Malaysia: Muslims firebomb 4 churches because Infidels used word “Allah”

"...how to solve the problem of this Islamic explosion "

CASTRATION.
By every mean available.

" expressing violent anti-Islamic sentiments "

It's my REACTION to several aggressions already commited by muslims against Jews, Hindus, Ba'hai,
Copts, Armenians, Greeks, Serbs, Catholics, Protestants...

I will NOT offer the "other cheek". Christians can do that.
I will offer the nozzle of a 120mm cannon of a Merkava Mk IV.

That's how I intend do deal with the LOWEST kind of humanoid
ever spawned in this planet.

The Sumerian civilization, the first recorded civilization that has been found, had a Moon god named Sin. As the source I quoted pointed out, the name Sinai had it's roots with this name. It's not anti-Islamic to point out that almost every Near East civilization had a Moon god in it's pantheon. It's not anti-Islamic to point out that pre-Islamic pagan Arabs had a Moon god. It only becomes anit-Islamic when you point out they used the name Allah for their Moon god before they used it for the Islamic god's name. It's a logical conclusion to believe it's the same god, it's a matter of faith for a Muslim to maintain it's not.It is anti-Islamic to point out they may be the same god. A Muslim must defend against this accusation the best he can, based on their faith. It is nearly impossible to reconcile the two postions, so there will always be disagreement. Ironically, your point about faith is well taken, because it tends to be the strength and orientation of a Muslim's faith that determines the way they practice their religion, which often leads to radicalism, and the atttempt to force their beliefs on non-Muslims, and fierce resistance towards anything that threatens their belief. Which is why I try to point out that the basis of their beliefs is weak at best. I'm trying to guide you and them away from a belief I see as harmful to you and many others, without trying to replace it with any personal beliefs of my own, only with the hope you will find something better on your own.

Whether or not I believe in crop-circles, aliens, or UFOs, does not afffect my morals or my ethics, Solkar.

One man's "reliable and accepted" sources may be another man's propaganda, especially where religion and politics are concerned. I have a Bachelor of Science degree so I am aware of what Universities and Colleges teach, and how they teach it. Since obtaining my degree, I have spent my life learning to be sceptical of many things, and Universities and Colleges are not immune to controversey.

Since you seem to be disparging my credibility with your inferences, I feel free to disparage your belief in an invisible diety that you cannot prove exists, except through the circular arguement of quoting from his book. Since you base your morals and ethics, as a Muslim, on Allah's existence, the burden of proof is on you, and every Muslim.

That's not where I got my references, but I won't dispute that all scholarly and scientific data are open to debate and dispute, and often get caught up in the emotional and passionate when religion and politics become involved. I look at the weight of the evidence too, and make my own judgements. Whether I "stumbled" on it or not makes no difference if it's true, and I am not a Christian, or belong to any other religion, so I think I am more objective than most. And thanks for the concern, I'm trying to think positively of you too, despite your delusions inflicted by your faith.

The good thing is that wheras I can easily prove what I say, you CAN'T.

You are a damn muslim.

Another TAQYAH teller trying very hard to confuse the infidels.



ATTENTION BEEJJ, KAL_EL, TONTO, INFIDELESTO and the others...pay attention carefully at cooter99's candid advice:

" Do you know any Muslims? Might not hurt to talk to one or two. Consider it getting to know your enemy if that makes it sit easier. "

So, you do suggest I should pack my things, go to Islamabad and tell to those ragheads : Hi ! I'm a Jew and would like to get you know better, be you friend "

It seems that the last Jew who did something like that was DANIEL PEARL.
He was BEHEADED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I want to look at my muslim enemies through the lenses of a PREDATOR DRONE,
in order to know them better.

And pull the trigger.

Now I might be wrong about this Jewhawk (I didn't do very well in social studies), but I think that there is a small chance that there might, just possibly, be Muslims living in places other than Islamabad. I could be mistaken though.

Muslims in America are terrorists.
Muslims in Great Britain are terrorists.

Doesn't make any difference where a muslim is hatched.

A Brazilian rattlesnake will be as fierce as its Mexican cousin.
The first won't be fond of Samba as the late won't love the Mariachis playing.
Both will do what they know the best : KILL.

" could be mistaken though. "

That's almost exactly your mother's words when your father asked her if she was sure
that he was your biological father.She said :

" Y-Yes...m-maybe...I d-dunno...a-actually I think so,but I could be mistaken though ".

Go haunt another website, you miserable fool.
Go suck some muslim manly meat, because that is your real area of expertise.

Solkhar...
Shukri...
Muslima...
Chris...
Cooter...

THE NEXT,PLEASE !!!

"Go suck some muslim manly meat, because that is your real area of expertise."

This sentence implies that you're also homophobic. Is this true? And if so, how is it that you can contain so much hate in one fragile human body? I would probably explode.

That comment about my mother - that's funny. Because it's true. No it's not. But I wish it was. Because it'd be funny.

nuance response = fail

use of the word nuance = fail
sorry infidelesto, that was straight up, good old-fashioned sarcasm.

pointing out that I pointed out your nuance = Fail = Fail

Maybe you should look up the word "nuance". I would do it for you but I would probably fail.

Is it " unreasonable " ?
Nope.

A " miniscule fraction " of 1,57 Billion, let's say, ONE PER CENT, we've got 15,7 MILLION
TERRORISTS.
Those who don't engage DIRECTLY with suicide-bombings do SUPPORT them financially,
morally and by threatening news outlets to portray the terrorists as " martyrs" or members
of the "resistence movement"...

In Brazil, the muslim infestation do fundraising events to send money to Hamas and Hezbollah.

In my eyes, they are ALL terrorists; Brazilian Intelligence seems to have the same assessment.

The man who betrayed his Christian faith to become a MUSLIM, Solkhar, admitted that 4 %
is a more accurate figure...

BIGOTRY ?

Explain that to DANIEL PEARL's family.
Explain September 11, 2001
Explain BALI
Explain BESLAN
The list is ENDLESS.

If I am a bigot, SO BE IT.

I'm dealing with my religious,cultural and physical existence that are
severely threatened by those whom you gracefuly defend.

The bottom line is that MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS.Period.

"The bottom line is that MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS.Period."

Statements like that are absolutely absurd. The world doesn't function in absolute terms. Statements like that are also dangerous. You're just throwing gas on the fire. Nothing constructive is going to come out of posts like that. Since the extermination of ALL Muslims isn't going to happen (much as you wish it would) don't you think taking a different tack might be more productive. It might make you feel better to get some of these things off of your chest but this hate mongering isn't going to make the violence go away. Do you know any Muslims? Might not hurt to talk to one or two. Consider it getting to know your enemy if that makes it sit easier.

You should work for Obama;you could be a special envoy;you could negotiate with the moderate Taliban.

Noble sentiments are cheap, aren't they? Dangerous, too. The majority of people spoke in terms similar to yours in the 1930s, regarding Churchill as a rabble-rousing warmonger. True, Churchill did not target all Germans, but he realised that with the appropriate people in charge all Germans would become lethal enemies. Unlike you, JH knows that Jews are the everlasting number 1 enemy of Islam, and he is a Jew. You might be correct in suggesting to JH that there might be other ways of tackling the problem, but he and his fellow Jews have a loaded gun constantly pointing at their heads, so it's not so easy for them to feel the confidence you feel. Yup, noble thoughts are cheap indeed! But put Jews aside for the moment and focus upon the rabbit-like breeding propensity of Muslims throughout the non-Muslim world. This doesn't bother you? Well, my friend, if you extrapolate you will be confronted by the worst scenario imaginable: a Muslim Europe. This does not concern you? It certainly concerns JH and many others. You'd be happy for Sharia Law to be the order of the day throughout Europe? You'd be content to see European countries firmly and everlastingly in the hands of Islam? You ask JH if he knows any Muslims. Have you ever lived under the Islamic yoke? But perhaps you are one of those who believe that because everything is hunky-dory at the moment, all will be everlastingly well. Jewhawk's statements are dangerous? No, my friend, your thinking is dangerous; lethally so, but Muslims everywhere will applaud you because you do sterling work in Islam's advance.

Hyperbole aside for a moment Beejj. What is your solution to this problem?

Hyperbole? I leave that to those of noble sentiments.

Do you have any suggestions about how to solve the problem of this Islamic explosion (no pun intended) or are you of a like mind with Jewhawk? Do you feel that expressing violent anti-Islamic sentiments on a blog will somehow ameliorate the situation?

How I wish I had the wisdom to put forth a remedy for the cancer that is Islam. What happens in Islamic lands is their business, and I am happy to see them wallow in hopelessness, but the growth of Islamic strength in countries in which it is an alien concept is what concerns me. It already might be too late, for not only have political leaders of the past been blind or craven, but the rise of liberalism continues to foster the malignancy. Perhaps education is the only hope. People's eyes must be opened to the very real threat that dwells within their societies. As the neat Latin phrase puts it: Praemonitus praemunitus. I hope that's not too hyperbolical!

Do you suppose this education could also be applied to the Muslims. Remind them of a peaceful Islam before fundamentalists began inciting violence against innocents (I'm sure some have been doing this since time immemorial just not on the same scale). Or do you feel that they are a lost cause? Forewarned is indeed forearmed. Or in the immortal words of G.I. Joe: Knowing is half the battle.

Good question, Cooter. I suppose it could, but I do not believe it would be as effective, given that Mo's words are set in concrete with no reformation allowed. I disagree with your saying that there was a time Islam was peaceful. From its inception it has been spread by the edge of the sword (howls of protestations from "moderate" Muslims), for it was invented by a bloodthirsty savage who made short work of those who refused to give him credence. Education is a powerful tool, but as the Jesuits knew, early indoctrination is difficult to overcome. Thus we have sad cases such as Shukri who claim to have been Muslims all their lives. Try knocking sense into such vacant skulls!

"given that Mo's words are set in concrete with no reformation allowed" Incorrect in the sense that the Qur'an's words are set in concrete, no changes. That does not mean that the interpretations are not there to be reformed as it has been, slowly and at times. You confuse the haddiths which is a completely different matter. Those "men" whom wrote the haddiths, claimed that they are righteous and cannot be changed and that is the problem. Some were certainly correct examples of the life and sayings of the Prophet, be sure, but others were the interpretation of what someone said that the Prophet said.

This is the problem and has been the "great debate" within Muslim theology/philosophy since the day Mohammed died and that is were I am happy to complain bitterly and condemned as the f*cking crap that keeps much of not most of the Muslim world from progressing and claiming the moral high ground. There was much more debate in the 16th and 17th century and bingo, science and golden ages were there, and it would have happened again probably in the late 18th century but by that time colonialization and European dominance started and that stopped the clock as the leadership was taken out.

"From its inception it has been spread by the edge of the sword (howls of protestations from "moderate" Muslims), for it was invented by a bloodthirsty savage who made short work of those who refused to give him credence"

Yep, protests immediately because of what can be only called historical bullsh*t. Islam spread along with the culture of empires just as Christianity did, not "to spread Islam". Historians have all dismissed that 19th Century Christianized interpretation version of history and it is sad to see people still spread that. Christianity as much as Islam spread automatically along the line of nations, empires or armies moving about. Part of the natural processes of those times was simply to spread the culture which includes forcing or offering the religion with it. The history of the Balkans being the perfect example of being forced into Christianity, then parts turned Muslim, then turned back into Christianity (another version of) and then back to Islam (and again back again). Entire villages adopted one faith or the other because of either threat of violence, political expediency or for economic advantage. The spread of Islam was exactly the same and they used the same rhetoric of that period of history that God was on their side or they are doing it because God commanded it.

The First Crusade is another perfect example. Urban II under pressure to liberate the military conquests in the Holy Land and against Constantinople declared a "Holy Crusade to liberate Christian Lands and defeat Islam" (which incidently automatically caused the first real Jihad since the time of the Prophet). But what really happened. The army of mostly Germanic Princes chose for the first year not to leave Europe and massacre 10s of thousands of Jews in a mass pogrom with the order of "convert or die". They then forced the conversion of small sabian communities in the southern Balkans into Christianity and on arrival in the Holy Land forced more Jews to convert and those of the Eastern Churches Thus it was a year and then another six months of bloodshed in the Holy Lands before they even started fighting Muslims - who if defeated were told to convert or die.

Reality, Beejj, reality please. Criticize as much as you like, I have no issue with that, but please add a bit of reality to back up your case.

Solkhar

You touch upon the origins of Islamic literature and theology and complain bitterly that it has been left to “Those "men" whom wrote the haddiths, claimed that they are righteous and cannot be changed and that is the problem. Some were certainly correct examples of the life and sayings of the Prophet, be sure, but others were the interpretation of what someone said that the Prophet said.”

I poked around the net, using “Koran” as a search term. I read the Wikipedia article and got lots of great basic vocabulary and an overview of what might be called the ‘high view’ of the Koran’s origins. Gabriel to Muhammed to Companions to the likes of Zayd and finally Uthman.

What really opened my understanding to the nature (and existence!) of the ongoing struggle to reexamine the meaning of the Koran was an article by Toby Lester in the Atlantic Monthly. What a great overview of not only the personalities involved in this reexamination but of an event that has accelerated it. The web site: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/99jan/ko.... I offer it as a gift because I think you’ll find it helps you explain your muslim self to others.

The event: the discovery of a hoard of documents in San’aa’s Great Mosque. These documents give scholars elements of Koranic literature that reach back into the very earliest islamic century. The discovery has ignited a new interest in looking at the ‘history’ of the Koran. Merely looking at the Koran as a piece of literature with a history greatly threatens the stability of the literalist view of the Koran as a document all but dropped fully formed from heaven at the feet of the Prophet.

You appear to have a strong urge to challenge the sanctity of Uthman’s version as well as reinterpret centuries of theology rooted in literal adherence to the Uthman version, the supremacy of the archaic language in which it appears and the authority of the ahadith that attempt to make sense of it.

Good luck!

Good luck academically: Leapfrogging past the guidance of the ahadith and into early and variant versions of the Koran leaves you at the mercy of what to do with the up-to-one-fifth of the text that remains absolutely incomprehensible to even islamic scholars of early Arabic. Without these ahadith, you now must serve as your own guide to understanding Koran and that will open you to charges of self-serving subjectivity. Interestingly enough, you complain about the effects of unrestrained subjectivity in the quote with which I opened this posting.

Good luck politically: Too many national regimes, too many imam-centered circles of influence, and too much time have cemented the literal version of the Koran and all the ‘crap’ (your word, I believe) which that view presses upon the world and upon its own followers. In the 1000 years since Mu'tazilism and the metaphorical school of interpretation perished, literal (and bloody-minded) Islam has had a huge head start on you all.

Good luck personally: Muslims on quests for metaphorical reinterpretations of literal Islam tend to disappear. Your most serious adversary isn’t the enraged Jayhawk who blusters in an essentially defensive trench waiting for the islamic hoards but from some Nigerian jihadi sent to your home with a package of reeducation sewn into to his underwear.

I know what Islam is about to go through. The academic world first saw Christianity’s roots this way in the hoard of documentary evidence that archaeologists uncovered over the last 150 years or so. Christian literalists, too, took offense to the notion that our holy writings could possibly have a ‘history’. The very notion lay at variance to the notion of divine revelation.

Turns out that when the dust settled this uncovered history supports the Bible’s authenticity. The documentary evidence confirms the doctrinal concepts if not the precise choice of words that appear in existing translations even while it shines a light on patterns of variation that have crept into the flow of transmission. Through it all, I get to read the writings of heretics, hangers-on and heroes of the faith and to rejoice in what God has wrought through it all.

Naturally, as a christian, I doubt that you’ll have the same happy experience with a reexamination of your (IMO: false) faith’s history, but I grant you that I have a bias here; don’t take unnecessary offense. However, I applaud any movement on the part of Islam’s followers to break with a literalism that blights us all.

Good luck re-creating a peaceful, tolerant Islamic reality for us all. You have an almost impossible task.

Solkhar:

With respect to 'Islam spread along with the culture of empires just as Christianity did.': I can't find a way to support these assertions from history. I say 'these', using the plural, with respect both to the way Islam spread and the way Christianity spread..

First Christianity: The early christian centuries saw the spread of the gospel of peace in the face of violent and protracted imperial resistance, not with its assistance. Christians modeled themselves on Jesus, who bore no sword and sought no political control or social dominance and who bids His followers wait for His return peacefully. Christianity, up to the fateful reign of Constantine, spread through the Roman Empire like a virus in a host. The only swords involved were the ones at the throats of evangelists and martyrs to the faith. I have a book called "Mapping History: WORLD RELIGIONS". The maps of Christian expansion in the first centuries focus on cities where evangelists spoke and regions where the gospel took root. Not a set of crossed swords indicating a battle shows up anywhere in this process.

All this came to a halt when Constantine legalized and then sponsored the Church. Worst thing that ever happened to us. The melding of church and state corrupted the latter and fattened both of them. Since then, real christianity, the kind that thrived in its first three centuries, the kind that now must patiently endure grim dhimmi-hood, real christianity has always had to share billing with institutional and state editions. Real christianity has, indeed, followed colonial expansions. Institutional christianity has, indeed, pressed itself upon the conquered at numerous times in history. I do not confuse the methods, intentions or, most importantly, the results, of these two movements. You will find it easy to equate the two in spite of my pious objections. My sense of betrayal must remain a personal one.

On the other hand, Islam burst upon us fully invested with political intentions and purpose. Islam continues to this day to demand its political due in the creation of a new Caliphate. Islam burst upon us with a social structure and law code (Sharia) and with a militaristic tradition. Muslims followed their warrior prophet in spreading their truth on the edge of the sword. My "Mapping History" book shows maps for the expansion of Islam that bear dozens and dozens of crossed swords from India to France. These crossed swords memorialize battles that trace the expansion of this religion. Islam and battlefield blood were synonymous. Islam did not follow imperial armies with secular objectives; islam was the essence and driving animus of these armies. (The fact that the Quran gave the looting of all in their paths the sanction of Allah certainly boosted enthusiasm among the faithful!)

Even with the shameful and misguided behaviors of various state institutional churches through history factored in, Islam and Christianity, once again, cannot make a moral equivalency. When the church aided or supported imperialism, it violated Christ's character and the content of the New Testament, its holy book. When Islam puts the sword to the necks of ethnic group after ethnic group, it models itself after Muhammed and follows the teachings of its holy book. There exists in the testimony of history no moral equivalency between these two religions.

"Unlike you, JH knows that Jews are the everlasting number 1 enemy of Islam, and he is a Jew. You might be correct in suggesting to JH that there might be other ways of tackling the problem, but he and his fellow Jews have a loaded gun constantly pointing at their heads, so it's not so easy for them to feel the confidence you feel. "

What JH knows is crap and the "everlasting number 1 enemy of Islam" is wrong. The issue of Islam vs Judaism does not exist, it is Pan-Arabism and Politics vs the Jewish State and it is Radicalism using this conflict to push for more radicalism. Rather like the American far-right is using the war on terror to push propoganda and stereotyping of Islam and Muslims to create an "us and them" division for their own political agenda.

As we have discussed many times, there is nothing in Islam that says there has to be conflict and in fact there is more in the Qur'an about the close relationship and that all good People of The Book will stand shoulder to shoulder with good Muslims at the Gates of Heaven on Judgement Day. Add to that, only until the turn of last century, the life of Jews was better, safer and more cooperative in Muslims countries than in Europe or the West in general.

I can undestand the anxiety, fear and even suspicion by all Jews of political radical Muslims and pan-Arab politics and expect to see that from many if not most Jews, but the ugliness and BS that JH and other far-right Jews spout is "as ugly", "as evil" and potentially "as destructive" as those of HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH period.

You know my views, my opposition of the radical haddith concept of impossing an unecessary Shari'a, my disgust for euro-muslims and their pathetic claims to represent something othe than themselves, not to mention it is considered a joke in the real Muslim world. You also know that I dispise radicals in every aspect and being under the yoke or danger of them is no excuse for the radical response, because if you go down that track then all those senior elderly radicals and even some terrorists will jump down your throat and point out that they are a creation of being under the sinister and horrible yoke of western colonialists whom frankly have also done some unspeakible horrors. That is why I always push the basic tennant - which is also pushed by Christians and Jewish principles that fighting radicalism with radicalism, like responding to evil with another evil just does not work. Something that JH fails at because he follows what all radicals do - a willingness to usurp their own faith and principles to support their politics and not the other way around.

Cheers

I just Googled "References to Jews in the Koran." I think you should do the same. But wait ....... it's all mistranslation, isn't it?

Beej-

I gave the exercise an extended shot and found mostly incoherent (to this weak reader of translated arabic?) pronouncements regarding Allah's unhappiness with the general intransigence of the Jews. Jesus, in the gospels, gives a much more accessible, powerful and pointed series of condemnations to the Jews along the same lines. I do recognize similarities between the two.

Both religions harbor anti-semites fully capable of acting out their deity's announced displeasure through preemptive punishment of His erring Jewish children. If there exists a difference between the behavior of the two anti-semitic groups, it stems from the degree to which each holy book balances expressions of divine disappointment with Jews with direct instructions to the 'faithful' about how they are to treat the Jews. The New Testament, through Paul's letters, gives direct and repeated instruction to Christians that may be summed up by a single quote from an extensive, extremely personal treatment by the Jewish Christian Paul, evangelist to the Romans: "From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers." The writer of Hebrews (also Paul, IMO) presents another long, more doctrinal treatment of the proper, respectful and even cordial relationship between the two groups. Result? There exist no stronger opponents to the anti-Semite, than devout followers of the NT.

Compared to the NT's instructions regarding the proper relationship of its readers with Jews, the Qur'an, to judge by the numerous verses listed in the website you recommended, offers generalities with incoherent phrasing and, as Solkhar says, references the End of Times more often than not.

What, of what, can the good muslim do with this information? So indistinct a set of written notes can evoke any melody you want. Throw in a pinch of abrogation, a dash of interpretation and a whole cup of eagerness to avenge Allah's hurt feelings, and JewHawk had darn well better hunker down and give serious thought to his imminent and violent demise. Solkhar does well to avoid this tendency; I give him and others, like Italy's Abdul Hadi Palazzi, a tip of the hat for being willing to unfurl the banner of tolerance and amity in the no man's land between these two groups. Muslim's willing to adopt a tolerant stance risk much more than I have been yet called on to risk for my faith.

I hold out little hope for Solkhar even as I wish him well. His Qur'anic foundation does not seem to give him the clear guidance and strong support my New Testament gives me as we both decry anti-semitism. He sees a call to tolerance and amity: excellent. But the generalities with which the Qur'an states its instructions, I can see how devout muslims can take a much different approach.

How do I love thee,Beejj?,let me count the ways.

" Why so angry? Would you like to talk about it? "

Dear Cooter99 ( Aren't you related to the "Dukes of Hazard's" CRAZY COOTER ? I love that show! )

Angry ?
Au contraire, mon ami.
I'm very calm, hearing Mozart's Concerto NO.21 in C Major ( K 467)...

Hate?
YES.

Why ?

I guess you are a new participant in this blog. Please, get your time and READ
past subjects posted in here by Kal_El, John Infidelesto and others.
There are literally TRUCKLOADS of reasons of why I do hate the disease called islam and
its two-legged, humanoid carriers the muslims.

"( Aren't you related to the "Dukes of Hazard's" CRAZY COOTER ? I love that show! )"
LOL.........LOL........LOL.....
(sigh) memories.Boss Hogg was ingenious!

I wonder if Boss Hogg was an allegorical impersonation of Moped?
Perhaps "the Dukes of Hazard" was in its self an allegory of the venal nature of Islam.
Perhaps Muslim scholars might ponder the whole show?

"The fear of the Lord is to hate evil." Proverbs

Hatred of evil is good.

Don't you think it's unreasonable to vilify the 1.5 billion followers of Islam because of the atrocities committed by a miniscule fraction of them? Bigotry never did anyone any good.

Fear and hatred of Totalitarian Islamic Sharia Law and mass-murdering Islamic Jihad is not bigotry; it is rational, and is no different from fear and hatred of Totalitarian Nazi Law and mass-murdering Nazi Gestapo and military forces.

BTW, the United States did not vilify all 80 million Germans during World War II, but we were at war with their Totalitarian Law, Gestapo and military forces. Many ordinary Germans were of necessity killed by our military during World War II - in order to defeat the evil within Germany; sadly many ordinary Muslims will find themselves in the same position unless Islam reforms toward the sacred nature of equal rights for all (including all non-Muslim) individuals to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (private property honestly earned through labor).

I agree totally with your first para, the beginning of the second and then it dies to zero with the last two lines.

Sort of on-topic S_R, your constant refering to private property made me think of this below quote and am interested in your reaction:

Martin Luther King, Jr said that "We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered."

Dare I think that you consider MLKjr is a communist?

Yes, I think MLK had a Marxist philosophy. Property rights reflect labor rights, and individual labor reflects the individual creative human nature. If a man does not have a right to his property labored for, then he has no right to his labor, i.e.: he has no right to his sacred creative human nature - he has no right to self-ownership. Under Marxism the all-powerful State owns the individual, his labor - his creativity - his human nature.

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's… God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being. And tho' all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of nature; and no body has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state: yet being given for the use of men, there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other, before they can be of any use, or at all beneficial to any particular man.…Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.” John Locke

http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111...

"Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain, while 41 per cent opposed it. Twenty per cent felt sympathy with the July 7 bombers' motives..."

Tiny fraction my ass.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/...


http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=25155...

40% SR! I always though that a fair proportion of Muslims were insane;but 40% is serious.
Looks like we have too few mental institutions;and a serious shortage of straight jackets.

Thank you HSB, but the information is there for anyone that cares to look for it, unless, perhaps, they are so blinded by their faith that they don't care to.

If faith is not blind then what on earth (or in heaven;which one needs faith for)is faith based on?

I'm having trouble posting my replys, and my edits. I got a message that my browser settings needed adjusted to accept cookies from sites, and I made the exception for disqus.com, but I'm still having problems. This is a test message to see if I've solved them by updating my browser.

This "armchair expert" seems have turned you into a man of few words....for a change!

For some reason, my reply to this comment of yours got posted as a new comment, feel free to peruse it.

During the nineteenth century, Amaud, Halevy and Glaser went to Southern Arabia and dug up thousands of Sabean, Minaean, and Qatabanian inscriptions which were subsequently translated. In the 1940's, the archeologists G. Caton Thompson and Carleton S. Coon made some amazing discoveries in Arabia. During the 1950's, Wendell Phillips, W.F. Albright, Richard Bower and others excavated sites at Qataban, Timna, and Marib (the ancient capital of Sheba). Thousands of inscriptions from walls and rocks in Northern Arabia have also been collected. Reliefs and votive bowls used in worship of the "daughters of Allah" have also been discovered. The three daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat are sometimes depicted together with Allah the Moon-god represented by a crescent moon above them. The archeological evidence demonstrates that the dominant religion of Arabia was the cult of the Moon-god

I'm sorry, but the above doesn't sound like "crap" to me! What's the source of your "crap"?

Here's some more: In Old Testament times, Nabonidus (555-539 BC), the last king of Babylon, built Tayma, Arabia as a center of Moon-god worship. Segall stated, "South Arabia's stellar religion has always been dominated by the Moon-god in various variations." Many scholars have also noticed that the Moon-god's name "Sin" is a part of such Arabic words as "Sinai," the "wilderness of Sin," etc. When the popularity of the Moon-god waned elsewhere, the Arabs remained true to their conviction that the Moon-god was the greatest of all gods. While they worshipped 360 gods at the Kabah in Mecca, the Moon-god was the chief deity. Mecca was in fact built as a shrine for the Moon-god.

Sounds scholarly enough for me.

And you're free to express your opinion that "we all worship the same one God", but my sources are not "radicalised evangalists". Or Muslims whose political agenda includes trying to pass Allah off as the one and only "god".

My first point was that anyone that uses the word Alllah for god is ignorant of the historical and archeological information, which it seems you are too.

I shall henceforth refer to you as our resident Islamic scholar Sir W.Outstanding!

I should add that if you go on the web and look up the reference that SirWilhelm has given, you will find it is mostly spouted in www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm, www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions, www.peter2.net/moon_god and as such.

The main recent push for the moon-god scam, even though I am sure the original archeological side was just misdirected effort, was Dr. Robert Morey's "Moon-god Allah". Morey is for all purposes a Christian Radical whom attacks any faith, including other Christian groups, for not agreeing with his views. He sponsored by WorldNetDaily which I think is self-explanitory and certainly shoots down any academic qualities of both Morey's work or his agenda. He also is trying to raise funds for a Worldwide Crusade against Islam - which itself is a provocation for conflict and is linked to the infamous" Ellis Scandal" claiming that Muslim have hid nuclear devices within America that not only was an attempt to create a scare and animosity towards Muslims but both Ellis and Morey was criticised for having claims to being proven sources to the FBI and other authorities when they were not.

Proffessor Amnon Ben-Tor in "The New Encyclopedia Of Archaeological Excavations In The Holy Land" reviewed the Thomposon-Coon findings and simply discreditted them, noting that most of the sources were in fact not even of Arabian or linked to it and were in fact "Caananite, Israelizite or Hazorian in origin". This was also confirmed in "Treasures Of The Holy Land: Ancient Art From The Israel Museum".

Jacques Ryckmans a noted Belgian professor and archeologist stated in his "L'institution monarchique en Arabie meridionale avant l'Islam (Louvain 1951)" said: "Many mention of gods are pure appellations, which do not allow defining the nature, or even the sex, of the deities names. This explains why the ancient claim of D. Nielsen to reduce the whole pantheon to a basic triad Moon-father, Sun-mother (sun is feminine in Arabia), and Venus-son, has continued to exert negative influence, in spite of its having been widely contested: it remained tempting to explain an unidentified feminine epithet as relating to the Sun-goddess, etc" Ditlef Nielsen was a Danish professor of the late 19th early 20th centuries whom took a very "classical view" of gods.

The bottom line is that the moon-god subject was a very exciting concept by very Christian gentlemen at the early part of last century and perhaps with the best of intentions, got it wrong and probably was more pushed by hopes and dreams than by actual archeological accuracy. Later on, Christian radicals came accross it and pushed it for their agenda and unfortunately poor SirWilhelm has either stumbled upon it or ....... well I still would rather think positively of the poor chap.

Some thoughts about the usefulness of Allah as the Moon-God

I have nursed a curiosity about the origins of the crescent moon as the near universal symbol of Islam for some time now. After reading the entries about its significance, I had a look see for myself.

In search of this Dr. Morey, I ended up at http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/islam.htm and read a presentation of his assertions, noting the references to various to archaeologists, some known to me, some obscure.

I found a muslim apologist’s site (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/...) and soon found myself neck deep in plausible challenges not only to Robert Morey’s conclusions but to his seemingly dodgy methods as well. Neither stood up to the strong and scholarly counter-analysis that the writers of this site launched.

I have several conclusions from this reading:

1. There exists no credible evidence that Allah was the Moon God. Morey’s case crumbles and his dodgy methods give the whole enterprise a rather bad odor.

2. The counter assertion that Allah represents a simple Aramaic derivative of the general term ‘god’ benefits from its simplicity, plausibility and from my willingness to at least provisionally extend the notion the benefit of the doubt.

3. The force of archaeological evidence for pre-Islamic religions on the Arabian peninsula rests on little more than various and collected totems, statues, embossed symbols and the like. Basically, for purposes of forming detailed conclusions, archaeologists have squat: they’re full of cheap theories born of assumptions and buttressed by referencing some companionable guesses from other equally clueless but confident archaeologists. Cultural context, especially writings, cannot be found-either native writing or the competent descriptions of visiting literates from outside the peninsula. Without script, we got exactly nothing, and out of nothing, anything becomes possible to the inventive, dodgy academic needing to advance his career or favorite biases or to a convert to Islam eager to shield the new faith from reproach.

4. Clearly, pre-Islamic religious observances embraced polytheistic and idol-ridden practices and beliefs. For some period of pre-Islamic time, locals worshiped Allah as part of a rich, polytheistic mix. Muhammed rescued/restored/elevated (pick one) Allah from his status of one-among-many to Islam’s monotheistic Lord of All.

5. Given the stringently autocratic character of Islam’s sovereign-only Allah when compared to the consistently milder Jewish and Christian understanding of their sovereign-but-righteous Divine Being, I come to this provisional conclusion: These Divine Beings exist as separately experienced entities.

6. Muhammed very likely grafted the Kaaba’s one-of-300, pre-Islamic Allah onto the rich and ancient Abrahamic narrative, using the connection as the booster rocket for Allah’s elevation to supreme status. I do not see Muhammed doing this calculatedly, although, history and the ahadith know, the man was capable of tremendously self-serving calculations. Speaking as a Christian, (and with all the subjectivity that can entail!) I suspect interplay among dark spiritual forces, forces to which Muhammed made himself readily available, much to your satisfaction and the distress of dhimmis everywhere.

Got to tell you all how much I enjoy this site from time to time. The forceful and passionate nature of the threads and the honest (if red hot!) emotions behind them often overwhelm, but taking them in small increments over time, tracing out various bunny trails and odd notions that arise, I advance my own understanding of the world around me.

Darn good for us all that the closest thing you come to occupying my living room together is the computer screen upon which your thoughts appear together with mine. Can you imagine the clean-up?!?!?

Allah = Satan

There is only ONE God, the God of Israel;
Nowadays only Jews and Christians are God's believers.

I'm gonna order toilet paper with the words " Allah " and "Solkhar" printed on it
to show what I think about islam and you.

It'd be a historical day.

WHY?

Because it'd be the FIRST TIME you and Allah would be USEFUL !!

HAHAHAHAHA!!

Wow Jewhawk! That's some hate you're slinging around there. Why so angry? Would you like to talk about it?

This goes to show the kind of problems ignorance can cause. I don't know why any infidels, or non-Muslims if you prefer, would want to use Allah as their word for god. Historians and archeologists have shown that Allah was the name of the moon god, in Arabia, in ancient times, long before Mohamed came along. Unless they want to join the Muslims in worshipping a moon god? Also, the problems that so many have in deciding what name to call "God" illustrates the problem that no one really knows who "God" is. And anyone that claims that he truly "knows God" should really have to produce "Him", or some kind of proof, outside of quoting scripture, which is all anybody can really do. If everyone was left to decide their beliefs for themselves, this kind of thing wouldn't become a problem, but Islam in particular doesn't want it's beliefs or authority questioned, and it's political system, the real heart of Islam, is set up to discourage anything that disputes it. What other religion has "fatwas" or the means to enforce them? Or the unquestioning followers that obey them. In the absence of a fatwa, all it takes is a rumor or an accusation to trigger Muslim wrath. Strange, for a religion of peace?

No the Moon God idea was just crap from one archeologist wanting to sell copy and then caught on by agenda based groups to somehow put down Islam.

Just ask any linguist and Allah comes from Aramaic which means God, there is no debate and any argument to the contrary is quashed instantly by both logic and academia.

There is also no real debate about there being different "Gods" between the Abrahamic faiths, we all worship the same one God. Those radicalised evangalists do similar to any other radical religous group, they are willing to alter their faith and re-interpret their principles to suit their political agenda and not as it is supposed to be - the other way around.

The issue of Malaysia is the attempt by politically motivated radical elements to somehow make the word God in Arabic a patent. The court found the ban obviously stupid and politically biased and thus quashed it but the power of the "imam rumour mill" is fast and dangerous.

Note that the subject on Arabic television is pointing fun at the Malaysians and noted that Lebanese Christians call God Allah as do Coptics if and when spoken in the Arabic language.

"We all worship the same one God".

In a sense, a limited sense, this assertion has merit. Abraham stands as a key figure to all three religions and all three accounts make reference to the Divine Being depicted in the narrative as communicating with this Abraham. Beyond this common launching point, the Divine Being in question receives a treatment in Islam that leads Muhammed to make significant distinctions between Allah's character and that of the 'God' of the Jews and Christians. Based on Muhammed's severe protests, I would never confuse Allah with the God to whom I pray, whatever their common origins in the Abrahamic narrative. Muhammed wouldn't want me to and I certainly second his judgment.

Jesus (God manifest in the flesh) says in Mark 10:18, "No one is good but God alone." Jews understand God as good as well. Muhammed addresses this rather benign assertion the Qur'an in 5:64. He rails against the Jews along these lines: "The Jews say, 'Allah's hand is chained.' May their own hands be chained. May they be cursed for what they say. By no means! His hands are both outstretched: He bestows as He will."

With what do the Jews (and us Christians) dare bind the Divine Being? Why, by asserting He is good–righteous! The God I know from the Bible and experience lays successful claim to acting in such a way that meets high standards of righteousness. There exist therefore things He cannot do–lie, for instance.

Allah's chief and transcendent attribute, according to the implications of this and other sura, remains His absolute sovereignty or omnipotence. Allah can do what He will, not being limited even by the constraints of a righteous character. Christians worship a Divine Being they’ve diminished in authority and strength; Muslims take their Divine Being straight up, so to speak.

Both you and I submit to the will of the Divine Being, God or Allah. We Christians struggle often-and profitably-to understand how this or that tragic or seemingly unjust experience breaks in upon our lives and bids us see it as God’s will. Divine neglect of duty to protect and nurture? False claim to righteousness hereby exposed? From experience, even from the ashes of pain or keen sense of betrayal, this God has preserved His claim of righteousness in my eyes. Never has He wronged me.

The Muslim may submit more stoically to misfortune, even tragedy, for Allah promised His followers only the self-referencing exercise of His unchallenged and unbound sovereignty, not His love or goodness. He lays claim to none.

I would maintain that the Muslim and the Christian worship Divine Beings of ontologically different character. Differences so deep and so significant demand different relationships for each of us with our different Divine Beings. We reap different experiences of Him.

In effect, regardless of seeming identity at the launch, we worship different Divine Beings, you and I. Mine loves me.

Interesting argument and understandable. The argument comes down to the basic concept of faith, interpretation and social background more than anything quantifiable in your argument.

We can, for instance, say that your assuming that your interpreting the meaning and contexts of the Suras you refer to as being correct, which to a Muslim (remembering that Suras are Qur'anic and part of Islam) reads different to you. Then we can add that your assuming that the Aramaic Bible turned into various Greek and Latin forms and then altered an-nauseum reflects the original which Muslims believe that it does not. That in particular, the Church of Peter had altered it grossly.

The common acknowlegement is that God is descibed in Islam more closely back to the image that Judaism does and that is confirmed by the similar language and discriptiveness of the full omnipitence of God in a format which can be roughly described in modern day English as "no bullshit".

It is very much the same God that is worshipped and accepted as such of the Three Abrahamic Faiths.

Oh, my fellow unregistered writer: greetings.

So, anyway . . . . how did we come to worship Divine Beings with such different characters when their historical roots seem so commonly shared?  You raise the likelihood that the Jews and the ‘Church of Peter’ did a wholesale revision of the "no bullshit" deity of actual reality into a Being with whom they could feel more comfortable.  The results of this wholesale revision, say you, rest in my hands when I open my English Bible: no wonder I'm confused!

Hmmm . . . .  let us pray devoutly that I can be succinct and brief, not virtues often associated with me.

CONCLUSION FIRST:  After much investigation, I find that I hold faithful and accurate English versions of the letters of Paul, the narratives of the gospel and the OT books.  I further find that I can make this claim with more authority as a 21st century believer than the christian of almost any other century but the first could lay claim to.  I make this assertion knowing full well the range of variations amongst ancient manuscripts and how the organized church (more Byzantine than Roman; Rome just tacks on extra-biblical stuff about Mary and Purgatory but leaves the actual text pretty much alone) affected the transmission of early texts.

TRANSMISSION OF THE OT. The Jews were piously obsessive about their handling the Word of God with fear and reverence. Example: Ranks of trained scribes would write what the head scribe read aloud from an older text that needed replacement. At intervals, the scribes were told to count down so many lines, over so many letters and announce the letter they found. Any variance in this-and other self-checking protocols– and the damaged new copy was burned. Whew! These guys were serious!!!

Errors in existing texts of the OT are so rare as to make no difference. Little chance for drift in the OT's portrayal of the character of God can develop in such a careful process. None did.

TRANSMISSION OF THE NT: Ah, now this is another story! Almost the opposite of the situation involved in OT transmission. Here I list some differences:

1. No scribal class; little organized protocols for copying. Recipe for sloppy copy for sure! How can I have confidence in my English Bible? especially since . . .
2. No original manuscripts exist for us to view now but there exists. . .
a. Huge volume of textual evidence in every language of the ancient Mediterranean that takes the form of
early manuscript copies (both entire and fragmented) of the NT-by the thousands!
b. Ancient lectionaries and etc: written teaching of bible truth quoting manuscripts, again by the thousands.
c. Letters from contemporaneous church officials quoting the manuscripts too numerous to count

The sheer volume of early textual evidence, uncovered in the last 150 years, allows scholars to compare extensive old texts, plot their variations and determine with near certainty what a Paul or Luke wrote or what Jesus said. Variations that have affected, say, the KJV get identified: Johanine Comma, Byzantine conflations, Mark 1:41 etc etc. Variations get understood as to origins and CORRECTED or given footnotes. As a result. my modern NAS version, English and all, reflects the same righteous God, start to finish, that Paul or John wrote about.

Odd thing is, even a translation with variations accumulated through the ages like the KJV allows me, its reader, to worship the same righteous God that Paul preached and Jesus manifested. The minor nature of those variations does not call one single doctrine of the church into question. Not one doctrine and not one aspect of the righteous nature of God and His Christ fell suspect in this process.

QUESTION/CHALLENGE: As a Muslim, you might explore why Allah would have entrusted His Word for over a thousand years to the sons of Isaac exclusively–Moses to Jesus to Paul–if they were doing such injustice by His intentions or if their people could not guard the content of His communication faithfully.

Hmmm . . . . Muhammed stands as the only prophet of the Abrahamic God to spring from the line of Ishmael–and he, alone and very late, contests the nearly 2000 year testimony of all who came before him that Abraham's God is good and righteous.

My conclusion? Muhammed it was who generated the revision of God's nature. Muhammed it was who gave the world a new understanding of the God of Abraham, one that was comfortable for him and for his people. Allah's character most perfectly reflects and validates the impetuous and impulsive and aggressive nature of the bedouin. Certainly your warrior prophet finds his own match and validation in the “no-bullshit”-take-no-prisoners nature of the Divine Being he pressed upon his tribal brothers with the edge of his sword.

I’ll stick to the Original Recipe for the God of Abraham cause I don’t want to end up extra crispy, if you catch my drift. (Apologies to Kentucky Fried Chicken for the preceding quip. Used without knowledge or permission of copyright owners.)

Solkhar-it occurs to me to amend my final question/challenge along the following lines:

Given the persistence with which Muslims charge that Christians have distorted the text of their own holy writings in order to soften Allah's sovereign and unbound image, muslims must have ready recourse to earlier writings (even writings about earlier writings) that did justice to the 'true' teachings of Jesus or Paul. Please direct me to these examples.

I confess, amidst a huge load of Gospels of Barnabases and Thomases and the like, amidst reams of extra-biblical writings that come to us from the first two Christian centuries, I can find no trace of the no-bullshit deity you recommend to me for worship. I can find references to Gnostic versions (talk about a fully-bulshitted Divine Being!) and Jesuses who seem fairy-tale fantastical and etc. But nary an Allah-type depiction anywhere, and I have read/researched this era aplenty, given my limits of time, training and resources. The resources from this time and on this subject pile up to the sky-surely, if Allah existed in early Christian literature, a reference or two would have survived the most methodical of purgings. Lots of other heretical and nonesensical material seems to have made it to this time frame.

thanks

Where are the biblical references from which we christians have supposedly strayed so badly?

SirRuncibleSpoon, have you read the books of Zecharia Sitchin? I recommend them highly, especially to one who seems so well read otherwise. I'd love to address the issues you raise, but the challenge was to Solkhar, and rightly will be left to him.

SirWilliam: Please forgive me if this is a duplicate posting. I cannot find what I thought I had earlier sent so . . . .

I cruised through the Wikipedia entry for Z. Sitchin and visited his site. I found things familiar and things foreign. I had never before come across the specifics of any aliens-as-gods-to-our-race theories. "Pseudoscience” emerged as the first word in the wikipedia entry to catch my eye. I am conflicted by this term for several reasons.

“Pseudoscience” can reside in the eye of the beholder, as often as not. My reading last week involved a fascinating thread that responded to mathematician Hawking’s musing about the origins of the universe. Multiverses, string theory, the trace remains of other, alternate histories of the universe that we have now and etc. Now, no one challenges Hawking’s genius. No one slights the incredible work and schooling it takes people to break through simple algebra into the calculus of subatomic particle behavior and the workings of black holes and dark matter. And yet it all leads to what feels to me like pointless, free-floating blather so disconnected from any reality we’ll ever experience as to make no sense at all. The discussion on the Hawking forum fascinated me, sure! But DC comics covered all this nonsense 40 years ago in any number of Superman comics. HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy updates the entry, so to speak, and with great charm and appeal.

Nonetheless, these highly trained people will stop in mid-rumination about alternate histories for parallel universes to dump contempt all over someone who thinks our kind’s origins lie in the Planet Nibiru or believes that we owe our existence to the creative power of a Divine Being. Really! Do these people know what they sound like? They're own heads are so far up in the celestial ether they've lost all tether to reality and yet here they are getting all huffy that they've got company up there!!

I found some familiar things, as well. Actually, one familiar thing. The wiki article mentioned Immanuel Velikovsky (IV from here-on-out) as a man with similar pseudoscientific credentials. Now, IV remains one of my guilty pleasures. Worlds come into collision for this fellow as well as for Sitchin, although in historical times. IV explored a wide variety of ancient traditions as a springboard for his celestial ruminations. Sitchin kept a nealyr exclusive (?) focus on Sumerian traditions. IV gave the physics community a run for its money through at least two decades or writing. He used his presuppositions about the origins of Venus and its alleged near collision with the earth in historical times to successfully predict conditions on the moon and Venus way ahead of NASA’s discoveries of same. His track record gave those guys fits. I’m not sure how much of a challenge Sitchin has given the science community. Has anyone located Nibiru?

So, yeah, I have a soft spot for a dose or two of pseudoscience.

Do I understand correctly that Sitchin’s claims have some hold on your thinking? What elements of his thinking do you find most compelling or convincing? Reading a stripped down critique of him on Wiki, even visiting his own site as I did afterwards, I found myself circling warily, looking for the ‘hook’ that would encourage me to venture in further. I wondered how powerfully the analytical core of his argument could work to convince me of his claims. I'm up for a good convincement on a cold winter's night. On the bald face of it, aliens-as-creators of life, aliens-as-evolutionary-engines for human progress seem to ask a leap of faith I find it hard to take.

Yes, I believe Sitchin has found the truth about our history, which main stream scholars have dismissed as myth, because they could not recognize the science behind the myths at the time these texts were first unearthed and translated, lacking today's knowledge. As a linguist, he learned to read many of the ancient texts for himself, and with 20th century knowledge, was able to interpret what he read in a different light. He's nearing 90 now, and the volume of his work speaks for itself, it's depth of it's documentation is impressive. But even now, I have one reservation, the existence of Nibiru is still open to question. A Neptune/Uranus size object was spotted by an infrared satellite in 1983, but information on it since then has been sparse, some suspect a cover-up, but, if Nibiru makes a pass through the system, it's existence would be undeniable. There is much debate on when that should be, there is evidence it's formerly 3,600 year orbit was altered, probably during the Deluge pass, but many think it will be between 2012 and 2060, the later date I will most certainly not see. As with most things in this Universe, faith becomes involved. I urge you to judge for yourself.

I find your use of the word "pseudosience" interesting in context with Hawking. I believe it is Hawking that is the pseudoscientist, as are almost all Physicists, Cosmologists, and Astronomers, because their theories are based on Enistein. http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/ please look at this and judge for yourself.
"They're own heads are so far up in the celestial ether they've lost all tether to reality and yet here they are getting all huffy that they've got company up there!!" I'm afraid it's worse, and more serious, than that. Consider the millions, even billions of dollars spent on experiments like LIGO and the Hadron Collider that may be based on falsified theories, especially during hard economic times.

Yes, IV and Sitchin had worlds in collison in common, and Sitchin believes the Biblical Flood was caused by a very close passage of Nibiru with Earth around 10,500 BC, around the time IV believed Venus was the culprit. There is growing evidence that Venus is a very young planet, was it a by product of this close encounter by Nibiru with other planets in the system at that time, Saturn most likely. Sitchin also believes Nibiru passed close to Mars at that time, which explains it's scars today, it suffered even more than Earth. So IV was right for the most part, but it shows how evidence can be interpreted in different ways, especially if you don't have all the data, and Sitchin would be the first to admit, there is much more to be learned.

Once again, I urge you to read Sitchin and judge for yourself.

SirW, you dissapoint me greatly, thinkig I can get worthy discussion and debate from you and find that you are a Nibiru and Stichen supporter. I grew up with a mother obsessed by Stichen and his theories and had Van Daniken as my bed-time reading, of which even now that my mother equates as being the same quality.

There is one thing debating fringe sciences, astronomy and origins of life, there is another supposing our human origins equating to aliens for which it all falls down on one basic affect, basic physical and quantifiable evidence. I personally have no problems in assuming and recalculating our basic scientific principles on another and presumably more superior theory and I even will assume that that there is life and civilization out there other than our own. Even going as far to assume that God, of which you know I believe, manages more than one world with their own cultures and even Prophets. All I look for is that man does his best in this world, seeking the maximum in life in the pursuit of perfection - and based on that I open my eyes to all possibilities as and when the evidence and proof comes or at best conjecture, theory and hypothesis based on what we know. Nibiru and Sitchin fails at that and thus it comes down to the previous posters "comic book" science - ie fiction. At best Sitchin has opened the door to looking at some parts of science from a different point of view and possibilities and that does have some value, thus not condeming our Azerberjani friend into the nutcase job - like Eric von Daniken.

Good thing I don't live for your approval. Did you read Sitchin for yourself? I read Von Daniken long before I came across Sitchin, and thought he asked a lot of good questions, it was his sceptics that derided him by claiming he gave the answers to his own questions. Sitchin answers many of Von Daniken's questions, but asks some of his own. One of the questions Sitchin answers very well is how man was created, through a science we have managed to duplicate today, genetic engineering. On the other hand, if you accept that, it pushes the question of how life itself began, back to Nibiru, which Sitchin believes seeded Earth with life when they collided. The texts do not mention how life began on Nibiru, so there is still plenty of room for belief in a Creator.

I think you overlook an important aspect of these possiblities, the influence these beings had on us that still affects us today. Without going into a lot of detail, the aliens created a lot of problems we have today, the most important being that they taught us how to make war. I believe the "holy war", the conflict between the three major religions of the Book today, can be traced back to these ancient roots. Would people continue to fight if they new they were fighting a war in the name of an alien being instead of a spiritual God? Unfortunately, too many people's religious beliefs are too precious to them to consider the truth. And even more religious leaders have too much to lose. By dismissing people like Von Daniken as nutjobs, you do a disservice to yourself. I believe in a spiritual Supreme Being, a Creator of All Things, but he's not Jehovah, Allah or the physical entities that created us and left us a legacy of mixed blessings and problems. We may solve our own problems someday, but I doubt it will be with their help, as other Sitchin readers believe.

By the way, when main stream science leads to such things as Climategate, should it not lead to questioning the credibilty of all science?

The notion that Islam is the religion of peace comes from references solely limited in range. When one submits to Allah under the direction of the Koran and the ahadith, one supposedly knows 'peace' with Allah. Outside the limits of the religion, infidels know only war with Allah–and those of his followers willing to take up the sword and force submission to Allah onto the bent necks of the unfaithful.

Islam codifies, directs and encourages rage. As such, rather than managing and gentling young male predispositions to testosterone-driven aggression, Islam inflames aggression and rage into honored states of being and unleashes them into the Realms of the Unfaithful. Within, Islam strips machismo of any cultural or ethical limits and bids it rule the family, brooking no resistance. Within or without, Islam knows no 'peace' without constant male-based aggression honored by servile submission and cemented in place by hopeless fear.

What was that about there being one "Abrahamic" God?

Politics not religion. Radicals alter their faith to suit their politics and not the other way around.

Then what would you say if Islam were forcibly proscribed in order to remove the ideological basis of extremist Muslim politics??

Many evangelical Christians, do not view Moslem Allah as being God .. Who Moslems pray to in the adherence of their faith, in name of Allah, is anyone's guess .. In my opinion it is not El Shaddai .. 'God Almighty'!

Instead of it being anybody's guess, why not take a few minutes and find out. I hold the belief that all knowledge can be beneficial and it certainly doesn't hurt to know about the things you disagree with. Might even make you more tolerant.

Religious KNOWLEDGE??? That's stretching language a wee bit.

That has a lot to do with why I'm an atheist, but you can KNOW what the commonly held beliefs of certain religions are. It helps to understand the motivations of those who hold the beliefs.

Correct. Love your final word: "beliefs", not knowledge. We can have as much knowledge about religious beliefs as we do about other superstitions, but such beliefs are not based on an ounce of knowledge, so what are they worth? As far as I can tell, only fear of death and catastrophes lead to religious belief (ignoring, of course, brainwashing of infants). We are of a like mind.

Faith... must be enforced by reason.... When faith becomes blind it dies. ~Mahatma Gandhi


Faith and doubt both are needed - not as antagonists, but working side by side to take us around the unknown curve. ~Lillian Smith

Faith enables persons to be persons because it lets God be God. ~Carter Lindberg

Astonishing, isn't it, that so many billions of words have been written to embroider a superstition - fine, clever, pretty words that impress and convince people that they must therefore be true. Gandhi also believed, by the way, that we should all get up at 4.00 am and give ourselves a daily enema. Strangely, his belief has not caught on.

In this day and age brainwashing of infants(and through the rest of life but definitely beginning in childhood) is the main reason for the continuation of religion. Lack of knowledge, though, is also one of the main reasons. If people would put a little effort into learning why things are the way they are, they wouldn't have to rely on the crutch of God. We are indeed of a like mind.

Yes, I catch your drift, but something worries me about that which you wrote. Does knowledge naturally lead to atheism - or the forsaking of religion? I believe it can, but there's no guarantee. The world has millions of believers far more knowledgeable (about non-religious matters) than I. What kind of knowledge might lead to non-belief? Science? Perhaps so, but the depth of scientific training required is far beyond the grasp of most people, alas. "The crutch of God." Good phrase. Funny lot, aren't we? Despite our breathtaking advances on so many fronts, we are little changed from our ancestors who huddled in caves, terrified of the thunderstorm. Who was it who said, "There are no atheists in foxholes"? He probably used this observation/hypothesis to argue that God must therefore exist! Quite a philosopher!! So will we ever be crutchless? Leaving aside clothing (!), I doubt it.

I have just come from a Digg.com posting: 2006 Stephen Hawking/Hertog writing about the history of the presently observed universe prior to some imagined Planck moment when the infinite field of possible histories resolved itself into the one that apparently got hatched. Or something like that. Fascinating. The comment threads covered the meaning and nature of multiverses, trace radiational spectrum readings from the remains of the other possible universes that got de-selected in some cosmic natural selection process. There was talk about testability and references to quantum theory driven equations. KNOWLEDGE filled the threads. The entries genuinely impressed and informed me. (I was reminded of DC comics in the late 50's: they covered all this multiverse multidimensional stuff in graphic narratives and they, too were impressive.)

Interestingly enough for my present purpose, snarky comments about this or that commentator's supposedly 'neoreligious' ideas pop up. Seems that KNOWLEDGE at this level demands a high level of BELIEF in response. The straight-arrow theistic fellows hold onto a BELIEF that continually chanting interesting and speculative narrative about chaos theory or imagining the support string theory draws from some aspect of quantum mechanics constitute proper and sufficient responses to the vastness of AllThereIs. By such means will they, the reflective observer, god-like, hold that multi-versed cosmos in the grasp of their minds and qualify as candidates for Guardians of AllThereIs . . . or at least invitations to really good cocktail parties.

The rebuked 'neoreligious' seem to have come from the ranks of these very determined scientists: men and women entirely invested in empirical research and cosmic-level ruminating, genius-level thinkers fully unshackled from the hobbling chains of theistic credulity as you or the other non-theistic commentators in the Hawking thread. But . . . . the 'neoreligious' seem to have responded to Feynman/Hawking-level awarenesses with an embrace of a BELIEF that an intelligence, with a purpose, informs the cosmos. Who sees the issue aright?

Like all good theists-nascent and otherwise, the neoreligious in the Hawking discussion thread do the requisite head-hang in the presence of non-theistic mockery of their unwelcome belief. I have come to grips with the place of my beliefs about the God of the Universe because I pursue a knowledge of His effects, His manifestations and purposes. My head does not hang. It does not need to.

Belief, knowledge, conviction, hope and faith: these virtues do not occupy compartments, for all their individuality and despite the distinct roles they play in the lives of people. They interweave, intermix and change one another-and the person whose heart and mind holds them like a chalice!

Belief, knowledge, conviction, hope and faith: We cannot pick among them even when we champion the role that this or that one seems to play in defining us as people. We never function as just thinkers or feelers or wonderers.

As a nontheistic person, you have a developed faith, about how you see things. You have a belief about what you think you know. And you, too, harbor hope, several, in fact. You and I, theist and not-so-theist, share a string of beliefs, hopes, knowledges and faiths. Regarding what we believe we know about islam, the hopes we have of surviving its present manifestation, its essentially evil nature and our faith in the usefulness of the fight against it, we share a like-mindedness. Nevertheless, we have convictions and understandings that place our common opposition to Islam on different footings, but that's life: not easily compartmentalized, laid out like a schematic and understood, quantum physics, Hawking-thought or mounds of knowledge notwithstanding.

That's quite a post, Sir Runcible, deserving careful consideration. Having only just read it I will give my seat-of-the-pants initial response. In your final paragraph you say I have belief about what I think I know. Yes, I believe you call yourself Sir Runcible Spoon. It is a fact. I KNOW it to be true. I also know that apples falls from trees, so I believe this will continue to occur. My belief is based on observation, although I am aware that the explanation of why apples fall is incomplete. So far, our incomplete theory of gravitation does a superb job, allowing us to send objects to the farthest reaches of our solar system with astonishing accuracy. It is difficult to conceive that any improvement to our understanding of the mechanism of gravitational attraction will improve our "use" of gravity. So, you might claim, I must be a "faith man" - just like those who have faith in the belief that God exists, but I hotly disagree because there is not a shred of evidence for such a belief. It is invention based upon ........... what? Ignorance, fear, desire (read the 23rd psalm if you want a good job description for the invented God). Isaac Asimov wrote an essay entitled "The Fateful Lightning". You'll find it in his book entitled "The Stars in their Courses." He shows that until Benjamin Franklin's work, people believed that lightning was the aimed work of a vengeful God: there was, unlike earthquakes, something intensely personal about lightning. (The fact that it most often hit churches seemed not to occur to them!) With Franklin, science again triumphed over religious superstition. If I say I believe in science it is a far cry from someone saying he believes in God. They are diametrically-opposed "beliefs". The former is squarely based upon exhaustive observation and measurement, and it always searches for flaws in itself, but the latter brooks no argument despite there being no evidence to support it. Perhaps you and I have different definitions of faith, but I certainly refuse to hold faith, in the religious sense, in anything. Do I have faith in science? No. The word has no place in my personal vocabulary because it seems to me it was coined for religious purposes. The religious view of the world - the universe - is a closed book. Pretend there is a God who controls everything and leave it at that. God is the Creator. "Surely though I walk through the shadow of the Valley of Death ......!" There's faith for you. Not for me, though.