Tag Archives: Muslim

Meme of the Month: Why don’t Leftists worry about Obama forcing his “Christianity” on others?

There was a murder case where the victim was considered missing for weeks until they found her body.  The man they found guilty, based on circumstantial evidence, maintains his innocence to this day.  Perhaps he isn’t guilty, but one thing about the case always stuck out to me: He would often text and call the victim, but stopped immediately after she was dead.  If he didn’t know she was dead, wouldn’t he have still tried to contact her?  Maybe there was a good reason, but when he was asked the question he was tongue-tied.  I think his inside knowledge changed his behavior.  He covered things up as best he could, but never thought to call or text someone he knew was dead.

In the same way, when the Left — and especially the “Christian” Left — worries about real Christians in office, they completely tip their hands.

Some memes are much more accurate and powerful than others.  This one speaks volumes.

b

 

If they were truly concerned about religious beliefs in the public square, they would have the same concerns about Obama, Hillary and other Leftists pretending to care about what Jesus said.  But everyone on their side is in on the charade.  They know they are just faking it — or that they really worship the fake Jesus of Jeremiah Wright, Chuck Currie, Mark Sandlin, etc. — so they don’t care.

I realize that people can fake it on the right as well, but you don’t catch those people trying to dismiss the Leftist “Christians” because of their religious beliefs.

The reason that Whoopi et al don’t fret about Obama’s “Christianity” — you know, the faith they get so wounded about if you dare question it — is that they know it is false.  But their words betray them when they hold conservatives to an entirely different standard.

One of my favorite things to do when people play the “You’re forcing your religious views on me” card is to ask them to point me to anywhere where they have been equally strident in opposing the religious Left. After all, if “forcing religious views” was such a horrible thing, they should be actively protesting the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, all the fake Christian denominations pushing taxpayer-funded abortion and oxymoronic “same-sex marriage,” increased taxes, etc.

I’ve yet to get anything besides crickets chirping in response.

Good news from the Middle East

We spent a few hours in the Dubai airport a couple years ago on our way to and from Kenya, but didn’t go out into the city.  It was a huge and wildly busy airport 24 hours a day.  Even from the airport windows the city looked beautiful.  I assumed it was as restrictive about Christianity as other Muslim nations, but apparently not.  Via Dubai: Amazing and Strategic City – Desiring God.

Proselytizing is against the law in the UAE. But what that means in essence is: You can’t pay someone to convert (as if that were possible) or unduly coerce them to change religions. But speaking the gospel of Jesus Christ abounds.

There are many Christian churches, and the ruler of the emirate is favorable to them for the sake of the expatriates. Only about 13% of Dubai’s local population is local Emirati people. The other 87% are expatriates, half of whom are of Indian descent. Thousands of these are Christians.

Therefore, the gospel sounds forth weekly in Dubai. And on the university campuses, there are organizations that aggressively seek to speak to students about what the Bible really teaches.

That is the best possible definition of proselytizing.  By definition, authentic Christian faith can’t be bought or coerced.  I hope and pray that this situation lasts and that the Gospel spreads from there to the rest of the region.

Who is a Christian? Who is a Muslim?

church.jpgIf I claimed to be a bacon-loving, Jew-loving, Koran-denying, Mohammad-denying Muslim, would you take me seriously?  I doubt it.

I have found that for many people the word “Christian” has lost or changed meaning.  It used to mean someone who was an authentic follower of Jesus.  Now it is often used as a synonym for “nice,” as in, “She’s a really Christian person,” or to describe someone who goes to church sometimes but rejects the essentials of the faith.

Theological liberals tend to get very wounded if you imply that they don’t hold Christian views.  They’ve been in theologically liberal churches so long and have such a low view of scripture that they think that is the way church is supposed to be.

Mind you, I don’t go around saying who is and isn’t an authentic Christian.  That’s God’s job.  I’m not qualified and wouldn’t want it even if I were.

Jesus did say that you will know them by their fruit, so it is fair to examine people’s lives to see if they have evidence for their faith.  But mistakes can be made during fruit inspection.  We would have probably thought that Judas was the real deal, and we probably would have thought that the criminal on the cross was not.

But it does seem fair to point out when self-described Christians don’t hold views that have historically applied to Christians, as evidenced in the Bible, countless creeds and denominational statements of faith.  That means that they are either “saved and confused” or not real Christians.

First, consider this conversation:

Me: I’m a Muslim.

Real Muslim: No, you’re not.

Me: Really, I am, and I’m offended that you say I’m not.

RM: Do you believe the Koran is the word of God?

Me: No, of course not.  It was written by a man, and has obvious historical errors like saying that Jesus didn’t die on the cross.  It was written hundreds of years after Christ, and even sources outside the Bible claim that Jesus himself died.  And don’t get me started about all the violence it encourages!  Why trust the Koran?

RM: Do you believe in Allah as the one true God?

Me: No.

RM: Do you like Jewish people?

Me: Yes.

RM: What do you think about pork?

Me: Mmmmmmm . . . bacon!

RM: You aren’t a Muslim.

Me: Yes I am!  How dare you question my faith!

Sounds ridiculous, right?  Now consider this:

Me: Are you a Christian?

Liberal theologian: Yes.

Me: Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

LT: No.  Even though it claims to speak for God roughly 3,000 times, I think those are all made up by people.

Me: Do you think Jesus is God?

LT: No.

Me: Do you believe any of the miracles as recorded in the Bible are true?

LT: No.  Miracles can’t happen.  Writers made those up.

Me: Do you think Jesus is the only way to salvation?

LT: No.
Me: But the Bible teaches that in over 100 passages!

LT: [Pause] Uh, so what?  The Bible was written by men . . . [trails off because he didn’t know that]

Me: Do you believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead?

LT: No.

Me: Do you look for opportunities to share the Gospel as outlined in the Bible?

LT: Of course not.  All religions (or no religions) are valid paths to God.

Me: Do you realize how radically different your basic views are compared to Christians throughout the last 2,000 years, especially to the countless Christians who died rather than recant their faith?

LT: Sort of . . . but we’re smarter than they were.

Me: Indeed.  But you say you are Christian?

LT: Yes.  How dare you question my faith?!

Is the first conversation that much different than the second?

I haven’t had that precise conversation with any liberal Christians, but it is a highly accurate composite.  Try it yourself.  I’m virtually certain that any of the “Jesus Seminar” members would answer the questions that way.  For example, I read a book co-authored by Marcus Borg (a member of the Jesus Seminar) and he held all the heretical views noted above, plus more.  Most of the theologically Liberal people at the Sojourners’ blog are just like that.

These people may be terrific citizens and friendly neighbors, but calling themselves Christians distorts the traditional and real meaning of the word.  Again, if I claimed to be a bacon-loving, Jew-loving, Koran-denying, Mohammad-denying Muslim, would you take me seriously?  So why take seriously those who claim the name of Christ yet mock the essentials of the faith?

Roundup

One of the most sadly and morbidly ironic things ever: Brooklyn ‘Life Coach’ Couple Who Hosted Self-Help Radio Show Commit Double Suicide.

They hosted a monthly radio show called “The Pursuit of Happiness” on WBAI that focused on “personal development and growth.” WBAI describes them as speakers and “life coaches.”

Hat tip: Wintery Knight

It isn’t just harassment from the IRS, it is from the EPA and other organizations such as the police.  Yet the media is following the Democrats’ script that these abuses of power are an overreach by Republicans.  Nonsense.

ACLU Sues to Allow Abortions Based on Race, Who’s the Racist Now? — Charming.  They also defend gender-selection abortions, nearly all of which destroy females for the sole reason that they are female.  Why?  Because the Left is pro-women, of course!

On May 29, the ACLU filed suit (on behalf of two civil rights groups) to stop an Arizona pro-life law.This law, passed in 2011, is designed to prohibit doctors and abortion providers from performing abortions that they know are based on the gender or race of the child. One could reasonably assume that all Americans – and civil rights groups in particular – would oppose targeting any human being for death based simply on her gender or race. Sadly, in the face of abortion, we can no longer make reasonable assumptions. While somewhere between 77-86% of Americans agree with banning abortions based on gender, the ACLU has determined to rebel against this basic ideal of a civilized society. To the ACLU, abortion on demand apparently means that abortion done for any reason – no matter how outrageous – must be fully supported. It’s a sad day in America when leading civil rights groups take a stand on the side of gendercide and blatant racism. Yet this is one more horrible direction where abortion leads us. Arizona’s law does not penalize women who seek abortions based on the gender or race of their child. It only penalizes the abortionist. Despite this obvious fact, the executive director of one of the civil rights groups the ACLU is representing stated:  ‘This law is clearly a wolf in sheep’s clothing that purports to be about achieving equality for women when in reality it’s an attempt to control our reproductive decisions-making,’ said Miriam Yeung, NAPAWF’s executive director. ‘We hope the judgment in this case will expose the true intentions of the politicians behind these abortion bans and show unequivocally that they discriminate against women of color, Asian-American and African-American in particular.’

As always, the spin about “reproductive decisions” fails the basic science test.  All abortions are designed to kill human beings who have already been reproduced.  The decision isn’t whether to reproduce but whether to kill the unwanted human being who has been reproduced. More evil from the ACLU: But … It Was Consensual!

The case of 18-year-old Kaitlyn Hunt, charged with a felony for having sex with a 14-year-old, has elicited the support of the American Civil Liberties Union, which calls this “behavior that is both fairly innocuous and extremely common.” Well, OK, if 18 and 14 is no problem, how about 13 and 19? And how about a foursome? Three 19-year-old northwest Indiana men have been charged separately with child molesting involving the same 13-year-old girl, the Post-Tribune is reporting.

The push for “morning after pills” and abortions for young girls and the Planned Parenthood-style “kids should have sex when they think they are ready” nonsense have handed pedophiles and statutory rapists a great defense: If the kids can have consensual sex with other 12-13 year olds, why not 15? Or 18? or 28?

Sifting Reality asked, “Is there a legitimate reason abortion defenders fight to limit or eliminate parental notification laws?”  My answer: No. The typical argument I’ve heard is that the girl might get hurt by her parents. But we have laws for that. And take it to its logical conclusion: Kids “might” get abused for getting in trouble at school, or getting bad grades, or getting in trouble with the police, etc. So using the pro-abortion logic of insisting that the risk of getting abused means you don’t have a right to know that your child is having a physically and emotionally dangerous medical procedure to kill your grandchild, you would to give every kid all A’s, you couldn’t discipline or arrest them, etc. It is only the depraved desire to be able to kill unwanted human beings that would make someone even consider that stupid argument.

Video: Tea Party activist describes IRS intimidation tactics — This is the tip of the iceberg.  This should be a thoroughly well-documented anti-IRS issue for many years to come.

And another, where they protect the baby killers at Planned Parenthood from being protested — Pro-life victim of IRS targeting testifies before Ways and Means Committee.

Then there is the audacity of the Democrats and their owned media to blame the victims of the IRS abuse.  They deliberately abused their power to intimate donors.

5 Lies the Democrats Told To Sell Obamacare — And they weren’t even clever lies.  They were identified as lies before it even passed.

Obamacare hasn’t fully taken effect yet, but when it does, it’s only going to get worse. Everything from death panels to unimaginably long waits for surgeries to bureaucrats denying effective, relatively common, currently in use treatments because they are “too expensive” are all coming down the pike. Obamacare is too much of a disaster to truly fix; so the best thing we can do right now is let this nightmare become reality, let people see how bad it is and then insist on a repeal or bust. Either the Democrats live with the disaster they’ve inflicted on the American people at the ballot box long term or they do the right thing and allow us to repeal this monstrosity before it does even more damage to our country.

From the religion of peace and the politically correct cowards who refuse to call it out:

Something simple that every Christian should know about the Quran

Please read this short but extremely important article: The Qu’ran says the Bible is not corrupt.  This is a great message to share with Muslims who have been told that the Bible has been corrupted.  Using their own “holy book” we can point them back to what should be a common source: The Bible.

The short version: The Quran itself claims that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel are from Allah and that Allah’s words cannot be changed.

Here’s a sample:

The Muslims repeatedly claim that the Bible has been corrupted and that the Qu’ran is the only trustworthy scripture in existence. This is why Muslims often attack the Bible. But this cannot be acording to the Quran. The Quran says that the books of Moses, the Psalms, and the gospel were all given by God.

Torah – “We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers,” (Sura 2:87).1

Psalms – “We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms,” (4:163).

Gospel – “It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong),” (3:3).

. . .

We see that the Qu’ran states that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel were all given by God. With this we Christians heartily agree. But, the Muslims claim that the Bible is corrupted and full of contradictions. If that is so, then it would seem they do not believe the Qu’ran since the Qu’ran says that the Word of God cannot be altered:

“Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers,” (6:34).

. . .

This means that at that time the Bible, which was in existence, could not have been corrupted because the Qu’ran states that God’s word cannot be corrupted. The question I have for the Muslims is “When and where was the Bible corrupted, since the Qu’ran says that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel are from Allah and Allah’s words cannot be changed?”

Update: I should have just linked to this: According to the Qur’an, the Qur’an is false.

–The Old Testament (the Book) and the Gospels (the Injil) were written chronologically prior to the Qur’an.
–The Qur’an claims that the Book and the Injil are the Word of Allah.
–The Word of Allah cannot be changed.
–The manuscripts of the Book and the Injil prior to and in the time of Muhammad and at the time the Qur’an was compiled bear the same message as the Bible we have today.
–The Bible makes theological claims in direct opposition to the theological claims of the Qur’an.
–The Qur’an insists we can and should trust the Bible (which is God’s Word and cannot be changed or corrupted).
–Since the Bible came before the Qur’an, and the Bible is the incorruptible word of God, then anything coming after the Bible which claims to be the Word of God but is different from the Bible, it is therefore false and not of God.
–Therefore, if the Bible is accurate (from 2, 3, and 5) then the Qur’an is false (from 2, 3, 6, and 7).
–Put more briefly: If the Qur’an is true, then the Bible is true, which means the Qur’an is false — and by extension, so is the religion of Islam.

And here’s another great set of resources for sharing the truth with Muslims.

—–

Bonus: Another simple but crucial thing to know about the Quran is that it makes a clear historical error about the death of Jesus. This passage explicitly denies that Jesus died on the cross:

And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him – they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him. Instead, GOD raised him to Him; GOD is Almighty, Most Wise.

Quran, Sura 4:157-158

That is a very clear claim that Jesus did not die on the cross, whereas we know from the Bible and even secular history that Jesus did die on the cross. Then one guy came along over 500 years later with a radical new story about how Jesus didn’t die on the cross, though he had zero evidence behind it.  Zero.

When I speak with Muslims I always bring this example up matter-of-factly.  First I clarify with them that this is what the Quran teaches.   They always agree, except one guy who wasn’t familiar with it (I showed him the reference and I think it helped plant some seeds of doubt).

Then I just explain why I hold the view that Jesus died on the cross: Lots of testimonies written close to the event and plenty of secular historians backing it up vs. one guy over 500 years later with an alleged vision from God.  No serious historian would consider the Islamic version to be more credible.

Is it possible that Mohammad was right about Jesus not dying on the cross?  In a hyper-technical sense, I suppose so.  But you’d have to throw every historical event ever up for grabs using that approach.

This isn’t some small issue, either.  It is an essential claim for Christianity and a key error in the Quran.

Is it really a religion of peace?

The religion in question is Islam, of course, and the answer is no.  So why do so many false teachers say it is?  They are either ignorant useful idiots (bad) or knowingly malicious (worse).  As always, I thank God for disobedient Muslims who don’t do what the Quran says.

Via The violent Quran:

The Quran does not have a single verse encouraging love towards those outside of Islam. But there are 493 passages that either endorse violence or talk about the hatred of Allah for the infidels, meaning all non-Muslims. The Quran is a book mainly concerned with how Muslims are to think and act towards those outside of Islam; that is, either kill them or force them to live as second-class citizens and pay taxes (Jizya). More than half the contents of the Quran are texts despising or inciting against non-Muslims. This is what turns Islam into a religion of hate and violence, for which history carries much evidence.

Those criticizing Islam are branded with epithets such as “Islamophobe”, “racist” or “right-wing extremist”. A phobia is an unjustified fear of something. Criticizing Islam does not constitute a phobia, but rather a very much justified activity, bearing in mind the content of the above-mentioned scripture, as well as current events in Muslim countries as well as in the Western world. Islam is not merely a religion, it is also a totalitarian theological and political ideology, according to which everything has to be subject to the Quran and the Shariah. It denies fundamental human rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression and equal rights for women. The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam is a United Nations “Regional instrument” that may be applied as alternative to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, signed by all 57 members of the OIC, clearly stipulates that human rights are subject to Shariah and interpreted according to it.

 

It is a sad, sad day for false teachers. Islamic whitewashing coming in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

That sound you hear is that of false teachers crying because the Boston terrorists weren’t “right wing extremists.”  So they will have to completely re-do their blog posts and recycle a previous one where they ignore history, the Quaran and common sense and pretend that Islam is a religion of peace.  It is also a buzzkill for their memes on why we should get rid of the 2nd Amendment.

Note: I’m not saying all Muslims are terrorists.  It isn’t a monolith of a pure set of beliefs any more than all those claiming the name of Christ believe and do the same things.  I know plenty of Muslims who are “bad Muslims” in the sense that they don’t follow the Quaran.  Good for them.  I also know lots of “bad Christians” who really are bad in the sense that they do the opposite of the Bible.  Bad for them.

But don’t sit by and let the fake Christians make things worse by ignoring the threat of Islam.  It isn’t a phobia if the threat is real.

Also see Allen West on the real problem.  If you really love people you will seek to protect them.

Let me be very clear, the terrorist attack in Boston and evolving events indicate we have a domestic radical Islamic terror problem in America. We must no longer allow the disciples of political correctness and the acolytes of the Muslim Brotherhood (CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, MAS) to preach to us some misconceived definition of tolerance and subservience. When tolerance becomes a one way street it leads to cultural suicide. Carlos Bledsoe in Little Rock, MAJ Hasan in Ft Hood, the Ft Dix Six, Faisal Shahazad in NYC Times Square — these are just the examples I can type now. When Rep Peter King attempted to have hearings on domestic terrorism he was attacked for being racist. No more excuses. No more apologies. We are in a war of ideological wills, and we shall prevail. Congratulations to all the law enforcement agencies.

Oh, and on the topic of gun control, I’m pretty sure many Liberals in Boston were wishing they had a gun for self defense right about now.

Gun registries and background checks are either meaningless or malicious.

Meaningless: The criminals won’t participate, so all you have is an expensive, burdensome process to gather a list of law-abiding citizens.

Malicious: The lists will ultimately be used to disarm law-abiding citizens.