of later "revelations" -- Mu' wants a new wife, so Allah gives him permission -- it's hard to know just what was from his allah and what was his own creation. Of course, with sin, all one needs is a gentle nudge to get the ball rolling. Each time it gets a little bit easier to violate your conscience until eventually, you end up being something entirely different from what you thought or wished you were.

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Sarah Palin protests burning the inspiration for 9/11, calling for tolerance of "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, and treason

Though I doubt she understands the implication of her advice.  Demonstrating the same well-intentioned but suicidal ignorance of Islam infecting so many in the West, Sarah Palin calls burning the text singularly responsible for 9/11 an "insensitive and . . . unnecessary provocation."  Funny, I thought putting a monument to the slaughter of innocents over their graves was "insensitive and unnecessary," not to mention the attack itself.

Would anyone complain about a public burning of Mein Kampf?  Why, then, are so many distressed about a public condemnation of the single most hateful document in human history?  Both Hitler and Muhammad were genocidally anti-Semitic, both wanted to rule the world, both sold their nations on the supremacy of their own tribes.  Muhammad's genius (if you can call a genocidal pedophile "smart") -- and Hitler's failure of imagination -- was that the murderous prophet couched his totalitarian and totally-depraved ideology of rape and murder in the garb of "religion," which has given Islam a staying power that no secular system can equal.

And Fox 11 News unintentionally aided the cultural jihad today by hosting two guests -- a progressive rabbi and a conservative legal expert -- who also defended Qur'an.  The "rabbi" equated the Florida pastor with Hitler, dredged up the Inquisition and Crusades, and referenced Maimonides as an example of a Jew persecuted by Christians but befriended by Muslims.  This is the height of self-destructive moral inversion, historical illiteracy, and tragic irony since Maimonides lamented the severe persecution of Jews carried out by Muslims, the first Crusade was called in response to a desperate plea for help from eastern Christians under siege for centuries by jihad, and the pastor is protesting the ne plus ultra of murderous hatred and intolerance, the source and sustenance of a "religion" commended by Hitler.

Time to cross off another completely nescient politician.  What can you expect when even our "experts" on Islam like Daniel Pipes, smart people on the Right like Newt Gingrich, and talk radios' stars like (the guests hosts for) Sean Hannity and Mike Gallagher continue to perpetuate the nonsensical and nonexistent distinction between Islam and "Islamism"?  There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate.

Sarah Palin protests against defying tyrants and destroying copies of the inspiration for 9/11:
"Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero"
So, building a monument to the slaughter of three thousand innocents is the moral equivalent of destroying copies of the book which inspired, informed, and mandated their murder?

If that's the best we've got, we're doomed.
"It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance," she continued. "Don’t feed that fire."
The fire is fed by Qur'an, which contains open-ended, universal commands to use any means necessary -- including violence -- to make the world Islam, mandates death for apostates, and along with Sunnah encourages the murder of anyone who criticizes Islam.

You know, "mean-spirited religious intolerance."

Ms. Palin and the others cowering in the corner pleading, "Don't call Islam violent, or Muslims might kill someone!" are behaving in a very un-American way -- Why is anyone encouraging a free man to self-censor in deference to murderous tyrants, again?  What are we, French?  (At least they're banning something Islamic.)
"If your ultimate point is to prove that the Christian teachings of mercy, justice, freedom, and equality provide the foundation on which our country stands, then your tactic to prove this point is totally counter-productive."
That's a logical fallacy in the first place: Proving someone else intolerant doesn't prove yourself tolerant.  In the second, there was a time when Americans considered it a sacred duty to oppose tyranny.  And now our media, politicians, and even our military are telling us to compromise our freedom to burn stuff because our enemies might get mad.  What's next?  Shari'a courts in the U.S.?  Polygymy?  Jizya?  In that case, we're already following the mandates of shari'a, and the jihadists have won.

And as for General Petraeus's argument that burning Qur'ans will endanger our troops?  Don't they have guns?  Remove your suicidal Rules of Engagement and let the greatest military the world has ever known do its job.  Have our warriors bled and died so that Muslims can threaten us into silence?

Monday, September 06, 2010

As long as the Democrats' hope is in "People are fickle," there's "a glimmer of hope" for the Republic

Now that enough of the American people have awakened, Democrats appear to be distancing themselves from their core values, running away from the real-world effects of their shameless Statism and its Agent in the White House.

Don't be deceived: These politicians are not concerned about what's best for the nation, how many people they hurt with their oppressive, immoral, and irresponsible policies, enslaving our posterity, or what is morally good. They care only about maintaining their power.

In that respect, our elected tyrants are acting in perfect accord with their beliefs. White House Panicking Over Elections:
"Not only are they running away from President Obama, they're running away from being Democrats in some cases. In some races you actually see the Democratic candidates not really mentioning that they're a Democrat in their campaign ads," Cordes said.

Smith asked his guests to try to identify the source of the discontent: "From your experience on the Hill, have you heard any Democrats in private conversations say, 'You know what? We went down the wrong road. We went after health care. We went after so many other things on the Obama agenda as opposed to, in the end of the day, it's all about creating jobs?'"
The Obama agenda is our enemy's. It is bankrupting and disarming the Republic.
"Not only have we heard that, but we've been hearing it for months," said Cordes. "We heard it during the health care debate that dragged on for a year when the economy was so bad; they focused on health care and they focused on financial regulation.
Also known as "implementing socialism."
"Americans don't feel the impact of those pieces of legislation yet," she said. "There's a lot of frustration on Capitol Hill among Democrats who feel like the President led them down this path. They didn't all necessarily want to deal with health care. This was on the president's agenda, and then they felt like he kind of hung them out to dry."
That's poetic: Obama blamed Bush, and now Democrats are blaming Obama. It's too bad that these politicians' constituencies elected to Congress self-serving, unscrupulous sheep, rather than citizens.

And we are starting to "feel the impact of those pieces of legislation." That's why we're paying attention, and we're not happy.
"Not a single Democrat has run an ad in support of the health care bill since April," VandeHei noted. Cordes pointed out that Democrats are very unhappy about Mr. Obama's speech last week, only the second Oval Office prime time address in his presidency.

"What does he talk about? Not the economy, but Iraq," Cordes said. "And they say, 'No, we need to own the economy. If you’re going to use the power of your office to give a speech like that, talk about the economy."

VandeHei said the Republicans feel more powerful today than they've felt at any point in the last five or six years.
When Republicans had control of the White House and Congress, they behaved like Democrats. That's why those Republicans-in-Name-Only are out of power now and cannot be allowed back in office.
"On top of that, you have this enthusiasm gap that is killing Democrats."
Most Americans -- including Independents and some Democrats -- are not enthusiastic about destroying the greatest nation in the history of Man.
"If you look at the polling data from Gallup and from others, it shows that Republicans are fired up about this election. The liberal Democrats are not. They're not enthusiastic about it. When you have races that are decided by a couple hundred votes, in a House that can be very, very close, that matters," VandeHei said.

He also suggested that Democrats are much more pessimistic than they were merely three or four weeks ago. He cited a recent Gallup poll that showed Republicans with a 10-point generic edge. "They've been polling for 60 years. We've not seen a number like that."
That's good. The Republic's been around for more than two and one-quarter centuries, and it's never seen numbers like the Liberals have brought upon us, either.
Cordes pointed out that predictions show the Republicans can win 45 to 50 seats in the House, and they only need 39 seats to take control.

But VandeHei offered a glimmer of hope for President Obama and the Democrats.

"It's never too late," he said. "Think about how fickle we are in everything in life now, whether it's the cell phone that we choose or what we think about politics or what we do in our daily life. People are fickle.

"I still think you can start to pull people back," VandeHei said. "At the end of the day, it has to be that Obama has to find that magic. How can he get liberals to be as excited about him and about Democratic change as they were two years ago?"
Obama and his Congressional co-conspirators have gotten a lot of people excited about "Democratic change" this November.

And in 2012.