Is lslam Inherently Evil?

This is the first of three planned essays:

I. Islam: A Political-Military System

II. Islam and the West: A Brief History

III. Judaism, Christianity and
Islam: A Brief Theological Comparison

[Note: Please, if you are new to our discussions, check the Rules of Engagement posted 10/13/07. Also, look to the right margin --there is a link to the PorkRindHollow where you will find resources to support the essays, including a glossary. Blue highlighted words in the text are linked directly to the glossary. Finally, Aunty Belle is NOT saying that all Muslims are violent, many are decent and kind people. This essay is not a criticism of Muslims as individuals.]

Essay I

Islam As a Political and Military System

Many object that the characterization of Islam as a violent and dangerous ideology is bigoted. Their point is that “Islam the religion” is not synonymous with terrorism. They insist that recent events of terror and mayhem are the work of a few “radical Islamists” or “terrorists.” But are they?

Why then does the religion of Islam breed so many violent adherents? Islam has waged an invasive war against non- believers and their homelands for 1300 years. To state that Islam is violent and dangerous in its religious precepts is not bigoted… if it is true.

Contemporary commentary is often crafted to achieve a public relations goal. Thus, accuracy is can be sacrificed to achieve the public relations objective. The public face of modern Islam is deliberately presented to the West as a “religion of peace,” following September 11, 2001. This public relations exercise serves a carefully defined purpose:

1 . avoid the possible provocation of a billion Muslims

2. deflect a global war

3. create “space” for moderate Muslims to inhabit.

For the Islamic world this PR initiative is intended to forestall actual acts of violence endemic to modern Islamic practice and teaching—violence against its own believers and against non-believers on every continent. Yet, because of the massive public relations efforts on both sides of the Islamic divide, the average Western citizen is unacquainted with the truth about Islamic teaching and history.

Critical information on Islam is not withheld from the average citizen—books and websites are easily found-- but commentators routinely redirect facts and situations to lull citizens into a dangerous apathy. Westerners, thus, are disarmed.

The purpose of this essay is to explore Islam from its internal texts and history in order to understand how some arrive at the conclusion that Islam is systemically (from the roots to the flower) flawed, even evil. (In this instance evil is defined as religious oppression and death of innocents those whose “crime” is failure to worship Allah and honor his prophet Mohamed). Can that assertion be factually supported?

Let’s take a look.

What is Islam?

Simplest answers:

Islam is the world’s second largest religion-- nearly a billion believers who are called Muslims.

Islam is a monotheistic religion that was founded in the Arabian Peninsula in 610 AD when a caravan merchant named Mohamed heard an angel recite teachings that were purported to be from Allah (Islamic term for God). Those teachings were collected over the years after his death and today are revered by Muslims as their holy text, called the Qur’an. The Qur’an is divided into Suras or chapters. These are not arranged chronologically or thematically.

Islam is a religion named for the term “Islam” which means “submission.” In the religious sense, Islam means submission or surrender to the will/ pleasure of Allah. Once a believer submits he/she finds the second meaning of the term Islam: “peace.” Peace is found through submission. Islam teaches that until all men have submitted to Islam, Muslims must wage jihad against nations and peoples who reject the invitation to Islam.

Who founded Islam?

Strictly speaking, Islam teaches that Allah is the founder of Islam. The belief is that God sent various prophets throughout human history; their teachings were either ignored or misunderstood. This line of prophets included Noah, Abraham and Moses, as well as Jesus. The last prophet that Allah sent or would ever send —according to Islamic teaching—was Mohamed. Supposedly Mohamed understood Allah rightly, thus, most of the teachings of Christians and Jews were faulty. The first of the five “pillars” of Islamic faith is “There is no god but Allah and Mohamed is his prophet.”

Mohamed, son of Abdullah.

Contemporaneous non-Muslim sources on the life of Mohamed are sparse. The primary early sources for his biography are: Life History of Muhammad, by Ibn-Ishaq , A.D. 768, re-edited by Ibn-Hisham in 833; The Expeditions of Muhammad, by Al-Waqidi A.D. 822.

The essential outline is that he was born in Mecca around the year 570 AD; his father, a member of the Hashim, a poorer branch of the influential Quraish tribe, died before his birth. His mother was dead before he was 10; his uncle raised him to adulthood. Mecca in that century was home to Jewish and Christian settlers as well as the indigenous Arab Bedouin tribes.

Many Arabs were nominal Christians, and most of the Christians in the Arabian Peninsula were heretical sects, Nestorians or Monophysites, chiefly. These Christians and Jews were monotheistic in contrast to those Arabs who practiced the pan-paganism typical to most cultures of the time-- where many lesser and local gods were worshiped. Mohamed’s tribe served as overseers of the Kabba, a shrine where many deities were worshiped. At that time, the deity called Allah was understood as the God of gods.

Mohamed worked for his uncle along the caravan trade routes to Syria. When he was 20 years old he met Khadijah, a wealthy widow 15 years his senior. She married the poor but resourceful young man from a respectable tribe five years later. He managed her caravan business.

During a trading journey to Syria, Mohamed met a Nestorian monk, Bahira, from whom he learned certain Christian teachings. Mohamed’s wife, Khadijah, owned a Christian slave, Zayid ibn Harith, whom Muhammad adopted as his own son years before his first prophetic work began. Khadijah was known to be a Christian, probably Nestorian. Some accounts describe her brother or cousin as one who translated the Scriptures into proto-Arabic and who is known to have died as a Christian. (More on Mohamed’s religious background and influences in Essay III.)

What is clear is that Mohamed was familiar with the singular premise of both Jewish and Christian teaching: There is but one God who is all-powerful, (omnipotent) and all-knowing (omniscient). Furthermore, among the commercial trade routes those who believed in one God seemed to disdain pagans who believed in a plethora of gods.

The Coming of the Qur’an

At age 40-41 Mohamed, after 15 years of marriage, told Khadijah that had been visited by the angel Gabriel while meditating. The experience terrified him and he sought her comfort. “Cover me! Cover me” he cried when he returned to her from the cave where it was his custom of meditate. She “sat him on her lap” and assured him he was not possessed.(B/T)

However, the people of Mecca were not too sure. Mohamed, however much he questioned his own sanity, soon had assurances from Allah himself:

Sura 7.184 Do they not reflect? Their companion (Mohamed) is not seized with madness: he is but a perspicuous warner.

Sura 52.029 Therefore proclaim thou the praises (of thy Lord): for by the Grace of thy Lord, thou art no (vulgar) soothsayer, nor art thou one possessed.

Sura 68.002 Thou art not, by the Grace of thy Lord, mad or possessed.

The angel had dictated “recitations” that Mohamed is said to have memorized. Henceforth he called himself “God’s last Prophet,” as no new prophet would come after him. His recitations continued for 22 years; they are collected into the Islamic holy text called the Qur’an. The teachings formed the basis of what was to be the world’s third monotheistic religion. Additional teachings are found in the sayings and behavior of Mohamed, called hadiths. Hadiths were collected after Mohamed’s death; they have binding force on Muslim behavior and practice.

(However, there is no definitive Muslim authority on what the Qur’an means or what the Hadiths mean, particularly in relation to more modern eras. Thus, wherever he can draw a following, individual muftis, mullahs or imams can impute to the suras whatever meaning they prefer. There is of course, much consensus on the meanings, but no one authority can overrule an interpretation given by a particular religious leader.)

Mohamed’s wife and a few cousins were the first converts to the new faith; some scholars show that it is reasonable to suppose these early converts thought of his meditations and locutions as an addition to Jewish and Christian teaching, and only later as a new faith increasingly opposed to Judaism and Christianity. Ten years into the new teachings, Khadijah died leaving a 50 year old Mohamed to continue on his path.

The Basis for Islamic Teaching

For the purposes of this first essay, it is crucial to note that the spiritual aspects at the inception of Islam were drawn from the surrounding Jewish and Christian groups who populated both Mecca and Medina. (More in essay II, III) There is no reason to hold that Mohamed had any motivation --at first-- other than a sincere search for truth that could be adapted to the Bedouin/ Arab tribal culture. Clearly he admired the cohesive elements of the monotheistic religions of those who held those beliefs. Such believers worked together as “brothers in faith” and were prosperous, spending less time on vendettas and tribal revenge.

After his initial experience in the cave where he received the locutions from Allah via the angel Gabriel, Mohamed preached the earliest recitations to his own city of Mecca. At this point his preaching --as he believed he had received from Allah-- was peaceful, and the recitations even command Mohamed to endure rejection with charity. His new religion was tolerated at first, in the manner that all gods had a place in the Meccan pantheon.

But when the commercial leaders realized Mohamed meant to destroy their minor gods, ("There is no God but Allah") then people rejected the new teachings. Leaders feared that if all other gods were prohibited, the lucrative tourist trade from those on pilgrimage to the pantheon of gods enshrined in Mecca would decline.

When his status as prophet met resistance from the commercial interests, when he met derision,and the Meccans laughed and rejected him and his message, Mohamed felt threatened and humiliated. Or, worse yet, Mohamed felt a need to prove he was not possessed—a theme found throughout the Qur’an wherein the voice of the angel repeatedly reassure him that he was not the victim of a demon. (See Sura 7:184; 52:29; 68:2...also see above)

Islam as a Political and Military System

During this time of rejection and humiliation at the hands of the Meccans, Khadijah died (620AD). Afterwards, the jihad model of Islam was born. Within months Mohamed took a new wife, then others. Thereafter the entire character of the received messages changed to reflect a political and military ideology filled with revengeful verses, (see suras 8, 9) and from a traditional biography of Mohamed we have this:

The apostle of Allah returned to Medina and remained there for several months, sending out various raiding parties and expedi­tions. Then the month of pilgrimage came round and it was one year since the expedition of al‑Hudaybiya when he had turned back from Mecca. Then took place what is called the Pilgrimage of Retaliation, when the apostle retaliated against the Quraysh who had pre­vented him from entering Mecca…” (B/T) Revenge is thus made legitimate by the new messages from Allah.

Later a petitioner asked Mohamed for assistance with a grievance against non-Muslims, “The man entered the mosque of Medina, where the apostle was sitting in the midst of the people, and asked for aid and retaliation, and the apostle replied, ‘It shall be done.’ ” (B/T)

There are Qur’anic justifications for pillaging to support his growing harem--a “divine” warrant for his lusts. (Sura 33:50) --and band of followers: “That which Allah giveth as spoil unto His messenger from the people of the townships, it is for Allah and His messenger…” (Sura 59:7). See also all of Sura 8, called the “Spoils of War” Sura. (ex.: Sura 8:41; 8:67-69; ) and the hadith 2706 (Sunan Abu Dawud) “Abd Allah b. Amr said: When the Apostle of Allahs (May peace be upon him) gained a booty he ordered Billal to make a public announcement. He made a public announcement, and when the people brought their booty, he would take a fifth and divide it…..” This “booty” included slaves and notable persons who were then ransomed for great profit.

From a traditional Muslim biography of Mohamed we read how Allah gave Mohamed permission to fight unbelievers. The point is made again that originally, while still in Mecca, Mohamed reported that Allah had sent him as a peaceful prophet and instructed Mohamed to endure rebuffs with patience and charity.

But when his failures in Mecca mounted, and after the death of his first wife, Khadijah, Mohamed began to receive a different sort of message from Allah, messages that clearly ended the peaceful approach to conversion and instead instituted a jihad model of conversion.

Conditions in Mecca were so strained by 622 that
Mohamed and his band of early followers departed
for Yathrib (Medina), a thriving oasis settlement
north of Mecca. The people there –
including three prosperous Jewish tribes—welcomed
him in peace,even accepted his proposal
of political leadership.

This event, known as the Hejira, marks the beginningof the Islamic calendar.

The first two years after the move to Yathrib (later re-named Medina: madinat al-nabi, or City of the Prophet) were filled with a series of raids of neighboring encampments, traversing caravans and even attacks on “enemies” within Medina. In short, the money and goods necessary to support his followers came from theft, pillage, “booty” and robbery, rather than peaceful endeavors such as trade, weaving, toolmaking etc.

Wherever a people did not accept Mohamed’s “peaceful” overture, they were fair game for a new raid. Each successful raid increased his wealth as well as his status (based on fear and envy) among the people of Medina, many of who converted.

In essence this passage sums up the jihadist political model that Islam has followed since Mohamed left Mecca for Medina:

When Allah gave His apostle permission to wage war, the promise to fight immediately became a condition of allegiance to Islam. This had not been so at the first meeting on the hillside, when homage was paid 'in the manner of women'; Allah had not then given His apostle permission to fight. He had given permission neither to wage war nor to shed blood, but only to call men to Allah, to endure insults patiently, and to pardon the ignorant. Some of the followers of the apostle had therefore been forced to flee from persecution into the countryside, some to Abyssinia, others to Medina and elsewhere. When the Quraysh

[Arab tribe in Mecca] rejected the mercy of Allah and spurned His prophet, they tormented or drove away men who proclaimed the One‑ness of Allah, believed in His prophet, and adhered to His religion.

Allah therefore permitted Muhammad to fight…Then a further verse was recorded: ‘Fight against them until there be no more temptation’ ‑ until Believers shall no more be tempted to abandon their religion ‑ ‘and until the religion be Allah’s’, that is, until Allah alone shall be worshipped and none else besides Him.

Since permission to fight had now been granted, the apostle of Allah accepted allegiance at the second meeting on the hill only from people who swore to fight for him and his Lord against all men. He promised paradise as a reward. (Muhammad, by Ibn Ishaq)

Mohamed did not hesitate to kill those who opposed him. He was particularly sensitive to being mocked. When a poet wrote unflattering verses about Mohamed's claim to be a prophet, he ordered his men to assassinate her; the assailant stabbed the poetess even though an infant was asleep on her breast.

Jihad as religious wars of conquest

Scholars divide Mohamed’s career into the Meccan and the Medina eras; the former is peaceful, “purer” in motivation, the latter purely self-serving, political and conquering. That is the prevailing characteristic of Islamic teaching today—in short, the violence against Muslim women and the jihad against non-Muslims, the acts of planned terrorism, the conflating of the political state and the religion of Islam—all these have their basis in the actual teachings in the Qur’an and in the acts of Mohamed himself.

Though there are "peaceful" verses in the Qur'an, most of those are from the Meccan era or earliest months in Medina. These include the often quoted Sura 2:256. "There is no compulsion in religion."

But these peaceful verses are abrogated by the later recitations, roughly those from the Medina era when Mohamed had instituted jihad/ military model of spreading the faith. The Qur'an itself proves the primacy of these later (warring) verses, in effect, dispalcing the earliest verses:

Sura 2:106. Whatever a Verse do We (Allah) abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?

(recall that the verses and chapters are not chronological as given in the Qur'an.) From Sura 2:106 it is plain that Allah is not bound, nor is his prophet bound, by Allah's former directive to be peaceful or patient.

This is why it is licit to point out that the violence of jihad is inherent in the teachings of Islam; these teachings and acts of war were there from Islam's inception. Thus, military and political jihad and violence are not outside Islamic teaching, but from Islamic teaching. Indeed, from its beginnings through current history, Islamic leaders understand Allah as their King, President, Ruler; ultimately it is the Our'an that determines a Muslim’s politics and the political policy of ever Islamic state. The Qur'an is not a book of peace, but a manual for war and pillage, for forced unity, for an oppressive governing rule...all in the name of religion.

Let us leave the spiritual aspect of Mohamed’s life and times to the third essay. Here we examine the melding of religious teaching and the political and military necessities of a new religion that sought to call all men on earth to Islam, the Arabic word for “submission.” From its earliest days Islam spread by terror and pillage as well as conversion. Those who refused the “invitation” to convert were subject to slavery and death. (Sura 8:12) No wonder “conversions” took place routinely as Muslims swept over each successive territory.

Islam has NO era of history that is marked by truly peaceful missionary teaching. Rather, the political and military conquests were a religious duty for faithful Muslims.

Karen Armstrong, known for her favorable biography of Mohamed, wrote:

“A Muslim had to redeem history, and that meant that state affairs were not a distraction from spirituality but the stuff of religion itself. The political well-being of the Muslim community was a matter of supreme importance...politics…was the arena in which Muslims experienced God and which enabled the divine to function effectively in the world…political assassinations, civil war, the rise and fall of ruling dynasties –were not divorced from the interior religious quest but were the essence of the Islamic vision.” (Islam p. xi, xii)

Furthermore, Mohamed is described as "al-insan al-kamil" (perfect man). Thus his acts, behaviors and personal habits are considered the preeminent model for all Muslim men--a dangerous model when history, the hadiths and the Qur'an show him as the agent to "redeem history" with jihad.

Does “Islam” Mean “Peace”?

The word Islam is derived from salima, meaning to be “unharmed” (because one submits). It is simple to see the name for the new religion as one drawn from both a tribal culture of submitting to the chieftain to remain at peace, unharmed, and the spiritual connotation of submitting to Allah—“as Allah wills it.”

The significance of the word and the act of submitting religiously, is its transferal to the concept of jihad. Jihad can be understood as the internal struggle to serve Allah, but is taught in the Qur’an as the justified war against the unbelievers who live in the “house of war,” the Dar-al-Harb. All in the Dar-al-Islam (Muslims/ believers) are safe, and at peace because they have made their submission.

The jihadist war on those who do not submit to Mohamed and Allah is defended with these sample verses from the Qur’an:

Sura 2.190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

Sura 2.191 And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

Sura 8.012 Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Sura 8.013 This because they contended against Allah and His Apostle: If any contend against Allah and His Apostle, Allah is strict in punishment.

Sura 8.014 Thus (will it be said): "Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire."

Sura 9.005 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Sura 9.29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Christians & Jews) , until they pay the Jizya (punitive tax or “protection money”) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Sura 47.4 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

On the matter of the jizya, this is a punitive “protection” /extortion tax levied against those who refused to convert but are permitted to live under Islamic oppression—the “dhimmi. The jizya was a clever two fold weapon against the oppressed people: It generated revenue, but in addition, it was used to humiliate. Islamic jurists ruled that such “taxes” be paid in person, barefoot, and in a crouching (submission) position.

According to Ibn ‘Abbas, the one who pays is to be humiliated , that is, the dhimmi, is then to be struck on his bent neck as he pays the jizya. It needs no psychologist to note that the humiliating experience that Mohamed suffered in Mecca is translated into this retribution against all who refuse his teaching. And, naturally the extortion loaded the coffers of the Islamic overlords.

To stress the point from the above: Mohamed’s people engaged in piracy against the caravan trade to support themselves (not unusual at the time among pagans, but surely inchoate in a religion that professes "peace."). Mohamed required that he be paid one fifth of the booty. This history is justified, say Islamic teachers, by these verses from the Qur’an:


8.1 They ask thee concerning (things taken as) spoils of war. Say: "(such) spoils are at the disposal of Allah and the Apostle.

From Hadiths: “ The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me (Mohamed) yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.”

For a jihad model of expansion, the care and feeding of willing soldiers/raiders is key. Thus we have this account from Ibn Ishaq:

I hid at one end and ordered my companions to hide at the other end….There we were waiting to take the enemy by surprise…and when he came in range I shot him in the heart with an arrow…I leapt upon him and cut off his head and ran in the direction of the camp shouting ‘Allah Akber’ and my two companions did likewise…they all fled….We drove off a large number of camels and sheep and brought them to the apostle and I took Rifaa’s head to the apostle, who gave me thirteen of the camels to help me with the woman’s dowry, and I consummated my marriage.

Clearly, Mohamed was willing to permit outright robbery to support his troops. Muslim apologists gloss over these passages with the supposition that such raids were "deserved" by the unbelievers--some of whom may have "violated" a treaty. But even so, such raids have as their goal a political -military objective--it underscores the point --Mohamed understood Islam as a military and political system that operated under an umbrella of religiosity.

At first Mohamed sought the favor of his new hosts in Medina, even to instructing his own followers to bow toward Jerusalem when they prayed --in order to please his new Jewish neighbors. (Later he would adopt this custom for Muslims, but transposed to himself and his own birthplace of Mecca.) For their part, the Jews of Medina had been waiting for their Messiah, and wondered if this man who claimed that the Angel Gabriel had sent him could possibly be their awaited one?

They soon realized otherwise, and within a year tension between Mohamed’s followers and the natives of Medina gave rise to violent disputes. Mohamed expelled all non-submissive Arabian clans and the three Jewish tribes; the Nadir, the Qoreiga and Qaynuga, and confiscated their properties.

From Medina he launched murderous raids on his native Mecca, eventually subduing the city. Such battles are justified by the locutions Mohamed received from Allah:

Sura 8.12 Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Sura 8.13 This because they contended against Allah and His Apostle: If any contend against Allah and His Apostle, Allah is strict in punishment.

Sura 8.14 Thus (will it be said): "Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire."

Sura 8.38 Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them).

Sura 8.39 And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

Tribal strife was brutish and Mohamed’s followers were no different. In Mecca there was a ghastly slaughter. Many tribes were subdued and submitted to Mohamed's new religion. After his move to Medina, Mohamed himself conducted over 30 raids and three wars. These jihads against all non-believers is commanded in the Qur’an:

“Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.” (Sura 9:73)

To show that jihad is required of “true believers” this verse is given:

Sura 9:81 “Those who stayed home were happy to be left behind by God’s apostle (Mohamed), for they had no desire to fight for the cause of God with their wealth or their persons. They said to themselves, ‘So not go to war, the heat is fierce’, Say to them “More fierce is the heat of Allah’s hell-fire!”

By the end of Mohamed’s life, the jihad model of religiously justified military and political conquest was well oiled. Mohamed was bold in his desire to spread Islam. He sent letters to the surrounding governors of Byzantium and Persia "inviting" them to convert "and you will be safe."(Bukhari , vol 4 #2941).

That not-so-veiled threat was repeated over the years. Within decades the Arabian Peninsula was brought under Islamic domination and all other faiths were outlawed.

The political structure used to unify the Peninsula was Islam,and the religion used to unify the citizens was Islam.

The two are inseparable. This is a concept that Westerners find difficult to understand, yet, to Muslims it is the only “true” framework for political life.

The idea of either religious or political pluralism is utterly rejected by Muslims and prohibited by Allah. For this reason Muslims cannot live in peace with their neighbors: Jihad is against all unbelievers, and thus is a “holy” and justified war according to Allah and his prophet Mohamed.

Essays to come:

II Islam & the West (A Brief History)

III Judiaism, Christianity and
Islam (distinctive beliefs

About the citations: Suras from the Qur'an are given. The hadiths that are quoted are not always accompanied by the corresponding volume or numbers though the compiler or interpreter's name is listed. The goal was not to write somebody's term paper....but if any of ya'll feel called to challenge anything documented here, please find your own documentation to challenge it, then I will provide the precise citations.

UPDATE: Discussion continues. Essay II, Islam and The West: A Brief History, will be posted weekend of Dec. 9th.

Please don't forget to check out the glossary at Pork Rind Hollow as a quick reference.

Many kind thanks to everyone for your insights and comments.


moi said...

Darn it! I've been waiting for this. But I got some SEC football business and Elvis homaging to take care of this weekend and I really didn't intend to tote the laptop with. But I just might have to now.

Pete Bogs said...

not inherently evil, in my view, but provides conditions conducive to extremism: dictatorial, brutal, violent penalties, subjugation of women, pathologically modest, closed-minded...

ArtfulSub said...

Kind of hard to read and comment upon. Lots of Code showed up on my screen.

Aunty Belle said...

Hey MOI!! Oh darlin' youse ALWAYS got a dispensation for SEC bidness!
No worry, puddin' cause Aunty will leave this up to at least to the end of Thanksgivin'weekend....c'mon back when ya's finshed wif' Elvis..hee hee.

Hey Bawgs, Honey....yeah, I gits wha' ya's sayin'. I guess, studying all those suras and hadiths, I'se persuaded that when yore "holy" writings show it as a good thang to pillage and slaughter "in the name of Allah" ya grows up wif' it in yore mind that it is not only "ok" but the superior path.

I does see how a moderate group wif' a moderate mullah might emphasize the early (Meccan) peaceful verses and craft an very different Muslim community.

I'd shure'nuff like to have an Islamic thinker c'mon over and chat wif' us 'bout it.

Aunty Belle said...

Artfulsub??? WHat? Dear heavens--what sort of code? The blogger postin' mechanism doan show nop tgroubles from mah end--whas' this ??? Help!

I am really anxious fer yore input on this topic--

she said...

aunty? day-yum. uh, will i get 5 credits onc't i finished this coursework? greherhaha,
er, i will be back. but i am swamped in the art bidness right now. so just know i saw your note, and i WILL be back.

American Interests said...

I see the code too it's kind of scattered everywhere but not to worry the esssay is still legible...

pete bogs said it well ...

Also glad we pose the question in the first place, "Is Islam evil?" usually provokes an instant, inevitable outcry: "Racist!" "Zionist!" etc Indeed, there are many attempts to suppress debate on this question, certainly it's avoided in MSM.

MSM sees itself as too sophisticated to contemplate the term 'evil' as critics react to the term with condescension adding that the description belongs in past dark age times. However the religion itself is a throwback to dark ages!

One can always legitimatley ask: Is this religion reformable or inherently inimical to our civilization, our way of life?

Potentialy yes!

Good posting!!!

Aunty Belle said...

Uh-oh...sorry that some of ya'll is seein' code--if anybody knows what I done wrong/ need to do to fix it, please advise me...dangit!

Hey She-pup. All "balled up" in the art bidness huh? S'okay, jes; save one of them pretty balls fer Aunty.

Hey American Interests--shure am sorry about the code--but really enjoyed your recent post on the economies and population--most thought provokin'.

ArtfulSub said...

Well, I think what you composed was generally quite excellent. It might be helpful to post something on the Pre-Islam Arab Conquest of the middle-east. It did begin, after all, 200 years before the alleged life of "Mohammed" and 300 years before the Koran was committed to page.

I don't see our central challenge here to be convincing Conservatives and Christians that the form of satan-worship called "islam" is inherently evil. I'd add INTRINSICALLY evil.

As Conservatives, we're prone to be suspicious of Big Government and "islam" is the ultimate Big Government. As Christians, we acknowledge that evil DOES exist. So, we're amenable to the truth about "islam".

The challenge is to convince those who LIKE big Government and DO NOT acknowledge that pure evil exists. Merely getting them to see aspects of that evil using modernist politically correct lib-speak won't do the job.

Note Bog's comments on "subjugation of women" and "violent penalties" and the odd "pathologically modest".

The danger, and it COULD happen, is that an "Islamic Republic" COULD do away with some of those trappings. Or, as is more likely, be PERCEIVED by the leftist Western Media as having done away with those trappings.

We've already seen examples of that, especially from the Euro-Leftist media. Remember how giddy they were 10 years ago when Iran "elected" a "moderate" to the ceremonial post of "President"?

When that happens, or is perceived to have happened, on a larger scale it will be a very troubling time.

American leftists, who consider American moderates and Conservatives to be their true enemies will FINALLY take a look at the "islamic" world.

And they'll LIKE what they see as long as it appears that Women are allowed to dress like Britney Spears and drunks are allowed to drink. Etc... Etc...

That's largely THEIR idea of freedom. And those are the ONLY sorts of things that they consider "backward" about Islam.

And they'll LIKE the fact that "Islamic Republics" appear to offer "universal health care" and make "the rich" pay their "fair share" of taxes. And they'll love the white-hot rhetoric about America being a "Crusader Nation" pushing a "Capitalist Global Hegemony".

If we can't get them to see Islam as intrinsically evil, they WILL align themselves with such "Islamic Republics".

The crazier among them already DO so even though they HAVEN'T yet gone the "let Britney be Britney" route.

Should some State eliminate "violent penalties" or be perceived as having moderated the "subjugation of women" or do away with "pathological modesty", the crazies will be joined by masses of lefties.

Unless we can convince them that Islam is evil IN AND OF itself. Not just because of the cultural trappings that offend their sense of political correctness.

Kate said...

wow! I got through 1/2 of this and will be back for the rest.

I dont think that any people are inherently evil. I believe that people are inherently good. But anyone can be coersed and brought over to the dark side with the right tactic. Is that tactic part of a religion? That is the question at hand isnt it?!?!? I am not an advocate of ANY organized religion... I also dont want my government to deep into my business... but thats another topic! lol

Interestingly enought I just posted 'thoughts behind the metal' at http://museartspot.blogspot.com/
and Iamnot just posted about Saudi women being oppressed.. Its a hot topic!

As we fight this war in Iraq, with people seemingly so different from us, it makes me wonder just how different they really are. The majority that is, not the extremists. They bleed red just like me!

Have a great weekend Aunty! I will be back to read the 2nd half soon!!

Aunty Belle said...

S'okay SHe Pup--c'mon back when ya can--love tro hera yore thoughts.

Hey American Interest--wow, yep....to say negative thangs about Islam (not Muslims) is to invite charges of "bigotry" or "racist"....but tha's the idea here-to look at what Islam says about itself--its own texts and traditions--let it speak for itself. Please come back often!

Howdy Artfulsub, honey...ya wrote:
"I don't see our central challenge here to be convincing Conservatives and Christians that the form of satan-worship called "islam" is inherently evil."

Youse right----aint tryin' to convince them conservatives or Christians...only thang I meant to bring out is that Islam's OWN texts
shows it to be violent, revengeful and to say so is not bigoted!

But I'se hearin' you too--the lefties is unconfortably at ease with Islam--very distrubing.
An' darlin' I'se gonna have some stuff on pre-Islamic Middle East in the next two essays...

Hey KAte!! Pleased to see ya! Thanks for getting through half--and do take a minute to
peruse the rest...I'se thinkin' wif' you--ain't at all sayin' that PEOPLE is intrinsically evil...nope.

But I IS sayin' that the *teachin'* of Islam is intrinisically evil. THas' why I'se used the Qur'an's own sayin's .

Really interested in all ya'll's insight.

civilian-at-arms said...


I came a-runnin' as fast as I could. Fine job. I'm reminded of Howard Bloom's treatment of the subject. I think you'll enjoy this:


civilian-at-arms said...

MSM sees itself as too sophisticated to contemplate the term 'evil' as critics react to the term with condescension

But not nearly sophisticated enough to comprehend that the without Evil there can be no Good. Sine diabolo nullus dominus. And if diversity and equality, if the drive to erase borders and sovereign nations, etc. aren’t the greatest of Goods, then why the persecution of anyone who dares to question the Establishment Orthodoxy?

Which is the greatest exemplar of Evil: the poor sod who’s been propagandized into thinking that blowing himself up will bring him communion with God, or the cynical powerbroker—the Sheik, the Ayatollah, etc.—who plays those rigid idealists like pawns for their own gain and aggrandizement.

Anonymous said...

One more rant and feverish raving against an entire people and their professed faith. Predictable in this space.

Anonymous said...

Aunty, you might add:

Sura 5:51 "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

How's that for rejecting a whole group of people?

JP (lurking)

boneman said...

Most organized religions have some form of violence involved within their texts.

The guy who tried his best to teach us all the right way ended up on a cross till he died, and his best texts have been twisted by many to allow hatred and destruction to any who do not believe in the exact word of the bible.

And still, the love lives on, doesn't it?
Why have you departed from the very doorway you profess to believe in?

Kate's right, y'all. Any government that claims to use any religion as a proper basis for governing the people is merely attempting to deny any rights to any citizen.
Close enough to what we have right now, actually. About the only thing missing from dubya's motto would be the sickle and hammer, or, actually, in his case, the stars on a field of red.

boneman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
American Interests said...

Aunty, it's almost that time, I am making the rounds to say Happy Thanksgiving!

Aunty Belle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aunty Belle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aunty Belle said...

Hey,hey Civvy!

Youse a fella one can depend on--and that Howard Bloom is worth the readin' thanky fer that.

Then ya give a good hoot an' holler on the idea of good and evil...thas' deep thinkin': That IF a borderless world and endless diversity isn't the MSM "good" , then why is they persecuting those opposed to their vision?

Yep, the same ever'whar, the power brokers unite--an' doan give a fig if their table mate is a cardboard sheik or a Davos economist or a

But C-A-A, here's mah question: What is the powerbroker plan for a world of Islam run amok? Wif' elections in democratic nations makin' it possible for huge blocks of immigrants to elect their own reps, and thus change laws...what then? (jes' a weekly read of BJ or Spengler will give rise to the near-term future of Europe...mercy!)

Aunty Belle said...

Boney, Sugar, looky, Aunty hear's what ya's trying to git at, I think--I think I does...but I cain't go along wif' yore idea that the bible is "twisted"...iffin' ya read the earliest accounts of the Early Church (80-400 AD) youse gonna see how hard the folks worked to keep the gospels and epistles *from* being twisted by the powers that be, by the political and social movements of the time.

AN' that speaks to the hisotry of ISlam--did ya read the whole essay?--cause , see, many of those who tried to twist the Christian message were heretics of one persuasion or another.

NOW doan jump outa yore seat nobody-- "heretics" ain't a mean word, it ain't no bigoted word. Iffin' ya look at the root of the word, it's the Greek "hairesis" which only means "choice".

Heretics is them who make a "choice" to pursue what St. Paul identiified as "a differnt gospel."

An' thas' fine...jes' fine, as long as the chooser ain't tryin' to call hisself "Christian." Imagine a
a Democratic party whar' some folks want to depart from certain party platforms that are closer to the Republican ideals...well then, OK, they "choose" to go by another set of ideals, but they ought'nt try to pass themselves off as Demiocrats, right? It were the same fer the Early Christians, Boney--they did not permit the "twistin'" youse talkin' about.

Now on servin' in the war..this is what I wanna say--thanky so much fer yore service. IFffin' it weren't fer you and others this world would'a belonged to monsters like Hitler. So, there is a place fer fightin'...even the Old Testament say so-- A time for ever'thang ..."

NOBODY likes war or fightin'...but to REFUSE to EVER fight no matter what is to allow violence motivated by pure evil to grow and devour whole chunks of this earth and people.

Iffin' ya ain't Christian this next point might not mean much, but looky--all evil cannot be overcome by love--if it could, why t here would be no Satan.

But Satan's pride refused God's Love...and there we have the model of evil among us--that some refuse all love and pursue pride and greed to the end. Such evil has to be fought, it cannot be "tolerated" because to do so is to consign others to horrors untold.

Aunty Belle said...

American Interests--howdy!! Youse a fine fella to come and wiish us HApapy Thanksgivin'!! Does you Aussies have a similar Day?

moi said...

Because I like to bottom-line things and not muck about with angels dancing on the heads of pins-type contemplation forever and a day:

Yes. Any religion or government that requires me to spend my life on my knees is evil. And I don’t think we need to do more pin-head dancing to define the word.

Hang with me here while I reiterate some basics.

If you believe that human beings have the right to their life, to their liberty and to pursue their own form of happiness without harming others, then it naturally follows that government exists for one purpose only and that is to protect those freedoms.

Government should be a contract entered into willingly between free individuals and their representatives. Force is only justified in a limited set of circumstances. We grant the right of defensive force to our government to either protect our freedoms from the oppressive actions of our citizens or foreign governments, or to dispense compensation (justice), when it fails to protect us in the first place. We the People retain the right (guaranteed by the Second Amendment) to use force against our own government, should it become oppressive.

So where does religion fit in? It doesn't. Religion is a belief system based on faith, it must exist outside the business of government. Government deals with the rights of individuals as they exist in the here and now, as free entities moving about the world freely in pursuit of some gain. Government’s code of "morality," for lack of a better word, has nothing to do with how someone dresses, what someone says, what someone reads, or what someone believes. Government only steps in when those actions become physically oppressive towards others. (In other words, psychological “oppression”, i.e., being upset, doesn’t count.)

There have been times in history that religion has attempted to reconcile itself with certain rational, human-centered ideals – i.e., the Enlightenment. However, for the most part, religion has at its base, not the inalienable rights of individuals, but the inalienable rights of the ruling power to subjugate those rights at whim, in the name of an unseen entity, bandying about laws that may or may not have anything to do with humans as free, sovereign human being in their own right. In other words, offensive force becomes a justifiable means by which to disseminate or strengthen a particular religion. To Moi, Islam seems to be particularly strong in this regard. For it is not simply a belief system, but a political one as well.

Do peaceful, kind, caring folk practice Islam? I have no doubt they do. What I do doubt, is that they have fully come to grips with the bottom line of the system of belief they have chosen for themselves.

ArtfulSub said...

Sadly, I knew at least one lefty would ignore the discussion guidelines and launch a personal attack. Boneman's diatribe against someone called "Hellpig" being Exhibit A.

And, I knew at least one lefty would chant the "it's just like certain section of the Bible" slogan. Although I must confess that the exact wording "meanest sort of stuff from the Bible" was amusing.

If Boneman would actually cite that "meanest sort of stuff", I'd be happy to explain why it is COMPLETELY different than what's in the Koran and that it never has and never will apply to Christians as an Action Plan.

We don't worship King Jehu or attempt to emulate his techniques. We worship the King of Kings, Jesus Christ. Perhaps the similarity in their names confuses Boneman?

As for the quaint poem, I can't imagine who it attempts to critique. Since it's a PROVEN FACT that Christian Conservatives give FAR more of their time and treasure to help the poor than allegedly "compassionate" big-government-loving lefties.

When I think of a "piggie" filling his plate (and whiskey glass) with zero real concern for the less fortunate, I think of Teddy the Kennedy. Who did nothing to earn the enormous wealth he controls.

foam said...

aunty belle...!
i declare..
this post is longer than my arm...
perhaps even as long as my leg.
i'll read in segments even if i have to catch up and i'll probably be a lurker.
happy thanksgiving!

civilian-at-arms said...

then it naturally follows that government exists for one purpose only and that is to protect those freedoms.

If I’ve learned anything at all in observing the actions of our own government present and past it’s that “government” exists, not for the fictive notion of preserving and defending the rights of its citizens, but solely for it’s own ends; mainly, it distributes resources from less-favored to more worthy classes and is ever increasing its own power at the expense of individual and social power. That may be a bitter pill to swallow but notwithstanding the dire warnings of people like Madison and Jefferson, and in spite of all of the modern lip service paid to them by the keyboard patriots of today, compare where we’ve started and where we’ve ended up—and where we’re obviously going.

We the People retain the right (guaranteed by the Second Amendment) to use force against our own government, should it become oppressive.

That is, until a smaller faction of We the People legislates it away, as they’ve been doing incrementally for quite some time.

So where does religion fit in? It doesn't. Religion is a belief system based on faith, it must exist outside the business of government.

I would argue that religion is not synonymous with Church, nor is government synonymous with State. Most of the friction that people think they have with religion is due to the constant drumming of “separation of Church and State” by State propagandists; naturally Church is assumed as bad when those framing the debate are Statists and their witting and unwitting agents. And why shouldn’t the State want to demoralize and demolish the Church’s authority? They’re competing for the same powers, aren’t they? Whether it’s the Church or the State that occupies the throne, you’re talking about a small, select group of men that hold all the power, assign all the privileges, distribute all of the resources and who tell the hoi polloi what is acceptable to say, think and behave. Would Political Correctness have such sway over the public and personal lives of Americans today if our government, our State, didn’t have the Godly power that it thinks it does?

It’s also fitting that we’ve come to refer to it as “the business of government.” It helps one to see that the Left’s boogeyman of Big Business and the Right’s boogeyman of Big Government (a God to one and a Devil to the other) is really one and the same.

Government’s code of "morality," for lack of a better word, has nothing to do with how someone dresses, what someone says, what someone reads, or what someone believes.

Then you would agree that what we have now is not a government.

However, for the most part, religion has at its base, not the inalienable rights of individuals, but the inalienable rights of the ruling power to subjugate those rights at whim in the name of an unseen entity

You think the actions of our government (our real government, not the Jerry Springer Congress) are transparent?

bandying about laws that may or may not have anything to do with humans as free, sovereign human being in their own right.

Been to the airport lately? On a subway? Looked into our new Hate Speech laws?

In other words, offensive force becomes a justifiable means by which to disseminate or strengthen a particular religion.

Just like spreading democracy in the Middle East.

Every correct argument that you've made against the Church as the governing authority is just as applicable to our current government. So what's that all about?

civilian-at-arms said...

What is the powerbroker plan for a world of Islam run amok?

The usual: to live as luxuriously as possible without having to do a thing and command respect for it.

Wif' elections in democratic nations makin' it possible for huge blocks of immigrants to elect their own reps, and thus change laws...what then?

I imagine they'll vote to abolish voting. :)

moi said...

Civilian: I can't argue with anything you've said, except to clarify that my comments are speaking of an ideal – of what government, supposing we do consider ourselves free beings, should be. The fact that millions of us choose every day to allow oppressive governments, including our own, to exist is the subject for another post entirely.

I was simply answering Aunty's question: if we accept these ideals (regardless of whether or not they exist), then Islam – as a political as well as spiritual system – is evil.

Anonymous said...

Belle, from Iamnot's blog:

From the Australian news, we have this indescribable bit of human horror....

"Investigators from Ms Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party said yesterday they believed the bomb, which killed 170 people and left hundreds more wounded, was strapped to a one-year-old child carried by its jihadist father.
They said the suicide bomber tried repeatedly to carry the baby to Ms Bhutto's vehicle as she drove in a late-night cavalcade through the streets of Karachi.
"At the point where the bombs exploded, Benazir Bhutto herself saw the man with the child and asked him to come closer so that she could hug or kiss the infant," investigators were reported as saying. "But someone came in between and a guard felt that the man with the child was not behaving normally. So the child was not allowed to come aboard Benazir's vehicle."

...and what may be the most amazing part? The plot failed because security people saw that the man was acting strangely and did not let him bring the baby forward. Do you get that? They anticipated that the man carrying a baby was a threat! How *%^#*@! nuts does your world have to be before you see a man with a baby and think "BOMB?"

uriel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
boneman said...

First off, I'm used to yer rhetoric, just as I assume you'se used t'mine. It was the other fella that got m'fur up.
On the other hand, if'n y'all didn't know this, I gotta mention it.
With so lil time at this here computer machine, I usually copy blog posts onto m'button, drag em home and read em there.
(that would explain why I'm usually a day late on m'comments, eh)
Only, this time what came up was yer "rules of engagement" and here I went and commented without knowing the rules.

I'm sorry, hellpig.

On the other hand, I wrote a comment to this first post, but now, I'm wondering whether to post it or go put a post up at m'place.

How 'bout a lil of both?

From yer title, I figured a great way t'get started was describe the entity y'all are striving to reach fer.
Maybe it helps
maybe not....


1. Morally bad; wicked : evil deeds.
2. Causing injury, damage, or any other undesirable result; harmful or prejudicial : evil habits.
3. Marked by, full of, or threatening misfortune or distress; unlucky or disastrous: evil times; an evil omen.
4. Not high in public esteem; not well thought of: an evil reputation.

This is from the Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, ©1977,Reader’s Digest.

boneman said...

I'de say that's gonna be a pretty hard mark t'hit, eh.

Aunty Belle said...

Boney-Puddin', take another look at the post and see that right from the Qur'an Islam meets every point yore Reader's Digest gives--every single point, darlin':

1)Evil deeds? Check
2) Causing injury? Evil habits? Check
3)Threatening misfortune? Check
4)An evil reputation? Check.

Boneman, truly now, doan skip over the post--it has direct quotations from the Qur'an that show the intrinsic evil of the teachings of Islam...see. not my interpretation of it, but the very words themselves.

Aunty Belle said...

Hey Civvy! Ha! On the Powerbroker plan...done read whar' some think the whoile idea is to let Islam run amok to the point that the rest and the West cry for greater Global Gubmint to keep it at bay...enter the World Federalists.

I doan go so fer as that, but it do seem to me that they's a heap mor'n meets the eye on the whole dern thang. Read they's been a "quiet" blow-up in Iran, but the Iranians is officially mum--was it internal? Did Tel Aviv do it? Did USA do it? Ho knows, but a key plant were blown to shards.

Meanwhile, China and Turkmenistan is goin' ahead wif they pipeline deal....so Putin thinks he needs a say in that...what gives, ya reckon?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
civilian-at-arms said...

On the Powerbroker plan...done read whar' some think the whoile idea is to let Islam run amok to the point that the rest and the West cry for greater Global Gubmint to keep it at bay...enter the World Federalists.

Similar, say, to allowing millions of illegals to flood the US of A? Developing a crisis and then offering not to solve it but manage it indefinitely? There's truth in that.

Seriously, what else are the benighted government bureaucrats and self-appointed Napoleons supposed to do? They're obviously unemployable in any private capacity. We have to find work for them some how, don't we?

Ardlair said...

All rather dull in comment-world so far Aunty.
Needs a bit of SPICE.
Yes, after all this effort?

But before I add the SPICE, (all entirely within the rules of engagement of course) would you be good enough to answer two questions for me?
To help me understand it all?
Good, evil and all that?

I have a third, but I will save that for a rainier day.

Question 1.
Do you believe that the Qu'uran is the word of God or a human interpretation of the word of God or just something humans have made up?

Question 2.
Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God or a human interpretation of the word of God or just something humans have made up?

No traps, but tread carefully, Aunty dear.
If I were you, I'd rock a bit on the porch.
Chew a little baccy.
Spit a bit.
Stick a hog or two - if that is the correct Southern term.
Exchange ideas with your acolytes.
Write to the problem page of your local rag.
Scour Wikipedia.
Google it.

Before replying.



Aunty Belle said...

FOamy? Honey, ya out there? C'mon an try again now that the Thanksgivin' feast is digested...interested in yore thoughts.

Hey She-Puppy---guess what, I done sent ya five bone credits fer yore readin' it all... and now, a raw steak fer whatever new angle youse seein' that I done left out!! Grrrrrhahahahaha

Hey Moi--did I overlook yore most recent entry? Sorry. I likes yore bottom line--and yore answer to Civvy....Youse sliced through--mixin' up hats (religion & gubmint) is the recipe fer totalitarian misery fer the common folk.

Civvy, so, ah, what then? What oughta thinkin' person do? Personally and communally(Emphasis of action).

Ardlair, minus vituperation ya' find comments dull? Figgers.

As to your own inquiries, they's appropriate fer ESSAY III, so lemme put them in the f ile until we git to the Religious part---this here essay is mainly to bat around Islam as a political / military system of conquest. Feel free to add yore thoughts on that. Or save up fer II, that is soon to come.

uri said...

All religions based on a human man will exhibit human failings. Islam follows the man Muhammed.

Ardlair said...

I thought this was to be a discussion about facts? That individual personal attributes were not to be brought in?

If so, why say...........

"Ardlair, minus vituperation ya' find comments dull? Figgers."

Is this case of do as I say but not as I do?

I think a withdrawal of the remark would be courteous, appropriate and dignified and set the correct tone for the rest discussion.

What do you think Aunty Belle?

Infinitesimal said...


Finally something to actually READ
I have found reading to be a dull passtime lately.

This post does exactly what I requested, it gives an educated opinion of one person's conclusions about the spiritual pursuit that is in opposition to her own.

It educates as to what is on your mind.


But I must journey on to RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT CLASS and try to make statistical sense of it all. (the course content that is)

So I must come back here after my big day tomorrow. (!!)

And actually read the post.

I thought that the story about the baby bomb was pretty "spicy"
So was the comment from URI.

And I just LOVE it the way you two BANTER back and forth.

Back in the day, I used to play "word of the day" with my brother on the way to school.... reminds me of a funny story regarding the word "rigor mortis".... but I digress.

This game we had was fully incepted before the concept of "dictionary.com" or even the WWWeb, for that matter.

I gotta tell you, "vituperation" was a new one on me. And in accordance with word of the day rules, I must now work it into my day's conversation today, somehow.

But Ardlair don't you know that when you tease a Fine Southern Lady regarding chewin' 'baccy, and the subsequent poking of hogs, you are in the subtle southern way, being EXCEPTIONALLY offensive in that you allude to her being of inbred status as well as low intelligence? Even when done in mild jest. This act thereby forces the insulted party, (In subtle Southern way) to fire back using as we say: "High FALLUTIN' words" to prove intellectual capacity.

And to add the touche, the veritable cherry.... the term, vituperation
actually DOES apply, in accordance with Southern rules of engagement.

Well, my work here is done.

boneman said...

Hellpig said...
The left still amazes me at the pure hatred of America and their on going support for terrorism
They are blinded by multicultural agendas which are failing world wide.
As far as Bonehead's rhetoric classical libtard...may his family fall victim to the scourge which is Islam..for he deserves the irony of such an event...

Hi Aunty another season in the can..ready to resume trashing liberals... 11/13/2007

Aunty Belle said...
HAILPIG!!!!!!! Oh, hallelujah! HElly, youse a dear dear thang to see in cybervision-- I have MISSED YOU SO MUCH.
Sugar pie, git on in heah and thrash around some--hoo-whee!
As ya can see, I'se about to lay it out fer the folks---an' I'll be needin' a whole lot of help.
Welcome home, darlin'.
boneman said...
Makes me ever so glad to be a veteran.
Really glad to give everybody a fair voice here in the US before the nazi right goosesteps all over the rest of us citizens.
Aunty Belle said...
Boney, hep me--what does ya mean, honey?
Ain't nobody round here callin' fer no nazi set-up. 'Cept the Muslims--jes' a wee bit of history on Muslims and Naziism will show what side the Muslims favored in WWII.
Hellpig said...
Lmao Bonehead a Veteran yeah another Beauchamp maybe..And I doubt u are proud of your service if you were actually a Veteran..the fact you have no grasp of the cult of Islam pretty much shows your true colors and ignorance...and to think America or the potus is a Nazi shows your hatred for America..keep talking we enjoy when the Liberal Whack Jobs expose themselves for who they really are "The Enemy Within"
Nuke Mecca

ArtfulSub said...
Sadly, I knew at least one lefty would ignore the discussion guidelines and launch a personal attack. Boneman's diatribe against someone called "Hellpig" being Exhibit A.
And, I knew at least one lefty would chant the "it's just like certain section of the Bible" slogan. Although I must confess that the exact wording "meanest sort of stuff from the Bible" was amusing.
If Boneman would actually cite that "meanest sort of stuff", I'd be happy to explain why it is COMPLETELY different than what's in the Koran and that it never has and never will apply to Christians as an Action Plan.

We don't worship King Jehu or attempt to emulate his techniques. We worship the King of Kings, Jesus Christ. Perhaps the similarity in their names confuses Boneman?
As for the quaint poem, I can't imagine who it attempts to critique. Since it's a PROVEN FACT that Christian Conservatives give FAR more of their time and treasure to help the poor than allegedly "compassionate" big-government-loving lefties.
When I think of a "piggie" filling his plate (and whiskey glass) with zero real concern for the less fortunate, I think of Teddy the Kennedy. Who did nothing to earn the enormous wealth he controls.
So, I guess this means that the “rules” are for liberals only and as for anyone from the extreme right (Nuke Mecca???) anything is A-OK?

Well, first off, if it’s reality and civilized, three fronts don’t really scare me at all.
Fact is, Auntie’s been on me to explain this rhetoric I have about the bible for a few moons, now, so, answering up to Artful and Auntie is the same track, but….it does not have as much to do with the Islamic conversation going on. Her idea of pointing out how Islam is evil falls far short of the mark. Unless, of course, the real intent is to bolster the rolls of BLASPHEMY CHALLENGE folks, which are an abomination to the world, and are free to spout their poisonous venom where-ever they please.
There are a few similarities, though, and anyone with a decent history book should be able to see that.

Where oh where should I start?
How about the dictionary?

Since you’re throwing the “liberal” word at me, let’s see what it means….
1. Characterized by or inclining toward opinions or policies favoring progress of reform, as in religion or politics
2. Not tolerant or prejudiced; broad minded
3. Characterized by generosity or lavishness of giving; bountiful
(and, to be sure, this doesn’t seem to describe Kennedy of Massachusetts at all, so we do agree on that note. He’s really a Republican conservative hiding under a skin of a Democrat)

A witty English chap came up with this winner name. And that he was English has several interesting points that have everything in the world to do with the present conversation.

1. A systematic effort to persuade a body of people to support or adopt a particular opinion, attitude, or course of action.
2. Any selection of facts, ideas, or allegations forming the basis of such an effort. (“selection” here seeming to mean “a pick and choose situation”)
3. An institution or scheme for propagating a doctrine or system.
(Propaganda is now often used in a disparaging sense, as a body of distortions and half truths calculated to bias one’s judgment or opinions.)

How does THAT fit in here?
Well, for one, Islam doesn’t mean “submission” as was stated….
It means “submission to God” which is totally different from the former.
In actuality, I guess I have to point out how come this is a bad thing, even though I know that, in the end, we will ALL submit to GOD. Or is that in disagreement with Artful and Auntie?
I’m assuming, to be sure, from your rhetoric, that you are both professing to be Christians?
Yes, I am too, but, I believe in following the path Jesus put out there for us to follow, and it has NOTHING to do with hatred.
To be sure, though, the bible collection is not entirely a “virgin.” Hasn’t been since King Josiah’s time. (I rarely mistakenly use the wrong name, but, I do have rather large fingers so, sometimes I hit two keys simultaneously, Artful. As for who Josiah is, well, look him up. It’s in the “earlier” parts of the bible, eh….)

All over the Near East “nationalistic” reactions against the Assyrians had been associated with the cults of “national” gods: Nebuchadnezzar II’s enormous expenditure for the temple of Marduk in Babylon is a conspicuous example. So in Judea nationism (yes, even though the red “wavies” are all over that one, it is a semi-sect. Nationism, approximately meaning grouping under the flag and call of nationalism. Here we call it the Republican party or the Democratic party)saw a revival of the cult of Yahweh. Since Yahweh was now protector of the poor, this revival was associated with demands for legal reform. Sometime around 630 BC, when Assyria was losing her grip, a lawyer in Jerusalem produced a new code as a program for future reforms, including the prohibition of the worship of gods other than Yahweh (that’s the CREATOR they’re talking about), and the relief of the poor. He drew on older “Yahweh-alone” traditions, common usage, and ancient taboos, but his work was organized by his own thought, replete with his own invention, and cast in his own style. He represented it as “the Law of Yahweh” and -probably- as the work of Moses, and he arranged to have it found by the high priest in Jerusalem temple in 621. It was taken to King Josiah, authenticated by a prophetess, and accepted. Most of it is now preserved, with minor interpolations, in chapters 12-26 and 28 of Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy became the official legal tradition of the area and its prohibition of the worship of any other god other than Yahweh (an offence it would punish by death, Deuteronomy 12-13) was to be the element in the hostility between Jews and the Romans and was to be taken over from Judaism by Christianity and Islam- a tradition of intolerance from which the western world has suffered much.

Basically, the history book is stating that Islam as well as Christianity would later use the same death penalty on anyone who did not kowtow to the great thing they called a god.

I go way out of my way, sometimes, in pointing out that this one fact way outweighs any ideological claptrap about atheists going to hell as a matter of rote. Because they don’t believe in any god, if they but love the creation and help others as best they can, they have taken a more correct path of living than those who praise to a false god.

Science and its ready, stamped out answers also misses the point of religion. In the zeal to find the beginning of the world, Genesis was cast aside, assumed to be a myth because there are oh so many proofs of a live world with animals and vegetation and even people tens of thousands of years before the Flood and Noah.
I have a theory that seems to answer up as to how there could have been a Genesis and also scientific discoveries of the world so long ago, but then, this isn’t even the right time to bring THAT up, is it?
On the other hand, I mentioned sciences because they have a great deal to do with the broo-ha-ha going on now, even though the scientists who created the chaos are long dead. Their theories, however live on, and even today, darken the courts’ chambers through-out the country every year.
Of course, I’m speaking of Darwin, and the only reason I bring him up is because it was his original premise about natural selection that really rubbed religion raw, and, through evolving into a socio-political premise, would later become the call of Germany in the 1930s.
You see, the right was tired of the spending on the poor, the weak, the sick. They were suffering from a government that was large (compared to others prior to that time) , the first world war was still bleeding them dry for reparations, and the classes were becoming ever so distant from each other. A rising politician came promising several things including lower unemployment, smaller government, and more wealth spread among the people.
(I can only hope that you recognize that I’m speaking of adolf hitler and not bush junior, even though both did have the same campaign promises. And, while I’m on that, hellpig, here’s some more reasons why I think the two are very similar.
“Subversives, terrorists and saboteurs are working in clans in the big cities. They live to destroy our way of life. They have weapons that threaten the masses, spread lies and slander in the population, and should be dealt with quickly, no matter what the rest of the world says. With only a couple of allies, we intend on striking them with such power that they’ll not be able to resist us. The whole war shouldn’t take more than a few months at best, according to our experts, and at a cost unlikely to falter our nation’s wealth. We will strike shock and awe in their faces, follow with a quick ground battle led by the most powerful army in our time. And, while some may imagine that I’m speaking of bush junior, I am not. These are the words of adolf hitler speaking of the blitzkrieg and the future battle of Poland.)
A smaller government unfortunately also meant that less people were involved with over site, unemployment would be countered with stricter laws and the elimination of some folks from their, homes and businesses, and lives, and as for the wealth, well, yeah. Everyone made more money, but they had to, eh. Stamps (you know…to mail letters with) cost upwards to several million marks each.
Folks, this didn’t happen overnight. It took one heck of a lot of propaganda at the time, but it turned out successful for them at the time. Now, even though the Jews were not considered to be liberals, the Nazis were the right.
(THAT in itself will no doubt have every rightist screaming for my blood, or, at the very least, try to plow though my statements with a fine tooth comb, but, dang. This is out of a history book!)
It was all before my time. Had I been there….Germany, 1930s, I would have been one of the businesses that were vandalized (it wasn’t just the Jews, you see) my home would have been destroyed, my family would have been threatened…. (Oh heck, maybe that all DID happen. I don’t know. I do believe that there may be biblical reference to reincarnation, but, even if that were so, I’m more than sure the CREATOR would somehow have previous lives blocked out’a our minds. Heaven knows, we can barely treat ourselves with respect in one lifetime let alone several.)
You see, if I were then, I would have been pretty much the same as I am now, and the trampling of freedoms is NOT my agenda. Not at all. I will always come to the aid of those who are being downtrodden by the jackboots of an aggressor. I fear that I cannot stop from that battle one iota, even though, evidently, a lot of people feel better to just turn a blind eye to the event.
I know I’m supposed to turn the other cheek when struck, but folks, let it be known to you now, I AM ALREADY A SINNER. Got nothing to lose, eh.
I will also defend myself against a slanderous attack with whatever fervor I can muster.
And as for “support of terrorists?” Well, some of the heroes of my life are terrorist leaders.
Jefferson (that’s Thomas AND Davis because I believe in states rights) (not slavery which is a completely different thing)
Washington, Madison, Revere, Franklin, la Guardia. (OK, that last one is the Mayor of New York in the thirties….. but he had the gumption to stand up for what was right no matter what the enemy was)
These are some of my heroes, and during the revolutionary war, England touted them to be the scourge of the world, a terrorist band of miscreants that would be squashed as sure as the King was the ruler.
The phrasing that is a bit confusing is, “They are blinded by multicultural agendas which are failing world wide.” Yes. Exactly. Reagan trained, armed, and fed money to bin laden, bush senior got arms to South American armies that turned around and began incorporating totalitarian government, Clinton, damn him, (no, I’m not cussin’… If it’s called for, it ain’t cussin’
Damn tobacco, damn any politician that uses their power for their own personal gain…) even though he left a deficit that could have been paid off, just had to go plain’ sex games in the white house, and even worse, didn’t answer up properly (had he resigned, Gore would have become president, his policies would have united the world in an effort of cleaning up the environment and, more, had the towers still fallen, bin laden would have been brought to the guillotine quickly) Bush junior has dragged us down into a pit of almost unbelievable depth, destroyed our image through-out the civilized world, and waged war on other nations for nothing more than his own stupidly myopic point of view.
Unless somebody out there knows of some weapons of mass destruction that the rest of the world doesn’t know about…what say? Artful? Auntie? Hellpig? Any weaponry you want to talk about?
And, isn’t that part of the conversation here?
His agenda is one of pure fantasy, driven by the need to fill his already fat pockets with more of that military/industrial money (Eisenhower is the reason I’m a Republican, unfortunately, he let his dog out off its leash (Nixon) and got us embroiled in a land called Viet Nam) and more, he can’t let go and he’s using the exact same rhetoric that was used in world war one…. “they shall not have died in vain” And to what end? Money.
His call on the matter is the three points he has so elaborately explained to us,
1. that there should be a true Democracy installed in the country (Iraq) where the majority of people have their vote and leader (Gore got the majority of votes from the populace in the 2000 elections)
2. that their army and police force work towards the policies of their population’s wishes (Sunni/Shia will never work together any longer than is necessary)
3. the spread of wealth through-out the population (nevermind that here rich folks are not in any way obligated to share the wealth with the folks who got them rich in the first place)

Now, as for the slights on my character, Artful. I don’t worship your King Jehu nor do I worship Jesus. (And I for sure don’t worship Kennedy from Massachusetts. Anybody that weasels nine billion dollars for a leaky road/tunnel for a bunch of rich people is an extreme example of why there should be term limits in ALL offices of government.)

Oh, sure, start “mind-writing” the atheistic claptrap you’re thinking about, but, Jesus himself said to not worship him.
Worship the Father, keep it short and sweet, but primarily, Love the creation and help your fellow man.
His whole life was devoted to that very premise.
Before leaving he said if we need help, ask the HOLY SPIRIT, or Comforter, as the bible puts it.

Auntie, you have stated that there was no monkey business with the bible, but, gal, there are so many contradictions involved that there could nary be any doubt that the church at the time was more afraid for their lives than you could possibly believe.
You have not been in a zone where police are allowed to march into your home, claim all your possessions and kill you for what you believe, or don’t believe, or for that matter, just on a whim. (Actually, if anybody’s paying attention, we’re bordering on that very premise right now. Police are allowed to invade our homes (with or without a warrant) search through our stuff for anything criminal (and it’s getting to be more and more as time goes on) and even allowed to execute citizens, all without just cause or reason.)

The Jews at the time were also afraid of losing valuable ground, enough so as to kill and persecute as many Christians as they could get their hands on.

(momentarily, I would like to mention, they did NOT kill Jesus. If he died to save you from your sins, as you so contend, then YOU killed Jesus. But, of course, you wouldn’t have sinned at all if you thought that was true, would you have? Truthfully….)

The roads at the time were oft sided with corpses on wood, punished either to death or just left for whatever time, sometimes for incredibly small infractions of laws. Masturbation, adultery, theft, praying to the wrong god, not praying at all.
The earliest church needed more than history to draw Christianity into focus and bring more people to it.
Miracles were invented. This did a lot for the image of a Messiah who professed for the entire of his mission that signs would NOT be forthcoming. Faith is what was needed, not fancy magic or empty symbols of miraculous behavior to confound the people of the time or later.
Perhaps he was referring to the time of Moses. There were acts that seemed miraculous but were merely naturally occurring events (the burning bush still occupies the desert: a creosote bush that ignites in the blazing sun….or the Red Sea parting, which wasn’t the Red Sea, but rather a smaller sea just above there that parted from winds that were comparable to the Santa Anna’s, with a fair amount of regularity for many centuries after the migration, though the very bad timing of an enraged Egyptian army was really quite up to par with a GOD that had a sense of humor and a willingness to punish with what the offenders tended to punish with) leaving a whole religious sect to follow the words of a man that was simply doing what he thought he should do.

Peter tells Mark about the HOLY SPIRIT coming and baptizing with flames over the heads of the disciples and they then coming out and speaking to everybody in the area in tongues, so that every ear heard their words and understood them. Later, Paul would restate it as talking to GOD, something to avoid….of course, he wasn’t around for the original show, nor did he have “inside” information as he stated he did. He was attempting to coral the Christians into a viable unit, a group all following one idea.
Again, this has less to do with the “Islam is evil” post, but, it shows where, as far as the original religion was beginning, it was every bit as on shaky ground as Judaism and Islam.

So, have I answered up faithfully to the truth here?
Personally, I think that it leaves a lot to be desired, but, I don’t worry about it too much. And, as sure as I’m sitting here, now, I have no doubt that y’all will be digging me a new, er…, orifice from which to….er…poop.
Well, dig away, girls.

As the ghost of Gusteau says in “RATATOILLE” a new movie/dvd by Disney,
“If you focus too hard on the past,
you’ll never see the future.”

boneman said...

Sorry fer it bein' so long.
Actually, it was a tad larger on the direct discussion of whether Islam was evil, but, I had quite a bit in it about the links to the crusades and you said to hold back till #2.
(that doesn't mean we have to be constipated....I figured it meant wait until yer second post)

But, don't fear none 'bout the size.
What ended up was I had three conversations to answer up to (and not a one of them based on opinion) so I just put em all in there.
Now when ya get down to the crusades, well, what I have right now is kind'a compact.

I DO try to stay above ground, so to speak, don't I?
I write straight, use my reference materials, don't cuss (less'en it's called fer...most politicians come with a less than nice "dang" in front of 'em, but, even then, I sometimes skip by that, too)

But, I have been keepin to the rules (as soon as I found 'em) ain't I?

Well, I'll believe that you, the essayist (fancy kind'a word, eh?) have the last word on whether or not I'm being true to the discussion.
I sure try t'be, but, like I said, the three of ya have me answerin' up to three different items.

And, dang, I fergot t'mention...
Y'all know the pictures of the folks carrying the signs?
What in tarnation makes you think they even know what's on them?
Well, with that, I gotta run.

If y'want a quick "break" from the brew-ha-ha (hey, I've NEVER claimed to be a good speller.... does ANYONE know how that word is spelled?) ...go on over t'm'blog where there's a great poem by Shel Silverstein.

Anonymous said...

Question 1.
Do you believe that the Qu'uran is the word of God or a human interpretation of the word of God or just something humans have made up?

Question 2.
Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God or a human interpretation of the word of God or just something humans have made up?

Infinitesimal said...

question 1
answer: C

question 2
answer: all of the above

Aunty Belle said...

Uri! Ya' revenant seraph-- welcome on back over heah!

Whar' in tarnation has ya been?? Youse scarcer than Hell Pig--' member him?

Many a time I looked fer yore help wif various miscreants who done impugned mah mulierity, veracity and ratiocination. Whar' was ya, Sugar, when I needed hep wif' all manner o' rakish sciolists? Doan be a stranger no more!

Aunty Belle said...

Ardlair, ya wrote:

"That individual personal attributes were not to be brought in? If so, why say...'Ardlair, minus vituperation ya' find comments dull? Figgers.' "

Well, sir, in the interest of precision let's us'uns note that it was *yore* comment that the exchanges were "rather dull". Has I done misperceived that ya's disappointed nobody left ya' an opening for some spectacular jactation?

Forsooth! Mah rejoinder simply took note o' yore manner, an' observed that whar' that manner is not given its customary reign, it figgers that youse not stimulated in the style in which youse become accustomed.

As fer apologies, why, good sir, be mah guest! I know the others readin' and lurkin' would be much obliged to receive some expiatory indication from ya' fer callin' their carefully crafted thoughts "rather dull."

As fer yore inquiries into the nature of the word of God --yores and ANON's inquiry --those inquiries properly
belong in Essay III, (whar' youse free to beguile us wif' yor own afflatus iffin' ya feel called.)

But this here first essay takes as its focus the origins of Islam as a political / military system of conquest.

Other than adjectives tagged to the offerings of others, does ya have any original thoughts (iffin' they ain't succumbed to desuetude) to add pursuant to content of Essay I?

Aunty Belle said...

Boney..ah darlin'...this heah deserves a more considerd response than Aunty hs time fer at the moment--please hang tight , I will git back to it.

CONTESSA??? !! Baby! Whas' up wif ya?? I done left some shout outs over at Vanilles and ...and....and...silence. Is ya finished wif school??

Darlin' thanky fer comin' over ter read all thas' laid out in here--I knows it is a tome. But I'se pleased it is what ya was thinkin' to see....

and I'se glad you found some spice..(hee hee)..cause some times Aunty wonders iffin' posts doan sound like Jungle Julia, then nobody finds it entertainin' enough to suit 'em.... sigh.

Banter? Ah? his amuses ya? Maybe we'uns can git a word of the week thang goin'--but not on Mute Monday...Well, puddin', maybe we can "kick it up o' notch." Stand by.

I'se pleased to see ya again.

andrew said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

My afflatus is to be found within the two questions that I herein pose again, and that, I suppose, is the real reason that we find no answer forthcoming.

Question 1.
Do you believe that the Qu'uran is the word of God or a human interpretation of the word of God or just something humans have made up?

Question 2.
Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God or a human interpretation of the word of God or just something humans have made up?

Essays two and three will attract exactly the same questions, for, in their answers, we will find much understanding.

And, by the way, don't confuse the possession of an extensive vocabulary with intelligence. The purpose of language is communication, not confusion.

And I, as you know from past experience, am much more gifted in floccipaucinihilipilification than your good self.

An Indian Elephant God

iamnot said...

See! I'm here!

ArtfulSub said...

Answer One:

The "koran" was competely made up by humans most likely to add a sense of purpose and unity to the brutal Arab conquest of the Middle-East.

It is, as the original question asked, inherently intrinsically evil. As is the "religion" of moon-worship that it co-opted.

It's certainly possible that it was inspired by Satan, as well. Without doubt, the Serpent enjoys it's fruits.

Answer Two:

I hesitate to address the second question since it was asked out of hatred.

There are, however, passages within the Bible itself that give us SOME means to answer those with open-minds and open-hearts who inquire of it. To whit:

2 Timothy 16-17

"All Scripture is inspired by God is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right. It is God's way of preparing us in every way, fully equipped for every good thing God wants us to do."

Perhaps one of the heavenly rewards due Christians will be a COMPLETE understanding of that and other passages.

In the meantime, here on Earth, it's best looked at as a tool to better understand the risen Son of the Living God, Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

And, as an inspiration to continue to spread the Good News of the TRUE religion that it serves. Christianity. A religion that has been, undeniably, a force for good in this World and particularly within the USA.

A religion that HAS and will CONTINUE to free benighted souls from the horrors of false "religions" such as moon-worship and "islam".

Aunty Belle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aunty Belle said...

Anon--ya been promised the answer in the proper order--Essay III. But # 2 ain't far off, an' we can chew over the Crusades--woan that juice thangs up some???
(BTW, sorry to confuse ya')

Hang in Boney, puddin'...hang in...ain't forgot.

Anonymous said...

Koran says:

The water left over in the container after any type of animal has drunk from it is considered clean and pure apart from the left over of a dog, a pig, and a disbeliever.There are ten types of filth and impurities: urine, feces, semen, carrion, blood of carrion, dogs, pigs, disbelievers.

When a dog, a pig, or a disbeliever touches or comes in contact with the clothes or body [of a Muslim] while he [the disbeliever] is wet, it becomes obligatory-compulsory upon him [the Muslim] to wash and clean that part which came in contact with the disbeliever.

Infinitesimal said...


is that something that involves a tissue or handi-wipe after one finishes?

I LOVE you two!!

Hey auntie, yep, it is final exam and term paper time, and as usual, I have waited for the final hour to write and study.

Migraines are WAY much better though!!

The good doctor has had a eureka breakthrough by the name of DESIPRAMINE which has decreased the buggers so far by about 75%!!

Anyway, i noticed not much commentary on actual content here again, so I will pledge to read and remark as soon as I am through with the first of three final exams on Tuesday.

and thanks for your advice at RC.

Infinitesimal said...

Artful sed:

"All Scripture is inspired by God is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right. It is God's way of preparing us in every way, fully equipped for every good thing God wants us to do."

I think that this passage is open for interpretation.
Seems to apply to the pan-spirituality Unitarian Universalist ideal. All truth comes from God, ergo any truth found in the Koran or Q-Ran or however you kids are spellin' it today, would be considered scripture, no?

regarding the crusades,
(Sorry Aunt, cause I knows you is Catholic)
Catholicism, in my opinion especially regarding the crusades, is a Satanic religion and directly against the teaching of Jesus.
Today's catholic seems to venrate the virgin Mary to a higher status than Jesus himself.

Which means she is now a false idol.

i know, really really KNOW, there are kind, warm, tender, compassionate Catholic individuals out there, but I say that Catholicism is inherently evil and I guess, that flips the tables a bit on this post and subsequent discussion.

The crusades were a free-for-all rape fest, and NOT a benevolent attempt to claim God's followers and make true believers.

It was, predominantly, an attack on Jews. Directly what the Bible claims that Satan will do, time and time again.

So if the Bible is the WORD of God, then organized Catholicism and the Crusades are Satanic.

This does NOT mean that Aunt and K9 are Satanic, which I suppose flips the tables on the original impetus of this concurrent discussion. It is the religion, and it's dogma that are evil and not the individuals that ascribe to it.

So the Muslim men kill their wives and daughters after they are raped by other Muslim men.

The Catholic priests rape and torture young alter boys and orphans.

Both acts are evil, and inexcusable, no matter which dark dogma one ascribes to.

k9, I love you please do not bite me!
Auntie, you and I know that we stand on the same spiritual ground.
It is what the individual makes of their spirituality, not the religion they follow.

And concerning atheists,
I have heard two themes echoed.

The first is one of arrogance, blind foolish denial of the spirit.

And the second?

A much more widespread defined reasoning behind athiests I have known is this:

People say that they are much too humble to try to assume to know the true nature of God.
Many athiests that I have had the deep personal discussions with have told me that they do not consider themselves worthy of ascribing a personality or gender to GOD, and even if they cannot imagine a life after the physical, they can admit to a deep sense of right v. wrong and are some of the most intelligent and tender people I have ever met.

It is either an arrogant or exceptionally humble attitude that inspires atheists, and the latter I think, should be respected.

Anonymous said...

The utter irrationality of this post continues to both amuse and irritate me. It may make sense to religious fundamentalists, but from outside looking in, it just makes religion look even sadder than it needs really be. Have you ever really considered just what it is that you are actually arguing about?

The young finiperson, as ever, pins the tail on the donkey.

Can a case be made that Catholicism is actually the epitome of evil, the antichrist?

Well yes, of course, and some people spend their lives doing so.

Follow the link and read if you dare.

I post the link not because I believe anything there any more than the piffle presented here, but simply to emphasize the base stupidity of the particular form of cultism that we currently call religion.

And perhaps AB will remove the link as it is offensive to Catholicism?

That sentiment didn't stop her posting in a way that would be offensive to Muslims.

Do unto others?

love A

she said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
she said...

to uriel: correct and econmonical. thank you.

to anyone: citing "wiki" as a source is an immediate ejection from the games.

to civilian at arms: thanks for raising the CRITICAL issue of the day which is the crises (plural crisis im trying to spell here) the gummit stokes are by design and meant to relieve us of our individual rights. bigger problem than islam to my mind. we missed a good shot years back with one patrick J buchanan and will never get it back. oh, but he was a "nativist" and "racist". hope all that PC touchy feely that dismissed his canidacy was worth it, people.

to vaniiiille: on hitting the ass of the donkey - well sure! people, please confine all digs to, what was it ardliar? "christy crossy's?" and fat ass southerners? hell, that's a gentleman's sport. never prejudice. never intolerance.

i already know the courtesy extended to muslims will be eternally witheld from us cathlicks. as far as the crusades, i accept full responsibility for them. now you all owe me a debt of gratitude. grrrerhahahaha!

i wont bite you vanille. i cannot take offense where it does not apply.


if i was a LIBERAL i would be wailing about your "hate crimes" against me. i might demand that holy water fonts be installed at all airports and crucifixes as well. and if you dont, im going to blow a baby up! grrrherhahaha oh no, wait. i will ride my trusty steed through all your blogs chop chop choppin.

whats better aunty? a sword or a scimitar?

im a catholic. nothing in these comment boxes could sting like the FAILURE of those who say they represent and do not. for me, faith is a way of being, not a bloodied knee of blind obedience. so what if anyone dont git it? im just a hillbilly!

to aunty: show's over! was good. and thanks! it mustv'e been yore prayers! grrrherhahaha

happy sunday to all!

Anonymous said...

Ah she.
She, she, she.

You know I love you.

But you still, after all these months, still don't really get it.

It isn't about me or you being more or less tolerant than the other. That is an irrelevance. I have never claimed to be the most tolerant person on the planet, and neither have you. But I amn't signed up to a club that says I am so. And you, apparently are. So you are guilty by association, to use one of your favoured political party's common charges.

You don't broadcast your faith in the way others do,,, fine.You feel it deep inside...fine. I believe you.

All I point out here is the ludicrous nature of the discussion when one group of believers criticizes another group of believers because their beliefs are better than the others.
They are all just beliefs.
It is a futile, unwinnable, discussion.

As pointed out, there is as good a case to say that catholicism is evil, as Islam is evil.

Religions are ideas.
Ideas that become beliefs.
Beliefs that, for some, become truths.
And that is when it all becomes rather dangerous.

So, get off my back and get onto the backs of those who fail to see through it all.

You and I have been through this before.
And ultimately you yielded.
And spoke the truth.
So why not do that now?

Blind loyalty?

Well, you ain't a dog any more.

Your loving friend

she said...

ardliar: no you miss the point. i never said i was tolerant and you know it. you are the king of straw dog argumentation.

as far as yielding to you, dream on drac. the islam post you refer to was the words out of the mouths of islam's leaders. their words. you flipped out and charged everyone in the place with bigotry. i said i didnt define an entire people as evil and you think that is a victory for you..that you converted over my peabrained southern mind. i said a million times it is action that gets my attention. worship whatever you want but when it transcends thought/belief and moves to behavior then i take a different view.

love, S.

Anonymous said...

I have never claimed to be the most tolerant person on the planet, and neither have you.
I have never claimed to be the most tolerant person on the planet, and neither have you.
I have never claimed to be the most tolerant person on the planet, and neither have you.
I have never claimed to be the most tolerant person on the planet, and neither have you.
I have never claimed to be the most tolerant person on the planet, and neither have you.
I have never claimed to be the most tolerant person on the planet, and neither have you.
I have never claimed to be the most tolerant person on the planet, and neither have you.
I have never claimed to be the most tolerant person on the planet, and neither have you.
I have never claimed to be the most tolerant person on the planet, and neither have you.
I have never claimed to be the most tolerant person on the planet, and neither have you.
I have never claimed to be the most tolerant person on the planet, and neither have you.

Funny, I thought I had said that you never said that.
But maybe you din't read that bit first time?

Glad I'm king for you, queenie.
Glad you still call me drac.
Makes me feel all...................nibbly.


Infinitesimal said...

Oh Gawd you two....

Get a room already!

she said...

i see i've been downgraded from "love A" to just "A"

ArtfulSub said...

Infinite Said:

"I think that this passage is open for interpretation.
Seems to apply to the pan-spirituality Unitarian Universalist ideal. All truth comes from God, ergo any truth found in the Koran or Q-Ran or however you kids are spellin' it today, would be considered scripture, no?"

This was in response to my citation of 2 Timothy 16-17. And the answer to his or her question is...NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.

The great Evangelist Paul was very skilled at writing personal letters with universal applications. BUT, in this case, the message both to young Timothy AND to the World-At-Large was NOT that the grotesque writings of false religions had validity. That is the OPPOSITE of what Paul preached and it was a point of considerable emphasis to him.

He is referring specifically and EXCLUSLIVELY to the Old Testament Scriptures. And, he specifically REJECTS and condemns the notion that other writings are God Inspired.

I'd suggest you re-read all of Paul's letters. But here is THE LINE THAT PRECEDES the section I quoted:

" You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus."

THAT is what Paul meant by Scripture.

ArtfulSub said...


Good rebuttal to what Ardlair the Ass apparently believes are ideas.

Infinitesimal said...

hello artful sub.

i concur re: meaning of Paul's letters to Tim.

However, 'scuse the term, i was just playing devil's advocate.

using logic.
pointing out what is a logical loophole within that statement as an island on which to moor one's argument.

I like to think of the Bible as a law book.

If you can cite yourself as being protected under law, then scripture has a very useful purpose as a method by which to hold fast to one's propery (heart, mind, soul, spirit, integrity, faith etc...)

But then I think that some people like to find "legal loopholes" by which to support their own interpretations.

(not any one in particular, just any old body.... you know?)

And I think that cherry picking scriptures in that way, such as:
'God hates fags, it says so in this verse....'

is Satanic and a product of an evil seed in one's mind.

Sounds like you have a good grasp of the Word.

I do not go for much of the old testament but the new testament comes in a really mind blowing version called

"The Recovery Version"

which includes neat footnotes to put the words into historical context.

I never went for the King James version, but this one I deeply dig.

it is posted online somewhere, do you know it?

ArtfulSub said...


Yes, I know the Word pretty well.

I agree that leftist Democrat and Al Gore Supporter the "Reverend" Fred Phelps is rather demented and narrowly-focused with his "God Hates Fags" emphasis.

Not sure if this is a "legal loophole" in his twisted view, however. I think it's more likely that, like most democrats, he's a hate-filled demagogue.

Rather telling that the leftist media-filth have taken to labelling the "Reverend" Phelps a "Conservative", don't you think?

I've HEARD OF "The Recovery Version" and "Living Stream Ministries" and "Watchman Nee and Witness Lee", of course.

Some people think they're cultic. Don't know enough about them to judge.

Meantime, I'm more than happy with my ancient KJV for worship services and New Living Translation for spreading the Gospel message in clear modern English.

In general, I favor the "thought-for-thought" translation method over "word-for-word".

Aunty Belle said...

Mercy!! Leave the chilens alone an' see what happens??

I'se on the fly folks--gotta git on ter some important bidness...so I'se gonna git back to ya'll right qucik, but fer now---

C'mon ya'll, --in the spirit of this post doan toss out no comments like
" Such n' such is evil"
wif'out some citation worthy of yore readers time. She-pup is right that wiki ain't no reference.

Ya is free to make yore claims--ain't tender on the matter of claims against Christianity in general or the Catholic Church is particular--but dig up some references other than yore perceived notions.

Contessa, Crusades is fer next post, so iffin' ya wanna make them same observations, ya got some time to git together yore references--note that Aunty used refs fer this post. I 'preciates it.

Ardlair, fer the sake of novelty, make a comment on origin of Islam/Mohamed, as the post is about that.

I'll git back soon--an' BONEY, youse first up( I ain't forgot)

uriel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ardlair said...

1. God, I had a weird dream last night.
That She and Aunty Belle are the same person. Weird. Explains the photo though.

2. And AB, howsabout a warning to Flatus Rub for broaching rule 2 of rules of engagement??

3. Here is my rule of engagement. Can we have a discussion that doesn't involve quoting lines from any religious tract or text? Cos the believers all just believe their own and disbelieve any other. So you can't make much progress can you.
That's the problem whole problem here isn't it? You're all so bogged down in scripture.

I believe Lord of the Rings to be the true one word of god, so if you all persist I will start quoting from that.

Here goes........

"Hurry, Frodo"

The Two Towers
Lines 13-15 p37
Oxford Edition

See...............that didn't add a lot did it?

4. She, sorry I forgot the love. Love.

5. Infini. Yes book room. I predict win by submission in round three. For me.

6. And wikipedia isn' t a reference source?........nonsense.......you're showing your age. WHatever that is.

6. And finally, AB..........you know my view on islam and any other religion, including your own one.
They have all been forces for evil and good over the years. They oppress free thought and are open to abuse by those in pursuit of power.
They fracture societies.

The concept of evil didn't even exist until the monotheistic religions ( mainly your lot and judaism and islam) appeared on the scene. So religion created evil, as a concept.

Must rush!!!!

Love and K's

A the A

ArtfulSub said...

Off-topic but I'm pleased to announce that the sow who lives with us in the double-wide is the proud Mommy of three squeeling new piglets! A girl and two boys.

Hillary, Ardlair and Mohammed.


uriel said...

Mistaken premise in combox 12/04/07:

"The concept of evil didn't even exist until the monotheistic religions"

Premise demonstrably false.
Cf. The Greek philosopher Aristotle (D. 322 B.C.); Nicomachean Ethics Book 4,Chapter 5: "evil destroys even itself and if it is complete, becomes unbearable." Also:"If it is in our power to act nobly, it is also in our power to do evil."

Aristotle identified evil motives, evil acts of persons:

"In addition, (B) there is a type of agent who refuses even to try to do what an ethically virtuous agent would do, because he has become convinced that justice, temperance, generosity and the like are of little or no value. Such people Aristotle calls evil (kakos, phaulos). He assumes that evil people are driven by desires for domination and luxury, and although they are single-minded in their pursuit of these goals, he portrays them as deeply divided, because their pleonexia—their desire for more and more—leaves them dissatisfied and full of self-hatred."

^^^^Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

she said...

what photo?

Anonymous said...

mistaken premise uriel. The problem with your translation is that it was undertaken long after Aristotle wrote the words and certainly after the arrival of the monotheistic religions that created the concept that we would regard and understand as evil. The very fact that he used two different words would suggest that he had no single concept in mind. So I'm afraid the translator just used a concept that they were familiar with and your argument fails. Go to the back of the class please.

she said...

ive never quoted a bible verse "up in heah". i doan need to.

my interest is jihadis that run around like poison pills blowing shite up. you wanna declare war? go ahead, say so and act. this guerilla warfare bullshite has no rules and yet it is expected to be handled with restraint.

as far as the crusades....i dont live in medieval times so i am a tad bit more focused on now. but like i said before - its a good thing the crusaders came out on top. and i dont care what anyone says to me about that.

what islam needs now is an ataturk type guy. not this backwards ass momentum.

ardlair you say i signed up with a club (catholisicm) and that defines me. that makes about as much sense as you being responsible for jeffery dahmer...after all, you are both men.

one last point: i never said " i feel it (faith) deep inside" ....its not a feeling....its a way of being and it has more to do with intellect than feelings. but youve already made your descision that faith is blind stupidity, so no need to revist that ring of hell again. *kiss kiss*

to uriel: god to see you again! did you happen to see aunty's review on no country for old men? same thing.

she said...

is aristotle even necessary? evil would be defined as evil empirically by virtue of its inability to sustain itself.

Anonymous said...

A) do you mean shi'ite? And bullshi'ite?
If you don't you have also broken a rule of engagement and should be sanctioned by the headmistress.

B) The photo of the florida group-blog/blogswapping event that i didn't get invited to and someone posted somehwere.

C) You did yield - and that is largely why AB has the disclaimer that heads this article.

D) Lets have a yes you did yield/no i didn't/yes you did argument about it.

E) You defined yourself as a catholic hillbilly not me, and if you declare yourself as such ( catholic) I think you do then wish to imbue yourself with some of the virtues traditionally, but erroneously, associated with such beliefs....such as tolerance



she said...

A) shi' ite works for me! whatever will prevent my comment from being removed. she's done it to me.

b) aunty took the photo, but i dont care if you or anybody thinks im aunty! i like aunty

c) my post and archives stand as testimony

d) let's dont you repetitive bore

e) yee-hawwwwww! grrrherhahaha. i was referring to how YOU define catholicism.

Pete Bogs said...

Ardlair - perhaps you are referring to one of the pics from my post last May?


if you look at the last photo, she-dog is standing right there, while Aunt B is behind the camera... maybe you've just never seen them at the same place at the same time? she-dog did keep going to a phone booth to change for some reason, though...

as for the gathering invite, why didn't you come? all who were within reach were invited!

Aunty Belle said...

Hey Boney--- from yore long comment:

Sugar pie, it ain't *propaganda* if it is shown to be true. I does see how true thangs can be used selectively to give wrong impression--sly folks does this plenty enough. But the scholars of the Qur'an (as quoted in the original post) teach that the later verses abrogate the early verse--so there is no propaganda selectivity goin' on in this discussion. Aunty gives the early and the later and shows from the Qur'an itself what the Islamic teaching is---

Boney, ya wrote:

"Well, for one, Islam doesn’t mean “submission” as was stated….
It means “submission to God” which is totally different from the former. ...I’m assuming, to be sure, from your rhetoric, that you are both professing to be Christians? Yes, I am too, but, I believe in following the path Jesus put out there for us to follow, and it has NOTHING to do with hatred. "

........well, Sugar, the word ISLAM predates Islam the religion. It is a proto-Arabic word that in fact DOES mean submission--and not to God, but a submission of the will to the superior person, stronger person. Mohamed appropriated the term as the name of the religion in order to indicate the first and primary duty of believers. But even the Islamic teachers and imams hold t hat it also means submission to the religion, and those who profess the religion.

See, Boeny, stop an' think fer a speal--in the ISlamic logic, all who are believers in ISlam are de facto superior to all non-believers. In that logic, until the non-believers submit to Islamic teaching and control, there will never be peace--therefore war against unbelievers is understood as a *path to peace*.

Boney--look them up--there are a couple of dozen hadiths and lots of verses in the Qur'an that make this precise point--PLEASE read the post and check the references. A few posts back I done showed how the media has reason to downplay the more bothersome verses--but read 'em. Youse gonna see what I'se drivin' at.

I'se troubled by what 'pears to me as a desire on yore part to take a predetermined stand and defend it, rather than looky afresh at what the Qur'an (not Aunty!) akshully says.

As fer not followin' hatred, well, nobody here does, darlin'. Is ya sayin' we'uns is lookin' to hate folks?

Boney, Aunty has stated over and over that it is the SYSTEM of ISlam that is worth hating--not the people who we categorize as Muslims.

This here is a hard truth:
When ya refuse to call evil "evil", *you* participate in evil. Islam teaches evil. If ya doan say so, you is part of the trouble.

To say what I said ain't "hatred" it is jes' the internal witness of the Qur'an itself.

Boney wrote:
"Sometime around 630 BC, when Assyria was losing her grip, a lawyer in Jerusalem produced a new code as a program for future reforms, including the prohibition of the worship of gods other than Yahweh (that’s the CREATOR they’re talking about), and the relief of the poor. He drew on older “Yahweh-alone” traditions, common usage, and ancient taboos, but his work was organized by his own thought, replete with his own invention, and cast in his own style. He represented it as “the Law of Yahweh” and -probably- as the work of Moses, and he arranged to have it found by the high priest in Jerusalem temple in 621. "

.............. what /who do ya mean? And please give us'uns a source for this.


BONEY??? Ya believes in State's Rights????? SMOOCH! A big ole kiss fer ya'!

As fer WMD, yeah darlin' Saddam had them--the UNITED NATIONS said so--That is usually the organization libs trust. Ain't ya knowed of a shell game? Them weapons is now in Syria and Turkmenistan, an parts of Russia.

Sigh....so much ter yak about...

Anonymous said...

yeah bogs that was the one!!!!!!!!
i knew i hadn't dreamt it!!!!!!!!

aunty-she-belle is the dude with the bonnet on!!
looking down cos shes doing a penance thing!
and some secret society thing with her fingers!

a waiter took the photo.....fer jeez sake, who else do you get to take a photo in a restaurant!!

Aunty Belle said...

1) I see BAwgs has kindly hepped ya out on that confusion. Thanky Bawgs!
( Aunty stays *behind* the camera as befits a Granny Clampett look-alike.

2) When ya follows the Rules of Engagement, Aunty will point to yore example fer others who need hep wif same (ARTFULSUB, please, now, "Ardlair the Ass" is a rule violation. )

3) Youse free and most welcome to set up yore own Rules of Engagement...at yore blog.

6) Wiki is NOT a thinkin' man's source--yep Toodles, I'se plenty ole enough to know schlock when I sees it. Reflexive use of Wiki is indicative of cerebral necrosis.

66) Of course concept of evil existed before monotheism, jes' like the concept of sunrise existed before the Hebrew/Aramaic texts made note of them. Evil is jes' aplain reality, doan ya know?

Them Jews and Christians din't have no power to invent evil; it's jes an observable phenomema --evil was a worry even back to the paleolitic man who covered his caves wif' images of it, sought power against it an' all.

Now, I ain't meanin' to step into Uri's ring but really Ardlair,


I gits that youse gotta cover yore egregious claim that Aristotle din't mean evil when he wrote of evil, that it was all the translator's fault, huh? Really? AN' what's yore source fer this hypothesis?

Chuckles, c'mon! Does ya mean to announce that that youse a translator of ancient Greek?

Or does ya mean to propose that them intelligent Greeks had no concept of the evil done to Socrates at his trial and death? Ya mean them Greeks ain't had one iota of a idea 'bout man's injustice to man? About the murderous lust the lies in the heart of some men?

Mercy, Ardlair---tighten up a bit.

Well, as ya implied, Aunty is old...so I remembers that Zoroastrianism showed us'uns how evil opposed good and that dualism was a keenly drawn concept even a bazillion BC--or thar'bouts.

Aunty Belle said...

God doan hate nobody, but He do hate some *acts*..so while he doan hate "fags" (yore word) He do hate faggin' (mah word)an' He said so.

He doan hate thieves, but He hates thievin', an' He said so.

On the Virgin Mary--so pleased to see ya use the accurate word: Venerate. Catholics do NOT worship MAry, so she ain't no false idol--thas' jes' an ole Protestant myth used to sling about some fear of thangs Catholic.

The Commandments say honor yore mama and daddy--Mary is Jesus' Mama, and he honors her--we follow His example. Easy way to think on her specialness is to think: if ya was God an' could make yore own mama, wouldn't ya make her marvelous??

DESIPRAMINE? huh? doan know 'bout this but will check-up om it--so so relieved to know youse gettin decent hep wif' them haid-busters.

Aunty Belle said...

She-dawg-belle, LOL, L O L!!

Knee slappin' here.....but thanky fer yore not bein' insulted by the assertion of sameness.

I does like yore insight--it is a way of being..yep, taht it is.

Infinitesimal said...

hi bellsy

i got a present fer u still. i am one handed typin acos ofa mousie cat on my lap crook of my arm.

i have a lot to say here, but alo an exam 2morrow am.

so fer now:

god is love

where god exists, love exists

ergo loving homos are godly in thir love

and i will now make your counterpoint for you

well fintessima sugar, iffn a growed up man loves a 5 year old girl that he is molesting, is that godly?

good point ab i will say and then point out that that above statement is in fact the very premise of MANBLA
man boy love association

so even while arguing logic, I guess we can agree.

however, i would like to add this:

the catholic god hates faggin'

the faggy god is ok with it.

by this token, i think it is safe to say that some faggin' (manbla) is to be hated, and other faggin', when love is given and reciprocated... is not so bad.

That kind of faggin' gives orphans as well as otherwise would be aborted babies, loving 2-parent stable homes.

that sort also creates high fashion and groovy art.

just like the way we proved that not ALL muslims are evil people boiling with hate, surely we can extend that same courtesy to 2 fags a "faggin'"

ps to ardlair:
i thought of you when i printed my applied statistical research study guide out in the school library computer today. one must travel to other end of room to procure printed pages by selecting which computer's items to print from a separate computer monitor. So we have names for the computers that we use which are posted on each one.

Mine was named GANDALF.

Do you suppose this means that I will get an A on next weeks exam?

Hurry Frodo.

Aunty Belle said...

Contessa, best of it on yore exam--let us know how it goes!

Doan wanna git too fer off topic--an' I sees how ya already figgered what ya illustrated ain't logical--so mebbe a short (fer Aunty!) comment on God and active homosexual lifestyles can git a nee angle of view: God doan hate NObody. Period.

Not even when they are performin' acts that he said is abominable. There is ONE God, not an art God, a bidness God or a faggy God.

Yep, God is Love, but a poorly actin' follower is not filled wif God (or His Love)-- so, to the precise degree that they choose to follow God's way, they are filled with His Love. Some is more filled that others--all are offered, some doan wanna accept what all is offered--they jes' want a part of God, not the whole of God.

Whar' any of us reject God's way and choose our own way, that part of our life ain't God filled or God centered.

Whar' a bidness man cheats his employees and then proclaims he is a God-lover, ergo he does bidness wif' love, we can say, "not quite ole chap" thar's much room fer improvement.

Same fer homosexual acts. Them acts ain't lovin' in the sense God means love--which is to seek the highest good for the other. Since that act is forbidden by God, it cannot be the highest good for the other. Hence homosexual acts ain't lovin'. It is a substitute fer somethin authentic.

All the same, God doan hate those who live like this--but God do HATE that act. An' He is sorrowful fer all the harm and hurt they cause.

Decent theology separates the *act* from the actor--God loves all His chillen. NO MATTER WHAT THEY DONE, He wants them to "come home", meanin' *they*'s most loved and welcome, but every act they wanna do ain't.

True love for God is a journey, ain't it? Nobody is 100% filled wif love fer God, they work toward it, and they is called to let go of all that doan fit wif' what God has called them to be. What God sees is how earnestly each child of His is moving closer to Him, seekin' to reflect more truly what God is.

Sigh..so off topic...but when ya's readin' the scripture, make a wee mental note how Jesus' tone is different fer, say, Zaccheus ( a big sinner) than fer the Jews He is adressin' in John 8 whar' He says to some "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires.."(Jn 8 44).

These were folks who knew the scriptures well--thus (mah major point) those who know more are more accountable for cultivatin' *rightly ordered* hearts and behavior.

That means iffin' youse a Dolce & Gabana silk suited Wall Street embezzler, or an active homosexual, once ya encounter God, ya gotta leave that embeszzlin' or faggin' outside the door, enter a new way of being that reflects your Father, God.

she said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
she said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
she said...

re: god -vs- fags. again, is religion necessary in this discussion? nature has had her say on the matter. no Gods are necessary.

Infinitesimal said...

Bravo AB
very nicely put....


"He is sorrowful fer all the harm and hurt they cause."

could you please expound on that one statement, not sure I follow....
(within the context of a loving same sex marriage)

i am procrastinating, did not sleep a wink, dreampt sporadically of taking a MASSIVE day long test of about 120 pages, my actual test is 12 pages of essay!!!

thanks also for the luck!

Pete Bogs said...

not that I intend to begin participating in blog discussions again, but if you believe God created man, then God created homosexual man as well... I don't know if God "hates" anything, but sexual orientation is one of His creations... people do what comes naturally to them... what kind of life could anyone have if they felt gay but could never act upon it? or do some of you believe in "reparative" therapy?

Ardlair said...

Hi y'all

a) Yes aunty I do know a fair bit about Greek ( and Latin).
And you surely, in your long study of scriptures, MUST realise that what was truly meant in the language in which a tract was initially written , was open to great interpretation and misinterpretation, some deliberate some inadvertent, as words were translated into languages in which no such word or concept existed, or where a word did exist, but that it incompletely or overly defined what was initially meant.

But you never admit you are wrong, so why persist!

b) As regards homosexuality however , I have to agree with you and she-person.

In the One True Word of God, THE LORD OF THE RINGS, homosexuality is quite clearly the prime force of evil, as manifested by the clearly wasted and immunosuppressed Gollum ( guess what he's got She) and the representation of the epitome of evil as THE TWO TOWERS ( don't have to be too bright to see what that refers to.)

c) If i had more time I would expand on the way in which THE LORD OF THE RINGS defines homosexuality as evil but I am off to Libya now for a few days.
Spreadin' the word AB, spreading the word.

But don't worry about me, I have been there aplenty before, and have people to look after me. If you get the chance.........go.
The Roman remains are spectacular, particularly at Leptis Magna.
And there isn't an orc to be seen anywhere.

L and K


she said...

finally a destination where you will make sense! travel safely *homo* grrrrrrherhahahahahaha

ThursdayNext said...

I am biased...muslims killed off many of my grandparent's siblings and family in 1914.

Aunty Belle said...

Bawgs, hey hey!! C'mon and yak....but ya'll ( Ardlair and She,Infinni) I'se gonna save mah comments on what scripture says/ religious meaning fer the final essay.

Take care Ardlair. I'd love to see Libya and would go iffin' Uncle Aloysius would let me off mah tether--had to turn down work related chance to go to Mazār-e Šarīf, on account of Uncle is squeamish. Dang near grounds fer unhitchment. I'se still fumin'.

On translations--natcherly they's never perfection in translation--but a concept as broad and general as evil manages to come through jes' fine. Same way that concept of loyalty or fidelity can be translated. Looky--youse obviously jes' pokin' at us, pretendin' that youse all particular over translations, but meanwhile ya's content wif wikipedia? Right.

Oh, BTW, ya need some good readin' fer yor trip?

Spe Salvi is out--pretty amazin'.

Crusades is in hopper--sharpen yore swords, sportsfans!!!

Aunty Belle said...

ThursdayNext! Why gracious--welcome to the BACK Porch--so pleased to have ya join us--was yore folks from the Balkans? I have similar bias--grandmother from Lebanon--fled the horror.

Up next is a look at the history of the clash between Islam and the West--will cover the Crusades-hope ya'll come back for a tall glass of lemonade and some high octane exchanges.

she said...

ONE HUNDRED!!! is there a prize or somethin'? grrrherhahahahaha

she said...

what? no "get out from under a fatwah free" card?

boneman said...

Well, Auntie, I waited and y'all sure enough came back with some words...
And, your prize for that is:
the answer to Ardlair's "trick" question....
In the "which came first" category, Islam was written from the concepts of Judaism and the new Christianity and even just a hint of Zoraster in it.

Now, as fer reference materials, yes'm. Been burning midnight oils studying up on a whole bunch'a aspects of the original quest, Is Islam inherently evil, and I have absolutely surprised myself as to how much mankind is stupid.

First off, I gotta write it all down (the references, that is) fer ya and I'll post it in yer comments as soon as I get back here (should be by around Sunday, I hope)
Second all, and let's call this two birds with one stone, eh?
Intrinsic is one of the terms that inherently means.
So, it was redundant to say "I'll add intrinsically" but then, what would one expect by someone who is using their open, empty palms for reference material? (not youy, Auntie. I'm impressed with your knowledge, though there is a small matter of reciting the same passages over and over and over and over (and, no. I ain't Ardlair even if I do overdo that bit a bit)
I wuld be speaking about Artful who ain't exactly running for "nice-girl" USA

Spits out venemous hatred by the bucketful, but really lacking in actual content.
Leftist government, leftist media, euro-leftist this, leftist likin' how Britney is dressed and wantin' t'get drunk.
That isn't the intellegent banter I expected.
And, though you said there's "As fer not followin' hatred, well, nobody here does, darlin'. Is ya sayin' we'uns is lookin' to hate folks?"

Maybe you didn't notice the last few comments on homosexuality.

And, gee. Since I'm like neck deep into being an open target for artful's hatred anyway, well, I think if that's what they want to do, they should be free to do so.

I happen to know a couple of really nice gals that went to Hawaii and got married.
They both attend church where they live and visit us when they come by t'see relatives and such.

If you look at Paul's words and determine that his course of action is correct, then you have to determine other things as well.
Like the fact that Paul was a murderous piece of treachery killing Christians as fast as he could find'em.
And I've run out'a time, so, next time may be longer, eh....

Anonymous said...

47 questions

43 of them essay
(actually, some were short answer)

2 hours of exam

I aced it.


boneman said...

I remember my college days. Dang! Congratulations! Hope you always ace'em!
(me? well, not that it would improve m'credibility, but, it took six years of college t'get m'two year degree...)
(ok ok stop laughing now)

Now, I had t'leave quickly last night, and knowing that I read like the WIND! Old man! Read like the wind!(three amigos, sort'a. Chevy Chase, Steve Martin, and Martin Short is urging some woman to sew faster)

Anyway, I also had it all on m'button and went home and read it, and, it seems there ain't as much hatred as I thought I saw.
Probably still a lil sore about being the butt end of Artful's crabbiness.

So, first things first...
The particular paragraphs you asked about were from: Columbia History of the World©1972 Harper and Row,
p. 161
Other references are:
The Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary ©1977
(Ma and I used it for our Scrabble tournies. We had an older one, Webster’s, circa 1945, but, it just didn’t have words we KNEW were words)

Ryrie Study Bible © 1994 The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago
(figures a danged Yankee would come along and try t’copyright a bible, eh?)

Great Religions of Modern Man: Islam © 1961 by John Alden Williams
(this is one of several in the volume set I’ve enjoyed reading. Of course, there’s the thing about the genealogies I don’t like. Never did.)

What we All Believe © Ruth Cranston, 1948 and 1951
(This one is interesting, and short. It shows that indeed, there HAVE been changes to the Koran. A lot of changes, evidently, and all within half a century. How fickle the religion is that needs to “modernize” or alter reality)

the Anti-Christ, Friedrich Nietzsche, 1920
(this, a gift from my daughter, was one of the hardest things to read that I’ve come across. Hard because I would have sooner just laid it down and walked away from it….
My DAUGHTER gave it to me.
As a gift.
So, I read it.
I did my best to “empty my glass” every time, but I’m tellin’ ya now. If y’go to read this piece of crap,(no apologies if the shoe fits, right Auntie?)(not you...I'm speaking about freddie 'whiner' nietsche) you’ll see that he makes it danged near impossible!
The part we will hear about later is Proof # 60, the way in which Christianity destroyed that beautiful culture of the Moors, the Moslems. And it was this that hitler grasped as truth, but, the space of history would get very short indeed because he had an idea… burn the history, he’ll say to where all loyalties are to be placed.)

I also use a computer thingie....Encarta 96 Encyclopedia from Microsoft, but, talk about hard to follow. For example, to look up ol’ Abe Lincoln, y’don’t go to “Lincoln”.
You have to look up “Abraham”.
Wishd it was bigger cause I like researching shtuff., but when Encarta had a set of ( I think) six or seven discs in a set, I passed on it thinking when I got the $ I would get it.
I finally got ahead enough and went to go buy it, but, it was gone, and I think it’s because now-a-days folks can see info from all over the place with web world.
‘Course, y’gotta be hooked up.

There. That be the biggest section of m'references, but, I also come with a preloaded program of temper, sometimes, and I try t'keep it under the wraps. (If I just don't think about bush junior, I'll do ok)

Artful put a challenge out there for me, and, while I thought I had the perfect answer, it appears she may have inadvertantly given me a better one.... maybe.
What I had thought of, as being "mean" (actually, it's one of the reasons I'm certain of the additions to what we call the bible) was when Jesus ("Love your neighbor and love your friend is easy, you gotta love your enemy,") set his 72 disciples out into the land with instructions to visit, teach, and co-exist with but, if they deny you, go to the center of the city and dust off your shoes and tell them....and it will be more tolerable for those in Sodopm than for them there.
Now, Pakistan DID test their nuclear weapon system, though they had squat for delivery (till bush junior sold them F-16s. Thanx again, moron....
oops. Move on move on)
(me, not the organization)but, in any case, that was about as close as Muslims could do nuclear. And here Jesus is saying....
I don't think so. But, the challenge was find it in the Bible.
Heck, I am NOT supersticious! (but I AM a lil sticious) I invite Jehovah's Witnesses in when they come by. I offer them tea or coffee or water with ice on hot days. I have made some friends by the practice and will continue to do so, but then again, I usually lay m'cards out plain to see, too. And I think one of the places is right about Matthew 23; 13 is a description of the harder core witnesses. Few others, too.
But Artful gave something in error...
She said 2 Timothy 16-17 and I looked and it wasn't the phrase she said it was. It made no sense at all, so, I went to 2 Timothy 2; 16-17, and I found this: 16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, (18 who have wandered away from the truth. They say the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.
(Hyemenaeus and Philetus. These trouble-makers (also mentioned in 1 Tim 1;20) were probably teaching that the doctrine of the resurrection had only an allegorical or spiritual meaning. Gnostic teaching conceived of resurrection allegorically, as referring to acquaintance with truth and as occurring at baptism.
1 Timothy 1;20 Among them are Hymeneaus and Alexander, whom I’ve handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme)
(and, yes, Auntie. I DO understand that his words here are not magnanimous as in ‘HE handed these fellows over to satan,’ but, it was a form of magnanimity that he would presume to hand judgment over on these two. Basically, it was his way of excommunication, and, to the ones abandoned, that would be the very worse thing possible. Catholics, of course, and Jehovah’s Witnesses have excommunication as the ultimate of punishments and readily pass judgement to this day)

And don't wanna hear no "apples and oranges" come back at me, cause first off, nuking a place ain't no easy gig, as any referencing Hiroshima or Nagasaki will plainly show.
It's wrong.

But, dang! I sure do learn a lot, here! Heck, I look up everything that's new or misunderstood by me....
1. The act of vituperating
2. Abusive language; censure
To find fault with abusively; rail at;
The act of vituperating
Abusive language; censure

To find fault with abusively; rail at; ate; scold…
The expression of disapproval or blame; adverse or hostile criticism; reprimand; to condemn or pass judgment on
(y'know, I don't mean to lean in on a point, but this here sounds like a description of Artful)

The closest I’ve found is floccillation which is:
The Aimless picking at bedclothes by a delirious patient
(and I’m getting the ol’red wavies for a change to: flocculation;
To form into small, fluffy masses, as clouds. But I’m not sure if anyone would want to “brag up” on that….)
Pau :A resort city in SW France, pop. c. 48000
(I don’t know if that includes the cattle….)
And, what’s more, I don’t know which would be better… to have Aldaire ‘plain it,
get Infinitesmal use it in a “word-of-the-day” thingie.
(would that be the largest word that'll fit on one line in a comment box for $200, Alex)

"Christianity. A religion that has been, undeniably, a force for good in this World and particularly within the USA."
(That depends on your ancestral background, I think. Those with American Indian within a few generations may care to argue the point of “good” and, for sure, the outright theft of lands long migrated across being suddenly “property” ….)
I like She's take on it all, "for me, faith is a way of being, not a bloodied knee of blind obedience."

Then again, there's another quote from the comments, "He is referring specifically and EXCLUSLIVELY to the Old Testament Scriptures. And, he specifically REJECTS and condemns the notion that other writings are God Inspired. "

(That would include what we would later call the New Testament ,which evidently are NOT GOD inspired at least, according to this sentence)

....and that ain't right, either.
I am sort'a confusing, I reckon, but, here...try this out.
There ain't a satan creating nothing. That would be as Zoraster as y'can get. I don't go with that at all. It's hard enough trying to do right more than take whatever comes down the pike. Mohammed sure didn't mean for the Koran to go in the direction it went.
Hey, it was the same with Christianity, with Buddhism, with Judaism.
The last guy in charge told everybody that nobody gets the position unless they ARE the next.
(Prophets aren't inheirited is how Mohammed put it. And, by the way, Koran, Quaran, Mohammed, Muhammed,...what is the right way, eh? Did you know that folks in Korea want to go back to having it spelled like originally...COREA... ? I'm of the mind that it don't matter HOW it's spelled, only that we'll all spell it or mispell it as we please.
I mean, you know. Dubya? I'm fairly sure he don't sign off like that)
So he Koran actually makes it ok to rewrite itself (as long as there's a replacement that is stronger? I think that's how I understand it, and they're wrong.
That Ruth Cranston gal found a couple of things, All the Suras are praise to GOD and are repeated (which ones, I don't know) five times a day. A person of Islam would have a great feeling of GOD's judgment as being correct by the time they were of a thinking age.
Personally, I think it's a ceremony, and from a guy twice divorced from gals who wanted church weddings, well, ceremony don't mean squat to me.
Yeah, I also think the same about "hail Mary, full of Grace" because of the same thing.
There's a Jewish bit, may even be in our Bibles, that comes to terms with the same thing....
do it often and say it often and you'll do it right.
(that may be true, but it may also be a form of brain washing)
(probably good to have a clean brain, though, eh?)

Where was I going with this?
oh yeah...
So Ardlair wants to use some Lord of the Rings material, too.
Well, it does talk to honor, doing the right thing at all odds...
(It's not up to us to choose, but to do what's right)(paraphrased)
That sounds ok, but, can we go by the movie, cause I still haven't read it.
But, I loved the movie!
As for his concept of no evil before the folks who said it was evil (that's how I understood him) well, that's kind'a like a tree falling in the forrest without someone there to hear it.
I think it makes a noise.
What I refer to alot would be the idiot statement of there not being time before the big bang.
(who thinks up that sort'a stuff, anyway?)

Now, then there's the thing about what IS propaganda...and, gal. It ain't no difference whether it's true or no. If you keep pounding the exact same words at us, THAT'S propaganda.
This here IS an essay on what you believe, and I respect that.
But, when Mohammed wrote what he wrote, it was submission to GOD (ALLAH) (same thing, and I am gonna from now on just use the one I am familiar with and am comfortable with...)
...it was submission to the CREATOR.
How about now?
You may well be right about it going evil, but, inherently (that's inherently AND intrinsically to you, Artful) is calling it evil from its inception, and that's not correct.
He may have talked with Gabriel. I don't know.
Heck, ol' John Smith may have spoken to Moroni. (another reference material? The Mormon Bible. Get it while supplies last, folks, cause if Mitt wins, they'll be going like hot cakes, eh)
Are there evil people working the religion for all they can get out of it?
Does it make the religion evil?
(brief history lesson: the Pagans warred with the Sun worshippers, the Sun worshippers subjugated the Jews, the Jews persecuted the Christians, the Christians persecuted the Jews, the Jews and the Pagans cheered the Persians on into Palestine, the Christians and the Pagans persecuted the Jews out'a Europe, the Muslims and the Christians battled the Pagans. Every form of him against her against them against whoever has been done, and a few more, and we're no closer to peace than we are now.)
The primary goal to begin with (Islam) was to unite all the religions into a unit, all praising to the CREATOR.
Beautiful idea, that.
Simply beautiful.
But, first off, the Jews weren't interested, and they made such a fuss.
The Pagans REALLY weren't interested. The Christians slipped into their folds for a long while, but, I think the praying five times a day thing bothered them, so, it was another "no go" situation.

(sometimes I lose my train of thought...duh... but, I think I'm still on it. I believe that if someone wants to write what they feel about the CREATOR and Jesus and the good things in life to be thankful about, that's ok. Even maybe be put into the Bible. But, that would make it such a large book, eh?
So, maybe the laws were put in us when we were born.
C'mon. Didn't you always know it wasn't right to kill? to steal? be mean to other folks?

What do these laws mean?
I had mentioned about gays and lesbians being ok in my book if they're not hurting anybody else.
Consensual, as it wre.
Well, I might be a lil gay.
I have masterbated, y'know, and that would be the ultimate in liking a man, wouldn't it? As for lesbians, well, who could blame them? I've kissed a lot of girls, and dang! I think they are just doing what feels good. I felt good everytime I kissed a girl.
(maybe I shouldn't have been masterbating THEN...)

As for WMDs, well, c'mon. Something ain't right.
I posted something a bit back using mapquest, and dang! You can SEE small bushes (no, not his family) all over m'yard.
They DID HAVE weapons. They used them on the Kurd allies from bush senior's war, and we didn't act then.
(by the way, that is one of the two. Bush senior was going to decriminalize marijuanna in his second term.
Clinton won. Well, business did good and he got alot of the reagan deficit paid off, but, dang! .... sure would be nice if the stupid government started treating us like real people!)
Now, I'm startin t'wander off, but then, y'all did too, eh?
"Sigh..so off topic...but when ya's readin' the scripture, make a wee mental note how Jesus' tone is different fer, say, Zaccheus ( a big sinner) than fer the Jews He is adressin' in John 8 whar' He says to some "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires.."(Jn 8 44). "
So you note the difference...
should we consider Jesus having two natures as you so readily point out with Mohammed?
You point of Mecca Mohammed being softer, more reasonable and more attuned to praising the CREATOR than Medina Mohammed, a more aggressive natured, don’t turn your cheek to your enemy less he strike you down dead. (that sort of sounds familiar, doesn’t it?) They found that leaving the aggressors who attacked them continue in their course would eventually destroy their way of life.
Thus, the Koran VIII : “Slay the infidel if he attacks you and will not let you practice your religion” (a daily occurrence for Moslems at that time)… “If they desist from opposing you, what is already past shall be forgiven them. But, if they return to attack you the like shall be inflicted on them. Therefore fight against them until there be no oppression in favor of idolatry and the religion be wholly God’s”
Ruth Cranston World Faith ©1948 Harper and Brothers, also a pamphlet, What we All Believe ©1951

"In the One True Word of God, THE LORD OF THE RINGS" now, that don't sound right.... Immunosuppressed
Is that immuno; immune
Suppress; To put an end or stop to, quell; crush, as a rebellion
So that would make him immune to suppression?

OK, I've like gone way too far, but, I gotta tell ya.
Except that I've let some of m'work slide (choppin' wood's a pretty serious job when y'heat with wood in the first place) along with m'paintin' and such and well, gee. It IS fun t'hang around and learn new stuff.
But, now I gotta go fetch up m'paintin' tools and get back to set design fer the kids at church having a show this Sunday.
Y'all are welcome t'come.
You too, Ardlair and Artful.
It might do ya both some good t'soften up yer hearts a bit.

ArtfulSub said...


It was Second book of Timothy CHAPTER THREE and verses 16-17. I left out the Chapter but since I TYPED IT OUT with quote marks, I'm assuming most people got it.

I found your argument hard to follow as you insisted on inserting "bush did this" and "bush did that" into a discussion of Scripture.

I'm GUESSING your central point was that what Christ said equates with what the warlord Mohammed said and DID.

My analysis of that lesson (an analysis widely shared) is that Christ advised us to preach the Good News. And to let those with hardened hearts know that the punishment for ignoring and rejecting it would be fierce. And delivered by GOD. Not by men.

The Warlord said that most people will reject his authority. And that the penalty for rejecting his claims would be fierce. But delivered by MEN not by God. This is what he advised MEN to do. This is what HE himself did.

That was a rather stark difference back then. I'd argue it's an even larger difference in 2007.

A world where very very very few Christian Preachers teach that MEN should kill those who reject the Good News. A world where virtually NONE of the Nations born out of Christianity have a policy that demands that Baptized Christians who convert to other faiths be put to death. Most prescribe no civil penalty at all for that mistake.

Perhaps the question shouldn't have been is Islam inherently evil. Perhaps it should have been has it been a Lingering and Consistent evil?

Those factors of lingering and consistent are PART of how I see the word INHERENT. If something becomes GOOD eventually or goes through phases of GOOD and EVIL, I wouldn't use the word INHERENT.

The message, one I consider evil, that MEN should kill unbelievers has lingered for 1200 years. That message has been consistent throughout those 1200 years.

Maybe others see it differently. And that a religion can be INHERENTLY good but produce evil fruit consistently for 1200 years.

boneman said...

Artful, I think you danced into it then out.
But, maybe the question was
what IS evil?
If it transmophizes into peaceful then warlike, is it judged on the whole of it?
Ends justifying the means?

If you have information that none of the world has, your ear to the CREATOR so to speak, how would we ever come to believe you?

On the other hand, I didn't see your response to the "meanest parts" of the Bible. Just because a person writes something doesn't particularly say that it's true, does it?
No. I think maybe it's good to know of what yer speaking of, kind'a like that.
How do I know that MY opinion's the right opinion?
I don't.
But, if I can get to how I came to that opinion, and feel in my heart it's the right opinion, then, I'm gonna go with it.
Do I ever change my opinion?
How in the name of heaven can anybody really believe they know it all?

No, really.
How is that even possible?
If I use a "pop" from the Bible, and I do on occasion, it usually comes with a "marker" and even if I give it in quotes for folks what don't hjave a Ible handy, well, it's the very thing I quote.
Including the subscript when applicable, and, that, in a weird sort'a way, came from you.
Excommunication by your "great" saint Paul.

In case you're wondering, though, I didn't name out the other verse, only paraphrased it, and it doesn't stand so weak, either.
Nukes from Jesus.
Think so?

I mean, this WAS your challenge, right?

And, to be sure, before I get into some off track conversation with y'all, I'll wander over to yer place, cause I don't think arguing "off subject" is fair to Auntie.

Aunty Belle said...

Ah...SIGH....S I G H .....

I'se tryin' to finish the History essay --but looked in heah--and now I gotta say somethin'.

Boney, Sugar, there is a confusion I think we can clear up. The word "excommunicate" is NOT synonymous with punish.

It is a very precise term that means the person who chooses another path, another belief, is de facto not in communion (agreement) with the others. Therefore, in matters of FAITH (not civil life, politics, charity, etc.) do not have association with them.

Do you see the distinction? It is absolutely NOT a call to mistreat or to deprive or to harm. It simply states taht the communication on matters of faith is not in concert.

Think of it as the Democrats "excommunicating" the republican in their midst. The dems ain't callin' fer his head, ain't starve him...see? They jes' doan wanna let him into their meetin's whar' he will preach the republican party line--they wanna be dems, and to oust the republican ain't cruel.

Jesus never tole nobody to force conversion--if they do not recive ya', move on to the next town. Nuthin' about rapin' pillagin', burnin' stuff down. Simply, move on--no forced conversions.

I'se missin' yore point on St. Paul--why is ya aggravated wif him?
He was a murderous persecutor of the Jews who accepted Jesus--the first Christians. But he repented and spent the rest of his life in service to the gospel.

Gotta git on back to the history essay----

Infinitesimal said...


boney maroney

1) i have a big migraine and a couple of feet of snow's in town and more on the way

2) thanks for the kudos!

3) Floccipaucinhilpilification (is that spelled right?...haha ex.)
if i remember is when one makes the worst of something as in always finding a flaw. picking.... a close word

but it does sound like masturbation which,

4) is spelled with a 'U'

5) i am glad I can speed read
y'all's looooong winded writers!

she said...

you dont have to be put to death under islam if you refuse to convert. you can live as a second class citizen in dihimmitude.....like dennis kucinich does now. grrrerhahahahahaha

boneman said...

Auntie, I got a couple of things, but, it ain't arguin' and take 'em as you want or leave 'em at the curb if that pleases you.
The section I wrote of (2 Timothy 2 ;16-18, plus the notes which also lead to 1 Timothy 1; 20, are from m'Bible,(in whole, no extra comments from me) which I put up as reference material.
Since I felt that the excommunication, (and I call it that, though Paul says he "handed them over to satan," ) having known of folks who got tossed out'a church for silliness of the church elders, felt this to be the harder, or "meaner" thing to do.

Now, if you're saying that Jesus didn't force any conversions...well, thank the Lord, we's on the same track.
So, being as there was no coercion, what shall we do with Luke 10; 10-12?
You see, I too believe that a forced conversion, whether by death OR threat is worthless. It's as worthless as the rich man sittin' in the front of the church crying about how much money he gives....
So worthless, in fact, that I tend to believe that it was added (gasp!) after the death of Jesus.

I'm almost sure you believe in a man (born of the CREATOR) that taught peace and goodwill towards all mankind (not to be confused with genderization [which I will pretend to be a word, though I don't have my dictionary with me, today] and even meant for all other religions and pagans) which makes for quite a lot of contradiction.
HOWEVER, it has little to do with your present discussion (essay) on Islam.
It was the only way I could see to defend myself from the ravages (now, THAT'S really gotta be the wrong word...) of Artful,
("If Boneman would actually cite that "meanest sort of stuff", I'd be happy to explain why it is COMPLETELY different than what's in the Koran and that it never has and never will apply to Christians as an Action Plan.")
who for some reason thinks I'm left handed, and
"launched a personal attack"
"Boneman's diatribe"
"one lefty would chant"
"Perhaps the similarity in their names confuses Boneman?"
"Since it's a PROVEN FACT that Christian Conservatives give FAR more of their time and treasure to help the poor than allegedly "compassionate" big-government-loving lefties." (this one actually SOUNDS like the rich guy in the front of the church)
...now add that to the fact that she was defending someone who felt my family should be attacked and killed by Muslims, that wants to use nuclear devices on innocent people (why not Medina instead of Mecca? Because that person never did a lick of reference work on it) and so, ....
It could be over-reaction.

Like a kid in m'church who reads on my blog thinking I'm pro-Islam.

I had to explain that I'm pro-CREATOR, not pro-religion of any type.
And part of the reason is folks like Paul....
Dang, those were LETTERS to folks and he never meant for them to be put in the BIBLE!
His whole idea of the Bible was, basically, the OLD TESTAMENT, and he felt NOTHING
(no mistake here)
NOTHING should ever be added to it.
He knew Peter was giving the "history" to Mark. That gaule him so much he opened his own diatribe against him.

But, I am NOT pro Islam.
I like that the first Mohammed put down was praise the CREATOR, and if he had had a stronger hand and a mind to match, he would have stood strong in saying "do not change what is written" but he didn't.
At that time only two entities used that phrasing.
The Jews and the Egyptians.

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book; if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away from his share in the tree of life and in the holy city...."
This warning followed many books of the Bible, but, many were removed before it was actually condensed into the one single book we know. Of course, by leaving it as the ending, it makes for a grander expanse of the threat, doesn't it? I've heard preachers call out those last words and declare them to mean the whole Bible.

Now for desert.
Islam, as it is right now, the re-written books are evil.
But, as they were re-written through time, always replaced with something stronger (what the heck are they thinking? Do you imagine they thought that it would be more god-like? I dunno.)
but, for that, it is ONLY word of man.
Just like the letters of Paul.

Heck, Auntie. I mean y'all are teaching us in ways of the church (sort of) and what did Paul say about women folk doin' that?
He was wrong.
(some bright boy either put the "other" agenda in or that one. Or is it that Paul was like a chameleon (we spoke about this before) speaking and writing to folks in their ways so they could understand him.
If only he had understood that the baptism of fire meant that others would understand him if he just spoke to the truth and not to his learning.

Now, as fer hanging around here while folks are waitin' fer that part two, well, I can't say to be the blame fer that. I was answerin' up to that "mean" girl and, to be sure, I paint with BOTH hands.

I thought fer sure somebody would ask what kind of degree I got, I mean, after six years in college (two different times, under the command of two different wives, too, I might add) but, nobody asked.
And, considering the battle grounds around here, it would have been a truthful answer, though I'm sure some would think I was just making another joke (I can't help THAT. Folks, everybody NEEDS to laugh more)

"OK, boneman. What did you get yer degree in?" they would ask.
...and I would say, "why, Liberal Arts."
and that's the truth.

boneman said...

meanwhile, we's all chompin' at the bit (especially that guy at Artful's) (no, really. Go look) fer the next part, so, get to it, gal!

(jiminy, this guy NEVER shuts up, does he?)

By the way, the "propaganda" word I wrote of is straight put'a the dict.
My own take on the word is
Anything one doesn't want to believe, when stated, is propaganda.
I like my meaning better because you ain't propagandizin'.
Yer essayin'.

Aunty Belle said...

Infini, I'se so so sorry fer yore sufferin's---what about that new med?? I'se tired of that snow--come on down here and sit in some sunshine!

Yeah She-pup! Hahhahahaha....dhimitude comin' up next--tho , (yikes) delayed for too much merriment wif Anon Boxer's shindig.

Boney....okay, let's take a piercing look at what yore premise is. Ya wrote:

"So, being as there was no coercion, what shall we do with Luke 10; 10-12?
You see, I too believe that a forced conversion, whether by death OR threat is worthless...
So worthless, in fact, that I tend to believe that it was added (gasp!) after the death of Jesus.'

First, nope, it was not added by Jesus, He meant it--but not as a threat. Jesus simply explains that all folks have a choice. Choices have consequences. Jesus names the consequence. Jesus doan want NObody to have to suffer them -

-BUT precisely because there is no forced conversion in Christianity , precisely because youse free to choose, JEsus doan undo yore choice by removing the consequences--iffin' He did, then yore choice was not a choice at all, but a pretend act.

This is serious bidness, Boney. The Creator of the Universe set upo certain prameters. It ain't nobody's opinion, in the same way that the "Sun rises in the east" ain't opinion. So it ain't about you or me or Artful of Ardlair or She-dawgy or Infini or anybody's opinion. We cain't bat it around like a ball.

This Luke 10 citation is s sober truth--elsewhar' we git the same message: "He who is not with Me is against Me" and " If you love Me keep My commandments."

Since there are only two final destinies, heaven or hell, each person spends they life figgerin' out which one they want, and iffin' the time in this plane is all they want to worry about and --literlly-to hell with the other/.

This means that when JEsus says that out straight, it sure ain't no threat, it jes is a serious reminder that iffin' ya doan choose yore Creator, then de facto, youse rejected yore Creator--and iffin' youse rejected Him, He ain't gonna force ya to come wif' Him an' live in His presence. Bottom line: He will leave you to yore choice.

Thas' what St. Paul is sayin, Sugar...that he'll (have ) to leave you to Satan, BECAUSE, that is what was freely chosen.

Ya got a kid ya love. Ya teach him that he needs schoolin'. He laughs and plays--ya make it possible fer him to git the education he needs--he slaps it way, skips outa school and does his own thang...ya tell him, "Ya need school so ya can have a job and a roof over ya haid and vittles in yore belly...and he barks back"Is ya threatenin' me wif' poverty Dad?"

Course ya ain't threatenin' that kid--all ya's doin' is tellin' him plain that they's consequences to his choice to reject education.

That's what God the Father done--made it possible fer ya to have salvation, He wants ALL to have redemption (1Tim 2:3-4) --but ya gotta CHOOSE it, live it.

Boney, I'se sick ter death of the lie out there by the preacher-feel-goods, dronin' on about gentle-Jesus-meek-an-mild, as iffin' thar' was no time when the sweetness and the meeknes has to finally give way to the justice of God.

The sweetnness is the invitation---the wooing, the pleading wif ya as a child of His to come on home, git in out of the darknes of sin and error--follow the Light--but as scripture notes, some men prefer the dark. In the dark they can pursue their sins, the choose sin. God doan save nobody against they will. If they choose dark, He leaves them to it. Thas' St. Paul's message, an' thas' Luke 10:10.

There are physical laws of the universe, set in place by the Creator of the universe--but that ain't nuthin', darlin'. They's also spiritual laws of the universe and they are more important since they concern yore soul. Jes' like a mess-up against nature brings consequences, a mess-up against the spiritual laws also have a consequence.

Ya cain't live a life in opposition to God and then be surprised He let ya have what ya made of yoreself. Nope--He makes salvation POSSIBLE, but not obligatory.

As fer St. Paul tellin' women not to teach, he didn't refer to this sort of exchange we's havin'...he meant in an position of religious authority. No women priests. (That is another topic that is very fertile--we'uns need to save it fer later.)

Lastly, on the TOPIC of this post--Islamic teaching, the verses of the Qur'an were changed by MOHAMED. The essay goes into that point--ya can read in the Qur'an how Mohamed got later messages and said that the later verses abrogated the earlier--the way we know that Mohamed beleived this change is that his own conduct reflected the changes--he was a murderous thief, Boney. Not a prophet of God .

Mohamed did see a benefit to a unifying religion--he saw it as as cohesion for nationalism--the Arabs and their lesser kin (Bedouins) needed something to bolster their identity against the Persians and Greeks.

Mohamed was influenced by all manner of religious ideas. PLEASE review the original essay on this point.

There is nothing good about the way Islam was taught or practiced by Mohamed or his followers. It is exactly this:

A military -political ideology with a religious veneer.

Thanky Boney fer ya references--I'se interested in them.pork

American Interests said...

Geez 112+ comments here...Place is on fire...Was passing through Aunty thought to say Hi...and thanks for you visits at AI...

Infinitesimal said...

hi auntie

that new med works on everything except the weather related migraines.

i am tonight pulling an all nighter to make up my missed week.

hey i got one thing to say right now

when i figured i would reject God
as a "master" of my universe....
my life (the one I was in control of) did not go so well at all.

so then when i cleaned out my mind and heart (no small task) and made an honest, adult, informed choice to ask holy spirit in,
things got better REAL FAST.

So I know there is an argument that this effect is manufactured somehow by my own mind.... i don't think so.

So alls I can say is from my own experience, my life sucks way less with God in my heart and not just by my side.

And when I deeply love someone I feel compelled to try to explain that feeling and the peacefulness of flowing in God's will.

Not because I feel mandated, but just because I love to share what I personally know to be good things.

Man, wish me luck on this APA paper cause I ain't even STARTED to write it yet!

Aunty Belle said...

YES Infini!! Yep!! See, yore personal experience makes ya' want to share yore faith--not an urge to make yore faith rule the world. You share with love, not by force.

So happy to know meds mostly work...best of luck on the APA paper.

Infinitesimal said...

hi Bellsey

I am doing an APA paper on QUality of Life Assessment with a focus on Spirituality.

I came across this quote:

"an analysis of religion as a goal-based meaning system facilitates an understanding of the dynamic, process-oriented function of religion and could provide a unifying framework for the psychological study of religion. To the extent that their meaning-making systems contain religious and spiritual goals to strive for, they are likely to experience life as fulfilling, meaningful, and purposeful, even in the face of a deteriorating and disabling physical condition. Religion is, thus, able to serve as a general unifying framework to bring about harmony and connection among a person’s diverse strivings."

and i thought it might be fun to share as it seems to pertain to our offshoot discussion here.


Infinitesimal said...

"There are many possible ways in which spiritual goals might not contribute to well-being, and may even be detrimental for well-being."

At first I thought to leave this last sentence out, but I see where it is a good addition especially as relating to the topic of your essay here.

Anonymous said...

[b]autocad free download, [url=http://firgonbares.net/]i buy macromedia[/url]
[url=http://firgonbares.net/][/url] le logiciel coreldraw nero 9 activation crack
shareware software downloads [url=http://firgonbares.net/]an oem software[/url] campus software discount
[url=http://firgonbares.net/]software super store[/url] office 2007 enterprise genuine error
[url=http://firgonbares.net/]adobe creative suite 4 premium best value[/url] adobe software reseller
adobe software reseller [url=http://firgonbares.net/]adobe photoshop cs4 student edition[/b]

Anonymous said...

[b]adobe creative suite 4 production premium crack, [url=http://vonmertoes.net/]lp software store[/url]
[url=http://vonmertoes.net/][/url] buy pirated softwares Advanced Mac Retail
sell adobe software [url=http://hopresovees.net/]office 97 software[/url] latest microsoft software
[url=http://hopresovees.net/]microsoft office enterprise 2007 suite[/url] buying software licenses
[url=http://bariossetos.net/]autocad xref will not print[/url] cheap oem software for
shop savvy software [url=http://bariossetos.net/]best academic software[/b]

Anonymous said...

[b]photoshop cs4 for mac crashed, [url=http://vonmertoes.net/]adobe creative suite 3[/url]
[url=http://hopresovees.net/][/url] office communication software buy cheap software review
software discount game software [url=http://hopresovees.net/]buy software australia[/url] is there photoshop cs4 for mac
[url=http://vonmertoes.net/]hot key adobe acrobat 9 pro[/url] adobe acrobat 9 professional
[url=http://hopresovees.net/]buy downloadable software[/url] kaspersky 7
buy a software [url=http://vonmertoes.net/]Leopard Retail Price[/b]

Anonymous said...

A friend of mine mentioned 2012 last night to me and it's the first I heard about it so I jumped on here out of curiosity. I think it's kind of sick and sounds like a bunch of skeptical jargon.
I choose to live every day like it is the last because let's be real, WHO THE HELL KNOWS what is going to happen or when it's your time to go on. The past is history, the future is a mystery and now is a gift, thats why it's called the present. It's not healthy to sit around and trip out about when you will die. Stop wasting your time you have now.
]future and past of the earth
[/url] - some truth about 2012

Anonymous said...

Exсellent weblog here! Alѕo yοur sіte rather а lot
up veгy fast! What host aгe уou the usagе of?

Can I get yοur aѕsoсiate link to yοur
hοѕt? I wiѕh my ωebsіte loаdеd up
as fast as yοurs lοl

Ηere is mу pagе ... back links checker
Also see my web page :: Analyze Backlinks

Anonymous said...

You're so awesome! I don't think I've truly read through something like this before. So nice to find somebody with a few genuine thoughts on this issue. Really.. thank you for starting this up. This site is something that is required on the internet, someone with some originality!

Also visit my web blog ... Sac a main Guess

Anonymous said...

Every weekend i used to pay a visit this web page,
as i want enjoyment, since this this web page conations genuinely fastidious
funny information too.

Check out my website: Louis Vuitton Bags

Anonymous said...

Heya i'm for the first time here. I found this board and I find It truly useful & it helped me out much. I hope to give something back and aid others like you aided me.

Also visit my web-site Louis Vuitton Bags

Anonymous said...

Every weekend i used to pay a quick visit this web site,
because i wish for enjoyment, for the reason that this this website
conations really pleasant funny material too.

Here is my page - Tory Burch Flats

Anonymous said...

Hey there! This is my first visit to your blog! We are a collection of volunteers and starting a new initiative in a
community in the same niche. Your blog provided us valuable information to work on.
You have done a extraordinary job!

Look into my web page :: Cheap Jerseys

Anonymous said...

I enjoy reading an article that can make men and women
think. Also, many thanks for allowing me to comment!

Also visit my blog post :: continue reading *drugoymir.net*