« June 2011 | Main | August 2011 »
that's it. there you have it.
senator coburn speaks the truth of the matter.--
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenRe/start/14756/stop/16376 .
it is time for the burning staves and pitchforks in the streets. the two parties spend the republic into oblivion. and, that is the truth.
john jay @ 07.31.2011
p.s. hey, we'll find out soon enough.
Posted at 09:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
when you get right down to it, faith in islam is an authority issue, and about winning & prevailing on earth, and in the hereafter.
the text of the koran is chock full of references to "believers" in islam "winning," and about disbelievers loosing. and, the koran is remarkably frank about who the final arbiter on theological issues as between jews, christians and muslims should be.
you probably will not be so very surprised to learn that mohammed is the final authority on on matters religious and theological, if you've been reading these posts, but jews and christians alike might be surprised to know that mohammed is the final authority, according to the koran, on issues within the jewish and christian faiths if they have not considered such matters. this --
sura 5. the feast, verses 41 through 49.
41. messenger, do not be grieved by those who rush into disbelief--those who say with their mouths, "we believe," but have no faith in their hearts, and the jews who listen eagerly to lies and to those who have not even met you, who distort the meanings of [revealed] words and say [to each other,] "if you are given this ruling, accept it, but if you are not, then beware!"-- if god intends some people to be so misguided, you will be powerless against god on their behalf. these are the ones whose hearts god does not intend to cleanse--a disgrace for them in this world, and then a heavy punishment in the hereafter-- 42. they listen to lies and consume what is unlawful. if they come to you [prophet] for judgment, you can either judge between them, or decline--if you decline, they will not harm you in any way; but if you do judge between them, judge justly: god love the just-- 43. but why do they come to you for judgement when they have the torah with god's judgement, and even then still turn away? these are not believers. 44. we revealed the torah with guidance and light, and the prophets, who had submitted to god,judged according to it for the jews. so did the rabbis and the scholars in accordance wtih that part of god's scripture which they were entrusted to preserve, and to which they were witnesses. so [rabbis and scholars] do not fear people, fear me; do not barter away my message for a small price; those who do not judge according to what god ha sent down are rejecting [god's teachings.] 45. in the torah we prescribed for them a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, and ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, an equal wound for a wound: if anyone forgive this out of charity, it will serve a atonement for his bad deeds. those who do not judge accorind got what god has revealed are doing grave wrong.
46. we sent jesus, son of mary, in their footsteps, to confirm the torah that had been sent before him: we gave him the gospel with guidance, light, and confirmation of the torah already revealed--a guide and lesson for those who take head of god. 47. so let the followers of the gospel judge according to what god has sent down in it. those who do not judge according to what god has revealed are lawbreakers.
48. we sent to you [muhammad] the scripture with the truth, confirming the scriptures that came before it, and with final authority over them: so judge between them according to what god has sent down. do not follow their whims, which deviate from the truth that has come to you. we have assigned a law and a path to each of you. if god had so willed, he would have made you one community, but he wanted to test you through that which he has given you, so race to do good: you will all return to god and he will make clear to you the matters you differed about. 49. so [prophet] judge between them according to what god has sent down. do not follow their whims, and take good care that they do not tempt you away from any of what god has sent down to you.
sura 5, verses 41-49, the qur'an, a translation by muhammad a.s. abdel haleem, oxford university press, 2004, u.s.a.
well, there you have it. according to the koran, mohammed is given final authority over the interpretation of the torah and of the gospel, and final authority as judge in disputes as to the meaning of what god has sent down through his prophets and his scripture.
what could be needier and tidier than that?
mohammed has the revelations, and the revelations cast him as the final arbiter of religious truth as between judaism, christianity and islam. islam is, of course, all that has come before, and islam, via mohammed, considers that mohammed says what it is, all that has come before.
islam is not revelation, it is not insight, it is not theological, is it not even about religiousity. is is about authority and rule.
over religion. politics. and, individuals.
simple as that. hey, what's all the commotion? well, yes, we will probably run into some interesting things about free will and conscious, as we go forward, ... , but, islam says it will straighten it out for us. eh?
john jay @ 07.30.2011
Posted at 08:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
go here, http://usdebt.kleptocracy.us/ , it speaks for itself.
it is, btw, what you owe. thanks to congress. no one else obligated you. no one else could.
john jay @ 07.28.2011
Posted at 08:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
their wide-eyed innocence ... the guile to appear guileless ... their utter hypocrisy.
oh, well, maybe someday they will return. i hope to live long enough to see someone from daily kos make an argument w/ premise, discussion and conclusion, ... , but, it is what it is.
but, i do sorta miss them. ttfn, kumbaya. (my spell checker prefers jambalaya. not so far off, really.)
john jay @ 07.29.2011
Posted at 02:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
... but, mohammed does not say that jesus is the son of god. he says that jesus is created by god, just the same as adam, and is a man, as adam and the rest of the prophets.
it is a delicate theological balancing act, is it not. mohammad has the leadership of thousands of years of judaic history to usurp, and about 700 years of christian tradition & proselytizing to take over, and jesus is a very big issue.
if you want to be a prophet in the line of noah, abraham, isaac, jacob, moses, john the baptist and jesus, you have to acknowledge jesus if you want the christians to follow your lead. but, if you acknowledge jesus as the son of god, then how do you top that, how do you usurp the stature and role of the son of god, how do you proclaim your status as greater than messiah?
that's a tall order.
here is the account given of the birth of jesus in the koran, and the solution that islam proffers around this knotty problem.--
sura 3. verses 42 through 64.
42. the angels said ot mary: "mary, god has chosen you and made you pure: he has truly chosen you above all women. 43. mary, be devout to your lord, prostrate yourself in worship, bow down with those who pray." 44. this is an account of things beyond your knowledge that we reveal to you [muhammad]: you were not present among them when they cast lots to se which of them should take charge of mary, you were not present with them when they argued [about her.]
45. the angels said, "mary, god gives you news of a word from him, whose name will be the messiah, jesus, son of mary, who will be held in honour in this world and the next, who will be one of those brought near to god. 46. he will speak to people in his infancy and in his adulthood. he will be one of the righteous. 47. she said, "my lord, how can i have a son when no man has touched me?" [the angel] said, "this is how god creates what he will: when he has ordained something, he only says, "be," and it is. 48. he will teach him the scripture and wisdom, the torah and the gospel, 49. he will send him as a messenger to the children of israel: "i have come to you with a sign from your lord: i will make the shape of a bird for you out of clay, then breathe into it and, with god's permission, it will become a real bird; i will heal the blind and the leper, and bring the dead back to life with god's permission; i will tell you what you may eat and what you may store up in your houses. there truly is a sign for you in this, if you are believers. 50. i have come to confirm the truth of the torah which preceded me, and to make some things lawful to you which used to be forbidden. i have come to you with a sign from your lord. be mindful of god, obey me: 51. god is my lord and your lord, so serve him--that is a straight path."
52. when jesus became aware that they [still] did not believe, he said, "who will help me in god's cause?" the disciples said, "we will be god's helpers; we believe in god--witness our devotion to him. 53. lord, we believe in what you have revealed and we follow the messenger: record us among those who bear witness [to the truth." 54. the [disbelievers] schemed but god also schemed; god is the best of schemers.
55. god said, "jesus, i will take you back and raise you up to me: i will purify you of the disbelievers. to the day of resurrection i will make those who followed you superior to those who disbelieved. then you will all return tome and i will judge between you regarding your differences. 56. i will make the disbelievers suffer severely in this world and the next; no one will help them." 57. as for those who believe and do good deeds god will pay them their reward in full but god does not love evildoers.
58. we relate to you [muhammed] this revelation, a decisive statement. 59. in god's eyes jesus is just like adam: he created him from dust, said to him, "be," and he was. 60. this is the truth from your lord, so do nt be one of those who doubt. 61. if anyone disputes this with you now that you have been given this knowledge, say, "come, let us gather ur sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, and let us pray earnestly and invoke god's rejection on those of us who are lying. 62. this is the truth of the matter: this is the truth of the matter: there is no god but god; god is the exalted, the decider. 63. if they turn away, [know that] god is well aware of anone who causes corruption. say, "people of the book, let us arrive at a statement that is common to us all: we worship god alone, we ascribe no partner to him, and none of us takes others beside god as lords." if they turn away, say, "witness our devotion to him."
sura 3, verses 42-64, the qur'an, a translation by muhammad a.s. abdel haleem, oxford university press, 2004, u.s.a.
so, there it is. islam says it is revealed to mohammad some 700 years after the birth of christ, that jesus is not the son of god as related in the gospels, but merely a man created by god as was adam. and that jesus and his followers shall be judged along with the rest on judgment day. and, that jesus is not partner to god, and that there is no trinity.
jesus is a man, as adam was a man. created by god, but not the son of god, and not part of a trinity of spirituality.
it is a daring thing, this account of the birth of jesus, the assertion of his mortality and the denial of the trinity, in a few short paragraphs.
and, it is a dis-affirmation of all that has come before mohammad in the torah and the gospels, and in the history of jewish and christian prophesy. i would love to hear from john the baptist about this, for instance.
it is a bravu performance.
but, it also raises a thorny theological issue.
this account is in direct contradiction to previous accounts which mohammad and islam have asserted as truth. and, not just truth as human intellect and tests can determine as such, but as divine truths uttered by god and revealed by god through prophesy and his ordained prophets. in the torah and the gospels we have long discussions about the difference between "prophets" who issue "prophesy" from their own tongue and without discussion and instruction from god, and those true prophets who speak the word of god as they are instructed. and, all the prophets mentioned in the judeo-christian tradition are prophets who speak the word of god.
we have the further problem that mohammed is just a man. and, that as a man, he cannot have knowledge of what the other prophets before him have been instructed, counter to what is set forth in the torah and in the gospels.
further, the above paragraphs raise the potential of two rather large issues: 1.)that god has spoken in error via previous pronouncements, or 2.)that god has spoken duplicitously and deceivingly in previous accounts of the birth of christ, through the instruments of his prophets.
the koran "solves" this rather thorny issue in several short, audacious and daring paragraphs. mohammad simply relates that it is revealed to him, by god, that previous prophets, including jesus, are bound by promise to god to acknowledge the word of mohammad as god's messenger on these issues, where mohammed departs/differs/contradicts previous biblical prophesy (including, i would suppose, the book revelations, ... , mohammed is not included in revelations):
sura 3. verses 81 and 86.
81. god took a pledge from the prophets, saying, "if, after i have bestowed scripture and wisdom upon you, a messenger comes confirming what you have been given, you must believe him and support him. do you affirm this and accept my pledge as binding on you?" they said, "we do." he said, "then bear witness and i too will bear witness." 82. those who turn away after this are the ones who break pledges. 83. do they seek anything other than submission to god? everyone in the heavens and earth submits to him, willingly or unwillingly; they will all be returned to him.
84. say [muhammad], "we [muslims] believe in god and in what has been sent down to us and to abraham, ishmael, isaac, jacob, an the tribes. we believe in what has been given to moses, jesus, and the prophets from their lord. we do not make a distinction between any of them it is to him that we devotes ourselves." 85. if anyone seeks a religion other than [islam] complete devotion to god, it will not be accepted from him: he will be one of the losers in the hereafter. 86. why would god guide people who deny the truth, after they have believed and acknowledged that he messenger is true, and after they have been show clear proof? god does not guide evildoers.
sura 3, verses 81-86, the qur'an, a translation by muhammad a.s. abdel haleem, oxford university press, 2004, u.s.a.
it is all rather stunning.
in these few short, terse paragraphs, islam asserts that god gathers his prophets through time before him, and extracts a promise from them that they will not contradict what they have been given by god to tell the people, ... , " ... if, after i have bestowed scripture and wisdom upon you, a messenger comes confirming what you have been given ... , "if a messenger comes after themi with a message contrary to what they have already told the people as the voice of god.
so, in short, and as pertains to the issue of jesus, god has revealed to his prophets his message, they have spoken his message, which has been that jesus is the son of god, and they have told the people that this is the voice of god speaking through them.
as prophets of god.
and, islam describes them repeatedly as the prophets of god.
teller of the word of god. truth tellers.
and, in these passages, god tells them that they are to be turned into, ... , and this is the politest way i can put it, ... , well, fibbers, in on the fix, as it were.
in short, in this revelation mohammed asserts that god has told him that he has previously deceived mankind about these matters, and that mohammed is to reveal to mankind this deception, and that mankind is to accept mohammed as revealing this "truth." it reminds me of the classic greek paradox, about the man from ________, and that all men from __________ are liars.
we are to believe that god reveals to mohammed, that mankind is to trust god in the matter of mohammed's revelations, because god has lied previously through his prophets. these paragraphs are on their face ridiculous.
and notice the colossal lie that the koran and islam engage in during the course of this revelation to mohammed. it is underlined in the above paragraphs. i trust you notice it.
"... a messenger comes confirming what you have been given."
this concerns not just what the prophets previously have been given, nor just what mohammed claims as revealed to him by god, rather it is what the prophets have told the people for centuries, and it is what the prophets and god have revealed as reflected in holy scriptures, for centuries, in the torah and the gospels.
and, the messenger (that would be big "mo") does not come "confirming" that which has been related by previous prophets and prophesy and revelation, but the messenger totally destroys and annihilates that which is in the gospel as related about jesus, and totally negates and annihilates that which jesus has related about his own status. these few paragraphs are not confirming of the preceding prophesy, which god has revealed to his prophets with his own voice, but it totally destroys it.
the word "confirming" is a huge deception, and it is a huge lie. as related by mohammed.
this is what jesus said, a psalm of king david:
"... my god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me."
"... my god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me."
"... but thou art he that took me out of the womb ... thou didst make me hope when i was taken upon my mother's breast."
"... i was cast upon thee from the womb, thou art my god from my mother's belly."
psalm 22: 1, 9, 10. http://www.bartleby.com/108/19/22.html
jesus, therefor, according to islam, is a liar when he utters these words in the contemplation of the ordeal and death he must suffer, in order that he serve his commitment to absolve man of original sin and to clear the way towards their personal salvation. and, jesus is a liar, according to islam, who is in on the deception according to the instruction of god.
oh, these few paragraphs are audacious in a way that it is almost impossible to contemplate.
islam maintains in the koran that jesus and the rest of the prophets have conspired with god to lie to the people about jesus through multiple prophets, only to have the whole scheme revealed some 700 years after the birth of christ by mohammed?
this is how mohammed and islam honor the sacred traditions they purport to follow, that they purport to be a sacred part of?
it is an audacious and daring attempt. it is an audacious attempt to confer leadership of that tradition upon islam, and to usurp earthly institutional control and guidance of that tradition.
it continues. i have seen nothing yet which would lead me to suspect that mohammed was other than a brigand intent upon hijacking institutional control of judaism and christianity, by the mechanism of the "revelations" related in these short paragraphs above.
come to think of it, that was precisely his profession. thief. why not steal a religious tradition. why not steal two religious traditions, while one is at it.
the next trick up mohammed's sleeve, i suspect, is to receive authority from god to be joseph stalin, and to take administrative control over the disciplines he will exact on his followers. the bureaucracy always follows the vision.
no word yet on the role and fate of joseph smith.
john jay @ 07.27.2011
Posted at 09:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
submitted to the comments section at, http://oyvindstrommen.be/2011/07/27/journalist-resource-examples-of-extreme-right-reactions-to-terrorism-in-norway/comment-page-1/#comment-2 . oyvind finds me "guilty" of having posted on rare occasion at gates of vienna, though does not attribute to me any responsibility for the shooting in norway, but does want it known that i am an example of a right wing crazy, nonetheless. to show that, he/she quotes from an article i had written on john locke and self defense, in calendar year 2008, in support of the general contention that individuals have the right to defend themselves from islamic aggression, as individuals. no imprimatur of approval from the state authorities involved, i should imagine a very novel contention for a norwegian to swallow. you got to love the euro's, well, maybe not. http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2008/04/the-right-of-th.html well, close enough for horse shoes and hand grenades, i would suppose.
at any rate, follows the comment.--
oyvind:
you may be interested to know that the political theory and thought of john locke still exerts considerable influence upon american political thought, and jurisprudence. locke was an exponent of "natural law," and without going into it too deeply, suffice it to say that natural law theory was recently set forth in a recent united states supreme court case, washington d.c. vs. heller, as the underpinning in the analysis finding gun ownership/possession a protected individual right in the united states.
the article to which you link in your above post was concerning locke's analysis of self defense. you may be surprised to find out that locke's thinking in such matters enjoys considerable, and current, currency in such discussions.
i don't know your policy w/ regard to the posting of links in your "comments," and i hope i do not violate it, but, for your edification, and for the edification of your readers, i will leave an index of posts i have written analyzing self defense doctrines, to include those found in the torah, those set forth by contemporary islamic clerics & ayatollahs, and going back to augustine and acquinas.
i regard my thinking on the subject entirely in keeping with these scholarly argument from contemporary thinkers, and those from antiquity, but will leave it to your readers to form their own opinions should they care to read my works. http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2010/07/an-index-of-posts-on-self-defense-original-sources-at-the-posts-.html .
john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa
Posted at 03:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
update: 08.21.2011. i am publishing this from gates of vienna, though they usually have a hard on for me because i support pamela geller, because the post makes good sense. read, and see if you agree. http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/08/who-was-really-responsible-for-norway.html#more . my friends get incensed when i link gov, but, they are just gonna have to like it or lump it. end update. 08.21.2011.
update: 08.01.2011. should conservatives disavow a single word or concept of their writing in light of anders breivik's actions in norway? the answer is a simple "no," quietly but emphatically stated.
let me put the answer this way.
have liberals, socialists and communists disavowed a word or concept of marx, or lenin and marx combined at the hand of lenin, in light of the 200 to 300 million people who have lost their lives, killed & murdered by the left since karl marx took pen in hand? not that i am aware of.
have liberals, socialists and communists disavowed a word or concept of marx, lenin or bill ayers and bernie dorhn or the actions these latter worthies took inspired by their words? have ayers and dohrn ever apologized for the deaths and property damage the radical weathunderground took & caused in light of these words, or disavowed them? the answer to all these questions, is "no."
as far as i am concerned, all the liberals and hanky wringers who demand of various conservatives that they apologize for their writings because of what anders breivik did, ... , well, they can all fuck themselves sideways, as the old saying goes. rose stems come to mind.
to hell with 'em, and the sooner the better. end update: 08.01.2011.
update: oh, yes. hello, little green footballs readers. end update.
http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2011/07/they-reap-what-they-have-sown-.html . please read, lizards.
post. a brilliant essay by mencius moldbug linked and excerpted by "uncle kenny" at "washington rebel," telling the truth reduced to its most brutal and stark reality regarding the anders breivik killings, here, http://www.washingtonreb.com/2011/07/25/moldbug-on-norway-can-mean-only-one-thing-redheads/#comment-5271 . i suggest you go there and read, or go to moldbug's website and read the entirety of it, here, http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2011/07/indisputable-humanity-of-anders-behring.html .
had i been capable of writing moldbug's essay, i would have. now, i am a certified smart guy, got the plaques and certificates and test scores to prove it, but i know my limits, and i simply cannot write like this. i make no apology for my talents, as they are not inconsiderable, but mine simply pale next to those displayed in moldbug's essay.
years ago, in a classroom far far away, i was taught about thomas stearns (that's "t.s." to you) elliot's theories on literary criticism, and his doctrines of "the objective correlative." the long and the short of it, (as if there could be such a thing w/ eliot, some irony here, read "dubliners"), is that a story is good, it is "real," if at some point while reading it an emotion is evoked that a person might feel in real life experiencing such things as related on the page.
bang. i feel love, i feel hate, i feel fear, i feel loathing & disgust, i feel empathy. that's real. well, i'll be damned. well, yes.
and, so it is with mencius moldbug's essay. that of which he writes evokes "the objective correlative."
simple as that.
yes, we are damned by our convictions, and by the expression of them. for, quintessentially, words are action, and they are a call to action. it cannot be denied. nor, should it be.
i have written the following comment to washington rebel. i commend it to your reading and consideration. and, should you take action on it, i acknowledge my literary & moral responsibility.
now, a legalism. what the hell did you expect from a retired criminal lawyer of some 25 years practice? the above is not to say that right wing bloggers, and i "include myself in" in this description bear legal responsibility for breivik's actions. simple as that. the connections are too attenuated.
but, as for the matter of "intellectual" responsibility. you betcha.
john jay @ 07.27.2011
....................................................................
....................................................................
friends:
the simple fact is, words have consequence.
the better they are spoken/written, the more persuasive and logical, and the more applicable to the "times," ... , well, the greater and more immediate the consequence.
we who utter them are responsible for their consequences, and we should not shy away from them. nor should we shy away from their implications.
the instant essay is brilliant, and brutally honest. all politics and political commentary is a struggle for power. or, as simply put by lenin, "who--whom" describes that someone has influence over another, ... , always.
we need to be reminded, for instance, that elections are war, and we mustn't forget that they can devolve into shooting wars at any time.
john jay
p.s. at my little blog, i have written a reminder. in this "who--whom" business, e.g., the making of omelets, leftist regimes cracked somewhere between 200 and 300 million "eggs" in the 20th century, mostly involving eggs that were captive, defenseless or starved.
the norwegian "children" killed by breivik were labor party activists on the island participating in plans and events to aid the "palestinian liberation" movements as against the israeli state. they were, in essence, the vanguard of the proletariat learning how to vanguard.
as john locke & william blackstone would have put it, in this war, sometimes the contest is to be put to god for decision. fact of life.
Posted at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
ethel waters once opined, "god don't make no junk." which is another way of saying, of course, that god does not make mistakes. and, that "... the fundamental things apply ..." as time goes by. especially, as time goes by.
let us consider the following passage from the koran. (which i prefer to qur'an. a small matter, to me.)--
sura 3. the family of "imran."
1. alif lam mim
2. god: there is no god but him, the ever living, the ever watchful.
3. step by step, he has sent the scripture down to you [prophet] with the truth, confirming what went before: he sent down the torah and the gospel 4. earlier as a guide for people and he has sent down the distinction [between right and wrong.] those who deny god's revelation will suffer severe torment: god is almighty and capable of retribution. 5. nothing on earth or in heaven is hidden from god: 6. it is he who shapes you all in the womb as he pleases. there is no god but him, the mighty, the wise: 7. it is he who has sent this scripture down to you [prophet]. some of its verses are definite in meaning--these are the cornerstone of the scripture--and others are ambiguous. the perverse at heart eagerly pursue the ambiguities in their attempt to make trouble and to pin down a specific meaning of their own: only god knows the true meaning. those firmly grounded in knowledge say, "we believe in it: it is all from our lord"--only those with real perception will take heed-- 8. "our lord, do not let our hearts deviate after you have guided us. grant us your mercy: you are the ever giving. 9. our lord, you will gather all people on the day of which there is no doubt: god never breaks his promise."
sura 3, verses 1-9, the qur'an, a translation by muhammad a.s. abdel haleem, oxford university press, 2004, u.s.a.
and, here is the precise problem referred to in the previous post, this blog. for allah relates/reveals to mohammed that which god has revealed to the writers of the torah and of the gospels is true, just as what god relates to mohammed is true. elsewhere it is related in the koran that abraham, moses and jesus are the prophets of allah, and this is true, and what those prophets related of god's truth, is also true.
it seems, perforce, given that god is almighty and infallible, that what was true when related to abraham, moses and jesus remained true at the time of mohammed, and that it remains true to this day.
for islam, this presents some matters of delicacy.--
there is the matter of the covenants between abraham, jacob, and moses in which god makes the jews the chosen people. and, there is the gift of the promised land to the jews, and god's delivery of the same through the good offices of moses.
now, in the second sura of the koran, god relates that the jews have not obeyed their end of the bargains in the covenants with absolute felicity, but, neither do i read as of yet as i proceed through the koran, that god renounces or revokes his covenants with the jews. or, for that matter, that he denies jesus as either his son or his prophet.
and, more specifically, does god deny what he has communicated via his prophesy delivered to abraham, jacob, moses and jesus. as a matter of fact, i seem to recall in sura 1 that the prophesy of those worthies preceding mohammed is accepted, and endorsed, and acknowledged as true.
this strikes me as presenting very real theological and policitical problems for modern islam, which they do not seem to confront either as brought forward by external forces, e.g., bloggers in rural n.e. oregon, or as raised by internal discussion.
divine truth is divine truth, whenever uttered. divine choice is divine choice, whenever made.
it does not become less divine, less absolute, mallable in the interests of man, as time goes by. "you must remember this, a kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh, the fundamental things apply, as time goes by." "as time goes by," music and words by herman hupfeld.
john jay @ 07.26.2011
Posted at 08:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
http://www.towson.edu/polsci/ppp/sp97/terror/groups.html
just remember, the left and islam have waged unrelenting war against the united states and the free market capitalism & individual liberty for more than 30 years.
the left, its ideologues & authors & polemicists & pundits & theorists have gone almost entirely unpunished for this war. in my view, all of the major leftist and socialist parties of the world have enabled, aided and abetted this war of terror, and the western socialists and communists continue to fight it through their proxies in the middle east, primarily in palestine and in syria.
it is no accident that the euro union, and now the united states, largely fund the terror campaign that islam wages against the west: there is no hidden irony here, it is simply the aggression of leftist ideologues against free markets, and against individual freedom. the left uses the palestinians against its own populations, in ways in which it cannot do so directly.
the left is innocent of nothing. and, guilty of almost all terrorism waged by groups throughout the world, because it funds it directly or indirectly, and inspires and incites it ideologically. it is difficult to calculate the carnage for which they are to be held responsible, both directly for having committed and indirectly for having incited.
remember, what goes around, comes around. just because this is a little homily, a cliche, does not mean that it is also not very true. something for all to remember.
update:
i felt myself remiss for not including the foremost examples of socialist/communist/leftist state terror ever to have existed. so, without further comment:
murderous thugs, killers and bestial sadistic torturers of the cruelest stripe.
the various leftist regimes killed, by various estimates, by conservative estimate some 100 to 170 million persons over the course of the 20th century, perhaps twice that number. of that total, there were a staggering number of war deaths, of course, but a mind numbing number of deaths inflicted upon citizen and comrade alike in death camps, work camps and just outright murder in the basement. these were "lives deliberately extinguished by politically motivated carnage," as noted by zbigniew brzezinski, out of control: global turmoil on the eve of the twenty-first century, here:
a further enumeration of "politically motivated carnage follows, here:
i trust the point is made, that while western democracies are not without blood on their hands, that when it comes to killing hapless, helpless and hopeless citizens, all state sponsored killing pales in comparison to the communist & leftist regimes of the 20th century. end update. 07.26.2011.
john jay @ 07.25.2011
post script.--
"be not deceived; g_d is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." galatians, chapter 6, verse 7.
post script.--
one also has to remember and account for those killed by the german, italian and japanese fascists, the war dead and those who died in the holocaust. the same reductionist thinking that robs an individual of his or her humanity and reduces that person to an object to be liquidated spurred fascist murder. so we must remember as well the 10's of millions defenseless persons killed in the holocaust, as well as those killed by the axis war machine in battle an as prisoners.
and, we must remember the atrocity inflicted upon them by torture, starvation and heinous and depraved medical experimentation.
i do not treat them above as victims of the left, though i see very little difference in the reductionism of socialist thinking and of fascist thinking.
nor do i perceive the victims of fascism as victims, in any sense, of conservative free market and liberty oriented thinking and doctrine, which focuses upon and emphasizes the benefits of free speech, free markets and access to ideas, and upon the stature of individuals and the benefits accorded to society by extending such stature and accompanying liberty rights and protections to such individuals.
fascism and fascist thinkers alone bear the responsibility for such heinous acts.
Posted at 09:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
at atlas shrugs this post, http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/07/islamic-scholar-says-the-use-of-allah-for-god-in-malay-language-bibles-must-be-abandoned-because-it-erroneously-represen.html#comment-6a00d8341c60bf53ef014e8a1f9f86970d , reports on a controversy raging in malaysia over the use of the word "allah" to refer to god. the title of the post, "islamic scholar says the use of 'allah' for 'god' in malay-language bibles 'must be abandoned because it erroneously represents the two religions as equal.'"
a prominent islamic figure of some sort, one mohd sani badron, says that "allah" is reserved for islams, while malaysia christians will just have to make do with "tuhan" when referring to god, in spite of the fact that the word "allah" has been used by malaysians for some 400 years or so. (the bible in question is a reprint of a bible some 400 years old.)
but, wait a minute.--
islam, does it not, claims a whole host of old testament prophets, to include moses and jesus, as prophets of islam as well as of christianity. as i am given to understand the whole thing these claims are asserted in the koran. if i am wrong, i beg to be corrected.
again, as i am given to understand the matter, islam recognizes moses and jesus as allah's prophets, just as is mohammed, except that mohammed being the last prophet is the superior prophet, as he reports the last word of god.
but, this establishes perforce, in logic and in terms of islamic theology, does it not, that the god of the prophets moses and jesus, and the god of the prophet mohammed, is the same god?
it seems to me that there can be no other choice.
that being the case, and i cannot see how it could be otherwise, there arises an issue much akin to that raised by the doctrie of papal infallibility, except kicked up a notch or two, because now we confront the issue of god's infallibility. and, to my way of thinking, we run smack dab into the issue of just who the damned muslims think they are, to challenge a previous decision of god.
god is infallible when he speaks/reveals/instructs mohammed upon the content of the koran, at least according to islam. and, i am presuming that the presumption must be to islam, that god has always been infallible: at least, i have heard of no doctrine to the contrary that would provide that god was fallible before he met mohammed, but became infallible in time to confer the koran to mohammed.
so, where do the muslims get off in subsuming moses, and jesus, and abraham if i am not mistaken into their religion as prophets of allah, and then having the unmitigated gall, hubris, pride, conceit and just plain wrongheadedness to challenge the decisions of god: 1.)on the issue of making the jews his chosen people, with whom the special covenants running in the bible are described, beginning with abraham,and from whom they are communicated by moses to the jews while in the dessert, and 2.)on the issue of delivering the promised land to the jews, and instructing the jews to drive all others from the promised land. (and, would that instruction not be just as "current" now as when it was first issued by moses, a prophet of god in both the christian bible and the islamic koran, and just as binding upon the jews, and, by the way, just as binding upon the muslims? i am assuming that nothing in the koran abrogates god's word and will to moses.)
seems to me, that an infallible god, is an infallible god in the early parts of the bible, just as he in in the koran, and given this business with the prophets, that according to islam it is one and the same god.
and, to leave off, just about where we came in, it seems that if god is god, christian, judaic, and judaic, then his name in hebrew, islam or malay christian can be just about the very same as he chose to reveal it at various times to various people. i just don't get off understanding why the muslims think that they should be able to dictate such matters to their fellow worshippers of the same god.
for, given this prophet business, the same god he most surely is.
and, if he is infallible in delivering the koran, then he was infallible in delivering the bible of the people of the book. after all, an infallible god, does not run a fallible delivery service for infallible truth, no matter the nature of the delivery service. to much such error, ... , well, such error would call into question the fallibility of the deity.
and this, i do not think, could be tolerated in certain circles, could it. people are assuredly fallible. god's instrumentality's are not, nor can they be, nor can the possibility be even entertained. can it?
this sort of suggests that all worship of the same god, for if there is only one, there can be no other, is equal. does it not?
john jay @ 07.25.2011
Posted at 08:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)