Thursday, May 25, 2017

Muhammad Belongs To Jesus

Muhammad told his followers that Jesus was just a prophet, simply a messenger, no more than an apostle.
Qur'an 5:75— Christ the son of Mary was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him.
According to Islam, Jesus was a prophet of God. That means we have to believe what He says. Right? Muhammad also said that Christians have to judge by what they read in the Gospel.
Qur'an 5:47— Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.
In the Qur'an, Christians are commanded to judge by what they read in the Gospel. Here is where Islam runs into all sorts of problems. In Matthew 11:27, Jesus says:
All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
Jesus refers to God as His Father. Islam teaches that Allah is a Father to no one. Jesus refers to Himself as the Son. Islam teaches that Allah has no son. Putting those issues aside, let us look at Jesus' claim more closely. The Father has handed everything over to Jesus. Since the Father has handed everything over to Jesus, Jesus owns and possesses everything that belongs to the Father. Right? Let us compare this verse to another verse in John 16:15:
All things that the Father has are Mine.
Consider the theological depths of this: "All things that the Father has are Mine." Including His attributes. But let us put that issue aside as well. Notice that it does not say "some" things, or even "most" things, but all things. "All things that the Father has are Mine." Jesus says that everything that belongs to the Father belongs to Him. According to Islam, what belongs to God? Everything. Even Muhammad belongs to God. Right, Muslims?

If Muhammad belongs to God, and if everything that belongs to God belongs to Jesus, then Muhammad belongs to Jesus. In other words, Jesus owns Muhammad. (Pun intended, on so many levels.) Muhammad is the personal property of Jesus. Muslims try and tell us that we need to accept Muhammad, but why would we accept Muhammad when we can accept the One Who owns Muhammad? Muslims are following the property, while Christians are following the Owner.

Islam self-destructs by rejecting the clear teaching of the Qur'an. If Jesus owns everything, then Islam is false. Islam teaches that Jesus was just a prophet. A mere prophet could never claim to own everything that God owns. If Muslims try to tell us that Jesus was wrong or that He was lying when He said that everything that belongs to God belongs to Him, then Islam is false. According to Islam, Jesus was a messenger of God Who spoke the truth. He could not have lied about owning everything. If Muslims claim that the Gospel has been corrupted, then Islam is false. The Qur'an commands Christians to judge by the Gospel. The Qur'an upholds the purity, authenticity, and authority of both the Old Testament and the New Testament:
Qur'an 3:3— 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 Torah (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus).

Qur'an 5:66— If only they had stood fast by the Torah and the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have eaten both from above them and from below their feet.

Qur'an 5:68— Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Torah, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord."
If the Bible is corrupt, when did it become corrupt? If before Muhammad, then Muhammad is in error. According to the Qur'an, no one can corrupt God's Word.
Qur'an 18:27— And recite what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord, there is none who can alter His words.
Who can corrupt the Word of God, according to the Qur'an? Can Christians corrupt it? Can Jews corrupt it? "There is none who can alter His words." If the Gospel has been corrupted, then Islam is false because the Qur'an claims that no one can corrupt God's Word. Either the Gospel is the inspired, preserved, authoritative Word of God or it is not. It is one or the other.

Premise #1: If the Gospel is the inspired, preserved, authoritative Word of God, then Islam is false because Islam contradicts the Gospel.

Premise #2: If the Gospel is not the inspired, preserved, authoritative Word of God, then Islam is false because the Qur'an claims that the Gospel is the inspired, preserved, authoritative Word of God.

Conclusion: Islam is false.

If the Bible is the Word of God, Islam is false. If the Bible is not the Word of God, Islam is false. Either way, Islam is false. Therefore, Islam is false.

Is not logic a wonderful thing?

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Who Is A True Muslim?

You hear many politicians, reporters, Leftists, and "moderate" Muslims claiming that terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, Isis, Hamas, etc., are not true Muslims and do not represent Islam. They will attempt to tell you that if a Muslim kills other Muslims, he/she is not a true Muslim. Oddly enough, these terrorist groups claim that "moderate" Muslims are not true Muslims and do not represent Islam. Who is telling the truth? Who is a real Muslim? Let us check our facts.

Muhammad gave Aishah the title "Mother of the Faithful." He gave Ali the title "Commander of the Faithful." The Mother of the Faithful lead an army against the Commander of the Faithful and about 10,000 Muslims died in bloody combat. They regarded each other as hypocrites and apostates. Maybe, according to these politicians, reporters, Leftists, and "moderate" Muslims, that entire first generation of Muslims were not true Muslims. This is what Muhammad had to say:
Sahih Muslim 6470— "The Messenger of Allah was asked: 'Which of the people are the best?' He said: 'My generation, then those who come after them, then those who come after them.'"

Sahih Muslim 6478— "A man asked the Prophet: 'Which people are best?' He said: 'The generation to whom I was sent, then the second, then the third.'"
According to Muhammad, as found in the Muslim's own sources, the best Muslims were the very first generation of Muslims. But the first generation of Muslims killed other Muslims; so according to modern Muslims, the first generation of Muslims were not true Muslims. If the best Muslims ever, according to Muhammad, were not true Muslims, then Islam is a dead religion.

According to the Qur'an, the Hadith, and other Islamic sources, what we see terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, Isis, Hamas, etc., doing, is absolutely representative of Islam and is precisely how a true Muslim is required to act. Examination of the last 1400 years of Islamic history acknowledges this conclusion. All real Muslims are terrorists. Any self-identified Muslim who obeys any part of the Qur'an or the Hadith, or any part of Islamic teachings, cannot be trusted and should not be trusted. They are encouraged and commanded to lie (surahs 2:225; 16:106; 66:2; etc.) because Allah is the greatest of deceivers (surahs 3:54; 7:99; 8:30; 27:50; etc.). The only decent and respectable self-identified Muslims are those who denounce and condemn the acts of Islamic terrorist groups and the teachings of Islam through the Qur'an, the Hadith, and other Islamic sources. The only decent and respectable "Muslims" are ex-Muslims, those who have rejected and left the tyranny and oppression of Islam.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Allah Killed Muhammad

What does the Qur'an say about false prophets? How would Allah deal with a false prophet?
Qur'an 69:44-46— "And if he (Muhammad) had forged a false saying concerning Us, We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might) and then certainly should have cut off his life artery (Aorta)."
—Hilai-Khan

Qur'an 69:44-46— "And if he had invented false sayings concerning Us, We assuredly had taken him by the right hand and then severed his life-artery."
—Pickthall

Qur'an 69:44-46— "Had he invented lies concerning Us, We would have seized him by the right hand and severed his heart's vein."
—Dawood

Qur'an 69:44-46— "And if he had fabricated against Us some of the sayings, We would certainly have seized him by the right hand, then We would certainly have cut off his aorta."
—Shakir

Qur'an 69:44-46— "And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand and We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart."
—Abdulla Yusuf Ali
Here is one of the greatest Muslim commentaries on this passage:
Tafsir Jalalayn [commentary on Qur'an 69:44-46]— "And had he, namely, the Prophet, fabricated any lies against Us, by communicating from Us that which We have not said, We would have assuredly seized him, We would have exacted vengeance [against him], as punishment, by the Right Hand, by [Our] strength and power; then We would have assuredly severed his life-artery, the aorta of his heart, a vein that connects with it, and which if severed results in that person's death.
Here are the Muslim's sources that tell us about Muhammad's death:
Sahih al-Bukhari 2617— "A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." Anas added: "I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's Messenger."

Sahih Muslim 5430— "A Jewess came to Allah's Messenger with poisoned mutton and he took of what had been brought to him. (When the effects of this poison were felt by him) he called for her and asked her about that, whereupon she said: I had determined to kill you. Thereupon he said: Allah will never give you the power to do it."

Ibn Sa'd, p. 252— "The Apostle of Allah sent for Zaynab Bint al-Harith and said to her: What induced you to do what you have done? She replied: You have done to my people what you have done. You have killed my father, my uncle, and my husband, so I said to myself: If you are a prophet, the foreleg will inform you; and others have said: If you are a king, we will get rid of you."

Sahih al-Bukhari 4428— "The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison."

Sunan Abu Dawud 4498— "A Jewess presented [Muhammad] at Khaibar a roasted sheep which she has poisoned. The Apostle of Allah ate of it and the people also ate. He then said: Lift your hands (from eating), for it has informed me that it is poisoned. Bishr b. al-Bara b. Ma'rur al-Ansari died. So he (the Prophet) sent for the Jewess (and said to her): What motivated you to do the work you have done? She said: If you were a prophet, it would not harm you; but if you were a king, I would rid the people of you. The Apostle of Allah then ordered regarding her and she was killed. He then said about the pain of which he died: I continued to feel pain from the morsel which I had eaten at Khaibar. This is the time when it has cut off my aorta."

Ibn Sa'd, pp. 252-253— "The Apostle of Allah took the foreleg, a piece of which he put into his mouth. Bishr Ibn al-Bara took another bone and put it into his mouth. When the Apostle of Allah ate one morsel of it Bishr ate his and other people also ate from it. Then the Apostle said: Hold back your hands! Because this foreleg has informed me that it is poisoned. Thereupon Bishr said: By Him Who hath made you great! I discovered it from the morsel I took. Nothing prevented me from spitting it out, but the idea that I did not like to make your food unrelishing. When you had eaten what was in your mouth, I did not like to save my life after yours, and I also thought you would not have eaten it if there was something wrong. Bishr did not rise from his seat but his color changed to that of taylsan (a green cloth)."

Sunan Abu Dawud 4449— "Umm Bishr said to the Prophet during the sickness of which he died: What do you think about your sickness, Apostle of Allah? I do not think about the illness of my son except the poisoned sheep of which he had eaten with you at Khaibar. The Prophet said: And I do not think about my illness except for that. This is the time when it cut off my aorta."

At-Tabari, p. 124— "The Messenger of God said during the illness from which he died—the mother of Bishr b. al-Bara had come to visit him—"Umm Bishr, at this very moment I feel my aorta being severed because of the food I ate with your son at Khaybar."

Sunan Ibn Majah 1622— "Aishah said: "I never saw anyone suffer more pain than the Messenger of Allah.""

Sahih al-Bukhari 2588— "Aisha said, "When the Prophet became sick and his condition became serious, he requested his wives to allow him to be treated in my house, and they allowed him. He came out leaning on two men while his feet were dragging on the ground."
According to surah 69:44-46 in the Qur'an, if Muhammad were a false prophet, Allah said he would sever his aorta; Allah's preferred method of executing false prophets. Interestingly enough, when Muhammad died, he said he could feel his aorta being severed.

There are thousands of ways to die. Do you really think it a coincidence that Muhammad died in exactly the way the Qur'an said he would die if he was a deceiver and a false prophet? Looks like Divine judgment to me. By Muhammad's own words, he confessed to the fact that he was a false prophet. We all know that poison cannot sever the aorta, but by Muhammad claiming he could feel it do such was his confession that Allah was killing him for being a liar.

Zaynab was open to the possibility of Muhammad being a prophet. She poisoned the lamb as a test. If he was a true prophet, the poison would not harm him; if he was a false prophet, it would kill him.

Muhammad had told Zaynab that "Allah [would] never give [her] the power to [kill him]." Since Muhammad was wrong then, seeing how Allah did allow it, why should we trust anything else he has to say?

The ironic poetic justice here is this: Muhammad did more than anyone else in history to promote hatred against the Jews. Muhammad did more than anyone else in history to oppress women. Muhammad told his followers that women were stupid. What happened? Muhammad died a miserable, disgraceful, humiliating death at the hands of a woman who was Jewish who had outwitted him.

According to the Qur'an, when the Jews tried to kill Jesus, Allah intervened and rescued him (surah 4:157-158). Allah would not give anyone victory over Jesus. But when a group of Jews wanted to kill Muhammad, Allah sits back and watches as a woman poisons His Prophet. He does nothing as His Prophet died a disgraceful, humiliating death.

Muhammad's greatest wish was to die in battle.
Sahih al-Bukhari 2797— "The Prophet said,... "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is! I would love to be martyred in Allah's Cause and then come back to life and then get martyred, and then come back to life again and then get martyred and then come back to life again and then get martyred."
Every time Muhammad wanted something, Allah all of a sudden miraculously provided him with a "revelation." Muhammad wanted to have more than four wives—Allah gave him a revelation (surah 33:50). Muhammad wanted to have sex with Aishah—Allah gave him a revelation. Muhammad wanted to marry the divorced wife of his own adopted son—Allah gave him a revelation (surah 33:37). Muhammad wanted his followers to quit coming over early and staying late after a meal, asking him all sorts of questions—Allah gave him a revelation (surah 33:53). Seems that Allah had nothing better to do than sit around all day making Muhammad's dreams come true. Muhammad's greatest wish was to die in battle, but Allah allowed him to die a humiliating, disgraceful death in utter agony at the hands of a Jewish woman.

God is the ultimate critic of Muhammad. God severed his aorta, proof that he was a false prophet, and He did so by the hands of a Jewish woman. Is God a "racist Islamophobic bigot" because He insulted Muhammad beyond anything that anyone else could ever dream up?

The word "Islam" means "submission to God." If Muslims care more about Muhammad than about what God has said, then Muslims are living in Shirk Central.

By the way, Allah is the biggest Shirk of them all. You are not supposed to swear by anything other than Allah, yet Allah constantly swears by everything else except for Himself. Allah is the most guilty of committing Shirk and will end up in Hell for Shirk-ing His responsibilities.

One final irony:  Muhammad was slain by the Lamb of God.

Muhammad (Damnation Be Upon Him) was a false prophet.

Monday, May 22, 2017

Is Female Genital Mutilation In Islam False?

Linda Sarsour, a half-baked feminist and pathetic Muslim apologist for Islam, claims that, "FGM is NOT an Islamic practice."

On the website https://islamqa.info/en, one user writes this:
Nowadays we hear that many doctors denounce the circumcision of girls, and say that it harms them physically and psychologically, and that circumcision is an inherited custom that has no basis is Islam.
This is the response that was given in return:
Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:
Circumcision is not an inherited custom as some people claim, rather it is prescribed in Islam and the scholars are unanimously agreed that it is prescribed. Not a single Muslim scholar – as far as we know – has said that circumcision is not prescribed.

Their evidence is to be found in the saheeh ahaadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which prove that it is prescribed, for example:

1-
The hadeeth narrated by al-Bukhaari (5889) and Muslim (257) from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him), that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – circumcision, shaving the pubes, cutting the nails, plucking the armpit hairs, and trimming the moustache."

This hadeeth includes circumcision of both males and females.

2-
Muslim (349) narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When a man sits between the four parts (arms and legs of his wife) and the two circumcised parts meet, then ghusl is obligatory.”

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) mentioned the two circumcised parts, i.e., the circumcised part of the husband and the circumcised part of the wife, which indicates that a woman may be circumcised just like a man.

3-
Abu Dawood (5271) narrated from Umm ‘Atiyyah al-Ansaariyyah that a woman used to do circumcisions in Madeenah and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to her: “Do not go to the extreme in cutting; that is better for the woman and more liked by the husband.” But the scholars differed concerning this hadeeth. Some of them classed it as da’eef (weak) and others classed it as saheeh. It was classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood. The fact that circumcision for women is prescribed in Islam is confirmed by the ahaadeeth quoted above, not by this disputed hadeeth. But the scholars differed concerning the ruling, and there are three opinions:

1 – That it is obligatory for both males and females. This is the view of the Shaafa’is and Hanbalis, and is the view favoured by al-Qaadi Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi among the Maalikis (may Allaah have mercy on them all).

Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Majmoo’ (1/367):
Circumcision is obligatory for both men and women in our view. This is the view of many of the salaf, as was narrated by al-Khattaabi. Among those who regarded it as obligatory is Ahmad… it is the correct view that is well known and was stated by al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him), and the majority stated definitively that it is obligatory for both men and women.
See Fath al-Baari, 10/340; Kishshaaf al-Qinaa’, 1/80

2 – That circumcision is Sunnah for both males and females. This is the view of the Hanafis and Maalikis, and was narrated in one report from Ahmad. Ibn ‘Aabideen al-Hanafi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in his Haashiyah (6/751): In Kitaab al-Tahaarah of al-Siraaj al-Wahhaaj it says:
Know that circumcision is Sunnah in our view – i.e., according to the Hanafis – for men and for women.
See: Mawaahib al-Jaleel, 3/259

3 – That circumcision is obligatory for men and is good and mustahabb for women. This is the third view of Imam Ahmad, and it is the view of some Maalikis such as Sahnoon. This view was also favoured by al-Muwaffaq ibn Qudaamah in al-Mughni.

See: al-Tamheed, 21/60; al-Mughni, 1/63

It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (5/223):
Circumcision is one of the Sunnahs of the fitrah, and it is for both males and females, except that is it obligatory for males and Sunnah and good in the case of women.
Thus it is clear that the fuqaha’ of Islam are agreed that circumcision is prescribed for both males and females, and in fact the majority of them are of the view that it is obligatory for both. No one said that it is not prescribed or that it is makrooh or haraam.

Secondly:
With regard to the criticism of circumcision by some doctors, and their claim that it is harmful both physically and psychologically,

This criticism of theirs is not valid. It is sufficient for us Muslims that something be proven to be from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then we will follow it, and we are certain that it is beneficial and not harmful. If it were harmful, Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would not have prescribed it for us.

In the answer to question no. 45528 we have mentioned some of the medical benefits of circumcision for women, quoting from some doctors.

Thirdly:
We would add here the fatwas of some modern scholars who have responded to this war that has been launched against female circumcision on the grounds that it is harmful to health.

Shaykh Jaad al-Haqq ‘Ali Jaad al-Haqq, the former Shaykh of al-Azhar, said:
Hence the fuqaha’ of all madhhabs are agreed that circumcision for both men and woman is part of the fitrah of Islam and one of the symbols of the faith, and it is something praiseworthy. There is no report from any of the Muslim fuqaha’, according to what we have studied in their books that are available to us, to say that circumcision is forbidden for men or women, or that it is not permissible, or that it is harmful for females, if it is done in the manner that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) taught to Umm Habeebah in the report quoted above.
Then he said:
From the above it is clear that the circumcision of girls – which is the topic under discussion here – is part of the fitrah of Islam, and the way it is to be done is the method that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) explained. It is not right to abandon his teachings for the view of anyone else, even if that is a doctor, because medicine is knowledge and knowledge is always developing and changing.
In the fatwa of Shaykh ‘Atiyah Saqar – the former heard of the Fatwa Committee in al-Azhar – it says:
The calls which urge the banning of female circumcision are call that go against Islam, because there is no clear text in the Qur’aan or Sunnah and there is no opinion of the fuqaha’ that says that female circumcision is haraam. Female circumcision is either obligatory or recommended. Even though there is a fiqhi principle which says that the decree of a ruler may put an end to a dispute regarding controversial matters, the decree of the ruler in this case cannot be but either of two things: that it is either obligatory or recommended, and it is not correct to issue a decree banning it, so as not to go against sharee’ah which is the principal source of legislation in our land, whose constitution states that Islam is the official religion of the country. It is permissible to issue some legislation that provides guidelines for performing this procedure (female circumcision) in the proper manner in such a way that does not contradict the rulings of sharee’ah.

The words of the doctors and others are not definitive. Scientific discoveries are still opening doors every day which change our old perceptions.
In the fatwa of Dar al-Ifta’ al-Misriyyah (6/1986) it says:
Thus it is clear that female circumcision is prescribed in Islam, and that it is one of the Sunnahs of the fitrah and it has a good effect of moderating the individual’s behaviour. As for the opinions of doctors who say that female circumcision is harmful, these are individual opinions which are not derived from any agreed scientific basis, and they do not form an established scientific opinion. They acknowledge that the rates of cancer among circumcised men are lower than among those who are not circumcised, and some of these doctors clearly recommend that circumcision should be done by doctors and not these ignorant women, so that the operation will be safe and there will be no negative consequences. However, medical theories about disease and the way to treat it are not fixed, rather they change with time and with ongoing research. So it is not correct to rely on them when criticizing circumcision which the Wise and All-Knowing Lawgiver has decreed in His wisdom for mankind. Experience has taught us that the wisdom behind some rulings and Sunnahs may be hidden from us. May Allaah help us all to follow the right path.
In the book Reliance of the Traveler, a manual on Sharia Law (over 1000 pages long!), it says:
e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris.
Another source:
596. Female circumcision
1245. An old woman from Kufa, the grandmother of 'Ali ibn Ghurab, reported that Umm al-Muhajir said, "I was captured with some girls from Byzantium. 'Uthman offered us Islam, but only myself and one other girl accepted Islam. 'Uthman said, 'Go and circumcise them and purify them.'"
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) IS an Islamic practice! No matter how much certain Muslims (like Linda Sarsour and Reza Aslan) want to LIE about it. It is not an "African" problem, it is an ISLAMIC problem!

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is trying to do something about the female genital mutilation problem. Because of this, Linda Sarsour tweeted, "Brigette Gabriel= Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She's asking 4 an [***] whippin'. I wish I could take their vaginas away - they don't deserve to be women." Why is this so disturbing? Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former Muslim and victim of female genital mutilation. Islam already took part of her vagina, Sarsour wants to take the rest. And feminists are rallying behind this woman?!? Female genital mutilation is a barbaric practice that has no place anywhere in the world.
Premise #1: Female genital mutilation clearly has a place in Islam.

Premise #2: Female genital mutilation has no place in this world.

Conclusion: Islam has no place in this world.
Further example of ignorant, lying Muslim women trying to defend Islam: On a CNN special, when Irshad Manji was asked about the promise in the Qur'an that a "martyr" in the name of Islam is rewarded with 72 virgins, she smiled, shook her head, and replied, "The word for virgin has been mistranslated. Martyrs would get raisins in heaven, not virgins." Really? Raisins? If that is the only reason why Islamic Muslims are murdering their own kind as well as people from every other religion (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.), so that they can earn "72 raisins" in heaven, I would be more than happy to send them truckloads of raisins. If they have more than 72 raisins now, would all their beheadings, bombings, and other murders suddenly stop? Seriously! How stupid can one person get?

Saturday, May 20, 2017

Political Correctness

Political correctness has become dangerous to the Right's freedom and physical safety. The thing that is lacking from modern society is etiquette and politeness. Etiquette is the way in which we navigate one another, how we interact successfully, negotiate social and professional situations with people who did not grow up with our exact worldview and background. Etiquette enables us to do that. Mutual respect for one another. Political correctness is an effort to impose a political agenda without having to argue. If you research the history, political correctness was designed as a political tool to silence voices of dissent. Political correctness does not want to hear any differing opinions. Political correctness advocates never have any logical arguments. Political correctness is afraid of logic, reason, and truth.

It is important to give platforms to all speech. Why? Because sunlight is the best disinfectant. The best way to deal with people you disagree with, whether Conservatives or Progressives or Liberals, is the full glare of the spotlight. If what they have to say is bad, let them hang themselves. You should have enough confidence in your own opinions, and you should have the fortitude to believe that you can beat them in a fair and open marketplace of ideas. If you believe those things, you have nothing to fear from any speaker. If Conservatives are such dangerous people, then Progressives, Liberals, and Leftists should let them speak. The more they speak, the more apparent it will become. However, the Progressives, Liberals, and Leftists fear that the more Conservatives speak the more reasonable they will sound. Since the time of Socrates, there was debate. If Progressives, Liberals, and Leftists are superior debaters, then they should ask questions. Not try to speak over the other speaker, be disruptive, and act like self-entitled children in need of a good swat across their rear end.
"All you're showing anybody is that your collective IQ, if it were channelled into electricity, might be able to toast a piece of bread lightly." —Ben Shapiro (addressed to Millennial Leftist SJWs at a campus)
The only diversity that Leftists (whether Progressive or Liberal) are not interested in is intellectual diversity! Conservatives are the only people who are actually thinking for themselves. Conservatives do not show up at Leftist events picketing and protesting, disrupting the event and acting like self-entitled children. Leftists do that at Conservative events. Leftists are afraid of you hearing the truth. They are afraid you will see how shallow their intellect and arguments are, and so they try to censor you with "political correctness" nonsense. Identitarian politics that crucify people who step outside of their "racial" or sexual groups, because they have the "wrong" ideology, is the worst type of bigotry. Examples:
  1. I find it interesting that when a Feminist stands up and speaks out against modern Feminism, the ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing, motor-mouthed Leftist bigots will attempt to silence her.
  2. I find it interesting that when an ex-Muslim, like Sarah Haider, stands up and speaks out against Islam, the ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing, motor-mouthed Leftist bigots will attempt to silence him/her. They will attempt to call him/her an "Islamophobe."
  3. I find it interesting when a homosexual, like Milo Yiannopoulos, stands up and speaks out against homosexuality, transsexuality, gender "studies," etc., etc., the ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing, motor-mouthed Leftist bigots will attempt to silence him/her. They will attempt to call him/her a "homophobe."
It is sad how if certain Leftists do not think exactly the way other Leftists do, they are automatically condemned to walk the plank. If you cannot beat them by intelligent debate, demonize them and attack their character. Do Leftists not realize that doing such is a fallacious argument?

We used to talk about things as a society. We would debate and we would argue and we would disagree and we would still respect each other. That is what true tolerance is. Somewhere along the line, however, doing so became "rude." We used to be able to tell people when they were wrong and to correct people, even if they did not accept our correction. But then it became "rude" to tell someone they were wrong, and/or to correct them. Since when has correction been a harmful thing? When did we as a society lose our moral fibre and become thin-skinned wussified babies who find offence in the least offensive things?

If Leftists are wondering why more people of colour are not standing up for these sorts of opinions, they might want to pull out a mirror. Political correctness Social Justice Warriors are becoming more violent and triggered than ever before, because they lack logic, reason, and truth, and they know that they have no leg to stand upon. If you want to witness genuine hate speech, hate crimes, and hate violence, look no further than your ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing, halt-wit, motor-mouthed Millennial Leftist SJW bigots. Their arguments, much like the insides of their skulls, are vacuous.

Leftists constantly cry the "victim" because they are a bunch of wussies afraid of the opinions of others. Here is some irony: The only people who are intent on intimidating, silencing, and threatening others are Millennial Leftist Social Justice morons. Leftists are against the free open exchange of ideas. Leftists are fascists. A fascist is dictatorial, someone who does not like and does not want to hear the opinions of others, and tries to stop people who have a difference of opinion from them.

The subversion of the education system back in the 1970s worked. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union and fall of the iron curtain showed how unappealing Communism was. The teachers that were already influenced still spread the Communist ideals to both peers and students. You can see its influence in the Leftist ideals these days. They see everything in shades of class struggles. They attempt to grab power by aligning themselves with what they would claim to be the most underprivileged classes (therefore claiming moral high ground). You can see it by what the usual targets of the Leftists are, and what they claim they want. It seems remarkably close to Marxism. The only reason we have not had a Marxist revolt is because people are not in a bad enough place to be desperate enough to want one. So instead, Leftists control the media and build hate towards their intended targets (political and economical).

Millennial Leftist Social Justice Warriors are infected with Communist and Marxist ideals. These people, who run the media and the movies and TV shows we watch, pepper us with their opinions on a daily basis. But the moment a Conservative stands up to speak and give his/her opinion, the Millennial Leftist SJWs, like pack animals, chirp away trying to speak over the Conservative and drown him/her out, being rudely disruptive, and acting like spoiled, self-entitled, privileged children. They will even engage in this pack-animal-mentality against their own people who show a different opinion from the rest of the hive. Why? Because they are allodoxophobic; they are afraid of other people's opinions. They are afraid that if the Conservative is allowed to speak, he/she will sound more reasonable and will expose the shallow, fallacious, illogical arguments of the Millennial Leftist SJWs. Millennial Leftist SJWs are fanatics and zealots, guilty of hate speech, hate crimes, and hate violence all because they have received misinformation and refuse to listen to logic, reason, or truth. Leftist ideology and political correctness is cancer and they have been destroying our nations (Canada, Australia, the US, and the UK) for a long time. It is time to smarten up, people, before we no longer have a nation to call home.

Gender Inequality

by Milo Yiannopoulos
(Milo is homosexual. Nevertheless, he hits the nail square on the head with his comments about gender inequality in this present age—for men! Modern feminism is not about gender equalityit is about male bashing; it is about dominance. Is it any wonder why more and more men these days are wanting nothing to do with North American women, choosing to marry  foreign women if they marry at all?)

I want to address the men in the audience. Sorry ladies, I love you, but this is for boys. The question posed to us today was whether we’ve reached an age of gender equality. I don’t think we have. We’ve overshot the age of gender equality—by a long stretch, and men of your generation are going to be the primary victims of this era. In secondary school you will have experienced a system that is tilted against boys. Your exams will have been primarily modular, not linear, a system that favors girls. Teachers will have tried to control and pathologize your boisterous behavior, branding you “young offenders” for pranks, or “cyberbullies” for typical male teenage trash-talk (taunting, after all, is how men bond).

Your female peers will be encouraged at every stage of their educational journey. They will be told to join a STEM field; they’ll be given—showered, in fact—with grants and awards, prizes, and encouragement. And when they do get to applying for those jobs, you will be discriminated against, just because they’re a girl. You’ll be the recipients of nothing. There are no programs for men. The suggestion for having a Men’s Officer at York University was laughed at by the student union. At University, you will be told that you’re rapists-in-waiting; that you need to attend "Consent" classes. Your natural love and affection for women will be neutered. You will be faced with an impossible choice: suppress your natural, healthy, romantic interest in women, or risk a charge of rape or sexual harassment. And if you speak out against this hostile and unfair environment, you will be persecuted by rabid mobs of politically correct lunatics, as well as the full force of the establishment media.

When your studies are completed, you will enter a jobs market that is stacked against you. With companies pressured from all directions to hire women, you will be at a 2-to-1 disadvantage if you are in STEM subjects, and possibly worse in others. If you do happen to land a job, a single inappropriate remark or a single accusation of an inappropriate remark or any unsubstantiated allegation can destroy your reputation forever.

Despite all this, I’m not worried for you—because you’re men. Your incalculable, intolerable, impossible obstacles have been placed before you precisely to overcome. And overcoming is what men do best. It is the nature of men to battle on under impossible odds. We do that in war, we do that in all sorts of things, and we will do it here. Throughout your education, you will have been fed a grim history of what men have done through the centuries. You’ve been told that straight white men are worse than the Nazis. You have been told nothing good about your sex, your race, or your orientation, but I’m going to tell you something good, and it is: If the patriarchy exists, women should be grateful for it. It is what took us to space, it is what builds roads, it is what built the internet, [and] it is what protects and provides for women. If it exists, thank God it does! With their strength and determination, men have tamed the wilderness. Men built cities and the walls around us. They built the buildings that we’re in. Men’s curiosity led us to explore the oceans; their ingenuity has allowed us to reach the moon. And whenever feminism rises up and tries to ridicule you, to demean you for what you are, don’t pay attention to it. Don’t listen to it. We’re not in an age of gender equality. Straight white women in the West are the most privileged class in the history of our species. But we’ll be fine.

Friday, May 19, 2017

Islam Is NOT A Religion!

When someone migrates to Canada or the United States or Australia or any other country that is built upon the foundation of religious freedom, if it can be proven through close examination that your "religion" does not intimidate, threaten or cause harm to others, then you should be administered into the country and allowed to practice what you believe. If someone's religion included child sacrifice, I would like to think Canada, the United States, Australia, etc., would be intelligent enough not to allow these people into our country or to practice their "religion." A close examination of Hindu scriptures does not tell them to murder every other religion. A close examination of Buddhist scriptures does not tell them to murder every other religion. A close examination of Christian Scripture does not tell them to murder every other religion. A close examination of Islamic scriptures does! (surahs 47:4; 9:29; 9:5; 5:51; 4:89; 3:85; etc.)

Three things I find ironic:
  1. I find it ironic that Feminists would defend and support Islam, in spite of the fact that everywhere that Islam exists, women are oppressed, women are forced into marriages they do not want, livestock is considered to have more value than women, women are treated as less intelligent than a man, and women's genitalia is frequently mutilated.
  2. I find it ironic that homosexuals would defend and support Islam, in spite of the fact that everywhere that Islam exists, homosexuals are thrown off the roof tops of the tallest buildings. That is made even more ironic considering the fact that in Afghanistan and North Africa an Imam passed a fatwa allowing Islamic men to get together on Thursday nights for gay orgies, known as the Thursday Night Club.
  3. I find it ironic that Liberals would defend and support Islam, in spite of the fact that everywhere that Islam exists, there exists no tolerance or inclusiveness for other religions. Everywhere that Islam exists, Islam is persistently at war with Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Secularism, and even other Muslims.
It is illogical and nonsensical how Liberal Feminists, Liberal homosexuals, and Liberals in general, including your idiotic Social Justice Warriors (SJW), whine and complain about false notions of "tolerance" and "inclusiveness," and yet opt to pander to the whims of Islam, defending and supporting it, in spite of the evidence throughout history and around the world presently that Islam is intolerant and exclusive of other religions, as well as women's rights and homosexuality. This stance demonstrates the total and utter lack of intelligence within the Liberal and SJW community.

Three things I find absolutely interesting:
  1. I find it interesting that when a Feminist stands up and speaks out against modern Feminism, the ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing, motor-mouthed left-wing Liberal bigots will attempt to silence her.
  2. I find it interesting that when an ex-Muslim, like Sarah Haider, stands up and speaks out against Islam, the ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing, motor-mouthed left-wing Liberal bigots will attempt to silence him/her.
  3. I find it interesting when a homosexual, like Milo Yiannopoulos, stands up and speaks out against homosexuality, transsexuality, gender "studies," etc., etc., the ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing, motor-mouthed left-wing Liberal bigots will attempt to silence him/her.
When a minority stands up and speaks out against the rest of the minority, it is ironic how the rest of the minority and every ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing, motor-mouthed left-wing Liberal bigot will attempt to intimidate, threaten, or otherwise silence that person. When these people stand up for true justice, the ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing, motor-mouthed left-wing Liberal bigot Social Justice Warriors (SJW) will attempt to call that person a misogynist, a "racist," an "Islamophobe," a "homophobe," or any other of their typical cop-out terms intended to intimidate individuals into silence in order to avoid discussion and debate. Education merely serves to teach you how to think and believe the way your professors think and believe. If ignorance is bliss, your typical Liberal SJW is living in Paradise. They have been indoctrinated, brainwashed, and duped with false, misleading information. They have an overdeveloped White Knight syndrome. They are SJWs where no injustice is actually taking place. SJWs are becoming more violent and triggered than ever before, because they know that they have no leg to stand upon. If you want to see hate speech, hate crimes, and violence, look no further than your ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing, motor-mouthed left-wing Liberal bigot Social Justice Warriors. Their arguments, much like the insides of their skulls, are vacuous.

I addressed the point of child sacrifice as part of a religion or a religion's practice. This is not an exaggeration. In the past, there were many religions that practiced just such a thing. No doubt there are still some today that do the same thing. I brought it up as an example to test the ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing, motor-mouthed left-wing Liberal bigot Social Justice Warriors. Why? Because there is something called "honour killing" that is very much a part of Islamic culture. If someone in your family turns their back on Islam, whether they join another religion or not, you are required to murder them in order to retain your honour. Turning your back on Islam is the greatest offense you could cause your family. Yet your Liberal bigot Social Justice Warriors have nothing to say against Islamic fathers or sons murdering their daughters on Canadian and American soil for rejecting the cult that is Islam.

How is it that Islam is granted "religious" rights within public schools, colleges, universities, and the work force that Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, etc., are not granted? Why are they granted their own curriculum while Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrianists, etc., are not? How is it that Islam is granted the "religious" right to skip out on work in order to pray five times a day (which they do not even do in Islamic countries!), while Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, etc., are not allowed to do similar things with their religions?

Why do our governments want to make it illegal to speak out against Islam? By passing such a law, our government is instituting Sharia Law. Sharia Law states that you don't question Islam, you don't speak against Islam, you don't offend Islam, you don't insult Islam. But it is fine to question, speak against, offend, and insult Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, etc. If it should be illegal to speak out against Islam, then it should also be made illegal to speak out against Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, etc. How is it that Islam is receiving favouritism despite its 1400-year perpetual history of war against every other religion and people group?

Every time something comes up about Islam, the Muslims claim "religious" persecution. Every time facts and statistics are brought to bear upon them concerning Islam, they resort to the cop-out of name calling with "Islamophobe." Any other religion that would claim "religious" persecution as often as the Muslims do about stuff that has nothing to do with religion, they would be called on it and have it cast back in their face. Oh, but not the Muslims. Any time a Muslim cries "victim," our nation and society pander to their incredulous lies. Muslims may very well be nice enough people, but Islam is a poison. Do not equate "Muslim" with "Islam." When people, even ex-Muslims, speak out against Islam, all the Liberal SJWs hear is "Muslim." Islam is evil! Not all those who consider themselves to be Muslim are. However, those Muslims who follow and obey every word of the Qur'an and the Hadith, every teaching of Islam, are not to be trusted.

There is nothing "religious" about Islam. Islam is entirely political. Everywhere it can, Islam always practices economic warfare. Muhammad was infamous for attacking caravans. On 9/11, the World Trade Center was attacked. Modern political Islam claims that it is a "religion of peace," yet the Qur'an states very emphatically that "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him!" (surah 3:85). If Islam is a "religion of peace," why is it that Islam is constantly, consistently, and continuously at war with Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and even other Muslims? This is the religion that our ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing left-wing Liberal bigots want to defend and support?!?!? The religion that wants to eliminate their freedom of speech? Christianity supports a person's freedom of speech, even when that speech ridicules, mocks, and otherwise puts down Christianity. You do not see Christians threatening to cut off your head, blow you up, or threaten your life by some other means because you ridiculed, mocked, or insulted their Lord and Saviour, Christ Jesus. No. You only ever see Muslims threatening to cut off your head, blow you up, or threaten your life by some other means because you ridiculed, mocked, or insulted their false prophet, Muhammad, who was a war monger, a murderer, a rapist, and a pedophile, marrying his youngest wife when she was 7 and consummating the marriage (having intercourse with her) when she was 9!

Whether a hoax or not, these words are what our nations ought to be built upon:
IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT . . .
Take It Or Leave It.

I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.
This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.
We speak mainly ENGLISH; not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!
Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact; because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.
We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.
This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.
If you aren’t happy here, then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.” 
Is it not fascinating how Islam is the only "religion" where the unique phenomenon of familial rape is taught and practiced? This has been happening in the UK, but police have been told not to intervene for fear of being labeled "racist" or some other bogus accusation. The same thing is starting to happen in Canada and the United States. How is upholding the law a form of "racism"? If the law will not do its duty and fulfill its responsibility, then the people need to take matters into their own hands and protect their own people and civil rights. Islam intends to remove our civil rights and enslave all of us. If you think that is an exaggerated stretch, go and educate yourself as to world history and Islamic invasion. You can start with this video.

A 1400 Year Secret


"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
—Edmund Burke

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
—Edmund Burke

"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."
—Edmund Burke
Three truths everyone ought to know about the reality of Islam:
  1. Allah is a demon god. Allah commands the murder of all Jews, Christians, Hindus, pagans, and apostates who leave Islam (surahs 47:4; 9:29; 9:5; 5:51; 4:89; 3:85; etc.). The Qur'an says Allah is the greatest of all deceivers, encouraging his followers to lie (surahs 2:225; 16:106; 66:2; etc.). Allah is not the true God.
  2. Muhammad (Damnation Be Upon Him) is a false prophet. Muhammad was a murderer, a rapist, and a pedophile. Muhammad married his youngest wife when she was 7 and consummated the marriage (had sex with her) when she was 9!
  3. The Qur'an is an unholy book. The Qur'an is a collection of ravings made by a lunatic madman. Muhammad created his political false religion to appease his perverse desires.
Islam always practices economic warfare wherever possible. Muhammad was infamous for attacking caravans. On 9/11, the World Trade Center was attacked. Modern political Islam claims that it is a "religion of peace," yet the Qur'an states very emphatically that "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him!" (surah 3:85). If Islam is a "religion of peace," why is it that Islam is constantly, consistently, and continuously at war with Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and even other Muslims? This is the religion that our ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual, know-nothing left-wing Liberal bigots want to defend?!?!?
Religious groups who can reside together and act kindly toward one another:
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Baha’is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha’is = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Baha’is living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem
Confucians living with Baha’is = No Problem
Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem

Where does the proverbial crap always seems to hit the fan?:
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Baha’is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with other Muslims = Problem
"Education is the cheap defense of nations." —Edmund Burke

Here is a video on the impurity of the Qur'an. The majority of Muslims today are unaware that the Qur'an has many variant readings, that it is not a pure text passed on since the time of Muhammad. They are unaware that much of the original text was lost and destroyed by Muslims themselves. Even after a unified text was compiled and sent out, there were still variant readings being discovered. So the argument by Muslims that the Qur'an is pure and unaltered is a lie. They are ignorant to the facts regarding their own book, which many of them have never read anyway.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Malakoi: Trans-women and Effeminate Gay Men

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (ουτε μαλακοι), nor homosexuals (ουτε αρσενοκοιται), nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Figuratively, μαλακοι means "effeminate" (having feminine qualities untypical of a man), such as transvestites (men who dress up like women), transsexual women (men who make themselves out to be women, even going so far as to have sex changes), or a person who allows himself to be sexually abused contrary to nature (the passive partner in a gay relationship). There are those who argue that μαλακοι means "soft" (Matt. 11:8; Luke 7:25), but this is without warrant or justification. The former verses join μαλακοις to the word ιματιοις (clothing) in order to modify it. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, the phrase appears as ουτε μαλακοι. The word μαλακοι is not joined to any other word, which is what would be required in order to translate it as "soft". The question would arise, "Soft what?" Ergo, we must translate it according to its other meanings:
  1. soft, soft to the touch
  2. metaph. in a bad sense
    1. effeminate
      1. of a catamite, a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
      2. of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
      3. of a male prostitute
The compound Greek word αρσενοκοιται comes from its root or stem words, αρσεν (a male) and κοιτε (a bed), and means "a male bed partner" or "a man who lies in bed with another male as one lies in bed with a female—a homosexual, a bugger, a Sodomite, one who defiles himself with men."
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women (θηλειαι) exchanged the natural function (χρησιν) for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men (αρσενες) abandoned the natural function (χρησιν) of the woman (θηλειας) and burned in their desire (ορεξει) toward one another, men with men (αρσενες εν αρσεσι) committing indecent acts (ασχημοσυνην) and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." (Romans 1:26-27)
θηλειαι = "female, woman"
αρσενες, αρσεσι = "male, man"
χρησιν = "employment, i.e. (specially), sexual intercourse (as an occupation of the body)"
ορεξει = "excitement of the mind, i.e. longing after: lust"
αρσενες εν αρσεσι = "men with men, i.e. homosexuals"
ασχημοσυνην = "an indecency; by implication, the pudenda: shame"
This passage addresses all individuals who exchange the natural function (intercourse) between a man and a woman for that which is unnatural and perverse. It includes every form of homosexuality: pederasty, bisexuality (and all its variant forms: pansexuality, polysexuality, omnisexuality, ambisexuality. etc.), transsexuality, etc. Anything outside of God's original intended sexuality—one man and one woman—is included and addressed with this passage. Heterosexuality is God's only acceptable form of sexuality.
"And [Jesus] answered and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS CAUSE A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND SHALL CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE; AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."" (Matthew 19:4-6)
The rest of the 1 Corinthians 6 passage continues thus:
"Such were (ην; IT) some of you; but you were washed (AIM), but you were sanctified (AIM), but you were justified (AIM) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:11)
IT = Imperfect Tense, used in the indicative mood referring to continuous action in past time.
AIM = Aorist Indicative Middle, conceives of an action in past time as simply having taken place, without further defining it.
In other words, even during Jesus and Paul's era, people had been guilty of committing these same sins. But when they came to know Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, they stopped having anything to do with these sins and began to walk in righteousness and holiness. They used to practice these sins habitually, as many individuals do today, but once they had truly encountered the Saviour, their life changed forever and they forsook their sins and began practicing righteousness. "...now is "THE DAY OF SALVATION"" (1 Cor. 6:2). There is no guarantee of tomorrow. You can be free from your sin. Stop embracing it and trying to identify with it. Jesus said, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11:28). If you are tired of trying to silence your conscience, if you are tired of making excuses for and embracing your sin, if you are tired of struggling against the sin that besets you, all you need to do it come to Jesus in repentance (agree with God and what He says about your condition) and faith (trust Jesus as your only means to salvation) and He will give you rest. He will grant you salvation. But you must come to Him on His terms—not your own.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Gender Spectrum?

Gender is not a spectrum! No, most people do not see gender as a spectrum. Most people see gender as either of the two sexes: male or female. There are no "orientations," only disorientations of confused individuals who fail to face and accept reality and need to be reoriented. We used to live in simpler times where people actually had wisdom and intelligence, and those who refused to accept and face the truth of reality were institutionalized in order to get the mental help that they were in desperate need of. Nowadays you have people wanting to be "identified" as a cat (or something else), and the rest of intelligent society is being forced to excuse, accept, and cater to mental illnesses of these individuals. Identity is the sameness in all that constitutes the objective reality of a thing. It is what corroborates that you are who and what you claim to be. In other words, if you want to "identify" as being a cat, a simple look in the mirror will expose the fact that your identity is that of a human female or a human male. You are not a cat!

There are two genders and only two genders: male and female. Males (men) have a penis. Females (women) have a vagina. The boy from the movie Kindergarten Cop said it best, and said it with intelligence and wisdom: "Boys have a penis. Girls have a vagina." It is that simple. Period! The penis was designed specifically with the vagina in mind, to be able to enter the vagina. The vagina was designed specifically with the penis in mind, to be able to receive the penis. The two are complementary; they were made for each other the way a socket and a light bulb are made for each other and an outlet and a plug are made for each other. Gender and sex refer to the exact same thing and are interchangeable, as demonstrated clearly from any competent dictionary on the English language.
GENDER n. 1. Properly, kind; sort. 2. A sex, male or female.
SEX n. 1. The distinction between male and female; or that property or character by which an animal is male or female.
—Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
gender n. 1a a person's sex, either of the sexes.
sex n. 1 either of the main divisions (male and female) into which living things are placed on the basis of their reproductive functions. 2 the fact of belonging to one of these. 3 males or females collectively. 4 sexual intercourse.
—The Canadian Oxford Paperback Dictionary
gender n. 1: SEX
sex n. 1: either of two divisions of organisms distinguished respectively as male or female 2: the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of living beings that subserve reproduction by two interacting parents and that distinguish males and females
—Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
Genitalia (the genitals) refers to the biological sexual reproductive organ you were born with; the penis or the vagina. Gender does not! Both gender and sex refer to being either male (a boy or a man) or female (a girl or a woman). A man is an adult human male, having the genitalia of the penis. A woman is an adult human female, having the genitalia of the vagina. Male is the attribute of a man. Female is the attribute of a woman. Masculine refers to the characteristic of men. Feminine refers to the characteristic of women.

Step outside your door and into a throng of people. What do you see? You see two things: males and females; hes and shes. Period! Two genders. Two sexes. Two pronouns. Sexuality refers to possessing sexual feelings and desires collectively. It has nothing to do with your disorientation! Every child can tell the difference between the two genders. Unfortunately, you have to be college educated to be that stupid to deny it.

Do not allow these corrupt, twisted miscreants to mutilate the English language by playing fast and loose with it, creating divisions between words that do not exist! Know the truth, speak the truth, and stand for the truth! These people refuse to accept and face the truth of reality, ignoring their identity confirmed to them when they look in the mirror or down their pants. The objective reality of their identity is plainly seen: males have a penis, females have a vagina. Period! But these anti-intellectual fools want to attempt to label themselves—or "identify" themselves—according to subjective fantasies. In other words, if I want to "identify" myself as the Easter Bunny, I am not wrong to do so and everyone else must accommodate my mental illness and disconnect from reality. Welcome to the fallout resulting from the sheer stupidity of Post-Modernism.

Where do these ignorant, unintelligent, uneducated, anti-intellectual people these days get off saying that it is my "right" if I want to "identify" myself as a red balloon?!? No matter how much I believe myself to be a red balloon, or want to be "identified" as a red balloon, the truth and objective reality is that I am not a red balloon, nor will I ever be a red balloon, but a male human being!!! If I think of myself as anything other than what I truly, physically am, then I am a liar (lying to myself) and am mentally disconnected from reality and the truth. That I would demand the rest of society to excuse and accommodate such a mental disconnect from reality would make me the worst kind of person imaginable. I ought to be in a straight jacket inside a padded room getting the psychological help I need in order to come back to reality. If that offends you, good! You need to be offended so that you wake up and start facing the reality of who you really are; not some fantasy you want to play out in your mind.

From the time you are conceived, your gender/sex/gender identity has already been determined. The second you come out of the womb, your gender/sex/gender identity can be plainly seen by everyone! You either have a penis, identifying you as part of the male gender/sex, making you a boy who will grow up to become a man; or you have a vagina, identifying you as part of the female gender/sex, making you a girl who will grow up to become a woman. A third possibility could happen, but this is not a separate gender/sex. A hermaphrodite is someone who, as the result of a birth defect (the mutation of existing genetic information), is born with both a penis and a vagina (though typically only one of these will function). Specialists can now perform an ultrasound, blood test, chromosome analysis, and even do exploratory surgery to find out the baby's true sex. However, many regard hermaphrodites as being male because they possess the Y chromosome, which is male-specific. But that is an entirely different discussion.

Gender "Studies" should be abolished in all publicly funded Universities. Students who go to study Gender "Studies" come out dumber than when they went in. They come out believing lies; they come out with their critical faculties impaired—not improved; they come out more fragile than when they arrived; they come out being less able to have stable relationships with people, less able to cope in the world of work, less able to be functional well-rounded human beings. Gender "Studies" departments are damaging young people. They should be shut down! Gender "Studies" is a very bitter, divisive, paranoid philosophy. It is ideology pretending to be scholarship. It is propaganda pretending to be fact. Leftists have moral fervor and misinformation, which is conducive to fanaticism and zealotry. Hate speech, hate crimes, and hate violence are committed not by the Rights, but by the Lefts, because in their minds it is informed and justified by their fanatic zealotry. The very people who cry "tolerance" and "inclusiveness" are the very same people who are intolerant and exclusive because they are hypocrites!

Have you ever seen a culture, society, or generation throughout history that has been so corrupt and fixated on sex and distorting it to preposterous proportions as the present culture, society, and generation? Intelligence and reality escapes the grasp of these individuals. They are so sin-soaked that it is permeating into every crevice of their life. It is sad how modern society has lost all sense of intelligence and has opted to pander to the mental illnesses of these individuals and accommodate their insanity. Woe to this generation!

Monday, May 15, 2017

What Were They Before They Were “Christians”?

by Brent Cunningham

Did you know that Christians have not always been called “Christians”? The earliest apprentices of Jesus only became know by this title later in the first century A.D. in the large, ethnically diverse, Syrian capital of Antioch (Acts 11:26). It’s even likely that the term “Christian” was used by Antioch’s general population as a derogatory name for these followers of Jesus. The title of “Christians” was given because this group of Jews and Gentiles were followers of Jesus, whom they believed to be the Christos, meaning “the anointed one,” or the Messiah. Throughout the pages of the New Testament these earliest of believers seemed to select other names for themselves like “saints,” “brothers,” and “disciples.” However, in referring to what and who they were following, the earliest self-description we know of is followers of “the Way” (Acts 9:2; 11:26). And this description has no little significance. In describing what we call “Christianity” today as “The Way,” these first followers of Jesus made a radical claim about the person and work of Jesus.

Torah As ‘The Way’
The Hebrew people (and their own Scriptures) have employed the word “Torah” to describe not only the first five books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), but also the entire collection of 39 books which make up the Old Testament. And while English translators often bring the Hebrew word “Torah” over into English Bibles as “decrees,” “judgments,” “commands,” or simply “law,” there’s a much more holistic understanding of Torah. Torah is God’s self-revelation given to humanity. And it conveys much more than just true principles and propositions (though it does contain that too).

Torah has been classically understood by the Hebrew people as laying out the way in which Israel might experience human flourishing. The book of Proverbs displays a constant refrain to the recipient (“my son”) to embrace the particular path of wisdom (the way) being passed down in order that he might experience full life (human flourishing). So, Torah, or God’s Word, comes to be viewed as the singular way in which Israel was to live in order to experience human flourishing. “So,” you might ask, “what does this have to do with the name which the early Christians chose for themselves?”

Jesus As ‘The Way’
Think about how radical to the Jewish mind it was when Jesus of Nazareth stated, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him” (Jn 14:6-7). Jesus was putting himself on the same level as Torah. He asserted that only as one accessed God the Father through the person of Jesus could one expect to have a relationship with the Father. He daringly maintained that our human flourishing could only be realized by coming in contact with him.

You see, this is one primary way in which Jesus differentiates himself from other religious leaders/thinkers (Krishna, Buddha, Muhammad, Moses, etc.). Such religious icons claim to be “way-showers” or “signposts.” That is, they point away from themselves and to the end or goal of human flourishing. But none claims to actually be “the way”, in and of himself. As John Stott writes in his classic book “Basic Christianity,” “[Jesus] was not just another signpost, but the destination to which the signposts had led.” So, in the midst of the common “way-shower” model of religious leading, Jesus comes along and boasts quite dramatically that, (1) all human sins are, at their root, a sin against himself (Mk 2:1-12; Lk 7:36-50), and that (2) he will return at the end of time to be the final judge of all human beings, and that the nature of their judgment will be dependent on how people have responded to himself (Jn 5:22, 28, 29; Mt 25:31-46). It can’t easily be doubted then that Jesus saw himself as ‘the Way’ to God and therefore, the way to human flourishing.

Jesus’ Apprentices as Followers of ‘The Way’
These first Jewish “Christians” then, understood Jesus to be equal with, even superior to, in function, Torah—God’s self-revelation to humanity. This is what prompts Jesus’ closest follower, John, in his Gospel to write, “In the beginning was the Word [logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” (Jn 1:1, 14). Jesus is the divine logos, the true Torah, who makes God the Father known not just in his words or declarations, but in his very personal presence. He is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Heb 1:3), only because “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him [Jesus], and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross” (Col 1:19, 20).

This is why Christians, or followers of the Way, have the most highly exalted view of Jesus possible. It would be inappropriate, even blasphemous, to offer worship to a mere mortal creature. But what about this Jesus, the God-man? What are we to make of one who, claiming to be “the gate,” then asserts that “all who ever came before me,” and all who “climb in by some other way” are “thieves and robbers” (Jn 10:1-10)? What other response besides worship and adoration is appropriate for the One who was “before all things, and in [whom] all things hold together” (Col 1:17)? To be a “Christian,” Jesus’ contemporaries understood, means nothing more and nothing less than throwing one’s entire life in to follow, and be identified with, the one who is the only door into which anyone may enter human fulfillment and flourishing. To be a Christian, for us too then, is to recognize that Jesus is quite simply, the only Way.

What Was Christianity Before?

In my previous blog entry, I began asking the question "What is Christianity?" I pointed out the fact that the early followers of Jesus were first called "Christians" in Antioch of Syria, and that it was meant as a derogatory term. "Christianity" is derived from that term, named after Christ. I asked the question, "If not for that term, what would Christians have been called? What were they called?" But more importantly, "What was their religion called?" Being that Jesus repeatedly corrected the Pharisees and Sadducees on religious matters, and the religion was not referred to as "Christianity" until well after the early followers of Jesus were first called "Christians," is Christianity nothing more than the true, purified form of Judaism (minus the laws, the sacrifices, etc.) as it was originally meant to be?

Remember, the Old Testament frequently spoke of the Gentile inclusion. What would they eventually be included into? In Romans 11, Paul dissects national Israel into two groups: believing Israel (true Israel) and unbelieving Israel (false Israel). The believing Gentiles are grafted in with believing Jews, making them part of believing Israel (true Israel). The true Israel is the true Church and the true Church is the true Israel. In Ephesians 2, Paul goes on to demonstrate how the two groups (Jews and Gentiles) have been joined together through Christ into one body. All early followers of Jesus believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So what religion did early "Christians" follow and practice? What was it called?

I ask these questions to get your minds working. "Christianity" is what their religion (what they followed and practiced) eventually became known as. But what was it called before that? If you want to know what the early followers of Jesus believed, you need to know the Old Testament. When Jesus referred to "Moses and the prophets," He was referring to the entire Old Testament. When Jesus and the Apostles referred to "the Scriptures," they were referring to the entire Old Testament. When reading the Gospels, you need to know that Jesus did not do away with the Old Testament, but instead expanded upon it: "You have heard it said... But I say..." He clarified it in a way that the Pharisees and Sadducees had missed. The entire New Testament is based upon the entire Old Testament writings and Jesus' expansion and explanation thereof. It does not replace it, it complements it.

CHRISTIANS
The term "Christian" is a Greek term (Christianos, Χριστιανός) that means "Christ Follower," "Follower of The Anointed." It was first bestowed upon the followers of Jesus in Antioch of Syria. Antioch was known for making up such nicknames. This term appears only thrice in the New Testament. Kenneth Wuest holds that all three usages reflect a derisive element in the term. It was originally used as a derogatory term with which to refer to the followers of Jesus. In Tacitus' Annals, he relates that "by vulgar appellation [they were] commonly called Christians."
"and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch." (Acts 11:26)
"Agrippa replied to Paul, "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian."" (Acts 26:28)
"but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name." (1 Pet. 4:16)
NAZARENES
Prior to this, the early followers of Jesus were called "Nazarenes," as used in Acts 24:5. The Hebrew equivalent of "Nazarene" is Notzrim, which occurs in the Babylonian Talmud, and is still the modern Israeli Hebrew term for Christian. The Arabic equivalent of "Nazarene" is Naṣrānī (plural, Naṣārā), which are the common words used for Christians. Masīḥī (followers of the Messiah) is the term used by Christians to refer to themselves. In 2014, when Christians were ejected from the city of Mosul, Naṣārā was spray-painted on every property where Christians had been.
"For we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." (Acts 24:5)
THE WAY
The name that was widely used for believers, which is mostly unknown to Christians today, would be the title "The Way." This probably originated from Christ Himself, who called Himself "The Way" (John 14:6). This name was used widely in the Book of Acts. Even Paul introduces himself as a follower of "the Way" to the Governor, and not as a "Christian" (Acts 24:14), even though they were known as "Christians" by Acts 11:26.
"and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem." (Acts 9:2)
"But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the people, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus." (Acts 19:9)
"About that time there occurred no small disturbance concerning the Way." (Acts 19:23)
"But this I admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets;" (Acts 24:14)
"But Felix, having a more exact knowledge about the Way, put them off, saying, "When Lysias the commander comes down, I will decide your case."" (Acts 24:22)
The early believers were also known as "a sect."
"For we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." (Acts 24:5)
"But this I admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets;" (Acts 24:14)
"But we desire to hear from you what your views are; for concerning this sect, it is known to us that it is spoken against everywhere." (Acts 28:22)
We have just seen what other terms the early followers of Jesus were referred to prior to being called "Christians," but that does not tell us what religion they followed and practiced; what it was called. Jesus' disciples were all Jewish. You might call them Messianic Jews. Gentile believers might be called Messianic Gentiles. But what religion did they follow and practice? We know full well what they believed; they believed the truths contained in the entire Old Testament, which we know from the Gospels that Jesus expanded upon, making it much more stringent and showing the impossibility to physically keep the Law (which Paul goes into detail about in Romans 7). We know they believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Is Christianity nothing more than the true, purified form of Judaism (minus the laws, the sacrifices, etc.) as it was originally intended? As I said, I am asking these questions to get your minds working. I honestly do not know the answer (or maybe I do and I am failing to put my finger on it), but the question intrigues me. As professing followers of Christ Jesus, we need to get back to the roots of our faith and believe as the early followers of Jesus did. Purely and wholeheartedly.

Please, do not blindly get hooked up on any of the information presented and posed here. No, we should not all go out and convert to Judaism, even if before it was referred to as "Christianity" it might have been known as Judaism. Why? Modern Judaism is a far cry different from what Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, the Apostles, and the early followers of Jesus believed. And just because the early followers of Jesus were referred to by "the Way" does not mean you need to go looking for and join some group calling itself The Way, because if they are anything like The Way International, they are a cult under the guise of "Christianity." In fact, any time some group tries to name their denomination according to what they think is the name of God's "true" Church in the Bible, claiming themselves to be the "true" church, they all turn out to be cults (e.g., the Church of God (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; 10:32; 11:22; 15:9; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:13; 1 Tim. 3:5). Do not become legalistic about what we should be called or what our religion should be called. The only thing that matters is what the entire Bible teaches. Anything outside of that can be discarded.

Just so that I have not lost any of my readers, let me clarify what I am trying to get at. "Christianity" is what their religion (what they followed and practiced) eventually became known as. But what was it called before that? If it was not for the city of Antioch coming up with the derogatory term, their religion never would have come to be called "Christianity." So what was it called? Minus the Law, the sacrifices, etc., the Old Testament saints and the New Testament saints have the same faith. One looked forward to the Messiah, the other looked backward to the Messiah. I hope you understand what I am getting at. Hopefully it has gotten the gears of your mind turning, too. Do I actually need an answer to it? Not really. I know what I believe and in Whom I believe and that is all that really matters. But I am a thinker, and I often delve into such thoughts to try and learn more. This is what the noble Bereans were like.