Posted by: mystic444 | December 17, 2014

Franklin Graham and Islam

Franklin Graham is a son of the famous Christian evangelist Billy Graham; and Franklin now heads the evangelistic organization founded by his father. I don’t know that Franklin has the approval rating that Billy had/has, but he is widely admired among evangelical Christians.

But when I read statements made by this ‘evangelist’ (Franklin), what I see is an ignorant fool unworthy of anyone’s respect. According to an article in a Christian newsletter, Franklin has recently continued his vitriolic outbursts against Islam, saying “Islam is a religion of war”; and the article has this statement: “I have not changed my opinion at all.” He said he looked at Islamic State, at the Taliban and Boko Haram and thought: “This is Islam. It has not been hijacked by radicals. This is the faith, this is the religion. It is what it is. It speaks for itself.”

Doesn’t this idiot realize that such statements can be reversed, and made into accusations against the ‘evils’ of Christianity?? If Islam can be accused of being a “religion of war”, how much more can this charge be brought against Franklin Graham’s religion! Someone who hates Christianity could easily paraphrase the quoted statement by saying: “I have not changed my opinion at all. I look at the Christian persecutions of ‘heretics’, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Ku Klux Klan (which claims to be ‘Christian’ and uses Christian imagery), Christian support for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, Christian rejoicing at the “Israeli” massacres of Palestinians, and Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas; and I think: This is Christianity. It has not been hijacked by radicals. This is the faith, this is the religion. It is what it is. It speaks for itself.”

Can’t one find quotations from the ‘Christian Scriptures’ (the ‘New Testament’ of the Bible) which can be used to support the idea that Christianity is violent, and “Jesus” was a militant rabble-rouser? Don’t mockers of Christianity frequently refer to the ‘infamous’ statement attributed to “Jesus Christ” where he said that he didn’t come to bring peace, but rather a sword? He spoke of members of families being divided against each other because of what he taught. Naturally, when this statement is examined in its context, it can be seen that “Jesus” was not calling upon his followers to start using violent methods against unbelievers; rather he was saying the opposite: that unbelievers would persecute and violently attack his followers, and even members of their own families would turn against them. But we won’t allow Christians to appeal to context, as long as they refuse to acknowledge the context of ‘violent’ verses of the Qur’an.

The same is true for some of the statements of the apostle Paul. He exhorted to “fight the good fight of faith”, and commented that he himself had “fought the good fight”. He exhorted to “put on the whole armor of God”. Again, such quotes can easily be shown to have meanings quite contrary to what I am implying – if one allows the context to interpret the statements. However, Christians like Franklin Graham reject context from the cherry-picked ‘violent’ quotes of the Qur’an and ‘hadith’; so we won’t allow context to enter the picture with regard to such cherry-picked quotations from the Bible either!

Quoting again from the newsletter article: He said he was “sad” that Muslims in the Washington cathedral had “turned their back on the Cross” to worship “another God”. Graham said: “The God of Islam is not the same God of the Judaeo-Christian faith. “The God that we worship in Christianity is a God that has a Son. To Islam, that is blasphemy, to say that God has a son. Therefore, they do not worship the God that we worship.”

Well excuse my ignorance, but I wasn’t aware that the “Judaeo” God had a Son! I don’t know of any religious Jew who accepts the ‘Trinitarian’ teaching of ‘orthodox’ Christianity, and believes that “Jesus Christ” is “the Son of God”! To say that God has a Son is as much blasphemy in Judaism as it is in Islam. In fact, it is more so in Judaism, inasmuch as Islam – while denying the “Sonship” of Jesus Christ – wholeheartedly believes in the Prophethood of Jesus Christ, his virgin birth, the miracles he is said to have performed, that he is the “Christ/Messiah”, and that he is “among the greatest” of God’s Prophets. Islam also believes in the future “second coming” of Jesus Christ. Judaism denies all of these things.

So I wonder why Franklin Graham isn’t proclaiming that the Jewish God is not the same as the Christian God! Why doesn’t he say that Judaism is an evil religion (and a “religion of war” too, as anyone can see who has read the ‘Old Testament’)? But if he said such things, he would be labeled an ‘anti-Semite’, wouldn’t he? He would be ‘hated of all men”! It’s beside the point that he would be far closer to the teachings of the “Son of God” he claims to worship!

Here’s one more quotation from the article: He added: “I think it is very important that we do all that we can to try to share God’s love with Muslims because they have no hope outside of dying in Jihad. I want them to know, you do not have to die for God. God died for us. He sent His Son to die for us. We do not have to kill ourselves to please God. I want them to know that they can have eternal life.”

Again I say that Franklin Graham is an ignorant fool, who ‘glories’ in his ignorance and foolishness. Muslims most certainly do not believe that they have to kill themselves or die “in Jihad” in order to earn God’s favor and go to heaven when they die! They certainly believe that Muslims who are killed while struggling in God’s cause will be welcomed into ‘paradise’; but that is the same as Christians believe about Christian ‘martyrs’. It does not mean, though, that Muslims who have not had the ‘honor’ to give their lives in God’s cause are “without hope”! What nonsense this idiot spouts! Muslims certainly know that they “can have eternal life” – although they don’t see the need to have someone else “die for their sins” in order to have that eternal life.

Muslims are quite aware that their Qur’an teaches: For the [Muslim] believers, the Jews, the Sabians, and the Christians – those who believe in God and the Last Day and do good deeds – there is no fear; they will not grieve (5:69). They also know that the Qur’an frequently points out that God is “most merciful, most gracious”, and that any ‘sinner’ who turns from the evil of his ways and pursues faith in God and good deeds will be forgiven for the previous ‘sins’ and granted his ‘reward’ in ‘paradise’. But Franklin Graham does not know this, because he doesn’t want to know it; he glories in ignorance.

But again, does Mr. Graham believe that Jews will accept his teaching that “God died for us. He sent His Son to die for us”? Such a statement is blasphemy to a Jew, and one reason religious Jews hate Christianity. Why isn’t Franklin castigating Judaism? (It’s also simply absurd, by definition, to assert that “God died for us”. By definition, God is ‘immortal’ and can’t die! In the Christian narrative of the death of Jesus Christ by crucifixion, it was “the man Christ Jesus” – not “the God Christ Jesus” – who died. True, Christianity asserts that Jesus was ‘fully God’ as well as being ‘fully man’; but he was man in order to experience death. He could not die as “God”. Those who accuse Jews of “Deicide” because of their inciting the murder of Jesus Christ are speaking an absurdity.)

Franklin Graham urged Christians to attempt to convert Muslims to their own faith. That, of course, is fine – so long as they don’t attempt to ‘convert by the sword’ as ‘organized Christianity’ has done in the past. They should also, however, learn about what Islam truly teaches before they attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity. That way they perhaps won’t insult Muslims by making the kind of ridiculous statements that Mr. Graham has made; and Muslims might at least be more willing to carry on conversations with them.

Posted by: mystic444 | November 23, 2014

Murders at Synagogue near Jerusalem

How should one respond to the recent killings at a Synagogue in Har Nof, near Jerusalem? Should there be unqualified denunciation of the Palestinian cousins accused of the murders; qualified denunciation; or are the cousins to be praised as ‘martyrs’?

I have heard and read all three responses. I understand that Hamas leaders and at least some other Gazans have praised the accused cousins; and someone whom I otherwise admire has also given unqualified praise to them. Others (including Muslim leaders) have taken the exact opposite approach and denounced the attack as vicious and uncalled for murder.

I, however, have to take a ‘middle ground’ approach to this tragedy. I believe the killings were indeed murders, but I recognize ‘extenuating circumstances’ so that I cannot roundly and unreservedly denounce the killers.

On September 6 of this year (2014) I wrote an article entitled Jewish/Zionist Myths in which I referred to a daughter of “Israeli” General Matti Peled who denounced the “Israeli” government when her own daughter was killed in a suicide attack. She said she understood very well what motivated the suicide bombers, and did not blame them. I feel much the same way about this current situation. While I DO in fact partially blame the actual killers, I believe that most of the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the “Israeli” government – and especially that mad fool of a Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu!

I believe that I can understand what probably motivated those young men in their actions. Even though I have never been to Palestine, just from what I read and the videos I see about the viciousness of “God’s chosen people” toward the Palestinians (whether in Gaza, the West Bank, or East Jerusalem) I can feel anger and rage toward the “Israelis” in particular, and Jews in general who support “the Jewish State”. How much more anger, rage, frustration, and hopelessness must those Palestinians who have to try to live in that horrendous situation feel? With it being almost an everyday occurrence to read or hear of Palestinians (young and old) being beaten up, killed, or arrested by “Israeli” military and police; Jews-only streets and settlements; mass murders and genocide occurring every 2 or three years (“Cast Lead” in 2008/2009; “Pillar of Cloud” in 2012; and now “Protective Edge” this year); and “Western” governments – as well as Arab governments like Egypt and Saudi Arabia – nevertheless continuing to spew forth the nonsensical Jewish narrative about “Israel’s right of self-defense”, actually supporting the Jewish murderers; it’s no wonder that some Palestinians would reach the point where they simply can’t endure any more and resort to violent attacks.

In point of fact, even the existence of Har Nof (where the killings occurred) is an offense and ‘open wound’ to Palestinians, since it is built on the ruins of the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin. Palestinians will never forget how the murdering “Zionist” Jews destroyed that town on April 9, 1948 (“a day that will live in infamy”) – in the process raping many of the women, and murdering around 150 of the citizens. But not only is the very existence of Har Nof on top of Deir Yassin a provocation by itself, the existence of Orthodox Jewish Synagogues there is “salt on the wound”. This particular Synagogue is known for its extreme ‘right’ promotion of Arab genocide and the destruction of the Al Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock complex in order to build a ‘third’ Jewish Temple there. Such a Synagogue in such a place makes a very logical choice for a target for Palestinians who have reached a breaking point in their ability to endure “Israeli” atrocities.

And the idiot Netanyahu says he thinks he can stop such acts of violence by even more oppressive acts! However, I expect that Netanyahu is under no illusion that destroying the houses of the families of the attackers – and arresting many members of those families – will somehow manage to quell the violence. He doesn’t want to stop the violence, but rather wants to incite more of the same so he’ll have an ‘excuse’ to resort to more mass murder and attempts to completely annihilate the Palestinians!

Having said that, though, I still place blame on the two cousins for what they did, inasmuch as they have gone to an unjust extreme in expressing their rage, frustration, and hopelessness. If they had attacked armed police or military – or even members of government who authorize the “Israeli” atrocities – it would have been understandable; and I might have joined in with those who proclaim them ‘martyrs’. However attacking unarmed noncombatants, and especially in a religious ‘house of worship’, simply is not acceptable.

True, I can understand the temptation; but that is why such verses as the following are in the ‘Scriptures’ (the Qur’an) which Muslims believe originate with God/Allah (from the Muhammad Asad English version):

[7:199] MAKE due allowance for man’s nature, and enjoin the doing of what is right; and leave alone all those who choose to remain ignorant. [7:200] And if it should happen that a prompting from Satan stirs thee up [to blind anger], seek refuge with God: behold, He is all-hearing, all-knowing. [7:201] Verily, they who are conscious of God bethink themselves [of Him] whenever any dark suggestion from Satan touches them – whereupon, lo! they begin to see [things] clearly, [7:202] even though their [godless] brethren would [like to] draw them into error: and then they cannot fail [to do what is right].

[5:2] …And never let your hatred of people who would bar you from the Inviolable House of Worship lead you into the sin of aggression: but rather help one another in furthering virtue and God-consciousness, and do not help one another in furthering evil and enmity; and remain conscious of God: for, behold, God is severe in retribution! … [5:8] O YOU who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of anyone lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is closest to being God-conscious. And remain conscious of God: verily, God is aware of all that you do.

It is because the temptation to extreme violence is so common and ‘understandable’ that such warning verses are given in ‘Scriptures’. Because the temptation to blind rage is so easy to fall into, wise men and ‘prophets’ warn people about it and offer suggestions as to how to avoid it. Let those who profess to be followers of the ‘Prophet’ Muhammad pay more heed to his teachings (which, as Muslims believe, are in fact not so much Muhammad’s teachings, but those of Allah and his ‘spirit’ Messenger Gabriel).

As a matter of fact, in what is believed to be the very first ‘revelation’ of permission to fight in the Qur’an (22:39-40), the permission is granted in order to protect all houses of worship (synagogues included):

[39] Permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged – and, verily, God has indeed the power to succour them: [40] those who have been driven from their homelands against all right for no other reason than their saying, “Our Sustainer is God!” For if God had not enabled people to defend themselves against one another, [all] MONASTERIES and CHURCHES and SYNAGOGUES and MOSQUES – in [all of] which God’s name is abundantly extolled – would surely have been destroyed [ere now]. And God will most certainly succour him who succours His cause: for, verily, God is most powerful, almighty.

In sura (chapter) 2 of the Qur’an, it is forbidden to seek to prevent worship in such religious ‘houses’, or to try to ruin them. The only valid reason to enter a ‘house of worship’ is in “the fear of God” (and the two recent attackers were certainly in violation of this verse):

(114) Hence, who could be more wicked than those who bar the mention of God’s name from [any of] His houses of worship and strive for their ruin, [although] they have no right to enter them save in fear [of God]? For them, in this world, there is ignominy in store; and for them, in the life to come, awesome suffering.

So for the above given reasons, I make a qualified denunciation of the two attackers – while placing most of the blame on the vicious actions of the “Israeli” government, military, and police which incited the attacks.

Posted by: mystic444 | November 16, 2014

What is an anti-Semite?

One of the worst accusations it is possible to make against someone these days is to label him/her an “anti-Semite”. Once this label has been attached to someone, his/her livelihood and life have the potential of being ruined. So it is logical to ask what it means to be an anti-Semite.

Although most people probably think the answer is obvious, let’s see what a dictionary definition of “Semite” is. The first definition at is: “1. a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.” Another dictionary definition (also given at the site linked to above), from the British Dictionary, is : “1. a member of the group of Caucasoid peoples who speak a Semitic language, including the Jews and Arabs as well as the ancient Babylonians, Assyrians, and Phoenicians.”

A more extended ‘definition’ of “Semite” is provided by “In linguistics and ethnology, Semitic (from the Biblical “Shem”, Hebrew: שם‎) was first used to refer to a language family, initially native to West Asia (the Middle East), but which spread to Asia Minor, North Africa, The Horn of Africa and Malta, now called the Semitic languages. This family includes the ancient and modern forms of Ahlamu, Akkadian (including Assyrian and Babylonian dialects), Amharic, Amalekite, Ammonite, Amorite, Arabic, Aramaic/Syriac, Canaanite (Phoenician/Carthaginian/Hebrew), Assyrian, Chaldean, Eblaite, Edomite, Ge’ez, Old South Arabian, Modern South Arabian, Maltese, Mandaic, Moabite, Proto-Sinaitic, Sutean, Syriac, Tigre and Tigrinya, and Ugaritic, among others.

“As language studies are interwoven with cultural studies, the term also came to describe the extended cultures and ethnicities, as well as the history of these varied peoples as associated by close geographic and linguistic distribution.[1] Today, the word “Semite” may be used to refer to any member of any of a number of peoples of ancient Middle East including the Akkadians, Assyrians, Arameans, Phoenicians, Hebrews (Jews), Arabs, and their descendants”.

Plainly, then, in reality the term Semite includes quite a number of different “peoples”. In terms of the Biblical (Old Testament) stories, not only were the people of Judea and Samaria “Semites”, but the Assyrians and Babylonians who conquered them were also “Semites”! So if one were pro-Babylonian he couldn’t be properly labeled “anti-Semite” even though he perhaps hated the Judeans.

In modern times, the term “Semite” includes Jews, Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, and Arabs. Does that come as a surprise? That’s certainly not the way the term is most often used, is it? This brings us to the second dictionary definition of “Semite” (from “2. a Jew.” And the British Dictionary definition is the same: “2. another word for a Jew.”

The second definition, although given in those respected dictionaries (and no doubt many others) is plainly a false definition. There is simply no legitimate way in which a term which has such a wide meaning can be restricted and limited to one specific subset of the proper definition. How then did such a limitation come to be? And how did it come to be that in popular usage the illegitimate second meaning of the term came to be the primary (indeed practically the only) meaning attached to the term?

The explanation is supreme Jewish arrogance – as they like to call it, “chutzpah” – and the amazing ability of supremacist Jewry to hoodwink the vast majority of non-Jews into submitting to their insane ideas of “chosenness”. To the Judaic mind, as informed by their atrocious Torah and Talmud, the Jews are the only people that truly matter. Everyone else is simply unimportant. In fact, no other “people” actually exist! All others (besides Jews) are animals, disguised in human form to make it less offensive to the Jews to have to live among them! Therefore the Jews do not recognize any other “Semites”; and they have managed to ‘hornswoggle’ most “Gentiles” into believing that nonsense.

This attitude is also evident in the “Holocaust” (“Shoah”) propaganda. When we think of the word “Holocaust”, we have been programmed by Jews and their collaborators to think only of one event: the purported murder of 6 million Jews by the Germans under Hitler in World War 2. (And we have been so browbeaten by “Holocaust” advocates that in many countries it is a criminal offense to even question any of the claims made for that event – not to mention the ‘evil’ of having the audacity to actually deny the reality of the “Holocaust” in general, or any of the specifics included under that term.)

Yet there have been many “holocausts” throughout the centuries and millennia of human existence, and the supposed “holocaust” of Jews in the Second World War is relatively insignificant in comparison to some others. To give just one example: the “Red Holocaust” as the result of the Communist Revolution in Russia/the Soviet Union. Most of its victims were Christians and Muslims; Jews were not killed (at least, not for being Jews). There is good reason for that, since most of the leaders of that revolution were themselves Jews. This was a “Holocaust” committed by Jews (as of course was and is the case of the massacres of Christians and Muslims in Palestine).

Here are a couple of paragraphs from Wikipedia on the “Red Holocaust”:

Mass killings under Communist regimes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million.[1] …

Comparison to other mass killings

Daniel Goldhagen argues that 20th century Communist regimes “have killed more people than any other regime type.”[52] Other scholars in the fields of Communist studies and genocide studies, such as Steven Rosefielde, Benjamin Valentino, and R.J. Rummel, have come to similar conclusions.[2][26][53] Rosefielde states that it is possible the “Red Holocaust” killed more non-combatants than “Ha Shoah” and “Japan’s Asian holocaust” combined, and “was at least as heinous, given the singularity of Hitler’s genocide.” Rosefielde also notes that “while it is fashionable to mitigate the Red Holocaust by observing that capitalism killed millions of colonials in the twentieth century, primarily through man-made famines, no inventory of such felonious negligent homicides comes close to the Red Holocaust total.”[53] [Emphasis mine.]

My point is not to argue whether 6 million Jews died, or 600,000, or somewhere in between. It’s also not my point to argue whether all or any of those killed died by gassing. The point is that even granting everything claimed for the Jewish “Holocaust”, it pales before other “Holocausts”. Yet the Jews in their arrogance have managed to blind us to everything except what was done to them. That is because, once again, the Jews believe that no one else matters; in fact they don’t even exist as “people”.

It’s high time we started ignoring the arrogance of Jewish supremacists, and even started laughing at their nonsense. I don’t even try to hide the fact that I despise Zionism, the “Jewish State of Israel”, and the Judaism that provides the basis for them. But if I am accused of being “anti-Semitic” because of that, I will just laugh and reply: “Of course I’m not anti-Semitic; I love Palestinians – and Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, and Arabs!” To accuse me of “anti-Semitism” is as absurd as saying someone who for some reason has something against Ethiopians, is “anti-Black” – despite the fact that he is favorably disposed to people from Kenya, Sudan, Nigeria, the Congo, etc.

To define “Semite” as “a Jew” is as absurd as defining “Black Person” as “an Ethiopian”. It’s the same as the old saying that while it is correct to say a dog has 4 legs, it is not true to say an animal with 4 legs is a dog! (Cats, horses, sheep, lions, tigers, etc. all have 4 legs, but are certainly not dogs). A Jew may be a Semite (though there is considerable debate as to whether the majority of present day Jews are in fact Semites), but it is definitely NOT correct to say that a Semite is a Jew – no matter how many dictionaries give that as one of the definitions of “Semite”. And a person is not an “anti-Semite” just because he despises the religion of Judaism, or its ‘fruits’ of Zionism and “Israel”.

It is no more ‘evil’ to be anti-Judaism than it is to be anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, anti-Buddhist, etc. There can be no legitimate law outlawing dislike for – or even hatred for – any particular religion, or religion in general.

While citizens of the illegitimate State of “Israel” may be required to be loyal to that “State”, no other citizen of any other country in the world may be legitimately required to be loyal to or even like that criminal regime – any more than it can be required of any non-German or non-Iranian citizen to be loyal to or like those countries and their governments.

Let’s use our heads, think reasonably and critically, and repudiate Jewish myths and lies – and especially Jewish supremacism (as well as all other supremacist ideologies such as “white supremacism” and “black supremacism”).

Posted by: mystic444 | November 11, 2014

Master of lies Benjamin Netanyahu is at it again

In an article in Newsmax, Benjamin Netanyahu is quoted as making the following statement: “The leader of this country that is depicted by some as moderate, the Islamic State of Iran, has said in the last 48 hours: 1) that he calls for the annihilation of Israel — his words, not mine; 2) he gives nine ways and reasons of how and why Israel should be annihilated — his words, not mine,” Netanyahu said, the Times of Israel reported.

The problem with this statement is that it is a lie. Of course this is nothing new for Netanyahu; even though I put “at it again” in the title of this article, in fact Netanyahu lies nearly every time he opens his mouth! His reference here is to a set of 9 questions and answers that Ayatollah Khamenei posted on his Twitter account. These questions and answers can be found in the article to which I linked above.

If you read those answers, you will not find even one reference to “annihilating” Israel. There is one reference to “the elimination of Israel”; but this follows immediately on the call for “the elimination of this regime” (question and answer number 2). The actual two sentences read in this way: “The only means of bringing Israeli crimes to an end is the elimination of this regime. And of course the elimination of Israel does not mean the massacre of the Jewish people in this region. While the Ayatollah speaks often of eliminating the regime, this is the only time he spoke of eliminating Israel – making it clear at the same time that he is not referring to killing, massacring, or “annihilating” any Jewish people. His obvious meaning is that the “Israeli”/Jewish regime is to be eliminated.

The idea, very clearly presented, is that the Jewish government and control of Palestine must be removed, and government and control returned to the true Palestinians who were there before European Jews began to move there and steal the land from the Palestinian people.

This is the same sort of lying ‘spin’ that was given to a statement of former President Ahmadinejad and the late Ayatollah Khomeini who said “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”. This has repeatedly been distorted to a call for the destruction of Israel – some even going so far as to claim President Ahmadinejad called for the use of nuclear weapons to “destroy Israel”!

The suggestions of Ayatollah Khamenei are wise and sound. The “Israeli”/Jewish regime in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv must fall, and government be in the hands of the Palestinian people (Muslim, Christian, and Jewish) – and their families – who lived there before the influx of murdering, thieving European Jewish “Zionists”. The Palestinian people can then decide whether or not the “Zionists” can remain in Palestine.

Prime Minister Netanyahu should have said “my words, not his”, because that’s precisely what they were.

Posted by: mystic444 | October 19, 2014

Practicing the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights says this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Putting this into practice, though, can be problematic it seems – particularly because many “Christians” seem to believe, despite this statement, that Christianity has a privileged position in U.S. law. At the very least, some maintain, a generic belief in God can be “established” even if no particular religion is “established”. “Founding Fathers” such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison made it very clear, though, that this non-establishment clause meant that a person may believe in one God, twenty gods, or no god without governmental hindrance; and those who believe in God may belong to any religion, not just Christianity. Hindus, Muslims, and Jews (as well as all others) enjoy equal protection under this amendment.

Christians in general in the U.S.A. don’t want to let go of their perceived privilege over all others, though. I want to look at 3 recent cases which challenge the First Amendment.

(1) In 2007 in California Barry Hazle Jr. spent a year in prison as a result of a drug conviction. He was then paroled, but his parole contained a requirement that he attend a drug rehabilitation program. This was acceptable to Barry; but the problem was that the drug programs were religion (or ‘faith’) based, and Barry is an atheist. He was not interested in going to ‘religious’ drug rehabilitation sessions, and requested an alternative. While waiting for a hoped-for alternative, he attended the ‘faith-based’ sessions for about a month.

At the end of a month, though, the program he was in reported to his parole officer that he was being ‘disruptive’, though in a ‘congenial manner’. What does being disruptive in a congenial manner mean, I wonder? I suppose he wasn’t being ‘properly’ respectful toward the ‘Higher Power’ whose help he was supposed to seek – yet perhaps without being rude, and maybe being a bit humorous about the whole matter.

As a result of this report of ‘disruptiveness’, Barry’s parole was revoked and he was sent back to prison. Barry sued, and in 2008 a court ruled in his favor. However the jury refused to award him any compensation. Later the Appeals Court overturned the lower court ruling, saying that Barry was certainly due compensation for the injustice done to him. Recently, Barry has been awarded almost $2 million: $1 million from the State of California, and $925,000 from the Westcare facility which ran the rehabilitation program.

This case was clear: the State may not require anyone to attend any religious functions against their will. To do so would be to “establish” religion, and violate the individual’s right to freely express his/her religious (or non/anti-religious) beliefs. To be imprisoned because one does not wish to participate in a religious program – and perhaps one shows a bit of (humorous?) disrespect for the religion – is a clear and flagrant violation of the Constitution of the U.S.A. Those who violate this basic right should certainly have to compensate their victim.

(2) In Danielsville, Georgia, a monument with two Bible quotations on it was placed at the Madison County High School. The two quotations were: (A) “If God be for us, who can be against us?” [Romans 8:31]; and (B) “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” [Philippians 4:13]. But a couple of ‘atheist’ organizations took exception to this monument, with the result that the school board voted to change the wording on the monument (or perhaps remove it). Naturally, the local “Christians” are all upset over this “anti-Christian” decision, since they wrongly think Christianity is the established religion of the U.S.A. and has certain rights to promote itself that no other religion has.

The school board is absolutely correct, of course, in deciding to change the wording or remove the monument. The school is a “public” school, meaning it is financed by the Government. If it were a private school, receiving no government funding, there would be no problem. But the government is not allowed to “establish” or promote any religion; and obviously allowing a religious monument at a government funded school would violate that Constitutional prohibition.

The school board had 3 options to correct the situation. They could (A) remove the monument; (B) remove the Bible quotes from the monument; or (C) arrange to have monuments containing ‘scripture’ quotations from other religions (Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.) as well as perhaps some atheistic quotes – such as “there is no god to be for us” and “there is no Christ to strengthen me”. :lol: Apparently the school board has chosen option ‘B’.

Since the article says that the monument was intended to encourage the football team, I have to ask: exactly what sort of ‘encouragement’ were the football players supposed to receive from those Bible quotes? Were they supposed to imagine that for some unfathomable reason ‘God’ was going to favor them rather than their opponents? Is ‘Christ’ going to “strengthen” them rather than their opponents? This just shows the depths of darkness and stupidity into which “Christianity” has fallen, and would just about be enough to drive someone to atheism!

(3) In Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, a Satanic organization (based in New York) wants to place a statue of Baphomet (human body with a goat’s head) at the State Capitol. This quite naturally has “Christians” all over the country in an uproar.

This indignation of the “Christians”, though, just shows their hypocritical double standards, since the Satanists’ desire to place that statue is simply a response to the placing of a monument containing the 10 Commandments at the Oklahoma State Capitol. If the “Christians” can place a Biblical monument on State property, then by all means other religions ought to be able to place their own monuments and statues there – even such ‘offensive’ religions as Satanism!

In fact, according to this article linked to above, the State of Oklahoma put a moratorium on any further monuments at the Capitol “after it got requests from a Hindu group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.:lol: There has been no decision to remove the 10 Commandments monument though.

Here again is another flagrant violation of the U.S. Bill of Rights. In point of fact, the State of Oklahoma should not have any religious monuments, plaques, or statues on its properties. If they’re going to allow one religion to put up such material, though, then the Constitution requires that other religions be allowed to place their materials also in order to avoid favoritism and establishment. But again, “Christians” stupidly think they enjoy an ‘exceptional’ and ‘privileged’ position so that they can be ‘established’ whereas no other religion may be.

In contrast to this sense of “Christian exceptionalism”, let me introduce one other case. In Glendale, Wisconsin (a suburb of Milwaukee) a group of Jewish students at a public High School wanted to put up a “Sukkah” (booth/‘tabernacle’) in celebration of Sukkot (feast of booths/‘tabernacles’) this year. They were allowed to do so last year, and intended to do so again this year. But they got a surprise when their request was refused this time.

Why was it refused? The Jewish parents came to realize that it really wasn’t appropriate or Constitutional to be setting up a religious symbol at a public/government school; so they asked the school not to allow it. They realized that they would object to Christian symbols – such as a ‘manger scene’ – at ‘Christmas’ time (as well as Muslim or Hindu symbols), so it was inappropriate for them to put up their own symbols. What a pleasant contrast to the privileged treatment “Christians” tend to expect!

The Jewish students were permitted to set up the Sukkah across the street from the school, though, so the situation was handled to everyone’s satisfaction. Jewish students – and non-Jewish students who were interested – could cross the street to visit the Sukkah; but it could not be seen as a school/government supported display.

Anyone who has been reading my blog articles will know that I have no sympathy for the “Jewish State of Israel”, Zionism, and the Judaism which underlies them. This certainly doesn’t mean that no Jew can do anything right, however. In this case, I’m quite happy with the Jewish parents’ wise decision and their sense of ‘fair play’. This is one instance where “Christians” could well take a lesson from the Jews (or at least those particular Jews) – even though I would not expect Christians to embrace Judaism and would hope that they would denounce Zionism and the “Jewish State”.

Posted by: mystic444 | September 6, 2014

Jewish/Zionist Myths

If the Christian apostle Paul ever made a truthful statement, it surely was the following one from his letter to Titus (chapter 1:10-14 from the New Revised Standard version of the Bible): (10) There are also many rebellious people, idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision; (11) they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for sordid gain what is not right to teach. (12) It was one of them, their very own prophet, who said, “Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.” (13) That testimony is true. For this reason rebuke them sharply, so that they may become sound in faith, (14) not paying attention to Jewish myths or to commandments of those who reject the truth.

Now let me first deal with a common source of ridicule for this passage. If this is read with absolutely strict literalness, it presents an absurd contradiction. Paul quoted a Cretan ‘prophet’ who said “Cretans are always liars”, and Paul said the statement was true. If the (literally interpreted) statement is true, then that means that the Cretan ‘prophet’ was himself a liar and always spoke lies; therefore the statement must be a lie! One can ‘have fun’ with that kind of absurdity; but in reality it just points out that we shouldn’t be overly ‘literal’ in understanding what we read. While the ‘prophet’ (and Paul) obviously intended the statement as a generalized characterization of people from Crete, it did not mean literally that every Cretan is a liar, or that no Cretan ever says anything truthful – any more than Paul and others meant literally every Jew when they in general terms castigated “the Jews”.

Having pointed that out, notice that when Paul was warning against people who are rebellious, ‘idle talkers’, and deceivers, he singled out ‘the circumcision’ (Jews) as being especially guilty in that regard; and when he spoke of becoming “sound in faith”, he said that in order to attain to that soundness it was essential not to pay attention to “Jewish myths”.

I recently came across an article concerning an “Israeli” Jewish man named Miko Peled who has become an outspoken critic of modern Jewish myths. (Actually, he calls them “Zionist” myths or lies rather than “Jewish” myths/lies – insisting that “Zionism” and “Judaism” are completely different things. On that point I disagree with him, although at one time I also fell for that falsehood.)

Miko Peled was born in Jerusalem, the son of famous “Israeli” General Matti Peled, and grandson (if I remember correctly what he said) of a signer of the “Israeli” Declaration of Independence. The article I linked to gives excerpts from a talk he presented in Austin, Texas; and also provides the link to the video of the complete talk (60 minutes).

In this talk, Miko presents the sharp and complete contrast between the “Zionist” and Palestinian narratives of the Zionist endeavor which culminated in “the Jewish State of Israel”. He was raised on the “Zionist” narrative, and fully accepted it – with the exception that he always found troubling a story his mother told of being offered a house in Jerusalem (in 1948) just after the Palestinians had been driven out. His mother was just 22 years old at the time, and living with her mother in Jerusalem. Miko’s mother refused the house because she found it morally wrong to take the house of another family who had been driven out by the “Israeli” military. Miko couldn’t understand his mother’s moral dilemma, since the Zionist narrative left no apparent ground for such a dilemma.

While he found his mother’s story troubling because it ‘poked holes’ in the Zionist narrative on which he was raised, he nevertheless didn’t seriously question that narrative for a long time. In 1997, though – while he was living in the USA – he received word that his sister’s 13 or 14 year old daughter (in “Israel”) had been killed in a suicide attack. He immediately flew to “Israel”, only to find that his sister was outspokenly blaming the “Israeli” government for her daughter’s death, and said she completely understood what led the Palestinians to carry out such attacks. (That of course created quite a furor, since her father was the famous General Matti Peled). This is what finally caused Miko to reexamine the Zionist narrative. The result of his personal examination and study was that he completely rejected the Zionist mythology and sided with the Palestinian cause.

He now believes that the “two-State solution” is simply not viable. There are only two possible “solutions” to the “Israel”/Palestine controversy: either (1) one “Jewish State” of “Israel” embracing the whole land currently divided between “Israel” and “Palestine”; or (2) one democratic and ‘secular’ State of Palestine – embracing the whole currently divided land – in which all citizens, of whatever race or religion, are fully equal. Miko Peled wholeheartedly embraces solution 2, as do I. And he exposes the Jewish (or Zionist) myths and lies which underlie the “Jewish State of Israel”. I highly recommend the article and video.

[I have reposted this article from the blog site Ascertain the Truth. — SGP]]


“Lady al Qaeda: The World’s Most Wanted Woman” – A Response
Published on Thursday, 28 August 2014 09:28 | Written by Mauri Salaakhan | Print | Email
FacebookTwitterGoogle bookmark

11006 Veirs Mill Rd, STE L-15, PMB 298
Silver Spring, MD. 20902

(August 27, 2014)

Assalaamu Alaikum (Greetings of Peace):

This comes in response to an article at that a number of concerned folk have brought to my attention.

My Response to: “Lady al Qaeda: The World’s Most Wanted Woman,” by Shane Harris

Dr. Aafia Siddui Before and After

As someone who attended the trial of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui and witnessed the so-called “evidence” first hand, let me point out a certain number of FACTS, which anyone can easily access by merely examining the court record which is now in the public domain.

1. The government’s star witnesses contradicted themselves so much under oath that they should have been charged with perjury; but they weren’t because they were the government’s witnesses.

2. The judge in the case, Richard Berman, was openly biased against Dr. Siddiqui from start to finish, and gave the prosecution virtually everything of consequence that it asked for.

3. Judge Berman ordered that the FIVE MISSING YEARS in this tragedy (2003 to 2008) were off limits during the trial. Those were the years when Aafia and her children were missing as a result of the rendition operation that was conducted against them in March 2003. The only way that any of the information about the kidnapping and five years of secret imprisonment came out was when Dr. Siddiqui took the stand and forced (under repeated objections from the prosecution) the court to hear it. She testified, among other things, of how when she was secretly imprisoned her captors would force her to copy documents in her own handwriting, under the threat that not to do so would endanger the lives of her children. These were the documents placed in the bag that she was given upon her brief release in Afghanistan (the classic setup).

4. I find it intriguing how the weapon that Aafia was supposed to have attempted to murder U.S. personnel with (described in court testimony as an M-4 Rifle) has moved from the FLOOR to a TABLE in the years since the trial. The truth of the matter is (as the Afghan Police Commander stated in a sworn affidavit that was entered into the record during the trial), “The prisoner never touched a weapon.”

5. ALL OF THE HARD EVIDENCE WAS IN DR. SIDDIQUI’S FAVOR DURING THE TRIAL. The only bullet casings that were recovered from the floor of the crime scene after the fact were the bullet casing of the weapon used to shoot Dr. Siddiqui – fired from the weapon of an American soldier who panicked after abruptly, and unexpectedly, seeing the prisoner appear unrestrained from behind a curtain in the room. In this crowded room full of Afghan and American soldiers, FBI, and probably CIA, and the Afghan police commander she was the only one shot – because as the Afghan commander said, “The prisoner never fired a weapon” – only the American soldier did!

6. It is also important to note that while the jury allowed itself to be emotionally and psychologically bum-rushed into a finding of “guilt” despite the lack of evidence to support a guilty verdict, THE JURY NEVER FOUND THAT DR. SIDDIQUI FIRED A WEAPON! This was a determination that a biased jurist (Richard Berman) openly decided for himself – in a feeble attempt to justify a sentence of 86 YEARS for “attempted murder,” when many murderers throughout America don’t even receive a sentence like that!

7. Perhaps the most stark indication of the completely bogus nature of the government’s case against Dr. Siddiqui, is the FACT that while she was accused of being a high-ranking female facilitator for al-Qaeda (an accusation ridiculous on its face) SHE WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH COMMITTING AN ACT OF TERRORISM; she wasn’t even charged with “conspiracy to commit terrorism” – one of the easiest charges that an out of control government can bring against someone where hard evidence is absent. (We see it all the time with the preemptive prosecution cases involving young Muslim males in America, with the agency of government paid agent-provocateurs.)

And despite never being charged with even one terrorism-related count, we still find writers and “journalists” retailing the same old garbage. In this regard, I am reminded of the words of the French philosopher Voltaire: “Those who can make us believe absurdities, can also cause us to commit atrocities.”

I could go on and on, but I’ll stop here with a few final points. When Dr. Siddiqui was kidnapped with her children in March 2003, I believe it was based solely on devilish Dick Cheney’s “One Percent Doctrine.” Part of the same faulty reasoning (or deliberate con) that carried us into a full blown war with Iraq based on “weapons of mass destruction” that didn’t exist. Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was targeted because she was a brilliant and actively committed Muslim woman, or she was “collateral damage” resulting from faulty intelligence.

If the latter, there has been a determined regime of cover-up ever since! She is like the innocent men and boys of Guantanamo, who were bought and sold like livestock – shamefully at the hands of some of their very own so-called Muslim brethren. As in the case of Gitmo, to admit mistakes were made, and that innocent lives were severely damaged or destroyed would undermine the whole raison d’ter for an unending, profit driven war!

At a time when the U.S. and Pakistan were still animatedly denying that Dr. Aafia Siddiqui (and her CHILDREN) had been targets of rendition at the hands of American and Pakistani agents (during the corrupt Musharraf government), the former foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, admitted they were, and expressed his profound regret for sharing some responsibility. That’s an EXPLOSIVE ADMISSION that no sane person would make willy-nilly. His conscience was apparently weighing heavy on him. Let us pray that the conscience of those with the power to set this innocent woman free (after 11 years of living hell) will awaken and also compel them to do what is right.

Of the three children who were kidnapped along with a loving mother – their ages at the time of the 2003 rendition operation were 6, 4, and six months – the two oldest (American citizens by birth) were returned to the family home in 2008 and 2010 respectively. The youngest child, who was just six months old at the time, is still missing to this day and presumed dead! Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, now 85 and still active, has described Dr. Siddiqui’s plight as “the worst case of individual injustice” that he has ever seen. In this writer’s quarter century of human rights work in America it’s the worst I’ve ever seen.


Finally, the FACTS noted above are the reason why millions of people around the world (including “militants,” “jihadists,” and/or “terrorists” in Muslim populated countries) are calling for this prisoner’s release. As long as she remains imprisoned in America her unjust captivity will serve as a vivid reminder of America’s contradictions; it will also serve as a source of anger and antagonism toward an unjust and fundamentally un-American foreign policy ….the better of the “two Americas

Posted by: mystic444 | August 24, 2014

Who is Responsible for the Death of Gazans?

Imagine a hostage situation in the USA. Criminals have entered some public building and taken people hostage at gunpoint. All manner of law enforcement personnel, including a SWAT team, are surrounding the building. The police issue a statement that the hostages have between 1 and 10 minutes to flee the building; after that time a missile will be fired into the building in order to kill the criminals. After the allotted time (in which none of the hostages have managed to escape) the police (SWAT team perhaps) do indeed fire the missile into the building, destroying it and killing the criminals as well as about 3 times more hostages than criminals – severely injuring those who were not killed.

Afterward, the police crow about how ‘restrained’ they were in their actions; they did everything they possibly could to kill only the criminals and protect the hostages. Why, they ought to be given a Nobel Peace Prize for their almost unimaginable restraint! The death of hostages was not their fault, they exclaim; no, it was entirely the fault of the criminal hostage holders! What would you think of the supposed ‘restraint’ of the police? If you have any common sense and decency, you would be loudly protesting and advocating the arrest of those law enforcement officers!

But that is precisely the situation in Gaza – according to the “Israelis’” own account of the situation! According to the “Israelis’” account, the Hamas resistance is a criminal organization which is holding hostage its Gaza citizens and using them as “human shields” while they make awful demands of the very moral and peaceful “Israeli” government. It’s not the fault of the “most moral military in the world” if those hostage Gazan citizens die when they fire their missiles into the Gazan houses, mosques, schools and hospitals (which this “moral army” assures us are all Hamas “command centers” or shelters for those evil Hamas terrorists). It’s entirely the fault of the Hamas agents who are using those “human shields.”

In fact, according to “Israel’s” own version of the story, it’s not even the fault of the Gazan victims that they didn’t flee. They couldn’t flee because Hamas wouldn’t let them. Even if they theoretically could have escaped, they were too afraid of the consequences (from Hamas) to make the attempt. Those citizens of Gaza are supposedly more afraid of Hamas than they are of “Israeli” missiles! Nevertheless, with great “restraint” the “Israeli” soldiers go ahead and deliberately kill the hostages (or “human shields”) along with any Hamas soldiers that might actually be present. And we’re supposed to highly praise them for their “restraint” and “morality”, especially if they gave the citizens 1 to 10 minutes to flee.

I say that out of their own mouths the “Israelis” are condemned!! It’s not “restraint” or “morality” to deliberately kill “hostages” and “human shields” in order to kill the criminals holding the hostages. No decent law enforcement agency would do such a thing – presumably because they consider it too much effort to try to find some other way to get at the criminals without hurting the hostages. And it would be purely laughable – if it weren’t in fact so horrifying – for them to then have the audacity to claim that they acted with unimaginable “restraint” when they killed the hostages and destroyed the building itself because the criminals were in it.

In reality, though, the “Israeli” version of the story about Gaza is pure nonsense and fable. It is not Hamas which is the “terrorist” group holding hostage the citizens of Gaza. That dishonor belongs to the truly terrorist “Jewish State of Israel” and its accomplice Egypt, inasmuch as they control the borders of Gaza – meaning they control who and what enters and leaves Gaza. And the Gazan citizens do not live in fear of Hamas; Hamas is not preventing them from fleeing their homes if they wish to (though the 1 to 10 minute warning that “most moral army” gives them is hardly sufficient time to flee). They either courageously choose to remain and give the “Israeli” army the opportunity to prove the level of their “restraint”, or they have some physical disability preventing them from escaping (old age, ill health, injury, etc.) Many in fact willingly choose deliberate defiance of the unjust and terrorist “Israelis”, in solidarity with the Hamas government which they chose and whose resistance they admire. Many more, however, do in fact flee to other places (such as schools which are supposed to enjoy protection) – only to have the “moral and restrained” “Israeli” army shoot missiles at that place of refuge!

Human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as reporters like Chris Hedges, have told us that they have found no evidence of Hamas using “human shields”. There is no evidence of the existence of Hamas “command centers” and “weapons storage” in those homes, schools, and hospitals which the “moral” army of “Israel” attacked – at least in most of them; it’s all mere “Israeli” lies and fables. It’s apparently true that weapons were found stored in a couple of ‘schools’ – which the mainstream media played up very heavily. But what seems to be overlooked by most advocates of the “human shields” story is that those 2 ‘schools’ were vacant. They were not in use, so there were no citizens (adults or children) present to be “human shields”!

No, it is not Hamas which is to blame for the deaths of Gaza citizens; the blame belongs entirely to the terrorist “Jewish State”. That kind of viciousness is deeply embedded in their consciousness by means of their vile “scriptures”, which over and over teach them not to leave any of their “enemies” alive; God Himself demands that men, women, children, and livestock be ‘holocausted’ – totally destroyed. Their Rabbis and many of their political leaders insist on the legitimacy of this genocidal mentality. May the “Jewish State” be completely abolished, and a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” (Jew and Gentile; Christian, Muslim, and Jew as well as any other people who are citizens there) be established in Palestine. And by “Palestine” I mean not only Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem; but the whole land which now is divided between “Israel” and “Palestine”.

That’s all of my ‘ranting’ for this time; but as an added bonus, let me leave you with this link to a wonderful defense of Palestine and Hamas by Dr. Rania Masri – delivered recently in Raleigh, North Carolina (United States of America). A number of people have recently made the news by making statements condemning “Israel” and supporting the Palestinians – only to backtrack and “clarify” their statements when Zionists started attacking them. I am quite sure that this passionate lady (Rania) is not going to take back anything she says just because defenders of “Israel” don’t like what she said! :smile: This article contains excerpts from her talk; but there are a couple of links – at the beginning and end of the article – to the video of the entire talk (30 minutes). Enjoy it! (Or hate it if you are a Zionist defender of “the Jewish State”!)

Posted by: mystic444 | August 14, 2014

Extraterrestrials and the Bible

I don’t keep up with the debates between creationists and evolutionists, and I don’t really hold a definite conviction on the controversy. I do know that evolutionist Neil deGrasse Tyson and Biblical creationist Ken Ham have been known to debate each other on the subject.

A couple of weeks ago I read a news report about some comments Mr. Ham made about a tangentially related subject – extraterrestrials – and the three word comment Mr. Tyson made concerning Ken Ham’s statements. It seems that Ken has stated that search for extraterrestrial life is useless for two reasons: (1) the Bible supposedly teaches that earth is a “special creation” of God – I suppose all those other planets and star systems are just there for show; and (2) if extraterrestrials do exist, they’re hopelessly lost and destined to hell, inasmuch as the whole of creation was ruined by the sin of Adam – but only earthly descendents of Adam and Eve can be “saved” by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ!

Neil’s short comment on this was “that’s messed up”! I consider that to be an extremely polite and diplomatic response. :lol: Ken Ham’s statement is so nonsensical that it doesn’t even match up with what the Bible itself teaches – if one were inclined to accept the accuracy and truthfulness of that book (and Ken Ham claims to be a firm believer in the Bible).

I would like to consider both of Ken Ham’s points, beginning with point #2. This point stated that although extraterrestrials would have suffered the effects of Adam’s sin, Jesus Christ only redeemed and reconciled to God the descendants of Adam; and extraterrestrials would obviously not fit into that category. Now although the apostle Paul does seem to have taught the (absurd) notion that somehow all of creation was adversely affected by the sin of one earthly human, Adam, the very verses that teach this (absurd) notion are the ones that explicitly say that the whole of creation shares in Jesus Christ’s redeeming sacrifice! The effects of Adam’s sin and Jesus’ righteousness are co-extensive according to the teaching of Paul. (Ken Ham claims to believe in the infallibility of the apostle Paul as an “inspired” messenger of Jesus Christ. I don’t make any such claim.)

Consider for instance this passage from Romans 8 (English Standard Version): Rom 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. Rom 8:19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, IN HOPE Rom 8:21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. Rom 8:23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (By saying “not only the creation”, Paul clearly meant that “the creation” is included among those eagerly awaiting adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.)

Surely any extraterrestrials are part of “creation”, and therefore are among those who will be set free from … bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. And what about the angels, seraphim, and cherubim? They are surely part of “creation” – and therefore must be (according to Paul) suffering the consequences of Adam’s sin. But they are not descendents of Adam. So would Ken Ham have us believe that the angels (including such “archangels” as Michael and Gabriel) are hopelessly lost and destined for hell because they can’t participate in Jesus Christ’s redemption? I’m sure that Ken does not believe any such thing; certainly Paul didn’t as is obvious from the quotation from Romans 8.

Consider one other verse from the letters of Paul, before moving on to Ken Ham’s first point. Colossians 1:20 says: and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven [literally “the heavens” – SGP], making peace by the blood of his cross. Clearly the implication of this statement is that Paul considered that all things – both on earth and in the heavens – were corrupted and stood in need of being reconciled to God. The actual direct statement is that in fact all things – both on earth and in the heavens – have been reconciled to, and brought to peace with, God! And “extraterrestrials” are by definition beings who are not “on (or from) earth” and are therefore “in (or from) the heavens”. According to Paul, then, extraterrestrials would be participants in the effects of Jesus Christ’s “atonement”. Ken Ham doesn’t know what he’s talking about, even when it comes to the Bible! :roll:

Now let’s consider the first point raised by Mr. Ham. He believes that searching for extraterrestrial life is a waste of time because Earth is a “special creation”. God apparently has a “special purpose” which is fulfilled only in Earth humanity. Although God created the seemingly endless Universe (or Universes), He would seem to have “tunnel vision” which is focused totally on this one otherwise insignificant planet.

Of course, the Bible itself acknowledges the existence of extraterrestrial life: the “heavenly hosts” of angels and archangels, seraphim and cherubim, etc. But in Ken Ham’s “Christianity” these extraterrestrial hosts are no doubt focused (just as God is in this absurd “theology”) totally on Earth and the humans who inhabit it. That is the point of the creation of “angels”: to serve humans! One would think that just the stating of such an idea would be enough to refute it, since it is so ridiculous.

Certainly, in traditional “Christian” theology (and I guess also Jewish and Muslim theologies), these angelic hosts are pure spirit beings, not material beings coming in spaceships from other planets. However, there are hints even in the “Scriptures” as we have them that such a view is not entirely accurate. Some of these hints would seem to be much more in line with modern day understanding of “UFOs” coming from other planets, and very material “angels” with bodies pretty much indistinguishable from Earth humans. These hints come in both “Testaments” of the Bible. For instance in the “Old Testament” (“Hebrew Scriptures”) Genesis 6:1-4 speaks of certain mysterious “sons of God” who took as wives the “daughters of men”. The progeny of this relationship were “giants” or “Nephilim” – “mighty men” and “men of renown”. Also, many people have noted that Ezekiel’s visions of wheels in the air, wheels within wheels, correspond very well with modern day UFO sightings – taking into account the differences in scientific and technological understanding between then and now, which would affect the terminology used to describe the visions.

I would like to focus on some instances in the Christian “gospels”, though, since Ken Ham is so convinced that his “Christian” theology is completely opposed to extraterrestrial life (at least the kind from other planets). It is so ironic that there are events within the Biblical accounts of the life of Jesus Christ which are best explained – in fact can only be reasonably explained – by extraterrestrials and spaceships as we understand such things today. Extraterrestrials were intimately involved in the birth, baptism, ‘resurrection’, and ‘ascension’ of Jesus! :shock:

First consider the story of “the star of Bethlehem” in Matthew’s account of the birth of Jesus (Matthew 2:1-12). In this story certain “wise men” (magi) from “the East” saw a peculiar “star” in the sky – which they were able to conclude signaled the birth of a “king of the Jews”. The “wise men” then went to Jerusalem – presumably led by the “star”, though Matthew does not specifically say so – and started asking where this newborn Jewish king was. After talking with “Herod the king”, they then were led by the “star” to Bethlehem (Matthew here specifically says the “star” led them), and the “star” came to a stop over the place where the child was.

This story has long been considered an example of the historical and scientific inaccuracy of the Bible. No star, comet, or meteor known to man could move slowly in front of men on foot or riding camels or horses to guide them somewhere, and then come to a stop directly over the point to which it was leading them. There is simply no reasonable explanation for such an account – unless it is compared to modern day UFO sightings. Were a similar account to be written today, it would immediately be labeled a UFO sighting. The writer of Matthew didn’t know what to make of such a strange light in the sky, so he called it a “star”. But the ‘gospel story’ matches modern UFO sightings very nicely.

Then at the other end of the earthly life of Jesus (at least as recorded in the Bible) we have the story of Jesus’ ‘ascension into heaven’ (Acts 1:6-11). Here is another account which is considered a scientific absurdity, and is frequently ridiculed. Jesus is said to have been “lifted up” into the sky until a cloud hid him from the viewers. Aside from the levitation itself, where did Jesus go to after the cloud hid him? Did he just keep going until he reached a “throne” out in space somewhere, upon which God is seated? Obviously that’s ridiculous, and so the ascension story is frequently mocked.

However, again such a story is very consistent with modern day UFO accounts. There are frequent accounts of a blue beam of light shining down from a hovering spaceship, in which beam spaceship occupants as well as humans are observed either descending from the ship or ascending to it. So perhaps there was a spaceship hovering behind the clouds outside of Jerusalem, and Jesus was levitated up to the ship. Certainly such an account would fit in very well with the modern UFO phenomena. Alternatively, though, perhaps the spaceship had landed, Jesus got into the ship, and then it was the ship that rose up until clouds hid it. Either way, it seems to me that UFO involvement is the only way to make any real sense of the ‘ascension story’ in the Bible.

Then there are the stories of a voice being heard from heaven (or from a bright cloud) proclaiming Jesus to be “my beloved son”. In the gospel accounts this occurred at Jesus’ baptism by John (Matthew 3:13-17), and at the “transfiguration” (Matthew 17:1-8). When one reads such accounts in the light of the present day UFO stories, it is not hard to understand. Otherwise one must just imagine the gospel writers were giving us some very imaginative myths.

Interestingly, there is a “gospel” discovered relatively recently (1963) which makes explicit the extraterrestrial involvement hinted at in our ‘official’ “gospel” accounts. This “gospel” is called “Talmud Jmmanuel” (the “J” in Jmmanuel is the equivalent of the English “I”), though this “Talmud” has no relationship at all with the Jewish Talmud (“Babylonian” or “Jerusalem Talmud”). The word “Talmud” comes from the three letter Hebrew root word meaning “to learn or to teach”; therefore a “Talmud” is the teaching or instruction which is learned or taught. So “Talmud Jmmanuel” means “Immanuel’s Instructions or Teachings”. This “Talmud” is said to have been discovered in 1963 by two men, in a tomb outside of Jerusalem which they believed to have been the tomb in which the body of Jesus/Immanuel was placed after the crucifixion. It was written in Aramaic; but unfortunately the original documents were later destroyed in an Israeli attack on a refugee camp in Lebanon where one of the discoverers was living. He had managed to translate about ¼ of the material into German before the documents were destroyed. That of course makes it impossible to run verifying tests on the documents to see if they really were as old as they claim to be.

For anyone interested, an online English translation of the “Talmud Jmmanuel” can be found here. In addition, a comparison with the Gospel of Matthew (to which the Talmud Jmmanuel bears a striking resemblance, although there are also many very important differences) can be found here. The comparison was made by James W. Deardorff, and the site contains links to several other articles he wrote concerning subjects relating to the contents of the “TJ”. More complete information about the “TJ” – its content and teachings, its author, and its discoverers – can be found at these two sites.

As I said, this “Talmud Jmmanuel” makes explicit what is hinted at in the ‘official’ Gospels concerning UFO and extraterrestrial involvement in the life of Immanuel (Jesus). For instance, concerning the ‘ascension into heaven’ recorded in Acts 1 (verse 9), it has this to say: TJ 32:49-53 49And it came to pass, that while he was speaking to them in this manner, a thundering came from the sky, and a great light descended. 50The light settled on the ground not far from them, and it glittered like metal in the sunlight. 51Jmmanuel spoke no more, but went to the metallic light and entered into it. 52Then, however, a haze arose all around it. Once again a thundering began and the light ascended back into the sky. 53And the disciples returned to Jerusalem in secret and made known the events among their own kind. (This was copied from Mr. Deardorff’s comparison). Chapter 33:1 tells us that the “great light” took Immanuel to Damascus in Syria, where he lived for two years before beginning a long journey which would eventually find him in India – where he lived to approximately AD 115 and then died a natural death. (According to the “TJ”, Immanuel did not actually die by crucifixion, but was “near death”.)

The “TJ”, then, teaches what I presented as an alternative explanation of the “ascension”: instead of Immanuel/Jesus being levitated by a light from the hovering spacecraft, the spacecraft landed on the earth and Immanuel entered into it. Then the spacecraft itself rose up into the air and was obscured by the cloud/haze which arose around the craft. All of this is very explicit – no confusing talk of a “star”.

At the birth of Jesus, the “wise men” explained their mission, to Herod, in this way (chapter 2:2-5): 2″Where is the newborn king of wisdom of the Jews? 3We have seen a bright light in the sky and heard a voice saying, 4’Follow the tail of the light, because the king of wisdom of the Jews is born, who will bring great knowledge.’ 5Therefore we have come to adore the newborn king of wisdom.” The “tail of the light” probably refers to the blue light which is sometimes observed to shine down from the hovering spacecraft. And note that the “TJ” explains how the “wise men” were able to connect the “light” to the birth of a “king” in Judea. They heard a voice from the spacecraft telling them about this “king of wisdom”, rather than being left to deduce it from astrological calculations and perhaps knowledge of “scriptures”.

Then when they left Herod, the “bright light” with the “tail” led them on to Bethlehem: TJ 2:14 14After they [the magi] had listened to Herod Antipas, they departed. And behold, the light with the long tail, which they had observed in the Orient, moved ahead of them with a high singing sound until it reached Bethlehem and stood directly over the stable where the infant was born. This is all very consistent with modern day UFO sightings.

At the baptism of Immanuel by John the Baptist, instead of the “Holy Spirit” descending in the form of a dove, we read this: TJ 3:30 30When Jmmanuel had been baptized, he soon came out of the water of the Jordan, and behold, a metallic light fell from the sky and rushed over the Jordan. TJ 3:31-32 31Consequently they all fell on their faces and pressed them into the sand while a voice from the metallic light spoke, 32″This is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased. He will be the king of truth, through which the terrestrial human species shall rise as wise ones.” After this, instead of the “Holy Spirit” leading Jesus into “the wilderness” where he was “tempted by the devil” for 40 days, the TJ says that Immanuel entered into the “metallic light” which then rose in fire and smoke and carried him away to another land for 40 days. During that time he was instructed by the occupants of the spacecraft. Chapter 4 of the TJ tells us some of the instructions given to Immanuel.

The voice heard proclaiming that Immanuel was his beloved son would undoubtedly belong to Gabriel, the “celestial son” (traveler from a far distant point in the Universe) whom the TJ and Jmmanuel himself consistently insist is the “father” of Jmmanuel. It is emphatically denied that “god” is Immanuel’s “father”; and “god” in the TJ is not the Creator and Sustainer of all things, but is simply the leader of the “celestial sons” who came to earth from far away in the Universe. “God” is the greatest of those travelers in knowledge, understanding, and wisdom – but not “the Creator”. In fact, the TJ does not acknowledge a “Creator”; the Ultimate Existence is “Creation” Itself, and is self-existing without beginning or ending. It seems to me to be a poor choice of words to describe the All-in-All, since “Creation” implies a Creator – but in the TJ “Creation” is uncreated. It refers to the eternal “Source”, the “material” from which everything is formed. It is genderless Intelligence, and is “the Whole” of which we are all “parts”.

You may accept or reject this “Talmud of Jmmanuel”; but the things concerning UFOs and extraterrestrials which are explicit in it, are definitely hinted at in the ‘official’ Bible and very reasonably derived from that Bible. Sorry, Ken Ham; extraterrestrials are not only “out there”, but have been involved in earth events for a very long time – including being intimately involved in the events surrounding that wonderful man called Immanuel/Jesus!

Posted by: mystic444 | July 13, 2014

Israeli “Self Defense” and Pursuit of Peace

Imagine the situation where organized crime (let’s call it the Mafia) has taken control of a neighborhood or town. Mafia agents have by illicit means gained control of houses and businesses and have evicted or murdered legitimate residents or business people. Those whom they have allowed to stay are subject to a ‘protection racket’: the Mafia promises ‘protection’ in exchange for a fee. The only problem is that the violence from which the people are being ‘protected’ is the violence the Mafia will perform if the people don’t pay the ‘protection’ fee.

Now imagine further that some of the oppressed people (whether those who were evicted and the families of those who were murdered, or those who have been permitted to remain) decide to resist the powerful Mafia; they refuse to pay the ‘protection’ money and meet the Mafia collectors with weapons – or those who were evicted form armed militias to take back their former possessions. Question: does the criminal Mafia have a legal right of ‘self defense’ against the resistance of the oppressed residents/former residents and business people? Are the residents/former residents ‘terrorists’ for violently resisting the oppression of the criminal Mafia?

I would think that anyone possessing any ‘common sense’ would join me in answering with an emphatic “NO” to those questions. The resistance of the oppressed against the Mafia is the legitimate act of self defense; and the agents of resistance are brave and ‘heroes’ even if their resistance is weak and mostly futile. The so-called ‘self defense’ of the Mafia is instead just a continuation of their criminal aggression. The only ‘right’ the Mafia has is to cease and desist from its oppression and terrorism.

This is precisely the situation with the “Jewish State of Israel” and Palestine. The “Jewish State of Israel” is organized crime. From the very beginnings of “Zionism”, the Jewish Zionists sought to evict or kill the legitimate occupants of Palestine and form their own nation of “Israel”. In this effort they have been partially successful, forming the nation of “Israel” in 1948. Thus far, though, they have not managed to steal the whole “Promised Land” (from the Nile to the Euphrates); so far they have been forced to allow a portion of the land to remain in the possession of Palestinians – though even that portion is actually under “Israeli” control. Palestine is still not formally recognized as a “State” – though “Israel” demands their own right to exist as a “Jewish State”. Palestine is not allowed to form their own military and “legally” obtain weapons; those resistance groups who sneak in weapons and make weak and mostly ineffectual efforts at active resistance are labeled “terrorists”.

The organized crime family of “Israel” has duped “Western” nations into accepting the idea that they had a right to murder or evict the residents of Palestine; and that their present continuation of aggression against the Palestinians is simply ‘self defense’ in pursuit of their supposed “right” to exist as a nation in stolen territory. Just as the Mafia had/has ‘bought and paid for’ representatives in police and government who cover for and protect Mafia activities; so “Israel” has “bought and paid for” representatives in “Western” government, military, media, and entertainment who loudly maintain the ‘justice’ of the “Israeli” cause, and make sure “Western” governments continue to support “Israel’s” ‘right of self defense’ against those Palestinian ‘terrorists’.

That, of course, is as much a load of excrement as the Mafia claiming they have the right to “defend themselves” against the people whom they oppress. I for one simply will not acknowledge such a “right” for the “Israelis”; but I will most certainly grant that right to the oppressed Palestinians who have the courage to resist “Israeli” crime and corruption – whether that resistance is labeled “Hamas”, “Hezbollah”, or just simply “Palestinian resistance”. Long live that resistance, and may the “Jewish State” be dissolved and government of the whole land (currently divided between “Israel” and “Palestine”) be returned to the Palestinians.

Another deception of the “Israelis” is the idea that all they want is “peace”. Jewish propagandists repeat over and over that “Israel” has continually pursued “peace”, but those awful Palestinians just won’t accept it! This is another load of excrement. Those Jews who genuinely do desire to pursue peace are those who are siding with the Palestinians – with varying degrees of consistency, however. The most consistent are those such as “Neturei Karta” who openly proclaim that “Zionism” was an evil thing from its beginnings toward the end of the 19th century, and the consequent “Jewish State of Israel” has absolutely no legitimacy. They agree that the “Jewish State” should be dissolved, and the land and its government be returned to the Palestinian people from whom the land was stolen. The less consistent somehow adhere to the essential “right” of the “Israeli State” to exist, but denounce present day atrocities committed by that State (such as illegal settlements in the occupied territories, and the vicious military attacks against Gaza).

In reality, though, the pursuit of peace with “Gentiles” by the Jews is quite opposite to the teaching of the “Torah” (“Law of Moses”) which forms the foundation of Jewish religion and culture. In fact, the “Torah” specifically forbids such a pursuit! Listen to what the supposed “Word of God” says about the Jews’ relationship to the Ammonites and Moabites. Because those peoples didn’t welcome the invading Israelites with open arms, Deuteronomy 23:3-6 says that no member of those peoples may ever enter the assembly of the LORD. In fact, this emphatic command is given (verse 6): You shall not seek their peace or prosperity all your days forever.

Then there was this commandment concerning 7 “nations” whom the Israelites would encounter when entering the “Promised Land” of Palestine (in other words, the legitimate occupiers of that land): … when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them (Deuteronomy 7:2). There is certainly no basis for pursuing peace with Palestinians there!!

Once again, consider the supposed commandment of God concerning the Midianites in Numbers 31. The LORD, we are told, commanded Moses to get revenge on those evil Midianites because they had been complicit in the hiring of Balaam to “curse” Israel. Balaam came up with the idea of having the Palestinian women seduce the Israelite men – thus causing the Israelite men to ‘sin against God’. So, in keeping with “the LORD’s” commandment to get revenge, the Israelites attacked Midian, killed all the men, and took the women and children captive. But Moses became extremely angry that the women and children had been permitted to live; so in verses 17 and 18 (of Numbers 31) Moses commanded that all the male children should be killed, and also all females who were not virgins! All the virgin female children, though, they could keep alive for yourselves! My, what a peace loving, moral “LORD”! :roll:

No, Judaism has no place for seeking the peace of Gentiles. And “the Jewish State of Israel” has not been in pursuit of such an ideal since its founding, despite their lying, deceptive propaganda to the contrary. Even those “Jews” who are atheists have still had this Biblical antagonism toward the Gentiles firmly planted in their consciousness (or subconscious); so it’s there even if they don’t have “God” as an excuse for it.

Still, the Bible is very contradictory; so a Jew who truly has a good heart can find indications here and there in the Hebrew Scriptures that there at least once existed a more open and less vicious Israelite teaching. That would have been before the scribes falsified the “Law of the LORD” so that the true “Law” ceased to exist among the Jews (Jeremiah 8:8) – and thus ‘Judaism’ came into being. Jews who are truly uncomfortable with, or offended by, the atrocious teachings in their “Scriptures” can indeed find hints of this early form of religion and grab hold of them. How they deal with the more usual evil teachings I don’t know; I’ll leave that to them to figure out.

So, for instance, one can point out that the wife of Moses was a Midianite woman; and her father was the priest of Midian (Exodus chapters 2 and 3). In Exodus 18 we are told that Moses honored his Midianite priest father-in-law Jethro and was quite willing to accept and put into practice some sound advice he gave to Moses. This is quite a contrast to the vicious treatment of Midianites attributed to God and Moses in Numbers 31.

It can also be pointed out that King David’s grandmother was a Moabite (despite the strong injunctions against Moabites and Ammonites in Deuteronomy 23). Her name was Ruth, and she has a book in the Hebrew Scriptures named after her (and dedicated to telling her story). It seems that Ruth’s Jewish father-in-law Elimelech and Jewish mother-in-law Naomi moved to the land of Moab when there was a famine in Israel. In Moab, their 2 sons married Moabite women (Ruth and Orpah). Apparently they weren’t familiar with the supposed commandments in “the Law of Moses” against seeking the peace and prosperity of Moabites, and against permitting a Moabite to “enter into the assembly of the LORD”! (I’m sure they weren’t, because it was much later that the scribes falsified the “Law” and inserted their lies.)

Elimelech and his two sons died in the land of Moab, and eventually Naomi decided to return to Israel when she heard that the famine was over. Orpah was persuaded to remain in Moab with her people and gods; but Ruth was determined to stay with Naomi and adopt the Israelite people and their God as her own. In Israel, Ruth met and married Boaz, who was a kinsman of Elimelech (Naomi’s deceased husband). Boaz and Ruth had a son named Jesse; and Jesse was the father of David.

As pointed out in a previous article (Is God the Author of “the Law of Moses”?) a number of the Prophets repudiated the Torah, saying it did not represent the true Law of the LORD. I’m sure that it is quite possible that there are Jews today who are more in line with those Prophets in repudiating “the Law” and the Talmud, than they are with Judaism. They would perhaps agree with the Prophet Micah (6:8): He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? Such Jews will side with the Palestinians against the viciousness of the “Israeli” State – even if they believe that the existence of the “Israeli” State is legitimate.

Older Posts »



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29 other followers