DivineTalk ... God inspired Commentary Forum

Open Letter To Osama bin Laden

2006-01-04T15:08:00.000-05:00

From S.A.Rehman, Peace Activist

An Open Letter To
Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri.
(Wherever You Are)

Aslam-o-Alaikum!

Do you know what degree of shame, abomination, misery and wretchedness
is being heaped on the innocent and peace-following Muslims all over
the world because of this so-called and self styled Jihad of yours?

Do you know how many innocent, unsullied people are being daily
butchered as result of this professed Jihad of yours? How many
children are being orphaned and women being widowed precisely for the
same reason.

And do you know, killing one faultless human being is like killing the
entire humanity. You must definitely be knowing that you will surely
be held accountable for this all bloodshed. Will you, then, be able to
face your God? I challenge, no!

Then, why have you become an agent of some hidden hand. Why are you
taking the responsibility of the murder of entire humanity to yourself
on his behest. Why are you dragging the Muslims down? Why are you
demeaning Islam by presenting it as a terrorist religion? Acting like
this, which religion are you rendering a great service to? Are you
raising the standard of Islam high or you (if you reflect on it) are
causing the heads of the followers of the path of the righteous bow
down with shame in-front of the entire humanity.

Today most of the Muslims believe that you are not a true Muslim but
planted by the enemies to destroy the image of Islam.

For God’s sake, take recourse to sense, and announce a CEASEFIRE
at once so the inhabitants of world may be introduced to that divine
aspect of the Muslims at whose hands no soul suffer, whose words and
actions bear no tinge of dichotomy, whose speech, when uttered, conveys
to others the message of love and protection, whose thoughts, when
thought, are devoted to the well being of others. Herein lies the true
success, and herein lies the victory of the true religion of Allah.

S.A.Rehman
(Peace Activist)
PAKISTAN

Copies being sent to Muslim Brothers and Sisters for information and
with a request to pray for an earliest end to the war.

Happy New Year

2005-12-30T10:45:00.000-05:00

It's time to do AULD LANG SYNE again ...

Best Wishes.

Dear Santa

2005-12-14T09:24:00.000-05:00

Almost a yearly ritual, my little one will never fail to make her wishes known to the world's most famous 'Sugar Daddy' ie. Uncle Santa Claus ... silently or aggressively.

The following is what my little one wrote (word by word and addressed to the North Pole) to him last night ...

Dear Santa,

Please may I have a Tamaguchi for Christmas. I would also like a Dora Princess ... Ho ho ho

Tamaguchi? I asked where did she get this weird sounding term from? Guess what she told me?

"Haven't you heard of Neopet.com?"

Looks like Internet can be devilish eh?

Perhaps I should also write to Santa ...

Dear Santa,

Please may I have a stay in Heaven during the holidays. I would also like to date an Angel ... Ho ho ho

Prada Pope?

2005-12-01T23:52:00.000-05:00

Pope & Designer Outfits ...

According to Newsweek, the Pope Wears Prada.

He may never make the best-dressed lists, but Pope Benedict XVI is nothing short of a religious-fashion icon, riding in the Popemobile with red Prada loafers under his cassock and Gucci shades.

- God hate shrimp & lobster but He love Gucci & Prada?

- Wonder if God also love Ferrari & Harley Davidson?

Do you think designer stuffs should be encouraged for the holy community?

Sweet!

Guys, you can put this item on my Christmas list.

New Buddha!

2005-11-23T17:53:00.000-05:00

Someone just alerted me about this holy news: The reincarnation of Siddhārtha Gautama, Amitābha (阿彌陀佛 Ch. Āmítuó fó, 阿弥陀如来 Jp. Amida Nyorai), the Buddha of Limitless Light (無量光佛), also Amitāyus, the Buddha of Limitless Life (無量壽佛) blah blah blah ... is back in action!

You know what? I have been searching high and low for the path to Nirvana for a long long time and as such, please forward to me if you happen to know the immediate contact eg. email address/phone number of this little Buddha so that I can try to book an audience with the new Lord ASAP.

Meanwhile, I think I better start saving some bucks to get to Katmandu before he dissapears in the thin air ...

Holy smoke, this is hot!

By BINAJ GURUBACHARYA, Associated Press Writer

KATMANDU, Nepal - A teenage boy has been meditating in a Nepalese jungle for six months, and thousands have flocked to see him, with some believing he is the reincarnation of Buddha, police and media said Wednesday.

Ram Bahadur Banjan, 15, sits cross-legged and motionless with eyes closed among the roots of a tree in the jungle of Bara, about 100 miles south of the capital, Katmandu.

He's supposedly been that way since May 17 — but his followers have been keeping him from public view at night.

A reporter for the Kantipur newspaper, Sujit Mahat, said he spent two days at the site, and that about 10,000 people are believed to visit daily.

Soldiers have been posted in the area for crowd control, officials said.

A makeshift parking lot and cluster of food stalls have sprung up near Banjan's retreat, an area not previously frequented by visitors.

Many visitors believe Banjan is a reincarnation of Gautama Siddhartha, who was born not far away in southwestern Nepal around 500 B.C. and later became revered as the Buddha, which means Enlightened One.

Others aren't so sure.

Police inspector Chitra Bahadur Gurung said officers have interviewed the boy's associates about their claim that Banjan has gone six months without food or drink.

Officers have not directly questioned the boy, who appears deep in meditation and doesn't speak.

"We have a team ... investigating the claim on how anyone can survive for so long without food and water," Gurung said.

Local officials have also asked the Royal Nepal Academy of Science and Technology in Katmandu to send scientists to examine Banjan ... More

Kosher Scam?

2005-11-17T11:59:00.000-05:00

While my mailbox is flooded with all sort of scams everyday, this must be the first 'Kosher' version ... Sorry, I shouldn't use the word 'scam', maybe I should rephrase it as 'potentially fraudulent invitation' as the claim is yet to be verified.

(Picture: Money God!)
Check this out ....

From: GOSH MAZREK TEXTILE INDUSTRY

Dear Sir/Madam,

Gosh-Mazrek Textile Industries is a Yarns & Textile Manufacturing company based in Israel. Due to the expansion of our company on the markets of Europe, Canada and the USA,we are searching for Representatives who can help us establish a medium of getting to our costumers in Europe,Canada and America as well as making payments through them to us.

The requirements for Representatives are:

1. Honest, responsible and dedicated
2. Having no problem with the authorities
3. Having a bank account to receive payment (Company account is an advantage)
4. Having 1 or 2 free hours a day
5. Having a business or mobile phone

As our Representative,you will be required to receive payments from our customers on our behalf and transfer the money further to our trade agents via Money Transfer or Bank Transfer. This scheme seems for us to be the most efficient, since it guarantees the fastest delivery of the payments from our customers thus avoiding the major delays in getting payment. This means that the customers are able to receive delivery of their orders in the shortest possible date.

What is your interest?

You will get 6-10% commission from the whole sum of every transaction on your bank account. All the related charges ( Bank transfer) are covered by our company.

We require your assistance in order to fasten the process of the delivery of the ordered goods and to shorten the terms of getting the payments from our clients.

We are grateful for your attention. Your email was forwarded by www.monster.co.uk at our request, because you or somebody else has subscribed for the delivery of the job offers on the internet .

We wish you good luck and happiness.

Sincerely Yours,
Yoram Golan Segir.
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
GOSH-MAZREK TEXTILE INDUSTRIES
TEL/FAX: + 972 25916105

Isreal OKed Gay Marriage?

2005-11-14T22:50:00.000-05:00

Earlier, I came across this piece of unprecedented news (well, something I don't expect to take place in the land of God) " ...

Two Gay Couples Ask High Court to Recognize Marriages ..." and it ended with "Under the 40-year-old Isreali court ruling, the newlyweds can then return (from abroad) and be registered as married by the interior ministry with no question asked."

Here is the the preceeding story ...

by Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz Correspondent

Two homosexual couples who registered for civil marriage in Canada petitioned the High Court of Justice on Monday, asking that the Interior Ministry recognize their union.

The couples argues that the Interior Ministry’s refusal to recognize their marriage violates their rights to equal treatment and family life, and is based on "the outlook of a homophobic society."

The first couple are Yossi Ben-Ari, 51, a stage and costume designer, and Lorain Shcuman, 41, a translator of French literature into Hebrew. The two have been together since 1987, and married in Canada in November 2003. Their marriage certificate was approved by the Canadian Foreign Ministry, the Canadian embassy in Israel, and the Israeli consul in Toronto.

The second couple are Yosef Bar-Lev, 38, a folk-dancing instructor, and Yaron Lahav, 28, a personal trainer. The two met in May of 1998, and began living together in September of that year. In May of 2003, they were also married in Canada, and their marriage certificate was also approved by the Israeli consul in Canada, Avi Lev-Louis.

After they returned to Israel, the couples asked the Population Registry, a branch of the Interior Ministry, to register them as married in Israel. Last month, the director of registry’s Tel Aviv office replied to the two requests.

"As you know, marriages of this kind are not recognized as legal in Israel, and it is therefore not permitted to register you as requested," he wrote.

In their petitions, submitted by Dan Yakir of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the couples argue that according to the High Court’s rulings, the Population Administration cannot make use of religious considerations when approached to change a person’s status in its registry following an action recognized abroad, in spite of the fact that Israel does not recognize same-sex marriages that take place within the state.

The petitioners emphasize that the state prevents same-sex couples from marrying in their own country, where they are surrounded by their loved ones, and forces them to travel abroad ...

I wish them luck. Not that I am a gay but I think their case is relatively important to the development of mankind as 80% of the world is one way or another influenced by the Semitic religions. So I imagine the verdict on this pair of Jewish gay couple is going to have profound impact on the rest of the world, particularly to the Catholics and Muslims.

"No one else can rewrite the Holy Books except The Chosen Ones? You bet ..."

Einstein & Religion

2005-11-13T14:58:00.000-05:00

What Albert Einstein said about religion …

“All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.”

“True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness.”

“I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern without any superhuman authority behind it.”

“Scientists were rated as great heretics by the church, but they were truly religious men because of their faith in the orderliness of the universe.”

“What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion. Is there any sense then, you ask, in putting it? I answer, the man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life.”

The World as I See It, 1934

Halloween & Christianity

2005-11-02T10:46:00.000-05:00

Is Halloween Christian?

As far as I know, Halloween is just like Santa Claus, it’s a fairy tale, it’s paganism and as far as the serious faithful are concerned ... it’s plain NONSENSE!

Check this out …

Should Christians participate in Halloween?

The October 31st holiday that we today know as Halloween has strong roots in paganism and is closely connected with worship of the Enemy of this world, Satan. It is a holiday that generally glorifies the dark things of this world, rather than the light of Jesus Christ, The Truth.

Have you noticed how costumes and masks are getting generally more bloody, gory, and depraved each year? Unfortunately, the gruesome and grotesque and the occult are increasingly glorified in American society, not only on Halloween, but throughout the year in horror movies and in television programs.

My family does not celebrate it or participate in it. We do not believe that our children are "missing out," and neither do they. Other days are used for costumes and parties. Happily, all of our children have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. We have found that Halloween provides an excellent time to remind our children that, as Christians, we are different, and not of this world (Heb. 11:13-16; 1 Pet. 2:11). More

Quotes:

"I think we ought to close Halloween down. Do you want your children to dress up as witches? The Druids used to dress up like this when they were doing human sacrifice...[The children] are acting out Satanic rituals and participating in it, and don't even realize it." -- Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 1982-OCT-29

"There is [only] one reference to human sacrifice in Celtic literature, but it appears to be a Christian forgery. The ancient Celts might have engaged in ritual killing; certainly other contemporary societies did. Modern Druids, of course, do not." Excerpt from this website's essay on the Druids.

Many books on Halloween have been written by Fundamentalists and other Evangelical Christian authors. There are also many Internet sites devoted to the topic. 1 to 10
Most of these authors tend to paint a very different picture of Halloween than do other writers, both religious and secular. Conservative Christians generally have a very negative view of Halloween, and are very concerned with its growing popularity in North America.

Much of their fear and rejection of Halloween are described below. They are based on:

- Their fundamental beliefs about non-Christian religions, the Occult, Satan and his demons.

- The information sources that they use for data about the ancient Celts and Druids, modern Neopagan beliefs and practices, and Halloween itself. More

Well, all I can say is I think 'true' religions like Judaism, Christianity, Islam are so serious to the extend they are mostly confined within the black & white world.

On the other hand, other supposedly 'lesser' or even 'false' (from the Semitic perspective) religions, occults or otherwise cultural believes (pagan or not) seem to be so much more colorful ... Happy Halloween, Welcome Snow White, Have Fun Su-Wu-Gong (Monkey God?)!

Halloween & Hooters

2005-11-01T20:42:00.000-05:00

Meanwhile for those who can't fit into a boy size spiderman suit but feel like having one ... Here is an alternative, lets go to Hooters!

Jingle bells,
Batman smells,
Robin laid an egg,
Hooters is bubbly boobly good (?).
Trick or Treat!

Happy Halloween

2005-11-01T10:45:00.000-05:00

October 31, celebrated in the United States, Canada, and the British Isles by children going door to door while wearing costumes and begging treats and playing pranks.

"Jingle bells,
Batman smells,
Robin laid an egg."
Trick or Treat!

The custom of 'trick or treat' probably has several origins, mostly Irish. An old Irish peasant practice called for going door to door to collect money, bread cake, cheese, eggs, butter, nuts, apples, etc., in preparation for the festival of St. Columbus Kill. Yet another custom was the begging for soul cakes, or offerings for one's self - particularly in exchange for promises of prosperity or protection against bad luck. It is with this custom the concept of the fairies came to be incorporated as people used to go door to door begging for treats. Failure to supply the treats would usually result in practical jokes being visited on the owner of the house.

Since the fairies were abroad on this night, an offering of food or milk was frequently left for them on the steps of the house, so the houseowner could gain the blessings of the "good folk" for the coming year. Many of the households would also leave out a "dumb supper" for the spirits of the departed. More

Who says evolution is false? Even Halloween has evolved a from a 'Ghostly' occasion to a 'Heroic' one. This year, the hippest Halloween costume for boys is ... Spiderman!

(NB: My girl insists the honour should go to Harry Porter)

Have fun … Jingle bells, Batman smells, Robin laid an egg. Trick or Treat!

Next: Halloween & Christianity

Science = Neopaganism

2005-10-27T11:35:00.000-04:00

Darwinism is a 'blind' faith for the scientific community, so said the faithful.

Not sure if they meant believeing in a God that no one has ever seen is an 'informed' faith?

Darwinism heading towards oblivion

by Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib

From his letter, SK Wong utilised the use of quantum mechanics to explain the origin of the universe. He implied that it is possible for virtual particles to pop into existence from nothingness through “quantum tunneling”. As a result, it is also possible for the universe to pop into existence in the same manner. Wong is also of the opinion that the world and its universe are nothing more than a collection of wave-functions

Unfortunately for Wong, quantum mechanics is limited in nature. It is founded on the concept that quantum events occurring in accordance to finite possibilities within finite time intervals. That factor alone negates quantum mechanics’ role in explaining the origin of universe since before there was universe, there was no time (or space or energy or matter). Therefore, the origin of time (coincident with that of space, matter and energy) eliminates quantum tunneling as a “creator”.

In short, before the existence of the universe, there was no time, space, matter and energy. How. then, can quantum mechanics be applied to explaining the origin of the universe?

That provokes even the likes of Paul Davies, a British physicist - and Wong quotes from him - to change his stand and to argue that the law of physics seem themselves to be the product of an exceedingly ingenious design. (Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature).

Evolutionists should instead worry about the survival of their theory. In 1991, the Gallup poll showed that 81% of Americans believed that the world was created by a superior power. They also need to worry that authoritative evolutionists are beginning to announce their doubt in the theory openly as with the case of Stephen Jay Gould and neo-Darwinism.

Neo-Darwisnism came about when traditional Darwinism was in danger of dying due to Mendel’s Law Of Limited Inheritance (aka Genetics). Darwinism cannot exist without the assumption that inheritance is unlimited while Mendel’s Law denies it. To save Darwinism, Ernst Myer took it upon himself to create a new model of evolution called “Neo-Darwinism”.

Unfortunately, his successor at Harvard, Stephen Jay Gould, has declared the demise of Neo-Darwinism (in Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?). The issue now is where does Darwinism lie now? It’s stuck in no-man’s land and slowly heading towards oblivion.

It still survives though, not as a scientific fact but more as an ideology spread to people of science via a paradigm imposed upon all of them. Under this paradigm, scientists continue to believe in Darwinism in spite of the apparent lack of empirical evidence. As Thomas Kuhn clearly justifies it by saying:

“To reject one paradigm without substituting another is to reject science itself.” ( in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

It looks like religious people are not the only ones relying on faith Evolutionists are also guilty of the same sin. Except their faith is in the form of an ideology disguising itself as various baseless mathematical models. So, to untrained eyes, they see the theory of evolution as being part of the scientific discipline when it is no more than a dogma forced upon people of science.

I pity the Western scientific community. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one end, they are expected to be factual, rational, inquisitive, depending only empirical evidence and embarking on exhaustive experimentation and research routine before deriving a conclusion.

On the other end, as a result of the paradigm they are subjected to, they are suppose to ignore all of the evolution theory’s weaknesses, accept it with blind faith, ignore the fact that the theory lacks empirical evidence and strive to create a pretense that the theory has a deep basis in science. They are to operate in a condition whereby conclusions are readily determined for them and their sole purpose of existence is to show that these conclusions are valid. To question the theory is to invite instant reprisal.

To me, such Western double-standard is appalling. Criticism of religion is encouraged while criticism of the evolution theory is suppressed - when they both operate on the same engine, faith. This disguise is nothing more than an implicit conspiracy to get rid of religion in our daily lives and to replace it with another set of faith structure disguised as a scientific theory when it is nothing more then modern-day paganism.

How about EXORCISM? Are religions some kind of exorcism? If so, Jesus and Mohammad must be the some of the greatest exorcists on earth!

Desinger Veil & Floured Meat

2005-10-25T17:28:00.000-04:00

I find this interesting ...

‘Covered pearls': Chic fashion for Islamic women
By AP

Iman Moustafa loves the sea, but she always knew her bikini didn't conform with the rules of Islam, so each time she took a dip she would quickly cover up and pray on the beach. The guilt spoiled the fun.

"I felt as if I were fooling God," said Moustafa, 25.

The solution? La Femme.

La Femme is one of three women-only beaches at this elite northern Mediterranean resort, offering beach-goers a priceless commodity: guiltless fun. Here the veiled, conservative and shy can strip down to skimpy bikinis safe from God's disapproval and intruding male eyes.

The beaches, about 60 miles west of Alexandria, are part of a growing business that caters to the new class of religious Egyptians who are hip, rich and young. These secluded strips of sand are an attempt to reconcile liberal and conservative, worldly and heavenly, fun and piety.
At ordinary beaches, where the sexes mix and any swimwear is allowed, religious women face a challenge. They must get up early to find a secluded spot. Some take to the waves fully clothed or wearing unrevealing Islamic swimsuits. Moustafa all but gave up the beach altogether when she donned the veil four years ago.

Then women-only beaches came along.

The Islamic revival has spawned chic fashion stores catering specifically to veiled women. Makeup artists advertise new trends in tying head scarves. Video clips of religious songs feature handsome male models.

Iman Moustafa says her veil makes her feel like "a precious and covered pearl."

Her bikini, she says, is strictly for La Femme.

I see a lot of similarity between the above and ‘vegetarian’ Buddhists who consumed ‘meat’ made from flour such as floured-BBQ Duck, Roast Pork etc

My take is if you want to be holy, just forget about all things material, otherwise, I am sure God will not punish you for being ‘human’ eg. wanted to be attractive and look beautiful is simply a human nature for the woman folks.

Any objection?

Acts of God

2005-10-14T21:55:00.000-04:00

Theologians weigh in on natural disasters

By RACHEL ZOLL
AP Religion Writer

They're sometimes called "acts of God" and, when disasters strike, it's not unusual for people to read a divine punishment into earthquakes, floods or other natural cataclysms.

Now, with the unrelenting devastation of the last few months, a few religious thinkers have done the same in response to the Indian Ocean tsunami, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, mudslides in Guatemala and the earthquake in Pakistan.

They have proclaimed these events as heavenly retribution for sins ranging from legalized abortion to U.S. support for Israel and the war on Iraq. Conversely, one Israeli rabbi said the American storms came because the U.S. government pressured the Jewish state to withdraw from the Gaza Strip.

The vast majority of theologians reject this thinking, however, and The Associated Press decided to examine why this is so. What follows in question and answer format is a summary of the prevailing thought on the question of God's place in disasters, based on interviews with some theologians and public statements of others:

Q: Does God cause natural disasters?

A: Theologians, citing the biblical Book of Job, say people can never understand how God uses nature. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, notes that God rebuked Job's friends who contended that he was being punished for misdeeds. Commenting on Katrina, Mohler said, "We have no right to claim that we know what this storm means."

He's in agreement with Rabbi Jerome Epstein, executive vice president of the United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism, which represents Conservative synagogues in North America. "I would hate to ever become so haughty as to think I know what God does or what God is thinking. That's beyond man or woman," he said.

Q: Was God trying to express displeasure with sinful behavior, for example in New Orleans, which has long had a reputation as a party town?

A: Jamal Badawi, director of the Islamic Information Foundation, said there are examples in the Quran — and the Bible — of punishments inflicted on nations because of tyranny or rejection of God. But Badawi said these episodes are history and do not necessarily explain the meaning of disasters today. "The absence of that direct indication in the Quran means one cannot really say," he said.

Q: Do the sins of humankind play any role in the disasters at all?

A: Christians believe the root of evil in the world is humanity's fall into original sin. But Chap Clark, a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, an evangelical school in Pasadena, Calif., says the explanation cannot stop there. He said people need to acknowledge their responsibility for environmental degradation, poverty and other problems that contribute to disasters. "We've been called to be stewards of what God has given us," Clark said. "We are responsible to do everything we possibly can to help one another, to relieve the pain."

Q: The outpouring following the tragedies has brought together people of different races and faiths. Did God inflict the disasters to unite humanity?

A: Terrence Tilley, a professor of religious studies at the University of Dayton, a Roman Catholic Marianist school, called that notion "morally repugnant." He said the overwhelming generosity shown to victims regardless of background was a bright spot in the devastation, but it would be wrong to say God caused widespread suffering in order to achieve this goal.

Q: Are the disasters a sign of the End Times, the end of the world?

A: The Rev. Jerry Falwell, who was condemned after saying the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were God's punishment for abortion, homosexuality and other sins, says no. Only a fool claims to know the hour or the day Christ will return, he says.

Looks like a direct answer from His Almighty is long overdue.

My Lord, please be obliged to tell your children the truth ...

New Messiah!

2005-10-08T10:36:00.000-04:00

Wow, it looks like God has finally come to His senses ... He has come to talk to us again in form of a human being just like Christ!

Ladies and gentlemen, proudly present ... The latest Messiah: George Walker Bush!

God told me to invade Iraq, Bush tells Palestinian ministers

President George W. Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals.

In Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, a major three-part series on BBC TWO (at 9.00pm on Monday 10, Monday 17 and Monday 24 October), Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."

The series charts the attempts to bring peace to the Middle East, from Bill Clinton's peace talks in 1999/2000 to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza last August.

Norma Percy, series producer of The 50 Years War (1998) returns, with producers Mark Anderson and Dan Edge, to tell the inside story of another seven years of crisis.

Presidents and Prime Ministers, their generals and ministers tell what happened behind closed doors as peace talks failed and the intifada exploded.

Israel and the Arabs: Elusive Peace - Mondays 10, 17 and 24 October, from 9.00 to 10.00pm on BBC TWO.

Who created the Creator then?

2005-10-06T15:55:00.000-04:00

More rebuttal on intelligent designer ...

by S K Wong

Steven Foong raised a contentious concept called the "irreducible complexity". The definition of complexity depends on human perception. What seems complex to a layperson, may not be so to an expert. What seems complex in the past is no longer mysterious today.

What seems complex today may have a perfectly logical explanation in the future. It is a folly to base a theory on present level of human understanding and assume that it will never advance.

For the sake of argument, lets accept for the moment that "irreducible complexity" is a proven fact. I will demonstrate that the conclusion drawn from this assumption is logically inconsistent, therefore the assumption must be wrong.

Foong argued that the theory of intelligent design need not speculate on the nature of the designer itself. But there is at least one characteristic we can deduce about the designer/creator. The designer/creator must necessarily be more complex then its creation, otherwise, it would mean complexity spontaneously emerge from a less complex creator/designer. If the creations are "irreducibly complex", its creator/designer must be at least as "irreducibly complex".

If "irreducible complexity" proves the case for intelligent design, then there must be an even bigger creator/designer that created our immediate creator/designer. But, who created the creator? And who created the creator's creator? One can go on like this ad infinitum.

I am reminded of a story about an old lady who said that the world rests on the back of a giant turtle. A smug professor then asked her what is the turtle resting on, the old lady then replied indignantly that it was turtles all the way. Modern theory of intelligent design despite its sophistry, suffers from the same shortcomings.

Religious scholars arbitrarily put a stop at our most immediate creator. That would directly contradict the assumption of "irreducible complexity". You can't have your cake and eat it too. Unless, of course, the creator operates on a different set of rules. If we can accept an omniscient creator to exist without being created, why can't we accept the universe and everything in it to emerge spontaneously and naturally?

Another argument for intelligent design is that the universe seems to be exquisitely fine-tuned to the emergence of life. For all we know, there could be an infinite number of other universes where life is impossible or where other forms of life exist.

If one lets an infinite number of monkeys to type on a keyboard, one will eventually write Macbeth, but does that mean they are as intelligent as Shakespeare? This argument makes the mistake of making a general statement based on only one example that we know, namely our universe.

In the final analysis, it boils down to faith. Intelligent design is more faith than science. I have no qualms about people having faith in intelligent design, but please, don't pretend that it is science.

Intelligent Designer

2005-10-05T17:36:00.000-04:00

An intelligent designer in the origins of life?

by Steven Foong

SAB's letter entitled Scientific theories are beyond reasonable doubt is referred.

While many scientific theories are beyond reasonable doubt, Darwinism certainly isn't. I concede that the mainstream today tends toward naturalism but doubts still abound within the scientific community.

One viable challenger to Darwinism is intelligent design, using the notion of "specified complexity" and that certain biological systems, such as the bacterial flagellum, are evidently irreducibly complex and the best way to explain these is to attribute them to design, and not natural laws and chance.

While intelligent design presupposes a disembodied designer, it does not, for it to be a true scientific enterprise, speculate about the designer. Furthermore, a designer need not be a creator, specifically a Creator-God. Whether one will, assuming intelligent design is upheld, ascribe the designing work to the Judeo-Christian-Islam God is more theological than scientific.

Hardcore Darwinists, and I suppose there are many here, should look into researches done by design theorists such as William Dembski honestly and see whether there can be no alternatives to naturalism as far as the origin of life is concerned.

Until the day evolutionists can "account for the emergence of irreducibly complex biological systems", paraphrasing Dembski, I remain doubtful of the theory. Evidences please, not merely creative, wishful thinking and promise of better luck in digging fossils in the future.

And here comes the rebuttal ...

No proof of an intelligent designer

by Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad

In reply to Steven Foong, I would like to say that the intelligent design paradigm is not strictly scientific because it cannot answer the question regarding evidence for the existence of the designer.

It rests on the belief that very complex systems could not have evolved but had to be created in whole and complete. However there have been many counter examples by Darwinists such as Sir Richard Dawkins and others.

Irreducible complexity is irreducible only because its proponents could not envisage an evolutionary pathway to such levels of complexities. But others - Darwinists in particular - have succeeded in proposing plausible evolutionary pathways towards such complex systems without invoking an intelligent designer.

Ultimately the flaw in special creation ideas is that it offers no proof of the existence of a maker or designer. The existence of such a being has to be assumed without proof.

Moreover it cannot be reconciled with other aspects of geology and astronomy. Only Darwinism has survived the acid test of time and evidence to a high degree of rigour and consistency.

What else can I say? Well said, gentlemen.

No scientific proof for special creation

2005-10-01T10:41:00.000-04:00

by Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad

In reply to the letter Islam is not a dogma, Darwinism is, I would like to first of all say that Darwinism is a scientific theory with plenty of material evidence. It is not a Western belief as the writer suggests.

The so-called scientific studies which claim to prove Darwinism false are neither scientific nor were they air-tight studies. I have said in my letter, the consensus of biologists the world over is that evolution holds.

The scientific literature is filled with evidence supporting evolution. Why read pseudo-science literature? Besides, where is the material evidence for special creation? None whatsoever - it is merely faith. So if the writer is suggesting that special creation should take the place of evolution in biology, may I ask him to provide scientific proof of special creation?

As for apostasy and Islam, my answer is clear. We respect Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights permitting the freedom to choose a religion. I ask everyone this question - of what use is the faith of someone who is forced to remain Muslim by apostasy laws?

Does Islam take pride in forcing people to remain as Muslims long after their hearts are no longer Muslim? I leave it to the readers to decide for themselves. Truth is most certainly clear from falsehood.

I would also like to reply to the letter Quran does not contradict scientific facts . Firstly, I disagree with the writer that the Quran contains ‘scientific’ facts to begin with. What there are, are vague verses whose ‘scientific’ meaning was put into them after the scientific discoveries were made.

Where were these scientific claims in the Quran before the discoveries were made? Nowhere, because Muslims did not read any scientific meaning into those vague verses. As for Darwinism, perhaps the writer ought to work harder at distinguishing between scientific literature and the pseudo-scientific folklore sponsored by certain organisations for their own agenda.

I urge the writer not to be misled by pseudo-science. The accepted and well-recognised scientific literature has provided all the necessary rebuttals to the claims of creationists. It is up to the reader to check the literature.

We were monkeys some 200 thousands years ago, I wonder what are we like say in a quarter of millions years from now? A bunch of hitech monkeys that is most probably hairless?

Religious evolution in the making?

2005-09-30T21:46:00.000-04:00

I stumbled across a series of interesting debate on science and religion conducted by a few contemporary intellectuals and amazingly, some of them are actually Muslims!

For their efforts, I say Bravo.

They started off talking about the need to reform religion, particularly Islam and as of today, their talk has advanced to the extend that God is practically science itself!

Both Darwin and Einstein better take note of the latest development so as to stay relevent to evolving world and I am sure God is very proud of them!

Here it goes: In the beginning ...

Mid-East religious dogma inapplicable to Asean

By Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad

I refer to the letter titled Islamic discourse - respect knowledge specialisation. The writer has obviously misunderstood the thrust of my previous writings. The issue before us here is the societal pressure to conform as reflected in contemporary socio-political discourse.

Can we - or should we - allow the freedom of apostasy to Muslims ? I say ‘yes’ because I reject any claim that society has a moral duty to impose its unproven religious beliefs on individuals.

Secondly, the writer herself is practicing double standards when it comes to knowledge specialisation. Will Muslim Malaysians respect the knowledge specialisation of biologists when they say that humans were evolved and not specially created?

Are you prepared to respect the consensus of scientists the world over? I think not. Besides, it is far from clear that knowledge specialisation in Islam from the Middle Eastern countries is in any way applicable to contemporary Asean.

Will Malaysia respect the consensus of Asean when it comes to matters pertaining to the interpretation of Islam? Once again, I have my doubts. To me, acknowledging the controversial nature of the Hudud is far from sufficient.

One must also have a mature and well-developed attitude towards dogma which will not damage the fabric of the multi-religious society not just in Malaysia but also throughout Asean.

On this point, I wish to add that many Malaysians have now reached the conclusion that the time has come for a new social contract. Hiding behind the social contract of 1957 will not do anymore. A new contract is needed.

One which will compensate for the tyranny of the majority. I am not only prepared to say that Islam needs a re-interpretation, but I am also prepared to review the 1957 social contract. Both are needed in view of recent events.

I have no doubts whatsoever that Islam needs a re-interpretation. One which reflects our values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We cannot return to the days of the Abbasid Caliphate.

And in reply to the letter Let Islam explain the world, not the reverse, I would like to say that the Quran is not a science textbook. All the so-called ‘miracles of science’ in the Quran revolve around suitable interpretations of vague verses - after the scientific discoveries were made.

How many scientific facts were predicted based on Quranic verses? None. They became scientific miracles of Islam only via an elastic massage of suitable vague, equivocal verses and then only after the fact. Not outright predictions.

In the business of science, material evidence is much sought after. We do not accept certain theories precisely because of a lack of evidence. In the case of Darwin's evolutionary theory, the evidence is plenty.

There are many undergraduate and graduate texts - as well as popular writings - that deal with the evidence for evolution. While there has been controversy ie, the Piltdown Man, the accepted rigorous evidence for evolution far exceeds that for special creation.

The theory of evolution is based on tons of rigorous biological facts. Unfortunately, there has been some religious writers who make all sorts of attacks on evolutionary theory because it debunks the creation hypothesis.

Again, there are many books on evolution that specifically address the accusations thrown at evolutionary science by writers such as Harun Yahya and others. Their ideas have been proven wrong by science. I say it again - the ideas of people like Harun Yahya have been proven wrong and you can read about it in many books.
Now where does that leave Islam? To me all religions are good provided we take them with a pinch of salt. When one accepts the positive, universal values of organised religion, that is fine.

Trouble begins when you accept religious dogma as the unquestionable absolute truth. Worse still, when you try to impose your personal faith in that dogma on others. That’s double trouble!

As for Hudud and apostasy, well, in Asean we do not subscribe to such values. We do not stone animals to death for any reason, much less people for the ‘crime’ of adultery. Isn't divorce more humane?

But we are a democracy. One is free to entice voters with the rewards of paradise in exchange for the Hudud. But of course, now we know what the electorate wants. Too bad for PAS.

The point is that society evolves. We are not a Middle Eastern, 10th century society. We are a multi-religious, cosmopolitan 21st century Asean society. We are industrialised. We are not agricultural anymore. Our social mores and values have changed.

When that happens, it is only fair to ask for a re-interpretation of the various aspects of Islam. We subscribe to notions of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Consequently our interpretation of Islam must reflect these. I rest my case. Truth is clear from falsehood.

I am impressed with what Dr. Ahmad has mentioned.

Guess camels are an excellent novelty but as a mode of transportation in the 21st century?

More to come ... God equal to E=MC2?

Bible is a story book?

2005-09-30T11:34:00.000-04:00

An email comment related to 'Is Bible The Complete Whole Truth?' from Reyna

"I believe that the bible is a story and that's all it is.

We all tell stories. What happens is that we either embellish to make it sound more exciting, or we forget little bits and pieces. From there, the person who received it secondhand will in turn tell the third person, again with some deviation, and as the old shampoo commercial went, "And they tell two friends, and they tell two friends, and so on, and so on, and so on..."

It's the whole "Broken Telephone" issue. How many of us played this as children? How many times did the last person say EXACTLY what the first person said? Rarely.

This, my friends, is the case of the bible.

Oh, and by the way, isn't it a bit suspicious that there are SIXTEEN VERSIONS of the bible? Oh, and let's not forget King James' version. Why did he write his own version? It was to cater to his needs and conveniences.

IF the bible were true, for those who really have read it, God would be a vicious, vindictive asshole to anyone who didn't worship, follow, honour him.

... sounds like a serious egomaniacal problem to me. Who would want a god like that?"

I'd like to reserve my comment on the allegation that the holy books are nothing but pure fictions for now ...

While I have always maintained books are static materials created by man and that books are just another medium of communications (very effective and possibly the most widely used) but it is just that ... an information/entertainment tool.

If words contained in Bible are indeed true revelations of God, then the Bible must be a medium of convenience for God to disseminate His Message once upon a time but without contemporary review and updating, I am afraid those words are most probably only good during the very era when it was revealed and some of them must be either already outdated or no longer applicable now.

See, God created the world to be an evolving entity and He lead us into discovering the amazing fact known as 'evolution'. As such, I am convinced He has always wanted us to use our heads to make the best out of the universe from time to time ... Most significant of all, why would He gave us an ultra smart gadget called 'brain' (compared ours to other animals) if it is His very intention that we should lead a life of a non-thinking zombie?

Task to be accomplished: Ask His Almighty if we should abuse our brains on science and technology? Remember, they once said aeroplane is against God's will and that God never created us to fly!

Evolution Crossfire (10)

2005-09-23T20:40:00.000-04:00

Earth is the center of the universe ...

"The earth is fixed at (or near) the center of the universe. The sun and other planets travel around it. That is what the Bible plainly says [Ps. 93:1, Ps. 19:1-6, Joshua 10:12-14] and what the evidence indicates."

commented by Willis, Tom, 2000 (Mar/Apr). The Laws of Cause and Effect, and the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics have been invalidated by modern science, Part 2. CSA News 17(2): 1-2.

Responses

1. This argument opens the accuracy of the Bible up to question just as much as it questions modern astronomy and physics. To those who hold reason and the scientific method to be more powerful explanatory tools than faith and divine revelation, this claim would be interpreted as an example of the fallability of the Bible.
2. It is not true: in these bible passages (Ps. 93:1, Ps. 19:1-6, Joshua 10:12-14) it is said that the sun turns around the earth. It speaks about the sun stopping, and things going from place to place in the sky, and some world being fixed, but not that explicit as "the sun going around the earth".

Evolution Crossfire (9)

2005-09-22T20:37:00.000-04:00

God & Death

"If evolution is true, then God is directly responsible for death. God pronounced His original creation "very good" (Gen. 2:1), which implies that God is sadistic, taking pleasure in watching the suffering and dying. A God of grace and mercy would not use the principle of survival of the fittest."

commented by
1. Morris, Henry M., 2000 (June). The vital importance of believing in recent creation. Back to Genesis 138: a-c.
2. Morris, John D., 2001 (Jan.). What could the God of scripture call "very good"? Back to Genesis 145: d.

Responses

If the Bible is a reliable record of God's actions and stated opinions, God doesn't seem to have a problem with mass murder and genocide, up to and including wiping out all living things other than those which could fit into Noah's big boat.

Would a "God of grace and mercy" do that?

This is intriguing ...

Evolution Crossfire (8)

2005-09-20T23:34:00.000-04:00

Evolution & God ...

"Evolution's materialism or methodological naturalism denies a role for God. "Methodological naturalism asks us for the sake of science to pretend that the material world is all there is." [Dembski, 1998] .. "

commented by Johnson, Phillip E., 1999 (16 Aug.). The church of Darwin. Wall Street Journal, (http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/chofdarwin.htm).

Responses

If God exists and is responsible for the existence of life on this planet, evolution merely tells us the method by which He did it.

Evolution, as a scientific theory, has nothing to say about God's existence, non-existence, sovereignty, transcendence, et cetera.

See ... Evolution is not anti-God.

Regardless, let me confirm once again, Darwin and I are diehard fans of His Almighty ...

God is simply the Best!

Evolution Crossfire (7)

2005-09-19T20:32:00.000-04:00

Evolution & Religion ...

"Evolution doesn't explain religion."

Responses

1. Social structuring and cooperation provided the frameworks for religion. By creating religions, groups could find ways to better enforce social mores and pass on traditions that benefited the group, such as cooking specific herbs to make remedies (as evidenced by "medicine men" in Native American cultures).
2. Evolution does not need to explain religion. As stated above, religion came about as a result of social structuring and early, primitive man's need to explain the unexplainable, such as, "Who am I?", and "Why am I here?", along with why things happen (drought, famine, disease, good crop seasons, floods). Also, once established, religion provided a hierarchy in the society, which in turn gave power to those who provided these answers. Once begun, it was left to expand and grow unfettered by modern skepticism. As with the early Christian church, religion ruled early society. Religion is purely social and has nothing to do with evolution.
Natural selection has been applied conjecturally to the world of ideas -- the result being known as memetics. Clearly, any religion which instructed its followers not to proselytize and not to have children will die out, as in the case of the Shakers. Many of the most successful religions (Catholicism; Mormonism in the American West) encourage followers to have children and raise them in the church; others (Evangelical Protestantism) encourage proselytization and missionary work. Religious belief has been analogized to a cultural gene or virus, as by Richard Dawkins and Gary Cziko

Evolution Crossfire (6)

2005-09-16T13:23:00.000-04:00

Evolution is immoral ...

"Since evolution began to be taught in public schools, crime rates and other social ills have increased."

commented by
1. Anonymous, Why are our kids killing each other? (http://www.dentalfriends.net/cool/gunbook.htm)
2. Pehrson, Marnie, Jesus, New Math, and The 21st Century (http://www.mainstreetmom.com/spirit/jesus.htm)

Responses

The two sources given for this claim actually cite early 1960s court decisions related to the teaching of religion, or prayer, in public schools, not the much earlier introduction of biological evolution into primary school textbooks. In any case, this is an example of a spurious correlation. Earlier events (the critical variables) resulted in the teaching of evolution in primary schools, and may also have resulted in a contemporaneous change in reported crime rates. Significant research using early 19th century sources would be required to determine if any such correlation was valid. Such research would have to include the caveat that the collection of complete and accurate crime statistics is a recent (mid-20th century) social priority.
Crime has been with us far longer than the Theory of Evolution. The 19th and 20th centuries were marked by increased urbanization. Crime statistics were better tracked. A correlation of crime rates to the teaching of evolution has not been demonstrated.
Even if such a correlation existed, that would not mean that crime has increased as a direct result of the Theory of Evolution.
Even if crime had increased as a direct result of the Theory of Evolution, it does not follow that evolution is therefore false. It may have beneficial or undesirable sociological effects, but those effects say nothing about the truth or falsity of the theory.

Wanted: Aspiring Martyrs

2005-09-13T19:20:00.000-04:00

This is no joke … The turbaned fanatics are seeking morons who yearn to go heaven ... emmm ... to have sex with a team of 72 virgins!

Recruitment of potential suicide bombers, which has generally been shrouded in silence and secrecy, appears to be going more public.

An Iranian publication recently carried an advertisement calling for applications from aspiring "martyrdom seekers".

The advertisement calls for men and women to enlist with the "Lovers of Martyrdom Garrison" and promises those who are picked that they will be given "specific and specialized training". The aim it seems is "to achieve all-round readiness against the enemies of Islam and the sacred Islamic republic and to protect the foundations of Islam". To this end, "a martyrdom-seeking division" would be set up for each province in the country.

All that aspiring candidates to the "Lovers of Martyrdom Garrison" need to submit are two photographs of themselves, a copy of their identity cards, and a filled-in application form. The advertisement even provides an address – PO Box 16535-664, Tehran – where aspiring candidates to the "Lovers of Martyrdom Garrison" should forward their application forms.

The publication in which the advertisement appeared is one that is produced by an institute run by one of Iran's most conservative and radical clerics, Ayatollah Mazbah Yazdi, believed to be a spiritual advisor of Iran's new president, Mahmud Ahmedinejad, who, like its proponents, has described suicide operations or "martyrdom operations" in glowing terms. In a speech delivered some days after his election and broadcast on Iranian television, Ahmedinejad said: "Is there art that is more beautiful, more divine and more eternal than the art of martyrdom? A nation with martyrdom knows no captivity. Those who wish to undermine this principle undermine the foundations of our independence and national security. They undermine the foundation of our eternity."

This is not the first time that recruitment of volunteers for suicide operations has been done publicly and application forms for registration of aspiring bombers distributed openly in Iran. A year ago, tens of thousands of registration forms were distributed at local Islamic universities to aspiring martyrdom seekers. This distribution of registration forms was preceded by speeches in mosques where calls were made to young men and women to register.

The application form for "Preliminary Registration for Martyrdom Operations" requires the applicant to provide name, age, address and contact details. It also requires the applicant to affirm his "preparedness for carrying out martyrdom operations" and gives a choice of three targets: "occupiers of the Islamic holy sites" (referring to the US occupation of Najaf, Karbala and other places in Iraq), "occupiers of Jerusalem" (referring to Israel), and Salman Rushdie, the author of Satanic Verses against whom Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa or legal judgment for death in 1989 ... More at Asia Times

Poor Rushdie ... It looks like the turbaned fanatics will never forget your head!

Shariah … RIP!

2005-09-12T16:38:00.000-04:00

Breaking News!

RIP To Shariah Law!

McGuinty said ‘F@#$ Off’ to Shariah!

By Toronto24Hours

Ontario will not become the first Western jurisdiction to allow the use of a set of centuries-old religious rules called Shariah law to settle Muslim family disputes.

In a telephone interview with The Canadian Press, Premier Dalton McGuinty announced Sunday his government would move to outlaw all existing religious tribunals under Ontario's Arbitration Act.

"I've come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough," he said. "There will be one law for all Ontarians."

More at McGuinty shoots down Shariah law

The ban on religious laws also affect Jews …

McGuinty ditches all religious laws

Jewish groups upset after McGuinty decides to scrap faith-based arbitration

TORONTO (CP) - Jewish groups want a meeting with Premier Dalton McGuinty after his surprise announcement that Ontario will outlaw all religious arbitration to settle family law disputes.

McGuinty told The Canadian Press on Sunday that Ontario would not allow a centuries-old set of Muslim rules known as Shariah law to be used to settle family cases through arbitration.

But McGuinty caught everyone off guard when he also announced he would introduce legislation to end other faith-based arbitration, which has been allowed since 1991.

Much more here …

One notch up for civilization of mankind? Or perhaps 5 Holy Points for McGuinty to go Heaven?

Either way ... Bravo, McGuinty. I say just ignore the Jewish buggers, there should be only one law ... Without Prejudice!

Next ... I think I should demand McGuinty to outlaw circumcision for boys and infants!

Shariah or no Shariah?

2005-09-11T14:33:00.000-04:00

Should we allow the controversial Shariah Law to be implemented (I mean in places where its laws are yet to be ~~contaminated~~ affected)?

It really depends on whom you ask ...

If you ask the Muslim Extremists ie. Taliban, Jihadis, Beheadis, Hijabis etc ...

YES is obviously the only answer. Simple, unambiguous and straightforward ... No second thought.

And if you ask the Moderate Muslims like some of the famous politicians of the Islamic world such as Dr. Mahathir and Gen Musharaf, the answer can be as complex as rocket science.

Guess they won't have an answer not until due consideration is given to all the Three Material Truth: Power, Money and Fame.

Lastly, if you were to ask Liberal (or Modern) Muslims like Irshad Manji (one of my dream girl) or Salman Rushdie (his head is still being hunted by the Grand Ayatollah for writing a novel called 'Satanic Verses'!) ...

Rest assured this will be their answer:

F@#$ The Nonsense!

Outrage over Islamic Law

2005-09-10T01:19:00.000-04:00

The fanatics tried again ... This time, they tried to F%@# the law of Canada!

Clash Of Civilization?

Picture: A woman protestor debate with Mubin Sheikh, a defender of Islamic law, at a rally in Toronto on Thursday. About 300 people gathered to protest billed as a global champaign to discourage Ontario from permitting the legal use of Sharia law, religious rules critics considered an affront to human rights.

Hundreds protest Shariah
By CP and Sun Media

Angry demonstrators likened the premier of Ontario to Afghanistan’s extremist Taliban leaders Thursday as they urged Dalton McGuinty to dismiss the idea of allowing the use of Shariah law to settle family disputes.

About 300 people gathered outside the Ontario legislature for a protest billed as a global campaign to discourage the province from becoming the first Western jurisdiction to permit the use of religious rules critics consider an affront to human rights.

Speaker after speaker told the crowd McGuinty was naive to suggest that women’s rights would not be trampled if Ontario allowed the controversial Shariah principles to be used to settle Muslim divorces, custody fights and inheritance disputes.

“These words are not coming from Ayatollahs (or) from Taliban leaders,” Iranian refugee Mahmoud Ahmandi told the crowd.

“It’s coming from the leader of Ontario’s government; shame on you,” he said as the protesters chanted “shame, shame.”

That sentiment was echoed by Homa Arjomand, who helped to co-ordinate a series of protests Thursday across Canada and Europe comprised of members of 100 different women’s and human rights groups.

“Either he (McGuinty) is naive, or he thinks people are stupid,” Arjomand said. “Mr. McGuinty, don’t tell me that all these 100 organizations are all a bunch of man-hating criminals who do nothing but make a fuss over an imaginary threat.”

Amanda Dale of the YWCA warned McGuinty there would be a political price to pay if his government agrees to include Shariah law in the province’s Arbitration Act, as recommended in a report last year by former attorney general Marion Boyd.

“I have one very important message for the premier of Ontario: we know the women’s vote got you in,” Dale said. “It can also get you out.”

Ontario’s flirtations with Shariah had critics across Canada and around the world standing up in protest.

In Montreal, about 100 people turned out in the rain to protest against the use of Shariah law in Ontario. Quebec has passed a law against the use of Muslim tribunals in the province.

Elahe Chokrai-Machouf, head of the Association of Iranian Women in Montreal, said Shariah law hurts the rights of women.

“We came here with the hope of living in a free and democratic and secular country,” Chokrai-Machouf said.

Similar rallies were scheduled for Ottawa and Victoria, and Arjomand said smaller protests were held earlier Thursday in London, Amsterdam, Paris and Dusseldorf, Germany, where about 25 protesters picketed outside the Canadian consulate.

Since December, the Liberal government has been sitting on Boyd’s report, which recommends that the province allow and regulate Shariah religious arbitrations in much the same way it does existing Catholic and Jewish tribunals.

Earlier this week, McGuinty said Attorney General Michael Bryant was still reviewing the report on Shariah and would make his recommendations at some point in the future.

Bryant’s office issued a statement promising “there will be no binding family arbitration in Ontario that uses a set of rules or laws that discriminate against women.”

More at 24Hours.ca

Re: "Either he (McGuinty) is naive, or he thinks people are stupid”

No, the premier (McGuinty) is neither naive nor stupid, how can he rised to become head of the most influential province of Canada if he is a fool. It's all politics.

My guess is he wanted to show the Muslim community that his government do care about them ... knowing very well such absurdity (Shariah Law) will be thrown out by the people or when it is tabled for general consensus!

Come to think of it, I might as well volunteer to represent the 'circumcised' community and demand the premier to legitimize the Abrahamic Covenant. Yes, boys and girls, let's all go foreskinless and clitorisless!

A Peace Message

2005-09-08T12:50:00.000-04:00

I am obliged to post this message from a ‘Peace Activist’.

AN OPEN LETTER TO MUSLIMS ONLY (this I disagree ... it should be for all)
(Read And Circulate Message For Peace)

Dear Muslim Brothers and Sisters,

God forbid if any one of our near one and dear one is killed then the killer is evil, a beast and what not and should get penalty but if one among us kills anybody then he is not evil and we start lying, denying or even justifying the killing.... double standards?

Being Muslims, many of our brothers and sisters are not working for peace. They are misguided, mistaken and spreading the virus of hatred and revenge through telling deliberate lies, disinformation and false accusations, which is resulting in death and miseries for number of innocent people living around the world at the hands of merciless KILLER MUSLIMS and also
bringing bad name to MOHAMMED (PBUH) who never killed anyone in his life time.

Instead of teaching about Good & Evil, certain Radical Muslim Clerics are only "Trading in Religion". They teach us about accusing, abusing and killing the non-Muslims. They try to hypnotize us to Hate and Kill the non-Muslims and brethren of other sects or be killed and without using any common sense, we readily believe in whatever is being said by these Hate
Mongers. Actually, they are "Agents of Satan" who is paying them heavily and in return they are cutting at the very roots of the Ummah. Instead of "Mourning" most of the Muslims are
rejoicing on the brutal killings of the non-combatant innocent civilians and "The Murderers" have always been "Our Great Heroes".

Before it is too late and the Curse Of God falls upon us, we should use common sense, find out the TRUTH and must change ourselves to save Muslims from becoming the most "Hated,
Isolated, Discredited and Suspicious" people in the world. We must start working for promoting "Sectarian Harmony and Religious Tolerance" in the society and should prove to the WORLD through our deeds that Islam is not a religion of Zero Tolerance and MOHAMMED (PBUH) teaches "Love & Peace" and not Gangsterism, Terrorism, Barbarism, Extremism, Sectarianism,
Cruelty, Inhumanity and "Hatred & Killing" of the innocent civilians.

Islam is a religion of peace. Islam teaches respect and love for all even the animals. But many narrow-minded Muslims have so far failed to learn anything good from the teachings of Mohammed (PBUH) who preaches love for the peoples of all religions. We are far away from the basic principle of Islam i.e. "Enjoining the people to do Good and forbidding them from Doing Evil" and thus, possess no quality of the civilized society. Unfortunately, many of us show Zero Tolerance towards others and remember only one thing to be called as good Muslims and that is to "hate" the non-Muslims" ...act of madness?

The killing of others in the name of religion is a Sin. Can a FATHER ever teach his Children to be the permanent Enemies of each other?

The time has come for us to stop readily believing in whatever is being said, read and written by the LIARS / Hate Mongers. Unfortunately, some misguided-Muslims believe that the Holy Quran and Holy Prophet (PBUH) both have instructed Muslims that the opponents be KILLED
and that they are simply following the orders. We should use our own common sense and only believe which is logical, convincing and in the best interest of the humanity.

Why do we hate others so much, may be they are better humans then what we are. My feeling is that the Muslims should unite to discredit and deactivate the fringe mullahs (Preachers of Hate) who promise a quick trip to paradise to people who have little and sacrifice themselves with bombs strapped to their bodies. If the mullahs (THE LIARS) thought that it really was a way to paradise they would be strapping bombs to themselves! Their followers are kept too ignorant to see this for themselves and enlightened Muslims should educate them. We must promote understanding and peace. We are all watched by the same God and need to help one another, not hate and hurt.

Our contention is that the WORLD should resolve the conflicts facing the Muslim World to stop the terrorism. Unfortunately, all the disputes facing the Muslim World are our self created. The root causes of all the disputes are based on the Muslim Philosophy of Hate against the non-Muslims. The Muslim literature, teachings and preaching are spreading and injecting this hatred in hearts and minds of the Muslims. Our intolerant behavior is further proved by the root causes of all the pending conflicts that we (Muslims) cannot live side by side in peace with the non-Muslims. We must stop dividing the world into Muslim and non-Muslim blocks. All the disputes facing Muslim World can be resolved easily, only if we (the Muslims) are able to condemn the “Philosophy of Hate” created in us by our past and present elders who have divided the peoples of the world in the name of religion, cast and creed.

We need to preach love, kindness and humanity with extremist devotion and mission. The mullahs (THE LIARS) and the preachers of hatred must be excommunicated at every level. Our political leaders and religious teachers must offer positive ideas. Without the ability to imagine a better world, we cannot build anything together. What is offered today through religion is death, destruction and suffering.

MY PRAYER FOR PEACE:

Merciful God, please give to peoples of the world, the required wisdom and determination, to Forgive and Forget the bitterness of the past and learn to live in peace like brothers and sisters, by condemning the divisions and hatreds created in us by our past and present elders. (Amen)

Please acknowledge receipt. Thank you,

S.A.Rehman
Peace Activist

May God extend your strenght and stamina to get the peace mission accomplished in no time.

Evolution Crossfire (5)

2005-09-07T20:18:00.000-04:00

Bible kmows medicine (II) ...

"The Bible describes medical and sanitary practices remarkable for the time. It says you should bury your excrement [Deut. 23:13]. It requires people to wash themselves after touching a dead body [Numbers 19:11-22]. It notes that the eighth day after birth is the safest time to perform circumcisions [Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:2-3].

commented by Anon, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here?, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., p. 204-206.

Responses

This doesn't do much to support the claim of biblical divinity, as many pre-scientific societies develop useful medical knowledge by trial and error. This isn't usually done in a deliberate fashion, but rather (ironically) in a slower, darwinian fashion that allows these practices to select for societies with traditions that are beneficial to the individuals that comprise them.

Evolution Crossfire (4)

2005-09-07T13:16:00.000-04:00

Bible knows medicine (I) ...

"The Bible, remarkably for its time, notes that the eighth day after birth is the saftest time to perform circumcisions [Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:2-3]. When a baby is born, they have no bacteria in their intestines for the first few days. By the seventh day, the bacteria multiply and produce vitamin K. Without vitamin K and prothrombin protein (which is produced by the liver using vitamin K), the bood will not clot properly and the possibility of severe bleeding as well as infection would make circumcision dangerous in a primitive medical situation."

Commeneted by Anon, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here?, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., p. 205-206.

Responses

1. Whether factually accurate or not, this doesn't have implications for a divine origin of the Bible. Pre-scientific societies often have useful procedural medical knowledge derived from long periods of trial and error. So this has no clear implications for divine origin of this part, let alone other parts of the Bible. Furthermore, Biblical divinity does not clearly preclude the occurrence of evolution.

I failed to find any verse contanining "vitamin K' in the Bible ...

Evolution Crossfire (3)

2005-09-05T01:11:00.000-04:00

Animals are not religious!
(This can't be true ... Didn't they get the message from God?)

"Evolution says humans are animals, but humans are moral, esthetic, idealistic, and religious, and animals are not."

commeneted by Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Master Books, Arkansas, p. 196.

Responses

1. A bird is an animal. It can fly. Gerbils are also animals, but they cannot fly. The fact that one has characteristics that the other does not possess does not mean they are not a part of the same group.

2. Animals do have social institutions, as can be witnessed in primates, canines, and others.

3. Evolution does not, in fact, say that humans are animals. Humans are animals by definition (heterotrophic, multicellular organisms lacking cell-walls). The closest thing evolution says to this is that humans are related to other species

Evolution Crossfire (2)

2005-09-05T01:07:00.000-04:00

The Animal Kingdom ...

"Evolution teaches that people are animals. We should not be surprised when people who are taught that start behaving like animals."

commented by MacArthur, John F., Jr., The Implications of Evolution (Selected Scriptures) (http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-220.htm)

Responses

1. If humans are animals, then "behaving like animals" is circular. Anything humans do is behaving like animals by definition. Perhaps the creationists mean behave like other animals. If so, which ones? Animals have diverse behaviors analogous to most actions we would consider good or evil. Behaving like animals is a vague statement.
This argument is often amended to state that Evolution teaches we are just animals. It should therefore be noted that Evolution doesn't say whether or not humans are the creations of God or if we have souls. We can simultaneously be evolved animals and the spiritual children of God. Evolution is irrelevant to that belief.
Most importantly, whether or not we are animals is a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one. Merely noting our physical forms does not place or remove any moral obligations.
The moral repercussions of evolutionary theory are no decider of its relevance.
By this same flawed reasoning, if the theory of evolution says humans are animals, the "theory" of Creationism says humans are dirt. Presumably, those who claim that evolution teaches us we should behave like animals believe that we should be as dumb as dirt.

Evolution Crossfire (1)

2005-09-02T01:59:00.000-04:00

The Monkey Business ...

"Evolution says you are descended from a monkey. Do you want to be descended from a monkey?"

commented by Moon, Rev. Sun Myung, 1976 (7 Mar.). The central figure and the transitional period. (http://www.euro-tongil.org/1976/760307.html)

Responses ...

Do you want to be descended from dirt? Since Creationists don't seem to mind being modified dirt, it's not clear why they have a problem with being modified monkeys.
Science is not about what we want, it is about collecting, testing, and explaining data.

God created man? (III)

2005-09-01T16:02:00.000-04:00

We learned our eyes are such a lousy gadget even mollusks could knock us out flat in round one … Shame on us the most intelligent animals on earth? Not quite ...

Well, you gain some, you loose some … That is the law of the nature.

“All worldly subjects tend to and will eventually reach the equilibrium at some point” (Equalia 1.00.000 designate)

(Pix: Renaisance artists like Michaelangelo really know how to present imagination realistically eh? I just love Adam the sexy bloke and God the fatherly figure depicted here. I'd try to do one using Miro's technique in the near future ... the comical version of Adam and God?)

We know this world is filled with loads of examples where organs and structures clearly have their roots in the opportunistic modification of a preexisting structure rather than the clean elegance of design.

In another word, EVOLUTION IS REAL, it is not a scientific speculation or a modern myth as some religious quarters argued. I therefore believe the best bet for the faithful communities is to adopt evolution instead of trying to fight against it ... you can't destroy truth, can you?

Similarly, God too is real if only He is being appropriately defined. The way God is presented to us (citizens of the information age) as per existing holy books is not exactly appropriate or perhaps even misleading (read: Not False) or should I say, it just appears too unreal to be true … Sorry for being so direct but this is a reality; I gotta say what I gotta say and some people just gotta do what they gotta do or this world will be forever be in the same old dilemma.

Unless it is all about scientific laws and mathematic equations or something of that nature, anything written millenniums ago, particularly those trying to encompass the whole spectrum of our life (even including such aspect like diet and dress code) can’t possibly be absolutely true and or 100% relevant without periodic reviews, updating or amendment.

For all you know, what is immoral two millenniums ago could very be okay today …

“There is no absolute eternity in this material world”
(Eternix 1.12.123 designate)

Coming back to evolution, so how does evolution fit into the story of ‘Adam and Eve’? This is one of the biggest challenges the Semitic religions, particularly the Religion of Books ie. Christianity/Islam must face in the 21st century or risk becoming irrelevant and eventually forgotten. Don't forget, books are created by man but men are creation of God, books are static but men are evolving all the times, so is the universe. (See, evolution and creationism can live with each other). We’d talk about it at length in the near future.

Remember, Darwin himself said “Properly understood, it only deepens our respect for the power and subtlety of the Creator's remarkable ways”

I am comtemplating to decode The Da Vinci Code with the help of Bill Geeks soon ... Just kidding.

God created man? (II)

2005-08-30T15:25:00.000-04:00

Continuing from why our eye is not designed by God …

Less-than-perfect vision

Incredibly, this is exactly how the human retina is constructed. Visual quality is degraded because light scatters as it passes through several layers of cellular wiring before reaching the retina. Granted, this scattering has been minimized because the nerve cells are nearly transparent, but it cannot be eliminated because of the basic design flaw. Moreover, the effects are compounded because a network of vessels, which is needed to supply the nerve cells with a rich supply of blood, also sits directly in front of the light-sensitive layer, another feature that no engineer would propose.

A more serious flaw occurs because the neural wiring must poke directly through the wall of the retina to carry the nerve impulses produced by photoreceptor cells to the brain. The result is a blind spot in the retina -- a region where thousands of impulse-carrying cells have pushed the sensory cells aside. Each human retina has a blind spot roughly a millimeter in diameter -- one that would not exist if only the eye were designed with its sensory wiring behind rather than in front of the photoreceptors.

Do these design problems exist because it is impossible to construct an eye that is wired properly, so that the light-sensitive cells face the incoming image? Not at all. Many organisms have eyes in which the neural wiring is neatly tucked away behind the photoreceptor layer. The squid and the octopus, for example, have a lens-and-retina eye quite similar to our own, but their eyes are wired right-side out, with no light-scattering nerve cells or blood vessels in front of the photoreceptors, and no blind spot.

Inside-out development

Evolution, which works by repeatedly modifying preexisting structures, can explain the inside-out nature of our eyes quite simply. The vertebrate retina evolved as a modification of the outer layer of the brain. Over time, evolution progressively modified this part of the brain for light sensitivity. Although the layer of light-sensitive cells gradually assumed a retina-like shape, it retained its original orientation, including a series of nerve connections on its surface. Conversely, mollusk eyes are wired optimally because rather than evolving from brain cells, which have wiring on the surface, they evolved from skin cells, which retained their original orientation with the wiring below the surface.

The living world is filled with examples of many other organs and structures that clearly have their roots in the opportunistic modification of a preexisting structure rather than the clean elegance of design. This does not, despite the fears of "intelligent design" advocates, amount to evidence against the existence of a Deity. Properly understood, as Darwin himself pointed out, it only deepens our respect for the power and subtlety of the Creator's remarkable ways ... Emmm, Darwin believes in God?

Yes, Darwin is a fan of His Almighty but not the Bible (not yet) or just about any other classic holy books written milleniums ago and insist every word in it is the complete whole truth ...

Conclusion: The lousy eyes we have today are very unlikely designed by God from scratch (or He must be sleeping in His job) but that doesn't mean we are not created by God.

So what could be the explanation behind our sloppily designed eyes? He doesn’t love us enough to give us the best eye? Again, not at all. It's simply the way God has intended the world to be ... the closest word to explain the phenomenon is NATURE.

I am sure there are moments in your life you would ask "Where do I come from?", "Why am I here?" ... you are not alone, this is natural and it's part and parcel of life. Lets check it out a little further next.

God created man? (I)

2005-08-30T13:11:00.000-04:00

As promised, we'd take a good look at evolution slowly but surely. Here is an entry dedicated to Creationism ...

According to Genesis: The Creation Week

Day 1: separation of light and darkness, day and night
Day 2: separation of water and sky, the expanse
Day 3: separation of land and water; creation of plants
Day 4: creation of sun and moon to govern the day and night
Day 5: creation of animals for the water and the sky
Day 6: creation of animals for the land, and humans to govern all animals
Day 7: creation completed; God rests (His Almight needed a break?)

Let’s put the ‘In the beginning …’ aside, which I’d talk about together with some other related issues including but not limited to evolution of the universe in the near future.

Today, I am going to examine just one specific aspect of creationism: Did God actually created man from scratch?

According to an ‘Intelligent Design (ID)’ guru: Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, author of ‘Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (1999)’ … If we are indeed created by God from scratch, then we are actually a very lousy design … a FLAWED creation, so to speak!

While you may browse for the details at sites like PBS, I am going to focus on what is so sloppy about us … The God’s Children.

Among others, one of the biggest flaw lied in our eye …

EYE?

Yes, our eye is such a badly designed gadget that it simply doesn’t befit the skills of the Almighty … Actually, scientists claimed they could design a way better one! Ooops …

The proponents of intelligent design assert that the combination of nerves, sensory cells, muscles, and lens tissue in the eye could only have been "designed" from scratch. After all, how could evolution, acting on one gene at a time, start with a sightless organism and produce an eye with so many independent parts, such as a retina, which would itself be useless without a lens, or a lens, which would be useless without a retina?

In a Darwinian world, the exquisite adaptations and specializations of living organisms are the products of natural selection, a process whereby the genetic variations -- such as size, shape, and coloration -- that give individuals the best chance to survive and reproduce are passed on to subsequent generations.

The Design Flaws

Another way to respond to the theory of intelligent design is to carefully examine complex biological systems for errors that no intelligent designer would have committed. Because intelligent design works from a clean sheet of paper, it should produce organisms that have been optimally designed for the tasks they perform. Conversely, because evolution is confined to modifying existing structures, it should not necessarily produce perfection. Which is it?

The eye, that supposed paragon of intelligent design, offers an answer. We have already sung the virtues of this extraordinary organ, but we have not considered specific aspects of its design, such as the neural wiring of its light-sensing units. These photoreceptor cells, located in the retina, pass impulses to a series of interconnecting cells that eventually pass information to the cells of the optic nerve, which leads to the brain.

An intelligent designer, working with the components of this wiring, would choose the orientation that produces the highest degree of visual quality. No one, for example, would suggest that the neural connections should be placed in front of the photoreceptor cells -- thus blocking the light from reaching them -- rather than behind the retina.

Next, more imperfections or plain flaws on our eyes and the conclusion …

Idolating is faithful?

2005-08-26T14:59:00.000-04:00

Continuing from 'Jewish Jesus & Gentile Christianity' ... It appears there is a general consensus that Christianity is better off as a Gentile religion rather than a Jewish one.

I imagine the whole world will be in chaos if all of a sudden the Christian faithful decided to live like Jesus (just like Osama & Company trying to emulate Prophet Mohammad) by going to Church on Friday, keeping a strict Kosher diet and of course, things are never complete without a painful circumcision.

Idolating is faithful?

Sara is certainly succinct in saying most faithful of both Islam and Christianity are idolaters without even realizing it. But I imagine if we do not idolize or fanaticize, God is probably going to have a hard time finding a strategic spot in our mind … I say it’s truly a Catch 22 situation, what say you?

As for the notion “devote to get closer to God”, I’d got some new enlightenment to share with you …

Enlightenment I

“There is no absolute eternity in this material world”
(Eternix 1.12.123 designate)

Enlightenment II

"God created the world to be evolving and as such, we as His children must do what it takes to make the best out of the prevailing situation so as to live our life to the fullest.”
(Evoluxion 1:11:111 designate)

(NB: Kindly note that all classic words such as ‘ye’, ‘thee’, ‘thy’ etc. will be stripped off for simplicity sake)

Why Semites?

Lastly, there is another question I haven’t been able to find a answer all this while …

Why did God only come to us via the Semites (who are minority, speak a niche language and are not known to be very universal in many ways)?

Why God never do it say via a Chinese, a Latino or perhaps a black Negro? Does God discriminate? Is God racist?

Let me know if you have any idea pertaining to the exclusive arrangemnet between the Semites and G-d.

Do you really think we are all children of Abraham? Is that a possibility at all? Why then are we so different from each other (I imagine a black and a white can't possibly have the same ancestor ... I meant starting from Abraham)?

I’d follow up with an alternative view that reject the notion ‘We are all children of Abraham’.

(NB: Semites refer th sons of Shem who come in all shapes and colors that include even people like Arabs and Ethiopians ... Now I wonder what was Adolf Hiler thinking? He must be very sick then ...)

Jewish Jesus & Gentile Christianity

2005-08-26T01:48:00.000-04:00

Jew vs. Gentile

In response to comments by Post Liberal that I have missed out the essence of Paul’s ‘revolution’ ie. ‘The continuity’ in relation to Abrahamic Covenant, whereby he argued Jesus Christ was an utterly Jewish figure and that my proposal for Christianity to forget about its non-practical Jewish past but to start from the birth of Christ instead .... as a Marcionite dream!

For those who are not familiar with the word Marcionite, it is a Christian heresy that rejected the Old Testament and denied the incarnation of God in Jesus as a human … The Marcionites also taught that the tetragrammaton did not represent an all-encompassing God, but rather the Hebrew perception of God which was either imperfect, or reflective of an entirely separate deity.

According to the Marcionites, Christ was not the Son of this god, but was sent by Elohim, the name they gave to an all-encompassing and omnibenevolent God. More here

He commented Christianity is a Jewish sect although there isn’t any real essence of Jewish Christianity these days and that Christianity became Gentile per se.

One of my pals commented the prenatal part of Christianity is really nothing more than the Disney collections, intellectually speaking (I disagreed on this portion though …). And since the religion has become ‘Gentile’ whereas God Himself has endorsed the ‘modifications’ (He must have approved ‘gentileness’ of Christianity or no Christians can hope to go to heaven!), so why bother to link back to its ‘incompatible’ past?

I imagine if a perfect religion must have all the parts and pieces, regardless how irrelevant or otherwise nonsense, why wouldn’t Christians go back to circumcision for both boy an girl, in line with what Abraham and Sarah have ‘allegedly’ done, why not also keep a strict Kosher diet and go to church on Friday (instead of Sunday) and better still, rename the church as temple or synagogue.

And my pal also commented if God is happy as ‘El/Yahweh’, why would He want to be reincarnated as ‘Jesus Christ’ the first place? He wanted to promote the concept of ‘establishing a direct relation with God’? Can’t this be achieved by passing the information through a prophet or some other media? Doesn’t this suggest either ‘El/Yahweh’ or ‘Jesus’ could be a fake?

Decision for Minors

You tried to justify that it is perfectly okay for parents to make decision for their children by saying “There are many things in life that we don't understand, there are many times we rely on others. It's because of this that I would advise against condemning religious practices that involve people under a certain age, or - for that matter- of a certain intellectual of critical capacity. What constitutes abusive practice might be moot to some extent, but I'd like to see this decoupled from an apparent total ban on doing things before one can fully 'understand' them. I don't understand all of life, should I stop taking part now on the basis that not everything is chosen or controlled by me?”

Well said my friend but I beg to differ.

Just because you don’t understand is certainly no excuse to let another (equally ignorant) person to take over your life. My opinion is if you don’t know; don’t even think of doing it.

And in the case of circumcision, we do know the facts, it was invented to prevent masturbation and it offers virtually no benefits but only complications! Beat me on this one …

Lastly, you said “Words like 'mystery' can serve as a hiding place for a multitude of abuses” … I say you are simply succinct! This is exactly how some of the holy players hijacked the religion to fulfill their personal interests … Scumbags!

Next, I’d look into Sara’s bit with a new enlightenment from His Almighty.

Machine went kaput ...

2005-08-25T12:40:00.000-04:00

RIP to my mongrel Intel/P4!

Apologies for no entry in the last few days, as you are aware, my PC went kaput and being an ‘economical’ (actually cheap) pseudo-geek of the information age, I decided to strip my ‘mongrel’ (brandless) machine to check it out and before long, I was pretty sure the drivers are corrupted and so I went to look for the model number in motherboard so as to download the drivers …

At first, I couldn’t find it and I thought it may be hiding somewhere beneath the processor, so I plugged it out and the rest is history … Yes, my machine has gone RIP eversince!

Can you believe it? Both the CPU and the board (double happiness?) are TOASTED!

God has hinted to me what took place is NONE OF HIS BUSINESS but a natural disaster … Well, what I can I say.

I finally got a cheap combo (chip + board) from a downtown geek depot with a Celeron 2.4Ghz on it (that’s all I could afford for now) and guess what? I found another nightmare on this so called XP technology … “NTLDR Missing” is the slogan you'd see (no matter what you do) if you ever change any hardware/software/configuration to the board.

“NTLDR Missing” is possibly the biggest nuisance I have ever come across for the past one decade in the digital world. You better believe it, the problem won’t disappeared even if you are willing format the whole damn harddisk.

Anyway, I finally found the solution but I am not telling you yet … XP: Not a new experience, but a hidden shocker await you!

I'd try response to Sara and Post Liberal ASAP … hopefully later today, particularly on the Jewish Jesus and the Gentile Jesus. This debate is very important in shaping the future world of spirituality.

I’d soon touch on the evolution of Universe (not just about man and monkey) … Stay tuned.

Circumcision v. Body Piercing

2005-08-22T01:35:00.000-04:00

Circumcision, Body Piercing & Tattooing ...

Body Arts?

While debating circumcision, some Muslims alledged Body Piercing is an act of barbarism, unlike circumcision which is commanded by God (or Prophet Mohammad) and as such, a virtue, so they conceded.

Well, my opinion is body pierceing is nothing more than a personal hobby. And those who do it are normally grown ups or teenagers who typically already able to form an opinion on their own. This is nothing resembling circumcision (not even close) whereas in the case of circumcison, we are talking about baby that is barely one month old!
Personally, I don't fancy poking anything on my own body but I won't condemn those who do it ... So long they don't overly do it to the extend of causing serious injury or perhaps, becomes unbearbale to the public. I'd otherwise see it as a form of ... Body Arts.

Speaking of which, I see Body Piercing as no different from Tattooing. In fact, I think tattooing is worse simply because it is permanent.

If it is not permanent, you better believe it, I'd the first one to tatoo my body from head to toe! Admittedly, I am a coward when it comes to having something printed permamnently on my body ... simply because I am quite frickle-minded when it come s to arts.

God knows how much I love intriguing graphics ... You know what? I actually think fine tatoo like the one depicted here as ... SEXY!

Do you see tattoo as a form of arts or abuse?

Baptism = Circumcision?

2005-08-19T18:12:00.000-04:00

Comment by Post Liberal brought up a solid topic whichI reckoned deserve a brand new entry.

He started by saying he may share the reformed Jewish perpsective that male circumcision is not an absolutely necessary element of their covenant with Yahweh. But it must be acknowledged that, insofar as it's a religion that is traced back to the original Abrahamic covenant, it is tied up with the religion. The female form does not have those roots, and, like veiling, can be seen as a later innovation in some followers of some religions.

My opinion is that the whole issue is centered on Abraham whose very existence is itself a big mystery and I questioned that if that is the case, how could it be sensible for us to submit our life based upon a flimsy fact such as the Abrahamic Covenant?

How do we know there was no miscommunication between Abraham and God or with the relevant authors of Bible as far as circumcision is concerned?

And I further commented my take is that having faith in God doesn’t mean we must have blind faith; and blind faith is certainly not something appeals to people of the information age.

I look at it this way … If Kosher can be abrogated by Paul & company which has rendered Christendom such a huge success in term or population, why can’t an irrelevant ancient practice like circumcision be nullified?

If it is about going against words of God, then Christianity itself should be dissociated from God (I meant El/Yahweh) as the religion has gone against His words in the first place ... sorry for being so direct.

Christianity is the world most populous religion is due to the fact that it (or should I say Paul & Company) dared to break away from the norm (Judaism) and I further commented that it may be hard to put forward something that is seen as going against what is written in the holy books, as this may weaken the faith but then it is not impossible ... Paul & company has done it and I reckoned reformation (or whatever one calls it) must be carried out from time to time in order to stay relevant to the prevailing time.

Put circumcision aside, Post Liberal argued circumcision is just like infant baptism, some would decry it as it's not the same ability to make a personal declaration of faith. And that he would value it having been done with him, because faith is about more than himself as a single unit. There needs to be an awareness of the numinous, transcendent, and relational - expressions of our part in things that go beyond what we can grasp in our own hands.

Well said but I think NO. Baptism is not surgical, neither painful nor permanent, so it is certainly not in the same category as circumcision. I think the question should be whether or not it is okay for parents to make decision pertaining to one’s faith while one is still unable to form an opinion?

While not exactly an issue, I say even this is a highly debatable topic …

Male Circumcision: To do or not to do? (II)

2005-08-18T10:47:00.000-04:00

continued from Male Circumcision: To do or not to do? (I)

Repeated infections can result in meatal stenosis (a narrowing of the urinary opening) which may require surgery. Meticulous care is needed in order to avoid the formation of an adhesion (scar tissue). This can result in a disfigurement and corrective surgery may be necessary. Some people complain that not enough skin was removed during their son’s circumcision. They fear he looks uncircumcised. Children are often subjected to circumcisions being ‘redone.’ Sometimes, a circumcision may only appear to be incomplete when actually it is not. There may be fat pads in the pubic area. “When the child grows and the fat pad disappears,” it will likely have the look of an ordinary circumcised penis. [Semel] Often too much tissue is removed, although this is not become obvious until later. This can cause painful erections and curvature of the penis. And finally, the circumcised penis is not immune to infections, sexually transmitted diseases or penile cancer.

Many parents are led to believe that circumcision is safer than leaving the penis in its natural form. Your Child’s Health by Barton Schmitt reports one out of every 500 circumcisions results in a serious complication. Many things can go wrong including hemorrhage, infections and damage to the penis. Much of the harm of circumcision does not become apparent until adulthood.The assumption that circumcision is inevitable at some later time is a myth. This fear is unwarranted. In Taking Care of Your Child, the authors state “The overwhelming majority of uncircumcised boys never develop medical problems.” There is a less than 1% chance that circumcision will ever be medically necessary. If only one out of a hundred boys will require circumcision later, why then should the remaining 99 be automatically circumcised?
Even in the unlikely event it were necessary, which is worse -- adult or infant circumcision? Many are told or automatically assume it's easier and less complicated for an infant. Find out why this just isn't so.

Inappropriately, the foreskin is still blamed for countless problems. So with the best of intentions, parents continue to authorize the procedure totally unaware of the risks taken and loss involved. But these medical problems are usually caused by other means. Penile and cervical cancers, urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases have nothing to do with the foreskin itself. The information as to what actually causes these conditions is readily available.It appears that the major reason circumcision persists in this country is that many think all penises should look alike. The “like father, like son” argument is famous as is the locker room question.

Some insist it simply ‘looks better’ that way. There are women who claim to sexually prefer a circumcised penis. What they may not realize is that there are sexual advantages to remaining intact. Male sexuality and the anatomy of the foreskin is discussed frankly and graphically here. Read personal accounts from men and women who've experienced sex with and without.

"The fact that many circumcised men will ardently defend the continued practice ...and dismiss it as a trivial matter has its parallel among circumised women in Africa." Tim Hammond, NOHARMM
How is Female Circumcision Trivialized?

One thing is certain and those who are fully informed know that non-religious circumcision is not medically necessary. Knowing this, if a parent still chooses to circumcise their baby, they are doing it for so-called cosmetic reasons. Non religious RIC persists in America because it has become part of our culture. It has evolved into a purely cosmetic procedure. As an infant, he is forced to experience the parent’s preference. Upon maturity, the son may not share the same preference. He may later conclude that if it had been left up to him, he would have preferred to remain intact.

Parents who choose circumcision for cosmetic reasons do not realize that it cannot be accurately described as truely cosmetic. When it is presented so lightly, people naturally assume the effects of circumcision are minimal -- even insignificant. The word is extremely misleading. Cosmetic surgery is performed to improve physical appearance without affecting function. The foreskin, commonly believed to have no purpose, actually has numerous functions and all of them are eliminated when the foreskin is removed.

Circumcision is irreversible. Healthy, functioning tissue is amputated from a helpless baby. Many have taken the position that the procedure is a human rights violation. The question is whether parents have the right to consent to an unnecessary procedure that has lifelong consequences.

Today, many Jews are questioning circumcision and opting against it (that leaves only Muslims in the God game). Some Christians also believe circumcision is required (I thought Peter already said no need?). Read Religious Circumcision to address both Jewish and Christian circumcision. “The physician today has a duty to discourage circumcision and to refuse to perform it.” Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, April 1996. An organization called Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.) is committed to stopping RIC.

Well, what do you think?

Me? Please leave me alone ... I believe nothing beats the original and after all, I don't have masturbation problem.

Next ... We are flawed creation of God!

Male Circumcision: To do or not to do? (I)

2005-08-18T10:45:00.000-04:00

An interesting overview by Mary G. Ray

Quite a number of famous child care experts and doctors recommend against circumcision in their books. Dr. Dean Edell has expressed oposition against infant cirumcision for at least 15 years now. Sheila Kitzinger very emphatically recommends that parents leave their sons intact. Dr. Lendon Smith goes into detail explaining the foreskin’s purposes and giving all the reasons why circumcision should not be performed. Dr. Spock, in his most recent book, stated “I feel that there’s no solid medical evidence at this time to support routine circumcision.” He recommends “leaving the foreskin the way Nature meant it to be.” Penelope Leach also recommends against routine circumcision. Click here to see the list of their books.

8/6/02 Fox News Channel Routine Procedure or Child Abuse?

8/1/02 Men's News Daily Circumcision Case to Proceed to Trial March 1, 1999: After a two year investigation, the American Academy of Pediatrics concluded that the "potential medical benefits" of infant circumcision aren't significant enough and therefore, they do not recommend it as a routine procedure.For more information, CLICK HERE

Routine Infant Circumcision [RIC] is not practiced in most medically advanced nations. Unlike American parents, few parents worldwide are actually faced with this choice. Their babies are automatically brought home intact. 82% of the world’s living men are intact. Few people are aware of the fact that circumcision was introduced to our culture in an attempt to eliminate masturbation.

Do not forfeit this decision out of respectful submission to your doctor. There are many benefits to keeping the foreskin intact. Typically, American doctors have limited knowledge in these areas. Many are totally unaware that the foreskin actually requires no special care.

People mistakenly believe the circumcised penis is cleaner. (Mohammad is one of them?) The myth that the penis with a foreskin is difficult to clean is exactly that -- a myth. Cleaning is so simple, it’s amazing that people fret so much about it. The big hoopla over hygiene is pure and unnecessary paranoia. See also: Smegma Beneficial Not Bad

Circumcision is painful. Although many suggest that anesthesia solves that problem, there are risks associated with anesthesia, including recent death. It isn't always effective and the needle itself is extremely painful.

Some medical and childbirth professionals recommend that expectant parents request permission from their hospital to observe a circumcision being performed. There are also videos available. As with any medical event, people should be made aware of what exactly is involved. This site and others describe the details of all the different circumcision methods.

Some children are surprised to learn that their penis has been cut and that a part of it has been discarded. Some have to live with circumcisions that had unsatisfactory results and the pursuit of foreskin restoration is not uncommon. You may read a written account and actually see the progress of one man's restoration process thru his photos over the course of several months. Foreskin Restoration Personal Journal

Circumcision does not guarantee a problem free penis. In fact, in many cases it is the very thing that initiates numerous problems. Careful cleaning must be performed. Infections of the raw wound are common. Remaining Foreskin Reattaching (Adhesions)

To be continued ... Male Circumcision: To do or not to do? (II)

Osama 'bean' Laden is much better

2005-08-17T01:18:00.000-04:00

Heeding advice from 'The Inquisitor', I tried to analyze Mr. Laden once again ... This time with a little cleaner face.

And the result is a fantastic 41% Chinese, 17% Anglo Saxon etc. but 0% Middle Eastern!

And guess what? The site said he resembles Mike Tyson!

In response to Noirkudus, I have the following to say … (in Bold)

I really wonder why u are always like to discuss a petty matter like this.
Petty? The world #1 terrorist is a petty subject? I don’t think so.

Its crying shame that a people like you can be threatened by only Osama bin Laden.
I am not only one feel threatened; billions of other citizens of civilized society also feel the same

If he is not human so why u are shivering?
I have reasons to worry if he is no human being simply because he may possess supernatural capability just like God. Just imagine supernatural power is in the hand of a bad guy … Jesus!

Sorry because I am not comment on your previous post about circumcision. I have no time to debate with you pertaining such issue which I think it is very clear to us.
1. I am not over with circumcision yet, I’d be back with more. So do prepare yourself and we’ll talk about it at length soon … Meanwhile, write to me on anything and anytime.
2. You said circumcision is ‘very clear’ … What is so clear? Yes or no? Good or bad? Please enlighten us…
3. I am going to seek God’s consent to abrogate circumcision (both boy and girl) in its entirety ASAP; do you have a question for Him?
4. Meanwhile, I urge all those morons who still slit their daughter’s clitoris off to refrain from doing so immediately and unconditionally (this silly crime is good enough to deny them their chance of getting beyond the Ozone layer … let alone the Heaven) and,
5. For the Muslims: Trust me, there must be a serious miscommunication between Mohammad and the Almighty (actually, God never told him anything about circumcision directly, Mohammad inherited the idea from some hypocrites who now scream hell and heaven that they never slit their girls' vagina for the past 3000 years, do you believe it?) . Circumcision is NOT commanded by God. For all you know, the Hadith wasn’t even written by the prophet ...

Don't forget, circumcision was originally designed by the Egyptians to discourage MASTURBATION!

What is your purpose actually??
Read my profile … Basically just like yourself, I hope to attain eternal happiness in my afterlife and I reckoned one of the best way is to try my best to be good: to myself, my family, the society and the world at large … by producing, by helping and by giving.
Any better suggestion?

I believe only a stupid people like u will take part in the discussion in this website.
Please, you may belittle me but please do have some respect for our audience … Don’t forget, you are one of them.

I have wrote a new article about theory of evolution, which I believe so many people in the west believe with darwin. So, what is your opinion about it, Can u ask your God to clarify this matter? but In islam there are no such stupid idea that human are evolved from a monkey.
Most certainly.
Evolution is one of the biggest topics yet to come right here … Just be patience, it’s coming. As a matter fact, clarifying science and technology is my key (divine) responsibility.
By the way, men are not exactly monkeys … stay tuned

Osama bin Laden is NOT Human?

2005-08-15T11:32:00.000-04:00

Someone tipped me off that Osama bin Laden is actually a Jewish bastard ... Now I got even more worried because the result I got from FaceAnalyzer.com pertaining to this violent terrorits is a terrifying ... 'No Archetype Found!'

It's amazing the sophistiscated algorithm installed at FaceAnalyzer.com could't find a match for Mr. Laden. Don't believe me? Try this link http://www.faceanalyzer.com/member.aspx?id=46903

So Osama bin Laden is not a human being? He is an ET? An agent of God or could it be he is actually God himself … just like Jesus Christ? What? Mr. Laden is the Messiah? No, most probably a ghost ... I am stoned.

Have fun.

Related blogs ... Osama bin Laden is a Jew

G-d is God!

2005-08-11T01:49:00.000-04:00

I came across the word ‘G-d’ over countless occasions but all this while, I though it is a misspelling or simply for those who despise the big ‘O’ eg. Orgasm, Ovulation etc.

For some unknown reason (I think it must be a divine one), I decided to check it out this morning while sipping my new love … Green Tea.

I tried Answers.com and it brings me here … Among others, it says “Many Jews also write "G-d" instead of "God". While this later substitution is by no means required by religious law (only the Hebrew name, not the English, is holy), it is done to remind the reader of the holiness attached to God's name.” ... if you love God , man, you gotta check this out.

Excerpts:-

At the bottom of the hands, the two letters on each hand combine to form יהוה (YHVH), the name of God.

Honestly, I didn’t know His Almighty actually has an official 'name’! Interesting …

Names of God

The most important name of God in Judaism is the Tetragrammaton, the four-letter name of God. This name is first mentioned in the book of Genesis and is usually translated as 'the Lord'. Because Jews have, for a long period of time, considered it blasphemy to pronounce, the correct pronunciation of this name has been forgotten — the original Hebrew texts only included consonants. Modern scholars conjecture that it was pronounced "Yahweh". The Hebrew letters are named Yod-Heh-Waw-Heh: יהוה; note that Hebrew is written from right to left, rather than left to right as in English. In English it is written as YHWH or YHVH depending on the transliteration convention that is used.

Jews also call God Adonai, Hebrew for "Lord" (Hebrew: אֲדֹנָי) …

English translations of the Bible generally render YHWH as "the LORD" (in small capitals), and Adonai as "Lord" (in normal case). In a few cases, where "Lord YHWH" appears, the combination is written as "Lord GOD"… and I believe Muslims refer to the same holy being as Allah!

There are Gods? Check this out …

“God is presented as a living God, as contrasted with the lifeless gods of the heathen …”

“Adonai and other names of God may be written in the plural form to point out that this one God embodies all of the many gods that were worshipped by the ancestors of the Israelites and concurrently by the surrounding peoples.”

I hope the Bible University will soon start a new program: Divine Namology …

Circumcision: The Solution?

2005-08-10T01:33:00.000-04:00

Why I questioned circumcision ... ?

Contrary to most of the holy figures in the past; it’s neither my duty nor do I have much interest in verifying historical claims and or facts eg. whether or not the Bible is the complete whole truth from God, if female circumcision was a Jewish tradition etc.

I am more concern about the present and I definately care for the future. My key (divine) obligation is to find the best solution for His children to move forward. In order for allof us to climb a notch up in wellbeing of life term, socially and economically speaking. And as such, busting of ancient myth, the wrong or the irrelevant (to the resentment of many, I am sure) is unfortunately, part of the process.

It is for this reason why I questioned into the validity of circumcision.

Having said that, here comes the God inspired solution for circumcision in the 21st century ... Ladies and Gentlemen, Proudly present: -

The revolutionary breakthrough of the digital age for the faihful community:

VIRTUAL CONEVANT!

Yes, you may now circumcise your kid without knife ... no blood, no pain, no complication!

Virtual Covenant (C)(TM)(R) otherwise known as Digital Circumcison (C)(TM)(R) (patent pending, copyright 2005) is invented by La Bona, Holy Surgeon under the divine inspiration from God. La Bona voluntarily surrender and submit all the existing and future rights and credits pertaining to the Virtual Covenant (C)(TM)(R) and or Digital Circumcison (C)(TM)(R) to His Almighty without any reservation. And I promised all proceed derived from the Virtual Covenant (C)(TM)(R) and or Digital Circumcison (C)(TM)(R), if any, shall be donated to charity ...

God is great!

Hey, what more can you ask? It's easy, it's safe, it's economical, no, (actually, I intend to make it free!) ... and the best part is it can be performed by anyone, anytime and anywhere.

Honestly, would you back me up by endorsing this divine idea? See, without you support, an idea even if it is inspired by God will be just be that ... an idea.

Remember, God will not endorse the idea without general consensus, God is after all, the most democratic. Please therefore show your support by perhaps, making a brief comment here ...

Thank you and as usual, God bless us all ...

Death To Female Circumcision!

2005-08-09T22:59:00.000-04:00

I thought of revealing my God inspired idea on circumcision today but a comment from one Abah Mui'zz deserve some dire explanation …

Thanks for the comments and my comment in Blue

Just to add some comments, and this is based on malaysian muslim women.

Majority of malaysian muslim women was circumcised. And yet, they still live as other women in another country in this world, still be able to get married, have sex, have kids, go to work, do whatever they want to do, without any comments/grumblings.

And I don't understand why la bona do really says "Circumcision affects one physically and mentally". Because if it really affects, many of our women needs medical treatment, which in reality, it does not happen in Malaysia. I am not sure if that happens in western countries.

Is there any research done on the effect of circumsion for female?

Judging from your comment, you obviously haven’t read much about Female Circumcision also known as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) or Female Genital Cutting (FGC). Here it is briefly …

FGM typically involves the removal of a girl's entire clitoris (an excision that virtually eliminates the possibility of orgasm). In addition, clitoridectomy is often accompanied by the removal of the girl's labia and the sewing together of remaining raw surfaces, leaving only a small opening for the outflow of urine and menstrual blood, a process known as infibulation. Infibulation itself can have life-long deleterious consequences, including urinary distress, pain during intercourse, and dangerous complications during labor and the delivery of children.

In a rite of passage, an elder removes girls between ages 4 and 8 of their genitalia, usually without anesthesia. The procedure leaves the girls permanently scarred, unable to ever have normal sex lives. Long-term complications include sexual frigidity, genital malformation, delayed menarche, chronic pelvic complications, recurrent urinary retention and infection, and an entire range of obstetric complications whereas the fetus is exposed to a range of infectious diseases as well as facing the risk of having his or her head crushed in the damaged birth canal. More here (check the links out)

If you still think the above is acceptable, I must then conclude you and I are definitely from starkly different civilization. My stand on FGM is no way: it is brutal, it is cruel, it's inhuman … FGM must be outlawed, there is no room for compromise.

Death To Female Circumcision!

About the other question by la bona
"OK, let's say circumcision is not important, then why bother to do it?",

is it fair if I ask another question "Body piercing is also not important in life, then why many young westerners bother to do it?"?

Body piercing is a hobby, it is strictly optional and voluntary. It is normally done by teenagers whose brains are already working, not helpless babies. Female circumcision is akin murder, you force it on helpless baby girls and you just bloody ruin her life forever, beside all the life-long deleterious consequences mentioned above, she will never know what the hell is an orgasm, ever and forever!

And if you still think it is alright to rob a girl of her capability to experience orgasm, you might want to consider relocating to the zoo.

In Islam, female circumcision is never ever made compulsory. If you want to do it, fine, and if not, it is fine too. So, why do we need to bother yourself with this issue?

I don’t think Female Circumcision can be categorized as a voluntary exercise, not when you do it on baby girls who are yet to be able to form an opinion.

I am bothered because it is barbaric to the highest order. To say it in one word, it is INHUMAN!

Discussing about fighting AIDS, fighting poverty, finding a best technique to educate our young generation, how to become a good husband/wife, are far more beneficial than discussing this topic.

Sure but Female Circumcision is as bad as any of the topic you have just mentioned, if not worse.

And we got some interesting feedback from Sara, an Iraqi Muslim lady who defies what is her word ‘extreme culturism’. Here are excerpts of her comments on the dark side of Culture and Religion.

First of all, she thinks Female Circumcision not accepted and among others, she questions the ideology of worshipping and who is God? Is he a man, Holy Spirit, or simply an Inhuman? How do we connect to Him though? This is where things go rather wrong ... Some get baptised, some get radicalized (I assume she meant terrorism), some turn to worship fellow Prophets or messengers that are believed to be sent by God himself to make us believe in Him.

Now if Circumcision came from the actions of a man that was a Prophet or Messenger more than 1500 years ago and if it's done now, then it turns into this idea of 'follow the vice leader' (Mohammed pbuh?). The same with Muslims....Many Sunnis see Prophet Mohammed as someone to be worshipped, yet they deny that they do. Everything he DID, the people today seem to do and make excuses that they are allowed to do it because they should be following everything Mohammed PBUH did do (Muslims are idolaters?). This is where things get messy and where it divides believers upon religion, eg: Sunni and Shia. This is where many Muslims are still behaving as if they live in the olden days where they live in tribes and disregard the real era we are living in … The Dark side of Culture and Religion .... that's what it really is.

Well said, Sara … I have shut myself on Iraq after witnessing how a beast named Al-Zaqarwi beheaded two civilians on video but after reading this piece of comment from our dear Sara, I think I am falling in love with Iraq again …

Again, DEATH TO Female Circumcision!

Male Circumcision III

2005-08-09T01:00:00.001-04:00

Amazingly, I get no answer for both the questions (posted previously) as below: -

Q for Christians: If circumcision is indeed commanded by God, why are Christians excempted from complying?
Q for Jews: Why must Jewish boys have a covenant (with God) while the girls do not need one?

The ~~non-response~~ (just got one via email) is actually a wonderful phenomenon because it gives mankind a new hope in a positive direction ... I'd talk about its implication in the near future.

Meanwhile, let's move on with the ongoing topic ... Based on the arguments in Male Circumcision II, should we support the newly proposed bill to ban circumcision for boys as below?

The Male Genital Mutilation Bill ("MGM bill")

The clash of gender, religion and the protection of children

By Sherry Colb, FindLaw columnist, professor @ Rutgers Law School

A San Diego based group that calls itself a health and human rights organization recently submitted a proposed bill to Congress called the Male Genital Mutilation Bill ("MGM bill"). The bill, if adopted, would ban the practice of circumcising baby boys.

Excerpts: -

But is the pain 'unnecessary'?

… only religious and cultural reasons for the continuing choice of parents to circumcise their children for Jews and Muslims alike ...

When may the law intervene in religious practice?

…The U.S. Constitution itself, however, as construed by the Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith, does not actually require the accommodation of religious conduct, provided that any prohibition applied to that conduct is part of a neutral, generally applicable law … In Prince v. Massachusetts, for example, the Court held that a mother could be prosecuted under child labor laws for having her children distribute literature for the Jehovah's Witnesses in the streets, notwithstanding her religious motivation for her actions …

Should the law intervene?

If circumcision turns out to be what medical professionals are saying that it is -- unanesthetized amputation from a newborn child of living, healthy tissue flush with nerve endings, for no medically beneficial result -- then it might seem quite proper to prevent parents from subjecting their infants to this cruelty.

Among others, it say ‘Circumcision = Kosher Slaughter’!

Much more at CNN FindLaw

The best solution: Wait

Does this mean that religiously motivated practices should be immune from legal intervention, no matter how harmful and abusive? Of course not. The ban on female genital mutilation, in fact, is a good example of appropriate legislation banning a practice embraced by a minority in this country for a combination of religious and cultural reasons. The costs to girls and women who have suffered the procedure are just too great to permit it to continue.

And recalling what Vivienne commented“Anyone has the right to circumcision as any one of us has the right to be tattooed. No one has the right to get a baby tattooed or circumcised! Respecting the autonomy of an individual to make his or her own mind up is important.”

Should we ban it?

Alternately, what say you about my God inspired idea of circumcising without knife ... no blood, no pain, no scar! Stay tuned for the details.

Male Circumcision II

2005-08-09T01:00:00.000-04:00

Let's take a harder look ...

Chris P. commented “Male circumcision, I have no problem with as God actually commanded it”

Question: If it is commanded by God, why are Christians excempted?
Question for Jews: Why boys need a covenant while girls are exempted?

Circumcision: Law, Origin, Question & Conclusion
by Free-Minds.Org

'Have you circumcised your son?'

This is the first question Sunni, Shia, some Christian, and Jewish followers will ask when they hear that a newborn male has come into this world …

What slips our minds and what many of us don’t take notice of is WHY are we circumcising our young sons (and in some cases girls also) immediately and without question?

This short paper will discuss the origins of ‘circumcision’ as a religious requirement and will hopefully give the reader better understanding to make the right choice for his/her son.

The only source of Law

In Islam, it is the words of GOD and His messenger as contained in the Quran that provide the law for us …

“And We have sent down to you the book with truth, authenticating what is present of the book and superceding it. So judge between them by what GOD Has sent down and do not follow their desires from what has come to you of the truth…” (5:48)

Also see (6:114, 6:19, 7:52, 16:89, 5:48, 4:105)

In examining the 114 chapters of the book, which overrides and supercedes all previous laws and scriptures, we do not find any mention or requirement to circumcise our sons (let alone circumcising girls which is carried out in some parts of North Africa).

In-fact, when GOD speaks of His creation, He speaks of it as being ‘perfected’:

"He is the One who PERFECTED everything He created, and started the creation of the human from clay." (32/7)

Origins of Circumcision

The origins of circumcision are found to have begun in the Jewish Bible in relation to prophet Abraham’s covenant with GOD, and was then passed along to some among the Christian faith, as well as the Sunnis and Shia who derived much of their religion and writings from the old Jewish traditions and Christian teachings …

Here is the origin of circumcision found in the ‘Covenant of Circumcision’ from the Bible.

[Gen 17:14.13] Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." This is the covenant of circumcision.

Also the following:

[Gen 17:24.16] Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

This story is replicated in the Sunni hadith theology. The Sunnis say Abraham circumcised himself with a small axe.

[Gen 17:25.18] And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin

And here is a particularly cultish ritual:

Exod 4:25.11] Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin, and touched Moses' feet with it, and said, "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!"

The Sunnis and Shia follow in the footsteps of these tales, whereby in some communities, the circumcision of a male child is cause for much happiness, complete with feasting and flocking together in some communities. Cults have been around for a long time.

Questions/Clarifications

Can’t we take our law from the Jewish Bible?

This has been a recurring question when Sunni or Shia followers find no reference to circumcision in the Quran …

The ANSWER is:

Will you vouch before GOD that all the stories in the Jewish Bible are true? (e.g. allowing stoning of adulterers, allowing stoning of sons and daughters who are disobedient, allowing a rapist to pay a few shekels to the parents of a girl and marry her, claiming that Lot was drunk and had illicit sex with his daughters, etc…). If you reject all the claims in brackets, then why do you accept Abraham’s story of circumcision?

Will you also observe the Sabbath and forbid eating the fat of animals as decreed for the Jews in their Bible? If not, then why would you accept to follow the covenant of circumcision?

Do you accept that the Quran ‘authenticates’ and ‘supercedes’ all previous scriptures (5:48) and is thus the ONLY source for our law? If not, then why do continue calling yourself a ‘Muslim/Submitter’?

Conclusion

Since circumcision has no basis in the laws of GOD, then (as with all matters in life) it is left upto the individual to decide what is best for his/her child with no fear of ‘retribution’ for deciding not to do so (this is similar to the headscarf which some women wear out of fear that it is a ‘command’ from GOD…as long as you know that it is NOT a command from GOD, then the woman is free to wear it or disregard it as she sees fit).

The next time someone asks you about circumcision, remember to explain to them what you now know as we should not let people attribute to GOD a law that He himself has not authorized ...

And remember: Ignorance is of course the most prized possession of any cult.

Next ... Proposed Bill To Ban Male Circumcision: The Clash of Gender, Religion, and the Protection of Children.And most important of all, a God inspired breakthrough in circumcision (for those we insist on doing it eventhough it is not commanded by God)!

Male Circumcision I

2005-08-08T01:00:00.000-04:00

It appears the Jews are upset with the ‘allegation’ that Female Circumcision 'was' part of their tradition. While I am yet to be able to find the time to dig into history (actually, I wonder if this is going a meaningful endeavor), I am kind of puzzled about this particular fact: ‘Muslims inherited both circumcision and Kosher from Jews in Medina’ and as far as I know, the Arabs are also Semites.

How then female circumcision is not a Semites’ tradition? Unless … it is invented by Mohammed himself! Any credible support for this speculation?

In relation to Maryellen’s comment “any intelligent adult will realize that you can find anything you want to find by Googling, but just because it is out there somewhere in cyberspace doesn't mean its true.

With a tag like "DivineTalk" I think it would be wise to stick with legitimate topics and verifiable facts”

Fair enough.

But no, DivineTalk is no CNN (even CNN breaks news based upon rumors from time to time) , I don’t even have the resources to promote this forum, let alone verifying all the bit and pieces. After all, it said rumors could be true and guess it is not that fun to talk about a pure fact (some call it law) where its truth is more or less already established.

Nonetheless, thanks for advice.

Overall, I think Vivienne is succinct in saying “Anyone has the right to circumcision as any one of us has the right to be tattooed. No one has the right to get a baby tattooed or circumcised!

Respecting the autonomy of an individual to make his or her own mind up is important.”

Before we examine if circumcision is really commanded God as suggested by some, and that it is a Biblical fact, whereby I have posed a related question: Why Christians do not have to obey this particular command of God? I think I better educate myself a little bit more on Male Circumcision first.

Excepts from the Law Center @ CNN

What is male circumcision?

Circumcision, in males, involves the cutting and removal of the foreskin, a fold of skin that covers the head of the penis. Because the procedure typically occurs during the baby's first month, anesthesia (other than topical) is generally considered unsafe. This means that a vulnerable newborn infant undergoes the surgical removal of a part of his body that is dense with nervous tissue, without anesthesia.

Notwithstanding the pain suffered during, and in the immediate aftermath of, the procedure, circumcision does not -- when performed correctly -- prevent the young boy from growing up to be a sexually functioning and fertile man. (Some argue, though, that sex is more enjoyable for the uncircumcised male) ... Oops, this must be the deadliest counter argument!

Is circumcision like 'female genital mutilation'?

This apparent lack of permanent harmful consequences significantly distinguishes male circumcision from the practice sometimes called "female circumcision" but also known as female genital mutilation ("FGM") or female genital cutting. FGM is prohibited by a federal statute passed in 1996.

FGM typically involves the removal of a girl's entire clitoris (an excision that virtually eliminates the possibility of orgasm). In addition, clitoridectomy is often accompanied by the removal of the girl's labia and the sewing together of remaining raw surfaces, leaving only a small opening for the outflow of urine and menstrual blood, a process known as infibulation. Infibulation itself can have life-long deleterious consequences, including urinary distress, pain during intercourse, and dangerous complications during labor and the delivery of children.

Though the federal statute that prohibits female genital mutilation is limited to the protection of female anatomy, the extreme nature of FGM does not have a true analogue in male circumcision. In the light of this reality, it is somewhat misleading for advocates of the MGM bill to claim - as they have -- that federal law currently discriminates against boys subjected to genital mutilation by outlawing FGM alone. No modern culture subjects male children to anything so extreme as clitoridectomy and infibulation are for girls.

That said, the practice of male circumcision is not a trivial matter. As described above, highly sensitive and healthy tissue is removed with a knife, generally without anything but a topical anesthetic, and the patient is ordinarily a newborn infant. Though some people suggest that newborn babies do not actually suffer pain, this claim has always been suspect and is now at odds with what is known to the scientific community. More

Interestingly, I found out there are ‘contemporary’ Jews who also oppose the Brit Milah ... they have bumper stickers in Israel that say “Jews embracing wholeness. Saying no to circumcision”!

Inspired by God, I got a new idea on how to circumcise without knife ... no blood, no pain, no scar! Stay tuned for this breakthrough in the world of surgery ...

Female Circumcision II

2005-08-05T02:01:00.000-04:00

“Brit Milah or a brit or bris is the ceremony where a Jewish boy is circumcised and given his Hebrew name. This is done in fulfillment of the covenant God made with Abraham. Some will simply use the same naming ceremony used for girls …”

Clearly, female circumcision was part of the Jewish tradition in the old days and it's heartening to find out there is general consensus against circumcision of girls; a cultural practice that offer nothing significant in the world of spirituality, do let me know if there is any ...

I vote the saying ‘A girl who does not have her clitoris removed is ultimately fatal to a man if her clitoris touches his penis’ as the Greatest Terror of the millennium.

I see no justification in circumcision whatsoever …

What rights do we have to rob a girl of her capability to experience orgasm by removing her clitoris?
In the first place, why would God give her a clitoris if there is no use for it at all? (Actually, there is argument that we are a flawed creation of God ... we'd talk about this in the future)

I feel the life-long deleterious consequences as a result of circumcision, including sexual frigidity, genital malformation, delayed menarche, chronic pelvic complications, recurrent urinary retention and infection, and an entire range of obstetric complications etc … is simply INHUMAN.

I therefore appeal to those who still upkeep such a brutal tradition (Muslims in particular) to launch an all-out Jihad on clitoris removal … Death to Female Circumcision!

I have noted this particular nonsense for His Almighty to nullify ASAP, however, you don't have to wait for a confirmation because chances are it will be approved, and my confidence level that God will okay it is a cool 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999%

I concur with Maryellen that "circumcision of the heart is more important that circumcision of the body" and thank Becky for the pointer for thisn verse ...

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6)

And I find her comment enlightening … “Don't fall into the trap of "religions do it, it must be divine." Religion -- even much of modern day Christianity-- has lost sight of the Word of God. If you justify your belief with religious authority alone, you're asking for trouble. Until you can justify something like this according to Scripture (as a whole, I might add), it cannot and will not do anything beyond grieving my heart as it does God's”

Psychologically speaking, some people may consider their faith as incomplete or something is amiss if there is nothing physical, visual or material to reflect their faithfulness to the Almighty. If you belong to this type, I have a proposal for you … How about TATTOOING?

Yes, what say you, tattoo your whole body with religious symbols, verses and what have you … Perhaps statements like “100% Faithful, Holy Slave, God’s Buddy …”

Don't you think this idea is way cooler as compared to brutal acts like clitoris removal?

Now the next question … What about the boys?

Chris P. commented “Male circumcision, I have no problem with as God actually commanded it”

Let examine if this is the case next …

References

Persecution of Sky Kingdom III

2005-08-05T01:00:00.000-04:00

In a country where the government claims Freedom of Religion is guaranteed by their Constitutions …

Not a single lawyer dares to represent faithful of Sky Kingdom!

Details here: No counsel for Sky followers

Looks like faithful of the Sky Kingdom need some help from the Devil's Advocate ...

I used to think existing religions are mostly discriminatory, intolerant and now, I am quite convinced the word barbaric is also quite relevant.

Here is an interesting article on persecution of Sky Kingdom …

The mess we are in
by Salbiah Ahmad

The demolition of the famed Sky Kingdom and the rooting out of alleged deviants is testimony of our intolerance of the other.

Islam in Malaysia is an intolerant Islam as practiced by some of its adherents, including the mob-agent provocateurs cum arsonists who torched property and endangered lives of the villagers. The intolerant Muslims include those with the local authority and the police who failed to protect the human rights of the villagers and instead became part of the aggressors as they stood by while the Sky Kingdom was demolished on July 31.

Ayah Pin was found a deviant by a state syariah court which applied a Terengganu state fatwa issued in 1997. He has been convicted and he has served his sentence. He is free to believe in what he wants to believe.

I have in a number of previous columns explored the alternative interpretive views on apostasy as a crime. Whatever the juristic opinions that were selected in local state legislation for the offences of deviancy and apostasy, and rehabilitation for recantation, these opinions cannot recommend continued harassment.

Well, I wonder why Miss Ahmad wouldn’t take up the challenge to represent the 'victims'? She is after all a distinguished legal counsel in Malaysia, isn't she?

Female Circumcision I

2005-08-04T23:59:00.000-04:00

I didn’t realize circumcision of girls is not a widely known phenomenon until Erica Lubavitch commented “Wow La Bona, you've got a great sense of humor! The only one I never heard before was about Jews and Muslims circumcising GIRLs. But its a great joke nonetheless. Where'd you hear it?”

I therefore decided to put up this up to offer some insight into the dark world of Female Circumcision aka Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) or Female Genital Cutting (FGC).

Circumcision is for Girls too ...

The Egyptians circumcised their boys and girls as do the Jews. The Virgin Mary was likewise said to have been circumcised (Briffault 3/324).

Islamic tradition also says it was practised by Sarah on Hagar and that afterwards both Sarah and Abraham circumcised themselves by order of Allah .

Both male circumcision and before it female circumcision have been an ancient custom among Semitic peoples from very early times (Briffault 3/323), however Jewish circumcision did not assume its present form until as late as the Maccabees (165 BC). More

Other than Muslims and Jews, circumcision is also performed by Coptic Christians, Protestants, and Catholics (the preceding three are not known to me prior to my earlier Googling) and members of various indigenous groups.

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)
(NB: Original diagram posted here which depict female anatomy has been taken down as it is commented as too crude for the faithful. Apologies for any offence caused)

FGM typically involves the removal of a girl's entire clitoris (an excision that virtually eliminates the possibility of orgasm). In addition, clitoridectomy is often accompanied by the removal of the girl's labia and the sewing together of remaining raw surfaces, leaving only a small opening for the outflow of urine and menstrual blood, a process known as infibulation. Infibulation itself can have life-long deleterious consequences, including urinary distress, pain during intercourse, and dangerous complications during labor and the delivery of children.

In a rite of passage, an elder removes girls between ages 4 and 8 of their genitalia, usually without anesthesia. The procedure leaves the girls permanently scarred, unable to ever have normal sex lives. Long-term complications include sexual frigidity, genital malformation, delayed menarche, chronic pelvic complications, recurrent urinary retention and infection, and an entire range of obstetric complications whereas the fetus is exposed to a range of infectious diseases as well as facing the risk of having his or her head crushed in the damaged birth canal. In such cases the infibulated mother must undergo another operation whereby she is "opened" further to insure the safe birthing of her child.

Amnesty International estimates that 135 million girls have undergone various forms of genital mutilation, which ranges from a clitoridectomy to stitching the entire vaginal area closed except for a small opening for urination.

The Justifications (or the lack of it ...)

In various cultures there are many "justifications" for these practices. A girl who is not circumcised is considered "unclean" by local villagers and therefore unmarriageable. A girl who does not have her clitoris removed is considered a great danger and ultimately fatal to a man if her clitoris touches his penis. (wow, this is a real terror!)

One of the most common explanations of FGC is local custom. Women are often heard saying that they are unwilling to change these customs since they have always done it this way and are not about to change. Oftentimes the practitioners are kept ignorant of the real implications of FGC, and the extreme health risks that it represents.

Family honor, cleanliness, protection against spells, insurance of virginity and faithfulness to the husband, or simply terrorizing women out of sex are sometimes used as excuses for the practice of FGC.

Some people believe that FGC is a barbaric practice done to girls and women in some remote villages in foreign countries of the world. However, up until a few decades ago, it was still believed that the clitoris is a very dangerous part of the female anatomy. Who can forget S. Freud who stated in one of his books entitled Sexuality and the Psychology of Love that the "elimination of clitoral sexuality is a necessary precondition for the development of femininity."

Next: Female Circumcision II ... Origin, God & Excuse

Origins of Circumcision
Is it really commanded by God?
Can we do away with it and still stand tall, religiously speaking?

Why Paul’s Christianity is way better … II

2005-08-04T01:00:00.000-04:00

Continuing from the previous entry on ‘Why Paul’s Christianity is way better ... I?'

I consider the abrogation on practice or belief like Sabbath, Circumcision, Kosher, Idolating as absolutely sensible …

1. Belittled Sabbath

Maybe it was rebellious on the part of Peter/Paul (I seriously doubt Jesus has a role in the abrogation process) to 'belittle' the Sabbath which is the standing order No. 3 supposedly ordered by God via Moses (refer the Ten Commandments) .... but does it really matter, particularly to His Children of the 21st century?

What good is it to rest on Friday when practically 85% of the world is wrapping up for the week or awaiting their paycheck on Friday?

I am sure God wouldn’t want to disturb the prevailing order of the world ie. majority of the world is resting on Sunday; so I think it would be more sensible for the ‘Sabbath’ compliant faithful to appeal to God to nullify the standing order No. 3 (of the Ten Commandments) so that higher productivity could be attained instead.

Trust me; God is ready to say ‘Okay’ … All you have to do is just make an official request.

2. Never Circumcise

Honestly, I really don’t see how foreskin of genital (mind you, Jews and Muslims circumcise both boys and girls!) is a proper form of Covenant with God, does anyone know the answer?

As far as I am concerned, lets say foreskin was the only permanent (legal) media back then, I am sure there are better options today. What say you to have the Covenant with God burned on a digital media like DVD-W? Personally, I’d want to have it imprinted and embossed on a copperplate for cosmetic reasons ... I love copper!

So I say Paul is absolutely succinct on this count ...

3. Idolating (God)

In the first place, I fail to see a good reason why we shouldn’t idolate or idolize?

As far as I am concerned, idolating is motivating, inspirational and as such, it’s progressive and perhaps fulfilling … No?

Let say your kid idolizes President Bush and that he aims to become a president someday ... Isn't this a positive phenomenon, I imagine this can't be wrong, can it?

Of the same, I imagine a 'No Idolater' world is one that forbid all unreal figures eg. no Barbie Doll, no Harry Potter, no Mickey Mouse ... What fun is there left on earth? Please refer to 'God hates Harry Potter?' for details on the argument.

Among others, I see arts as one of the biggest issue here, if not the biggest one. See, fine arts is itself an unreal subject ... things like 'Cubism', 'Surrealism' or the latest 'Bonaism' etc. are 'unreal' ideas that work wonder. Without them, there will be no creativity, no culture and there will be no clor in life ... I'd port this to a new topic to talk about 'color' of life.

I suspect there must be a misunderstanding somewhere along the history on this particular topic …Does anyone have a clue?

4. Abrogated Kosher

Finally, Kosher is what I consider the X-factor of the ‘new’ Christianity … I can say it with much confidence that without the abrogation of the Kosher Law, Christianity can never attain even a quarter of its membership figure that is in place today.

A little bit of backgrounder on Kosher here … God knows who invented this diet rule (I am sure the intention was noble back then) that forbid the faithful of Judaism (and later Islam) to consume such delicacies like bacon, cheeseburger, lobster or just about anything that is not physically inspected (or should I say ‘blessed’) by Rabbi or Mullah!

The list is as I mentioned before … runs longer than the toilet roll (stretched)!

If you think this is just another minor 'absurdity' in our society that does not affect you, then you better think again. This diet rule actually has a extremely profound impact on our societies, it affects everyone!

For this particular one, I'd like say "Peter & Paul, thank you ... Love & Kisses"

One thing I don't quite understand is how come Prophet Mohammad never abrogate the Kosher practice? He didn't know Paul? Or could it be he has no idea there are billions of non-Kosher people (Gentiles) out there? Oh, I forgot, there was no Internet back then ...

Among others and most of us may not even realize it … All of us are forced to pay a ‘Kosher Tax’ (ongoing since 1999) that no one is ever consulted, let alone consented!

Sounds like an unbelievable fact? You better believe it. I'll blog about this mega topic in a brand new series as this 'big' talk won't fit here … Stay tuned for how the Kosher rules has ripped us off … big time!

Meanwhile, you may want to check it out first at ‘What Is Kosher?’ ...

No Freedom of Religion in Malaysia?

2005-08-03T23:43:00.000-04:00

In response to TajamFikir “While commenting about the article 12 it is clearly elucidate that it is an offence to propagate other beliefs to Muslims”

I refer to the Constitutions available online here; it appears to me your interpretation of the Constitutions is flawed. And I’d republish the Constitutions of Malaysia herebelow for the netizens to check it out …

”This matter has been agreed by majority people in Malaysia, and the question of religion is quiet sensitive here, and we are lucky that there are some laws which is binding upon us, to protect our belief as a Muslim from corrupted belief popularized by the so called Ayah Pin, I’m wondering, why u guys are so much interested in him.... is it because of his idea to promote freedom of belief's choice?”

You are right on the spot, it’s about basic human rights and freedom of religion is one of them.

And I doubt your statement that majority of the people would like to give up their right on religion and be a slave instead. If so, one must either insane or being coerced into doing so … and that’s against humanity!

Here are the related sections of the Federal Constitutions of Malaysia; the Supreme Law (Article 4:1) of the land: -

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.

Article number: 4
(1) This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day (Independent Day) which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

Article number: 8
(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

(2) Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

Article number: 10
(1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4) -

(a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) all citizens have the right to form associations.

Article number: 11
(1) Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.

(2) No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.

(3) Every religious group has the right -

(a) to manage its own religious affairs;

(b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and

(c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.

(4) State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Lubuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.

Article number: 12
(1) Without prejudice to the generality of Article 8, there shall be no discrimination against any citizen on the grounds only of religion, race, descent or place of birth -

(a) in the administration of any educational institution maintained by a public authority, and, in particular, the admission of pupils or students or the payment of fees; or

(b) in providing out of the funds of a public authority financial aid for the maintenance or education of pupils or students in any educational institution (whether or not maintained by a public authority and whether within or outside the Federation).

(2) Every religious group has the right to establish and maintain institutions for the education of children in its own religion, and there shall be no discrimination on the ground only of religion in any law relating to such institutions or in the administration of any such law; but it shall be lawful for the Federation or a State to establish or maintain or assist in establishing or maintaining Islamic institutions or provide or assist in providing instruction in the religion of Islam and incur such expenditure as may be necessary for the purpose.

(3) No person shall be required to receive instruction in or take part in any ceremony or act of worship of a religion other than his own.

And take note of the following six clauses:

1. Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.
2. No person shall be required to receive instruction in or take part in any ceremony or act of worship of a religion other than his own.
3. Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion.
4. All citizens have the right to assemble peaceably.
5. There shall be no discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion.
6. This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day (Independent Day) which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

And it further says “So, it is clear that the Federal Constitution is Malaysia’s supreme law and any laws passed after Merdeka (independence) that contradicts this is not valid. Islamic law, therefore, cannot be applied unless the Constitution is first amended. We must also remember that the Islamic law we are talking about, such as Hudud, are not in force in Malaysia”

The above is pretty clear to me that your fellow citizens do have the right to freedom of religion.

In any case, one is still entitled to freedom (of religion) even if there is no provision for it under the law ... It is basic human rights.

I actually see some inconsistency and contradictions or even hypocripsy in the Constitutions eg. " (2) No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own."

As far as I know, the state is using taxpayers' money to build mosques and run religious school!

NB: Let me know if you would like to debate about Islamic Laws, which I do have an idea or two.

Cover your Genital

2005-08-03T15:14:00.000-04:00

This entry is dedicated to victims of the persecution of Sky Kingdom ... May God grace their Teapot at Cloud Nine.

I am asked to help spread the following message which I consider as graphically intriguing ...

"(picture: This women thinks she is 100% vagina)

What is the subliminal message this woman is sending?

The subliminal message is that every square inch of my body is private part, every square inch of it can make you horny!

Therefore my entire body is an 'awrat', (lit. pudendum, genital) and I am a sex object from head to toe.

People cover their private parts. This woman thinks her entire body is private part. Does this in anyway arouse respect? Only one who thinks with her genital may think so.

(picture: These women think they are 96% vagina 4% people.)

These women have determined that all their bodies, except their faces, are extensions of their genitals, including their heads.

Thinking with their genitals they can't distinguish the difference between their hair and their pubic hair.

To them both are embarrassing and should be covered.

Thinking with their genitals these ambulant vaginas are fighting for the right to be humiliated, beaten and treated as sex objects. Next time you go out, ask yourself how much of your body is your genital. Cover your genital and go out.

Spread this message and reproduce it in your site. Let all Muslim women know the world sees them exactly the way they see themselves and Muhammad described them - as 'awrat, pudenda, something embarrassing that has to be covered and deficient in intelligence.

They think of themselves as nothing but a big vagina. As a matter of fact the word "woman" in Urdu is 'awrat’. In Iran she is called zaifeh (weak). She is regarded weak both mentally and physically.

Muslim women strive to be treated as 'awrat', a walking talking vagina. Why should we think of them differently?

Combat stupidity with humiliation."

Although I am not a fan of Halloween fashion (given a choice, I'd go for Hugo Boss, Versace, Tommy Hilfiger or just about any brandless stuffs ... so long it is comfortable or hip), I am not too sure if such a holy fashion should be classified as sheer stupidiy?

Let's put yourself in their shoes and imagine you wake up one day, everyone in your neighborhood is walking around naked, would you bare all and get out to walk around doing your business as usual? I'd be very uncomfortable but given time, guess it shouldn't be a problem ...

Persecution of Sky Kingdom II

2005-08-02T09:09:00.000-04:00

Islam = Taliban?
Sky Kingdom crushing akin to the demolition of the Bamiyan Buddha by Taliban

The tallest Buddha figure in the world
55m; 180 ft; created in the 3rd century A.D.

Annihilation of Sky Kingdom refers.

The action taken by the Malaysian authorities is akin to the action taken by the Taliban in the Bamiyan province where they destroyed the Buddhist monuments including the world's tallest statue of Buddha which were valued by the world over as a priceless heritage.

For their crime and instead of expressing remorse, the ultracivilized Taliban warriors informed the world the ancient structures are not only offensive to their religion and guess what else did they say? They actually said "All we are breaking are useless stones"!

I wonder how come the word 'heritage is not in their dictionary?

The world will remember Taliban for this action of theirs. History has already recorded their action, and the sin committed against humanity ... yet they still think they could go to Heaven?

The Taliban has showed to the world how insecure they are. Even though the Bamiyan Buddhas are gone, the two colossal holes remain, a reminder to all how dangerous the world can be when the mentality of the authorities is questionable ... The same goes to authorities of Malaysia.
Likewise, the empty Sky Kingdom commune will be a reminder to the people in Malaysia and possibly the world over ... of the primitive state of mind amidst them. I think it is a crying shame that some people can be threatened by a few concrete structures.

The Malaysian authority may have destroyed the giant replicas of a teapot, umbrella and various other marble-and-concrete structures which were merely that ... structures. But to the world, they have created an incident that's comparable to the one involving the Talilban and the Bamiyan Buddhas.

If their beliefs are that strong, they should not be threatened by structures erected by those of other beliefs.

May God address the injustice ...

Persecution of Sky Kingdom I

2005-07-31T11:25:00.000-04:00

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

Why Paul’s Christianity is way better … I

2005-07-30T11:45:00.000-04:00

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 ...

Religion is cult?

2005-07-29T14:43:00.000-04:00

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?

Is Christianity a cult?

2005-07-28T00:14:00.000-04:00

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!

Monotheism III ... More talks

2005-07-26T23:13:00.000-04:00

‘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: -

Belittling Sabbath
Never Circumcise
Abrogated Kosher
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

2005-07-26T14:33:00.000-04:00

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): -

No need to circumcise
No need to keep Kosher
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"

Monotheism I : Judaism & Christianity were Polytheisms?

2005-07-25T14:10:00.000-04:00

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.

Mark:7
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.

MONOTHEISM

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?

Why Elvis Will Replace Jesus

2005-07-23T14:32:00.000-04:00

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.

Reply from ’Osama bin Laden’?

2005-07-22T09:50:00.000-04:00

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?

Bible = The Complete Whole Truth?

2005-07-20T14:32:00.000-04:00

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?'

We're Not Afraid

2005-07-18T09:59:00.000-04:00

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 .-- . / .- .-. . / -. --- - / .- ..-. .-. .- .. -..

Dear Osama bin Laden

2005-07-15T21:08:00.000-04:00

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:

The US is embarked on an imperialist project to dominate the world.
Muslim societies should be reconstructed on the basis of the true principles of Islam; and
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 ...

God hates Harry Potter?

2005-07-14T00:45:00.000-04:00

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.

Abortion V: The Debate Goes On …

2005-07-11T22:10:00.000-04:00

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 ...

Osama bin Laden is a Jew?

2005-07-09T12:18:00.000-04:00

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

2005-07-09T10:38:00.000-04:00

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.”

Bloody Blast @ London Transits

2005-07-07T10:43:00.000-04:00

TERROR HITS LONDON

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

Do Muslims worship idols?

2005-07-05T12:01:00.000-04:00

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

Godly Speaking I

2005-07-03T01:44:00.000-04:00

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?

DivineTalk June 29th, 2005 ... I

2005-06-30T12:42:00.000-04:00

Breaking News!

Last night around 3:00 am EST, I managed to get hold of God for a good 30 minutes!

You know, it’s getting harder and harder to try to get hold of Him nowadays. Apparently, He has got a lot more holy issues to tackle as compared to the good old days when our ancestors typically grind stone for fire and run around in the jungle hunting for wild hogs ... No thanks to pests like Greenhouse Effect, Ozone Depletion, Religious Fanaticism, Corporate Crook eg. Bernie Ebbers (ex-CEO of WorldCom) and you name it, they have it … This corrupted world of ours has nothing much good really, basically just full of craps and problems.

God has asked us to bear with Him for a while ... He will try to spend more time with us soon.

Realizing there is no time to loose, I quickly get into action ...

Me: “Boss, can we continue with some of the outstanding issues from the previous session?”

God: “What about?”

Me: “What say you, let's start off with ‘Who Are Your Children’ first? You said people of all shapes and colors are all your children but I am not too sure if you meant only the faithful or you meant to say any Tom, Dick and Harry including the bad guys as well as gays?”

God: “What do you think?”

Me: “I imagine you meant any Tom, Dick and Harry including criminals as well as homosexuals. Incidentally, majority of Your children seem to think the same”

God: “Bona my blue-eyed boy (I am flattered!), your brain has grown from pea size into the size of a ping-pong ball (wow, one notch up in the world of IQ?). Congratulations!”

Me: “But my Lord, just to be sure, why did You tell the Semites that You have created only Adam and Eve ie. only Male and Female? As a result of this Biblical statement, most of Your children always have the notion that one must be either a pure male or a 100% female, and marriage must be a union between a man and a woman, anything else is invalid or otherworldly.

Not too long ago, some of your naughty children known as scientists have discovered some other human gender such as Hermaphrodite: True, Male Pseudo, Female and Pseudo. Apparently, they all are genuine human species. What do You say about this one?”

God: “Oh Bona my son, you are pushing me to the wall. Alright, I'd tell you what. They are all my children, positive, period. Bona, I really can’t tell you anymore than that because as a Holy Being, I am bound by Holy Ethics. I can’t reveal any Holy Secret without prior approval from the Holy Council … Hermaphrodite is unfortunately one of the Holy Secrets”

Me: “Okay my Lord. I shall ask Your children if there is a dire need to know the truth behind Hermaphrodite.

Meanwhile, guess Your confirmation “All Are My Children” is good enough for us to reject segregation of mankind as a result of literal interpretation … A notch up in the ladder of wellbeing for the mankind.

Thank You my lord.

I have another related question though,”

God: “What again?”

Me: “Did You actually tell Prophet Mohammad (founder of Islam) that You have no children but only slaves?”

Dear People: Do you have a solid reason for God to reveal the mystery behind Hermaphrodite?

Stay tuned for a decree on this topic and more revelations from His Almighty in DivineTalk June 29th, 2005 ... II