BLOG

Blogging to Junior Devils?  Yes, screwtape style.  Wish I'd thought of this.

Someone finally voices some concern about this rising preacher.

1400 years ago, about 600 years after Jesus Christ was crucified, a man named Muhammad began to have visions.  With apparent sincerity he believed the visions were true revelations from the one God, and although he was already in his forties he started to win converts and establish a following.  As a result of this man Muhammad, there are today as many as 450 million Muslims.  Muhammad, in various spellings, is now the fifth most popular baby name in Britain.

Given the influence of the Muslim faith, it is important to have an acquaintance with its origin, its teachings, and its basic foundation--the Koran.  For instance, take this quote,

IN THE NAME OF GOD THE COMPASSIONATE THE MERCIFUL
Praise be to God, Lord of the Universe,
The Compassionate, the Merciful,
Sovereign of the Day of Judgement!
You alone we worship, and to You alone we turn for help.
Guide us to the straight path,
The path of those whom You have favoured,
Not of those who have incurred Your wrath,
Nor of those who have gone astray.

That is the Exordium (introduction) of the Koran, as translated into English by N. J. Dawood.  [The revised 1999 edition, published by Penguin Books, is the version I'll be quoting from.]  It accurately captures the tone and main themes expressed in the whole book, such as a single, sovereign God, who is strong and powerful but forgiving to those that obey him; a day of final judgement which will be horrible for those who have "gone astray" from the right path (meaning: the Koran and Muhammad's ways and teachings); and a firm and constant distinguishing between the servants of God and the unbelievers, who are outside the Islamic faith and said to be in error and rebellion against God.

In the course of this discussion I'll be comparing the Koran with the Christian and Jewish Scriptures.  I think by the end of this series of blogs you'll be convinced that one is superior to the other.

Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors. Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed. But do not fight them within the precincts of the Holy Mosque unless they attack you there; if they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they mend their ways, know that God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-doers. [--from "The Cow:" Surah 2, pg. 29]

The Koran is a compilation of sections or chapters called surahs, some only a few paragraphs long, others up to 20 or more pages.  Each surah has a name (surah 1--The Exordium; surah 2--The Cow; surah 3--The 'Imrans; etc. .), and each touches on a different topic (or topics), but generally swings back around to emphasize the themes summed up in the Exordium.  The man Muhammed is the author of the entire work, which he compiled over the years as he had visions and wrote down what he felt inspired to say, as God's messenger to the people.  A point of comparison: The Psalms, Genesis, Isaiah, Daniel, 2 Chronicles and Matthew were all written by different individuals.  In fact, the Bible is a compilation of the writings of at least over 40 different authors, writing separately over a time span of at least 1,500 years.  In that sense it is a little unfair to compare the two, since the Koran had only one author, who wrote over his lifetime.  You could say the playing field is somewhat uneven to start out with. 

But what if we tried to compare them as inspired or historical documents?  Which would better stand the tests of historicity and noncontradiction?  Given the odds, wouldn't a compilation written by half a hundred authors have a higher likelihood of internal error than a one-man show?  Here's a Koranic quote I somewhat agree with:

Who is more wicked than the man who invents a falsehood about God, or says: 'This was revealed to me,' when nothing was revealed to him? Or the man who says: 'I can reveal the like of what God has revealed'?
[--from "Cattle:" Surah 6, pg 101]

A writing that is supernaturally dictated is called "inspired," and we expect it to be free from error or falsehood.  If, then, the Koran contains contradictions, we should conclude it was not inspired, not a revelation from God. 
Here are some passages in which Muhammad defines whether Christians are "believers" or "unbelievers."

Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. God does not guide the wrongdoers. [--from "The Table:" Surah 5, pg 85]

Unbelievers are those that say: 'God is the Messiah, the son of Mary' . . . Unbelievers are those that say: 'God is one of three.' [--ibid, pg 87]

However, in "The Cow" the Koran says,

Believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabaeans--whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does what is right--shall be rewarded by their Lord; they have nothing to fear or to regret. [--from "The Cow:" Surah 2, pg 15]

In one instance Muhammad seems to say that Christians and Jews are outside saving faith; in the next instance he says they need only believe in God and the Last Day, and they will escape judgement.  --Or perhaps he means that Christians must deny the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ, and then they may escape judgement.  But then they wouldn't be Christians anymore, would they?  For, as 1 John in the Bible says,

Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. [2:22, 23 NASB]

It was not, and is not, possible to be a Christian unless you believe the following: Jesus is the Son of God.  Muhammad denies this.

The Messiah, the son of Mary, was no more than an apostle: other apostles passed away before him. His mother was a saintly woman. They both ate earthly food. [--from "The Table:" Surah 5, pg 88]

Creator of the heavens and the earth. How should He have a son when He had no consort? [--from "Cattle:" Surah 6, pg 102]

Muhammad said that the Jewish prophets and Jesus were men sent by God, but that the Jews and Christians often distorted their messages.  In the Gospel of John in the Bible we read of two separate accounts, which were seen by groups of witnesses.

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple. [8:-59 NASB]

"I and the Father are one." The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."  [10:30-33 NASB]

I'm not trying to pin guilt on the Jews here; I might have been among their number if I was present at the above scene.  But these eyewitness accounts are at odds with Muhammad's post hoc description of the Messiah.  Someone is wrong.  Given Muhammad's convictions about the "oneness" of God, I think he too would have picked up a stone.

More on the Koran to come. . .

Whatever you think of the Dr. Dobson/SpongeBob controversy, it appears the United Church of Christ is thumping for a little publicity.  It has invited SpongeBob for a visit (photo evidence here).  In case you don't know, the UCC is deep in an expensive tv campaign that advertises, among other things, the Church's acceptance of homosexuals.

"Absolutely, the UCC extends an unequivocal welcome to SpongeBob," the Rev. John H. Thomas, the UCC's general minister and president, said, only partly in jest. "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we."
For that matter, Thomas explained, the 1.3-million-member church, if given the opportunity, would warmly receive Barney, Big Bird, Tinky-Winky, Clifford the Big Red Dog or, for that matter, any who have experienced the Christian message as a harsh word of judgment rather than Jesus' offering of grace.

Cartoon characters are people too, you know.

This is pathetic.

 

For us Westerners, the recent tsunamis are already beginning to gather dust in our memory (at least in my memory).  This short video just stuck it all back in my face--in a good way.

I know it sounds crazy, but the Protagonist at Wyatt's Torch is onto something.  As a solution to the abortion (and social security) problem, he proposes what he calls a Maternal Lien, in which a child at the age of 21 becomes liable to a debt of, say, $20,000, which he pays back over time.  This would encourage mothers not to abort their children, assuming the system somehow replaced Social Security.
I can't see it ever happening, but it is definitely reminiscent of older cultures (including Biblical Jewish culture) in which children are responsible for the care of their parents, particularly the mother.

I discussed this idea with my parents, and they pointed out that the concept is not Biblical in the purest sense, since younger women should be able to provide themselves with some sort of income, and all women--young and old--who are married should be provided for by their husbands.  Also, parents in Jewish culture were expected to build up and save an inheritance for their children.  In other words, the parents save for the kids, then the kids take care of the parents in old age.  Beats a nursing home, doesn't it?

So the Maternal Lien concept has some weak spots, but hey, all great ideas start somewhere don't they?  What if the Lien debt didn't kick in until the mother was single and over 60?

I tell you, the Protagonist is onto something.

In an article that will appear exclusively at GlobeLens.com for the next few weeks, James Anderson writes about the recent discoveries on Titan, Saturn's largest moon.  Some evolutionists are saying our new look at Titan will help us understand how Earth and life formed; but how accurate is the comparison?  Read Anderson's article to find out.

NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute

The History Place is a neat site where you can read articles and about World War II, the Civil War, or the Irish Potato Famine--and see pictures and illustrations along with them.  BBC has a popular history section on its site, and WWW.History connects you to online resources through a topical list you can browse or search.  And who doesn't like the History Channel? 
One more thing: If you want more, check out Best of History Web Sites, an award-winning portal to the top history sites by subject.