. Islamic terror started with Muhammad. And the modern drive did start in the 60's against the West and before that against the Jews (20's-on). So I would caution much beyond Caner. Understanding Taqiyya is key in this discussion: http://www.islam-watch.org/Warner/Taqiyya-Islamic-Principle-Lying-for-Allah.htm So know that while we are right to ask the questions... know also that many on the fundamentalist Islamic persons see the world not as "right" or "wrong;" or, what is "moral" or "immoral." But as Islamic and non-Islamic. .
Anybody remember Anish Shorosh? It looks like he disappeared some time in 2008, after being charged with arson. He was 75 at the time, so he may have retired. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anis_Shorrosh His Google Timeline doesn't add any detail missing from his Wikipedia entry.
Last time I heard about Dr. Anish Shorrosh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SndHKXLR17k US Airforce Academy once invited Shoebat, Saleem and Zak Anani [ http://www.3xterrorists.com ] to address their annual political forum on 2008
"Please don't get me wrong. I would not want radical Muslims to "take over" our country. But, I would like to see more depth to our reactions" Papa is right: "So know that while we are right to ask the questions... know also that many on the fundamentalist Islamic persons see the world not as "right" or "wrong;" or, what is "moral" or "immoral." But as Islamic and non-Islamic." And this belief means that even moderate type Muslims get caught up in what is "non-Islamic" like what we saw happen in Dearborn. Where are the Muslims upset about free speech being violated? No, the "moderates" were yelling Allah Akbar in agreement with the arrests of Christians at a public Arab Festival. Before we go off defending Muslims in the US, let us ask ourselves if we are willing to have a segment of our population that has no choices BECAUSE of 'freedom of religion"...they will have little freedom. I am speaking of Muslim women. Does anyone not see that Islamic beliefs and our constitution are diametrically opposed? We see in Dearborn, even our police, used strong arm methods to stop free speech. Are we really willing to go along with this in the name of a false "peace"? Where will it stop? People need to read more history and see how this stuff starts. A little here and there. Many will accuse me of being a warmonger or hateful. I am in good company with guys like Winston Churchill who saw what was happening long before it was too late.
Lydia and others: You might not want to take David Wood as your only source of information about the Arab Festival. He notes he was asked to stop distributing the gospel of John outside the festival on Sunday but he leads people to believe it was due to the content--i.e., the police are prejudiced against Christians and Christian literature. The truth is that there was a five-block "buffer zone" around the festival in which ANY (as in "content neutral") literature distribution was banned. (With one exception--George Saieg got a Temporary Restraining Order to hand out literature for those three days.) David Wood is not telling you that tiny, little, inconvenient fact. As for the Friday incident, since we don't have any video prior to David and the others' arrests, we don't know what we were doing. The "testimonies" presented by David Wood are incomplete (one person states she had walked away and then saw the four being led off by the cops). It's entirely possible the police overstepped their bounds, but we don't know. It sure would be nice to have the video....
How reliable this is I don't know. I'm on this gentleman's mailing list and recalled he has written about Shoebat, which he claims is his real name though Shoebat says it's an alias: http://whtt.org/index.php?news=2&id=3288
Am I supposed to believe that a buffer zone was created to prevent literature distribution because people who attended the Arab Festival were bothered by coupons and ads for window tinting? No matter how it may have been artfully written, it sure seems to this observer that the regulation itself was initiated to target religious expression. So any appeal to such a regulation isn't going to win much sympathy for those who celebrate the arrest of a proselytizing Christian. So -- to one of the points on the post. I believe those who speak before Christians and teach that Muslims oppose Christianity to the point of restricting its practice and expression with laws and enforcement are not taking advantage of gullible Christians, but raising a real concern for the global church. This is hardly an insignificant offshoot of Islam like some small Christian radical group or perhaps a separatist group within another religion. There are whole countries under Islamic law that restrict the practice and expression of Christianity in various ways, some with newsworthy oppression. I'm not advocating fear-mongering. God is Sovereign in what he allows for His Glory and our good. Anon-E
Hi Mireile, The fact that David Wood left out an important detail should immediately make him suspect as a possible 'hatemonger'. One key difference between hatemongers and Christians is that hatemongers believe that the 'end justifies the means' and they will, without conscience, bend and mutilate the truth to serve their purposes, something a Christian cannot do in good conscience.
"Lydia and others: You might not want to take David Wood as your only source of information about the Arab Festival. " Until I see video of them passing out literature and proof of the buffer zone, I will believe Wood and not what a Muslim says. It is not considered a virtue for Christians to lie to unbelievers. Which is one reason many of us are so upset about Caner. I personally think Muslims were upset and therefore chanting Allah Akbar when they were handcuffed because 2 of the Christian witnesses involved ARE real former Muslims.
With regards to what happened in Dearborn at the Arab Festival last weekend: Please read the following Temporary Restraining Order issued last Thursday by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/CityofDearbornOrder--grantingTROJune172010.pdf The ONLY person allowed to distribute literature last weekend in the "buffer zone" was George Saieg. Nobody else. As for the rest of it, I've gotten to the point where the irrational prejudice against Muslims is such that it's not even worth the electrons to try and show people that there are such things as "time, place, and manner restrictions" and "content-neutral" rules and regulations--and these are constitutional. You wouldn't believe them if I showed them to you, because of the prejudice. I've had it with trying to use the very expensive legal education I got back in the 1980s to demonstrate that the story David Wood is telling is not the entire truth. You're being taken for a ride and at this point I'm not going to try and stop you. Disgustedly yours, mirele
No offense intended, but if you don't understand what the doctrine of Taqiyya is then you probably shouldn't talk about it. By showing your ignorance of the subject, you'll only turn Muslims off discussions of Christianity. Taqiyya is only allowable in Shia strains of Islam and all of the "ex-muslims" being discussed are from almost exclusively Sunni countries. Just sayin'.
Gark, First of all, thank you for your polite insights. I will be polite and end with that I disagree with you about this. To others here who do not know the debate being brought up right now, here is a bit on it: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/03/taqiyya-about-taqiyya.html The Qu'ran teaches it, the Haditha (I personally own a "Bukhari Haditha") exemplifies it -- Muhammad practiced it and commanded certain followers to do it as well.
Lydia: Again I believe you and Papa are going overboard. The fact is that they are here and we have always had others of different faiths. As Christians are we to fear anything? Or is our only mission to give the Gospel. I am not going to live my life in fear of anything. I am going to live my life. They are here, instead of being afraid let's show them Christ. I personally could care less if one is a Radical muslim or not. Both need Christ. Both need love, both need the Gospel.
"As for the rest of it, I've gotten to the point where the irrational prejudice against Muslims is such that it's not even worth the electrons to try and show people that there are such things as "time, place, and manner restrictions" and "content-neutral" rules and regulations--and these are constitutional. You wouldn't believe them if I showed them to you, because of the prejudice" Those were not Mormons flying planes into the towers, Mirele. And Shabazz was not a Jehovah Witness. My talk about time place and manner restrictions! Tell me, why the chanting Allah Akbar when the Christians were arrested at the public ARAB Festival? Why the glee and delight?
Mike DeLong - You queried: "I'd love to see this substantiated. I have only seen this issue raised once, and it was by a Caner defender, who immediately suggested that Caner was being paid in "love offerings" at local churches, and so therefore couldn't seriously be accused of profiting from fraud." I can't provide a ledger or any hard evidence of Dr. Caner's income from his speaking engagements, but consider the following fact: Most church speakers of national significance who are published and widely read generally travel "expenses paid". In other words the church or group hosting the even pays for the air fare, hotel, meals, etc. In fact, really saavy speakers put this requirement into their speaking request form or contract. Therefore any offering collected goes straight into the pocket of the speaker. In churches where attendance tops 2000 (where Dr. Caner often speaks) this offering can exceed $10,000. Ten grand just for speaking 45 minutes! In most cases these speakers will carry 4-5 "stump" sermons which may include a sermon about their personal testimony and 3-4 about critical current issues. These sermons are practically memorized and require only modest revisions over time. Am I saying it is fraudulent to get paid this much for preaching? Certainly not! But when your sermons are predicated on your past an Islamic Jihad trainee which is not factual....well I will let you be the judge.
Lydia, You are tarring over 1 billion people with the actions of a few. Should I think that all Christians are anti-abortion terrorists bases on the actions of people like James Kopp, Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolph, Michael Griffin, Paul Hill or John Salvi--all of whom killed doctors and others associated with abortion clinics as part of their terrorist campaign against legal abortion? Why no, I should not. But you seem to have no problem doing the same towards Muslims. Frankly, your actions are irrational and the danger you pose is that other people might listen to you and believe you. I want to make clear that I am not underplaying terrorism, not by any stretch of the imagination. But I know the effects of corrosive beliefs like yours--on Sept. 15, 2001, a guy named Balbir Sodhi Singh was murdered here in my city, Mesa, Arizona, in cold blood by a deranged idiot who thought that anyone who wore a turban was a Muslim and deserved to die. Singh was a member of the Sikh religion. That's what nonsense like yours leads to and it's way past time for you and those who think like you to realize this. Again, I realize I'm probably wasting electrons trying to say something to a person whose mind is invincibly closed. *sigh*
Lucas - I have heard from multiple sources that the speaking fee for a mega church, when they bring in a big name speaker to replace the "senior pastor" who is away on vacation or one of his own speaking gigs, is somewhere around $5k, and $10k wouldn't surprise me at all. I've heard that big name musicians around the SBC (won't mention any names) charge a boatload of money to come in for a service to be the "special music". Where do you get your $10k figure from?
Mirele, Which is why I like to bring up Muhammad in comparison with Christ. One of my favorite quotes from a scholar is this: The nine founders among the eleven living religions in the world had characters which attracted many devoted followers during their own lifetime, and still larger numbers during the centuries of subsequent history. They were humble in certain respects, yet they were also confident of a great re¬ligious mission. Two of the nine, Mahavira and Buddha, were men so strongminded and self-reliant that, according to the records, they displayed no need of any divine help, though they both taught the inexorable cosmic law of Karma. They are not reported as having possessed any consciousness of a supreme personal deity. Yet they have been strangely deified by their followers. Indeed, they themselves have been wor¬shipped, even with multitudinous idols. All of the nine founders of religion, with the exception of Jesus Christ, are reported in their respective sacred scriptures as having passed through a preliminary period of uncertainty, or of searching for religious light. Confucius, late in life, confessed his own sense of shortcomings and his desire for further improvement in knowledge and character. All the founders of the non-Christian religions evinced inconsistencies in their personal character; some of them altered their prac¬tical policies under change of circumstances. Jesus Christ alone is reported as having had a consistent God consciousness, a consistent character himself, and a con¬sistent program for his religion. The most remarkable and valuable aspect of the personality of Jesus Christ is the com¬prehensiveness and universal availability of his character, as well as its own loftiness, consistency, and sinlessness. Robert Hume, The World’s Living Religions (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959), 285-286. However, your connection with Christianity and abortion bombing is misstated at best. This is dealt with a bit here: http://vimeo.com/10617230 http://vimeo.com/11541869 ... ...
. There are other comments that can be made, but I will choose Eric Rudolph as an example. Eric Rudolph was involved in Christian Identity, a movement that all mainstream Christians reject as a heresy and cult. In other words, you do not find in "Christian havens" around the world people dancing in the streets and passing out candy when two of the largest building collapse. What you find is a rejection of the killing of persons, period. Even Idaho State University sociologist James A. Aho agrees with me -- as one example: "I would prefer to say that Rudolph is a religiously inspired terrorist, because most mainstream Christians consider Christian Identity to be a heresy." (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/juneweb-only/6-2-22.0.html) He would be right. A conservative estimate is that 10% of the Muslim world believe an extreme form of their faith. (I would argue that Muhammad believed in this form of the faith, thusly, anyone who follows him devolves into this thinking in some way. At least separating the world into Muslim and non-Muslim factions, instead of moral categories. The numbers of Islamic reformers I think equal the number of Christian terrorists - so-called.) That means 100-million Muslims want to kill me (to put it in blunt terms). Do 100-million Christians want to kill you? The fact that almost all of the bombers rejected mainstream Christianity in some way is important and it drove one commentator to say that he is "not aware of any who were Christian with the possible exception of the New Life shooter, Matt Murray, who rejected his faith and seems to have seen his rampage as an act of revenge" (http://www.verumserum.com/?p=14971). And Gary Bauer makes mention that: "Nor will he find any theological leader of any branch of Christianity willing to defend his criminal conduct. No Christian neighborhoods burst into celebration at the news of the bombings. Nor are Christian children being taught that if Rudolph had died in his attacks he would be a 'martyr' welcomed into heaven. The contrast with radical Islamic teachings couldn't be more stark." But all that aside, I look ultimately to Jesus. And if it comes to Jesus vs. Muhammad, I will stick with Jesus since even the Qu'ran says he was sinless and the Qu'ran shows Muhammad asking allah for forgiveness for his misdeeds. (I can argue the meaning of the words from the Arabic words in this particular matter, but I do not wish to go that in-depth here.) .
As Shakespeare once pinned....This is all....Much Ado about NOTHING! This is invented, prefab, unsubstantiated rumors that do nothing but make Satan double over in laughter. 2 key points Dog.. 1. No one makes these Churches pony up money to these speakers. They choose to...this is not the Soviet Union. 2. Why not do an expose' on Deacons running off Pastors and the fact that the VAST majority of Pastors make less than 30,000 a year. This whole "mega-church" mania that you are caught up in is 1% of all Churches. Where have you been hanging out to get all this info? It seems as though all this scratching you are doing is an indication that you have had a bad infestation of FLEAS!
After looking at Sacirbey's article again I have to point out what appears to be a drift in expectations regarding what will be happening regarding Caner next week. Sacirbey says "Liberty University is expected to release a report soon..." http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11298&Itemid=53 The original Ray Reed/News & Advance article says something different: "The committee, to be headed by longtime LU administrator Ron Godwin, is expected to issue a decision on its findings by June 30..." http://www2.newsadvance.com/lna/news/local/article/lu_officials_to_investigate_caners_background_claims/26872/ Maybe Sacirbey knows something Reed doesn't.
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/22129881/detail.html Are these some of the moderate American Muslims you are talking about, Mirele? Some of us recall seeing "Moderate" Muslims celebrating right after 9/11. I personally know several educated Muslims who celebrated right in my city. Some had been here for 15 years. With your expensive legal education, why would you want to be a piece of chattel? Come home to Jesus Christ. Freedom from bondage is waiting for you.
anonymous: There is no naiivity on my part. I've just lived through a lot of "scares." I still remember the same thing being said of communists taking over the country, I participated in the duck and cover in grade school. I went through years of the VietNam War and history itself shows that while these things do occur, I live an hour and a half from the OKC bombing. There first suspect was a Muslim terrorist. Guess what? It turned out to be an American. I live in a city where I deal with Muslims as a part of daily living. They are peaceful, kind, people who do not condone what Radicals are doing. There are radical people everywhere even in Christianity and prejudices is everywhere and is just as dangerous as Muslim terrorists. I also live 2 hours from the former KKK headquarters. I remember Y2K and a host of other hide ourselves in a corner, which I did not. I do not plan on doing it now. I will however pray for Muslims, love them, grateful that I have one for a friend even though we live in very different countries and are very far apart. That will not change. That's reality, not being naive. I've lived long enough to be discerning. I am very aware, just not overboard about it.
For the sake of the matter in Dearborn, we don't need to reference the serious issue of Islamic Terrorism. We can simply rely on the obvious fact that Islam writ large appears hostile to free expression of contrary religious ideas. The simplest illustration beyond the glee shown by the crowd at the Christian's arrest in Dearborn is how countries governed by Fundamentalist/Radical Muslims restrict Christian witness -- often in severe and frightening ways. This is not exclusive to countries governed by Muslims, of course. Communist governed countries are also notoriously poor in this regard. So, this should again explain why most observers will take the default position that the organizers of this event in Dearborn sought to suppress Christian expression. Its not as if squelching Christian expression is somehow incoherent with what we see as the standard practice of Muslims in power. Anon-E
Anonymous: "Disgustedly" is a perfectly good word. It's not four-lettered, it expresses a certain emotion, and it's in keeping with my general policy of not suffering fools gladly. Too bad you have a problem with it. *shrug*
Lydia: If I was a betting woman (which I am not) I would see you a highly-inappropriate t-shirt and raise you a boatload of highly inappropriate comments that were uttered by members of the so-called "pro-life" community (many of whom also call themselves "Christian") after George Tiller was gunned down in cold blood at his church last year. My point is that every religion has people in it that do not reflect well on the religion as a whole. *Your* problem, as I see it, is that you and so many others like you assume that *every* Muslim has the potential lurking inside to become a murderous thug. There's absolutely no reasoning with people who think like that. As for your "celebration" canard, I'm just shaking my head. I hear this, but I have seen no proof. You are aware, of course, that Muslims died in the WTC, no? And, as for this: With your expensive legal education, why would you want to be a piece of chattel? This made me laugh. One of the things I learned in law school was that up until about 1890, married women had no separate legal existence from their husbands. In short, they were chattel. (In fact, if you go back and read some of the early American feminists and suffragists, who got their start as slavery abolitionists, you'll see that they quickly came to the conclusion that their legal status was just as abysmal as slaves.) After 1890, there was a legal revolution in the USA, as the Christian religious beliefs of the "two becoming as one" and the "man being the head of the household" combined to make married men legally responsible for the torts of their wives. So, for example, if Sally took the horseless carriage and ran it into a neighbor's house, under the legal doctrine that married women had no separate legal existence, Sally's husband Jake would be responsible for the damages resulting from the incident. The result was that married women were given separate legal status so as to protect the property of the husband. (I still remember how seriously disappointed I was to learn these laws weren't passed because it was the right thing to do, but to save male assets.) Come home to Jesus Christ. Freedom from bondage is waiting for you. I could no longer be a Christian when I realized I could not worship Jesus as God in good conscience. I respect Christians and there are some aspects of Christianity I really like. However, after the realization I had, it would be fundamentally dishonest for me to bow down to worship another human being as God. I don't think you can understand how earth-shattering it was to come to that conclusion; after all, I'd prayed and praised and worshipped Jesus for over three decades of my life as the most important person ever and then.... I had to learn to rethink who I was asking for help in my life--that's pretty fundamental. This was not something done lightly.
"*Your* problem, as I see it, is that you and so many others like you assume that *every* Muslim has the potential lurking inside to become a murderous thug. There's absolutely no reasoning with people who think like that. " So then, you do not take your own scriptures seriously? There is no "New Covenant" with Mohammad so please do not quote the OT back to me. Mo is advocating violence to those who do not convert. Some Muslims do ignore this but it is there. I do not follow the OT. I am under a New Covenant with Jesus Christ. Your tactics are quite clever. Note the constant focus on how "reasonable" you are but we are not. Your US History lesson is incomplete. We changed it. Why would we do that? Let us talk about the freedoms of women in Muslim countries. So, I am curious that you think you have found FREEDOM as a WOMAN under Islam. Seriously? You call that reasonable and educated? Papa wrote: "That means 100-million Muslims want to kill me (to put it in blunt terms). Do 100-million Christians want to kill you?" Exactly. If we should have learned one thing from History and from the more recent Islamic terror is that bullies become more bold with cowards or those they think they can manipulate. They will demand toleration and point to a few a non Muslim bad apples to paint with a broad brush. Hoping our guilt will keep us from seeing truth. I would recommend that folks become very educated about the problems inherent with Islam. Not only about what the Koran and Hadith teach but also the connections to terror funding in the US and how "moderate" Muslims actually help and support the Terrorists. Remember, they are intolerant themselves but demand toleration from non Muslims. It is considered a virtue to deceive and lie to infidels. How many more Shabazz's are in the US? And how do we protect innocent people from them and not violate individual rights? That is a question we must ask ourselves. Keep in mind the thinking. Mirele actually thinks she has more freedom as a Muslim woman! And she claims to be educated. Check out Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch. David Horowitz, Front Page Magazine. This is not hatemongering as Debbie and others want to make you believe. It is being aware of what is going on. Dearborn is ONE tiny example of where we are headed.
Lydia, You're inviting me to Christianity (aka "accept Jesus as my personal savior"), yet you're also mocking me, questioning my education and insulting my intelligence and then recommending regularly discredited sources like Robert Spencer and David Horowitz. Funny way of calling to Jesus, this. It's like the aggropreaching that David Wood, etc., engage in. Insult and belittle people and they might accept your savior. Why on earth do you think I'd want to be like you? This is not the place or the time to go into a dissertation on why Christians shouldn't be throwing stones at Muslims over women's rights. Let's just say that the record is not very pretty. I respect people like Debbie because she holds tenaciously to the central core of her beliefs--but she is not afraid to look at facts, even if they come from people who do not share her beliefs. And, to drag this more or less back on topic: In this whole Ergun Caner mess, that's been the most astonishing thing to me. It doesn't matter what the facts are, it doesn't matter that Ergun Caner misrepresented himself over the years, it's that these facts were brought out first by a Muslim and for that very reason alone must be untrue or can't be looked at. I find that kind of thinking astonishing. A close runner-up is the sentiment: "Well he's bringing so many people to Christ, so it doesn't matter what he says." (Right.) If it doesn't really matter what the truth is, then we might as well have actors up in the pulpit, not ministers of the Gospel. Wait a minute....
Mirele: This is indeed very sad. It would appear that you were never a "saved" believer to start with. In other words never really a true Christian. Of course only God truly knows your heart. But, my bible tells me that there are some who have a form of godliness. (2Timothy 3: vs. 5 & 7,),vs. 5: "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away". In your case we have....vs,. 7: "Ever learning,and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth". It appears you have put your "faith" in mans knowledge (legal profession) not Gods knowledge. Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me". Hebrews 6:vs.4-6: :vs.4: "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, vs.5: And have tasted the food word of God, and the powers of the world to come, vs.6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame". This would apply to those who "professed" to believe, but had never truly accepted Jesus Christ as Savior in their heart. This is from Gods word,not mans.
If people would study their bibles more I mean actually study what JESUS says, and stop listening to man, then they would actually KNOW what Gods word says. Anything outside of Jesus is of mans making. Men always get sidetracked by things, people and circumstances. Keep your eye on the CROSS, and you will walk a straight path, knowing what and in WHOM you believe.
Lydia: You have to look at what Mirele believes and how she and many Muslims interpret the Quran. She is quite harmless as is Mohammad. There are many more in the United States like them. Listen instead of arguing and talking so much. As for the Dearborne incident this was presented to me, I suggest this be read before passing judgment so quickly. Restraining Order
"You're inviting me to Christianity (aka "accept Jesus as my personal savior"), yet you're also mocking me, questioning my education and insulting my intelligence and then recommending regularly discredited sources like Robert Spencer and David Horowitz. Funny way of calling to Jesus, this. It's like the aggropreaching that David Wood, etc., engage in. Insult and belittle people and they might accept your savior. Why on earth do you think I'd want to be like you?" The truth stands outside of any one person. the Truth of Jesus Christ as God in the Flesh is truth whether you like me or not. You seem to like Debbie a lot...why not believe in Jesus Christ because of her niceness? "This is not the place or the time to go into a dissertation on why Christians shouldn't be throwing stones at Muslims over women's rights. Let's just say that the record is not very pretty." Why not? You made the allegation. Now substantiate it. And I will agree with you that the HISTORY is a bloody mess. But what does that have to do with what the New Covenant teaches us? Why not have a discussion on the History of Islam? What the Koran and Hadith say about the status of women. Or how about a discussion on the treatment of people in the dictatorships of most Islamic countries? "I respect people like Debbie because she holds tenaciously to the central core of her beliefs--but she is not afraid to look at facts, even if they come from people who do not share her beliefs. " Where have I disagreed with facts about Caner? "And, to drag this more or less back on topic: In this whole Ergun Caner mess, that's been the most astonishing thing to me. It doesn't matter what the facts are, it doesn't matter that Ergun Caner misrepresented himself over the years, it's that these facts were brought out first by a Muslim and for that very reason alone must be untrue or can't be looked at." Debbie is quoted on this blog as saying "we" broke the story. Who is "we"? Her and Mohammad Khan? So, according to Debbie, a Christian and a Muslim broke the story. Don't forget to give credit where credit is due. I have no problem with Mohammad breaking this story. I am disappointed we did not connect the dots sooner. Caner is someone I thought was a shock jock preacher and paid little attention to. As I paid very little attention to the legalists at Liberty. " A close runner-up is the sentiment: "Well he's bringing so many people to Christ, so it doesn't matter what he says." (Right.) If it doesn't really matter what the truth is, then we might as well have actors up in the pulpit, not ministers of the Gospel. Wait a minute...." I do not think this at all. I think Caner hurts the cause of Christ in more ways than this one and I DO THINK HE IS AN ACTOR. he is the typical celebrity Christian so many worship and follow these days. But then, I will say it again, the TRUTH of Jesus Christ stands outside of any one person.
Mirele, Two things, read Hebrews. (Both of you) The Bible also talks about not only a form of Godliness, but also a Body of Christ that is varied and God uses our gifts in their own way. You cannot meet here -- having different gifts and backgrounds -- and create a unified faith past the essentials.
Lydia: You have to look at what Mirele believes and how she and many Muslims interpret the Quran. She is quite harmless as is Mohammad. There are many more in the United States like them. Listen instead of arguing and talking so much. As for the Dearborne incident this was presented to me, I suggest this be read before passing judgment so quickly. Restraining Order June 25, 2010 12:22 PM With all due respect, Debbie. You are the last person I would listen to. And I base that on several years of reading you and our personal email exchanges. And that fact you called one of my comments on your blog hateful, deleted it, but refused to post it here so others could judge for themselves. Yet, you go on blogs and call people names, tell them to shut up or they are foolish, etc and then preach about "love". Sorry, cannot relate. I think you are missing the point of my concern for the Dearborn incident. I am asking why so many so called "Moderate" Muslims were chanting "Allah Akbar" when the Christians were being arrested. I personally do not think that sounds "harmless". You can continue to go down the path of trashing believers who have the boldness to witness to Muslims at a public ARAB festival in the United States, I won't go there with you.
"It is better to be a live jackal than a dead lion—for jackals, not men. Men who have the moral courage to fight intelligently for freedom have the best prospects of avoiding the fate of both live jackals and dead lions. Survival is not the be-all and end-all of a life worthy of man.... Man's vocation should be the use of the arts of intelligence in behalf of human freedom. SIDNEY HOOK The title of this second-to-last post of mine will be "Useful Idiots" (Wiki): the term useful idiot was used to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries and the attitude of the Soviet government towards them. The implication was that though the person in question naïvely thought themselves an ally of the Soviets or other Communists, they were actually held in contempt by them, and were being cynically used. The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, hostile government, or business, whether or not the group is Communist in nature." This is what some here are steering towards, considering Islam to be an ideology (political first, religious second). But history will bear out this claim. For clarification of thought on this, I recommend Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. Restraining orders and the like do not mean there was anything but pamphlets handed out. Muslims will use the law in their propagandistic favor, they still do not like or allow Muslims converting to Christianity and will try and stop it any way possible. (Taqiyya is truly practiced by Shi'ite and Sunni alike, because their founder practiced it.) France, for instance, some say will reach a majority of Muslim by 2050. The simple question is, will women's rights and freedom to evangelize gain freedom or loose freedom when the majority is Islamic? Secularism causes the freedom of witness to be restrained as well, but what we are talking about here is a second-class citizen, something these books talk about in-depth: The Dhimmi: Jews & Christians Under IslamIslam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations CollideThe Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims Something I have noticed as well as I sit back and watch the world change, something Debbie and others have seen a bit more than myself. That Islam flourishes in the secular state. This is an ideology much like communism, that must be theologically, politically, morally, and legally challenged in the West. For those here who do not wish to get into the nuances of the above books, here are a few recommends but want a quicker synopsis of our histories and the Muslim faith (some apologetic as well), here ya' go: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant ReligionReligion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't ========= Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the CrossLight in the Shadow of Jihad: The Struggle for TruthReasoning from the Scriptures with Muslims These are good places to start, even if you read one book. I will apply this quote by Reagan here, and I think it may help us realign daily if applied to the real cause of change in the human heart, Christ (sort of taking out of context): “The West will not contain communism, it will transcend communism. We will not bother to denounce it, we'll dismiss it as a sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written.” You may substitute Christianity and Islam in their appropriate places.... for those who do not know who Sydney Hook is... [more to come]...
I. F. Stone was a lifelong leftist who used his biweekly newsletter to boost Castro, defend the Soviet Union, and condemn the United States. His biographer wrote that Stone saw "communism [as] a progressive force, lined up on the correct side of historical events." And Stone himself admitted that he was "half a Jeffersonian, half a Marxist." The Marxist usually got the better of him. When Stone died in 1989, he was hailed as the "conscience of investigative journalism" by the Los Angeles Times." The New York Times obituary called him a "pugnacious advocate of civil liberties, peace, and truth." TV personality Larry King called Stone "a truly genuine hero." Both Anthony Lewis and Tom Wicker eulogized him in their New York Times columns, and Peter Jennings offered an on-air encomium, calling Stone "a journalist's journalist," and recommending his work: "For many people, it's a rich experience to read or re-read Stone's views on America's place in the world, on freedom, on the way government works, and sometimes corrupts." Sidney Hook, a tireless battler for liberty and democracy and scourge of American Stalinists, died within days of Stone. But his death went unlamented by American liberals. If liberalism were truly about respect for liberty, individual rights, and democracy, then it was Hooknot Stone—who exemplified those values. Stone's motto was "pas d'enemies a gauche" (no enemies to the left), and much the same can be said of his many admirers. This is applicable to our discussion in the concept that Islam is not religious, but an Ideology much like Communism. This is taught in the Haditha and the Qu'ran and applied to every Muslim government (Turkey soon to not be excluded from this list). So my first order of business is not to convert the Marxist or Communist [insert here: Muslim] as much as to make sure that the West (the Judeo-Christian concept of law, freedom and the like, see recommended books) that can preach this message effectively survives to do so. Example: Islamic high-seas slave trading wasn't brought to an end by preaching, it was brought to an end by warfare -- political and militarily (see chapter three in Thomas Sowell's book Black Rednecks and White Liberals, entitled, "The Real History of Slavery"). The result? A substantial increase in the "net" freedom of mankind. Islam is an ideology that as a whole suppresses this truth and does so in the modern PC world by using our own laws against us (Western ideals). This is the fight Dearborn is in. A microcosm of the macro. I was raised in Detroit by-the-by. (See also for some neat history: http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2009/01/some-islamic-history-founding-father.html) Keep in mind the below was only made possible by the West standing up to the encroaching Islamitude (rightly or wrongly): The Genevan Reformation and the American Founding; The Reformation of Rights: Law, Religion and Human Rights in Early Modern Calvinism; Religion and The American Constitutional Experiment; Christianity and Law: An Introduction; God's Joust, God's Justice: Law and Religion in Western Tradition; The Teachings of Modern Christianity on Law, Politics, & Human Nature: Volume One; The Teachings of Modern Christianity on Law, Politics, & Human Nature: Volume Two; Law and Protestantism: The Legal Teachings of the Lutheran Reformation; Law and Revolution, The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (v. 1); Law and Revolution, II: The Impact of the Protestant Reformations on the Western Legal Tradition (v. 2); The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Vol. 1: The Renaissance; The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Vol. 2: The Age of Reformation; Liberty before Liberalism; Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers.
"This is applicable to our discussion in the concept that Islam is not religious, but an Ideology much like Communism." Bingo. Which is why some cannot see that the practice of this "religion"/ideology as outlined in their "holy" books is incompatible with our Constitution. We are all fooling ourselves if we cannot see this. "So my first order of business is not to convert the Marxist or Communist [insert here: Muslim] as much as to make sure that the West (the Judeo-Christian concept of law, freedom and the like, see recommended books) that can preach this message effectively survives to do so." Excellent point and I stand rebuked. And a point Muslims cannot abide which is WHY they use our laws against us. Which brings me to the point that who becomes a judge in our courts is VERY important as we are seeing in the Dearborn debacle. "Islam is an ideology that as a whole suppresses this truth and does so in the modern PC world by using our own laws against us (Western ideals). This is the fight Dearborn is in. A microcosm of the macro. I was raised in Detroit by-the-by. " And I spent summers in St Clair Shores way back when. We attended many festivals around the Detroit area back then: The Greek Festival (oompa) and the Polish Festival,to name a few. Great fun. Very public. YES! Dearborn is microcosm of what we will see in the macro soon if we are not careful and do not wake up. For an example of Lenin's use of Useful Idiots soon after the Revolution, I also recommend Whittaker Chambers' Witness as required reading.
mirele wrote, "This is not the place or the time to go into a dissertation on why Christians shouldn't be throwing stones at Muslims over women's rights." Why not? Explain this one; I can't understand it except as a very blatant case of unequal justice: "A bedouin came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." His opponent got up and said, "He is right. Judge between us according to Allah's Laws." The bedouin said, "My son was a laborer working for this man, and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that my son should be stoned to death; so, in lieu of that, I paid a ransom of one hundred sheep and a slave girl to save my son. Then I asked the learned scholars who said, "Your son has to be lashed one-hundred lashes and has to be exiled for one year." The Prophet said, "No doubt I will judge between you according to Allah's Laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to go back to you, and your son will get a hundred lashes and one year exile." He then addressed somebody, "O Unais! go to the wife of this (man) and stone her to death." So, Unais went and stoned her to death." (Hadith Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 49, Number 860.) Why does the man get away with 100 lashes but the woman gets stoned to death? Mohammed did not learn this from Jesus, who tasked only those without sin to cast the stones, nor did he learn this from Moses, who stoned both man and woman equally. It was the Muslims not the Christians who threw stones at this woman, and they did not throw stones at the man.
LIBERTY STUDENT NEWS > ERGUN CANER GUILTY: REMOVED AS DEAN FROM SEMINARYLiberty University announced today that it found that Caner has made “factual statements that are self-contradictory” concerning “dates, names and places of residence.“ The statements included his description of being raised as a Muslim in Turkey, when documents indicate he moved to the United States at the age of 4. Supposedly his contract was up on June 30th, and will not be renewed to be dean. But he’ll remain as faculty.Caner removed as head of Liberty University seminaryLiberty University announced today that Ergun Caner will no longer be dean of the university’s Baptist Theological Seminary. After an investigation conducted by four members of Liberty’s Board of Trustees, the university said it found that Caner has made “factual statements that are self-contradictory” concerning “dates, names and places of residence.“ The statements included his description of being raised as a Muslim in Turkey, when documents indicate he moved to the United States at the age of 4. His contract as dean of the seminary expires on June 30 and will not be renewed, according to a statement from LU. Caner will continue to serve on the seminary’s faculty, as a professor.
Lydia: I will not let you misrepresent me. How you can so misrepresent what I said is beyond me. But yet you have. You have totally twisted our email exchange and anything I have ever said. And your comment was hateful and will not see the light of day. Ever. I am sorry if you disagree with that, but my blog, my call. I am asking questions that is all I am doing and presenting what I am presented with. I am saying let's look at all the evidence before rushing into any judgment on this. If that is one thing I have learned from Ergun that is the main one. Not all Muslims are dangerous Lydia. We have the threat of terrorism but you seem to be labeling all Muslims as terrorist and I am going to keep pointing out that is not true. You have a deep seated problem with all Muslims Lydia or you have a fear that just doesn't stop. But at least when you speak of us, speak of what I did actually say, which was the above and not what you want me to say to make your point. That is a dangerous person who does that and makes you no different than Ergun Caner or others that I have dealt with.
You are trying to make me into something I am not Lydia. It has been explained to you and I have not told you anything in emails that I have not told you here. How sad that you are trying to discredit me and for what reason? I am asking questions. Questions that I think need to be asked. You also ask a good question that I would like to see answered. Just do not attempt to say that all Muslims are like this, they are not. Which is what makes those who misrepresent themselves as former Muslims and experts so dangerous. They feed into the mindset that I fear you have Lydia. Now how is that for transparency on my part.
The problem with the God of Islam is that morality is relative. Let me develop one aspect of this... How can the God of Islam be independent of his creation? Before creating any angel or human, he was alone. Remember that. He was alone. As Dr. Ravi Zacharias points out, that is not good. How could this God speak, since there was no one there for him to speak with? How could this God love, since there was no one there to love? How could this God have a relationship, since there was no one there to have a relationship with? How could this God know diversity? How could this God know community? How could this God know unity among diverse persons in a community together? How could this be eternally true: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you? He was alone, therefore ultimately, morality is relative, if he were actually God. And, he is entirely dependent on his creation to know the aforementioned realities. The Holy Trinity, of course, is independent of creation to know these realities.
When people start accusing me of having never been a Christian, when the heavy hammer of apostasy straight from Hebrews 6 came down upon my head, when some anonymous said, "It would appear you never were a 'saved' believer to start with"--that's it. I'm not going to sit around here and get thwacked over the head with Bible verses and analysis of my salvation by people who don't know me and don't know what kind of soul-searching I went through. You think I didn't have all that stuff in my head ALREADY while I was struggling with belief in Jesus? You don't think that I didn't have that hammered into me? I don't have anything more to say in this thread.
. I am trying to stay leave this post to do other things, but I must leave these two portions of a larger whole that I wrote on woman's rights and Christianity. They are part of a larger chapter for a proposed book I have written and need help editing: Which Worldview -- Modern Secular Feminism Distorts Reality: http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2009/10/which-worldview-modern-secular-feminism.html New Testament Documents and Dating Versus Gnostic Gospel Dating and Place in History: http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-testament-documents-and-dating.html .
mirele: I say this with all the love inside of me for you. I do consider you a friend, so take this in the Spirit in which it is said. Salvation is not something you have one day and then lose. It's a supernatural work wrought by God. It's a supernatural change of the heart. What is in our head as we read and hear the Bible penetrates into our heart. It supernaturally changes and this continues until the day we enter heaven either at death or when Christ returns for us. We are continually being changed. Ephesians 2:8&9: 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. It is a gift from God. Because it is from God it can never change, never be taken away. Never leave us nor can we be truly born again and just decide to forsake it. For a time maybe....but we will always come back to our First Love who is Jesus Christ. That is what his work did for us on the cross. I love you regardless of where you are now,I just can't let you believe that what you experienced was true born again salvation. I don't believe it was. I do pray that you read this with the love I have for you and where you are now. I pray that you experience true born again salvation that is without end.
Fredrika: Mirele has a good point. Christians are the last ones as a whole who should tell Muslims how to treat women. We are no better. We women are now speaking out as are some good Biblical preacher, teachers, men, but we are not near God's plan for women as taught in scripture and mirele knows that. She is absolutely right. Not a good argument to use in my opinion. We are still in the 1950's and worse on that one.
Debbie, I love you regardless of where you are now,I just can't let you believe that what you experienced was true born again salvation. I don't believe it was. I do pray that you read this with the love I have for you and where you are now. I pray that you experience true born again salvation that is without end. I'm sorry you see it that way. But what you're saying here is a Catch-22: If I had a true saving belief in Jesus, I would have never left Christianity; therefore, I never had a true saving belief in Jesus. Thus, when someone tells me that I didn't know true born again salvation, I know there is nothing that I can say that can convince them otherwise, because you can't accept that someone would voluntarily leave so a great salvation. I can tell you this, though: I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior when I was 15 years old. I confessed Jesus was Lord with my tongue and believed that he had been raised from the dead (Rom. 10:9, Acts 16:9). I confirmed that belief and confession over and over again. I was profoundly grateful, over and over again, that Jesus died for my sins and the sins of the world and was resurrected. In this, I was the recipient of God's grace (unmerited favor). However, over the decades of study, reading and pondering, I'd come across troubling aspects of the faith that loomed ever larger as the years went by. You mentioned one: the treatment of women. Pretty much all of the god-language in Christianity is explicitly male, in large part because the human male savior is also the son of God and God himself. As a woman, that became increasingly difficult to bear. Then there was the belief that God required a blood sacrifice of his son to forgive our sins. I knew it was possible for Jesus to simply forgive people's sins as he did when he healed the paralytic (Mark 2:1-12). (In fact, I believed fervently that Jesus' demonstration of healing here confirmed his ability to forgive all sin, including all of my sins.) Particularly in light of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, it began to make less and less sense as to why God needed a sacrifice of himself to himself to forgive our sins. He could just forgive us, couldn't he? I can't even begin to tell you the number of tears I cried when it stopped making sense. I wanted to believe that Jesus' blood covered my sins, but I found I could not anymore. The final blow was a realization that just made me sick inside. I realized I'd been worshipping another human being, another creation, as God, for decades. I'd made Jesus into an idol of the living God, just as surely as if I had carved him out of a piece of wood and set him up on an altar for worship (Isaiah 44:19). I was horrified. That was the end for me. If all of that means I was never a believer in your eyes, well, then, there's nothing more I can say, now is there?
"You have a deep seated problem with all Muslims Lydia or you have a fear that just doesn't stop." Debbie, this is why it is just fruitless to discuss anything with you. You cannot reason the most basic of topics. I have explained it over and over but you cannot grasp it. The point has always been that the endgame of Islam is NOT peace but conversion...even if that means forced conversion...violence. Read the Koran. It starts out as peaceful but when converts were not forthcoming Mohammad turned to violence and affirms violent conversions or death. It is there in their own holy books. What amazes me is that more Muslims are not violent! As bin Laden said, more Muslims need to know the Koran and do their duty. Papa made a good point about percentages. If there are 1 bllion Muslims and only 1% are devout, that is a huge number who want to kill infidels. There is so much more to this but you cannot grasp it. Such as their beliefs as taught in their holy books cannot peacefully coexist with our constitution if they are truly devout. You cannot seem to grasp this.
Fredrika: Mirele has a good point. Christians are the last ones as a whole who should tell Muslims how to treat women." This is absurd and ridiculous. We are a nation of laws and women in this country, Christian or not, have civil recourse against abuse. The abuser can go to prison if convicted. the victim gets a trial, Debbie. Can you say that happens in Islamic country's for victims? Muslim women in Islamic country's do not have ANY protection or even recourse. And there are even honor killings for being "too Western". My cousin brought home secret film footage she took from the back of a Range Rover while being driven through a large city of a Muslim country of women being beaten with sticks in public because their ankles showed while walking! No one could do anything for them. They are owned. Chattel. Like herding cattle. In this film footage the man was hitting 4 women. That is just one exmaple of many. (Many women are deprived medical care unless there is a women doctor) Do you REALLY want to say that we are the last ones to be able to tell Muslims how to treat women? Where did our laws protecting women come from? Yes, they came late BUT THEY CAME. And this is because what we said we valued from day one was not there. Same with slavery. We changed it. Someday you might want to read up on what has happened to many Filipino women in countries like Saudia Arabia. There is a huge difference between comps preaching marriage to a daddy figure in charge and honor killings,for crying out loud. We really need to get some perspective. Comps cannot force compliance because of our civil laws. Now, do we really want to be tolerant of Muslims practicing Sharia in their communities here? That would go against our own Bill of Rights for equal protection in the law. I will never be tolerant of that treatment of Muslim women in this country and I hope others won't either. This is why I hope folks will start to see that "Freedom of Religion" for Muslims would lead to gutting our own Constitution for a select group. You cannot grasp that it is ALREADY happening on a micro level right now because you do not want to offend your Muslim friends who have used you quite well. Again, I remind you Muslims lived in my home for years since I was 12. I have not come to this conclusion because I have a few Muslim internet friends. And quite contrary to what you try to make folks believe I love them very much. I just understand them better than you do. We do not have to give up any rights to lead them to Christ. As a matter of fact, doing that will get you the OPPOSITE. They have been indoctrinated very young in shame/honor thinking. So, you can keep spouting that I hate Muslims because it is all you know how to say to anyone who disagrees with you.
(trying this again, apparently the comment never came through) I love you regardless of where you are now,I just can't let you believe that what you experienced was true born again salvation. I don't believe it was. I do pray that you read this with the love I have for you and where you are now. I pray that you experience true born again salvation that is without end. I'm sorry you see it that way. But what you're saying here is a Catch-22: If I had a true saving belief in Jesus, I would have never left Chrisianity; therefore, I never had a true saving belief in Jesus. Thus, when someone tells me that I didn't know true born again salvation, I know there is nothing that I can say that can convince them otherwise, because you can't accept that someone would voluntarily leave so a great salvation. I can tell you this, though: I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior when I was 15 years old. I confessed Jesus was Lord with my tongue and believed that he had been raised from the dead (Rom. 10:9, Acts 16:9). I confirmed that belief and confession over and over again. I was profoundly grateful, over and over again, that Jesus died for my sins and the sins of the world and was resurrected. In this, I was the recipient of God's grace (unmerited favor). However, over the decades of study, reading and pondering, I'd come across troubling aspects of the faith that loomed ever larger as the years went by. You mentioned one: the treatment of women. Pretty much all of the god-language in Christianity is explicitly male, in large part because the human male savior is also the son of God and God himself. As a woman, that became increasingly difficult to bear. Then there was the belief that God required a blood sacrifice of his son to forgive our sins. I knew it was possible for Jesus to simply forgive people's sins as he did when he healed the paralytic (Mark 2:1-12). (In fact, I believed fervently that Jesus' demonstration of healing here confirmed his ability to forgive all sin, including all of my sins.) Particularly in light of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, it began to make less and less sense as to why God needed a sacrifice of himself to himself to forgive our sins. He could just forgive us, couldn't he? I can't even begin to tell you the number of tears I cried when it stopped making sense. I wanted to believe that Jesus' blood covered my sins, but I found I could not anymore. The final blow was a realization that just made me sick inside. I realized I'd been worshipping another human being, another creation, as God, for decades. I'd made Jesus into an idol of the living God, just as surely as if I had carved him out of a piece of wood and set him up on an altar for worship (Isaiah 44:19). I was horrified. That was the end for me. If all of that means I was never a believer in your eyes, well, then, there's nothing more I can say, now is there?
. Just a quick correction Lydia, the conservative estimate is that 10% (ten-percent) of the Muslims are radical, that means 100-million are radical Jihadies. However, I posit that even in the vaunted "moderate mosques" you find radicalism, why? Because they follow Muhammad, who himself was radical. So the issue isn't that we have an unhealthy fear of Muslims, rather, a healthy fear of Muslims that follow the teachings of Muhammad. (As do moderate Muslims, as we shall see.) So, for instance, a jewel of a moderate Islamic mosque in Europe fails the test of an undercover investigation. Even after this undercover report (also included in the link), they went back a year later and guess what... still not moderate. http://videorow.blogspot.com/2009/03/dispatches-undercover-mosque.html So what "Son of Hamas" and others say is that there is no moderate Islam. I would agree. The truly patriotic and reformational minded Muslims are few and far between. Moderate Muslim's themselves are in fear for their lives from the many (remember, I say there is more than 10%) radicals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWPvuAg4HjI The main difference between conservative Christians and Muslims is this: The conservative Muslim thinks that the Qu'ran is prescriptive in its whole. The Christian (and Jew) believe the Old Testament in its history is descriptive, not prescriptive. Which is why the orthodox Jew and the conservative Christian do not follow the many historical edicts from Hebraic history. They've reformed. The Muslim want the Muhammadan view of the Qu'ran, i.e., Sharia. Again, here is "Son of Hamas" speaking to this issue in his own words: http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/2010/05/mosab-hassan-yousef-compares-jesus-to-muhammad-with-muslim-caller-on-the-michael-medved-show/ If there are truly moderate Muslims out there, they live in more fear than I do... which says what about their faith? Are they in fear over fundamentalism from within Islam, or are they in fear of Muhammadism [Muhammad's teachings in the Qu'ran or the Haditha] itself? Another way to view this is asking if the "protesters" were in fear of Roman Catholicism or of Jesus' teachings [his teachings as found in the New Testament]. Ouch. Makes you really focus in on what Islam is exactly... it isn't peace. So in my most recent post on the Dearborn incident, I ask this: “where has Islam gotten strong and personal liberty likewise gotten stronger?” The answer? Nowhere.http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/2010/06/more-on-the-dearborn-michigan-arrests-for-witnessing/ .
. finishing my thought as I cut watermelon for the weekend. "Do moderate Muslims have an unhealthy fear of their fellow Muslims." Does this fear have another parallel out of the major world religions, or is this battle mainly rage withing the Islamic religion, as I see it doing. Is stating that fact "un-healthy." .
"So the issue isn't that we have an unhealthy fear of Muslims, rather, a healthy fear of Muslims that follow the teachings of Muhammad." I agree. How soon we forget that most of the Terrorist who flew the planes came from "moderate" Muslim families in the East and became radical while living in WESTERN society...such as Germany...a democratic society. Thanks for the correction but I was using the 1% to make a point about what 1% of a billion looks like. I was not clear. It is a HUGE number. But 10%, which is probably small, is 10x worse. And most Muslims have large families. bin Laden has 53 brothers and sisters. Whereas the Muslim refugees I am working with from war torn African country's have an average of 6 kids. All the women are required to cover. BTW: The Muslim refugee adult women I work with are extremely backward and uneducated. Most do not even have basic math. The men are more educated. It is terribly sad. They simply see no reason to educate females beyond an elementary level. We are fools to give one inch of freedoms of speech or individual rights to accomodate Islam in this country. It will not make them more peaceful but more bold. As Churchill said, Appeasors can only hope the alligator will eat them last! We must insist on our individual freedoms especially for the sake of Muslim women.
"Do moderate Muslims have an unhealthy fear of their fellow Muslims." Check this out. Faux pas or double meaning? You think she actually meant to brag about Hitler Youth? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fSvyv0urTE&feature=player_embedded This took place on an AMERICAN college campus.
. "...and denounce Sharia and any intention to bring Islamic law to the united States in ways that it is in variance with the Constitution."http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/2010/06/staten-island-jihad-robert-spencer-slamdunks/ .
Hi mirele, You asked, "Particularly in light of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, it began to make less and less sense as to why God needed a sacrifice of himself to himself to forgive our sins. He could just forgive us, couldn't he? I can't even begin to tell you the number of tears I cried when it stopped making sense." Let's say a 46 year old man drugs and rapes a 13 year old girl. Let's say he is caught red handed. At the trial the judge says, "Well, the man has done so much good. Sir, you are guilty, but I forgive you. You are free to go." How would that sit with you, if you had a 13 year old daughter? Would you think he was a good judge? What makes the most sense to you, just punishment for criminals or instant pardon for criminals turned loose on the streets to attack us again, without any punishment? How terrible indeed would that world be? Mirele, just punishment and confinement of criminals who do things to others they would not want others to do to them is mercy for those of us who want a world where everyone loves and respects everyone else. Heaven would be hell if God 'just forgave' everyone. And He would not be a good judge if He did so. Everyone deserves hell, because we all break the golden rule. But, the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Jesus paid the Father the just punishment for our sins in our place. But there are those who will not trust Him so that the payment can be credited to their account. They do not want to be one of His sheep. They will not have Him to rule over them. “Therefore I told you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am He you will die in your sins” (John 8:24) “Anyone who believes in Him is not condemned, but anyone who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the One and Only Son of God”…”The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who refuses to believe in the Son will not see life; instead the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:18 & 3:36). According to Jesus Christ, the question is not whether someone will be condemned. Presently we are; we are all ‘in our sins’ and ‘already condemned’ with the ‘wrath of God abiding on us’ unless and until we have become the objects of God’s mercy by believing in ‘the name of the One and Only Son of God.’
debbiekaufman wrote: "Fredrika: Mirele has a good point. Christians are the last ones as a whole who should tell Muslims how to treat women. We are no better." Really? On Mirele's blog she makes an issue out of that Baptist church in Concord, N.H. which humiliated a young lady who had been raped. Do you know what they do in Muslim countries to young ladies who are raped, if their claims are not believed? They don't just humiliate them; they whip them or worse. See, for example, this young lady who was raped and sentenced to 200 lashes: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/world/middleeast/16saudi.html I don't know if that punishment was ever carried out. Sometimes Western embassies complain and these things get quietly dropped. This Muslim rape victim was stoned: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/world/africa/29briefs-RAPEVICTIMEX_BRF.html?_r=2&ref=world&oref=slogin For the life of me I can't see how you put these two systems on the same plane. If the worst one system does to young women who are raped is humiliate them, and the other system beheads or whips them, how can you possibly say one is not better than the other? Would you rather be: a.) humiliated, b.) whipped, or c.) beheaded?
Mirele wrote: "I realized I'd been worshipping another human being, another creation, as God, for decades." You were worshipping God incarnate, not a mere man. God is omnipotent; He does as He pleases: "But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." (Psalm 115:3). You are saying the one thing God cannot do is become incarnate. Why on earth not? What other restrictions do you wish to put on His liberty, and how do you expect to enforce them?
Mirele: God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. No one can forgive sins but God and He was the only one who could and did. Thats why He came in the flesh as no earthly man could pay the penalty...the sin offering had to be perfect. Quit trying to rationilize forgiveness or attempt to figure out Gods love...just accept it...it is a free gift.
"You mentioned one: the treatment of women. Pretty much all of the god-language in Christianity is explicitly male, in large part because the human male savior is also the son of God and God himself. As a woman, that became increasingly difficult to bear." Mirele, Was it difficult to bear that your "prophet", Mohammad married a 6 year old girl (one of,some think,11 wives) and consummated that marriage at 9 years old? The Quran does not treat women well at all. I find much confusion in your comment. It makes no sense to leave Christianity because it does not treat women well but then convert to Islam which treats women horrible. You misunderstand much. For example, there is no Greek word that describes "brother and sister" such as the English word, sibling. Therefore the translators used "brethren". Also, the Holy Spirit, through Paul, wrote in Galatians that IN Christ there is no male nor female. Spiritually, we are human beings..both made in the Image of God. Our spiritual standing transcends gender. There is no "female Christianity". That passage in Galatians,if we study it from the beginning,is describing the FULL inheritance of salvation. Women inherit it all. Just as men do if they are saved. Every single last bit of it. Which includes not only the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit but even proclaiming and sharing the Word with males, contrary to what many think. God is even described in metaphorical terms as a female in the OT. I will admit that most Christians have gotten this wrong for centuries. That is not the fault of our Savior, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit that inspired the Words of scripture. It is the fault of translators and those who see authority over others in the Body of Christ as desirable. See, in the Word, if understood properly, there are no authorities in the Body except Jesus Christ. The rest of us are just servants to one another with differing gifts. All believers are described as Priests. That includes women. Many folks get this wrong but that is because they either want authority or want to be led by someone other than Jesus Christ. I am sorry you had bad teachers who taught you wrong on this score. My guess is that you could quote scripture with the best of us. It has always been a shock to me how many unbelievers know the Word. I know a PhD in Theology who is an atheist and I long ago stopped debating him because he put me to shame. Why? Because without the Holy Spirit, the Word means nothing. I wish more Christians understood that, too. I hope those here who want to preach the Word to you will refrain and just quietly and privately pray for you. In the meantime, Islam is no place for an educated woman. Matt
I am a Turkish citizen studying in the United States. I've heard about Caner several years ago. As far as know his mother was a Christian and he was raised by his mother as a Christian. One thing really astonishes me is the demand for people that mocks other religions. I am a Muslim and I have come across with several converts to Islam. I find it always disgusting when they are talking about their previous religion badly although I didn't come up with many people that do that. I am a Muslim not because Christianity or other religions are bad, but because I love my religion and find it very logical. You should do so too. No offense, but the need for ridiculing other religions shows the weakness of your faith not the strength.
. Kursat, (Curse at [you]?) At any rate, I welcome you to read the Gospels, Galatians, and Hebrews. Compare Jesus and early Christianity against Muhammad and early Islam. This question from a Muslim to a Christian apologist may be a great starting point for you: http://videorow.blogspot.com/2009/10/ravi-zacharias-q-university-of-michigan.html .
Watchdog, To answer your earlier question about love offerings for big name speakers, I am mainly getting that figure from personal knowledge of such offerings from a small number of large sbc megachurches. I haven't conducted any studies or polls to determine this with any accuracy. Let me also clarify something that I may have implied in my previous post about Ergun Caner. I certainly do not with to imply or contend that Ergun Caner intended to fraudulantely deceive any of the congregations to which he has spoken for the purpose of financial gain. The audio and video evidence has shown he deliberately made inconsistent statements about his past but I cannot speak to his motives. My point is that at a minimum he possibly owes these churches an apology for misleading them regarding his background and testimony.
Papa Giorgio, It is very kind of you that you assigned me some homework. And I am really sorry that I read the Bible without getting your permission. I didn't know that I had to. Your kindness encourage me to write down the following verse from Koran; "And the servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth easily, and when the ignorant address them [harshly], they say [words of] peace." (Surat Al-Furqān, 25:63)
. Kursat, You see, unlike the Bible, the Qu'ran abrogates its "verses" and depending on what time period they were written (and depending on if the Muslim community was weaker than it was later), these later verses take over in importance (replaced with something "better") in application for the Muslim. So, Kursat, is this Sura Meccan? More specifically, is it the fifth and sixth years of the Prophet’s Mission? There is even a period after this in Mecca. After this period was Medina, right? For those who are not aware of this abrogation (stated in the Qu'ran) and are use to thinking of Scriptures in a "Western" manner, this Sura you gave sounds great. But if one understands the full implications of 2:106 and 16:101. Then this changes the ballgame a bit, doesn't it Kursat? .
Socrates said if you find "a good wife you'll be happy; if not, you'll become a philosopher." Being a decent philosopher aside AND having an awesome wife, I have been blessed with two very cool boys!
My youngest child has a closeness to Gracie Allen when she said, “when I was born, I was so surprised I couldn't talk for a year and a half." And my oldest son taught me that the difference between couplehood and babyhood in a word, is, moisture. Paul Reiser said “everything in my life is now more moist. Between your spittle, your diapers, your spit-up and drool, you got your baby food, your wipes, your formula, your leaky bottles, sweaty baby backs, and numerous other untraceable sources – all creating an ever-present moistness in [our] life, which heretofore was mainly dry".
I was born in 1970, a perfect time to catch the re-runs of Felix the Cat and Lassie, as well as catching the new Justice League and S.W.A.T. We are the generation of arcade games and classic 80’s movies. I wouldn’t want to be in any other time in history than the one I was born into.