<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d13721725\x26blogName\x3dDivineTalk+...+God+inspired+Commentar...\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dSILVER\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://divinetalk.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://divinetalk.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d3446630450564529066', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Sunday, July 31, 2005

Persecution of Sky Kingdom I

Breaking News!
Barbaric persecution of an apostate …

State persecutes an ex-Muslim and flatten his religious commune …

Introduction: Sky Kingdom

Sky Kingdom is a quasi-religious commune located in north east Malaysian. It has some 1,000 faithful and their main objective is to promote interfaith understanding. Sky Kingdom is a theme park like commune with an umbrella-shaped building, an ornamental fishing boat, strategically located faux Greco-Roman pillars, and the centrepiece - a pink giant ‘Teapot’!

Its spiritual leader: Ayah Pin is believed to be a reincarnation of everyone from Shiva to Buddha or from Jesus Christ or to Mohammed.

Ayah Pin: "All religions are basically the same, God teaches love. He is for anyone who wants to know about the world. You can choose whichever religion you want."

The commune has been branded as a ‘Deviationist cult’ by the authorities ... More at Storm in the teapot, Sky Kingdom Ayah Pin etc.

Once Muslim, Forever Slave!

Together with members of the group, Ayah Pin has publicly renounced their Islamic faith in 1998 but was REJECTED by the state (NB: Apostasy is a capital crime in Malaysia punishable by DEATH sentence!)

The Persecution

In 2001, the Malaysian authorities jailed Ayah Pin for 11 months for attempting to renounce Islam.

He is viewed as a security threat and they continue to harass him with all sorts of uncivilized threats befitting the low-life including smashing up the lovely giant teapot and flattening the commune, which they just did so yesterday!

Prior to the destruction, the authorities raided the commune in July, 2005 and detained 45 faithful including a Kiwi, senior citizens and among others, 3 children of Ayah Pin and his 3 wives.

I read somewhere; there are kids left behind unattended in commune and while some faithful have to pawn all theier belongs just to bail themselves out, majority of the detainees are still in custody.

Their crime: Trying to be unIslamic!

As if the arrest was not good enough, mobs made up of some 35 unidentified assailants armed with Molotov cocktails attacked the commune and set the place ablaze …. Assailants attack Ayah Pin's commune with Molotov cocktails! ... I supposed mobs and Molotov cocktails are Islamic.

Human Rights?
This must be a Greek word in Islam …

The group has appealed to a the local commision in charge of human rights ‘Suhakam’ for help … so far, no action.

And the most rediculous fact is that Malaysia is actually a secular state!

According to their constitutions, there is religious freedom ... Refer to Malaysian Federal Constitution, the Supreme Law (Article 4:1): -

Article number: 3
(1) Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.”

More detailsof their contitutions at Malaysia-Today

I am seeing hypocrisy of the highest order here ...

By the way, Mr. Pin is still at large. They said he is ‘protected’ by the Almighty in the name of justice ... do you buy this divine theory?

In the name of Religious Freedom, may God bless Ayah Pin and revive the cute Sky Kingdom ...

More News, Links here and here

Saturday, July 30, 2005

Why Paul’s Christianity is way better … I

I personally always view the universal version of Christianity promoted by Apostle Paul as a much more appealing one as compared to the original version started by Jesus Christ in conjunction with his disciples.

Something deserving a note here … A soldier of God who identified himself as ‘Unchained Slave’ or otherwise ‘Free To Serve’ has been ‘defending’ Christianity (he is Protestant, I think) very extensively a week or two ago. At one point, I mentioned the nullification of Kosher by Paul must be the smartest thing ever took place in the history of religion, ‘Unchained Slave’ corrected me by stating … “Item 3: It was PETER, not Paul, that abrogated (to abolish by authoritative action - nullify) the kosher diet requirements. (Acts 10:9-15)”

whereby I responded …

”Okay, so you said Peter abrogated the Kosher practice in accordance to Book of Act which is written by Luke, a follower of Paul … First of all, I doubt the credibility of the book (I imagine Luke would write in accordance to his boss’s wishes) and from what I gathered, it is pretty confusing as to WHO actually ABROGATED the Kosher practice …

It is said “first by Jesus (Mark 7:19) and then by the early Church (Acts 10:14-16; 1 Cor 10:23-27). In Acts, Peter's vision of unclean foods descending from heaven (10:9-15) functions as a cipher for a further discussion of impartial membership in the church (10:28-29, 34). The change from a restricted to an open diet, then, symbolizes for the disciples of Jesus a change in membership, from an exclusively Jewish group to one which included Gentiles as well (Acts 10:28; 15:23-29)”

What do you make up of the above? Was it abrogated by the Lord, Peter or Paul?

From then on, Mr. ‘Unchained Slave’ has stopped commenting and he even took the pain to delete all of his dozens or so comments posted in the various blogs.

I am not questioning his right to post & delete, I just wonder what is the subliminal message is he sending? Could it be religious faithful simply have no room for error? And upon proven doubtful or wrong, they’d rather withdraw in totality (due to the religious disease APAZFS: All Perfect Absolutely Zero Fault Syndrome?) rather than engage further to find solution, if not improvement? Or worse, the Bible is actually flawed beyond darning?

Appreciate it if he will enlighten us or as usual, we’ll leave it to the Almighty …

Coming back to the why I said Paul’s Christianity is way better? I personally see the abrogation, nullification or ‘disobeying of God’s command’ (as some quarters suggested) on practice or belief like Sabbath, Circumcision, Kosher, Idolating as absolutely sensible … The is a mega topic that won’t fit here, I'd discuss about it at length in the near future.

Stay tuned for more ...

Friday, July 29, 2005

Religion is cult?

Thank you all for the comments on ‘Is Christianity a cult?'

I tend to agree with most of you and it appears to me the difference between the words ‘cult’ and ‘religion’ is really very slim and semantically speaking, the word ‘cult’ is seen in a negative connotation while the word "religion" is viewed positively.

I concurred with Jared A that most religions started off as a ‘cult’ and the religious grouping will be categorized as a religion once it is widely accepted by the people. In another word, calling another religion a ‘cult’ is pretty much like pot calling the kettle black … This is not the case if the ‘cult’ in question is practicing something against the law and order or perhaps threatening the prevailing values of the community, in my opinion.

So Christianity is a cult started by a few, maybe twelve disciples?

The comment from Neptune Comics who grew up as a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran whereby she was taught not to go to church with people of other faiths because their practices were false, or she’d be risking her eternal soul, if she does so

This makes me recall the saying “The only difference between racism and religion is that the former is color conscious and the latter is color blind!” (this one is quoted by Divine Activist La Bona) and a comment by GrumbleGrouch which I generally agree as below: -

"An image of God that has been turned thus into an instrument of partisan interests, that identifies God's absoluteness with one's own community or its set of interests, destroys law and morality, by elevating what is relative into the absolute." There are many examples.

One example is the Spanish Inquisition. After centuries of war, the Europeans finally drove the last of the Arabs from the Iberian peninsula, and then turned their attention to eradicating the Jews because they had prospered under Arab rule. In so doing, they turned Catholic doctrine to the narrow interest of their own community.

Isn't there some truth to the proposition that religion is almost always "an instrument of partisan interests that identifies God's absoluteness with one's own community?" The Anglican Church was created as a consequence of Henry VIII's partisan interest. The Pilgrims and Puritans who settled New England were people who identified their religion with their community. A lot of people identify their fellow church-goers as "their community."

I just voted in the "who are God's children" poll, answering "every Tom, Dick, and Harry including criminals," and was bowled over by seeing how many respondents agreed with me. Surprising that as a secular humanist I should vote as Jesus taught, and almost as surprising that so many others voted that way. Given a chance to think abstractly, most people do not "identify God's absoluteness with their own community." I wonder whether such people are the most religious, or the least religious, among us. (Oh, by the way, why would a secular humanist vote about "who are God's children" anyway? Because I identify "God's children" as those whose rights we should respect.)

The Spanish Inquisition, the Islamic suicide bombers, or the ruthless invasion of Canaan documented in the book of Joshua are not typical behavior. Most people, most of the time, are good.”

Any differing view?

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Is Christianity a cult?

The purpose of this blog is by no mean intended to put Christianity down but rather, I am trying to take a closer look if the notion ‘Christianity is a cult’ holds any water or not?

Now you may ask who alleged ‘Christianity is a cult"?

Well, I must admit I didn’t hear it too often but I can tell you, the Jewish community generally thinks this is the case and as a matter of fact, this has been confirmed by a highly regarded Rabbi whose name I would rather withhold for professional reasons … basically for reasons I have mentioned in the previous blog as follows: -

1. Belittled Sabbath
2. Never Circumcise
3. Disregard Kosher
4. Idolate (The Lord)

and most important of all, guess the Orthodox Jewry was being seriously threatened by the exceptionally charming or ultra charismastic Jesus, back then.

So what is a cult? According to answers.com, cult (kŭlt) means

1.a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
1. b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5. a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
5.b. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

Well, it looks like it is and yet it is not exactly so … Let's take at look at an alternative site “Is Christianity a cult?” at RationalChristianity.net for some clues ...

Among others, they say “Unfortunately, there are Christian and pseudo-Christian individuals and groups who exhibit one or more of the following characteristics” but it also said “Biblical-based Christianity is not a cult and does not support the use of cultic practices”.

1. Overly aggressive evangelization
Granted, there are many Christians who are too aggressive in their attempts to share their faith, not to mention times in history when people were forcibly converted. Yet forced evangelism and/or conversion are not supported by the Bible.

Question: What I don’t understand is why our almighty Lord needs aggressive evangelists? Why can’t He just drop by when we are ‘dreaming’ to spread the gospel?

2. False teaching: Hyperexclusivism
Does Christianity make such a claim? It does claim that Jesus is the only way to God, but it also claims that this path is available to everyone and has been taken by people throughout all of history. It does not restrict membership in heaven to a certain number of people, people who belong to a certain race,[5] or those who joined a very specific church or denomination.[6] Nor does it claim that before the appearance of Jesus (or Abraham or Moses), no one had any access to truth or knowledge of God.[7]

Question: What about the statement ‘only Born Again Christians can go to heaven’?

3. Brainwashing
Does Christianity forbid asking hard questions about its doctrines?

Alright, then proof it by answering my questions (mine are not even that hard, I think) …

4. Financial exploitation
Unfortunately, there are Christian organizations whose primary focus is fundraising and who may even resort to deception in order to line the pockets of their leaders. This practice is directly opposed to the teachings of the Bible, which condemns greed and trusting in wealth,[13] giving under compulsion[14] and exploitation of the poor.[15] wouldn't think he was motivated by greed.

What do you say about the followings?

- “Never come to worship me without bringing an offering” (Ex. 23:15)
- “The Lord said to Moses, ‘When you take a census of the people of Israel, each man is to pay me a price for his life, …Everyone must pay this in an offering to me” . (Ex. 30:11-13)
- “The first born of an animal already belongs to the Lord … A calf, a lamb, or a kid belongs to the Lord, but the first born of an unclean animal may be bought back at the standard price. Plus an additional 20%” (Lev. 27:26,27).
- "One-tenth of all the produce of the land, whether grain or fruit, belongs to the Lord.” (Lev.27:30).

- “…Lord’s permanent property; it shall belong to the priest” (Lev. 27:21)

- More at
“ Monotheism I : Judaism & Christianity were Polytheisms?”

5. Emotional exploitation
Do Christians target young adults, the elderly and others who might be vulnerable to exploitation? Christians often do focus evangelistic efforts on a particular segment of society …

You bet … please ask around under what circumstances do people normally found the Lord?

Before I touch on other faiths, I'dmost probably take a closer at the various so called 'disobeying God' factors from 'belittling Sabbath' to 'Idolating God' and why I said Christianity is probably better off without the 'disobeying God' factors?

Anyway, say what you like, Christianity is and will remain one of my favorite faiths, so for Christ sake, let’s say Christianity is NOT a cult!

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Monotheism III ... More talks

‘Monotheism I : Judaism & Christianity were Polytheisms?’ and ‘Monotheism II: Father of Monotheism’ refer.

Unchained Slave has provided very sophisticated clarifications on the charges that Christianity was at first Polytheism and then Monotheism was virtually created by Paul whom the Lord has never met before ... Bravo.

I am sure the Lord is very proud to have a faithful like you.

One of the more serious charges is that Jews consider Christianity a cult because it disobeyed God on at least four counts: -

  1. Belittling Sabbath
  2. Never Circumcise
  3. Abrogated Kosher
  4. Idolating (God)
Among the 4, I consider 'abrogated Kosher' as the most significant of all. Maybe Christians should really be thankful for this one, they’d otherwise disallowed to eat Cheeseburger, Lobster, Bacon and the list runs longer than a toilet roll!

Among others, Unchained Slave commented: -

“Item 1: 1 Timothy WAS written by Paul.”

OK, so there is a consensus Paul is indeed the Father of Christianity, if not Father of Monotheism. (NB: If it was Jesus, Christianity is likely to stay the same as Judaism or just another form of Judaism ... simply because Jesus is a Jew and I am sure he would want to live like a Jew.

Item 2: So WHAT Paul never met Jesus? Paul’s ‘conversion’ experience (that he was appointed by God to serve God and Proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ) is recorded in the book of Acts …”

Book of Acts? The book was written by Paul’s follower Luke … Obviously one will write in accordance to the wishes of one’s boss, so where is the credibility?

Item 3: It was PETER, not Paul, that abrogated (to abolish by authoritative action - nullify) the kosher diet requirements. (Acts 10:9-15).

Now, you said Peter abrogated the Kosher practice in accordance to Book of Act .. which written by Luke, a follower of Paul? Again, where the credibility?

From what I gathered, it is pretty confusing who abrogated the practice … It is said “first by Jesus (Mark 7:19) and then by the early Church (Acts 10:14-16; 1 Cor 10:23-27). In Acts, Peter's vision of unclean foods descending from heaven (10:9-15) functions as a cipher for a further discussion of impartial membership in the church (10:28-29, 34). The change from a restricted to an open diet, then, symbolizes for the disciples of Jesus a change in membership, from an exclusively Jewish group to one which included Gentiles as well (Acts 10:28; 15:23-29)”

What do you make up of the above? Was it abograted by the Lord, Peter or Paul?

Talking about credibility, a related point here: “all the disciples deserted him and fled” Matthew 26:55-56 … It appears no one witnessed Jesus’ crucifixion, they "all fled" and "deserted" Jesus. They fled because they feared for their lives … I think this alone give the Bible such a bad light in term of credibility for the Lord may never got crucified at all! (Hebrews 5:7-8)

Item 4a: The ‘Gospel’ was preached first to the Jews, because Jesus was the Messiah, promised to the Jews throughout the Old Testament. He is their ‘inheritance’, but God’s compassion allows ‘gentiles’ to share in that inheritance.

Nothing significant here but I really don’t think the Jews can agree to this statement at all.

Item 5: Paul did not ‘do away’ with circumcision …. Paul in Romans 2:25 - 29, points out that the outward sign of circumcision (covenant) is useless if the individual does not keep the covenant, by obedience to God. Further, that an uncircumcised individual can be obedient to God.

Roman is written by Paul, again, where is the credibility?

Item 6: Paul WAS a great ‘salesman’.

Indeed. This I won’t dispute or I wouldn’t have said if Paul were to be reincarnated into our era, I am sure Paul will emerge as one of the hottest commodities in Wall Street ... I imagine most of the Fortune 500 big boys would like to recruit this genius salesman into their Who-Is-Who directory.

Item8: “belittled the importance of Sabbath,” Paul did not belittle the Sabbath. Christians celebrated Sunday, the first day of the week for two reasons. First, and most importantly, they celebrated the ‘Day of the Resurrection’, the first day of the week. Without the resurrection, Christianity is worthless. Second, recognizing the Jewish law regarding tithing out of the ‘first fruits’, Christians ‘gave’ the first day of the week to the worship of God.

Well, Sabbath fulfills the third of the Ten Commandments (“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy”). If the word “belittling” is inappropriate, what then is suitable word to describe the disobeying of the commandment?

Item9: Judaism and ‘Protestant’ Christians are not, and have never been Polytheistic. Every admonition in scripture is NOT TO WORSHIP OTHER GODS! Leviticus 19:4, "Do not turn to idols, nor make for yourselves molded gods: I am the Lord your God."(see also Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 5:8, 12:31, 27:15 Leviticus 19:4,26:1) Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God…” not ‘Gods’

Two things here,

1. Polytheism

Are you disputing ‘polytheism is even reaffirmed in one of the Psalms.82 1-8’, “Mark:7 25-30”, ‘Matthew 15:26’, ‘Deut. 32:9, 32:12, 32:12’, ‘Ex 15:11, 7:16, 23:13, 29:45, 14:9, 21:29, 33:4’, ‘Deut. 3:24, 4:34, 6:14, 10:17, see also ‘Deut. 11:16, 28; 12:30; 13:6, 12, 28:10’ (please refer to
‘Monotheism I : Judaism & Christianity were Polytheisms?’ for details … Here Jehovah is being compared again to other gods, (otherwise, why would't they describe other 'gods' as deities, ghosts etc?) so there must be other gods, or there can be no comparison.

It is pretty obvious to me early Jews were not monotheists.

2. Idolating

Are you sure Christians are no idolaters? How do you explain the portraits, statues and millions more items depicting Jesus (particularly the crucified version?). Not only that, even his mom, Virgin Mary is prominent displayed for the faithful to worship, and if you look hard enough, you find statue his dad too!

Anyway, what is wrong to idolate or idolize?

I think it is fairly obvious by now that Christianity promoted by Paul is never the original version of the Lord and most important of all, the current version of Christianity disobeyed quite a few orders from God … from Belittling Sabbath to Idolating.

One of the topics coming up soon … Is Christianity a cult?

Honestly, I rather Christianity be the 'cult' as alleged by the Jews, I'd tell you why next ...

To all ye faithful out there ... Let fight the misleading statement and or false allegations in the name of Lord!

Monotheism II: Father of Monotheism

Guess most of you already know the answer ... That's right, the father of monotheism is none other than Paul.

This man was a true believer with an unshakable faith that Jesus was the Son of God, (perhaps because he never laid eyes on him and did not know him personally to be aware of his weaknesses).

He became determined to preach the message of Christ that was rejected in his own homeland, amongst the rest of humanity. But this was a tough sell. Other nations had their own gods and would not listen to the preaching of a foreign cult. Many had customs that were different from those of the Jews and those that Jesus practiced.

What Paul did is what any good salesman would do. He changed his product to make it more attractive to his western clients. Paul was clever enough to realize that if he had to convert the Gentiles into Christianity, he had to re-invent a new Christianity palatable to their taste and liking.

He soon dropped the requisite of circumcision, belittled the importance of Sabbath, undermined Jesus’ preference of the Jews and even claimed that he is preaching the messages of a pagan "unknown god". This is reported in the following verses.

"Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." Act 17:22,23

The temple dedicated to the unknown god was built because of the Athenian's concern not to leave behind any god, very much the same concept when we dedicate a monument to the memory of the Unknown Soldier. The unknown god was certainly the least of the gods and not as Paul wanted to believe the Creator of the universe.

It looks like by then many had come to see the similarity and the oneness of humankind. And therefore it was unreasonable to believe that each nation had a separate creator. It is interesting to observe that, as we saw in the above episode, apparently Jesus was less aware of this oneness than his disciple Paul. The reason is obviously circumstantial. Jesus was born and raised in a closed and dogmatic society. He, like his contemporary compatriots believed that the Jews are the chosen children of God. He was not concerned for the Gentiles and even rejected to assist them when they came to him. On the other hand, Paul was a more sophisticated and learned person. He had traveled extensively, was familiar with many cultures and had been in touch with great civilizations. His views were more cosmopolitan than those of Jesus. In his opinion, if Christ was the Son of God, his message should not be reserved only to the Jews but must spread to all the nations of the world. He, unlike his master, did not believe that God would play favoritism. But like Peter believed that “God is not respecter of persons” Act 10:34

Thus, monotheism owes its popularity to the clever and more universalistic views of the disciples of Jesus and not to his own teachings. The spread of Christianity in the West, forced the early believers to adapt the teachings of Jesus and make it more appealing to the new converts. In this way, a local and obscure cult of few Jews became the religion of choice for Romans who eventually made it the religion of the entire continent.

Do you dispute Paul is the Father of Monotheism?

Unchained Slave quoted 1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus"

Question: How do we know '1 Timothy 2:5' is not part of the works of Paul, either directly or under his influence?

If Paul were to be reincarnated into our era, I am sure he will emarge as one of the hottest commodities in the Wall Street ... I imagine most of the Fortune 500 big boys would like to recruit the genius salesman into their Who-Is-Who directory.

It sounds like religion is a dirty business after all ... no?

Next ... I am going to put up something on traditional Jewish pratice abandoned by Paul (in the name of marketing): -

  1. No need to circumcise
  2. No need to keep Kosher
  3. Okay to idolate

Among all, I consider 'No need to keep Kosher' as the most significant of all. Maybe Christians should really thank him for this one, you'd otherwise not allowed to eat Cheesbuger, Lobster and the list is virtually endless (yes, not even cooking up one yourself). Now you know why the Jews regard Christianity as a cult?

Also, someone just sent me some materials disputing the saying "We are all children of Abraham"

Monday, July 25, 2005

Monotheism I : Judaism & Christianity were Polytheisms?

Following our earlier debate on 'Is Bible the complete revelation and the whole truth from God?'

Here are some related stuffs which may provide us with even more clues ...

Evolution of Monotheism

Today’s Judaism and Christianity are monotheistic and their followers assume that this has been so since their inceptions. But a more in-depth study of the Bible reveals another reality!

We should understand that oneness of mankind, is relatively a new concept. Our ancestors who lived thousands of years before us had no use for such oneness nor they could comprehend it. Tribalism was the name of the game. Love of one’s country was part of the religion. Respect for human rights had no meaning for them. They considered themselves superior to the rest of humanity and their god more powerful than other gods. Of course each people had their own god and protector who defended them during the wars and they made sacrifices to him.

The polytheism is even reaffirmed in one of the Psalms.82

1. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods
2. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Here YHWH is addressing other gods, supposedly the gods of other nations admonishing them for being negligent and unworthy of their duties as gods. The interesting part is the verse 82:6 where YHWH reminds all the gods that they are the children of the Most High. Who is this Most High? Who is YHWH talking to? Are there many gods? Who is this father of all of the gods? Is there another god superior to YHWH and other gods who has begotten all of them? It is not clear whether YHWH considers himself also to be the son of the Most High or not, but apparently he (YHWH) must regard him (the Most High) with respect as he mentions his name with much reverence.

The bible assures that YHWH is the god of the Hebrews (Exodus 7:16) and warns them not to worship other gods. In fact many verses in the Bible acknowledge the existence of other gods. Judaism and even Christianity were not originally monotheistic religions. There is a paragraph in the New Testament that shows that even Christ thought that YHWH is only the god of the Jews and his own mission was restricted to the children of Israel.

25: For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him (Jesus), and came and fell at his feet:
26: The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
27: But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meant to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
28: And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.
29: And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.
30: And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed."
See also (Matthew 15:26)

There are a lot of verses in the Old Testament that show YHWH was only the God of the Jews and that other nations had their own gods. Obviously these other gods compared to YHWH were the underdogs. Here are some examples:

"He assigned to each nation a god but Jacob’s descendents he chose for himself" (Deut. 32:9)
"The Lord alone led his people without the help of a foreign god: (Deut. 32:12)
"Lord who among the gods is like you"? (Ex 15:11)
"The Lord the God of the Hebrews…" (Ex 7:16)
"Listen to everything that I, the Lord, have said to you. Do not pray to other gods; do not even mention their names" (Ex. 23:13)If there is no other god what is fuss?
"I will live among the people of Israel" (Ex. 29:45) So God is not Omnipresent, he is not to be found in the rest of the word and he plays favoritism.
"…. the god is with us and has defeated the gods who protected them" (Num. 14:9) How can he defeat someone who dose not exist and how that non existent being would be able to protect anybody?
"… Your god let the men become refugees… " (Num. 21:29)
"By doing this, the Lord showed that he was more powerful than the gods of Egypt" (Num. 33:4) How can one be more powerful than something that does not exist?
"There is no god in heaven or on earth who can do the mighty things that you have done" (Deut. 3:24) If there were no other gods the first part of this sentence would have sufficed.
"Has any god ever dared to go and take a people from another nation and make them his own?" (Deut. 4:34) Implying that other gods are weak, or care not for their believers.
"Do not worship other gods, any of the gods of the people around you" (Deut. 6:14)
"The Lord your God is supreme over all gods…" (Deut. 10:17)

Here Jehovah is being compared again to other gods, so there must be other gods, or there can be no comparison.

See also (Deut. 11:16, 28; 12:30; 13:6, 12, 28:10)

So it is clear that the early Jews were not monotheists. The reason behind this obsession of worshiping one god and not the others becomes clear from the following verses.

Never come to worship me without bringing an offering” (Ex. 23:15)
“The Lord said to Moses, ‘When you take a census of the people of Israel, each man is to pay me a price for his life, …Everyone must pay this in an offering to me” . (Ex. 30:11-13)

Hence, the Israelis had to relinquish the worship of other gods and worship just YHWA. And they had to make some material offerings to him so their prayers gain acceptance. Then there were rituals for cleaning the impure objects, marriage, birth etc that required the believers to make offerings to god.

“The first born of an animal already belongs to the Lord … A calf, a lamb, or a kid belongs to the Lord, but the first born of an unclean animal may be bought back at the standard price. Plus an additional 20%” (Lev. 27:26,27).
"One-tenth of all the produce of the land, whether grain or fruit, belongs to the Lord.” (Lev.27:30).

But who is going to benefit from all these offerings? Of course the vicegerent of god on Earth, who else?

“…Lord’s permanent property; it shall belong to the priest” (Lev. 27:21)

The whole religion was invented by the priesthood to milk the gullible and ensure their dominance and hegemony over the foolhardy believers. You can find plenty of verses in the Bible where the author makes sure the priests are well fed and well paid. There was nothing an individual could do without paying the clergy their lion’s share. When a believer had to slaughter an animal for his household consumption. He could not do it anywhere else but in the “tent of the Presence of the Lord”. He had to bring it to the altar and sacrifice it there. And the priest would keep the best part of it. “Then, when the shoulder of the ram is boiled. The priest shall take it and put it, together with one thick loaf of bread and one biscuit from the basket, into the hands of the Nazirite, Next the priest shall present them as a special gift to the Lord: they are a sacred offering for the priest, in addition to the breast and the leg of the ram which by law belongs to the priest. (Num. 6:19,20) also (Num. 7:5)

This is how and why religions were invented. Similar rituals and costumes can be found in today’s primitive societies where the shaman, the witch or the medicine-man have their hold on the simple minded believers.


Who Is Moses?

Moses is a mythological figure. Some doubt even his historical existence. But what is certain is that the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament that are supposed to be his revelation are not the work of Moses. This has been demonstrated by many Jewish and Christian scholars A simple proof for this statement is that all the five books of Pentateuch are narrated by a third person. The speaker is neither YAHWEH nor Moses.

Another obvious proof is that at the end of Deuteronomy. 34:1-12, there is an obituary of Moses that reads,

1. And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto the mountain of Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. And the LORD shewed him all the land of Gilead, unto Dan,
2. And all Naphtali, and the land of Ephraim, and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah, unto the utmost sea,
3. And the south, and the plain of the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees, unto Zoar.
4. And the LORD said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.
5. So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
6. And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.
7. And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.
8. And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended.
9. And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses.
10. And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,
11. In all the signs and the wonders, which the LORD sent him to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to all his land,
12. And in all that mighty hand, and in all the great terror which Moses shewed in the sight of all Israel.

How is it possible for someone to write his own obituary centuries after his own death?

The above shows that these books that are allegedly written by Moses were actually written many centuries after his death when even no trace of his tomb was left. The fact that no one knew of the exact place of his burial is also an indication that he was either a legendary, an mythological figure or was not important enough for Israelis to keep track of his tomb or make him a shrine. Even if there ever existed a person with the name of Moses, all the stories attributed to him are fabrications of the later priests who forged the entire Bible as it has been demonstrated by many modern Biblical scholars.

So neither Judaism nor Christianity were originally monotheistic religions. Then who is the father of monotheism? To whom shall we give the credit for this new theology that inseminated intolerance and is responsible for many wars amongst the nations as each claimed to be the chosen people of the most-High and the only ones with the truth?

Next … Who is Father of Monotheism?

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Why Elvis Will Replace Jesus

Here is something for the coffee break ... from my Divine Collections: 10 Reasons Why the King will replace the Messiah: -

10. His motto "Taking Care of Business" appeals to the power structure better than "Jesus Saves."
9. White jumpsuits are more practical than white robes in most parts of the world.
8. Elvis had better songs!
7. Elvis had sex!
6. Elvis approved of his followers having sex!
5. The Presley-Jackson Estate will probably own most of the world anyway.
4. JC's disciples drove camels; Elvis' disciples drove Caddies. Which would you rather be?
3. You don't have to starve yourself to emulate Elvis.
2. JC's followers learned "turn the other cheek." Elvis' followers learned karate.
1. You're still reading this.

Maybe we should write a new one ... "Why Britney Spear Will Replace Virgin Mary"?

Have a nice weekend.

Friday, July 22, 2005

Reply from ’Osama bin Laden’?

The letter to Osama bin Laden refers.

Here is a letter from his ‘daughter’ who identified herself as ‘Obeza binte Laden’

Baseball, apple pies and innocents killed

Peace be unto thee.

Allow me to introduce myself. I am Obeza binte Laden, the daughter of you-know-who. My father would kill me if he knows I have written to you. But I feel I must to respond to your letter to him.

While I don't disagree with the points you expressed in your missive, they are so typical of Western views. Apart from making a perfunctory reference to the American people objecting to the Iraqi war, you did not make mention the US's litany of political interference in the affairs of sovereign nations around the war. And those had not been for democracy, freedom or that terribly hypocritical word 'regime change', but rather for America's interests.

We had suspected but now know for sure that the US had attempted to influence the last elections in Iraq, using retired CIA operatives and untraceable funds to promote Allawi and his party so that he might retain the prime minister post, for America's interests of course.

Well, if that's America's idea of democracy, may merciful Allah prevent us from ever receiving its brand of freedom for the Middle East.

Talking about democracy and freedom, the US today continues to support undemocratic and draconian dictatorships around the world. You only need look at Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Uzbekistan and Pakistan as some typical examples.

Do you recall the Shah of Iran and his secret police, the dreaded Savak? How many were tortured by them? How many disappeared into the fog of the night? Do you remember the military dictatorships of South Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Chile? And don't forget that once-blue-eyed boy of the US, Mr Saddam Hussein.

I am so glad you brought up the issue of Palestinian and Israeli violence. As a woman who understands what it is to bring life into the world, nothing repels a mother more than the utter senselessness of political killing. Had America been more even-handed and reined in the excesses of people like Ariel Sharon the Middle East situation would have been less antagonistic.

We are tired of only hearing about Palestinian violence and Israeli self-defense. Have you considered a different picture, Palestinian self-defense - of their land, people and rights - and Israeli violence?

Wasn't Ariel Sharon implicated in the Sabra-Shatila massacre? Yet, the White House treated many of these terrorist and murderous Israelis, with innocent blood on their hands, like honored guests.

While the Sept 11 attack was a horrifying crime, especially to a woman and a mother like me, we cannot pretend that the attackers - even in their sick and demented minds - were not out to 'punish' the US for its crimes. It was an unmitigated crime of hatred but fueled by provocations, instigated by wicked mullahs and galvanized by false religious salvation.

I do hope you are not taken in by Bush's nonsense that those evil criminal attackers were jealous of America's freedom, baseball and apple-pies.

I, too, bowed my head and stood in silence for our brethren and sisters who lost their lives in the recent terrorist attacks on London, as I did for those innocents in other lands killed by America's powerful and callous military. Please recall the wedding parties in both Afghanistan and Iraq, where an American fighter jet annihilated many at those supposedly happy events. Were any criminals punished? And what about the innocent people of Fallujah?

Did you, too, stand in a minute of silent respect for those fallen by the US' callous and murderous assaults, or did you subscribe to the American sinister euphemism of the slaughtered innocents as 'collateral damage' or even the more vogue US term, 'terrorist suspects', many of whom were children hardly in their teens.

How many innocent lives have been lost because of Bush and his cohorts? How many people have lost their families, future and hopes because of the US' arrogant disregard for others?

My father is, of course, beyond redemption, consumed by hatred for the Americans without appreciating the good that lies in so many Americans. But should we, too, be blinkered like him, and ignore the equally evil in some Americans and British, who went to war on a pack of lies, as they did in Vietnam with the equally deceitful lie of the Gulf of Tonkin affair?

May the Compassionate One shower his blessings upon thee.

Emmm ... what do you think?

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Bible = The Complete Whole Truth?

It all started when the Vatican boss, our beloved Pope made a public statement that fiction like Harry Potter is evil and as such, must be avoided by the young ones at all cost.

A serious allegation I say, but not without merit or substance.

The issue has been hotly debated typically between the conservatives and the liberals: Is the world better off without Harry Potter, Santa Claus and Mickey Mouse?

While the topic is still being debated, it appears core of the argument is now centered on Bible: Is Bible the complete revelation and the whole truth from God?

Rev. Beck commented: “there is only right (that which God wills) and wrong (that which is against the will of God), which I take it as there are only two elements in this world ie. it’s either Black or White (no such thing as Grey), literally speaking.

Together with ‘Unchained Slave’, they both argued either you believe the Bible is the whole truth or it is plain crap ... you can't have it both ways. And Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven (ie. for born again Christians only).

On the other hand, both ‘Gwhiz2k’ and ‘Daniel’ not only see the Bible as incomplete, they also believe the Lord’s original message is lost and has been deliberately distorted by its main author, Paul (Saul of Tarsis) who apparently has never met Jesus before and he is obviously politically obliged to the Roman emperor Constantine. They believe the same has ordered the Council of Nicea to remove all content against the political interest of his empire from the Bible.

‘Gwhiz2k’ thinks the closest truth could well be with James (brother of Christ) and as such, we need to rethink Christianity and strip away the influence of Saul completely … He also disagreed Christianity is the only way to heaven and he suggest we read apocrypha, gospel of Thomas (Nag Hamadi scrolls), The Dead Sea scrolls, Koran, Torah as well as scriptures of Buddhism … as “The way to get closer to God”

I am sure Gwhiz2k thinks all of us are equal children of God

In between we got ‘liberal’ Christian like Tony Brooks who declared himself as a de facto faithful of Jesus Christ but nonetheless consider both Santa Claus and Mickey Mouse as wonderful creations. Good on you.

I think Daniel who described himself as a Protestant ‘fanatic’ (I say ‘moderate’ is more like it) is absolutely succinct in saying “alternatives to abortion need to be promoted but I'm wary of turning our country into something like Brazil, where abortion is outlawed except in extreme cases of rape sanctioned by a court order. There, they average 100-150 legal abortions a year, with well over 1 million illegal abortions a year, and botched abortions being the fourth-ranked cause of death in pregnant women. Why can't we find some way to reach out to these pregnant women, reduce the associated mortality, and reduce the overall number of abortions? Instead, the official policy of Christianity in general is simply to make abortion illegal. --- it seems to me that much of these "Christian policies" have some misplaced priorities and that I'm not so convinced that these policies are the best "moral" solution

Thank you all for commenting. Put authenticity of the Bible aside (honestly, I simply know nothing more than what you have read) but as a liberal animal, guess I'd always question ‘Morality … Why should this important aspect of our life be monopolized by religion?’ ... I imagine morality should be a subject of public domain for the faithful as well as the infidels (disbelievers).

Related comments at 'God Hates Harry Porter?'

Monday, July 18, 2005

We're Not Afraid

Pictures Tell Terrorists 'We're Not Afraid' (Alfie Dennen started werenotafraid.com to spread his message to terrorists and the rest of the world, that he is not afraid) refers.

Here is one from me … Johnny Come Lately (guess late is better than never) ... Heeha!

Someone send me a somewhat related videolink "Monkey Teasing The Tigers" ... Maybe I should consult God if it makes sense to start a portal dedicated to mocking the terrorists?

And below is the multilingual message from His Children to the Violent Faggots aka Al-Qeuda whose members have been declared by God Almighty as invalid species backdated to July 7, 2005: -

we're not afraid nous n'avons pas peur мы не боимся wir haben keine angst نحن لسنا بخائفين אנו לא מפחדים non abbiamo paura no tenemos miedo 恐くないよ 我们不害怕 vi är inte rädda ni nas strah emme ole peloissamme não temos medo ما نمیترسیم .-- . / .- .-. . / -. --- - / .- ..-. .-. .- .. -..

Friday, July 15, 2005

Dear Osama bin Laden

While I am looking for some stuffs to blog on Harry Potter, here is a letter dedicated to the terrorist faggot ... Omama bin Ladude The Brutal Moron

Dear Osama,

You believe the following propositions:

  1. The US is embarked on an imperialist project to dominate the world.
  2. Muslim societies should be reconstructed on the basis of the true principles of Islam; and
  3. Only terrorism can achieve your goals.

As for your first argument, you are wrong to generalise about Americans.

Many are deeply troubled and critical of George W Bush's administration, and have protested against the recent Iraq war.

Many who support his administration do so because they are fearful of another Sept 11. As long as you resort to terrorism, you reinforce their fear and support for Bush's policies.

As for your second argument, I could not disagree more. History confirms my view that identifying religion with the state corrupts both. Religion does have a place in public life. But that is completely different from saying that the state should be based on, enforced, or be guided by religious principles.

The situation is made worse by the fact that you don't take an open, tolerant view of religion but a static, self-righteous and dogmatic one. This commits you to a politico-religious party supervising all areas of individual and social life, the surest way to destroy religion, create a
terrorist state, and turn human beings into soulless robots. Have you learned nothing from the disastrous experience of Iran and Saudi Arabia?

A truly religious person wants to live by the values and beliefs of his religion. If the state has to enforce them on him, then clearly his religion has ceased to have any meaning for him. A religiously-based state is a sacrilege to God and the human soul.

Finally, you make a serious mistake in resorting to terrorism. Take the case of the Palestinians. They have used violence. Israel has responded with greater violence. The result is an increasing brutalisation of both societies.

There is not a single example in history of terrorists creating a humane and healthy society. Today, Osama, you use terrorism against the West, tomorrow your own people will use it against you and claim the same justification for it. When will the vicious circle end?

To condone isolated acts of violence by desperate individuals is one thing, to make violence the central principle of your struggle is completely different.

You should know by now that your brutal methods have done incalculable harm to your fellow Muslims, you have discredited a great religion. Millions now instinctively associate Islam with violence and murder.

You have also deeply divided the ‘ummah’ subjected your followers to torture and degradation, and rendered miserable the lives of many innocent Muslims.

It is high time you grew out of your infantile and despicable obsession with death and destruction, abandon your messianic zeal, and show some humility and humanity. But I fear this may be beyond you.

Next ... Harry Potter: Return of the Wizard

Related blogs ...

Thursday, July 14, 2005

God hates Harry Potter?

Pope condemned ‘subtle seduction’ of tales of wizardry!

Harry is Evil, Potter is Satan!

HARRY POTTER has come under attack from soul-sucking dementors and basilisks, but he faces his most formidable adversary yet in the form of the Pope.

A letter written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before he was elected Pope in April, condemns the boy wizard as a potentially corrupting influence on children.

The Cardinal, then the late Pope John Paul II’s “enforcer” as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, revealed his views in a letter to the author of Harry Potter — Good or Evil?, a book published in Germany. The Cardinal appeared to sympathise with Gabriele Kuby’s thesis that Harry Potter corrupts the young, distorting their understanding of the battle between good and evil. “It is good that you enlighten people about Harry Potter because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul before it can grow properly,” he wrote.

Well, the Pope (and orthodox Christians) also despises Uncle Santa Claus … I wonder what is Santa’s sin?

For the record, Jack Brock, a priest from the Christ Community Church, said: “God says in Deuteronomy that witchcraft is an abomination. Whatever God hates, I hate.” More at Times Online

Really? God told you He hates Harry? Yeah right. Looks like religion is not only unfriendly to kid, guess there is also not much fun in it huh?

Do you fancy a world without Cinderella, Snow White and my best buddy: Mr. Mickey Mouse? Is this a positive phenomenon? I must ask God ...

BTW, I wonder what do Jews and Muslims think of Harry ... I imagine it gotta be the same (since they all share the same root)?

Anyway, if you want to know the literal meaning behind the word “bigot”, religious fanatics must be one of the best living examples.

Monday, July 11, 2005

Abortion V: The Debate Goes On …

With the resignation of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor from the Supreme Court, both sides in the abortion debate are jockeying for position in an attempt to influence the selection of O’Connor’s replacement.

The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision is arguably the most controversial decision ever handed down by the Court. Supporters are wringing their hands that a shift in the court might result in Roe being overturned. Opponents are hoping for just that.

This missive is an attempt, feeble as it may be, to cut through the rhetoric on both sides of this debate and discuss this issue from an analytical viewpoint.

The term abortion, as used here, refers only to those abortions that do not involve pregnancies resulting from rape, incest, etc. or are performed in order to save a woman’s life.

I refer to those that wish to maintain the status quo as “pro-Roe” and not “pro-choice.” I find that term diminishes the gravity of the issue, reducing it to nothing more than a decision akin to plain or peanut. Of course, that is what supporters of that position prefer – promoting the notion that the decision to abort a pregnancy is no different than choosing a flavor of ice cream.

Likewise, I will refer to the “pro-life” position as “anti-Roe” as I honestly do not believe anyone is anti-life. I also assert that the anti-Roe side does a disservice to their cause when referring to the other side as “pro-abortion.” I will offer that none but the most insensitive, when faced with the decision, eagerly seek to have an abortion. Having no first-hand experience, I can only surmise that doing just about anything would be preferable to a visit to a clinic for the purposes of an abortion.

Just what are the pros and cons of legalized abortion? There are of course many cons, paramount of which is the death of a human being before he or she can draw first breath.

The pro-Roe supporters argue that a “fetus” is not a human being. This basically comes down to semantics, but I will point out that every one of those supporters was also a fetus at one point in time.

There is also little doubt that most women that have abortions, again other than the most selfish and callous, eventually suffer emotional repercussions. Their lives are forever changed. Two lives (at least) are negatively affected by every abortion.

Are there positives to legalized abortion?

The pro-Roe position is that legalized abortion gives women control over the reproductive decision and fear that a reversal of Roe v. Wade would restrict the right of a woman to choose when she has a child. The problem with this position is that women had the right and ability to choose long before Roe and continue to have that right today. That “choice” is made several months before a woman is faced with the prospect of an abortion, if you know what I mean. Legalized abortion allows a “mistake” that could have been avoided in the first place, to simply be wiped away. No fuss, no muss.

In the book Freakonomics, economist Steven D. Levitt makes the case that the legalization of abortion beginning in 1973 has a very strong statistical correlation and may explain the dramatic drop in crime rates in the 1990s.

Levitt cites studies that indicate that the women most likely to have abortions post-Roe were the women least likely to be able to provide a secure home environment for a child. It is children that grow up in such environments that are most likely to turn to a life of crime.

Levitt’s analysis, however, concludes that even if one could assign a value of 100 fetuses to equal the value of one newborn, the annual “cost” of legalized abortion is 15,000 lives, far more than the number of homicides “saved” by legalized abortion.

On balance, it would seem that the loss of life and the emotional scars carried by women (and their families) that have abortions outweigh the benefits of reduced crime (if there is a direct cause and effect) and the convenience of “cleaning up a mess” of a poor decision.

For all the rhetoric and hyperbole on both sides of this issue, there can never be a middle ground to the abortion debate. Those that believe that abortion is murder will never believe otherwise. Those that believe that having an abortion is a woman’s “right” and that a “fetus” is just tissue aren’t likely to change their views either, at least not until it is too late.

While it is undeniably true that many aborted babies would not be born into situations conducive to a full and productive life, the bottom line is that a society, such as ours, that values life is diminished when life may be terminated so easily.

By Jan Larson @ AmericanDaily.com

Next, let's take a closer look at Roe v. Wade ... What if Roe v. Wade were overturned in the future by replacement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the US Supreme Court?

More comments at ...

Saturday, July 09, 2005

Osama bin Laden is a Jew?

Rumor has it Mr. bin Laden is actually a Jew in disguise!

Someone dropped me an email this morning ...

Excerpts: -

"All the Al-Qaeda sympathizers have been fooled by their idol: Osama bin Laden, this notorious terrorist is actually a Jewish bastard!

According an insider from Al-Haddillah, a communication arm of the terrorist movement based in Beirut, bin Laden’s mother is actually a Jew who was abducted, drugged, raped by his Arab father at the age of 13. And according to the same source, his mother’s real name is actually Sarai Netanyahu (I have posted this at a Jewish Missing Person website) and that she was later brainwashed into believing Islam is the revised version of Judaism ordered by God and the rest is history ...

Apparently, formation of an Islamic empire is nothing but just a political propaganda by Al-Qaeda to fool the Muslims (mostly poor and illiterate) all over the world into believing they are fighting for a Godly cause. According to a very reliable source coming from a cousin of Osama bin Laden, Abdullah bin Laden, the real agenda behind all the struggle is to eventually turn all the Muslims into chattel slavery!

Guess who placed an order for the slaves?"

Notes: There is no way I can verify Osma bin Laden with God. The last time I tried to ask God about this coward terrorist, God instead put a question back to me "Who the hell is this dude called Onama pin Ladude? I don't remember ever recorded such a name in the Holy Register."

An Open Letter To The Murderers

Here is an open letter to the murderers of the Bloody Blast @ London Transits yesterday.

Excerpts: -

“I don’t think you have either the emotional quotient or the mental capacity to understand this. If you had, you would realise that Madrid was a failure, just like Sept 11. Yes, the death toll and the emotional pain these incidents cause are great.

But we, the citizens of this world, the peace-loving people of every creed, colour, faith, age and background do not buy your morally and ideological bankrupt notion of courage. You are cowards.

That’s why you dare not show your face. That’s why you target innocent people whose names are John, Jane, Antonio, Yithzak, Wong, Kim, Thabo, Mohammed, Kumar etc. You know that were you to attempt to reason and rationalise your so-called struggle, you would show the complete lack of intelligence, logic, persuasiveness or righteousness on your part.

Therefore, you are only prepared to communicate through the language of fear. Just like the school playground bully.

Well, we understand fear. We fear living in a society where there are no freedoms or liberties. We fear hate. We fear irrationality. We fear that in physically protecting ourselves, we ourselves will strangle our souls.

For all of these reasons, we do not fear you because while you can take lives, you cannot take away the basis of our civilisation. That of freedom of religion, belief, expression, of liberty, of democracy and of the desire to better and improve ourselves through work, charity, and our personal faith.

If you were courageous, you would be building schools, hospitals, homes, roads, water pipes, power stations, mosques, churches, temples, synagogues and doing unto your neighbour as you would wish they do unto you. Because you cannot, or will not, you show your lack of comprehension of what is the true nature of diligence, sacrifice, righteousness and courage.

The citizens of London (and we come from every part of the world and are believers of every faith under the sun) today and in the days to come will mourn our loss. We will grief for a season. But even during this season, we will continue to live our lives as we did before.

And many others will continue to migrate to this city to better their lives, to fulfil their dreams, and to achieve their ambitions. But as for you, you can continue to run from safe house to safe house, from foxhole to foxhole, cave to cave, country to country.You can continue to plot to maim and kill and at the same time demean your own human nature and destroy your soul. We pity you. We pray for God to have mercy on you and be gracious to you. And we forgive you because we do not want to be consumed by hate like you.

And on the day of reckoning, we do not want the account of our lives to be measured by the amount of hate we have for God’s creations and the number of eyes blinded, ears deafened, arms and legs maimed and amputated, and lives murdered.”

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Bloody Blast @ London Transits


U.S. sources say at least 40 dead

Four explosions in London's transport system have killed at least 40 people and wounded dozens more in what Prime Minister Tony Blair said was an apparent terrorist attack. A group calling itself the "Secret Organization group of al-Qaeda Organization in Europe" claimed responsibility in a Web site posting. The authenticity of the claim could not immediately be verified. More at CNN

NB: Picture of a victim originally shown here has been taken off as it is deemed too graphic for public viewing (you may have it by emailing me)

God has instructed all His children to stand up against the religious faggots who killed innocent folks with their face hidden behind the turban … Death to the coward terrorists!

I shall try get hold of God tonight … I am going to ask him a very tough question: Why didn’t He stop the atrocity?

Stayed tuned for response from God …

Let’s hope God will not response to us in this manner

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Do Muslims worship idols?

Excerpt from Commentary: Do Muslims worship idols? by Sprengler @ Asia Times

Is what divides Islam and the West a minor misunderstanding, or an incipient war of civilizations? One's answer often depends on whether one sees Islam as a variant of Christianity or Judaism, or a pagan conqueror cult. Pat Robertson, the prominent American evangelical, claims, "The struggle is whether Hubal, the Moon God of Mecca, known as Allah, is supreme, or whether the Judeo-Christian Jehovah God of the Bible is Supreme."

President George W Bush and his advisors, by contrast, aver that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, an argument restated recently by Daniel Pipes, a neo-conservative Middle East analyst. "However hostile political relations may be, a common 'children of Abraham' bond does exist and its exploration can one day provide a basis for interfaith comity," wrote Pipes.[1]

No individual can speak for Christendom in such matters, but the most prominent voice belongs to the pope, the leader of the oldest and largest Christian denomination. Although Benedict XVI has expressed sympathy for Islam, he states quite plainly that the "martyr ideology" of Islamist terrorists amounts to an odious form of idol worship. Most Muslims, and emphatically the Muslim clergy, support this "martyr ideology"

... (NB: ommitted loads of "garbage" by the Pope here and there) ...

and in between, I found this interesting phrase "God promised Abraham that he would not destroy the city of Sodom if 10 just men were to be found there"

Question: Does the word "Sodomy" originate from this city? If so, Holy Smoke!

Benedict XVI did not say that Muslims worshipped idols, but he denounced the "martyr ideology of terrorists", which "turns God into an idol by which man worships his own will". Given that the great majority of Muslims, and particularly Muslim clerics, support suicide bombing, the pope in effect averred that idol-worshippers comprise the Islamic mainstream.

"God, or divinity, can turn into the means to make absolute one's own power and one's own interests. An image of God that has been turned thus into an instrument of partisan interests, that identifies God's absoluteness with one's own community or its set of interests, destroys law and morality, by elevating what is relative into the absolute. The good then becomes whatever serves one's own power. The actual difference collapses between good and evil. Morality and law become instruments of partisan policy. This gets even worse when religious fanaticism, the fanaticism of the absolute, informs the will to put everything in the service of one's own interests, and thus turns completely blind and brutal. God has become an idol by which man worships his own will. That is what we see in the martyr ideology of the terrorists, which, to be sure, in isolated cases simply expresses desperation at the injustice of the world. "

Question: What is wrong to idolize God in the first place? Another question for God.

Last year, the Pew Global Attitudes Project [5] polled Muslims in four countries, all nominally allied to the United States, as to whether suicide bombings were justifiable. In three of the four countries, substantial majorities declared that suicide bombings were justified not only by Palestinians against Israelis, but also by Iraqis against American soldiers.

Response to Pew Global Attitudes Survey question: "Are suicide bombings justifiable?"

By Palestinians against Israelis
Turkey .........."No" = 67 ..... "Yes" = 24
Pakistan ........"No" = 36 ..... "Yes" = 47
Morocco ........"No" = 22 ..... "Yes" = 74
Jordan ..........."No" = 12 ..... "Yes" = 86

Against Americans and Westerners in Iraq
Turkey ........."No" = 59 ..... "Yes" = 31
Pakistan ......."No" = 36 ..... "Yes" = 46
Morocco ......."No" = 27 ......"Yes" = 66
Jordan .........."No" = 24 ......"Yes" = 70

Because Islam has no centralized religious leadership, it is hard to quantify the extent to which Muslim clergy promote terrorist "martyr ideology", but anecdotal evidence is overwhelming that the great majority of Muslim religious leaders support suicide bombings, for example. Among Sunni Muslims, the leading authority is Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, the Grand Sheikh of Cairo's al-Azhar mosque. Sheikh Tantawi has gone back and forth on the issue several times, but his most recent pronouncement (in May 2004) held that circumstances warranted Palestinian suicide attacks against Israelis, adding that anyone who blew himself up while defending Islam against an aggressor died a martyr's death. [6] A survey of the debate among Muslim clerics about suicide attacks by Haim Malka appeared in the Spring 2003 issue of the Middle East Quarterly, concluding:

Since the outbreak of the current Palestinian intifada, in September 2000, the Palestinian resort to suicide attacks has won widespread Arab public acceptance as a legitimate form of resistance against Israeli occupation. Some Muslim clerics and other commentators justify them on political, moral and religious grounds. Even those attackers who bomb and kill women and children are hailed as martyrs for their heroism in confronting the enemy. [7]

Traditionally and culturally, Semites are known to be some of the most intolerent people, and it looks like it all boil down to just one word: RELIGION ... There must be a mistake along the line, I gotta ask God about this one.

Meanwhile, God bless the Semites and their Holy (or stupid) Wars.

Funny is that the Pope keep using words like Fanaticsm and Fundamentalism over and over again in his talks ... As if Catholic is not a fanatic of fundamentalism?

More reference: -
Is Allah God?
Auf der Suche nach dem Frieden.
A year after Iraq war
Must Innocents Die? The Islamic Debate over Suicide Attacks

Sunday, July 03, 2005

Godly Speaking I

Allegation from Dakini/Yaddoshi refers.

First of all, let me declare once again; I am politically neutral and I am not affiliated to any religious organization. I anti no one, I owe nobody any favor and I am not here to proselytize but to talk about spirituality in a contemporary fashion.

“From what I've seen on your site it is clear that you are pro-Life, and therefore it seems that you purposely wrote a pro-Choice comment”

No, I am actually neutral on abortion or should I say: I am skewed towards pro-choice …

So your little four-year-old is blogger? Wow, no wonder you are so proud of her. I am impressed. Congratulations.

I may not know a lot about Native Indian but I have personally done some business with them right at the Six Nations.

I still have a ‘Dreamcatcher’ hanging in my den …

Native Indians believe that the night air is filled with dreams both good and bad. The Dreamcatcher, when hung, moves freely in the air and catches the dreams as they float by. The good dreams know the way and slip through the center hole and slide down off the soft feather so gently the sleeper below sometimes hardly knows he is dreaming. The bad dreams, not knowing the way, get entangled in the webbing and perish with the first light of the new day

Back to your allegation that I am a spiritual manipulator, holy liar, con artist etc. This is what I have to say for now …

If you think I am evil just because I claim to have divine contacts, then I assume you must consider all the holy stars as nothing but pure scams: -

Torah is nothing more than a Mickey Mouse tale, Jesus Christ is an unwilling scamster, Prophet Mohammad must be a notorious gangster and the poor Buddha gotta be the most innocent among all: a naive lunatic who is obsessed with hallucinating!

Question: If all the holy stars are fake, what makes you think your ‘Creator” (native God) is legitimate?

NB: I challenge faithful of all the worldly religions the same as to what makes them think their ‘God’ is real while others are fake?

While I am still trying to figure it out a better way to explain “God” to the mass in a contemporary fashion, I am kinda curious why you said “such an untrustworthy environment such as the Internet?

Admittedly, Internet has been rampantly abused by the bad guys. Nevertheless, it is still one of the most affordable and viable medium in this world, I think. Since you condemned the Internet as ‘untrustworthy’, would you mind to suggest a better medium for me communicate with the world? Please don’t ask me to go into everyone’s dream to spread ‘gospel’, I admit I don’t have the capability to do that yet … I am just a worldly being for now.

Last but not least, do you think your ‘Creator’ is the same holy being as the Creator God of other religions eg. Semitic religions ie. Jew, Christianity and Islam? Is your ‘Creator’ a singular being, plural being or an infinite force?

Should male circumcision be outlawed?
Not Sure
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Is Bible the complete revelation and the whole truth from God?
Not Sure
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Is Harry Potter bad for kids?
Not Sure
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Are Santa Claus & Mickey Mouse bad for kids?
Not Sure
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Do pharmacists have the rights to refuse contraceptive prescriptions?
Not Sure
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Abortion: Where do you stand?
Depend on the Circumstances
No Sure
Free polls from Pollhost.com
When does human personhood begin?
It happens at conception (the most common pro-life position)
It happens when blood first appears (a new interpretation based on the Bible)
It happens later in pregnancy (the most common pro-choice position)
It happens at 14 or 22 weeks gestation (two novel arguments)
It happens during childbirth (the traditional Jewish position)
Not Sure
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Who are Children of God?
All Jews (regardless of philosophy & lifestyle)
Devout & Orthodox Jews Only
All Christians (regardless of philosophy & lifestyle)
Born Again Christians Only
All Muslims (regardless of philosophy & lifestyle)
Devout & Fundamentalist Muslims Only
All faithful of Semitic religions only (Semitic Pluralism)
All Buddhists (regardless of philosophy & lifestyle)
All Hindus (regardless of philosophy & lifestyle)
All faithful regardless of religion (Universal Pluralism)
All righteous people excluding Homosexuals
All righteous people including Homosexuals
Any Tom, Dick & Harry including Criminals
Not Children but we are all God's Slaves
Not Sure
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Are people born Gay?
Aboslutely Yes!
Very likely Yes
Abosolutely Not!
Very likely Not
Not Sure
Free polls from Pollhost.com
My Photo
Location: God Inspired, Consensus Driven

WARNING: Blind obsession with prophecy can be perilous or even fatal, reader discretion is advised! Submitted to God as His worldly Activist on a non-exclusive basis since June 15, 2005 1:00 am ET. “La Bona” is a professional name inspired by God; it means "The Righteous", “The Virtuous” or simply “The Good” in Esperanto (a neutral international language). DivineTalk® is an Open Commentary Forum dedicated to God for His Children to engage in dialogue, discourse and debate on laws, standards and values on morality, lifestyle, ethics, business and just about anything else related to their life. God enlightened to have His Words improvised and updated with the prevailing circumstances so that the divine guidance, dogma and policy will evolve with time and stay relevant to His Children in the very era they live in as the way forward. La Bona is a Truth Seeker, Myth Buster, Freedom Fighter, Cyber Activist, Liberal Animal, Good Samaritan, Messiah Wannabe and in order to serve His Children of diverse backgrounds, La Bona is motivated and aim to eventually multitask as Divine Representative, Contemporary Prophet, Celestial Executive, Deity Clairvoyant, Holy Spiritualist ...

  • Write To Me
  • Submit A Story
  • Link To Me
  • Therapeutic Rants
  • Unchained Slave
  • Grumble Grouch
  • In Medias Res
  • Ha'emet: Truth and Peace
  • Martini Glasses
  • Your Sweet Bippy
  • Nova Vane
  • A Concerned Scientist
  • Knitting In Public
  • Reality Hole
  • Off My Blog
  • Chaos-In-Motion
  • Deliberate Chaos
  • The Eagle's Nest
  • To Everything a Time
  • Politics 101
  • Crown Heights; the View From Inside
  • Technorati Profile