Wednesday, February 1, 2017

How can the Bible Tout Peace When it Once Called For Genocide? - An Analysis Part 1

IS ISLAM A RELIGION OF PEACE?
On the one hand, I could say that the answer to this question is quite simple.  Simply compare Jesus to Muhammad…

Jesus never harmed anyone or anything.  As Isaiah, describes the Messiah “A bruised reed He will not break and a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish;” Isaiah 42:3.

       Muhammad conducted war, beheaded captives, raided caravans, and added captured women to his haram.

Jesus’ immediate followers, likewise, were harmless.  They spread the message of the Gospel through reasoning and arguments of persuasion.

              Muhammad’s successors conducted war, beheaded captives, raided caravans, and added captured women to their harams.

The answer is pretty straight forward.  There is nothing about the life of Muhammad that would even remotely suggest that he was a man of peace or that the “religion” that he founded is one of peace.

One may also look to the Quran and the Hadiths to confirm a general call to violence on the part of Islam. This is countered by verses that serve as calls to peace also found in the Quran.  In similar fashion when the Christian argues on behalf of a peaceful Gospel, the Muslim apologist counters “But look at the violence when Israel conquered the land of Canaan.  That was not peaceful".  Furthermore, if Jesus is the Messiah of peace whom “a bruised reed He will not break” how can that claim be made when in the end He will vanquish His enemies violently”?

Most Christians tend to avoid these objections.  Personally, I’m skeptical that anyone who would present these objections is really interested in determining truth and/or is so entrenched in Islam that He would be unwilling to objectively reevaluate his own faith anyway.  I hope that such is not the case and with that in mind, I present as my intention, to address these objections and demonstrate that they are fundamentally unfounded.  In this essay I will attempt to address the former objection and in a subsequent essay, I will address the latter objection.

Why the call in the Bible to genocide?

The Muslim is correct when he makes the claim that God told Moses that when the Children of Israel were to enter the Land of Canaan they were to completely kill all of the people of the land.  Clearly, in Deuteronomy 17:16-18 it says

 Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall [k]utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the Lord your God.

This is a reality.  This is a part of the very ugly, down and dirty truth that is found in the Bible.  But it is a necessary part of the Bible narrative.  So I rhetorically ask “Why did God command the Children of Israel to do something as utterly cruel as annihilating the inhabitants of the land?  I will attempt to answer this, first of all, by addressing the nature of the people who were in the land, second of all, by addressing the purpose behind God wanting the Children of Israel to occupy the land and lastly, by the nature of the warfare that was used in taking the land.

A.      The nature of the people who were living in the land.

The first hint that we get about the nature of the people who were living in the land is found in Genesis 15.  It tells something about, not only the people, but something very wonderful about God.  In Genesis 15, God makes a covenant with Abram (whose name would be changed to Abraham).  As part of the covenant God says to him

“Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions. As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age.  Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.”
(Genesis 15:13-16

Here we see God telling Abraham that his descendants would spend 400 hundred years in Egypt.  The Amorites who were in the land at the time of Abraham’s dwelling there were deeply involved in idolatry and all sorts of perverse behavior.  But the sin among them had not yet reached its peak.  They were not beyond redemption.  The 400 years of the descendants of Abraham dwelling in Egypt was the time necessary for the Amorites to reach their peak of corruption. Here’s where we see something wonderful and compassionate about God.  Notice His patience.  He knew that the Amorites would get worse and worse.  He just didn’t want to utterly destroy them then and there.  Some of the Amorites at the time of Abraham were redeemable and not deserving of death.  The compassion of God also wanted to give them time to repent.

I will not, at this point, get into the other aspects of this covenant.  They are very significant.  But they are not presently germane.

So, at the time of the Children of Israel’s (Abraham’s grandson’s) invasion of the land, the Amorites had become as corrupt and irredeemable as they could be.

So, what was the nature of their corruption?  There is no specific history of the account of their corruption mentioned in the Bible, however, after much time had passed, the kingdom of the Children of Israel who had wrenched the land from the Amorites became divided into two separate kingdoms.  In the norther kingdom, there arose a king who became so evil that he was likened to the evil of the Amorites (1Kings 21:26).  To understand the corruption of the Amorites, therefore, one need only study the activities of that king who’s name was Ahab.  An account of the activity of Ahab and his wife, Jezebel, can be found between Chapter 16:29 and Chapter 22:40 of the book of First Kings of the Bible.  Among the things they did was to construct Ashteroth which were poles erected in honor of the goddess Asherah.  Mythology had it that she was the consort of Baal… the weather god who rode the clouds and carried lightning in his hand.  The Ashteroth were constructed all over the northern kingdom of Israel and orgies were conducted throughout the land in her honor since she was the pagan “goddess of fertility”.  Their idolatry actually led Ahab and Jezebel to murder the actual prophets of God.  Not too far after Ahabs reign, the northern kingdom of Israel was taken captive by the Assyrians and sent into exile.  As bad as Ahab was, that’s how bad the Amorites had become by the time the Children of Israel had left Egypt.  That’s why God wanted to use Israel to wipe them out completely.  They’d become a cesspool of sex, idolatry, lawlessness and murder.

Concerning the Amorites, Exodus 23:32-33 God tells Israel

“make no covenant with them or with their gods. They shall not live in your land, because they will make you sin against Me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you.”You shall 

God wanted the Amorites gone because they were thoroughly unredeemable, and their idolatry and practices of prostitution would only serve to tempt the Children of Israel to immorality.

B.      The purpose behind why God wanted the Children of Israel to inhabit the land.

Rather obviously King Ahab of the northern kingdom was not the way God desired for the Kingdom of Israel to progress.  God had given a law known as the Torah to the Children of Israel.  It was an amazing law which made supernatural demands upon the people of Israel. 

To illustrate just how amazing this law was, one of its statutes stated the following:

If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey wandering away, you shall surely return it to him.  If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying helpless under its load, you shall refrain from leaving it to him, you shall surely release it with him.
(Exodus 23:4-5)

This was a practice that was unheard of and still is unheard of to this day!  Whoever heard of a man acting charitably towards his enemy?  When Israel, after having been exiled and returned to the land, and under Roman domination, Jesus told the people of His day just about the very same thing…

“But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.”
Matthew 5:39

The point that I’m making is that much of the Law of God consisted of decrees that were outside of human nature to carry out.   Man, in his natural state is not going to “turn the other cheek”.  A unique, special sort of motivation is needed in order to implement this law on a personal level.  Certainly in the case of the above law, willful forgiveness is required as well as a renunciation of pride and the taking on of humility when one has been dishonored.  In essence one must be willing to love God so much that one is willing to obey His law regardless of one’s self interest.  One must also know the requirements of God.  Those requirements are spelled out only in God’s word, the Bible.

Human nature says “I can be a good person, in fact, I AM a good person”.  And so, God gave the Children of Israel an opportunity to try to implement His law.  Of course this law could never be implemented to perfection, but imagine that you’ve been told to shoot an arrow at a target.  How are you even going to get near the target if you don’t even know the direction that the target is in?  The law pointed in the direction, and the objective was to create a society, which, governed by the perfect Law of God, consisted of a population of people who were, at least compared to all the nations around them, compassionate and respectful towards one another.  Disputes were settled justly and in an orderly fashion.  Yes, some punishments were treated with the utmost of severity but the intent was that such punishments would never even be necessary.”? 

So exactly where is this land where this “society” was to be established?  In Genesis 15:18, while God is making His afore mentioned covenant with Abraham, He tells him.

“To your [t]descendants I have given this land,
From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates":

The land was to extend from the eastern most river of the Nile Delta to the Euphrates River.  This promise is reiterated not to Ishmael but to Abraham’s other son, Isaac in Genesis 26:2-5.  The promise is again, repeated not to Isaac’s son, Esau, but to Isaac’s son Jacob in Genesis 23:13-15.

The descendants of Jacob have never fully acquired all of this land, but the God of the Bible, who will not lie, promises that one day they will obtain all of it.  In Leviticus 26:40-45 Moses tells us that the descendants of Jacob (who is also called Israel) will be exiled from the land but would one day return from the four corners of the earth.

But why this particular parcel of land?

The land was to be located right in the middle of the trading routes as caravans took their goods from East to West and North to South and vice versa, all over the known world. 

Now imagine if you will… this land, right in the middle of these trading routes is inhabited by a people who, because they love God, are able to do these extraordinary things like carrying on acts of kindness towards even their enemies.  The traders would marvel and attribute this amazing relationship between these people to their God.  They would go back to their homes and families after their long journeys and tell their wives and families and children about this marvelous God.  People all over the world would give up their idols and pursue the knowledge of this wonderful God.

Yes, this “experiment” failed the first time.  That’s because human nature really doesn’t allow it.  You call Adam the first Prophet, but he’d sinned.  He had given in to the temptation to be “like God” and all of us are guilty of that.  Why do we get angry when we’re insulted or dishonored?  All of us is prone to hate our enemies.  In all of history, only Jesus loved those who tortured Him, spoke ill of Him, insulted Him and ultimately crucified Him.

C.      The nature of the warfare used in taking the land.
 
God said to the Children of Israel through Moses…

“Behold, I am going to send an angel before you to guard you along the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared.  Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since My name is in him.  But if you truly obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.  For My angel will go before you and bring you in to the land of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will completely destroy them
(Exodus 23:20-24)
He goes on…
 I will send My terror ahead of you, and throw into confusion all the people among whom you come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you.  I will send hornets ahead of you so that they will drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites before you…  You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods.They shall not live in your land, because they will make you sin against Me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you.”
(Exodus 23:27-28, 32-33)

Put simply, clearly from this text, God is doing the fighting on behalf of Israel to clear the land of those nations whose idolatrous practices would pose as a snare to them.

How then did this “strategy” of the Angel of God going before the Children of Israel play itself out?

The first city that the Children of Israel came to was Jericho.  Jericho was a big wall enclosed city.  The city was taken because God Himself knocked down its walls.  The people of Israel rushed in, and killed everyone except a prostitute who had repented of her prostitution and her family.   None of the Children of Israel died.

The next battle was at the town of Ai.  There were two attempts on the part of the Children of Israel to take the city.  The first attempt was unsuccessful and 36 men were killed.  It turned out that this lack of success was because one man had sinned.  That man and his family were put to death and the second attempt was successful, again, with not Israelite casualties.

The third battle was against five Amorite kings.  We read about it in the Book of Joshua chapter 10.

Joshua 10:8-11

In essence, when God is fighting for Israel, if there is no sin in the Israelite camp, no Israelite dies.  Furthermore, it is God Himself, who does most of the killing.

Let’s bring us now to the 21st century.  We’ve noted that, at least according to the Bible, Moses (as well as other prophets) had foretold that the people of Israel would be scattered, understandably because of their sin.  We’re also told that they would eventually return to the land.  We’ve also learned that the land they presently occupy is only a fraction of the land that had been initially promised to them by God. 

We’ve also learned that as cruel as the Biblical call to genocide of the inhabitants of the land seemed to be, it was justified not only because of the utter depravity of those people, but evidence for that justification was manifest by God Himself doing most of the fighting. 

We’ve also noted that when there is absolutely no sin, no one dies.

Today, the people of Israel are back in the land.  Is this the time of their return?  Maybe yes… maybe no.  We do know, however, that when the State of Israel was first formed, Five Arab armies fought against a rag-tag force of a few thousand, ill armed holocaust survivors and were rebuffed.

One web-site, http://necrometrics.com/20c30k.htm, gives figures for the deaths of Arabs vs. Israelis between the years 1948 and 1973.  Just counting the deaths of the specific wars during those years there were an estimated 6800 to 11,100 Israeli deaths and 35,800 to 68,600 Arab deaths, every one of which is tragic!  Even the wars and intifadas after this time have led to more Arab deaths than Jewish deaths.  In light of this data, what evidence is there that miracles were performed by Allah on behalf of the Muslim cause?  Where has Allah shown signs that He was fighting for Islam?  In contrast, anecdotes abound of instances where God has fought in this modern era on behalf of the Israelis.  One need only conduct a Google search.

Of course, Muhammad encouraged fighters to be willing to “die for the cause of Allah”.  However, the Biblical model that I’ve put forth seems to intimate that the army that is without sin suffers absolutely no losses.  In light of that, it seems that there is plenty of sin to go around.  The sad thing is that people tend to be too arrogant either to admit their sin or to question the world view that drives them on to mutual destruction.

I would pose the question, therefore… “Is Islam a ‘religion of peace’ or is it in fact, a world view, founded by a pseudo prophet, that is actually fighting against the will of the one and only true God?  I would also pose the question, what makes Muslims so sure that Jesus is merely just a prophet and what makes Jews so sure that Jesus is not the Messiah?


I hold as axiomatic that these two factions are fundamentally at war because they reject the true understanding of whom Jesus actually is.

Thursday, December 29, 2016

A Response to Thomas Friedman's New York Times Op Ed Entitled "Bibi Netanyahu Makes Trump his Chump"

Thomas Friedman, you’ve covered the middle east your entire life but it seems that you lack one thing… the realization that the Palestinian issue is one of theology and not land.  The “land for peace” shtick has already been tried.  Two years after the Oslo Accords Yasser Arafat launched the second intifada.  Rocket and tunnel attacks from Gaza came out of Israel having given up land for peace.
You say that Netanyahu is a leader who is “forever dog paddling in the middle of the Rubicon, never ready to cross it”.  I find it interesting that you put the onus for this intransigence on Netanyahu.  What you don’t seem to understand is that the Muslim world is playing a game of “chicken” with Israel.  Netanyahu knows it but you don’t seem to.  In your desire for him to do something, whatever it might be, towards anything that resembles progress towards peace, what you and Obama and Kerry, et al, are really trying to do, whether you know it or not, is to force Netanyahu to flinch first.  Netanyahu knows that would be fatal.  I believe he knows, as do I, that the best that we can do is remain in this stalemate condition until either one side flinches or preferably the Arab world comes to the realization that Islam is at best, an entirely bankrupt world view.  You accuse Netanyahu of wanting to hold on to power.  I would say that Netanyahu’s primary concern is for the survival of the Jewish people.  I guess that’s a judgment call.
You complain that Israel can’t win any global support under Netanyahu.  Netanyahu has had his minions publicizing the good that Israel does in technological advancements, in benevolence towards Palestinians and wounded Arab Fighters in Syria.  He’s worked on making alliances in Africa and elsewhere.  The Palestinians also have a strong and phony propaganda network and, Thomas, give me a break… do editorial titles like “Bibi Netanyahu Makes Trump his Chump” sound like your helping his cause?  You’re being just a little hypocritical!
Yes… we are not only in an undesirable situation in the Middle East but we are, as you said, in a situation that “would keep Israel in a permanent conflict with Palestinians and the Muslim world as well as many Western democracies and their college campuses.”
You assume that Obama is a friend of Israel.  I assure you nothing is further from the truth.  He is reputed as a chronic liar.  He signed a treaty with Iran that supposedly kicks the nuclear can down the road 10 years.  Have you ever heard of the Islamic principle of Hudaybiyyah?  I suggest you read up on it. Ah but you say that he’s provided military support for Israel.  That’s true.  He’s obligated to maintain some political credibility.  In the meantime he got rid of Mubarak, a peace partner with Israel, and fought with congress to make good on US promises to Egypt in order to sell F-16s to the Muslim Brotherhood.  And now that he, apparently, seems to be leaving office, what you’ve interpreted as an act for good in forcing Netanyahu’s hand is really nothing more than his letting out all the stops because he doesn’t have to deal with the political consequences.
The very title of this Op Ed peace of yours not only undermines Netanyahu but Israel.  In the meantime, since it seems that you don’t understand what this Middle Eastern stalemate is all about, I suggest that you study up carefully on the doctrines and history of Islam which has killed over 270,000,000 people during its history.  

It has been sagaciously suggested that one should know ones enemies.  I’ll be honest with you.  It is Islam which is your enemy.  But your apparent lack of knowledge about Islam coupled with your potshots at Netanyahu seem to tell me that Islam is not your enemy but, in fact, Israel is.  I suggest that you start writing about sports or cooking or some other subject until you’ve well educated yourself on Islam and started acting like a Jew who loves his people and stopped acting like a shill for the Palestinians.

Good News for Palestinians - Bad News for Jews and Vice -Versa

I've got good news and bad news:
GOOD NEWS for Palestinians BAD NEWS for Jews and Israelis:
Palestinians preceded the Jews in the land (of what some of the world calls "Israel" today).
EXPLANATION: In Exodus 15 after the parting of the Red Sea, Israel took up what is called the Song of Moses. In it they reflect on the fact that what God did at the Red Sea would cause fear and trembling among the inhabitants of the land to which Israel was going. The text reads:
“The peoples have heard, they tremble;
Anguish has gripped the inhabitants of Philistia (Palestinians).
15 “Then the chiefs of Edom were dismayed;
The leaders of Moab, trembling grips them;
All the inhabitants of Canaan have melted away. (Ex 15:14-15)
The implication here is that the Philistines (Palestinians) had preceded Israel in the land.
BAD NEWS for Palestinians.
Palestinians can't claim to be who they say they are.
EXPLANATION:
They claim to be Semites (Shemites). This is true. Arabs are descendants of Abraham through Ishmael (I believe also Esau and Abraham's other wife Keturah).
But if they claim to be Palestinians (Hamites) That's a completely different bloodline. Here's a reference...
(6 The sons of Ham were Cush and Mizraim and Put and Canaan. 7 The sons of Cush were Seba and Havilah and Sabtah and Raamah and Sabteca; and the sons of Raamah were Sheba and Dedan.... 13 Mizraim became the father of Ludim and Anamim and Lehabim and Naphtuhim 14 and Pathrusim and Casluhim (FROM WHICH CAME THE PHILISTINES) and Caphtorim.) (Emphasis added) Gen 10:67, 13-14.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. You who live on this planet who call yourselves Palestinians,
You're either an Arab or a Palestinian... a Shemite (Semite) or a Hamite. It's genetically impossible to be both. So CHOOSE.
(come to think of it, maybe that's why the rest of the Arab world doesn't like you).
2. Perhaps if we can find the head, shield, sword and armor of Goliath we can donate it to the Palestinians to put in their presently empty museum.
LikeShow more reactions
Comment

Sunday, September 11, 2016

The History of September 11th and how it Relates to the Presidential Election

Today we remember the innocents murdered by Islamic extremists on 9/11. Do you really know the significance of 9/11? It didn't begin in 2001. The article below is by a man I greatly admire as a research journalist, Bill Federer. If truth matters to you, take the time to educate yourself about the true meaning of 9/11.
THE HISTORY OF SEPTEMBER 11
On September 11, 1565 Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent dominated the Mediterranean, with intentions of not only invading Sicily, Sardinia, Majorca, and southern Spain, but Rome itself. The only thing standing in his way was the small rocky Island of Malta just south of Sicily, defended by the Knights of Malta. In March of 1565, Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent sent Algerian Admiral Dragut to Malta with 200 ships and 40,000 Muslim soldiers, including 6,500 elite Janissary troops. Dragut stated: "Unless you have smoked out this nest of vipers, you can do no good anywhere."
Queen Elizabeth I of England is said to have remarked: "If the Turks should prevail against the Isle of Malta, it is uncertain what further peril might follow to the rest of Christendom."
The Knights of Malta were led by a 70 year old Frenchmen, Jean Parisot de la Valette. Pleas for reinforcements went out across Europe, but defense seemed futile. La Valette addressed his men: "A formidable army composed of audacious barbarians is descending on this island. These persons, my brothers, are the enemies of Jesus Christ... Today it is a question of the defense of our faith--as to whether the Gospels are to be superseded by the Koran. God on this occasion demands of us our lives, already vowed to his service. Happy will be those who first consummate this sacrifice."
The Turks attacked again and again, even reducing one of their fortresses to rubble, but the Knights kept fighting, resolved to save Western Civilization. Finally, Dragut was killed and the Muslims sailed away on SEPTEMBER 11, 1565.
July 17, 1683, Sultan Mehmed IV sent over 138,000 Muslim Ottoman Turks to surround Vienna, Austria, led by General Mustafa Pasha. For nearly two months they starved the 11,000 Hapsburg-Austrian defenders. Sultan Mehmed IV sent the message to Austrian King, Leopold I: "Await us in your residence...so we can decapitate you."
Polish King Jan Sobieski gathered 81,000 Polish, Austrian and German troops and led a surprise attack on SEPTEMBER 11, 1683. They made one of the largest charges in history, 38,350 cavalry and dragoons. Soldiers had made wings for their backs which made a thunderous noise when they charged, causing the Turks to flee in confusion.
Upon entering the abandoned Turkish tents, Sobieski found bags of beans…coffee beans, revealing how Turks could fight day and night. The beans came from Ethiopia, the one African country which stayed Christian, and the Muslims called the Christians infidels or "cafir," from which the word "coffee" was derived. Shortly after the victory of Vienna, Polish General Koltschizky opened Vienna's first coffeehouses and coffee quickly spread across Europe. The Pope and European leaders hailed Jan Sobieski as the "Savior of Western Civilization."
The humiliated Muslim army beheaded General Mustafa Pasha and sent his head back to Sultan Mehmed IV in a velvet bag.
Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953) wrote in The Great Heresies (1938):
"Less than 100 years before the American War of Independence a Mohammedan army was threatening to overrun and destroy Christian civilization...Vienna was almost taken and only saved by the Christian army under the command of the King of Poland on a date that ought to be among the most famous in history - SEPTEMBER 11, 1683."
SEPTEMBER 11, 1697:
Muslim Ottoman Turks dominated Belgrade, Serbia, since 1521. In 1691, Austria helped free Belgrade, but Muslim Ottoman Turks recaptured it and razed the city's buildings to the ground. The Serbian Orthodox Patriarch led thousands to flee to the Austrian Hapsburg Empire in the first "Great Serbian Migration." Habsburg Prince Eugene of Savoy led the Holy League to counter-attack. Losing 500 men, the Holy League killed 30,000 Turks in one of the Ottoman Empire's worst defeats in history - the Battle of Zenta, SEPTEMBER 11, 1697.
President Theodore Roosevelt wrote in his 1916 book, Fear God and Take Your Own Part: "From the hammer of Charles Martel to the sword of Jan Sobieski, Christianity owed its safety in Europe to the fact it...could and would fight as well as the Mohammedan aggressor."
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001:
Islamic terrorists hijacked passenger jets. Two were flown into New York's World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon and one crashed in Pennsylvania. President Bush stated: "Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward, and freedom will be defended."
That evening, President Bush stated: "Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror. Pictures of planes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures collapsing have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness and a quiet, unyielding anger…America was targeted...because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world... I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve...I pray they will be comforted by a power greater than any of us spoken through the ages in Psalm 23: 'Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil for you are with me.'"
On September 13, 2001, President Bush stated: "In the face of all this evil, we remain strong and united, 'One Nation Under God.'"
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012:
The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, written with the help of Eleanor Roosevelt, was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly, Dec. 8, 1948. Without referencing the "Creator" as the source of rights, like the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes articles such as Article 18: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief."
This conflicted with Islamic Shariah law which imposes the death penalty for anyone leaving the Islamic religion. Many articles in the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights were rejected by the leaders of 57 Islamic countries, who formed their own group called the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC.
In 1990, OIC passed the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, affirming Shariah law as supreme, with:
-the death penalty for those leaving Islam;
-punishing women who are victims of rape;
-allowing men to be polygamous;
-permitting wife beating; and
-censoring speech insulting Islam.
On Dec. 12, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton began a 3 day closed door meeting with the OIC, promising to support their Istanbul Process to universally "criminalize" speech insulting Islam, effectively enforcing "dhimmi" status on non-Muslims worldwide. By definition, the Christian Gospel insults Islam. If someone in a Shariah controlled country proclaims Jesus Christ more than a prophet, but also the Son of God who died on the cross to pay for the sins of the world, it would mean the death penalty. In fact, all speech contrary to Islam insults Islam. At the end of the meeting, OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stated: "The Istanbul Process initiated with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton...must be carried forward."
Clinton added: "We now need to move to implementation."
In the following months, Hillary Clinton's State Department ignored repeated requests for security by Ambassador Chris Stevens in Libya. He was killed with several others in the Benghazi attack on SEPTEMBER 11, 2012. The night of the attack, Secretary Clinton's State Department blamed a video, and the shortly after sent memos to YouTube and Google recommending they censor speech insulting Islam, consistent with promises made at the OIC Istanbul Process meeting.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice added to this narrative, as did President Obama when he told the U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 25, 2012: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
The U.S. supported the Muslim Brotherhood's ousting of Egypt's President Mubarak. Then U.S. weapons were used to oust Libya's President Gaddafi. Requests made by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act revealed emails of weapons being moved from Benghazi in a "Fast and Furious" gun-running style program to arm Muslim fighters in ousting Syria's President Assad. This is part of a larger plan remove current leaders in order to reestablish an Islamic Caliphate. When Russia came to Assad's defense, the Muslims armed and trained by the U.S. attacked into Syria and Iraq, calling themselves ISIS, and proceeded to torture, rape, behead and displace hundreds of thousands.
The story is not yet over…the election is this November, for whom are you voting? It is the most important election of my lifetime and will possibly determine if there will be an America in the future!

Thursday, August 4, 2016

Palestinian Museum - Like the prophets of Baal.




I make mention of this on my blog because I want to draw your attention to a reality that is really quite comical.  

As I write this, three months have passed since the opening of the Palestinian Museum in Birzeit of the West Bank.  The museum was and is intended (according to this link) to "celebrate and redefine Palestinian History, Art and Culture"

The only problem was that this $24,000,000 structure opened with no exhibits!  Allow me, if you will, to repeat myself.  THE PALESTINIAN MUSEUM HAS NO EXHIBITS!

In contrast, Israel boasts of having the most museums per capita of anywhere in the world!  And it's exhibits range from contemporary art to myriad ancient artifacts which confirm the testimony of the Bible itself which declares that Jews lived thousands of years ago on this piece of real estate called Israel and claimed it as their home back then.

The Bible talks about the Prophet Elijah's confrontation with the prophets of the false god Baal.  In summary, Elijah had challenged the Prophets of Baal to display the veracity of their claim that Baal was an authentic god.  When they couldn't, Elijah mocked them.

I can't help but say that I feel a bit like Elijah.  The Palestinians claim that they were in the land of Israel thousands of years ago, and so much as deny that the Jews were their.

I say to the Palestinians "prove it".  I'm eager to see how quickly you fill up your displays with your historical artifacts so as to prove your point.

In the meantime, keep building your attack tunnels and using your propaganda machine to garner sympathy from uninformed lemmings for the purpose of perpetuating a lie by which you can make up an excuse for killing Jews.  

If the consequences of what you're doing to yourselves let alone the Jews, based upon your lies weren't so tragic, they would be laughable. 



Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Obama and Liberals

Of late I've had an understanding of a particular phenomena that's happening in the world these days, and supports for this understanding have converged from three sources... Biblical, A book I'm presently reading, and political rhetoric.
A friend challenged me that I was too hard on Obama. I don't listen to political speeches and I paid no attention to the political conventions as they occurred. Everyone tries to put on their best image and for the most part I regard what they have to say as "bovine feces". Nevertheless, I think I've "got my ear pretty close to the ground". For the sake of objectivity, though, I decided to listen to Obama's address to the Muslim world in Egypt back in '09. I started to listen to it a second time, taking notes so as to address certain points he'd made, thinking that I would write a critique. The task was somewhat laborious as I made it about half way through the speech the second time, and taking a bit of a break I ran across an interview which I'd posted on FB and I felt that the guy being interviewed had tremendous insight and had already covered the ground I'd observed in Obama's speech and so I've bought his book and have begun reading it.
There are certain axioms that I go by in life. One is fairly colloquial: "If you're not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart. If you're not conservative by the time you're 30, you have no brains". Another axiom was one which I'd come up with on my own after 9/11. "A chief key to 'fighting the war on terror' is to deny any credibility to Islam as a valid world view". Needless to say, Mr. Obama has been doing the exact opposite, much to my chagrin".
Having now, listened to Mr. Obama's speech in Egypt, if I were to give him the benefit of the doubt, and not go by the assumption that he's trying to be deceptive, I would categorize him as a man who thinks he is a Christian but is most certainly not because a genuine "Christian" at least according to my definition, would know that there is only one way to the Father and that is through Y'shua. Most conservatives would call Obama an "ideologue". That carries a negative connotation, so, again, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'd call him an idealist. He longs for world peace and hopes that he can be instrumental in bringing that about.
Mr. Obama, however, if he is well intentioned, is naive, which I suppose is to be expected from a so-called "Christian" who does not know Christ. Rather than putting his trust in God, he believes that man is fundamentally good and that we can overcome our differences. He also (in his words) longs for the day when Jew, Muslim and Christian can each share Jerusalem in peace and harmony (my words). I have always held and will always hold that (I suppose another axiom), barring the return of Jesus, the only way that peace can be obtained in this world, is through DISPASSIONATE debate (or more appropriately discussion) over the nature of God, so that a rational consensus can be reached. I say this because I recall the refrains of the Oleynu in the synagogue, taken from Zechariah 14 "In that day (the day when the world is at peace), the LORD shall be one and His Name shall be one". Put another way, the world will be at peace when there is a universal consensus concerning God's identity, nature and His expectations. I concede, that that is not likely to happen prior to the LORD's return simply because such endeavors would be hobbled by the human tendency to suffer from cognitive dissonance. Hence, I relegate the possibility of this consensus occurring until after it is ultimately caused by Messiah's self-revelation in Zech. 12:10.
At least, from his speech, and again, giving him the benefit of the doubt, Obama assumes that all religions teach the same things... love of fellow man and a whole bunch of other really good stuff. If that's the case, than at best, Mr. Obama lives in a world of fantasy. But his appeal is to those who believe that we humans can create a Utopian world. His faith is in man. In essence, his followers want to get back to the Garden of Eden but without the help of God.
According to the book that I'm reading, "The Kindergarden of Eden" by Evan Sayet, liberals, such as those who would follow Obama, have shunned thought that would result in discernment. Passing judgments upon what the rational person would determine to be good or bad is, in fact, discriminating and, hence, evil in their minds. The conservative would call such liberals who can't distinguish between virtue and vice "idiots". On the other hand, the liberal will accuse the discerning conservative as "racist, homophobe, biggoted, etc." because, now, in their mind, the idea of right and wrong has been nullified (for the exception of the presumption that discernment is evil). The goal is "the return to the garden of Eden where everything was spelled out for Adam and Eve and they didn't have to think.
I've, again, been reading through Genesis. One particular text that's hit me in the face is that In chapter 3, after Adam and Eve are expelled from the garden, God placed a Charuv at the entrance to the garden with a flaming sword turning every which way to guard any possible reentry into the garden.
Allow that, if you will, to sink in. There is an intelligent, impregnable creature that dwells in a different dimension than the one with which we are familiar, that stands guard with a flaming sword which turns in a manner which is really beyond description, standing guard over the Garden of Eden so that no one can get back in!
But hey, no problem... These liberals don't believe in God and don't believe the Bible so it makes no difference. In spite of Mr. Obama's apparent altruism, his foreign policy has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Christians Yazids and others in the Middle East and elsewhere and it is likely to result in tens if not hundreds of thousands more. This adds credibility to yet another axiom. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Monday, July 25, 2016

WILL THE REAL "RELIGION" OF PEACE PLEASE COME FORWARD?

About a month ago I got into a conversation with the Pastor of a Church which is part of a liberal denomination.  I relayed to him my account of what made me aware of the perils of Islam1 and that I’d concluded that anyone who takes Islam seriously is fundamentally cruel.  He begged to differ with me.  He held up as his argument that he knows a lot of very nice Muslims.

I agree with him.  There are many nice Muslims.  However, I’m alarmed by his standard for evaluating Islam. 

There is, at the present time, a campaign to make the Muslim religion attractive and acceptable to the Western mind.  I saw a video in which smiling Muslims, from school girls, to medical doctors, to “out of the closet” homosexuals, claiming to be Muslims were happily declaring “we’re just like you”.  I do not know what their motivation is but I do know for a fact that if the “gay Muslim” were in Saudi Arabia, he’d be held by his ankles and dropped from a 20 story building.  The school girl certainly wouldn’t be able to drive a car and had better not be found without a hajib {head covering).  Only an environment where the Muslim population is comparatively miniscule to the rest of the population would allow people to make such a video with such claims.  When Muslim populations grow, they become Sharia (Islamic law) compliant and such people as were shown in that video would not exist.  As an attestation to this, when Achmadinajad, the former President of Iran spoke at Columbia University, he was asked about homosexuals in Iran.  He replied “We have no homosexuals in Iran”.2

Ro Waseem, who writes for the Huffington Post as well as other publications, describes himself as a “Liberal Muslim”.  Having read one article of his3, he presents a case defending Islam’s reputation, in this case, allegedly misunderstood as a religion of Jew Hatred. 

President Obama has also acted as a defense attorney on behalf of Islam.  He argues emphatically that ISIS, Al Qaida and the other terrorist organizations which seem to be running rampant throughout the globe are not really Islam.  Islam, the theologian in the White House argues, is a “religion of peace”.
Why is it, however, that Ro Waseem’s interpretations of Quranic and Hadith texts are contradicted by others who choose either different texts or different interpretations that seem to encourage violence?  If he’s a genuine Muslim and the “terrorists” are phonies then by that logic, the founder of Islam, Muhammad, was not a Muslim because MUHMMAD WAS A TERRORIST.  To quote Ali Sina...

“Muhammad did things that by today’s standard would be seen as acts of terrorism. He raided towns without any previous warning, killed unarmed men who had gone to the fields and markets after their daily business, captured their wives and children and distributed the younger women among his soldiers while always keeping the prettiest ones for himself and having sex with them in the same day he murdered their fathers, husbands and loved ones.4
These claims of Ali Sina’s are actually common knowledge.  He even points out that they are known in Islamic countries, however anyone who speaks out about them is afraid of losing his life.5  Hence, I hold emphatically that Islam survives essentially through violence and the defense of lies and deception.

In light of that, I point out that my dear liberal pastor friend is being deceived as is the case with most, if not much of America.  This also was a practice of the founder of Islam.  I quote another website:

“Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later. Some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.”6 
This was one of many actual historical events attributed specifically to Muhammad… not subsequent Caliphs, but the actual founder of Islam himself.  He deceived the Meccans into trusting him and then conquered them when their guard was down.  This is precisely what is being carried on by his followers 1400 years later in the Western hemisphere.  Sadly, the public education systems in the West have overlooked this aspect of history!

There’s an old axiom attributed to George Santayana that just about everyone knows but few people practice.  I tend to whimsically put a twist on it, rephrasing it by saying that…

“Those who know history are doomed to watch those who don’t know history repeat history.”
It is not propaganda or imagery that tells the truth.  LOOK TO HISTORY!!!  AND LOOK TO THE SOURCE OF THAT HISTORY.  My Pastor friend seems to have forgotten that axiom.

I’m not telling you to hate Muslims.  They are people, just like everyone else and they need Jesus who is the only means by which one’s sins can be forgiven.  But I am saying “don’t judge their religion by the image that they present nor condone it's claim to veracity as a genuine religion”.  Go to the source of that religion… Muhammad.  Compare him, if you will, to the founder of the real “religion” of peace… Jesus.

Muhammad raped.                       
             Jesus forgave an adulterous woman contingent upon her repentance.

Muhammad murdered people.                
             Jesus died for people.

Muhammad is dead                      
             Jesus conquered death and is alive to this day!
             
Personally I don’t like the term, “Religion”.  Generally it denotes rules and regulations and traditions that aren’t necessarily ordained by God.  But if I had to use that term, I would say that it is Jesus who is the true and only source of any “religion” of peace.





5 Ibid