Islamophobophobia: Politically Correct Persecution

All hate speech should be condemned.

Qur’an 5:51—O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.

Qur’an 98:6—Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.

Qur’an 3:32—Say, “Obey Allah and the Messenger.” But if they turn away – then indeed, Allah does not like the disbelievers (The sahih international translation tries to soften the blow by incorrectly inserting “like” into the sentence.)

Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Qur’an 9:73—O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.

Qur’an 9:123—O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.

Qur’an 9:111—Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an (Obviously early Muslims hadn’t read either the Torah, nor Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life.)

Qur’an 48:29—Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah ; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves.

Muslim 33—The command to fight the people until they say “La ilaha illallah Muhammad Rasul-Allah”, and establish Salat, and pay the Zakat, and believe in everything that the prophet (saws) brought. Whoever does that, his life and his wealth are protected except by its right, and his secrets are entrusted to Allah, the most high. Fighting those who withhold Zakat or other than that is one of the duties of Islam and the Iman should be concerned with the Laws of Islam.

Qur’an 47:35—So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior; and Allah is with you and will never deprive you of [the reward of] your deeds.

1103—Abu Hurayra reported that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Do not give the People of the Book the greeting first. Force them to the narrowest part of the road.”

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Hadith Number 4366—It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

Qur’an 5:9—And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Bukhari 6922—Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu`adh asked, “Who is this (man)?” Abu Muisa said, “He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.” Then Abu Muisa requested Mu`adh to sit down but Mu`adh said, “I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, “Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, ‘I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'”

Reading the above many people will throw up their hands, saying “It’s all too complex.” Well, consider the context, consider the time and situation which gave rise to Islam and the consequent wars waged in its name, are such battles an outgrowth of the actual doctrines of Islam, or an unrelated perversion. We need the immediate context to the above quotes I’ve presented, the greater literary context, the cultural context, with which, let’s examine Qur’an chapter nine, which has featured heavily in the above (Read along with references below).

Qur’an 9:28—O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Qur’an 9:30—The Jews call Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

Qur’an 9:31—They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ, the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One God: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).

Qur’an 9:32—Fain would they extinguish Allah’s Light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His Light should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).

Qur’an 9:33—It is He Who hath sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to prevail it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it).

Qur’an 5:51—O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other.

Qur’an 9:73—O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them.

Qur’an 9:111—Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah’s way, so they slay and are slain.

Qur’an 9:123—O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.

Qur’an 47:35—Be not weary and fainthearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost.

Qur’an 48:29—Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.

Sahih Muslim 30—Muhammad said: “I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.”

Sahih Muslim 4366—Muhammad said: “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims.”

Sunan An-Nasa’i 3099—The Prophet said: “Whoever dies without having fought or having thought of fighting, he dies on one of the branches of hypocrisy.”

Sunan Ibn Majah 2763—The Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever meets Allah with no mark on him (as a result of fighting) in His cause, he will meet Him with a deficiency.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 6922—Allah’s Messenger said, “If anyone changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”

Qur’an 6:114—Shall I seek for a judge other than Allah, when He it is Who has sent down to you the Book fully explained?

Qur’an 11:1—This is a Book, whose verses have been made firm and free from imperfection and then they have been expounded in detail.

Qur’an 12:1—These are verses of the clear Book.

Qur’an 16:89—And We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things …

Qur’an 27:1—These are verses of the Qur’an—a book that makes (things) clear.

Qur’an 41:3—A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail …

Qur’an 57:9—He it is who sends down clear communications upon His servant, that he may bring you forth from utter darkness into light.

Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4—Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says, “O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir (on Qur’an 9:30)—Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because they are idolaters and disbelievers. Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. As for the Jews, they claimed that Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa, it is obvious.

Qur’an 2:106—“Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?”

Sahih al-Bukhari 4364—The last complete Surah which was revealed (to the Prophet) was Bara’a …

In closing of course, it’s not enough for you and I to tear down another viewpoint because we believe it’s violent or deficient, it’s certainly violent and deficient, yet, our Muslim friends need some firm foundation by which to live their lives, it’s not enough to destroy people’s belief system without offering an alternative, nor should you and I want to destroy. They need Christ, for which, we shouldn’t just understand Islamic context, we need to understand, and love understanding, God’s true revelation to humankind. Let’s know our Bible.

Matthew chapter fifty-five: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

First Corinthians chapter sixteen: “When Timothy comes, see to it that he has nothing to fear while he is with you, for he is carrying on the work of the Lord, just as I am. No one, then, should treat him with contempt. Send him on his way in peace so that he may return to me. I am expecting him along with the brothers. Now about our brother Apollos: I strongly urged him to go to you with the brothers. He was quite unwilling to go now, but he will go when he has the opportunity. Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong. Do everything in love.”

― T. C. M


34 thoughts on “Islamophobophobia: Politically Correct Persecution

  1. All words of hate and labels are blasphemy, as far as I am concerned.
    Regardless of what or whom you call master or creator, did not the master or creator in fact create these things?
    The creator is insulted by selfish, small-minded thinking, but all are forgiven.
    Perhaps I may be seen as wicked, or pagan, but my belief maintains that our Mother Cosmos does not choose between children, does not favor one child over another.
    Good or evil, building or destroying, helping or harming, these things are all elements of the universe, and must be accepted. This is the true definition of unconditional love.

    May the peace of the season bring you serenity,


    Liked by 1 person

    • A really interesting contribution in the above. I’d imagine questions of whether or not people even believe in a created order would be where some of the heaviest antagonism first begins, Pazlo. Speaking irreverently about sacred things would became a kind of non issue just so long as everything were sacred, or especially so (in the practical sense) if the divine all were at its heart impersonal, not holding anyone to account for their blasphemy. To blaspheme appears to suggest some great distinction, even the otherness of God, holiness. Similarly, for God to forgive our selfishness, anger and various misdeeds, would mean our being held to account by a God who had intentions, intentions their creation had so foolishly tried to frustrate.

      Your views about Mother Cosmos, as you’ve described them, would indeed go directly against early Islamic views, for example, and many of these traditions are rather graphic, they’re illustrative however. In the Islamic traditions, albeit you believe Mother draws no distinctions, nor favours in some special sense their creation, it’s firmly outlined how Muslims are highly distinct, highly favoured over you. Thus they’re special over you.

      Muslim believers would even mock Mother Cosmos as unjust, for if God, goddess or the divine won’t or cannot favour created beings who act in line with their divine intentions or order for humanity, then such a god as that is impotent, wholly unable to accomplish or enforce their good pleasure. Other religious believers would dismiss your slight distinction between good and evil as illusory, for it’s not really evil to murder, rape or torture, nor is it truly good to feed the hungry, cloth the naked or rescue alive people from a burning building, for making such distinctions as good and evil only distract people from realising they themselves are the divine!

      Returning again to the Islamic traditions hinted at in the above, early Muslims, in total disagreement with you, could insist to being specially favoured by Allah, with which they violently struggled against unbelief of every kind. For example, consider the religious belief of early pagans near to Mohammed, here’s how, at least in part, they were treated by Mohammed and his contemporaries:

      “Then ‘Urwah said: “Muhammad, tell me: if you extirpate your tribesmen, have you ever heard of any of the Arabs who destroyed his own race before you? And if the contrary comes to pass, by God I see both prominent people and rabble who are likely to flee and leave you.” Abu Bakr said, “Go suck the clitoris of al-Lat!” – al-Lat was the idol of Thaqif, which they used to worship (The History of al-Tabari).

      Who people describe as the first rigtly guided caliph of Islam went further: “Now Abu Bakr was sitting behind the apostle and he said, ‘Suck al-Lat’s nipples! Should we desert him?’ … (The Life of Muhammad, A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah).

      Of course, Abu was simply following after Mohammed’s example, with which the pagan believers of Mohammed’s day replied: ‘O Muhammad, we sent for you TO RECONCILE WITH YOU. By God, we know of no Arab who has ever brought his people AS MUCH TROUBLE AS YOU HAVE. You have reviled the forebears, criticized the religion, ridiculed the values, cursed the gods, and divided our community. EVERY UNPLEASANT THING POSSIBLE YOU HAVE DONE to make a rift between you and us.”

      Of course, Mohammed later went on to destroy the idols of the pagan people, totally eradicating their treasured religious beliefs, and they did so joyfully, feeling totally justified in their behaviour. That’s really where the most interesting conversations begin, they’re ground zero conversations, and at ground zero, many Muslim believers don’t simply feel superior to you, but they also deride any god which couldn’t or wouldn’t favour the just over the wicked. And, upon reflection, that’s fair, Muslims have simply misled themselves as to who the good are, for who would praise a god who didn’t themselves feel heartbroken over infanticide, misuse of people sexually and idolatry, such wouldn’t be a god worthy of praise. They’d be idol, and perhaps an idol. It appears to me, my friend, that it’s Islam which fails in one regard, and paganism in another, albeit in different ways, for one view, namely Islam, insists to Allah having removed their love from the unbelieving, meaning, Allah only loves Muslims, and is an enemy to pagans like yourself, and even an enemy to me, for simple monotheism isn’t enough, rather we must obey Allah and Mohammed!

      Whereas, to write how your view, as a pagan, means to admit the divine doesn’t favour any elements of their creation, would mean soldiers who smashed babies against walls in WW2 aren’t less “favoured”, in fact, they’re no less favoured than a monk who lives in a cave filled with various forms of depravation, not knowing the joys of food, drink or human contact. I’d write it’s in Christianity where you find both the exclusivity within which believers are favoured without Islamic intolerance, which would include justice being done due our good conduct. For you see, in Christianity, while it’s true that believers are under God’s grace, and unbelievers His wrath, for they’re “children of disobedience”, it’s also written: “Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.” Jesus Christ, having died for everyone, includes pagan unbelievers. Thus showing God’s deep love for you (John 3:16), Pazlo. In this, Christ isn’t unable to save, nor are believers made more deserving of love than unbelievers, rather there’s real (active) love in God for everyone, not merely an idea to accept good and evil, building and destroying.

      There’s unity in diversity in the community of the Trinity.


  2. The Ideologies of Dis-integration is Buried Deep in the heart of basic Islamic Ideology, namely the Quran, Hadith, the mainstream schools of Jurisprudence, and Salafi-Wahhabi Islam which is being aggressively promoted by Saudi Arabia as a way to Control and Dominate close-by nation and even the West on the long run.

    Major Platforms need to be open For people Who Criticize Basic Islamic Ideologies promoting Violence and hate, and they need to be Supported by major forces of the free-world so they can change the demographics of Countries that was taken over by Islam in the middle east which will act as the force of light in the middle of the Dark. Take a country like Egypt for example, a very open, liberal Christian country that was invaded by the Arab Muslims in 641 AD and became a Muslim Majority Country around the 10th Century. Now Coptic churches are being bombed and you might have heard about the St peter church bombed lately in Dec killing 28 and wounding up to a 100.

    An Ideological Plan must be carefully crafted and implemented first in the middle eastern countries to counter and reverse the Demographic change that took place in once peaceful, open, and tolerant middle-eastern countries like Egypt, and Tunisia, by the Arab Islamic Invasion in the 600’s, and is only getting worse every day through Saudi and Qatari funding of Salafi, and Jihadi groups.

    I urge you to follow my blog:

    Liked by 1 person

    • There’s a world of ideas out there, to be really frank, and if a person feels an urge to cry phobia when others are writing about doctrine or religious injunctions, they’re simply not meeting us where the conversation is at. I think you’d enjoy a conversation I had over at boat of oats, the blogger (Natalie) begins by sharing a poem, then continues to bash the now infamous Trump “Muslim ban.” Her field is supposedly neuroscience, so we’re not talking about an ignorant young lady, and yet, I’m having one very clear conversation, and she’s simply not interested in engaging on that level.

      Briefly taking another look, no, still no reply from her. Insofar as the “killer reply” comment goes, I think in many cases it is a killer, a killer of conversation, it’s shutting down discussion, and that’s just how many like it. Top observation there, my friend.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I’m using the app for WordPress so it doesn’t have url present. As far as I can see, the quote is like ‘Why be reliant upon secular media sources, literary works penned by atheists…’ and can’t read further.


      • Ah, yeah. It’s really short to be fair. The thrust of the point is simply that if we want to be informed about, say, Islam, it’s not right to just read from Dawkins or Sam Harris, likewise, if you wanna learn about evolutionary biology, don’t simply read from Ken Ham. 🙂 We have to go to the source, so, what do believers in Christ teach about Him? Most people will say “I know how to find out!” Then they’ll go to wiki, but that’s just a mess of information, from which you can’t extract anything serious.

        People should read from unbelievers, but, that can’t be the main source or authority from which we form our views on religious matters, that’s not sensible.


      • That’s very true, for example, I’m taken back to when Christopher Hitchens was just tearing down these pastors and vicars and everybody who spoke to him, these were supposed authorities on Christianity, and yet, they were made to look so foolish, so unequipped. It gets to a point where someone might wonder, where’s the learned men of God who can go into these discussions? Enter William Lane Craig. I’d like to redirect you to their debate, it’s on this blog and comes with a transcript too, I think you’ll be very surprised by the conclusion to the discussion. There’s also a lot of conversation about how the two performed in the comments below.


      • Well, I don’t see any reason to be an atheist apologist. I lack belief in God as much as I lack belief in goblins. And if we think about it, there are more books on goblins. Dawkins’ recommendation to decline debates with Christopher was probable just dry humor, which is quite prominent in his God delusion. As far why Dawkins declined, I really am not sure. Perhaps he wasn’t interested. Perhaps Christopher had already debated Craig and Dawkins didn’t want it to be repetitive. I’m not sure.


      • Well, the reason people end up writing in defence of atheism, is because atheism, unlike agnosticism, actually is held by people who make claim to having some knowledge. Huxley knew this, for example, when you write you lack belief in God, that’s not the same as writing you believe positively in the statement “God doesn’t exist!” So, my question to you is, do you believe God doesn’t exist, or are you more of an agnostic on the subject? The failure of comparing Goblins to God is found in that you and I should expect to find goblins, for example, their places of dwelling are described, their favourite foodstuffs expounded upon in detail, and their habits painstakingly detailed, so, we’re in a position where you’d expect to find such creatures. However, why would you expect to find God at the bottom of the garden? That’s not reasonable, in fact, it’s an unworkable comparison, for which, rejecting the divine on such grounds would be logically invalid. Lack of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, not unless you and I would expect to find such evidence under ordinary circumstances.

        It’s not that you and I simply “lack belief” in goblins, rather, we’re of the mind that they positively don’t exist (at least I am). Dawkins actually gave several reasons for their refusal, they’d only debate high-ranking members of the clergy (which was untrue), they didn’t know who Dr. Craig was, and that such a debate would look good for Craig but not for himself. Other reasons included attacking Craig by their moral character, their intellect and even claiming because they had already “debated” (in a group conversation in Mexico) they didn’t need to engage Dr. Craig and their arguments! Isn’t what’s really going on clear, my friend?

        Mr. Dawkins could have debated Dr. Craig and brought a far different sort of viewpoint to the conversation than did Christopher, as Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, for which they can’t be compared to a journalist.


      • I suppose that is true. But doesn’t it seem incredulous that our planet which occupies a negligible portion of the universe is the sole reason for existence of the universe. That is what all religions claim. Mankind is apparently the reason for the entirety for space and billions of years of existence and I find that a ridiculously arrogant notion. So my disbelief in God stems not only from a lack of evidence but a lack of logic and lack of purpose.


      • Why would the creator of Universe make only a tiny planet for humans and wait billions of years for humans to arrive just to communicate with them for a small period of time while they were in uncivilised goat herding stage?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Well, insofar as what every religion claims, there’s so much diversity, nonetheless, God’s creation being simply and solely on account of humans, or mankind being “the reason” for billions of years of our universe, that, as you write, would be terribly arrogant! However, that’s not an idea that’s Christian in nature, rather, God made you and I so that Their glory might be satisfied, for a example, a popular confession of faith reads humanity were made so that they might “Know God, enjoying Him forever.” That’s not man centric, that’s centred on the person of God. God loves humanity as an artist loves Their art, or as a Shepard loves Their flock, and lastly, in the most dangerous comparison, God loves how a groom loves Their bride to be. Yet that doesn’t impact that Their love is an expression of Their greatness, not ours.

        With regards to lack of purpose, my friend. The problem of purpose isn’t one which believers face, but rather, atheist. This criticism is only heightened when we’re discussing modern day atheist, who most often hold to ideas like macro evolution, materialism, godlessness and modern theories of cosmos lifespan, as they’re compelled to views in which all life is doomed to extinction in the heat death of the universe. Dr. L. D. Rue in their “Nobel lie” book wrote how “The lesson of the past two centuries is that intellectual and moral relativism is profoundly the case,” Their lie being one that “deceives us, tricks us, compels us beyond self-interest, beyond ego, beyond family, nation, [and] race.” The lie itself deceives you and I, because it claims the universe to be infused with ideas like purpose and value. Yet, if everything ends at the grave, and our being here is in itself just a cosmic happening for no lasting purpose, humanity may invent purposes, but they’re merely illusions. They’re not Our Purpose, but rather contradicting and transient purposes, some good, some bad,
        some indifferent.

        The issues about God communicating with His people is that, for many those days aren’t past, and you too are promised that same voice, God’s covenant promises are available to you too.


      • Well most accounts of Christian God seem incredibly arrogant. A creature so ego centric that he demands constant worship and will kill if you do not grant it, for instance the golden lamb tale. If you argue from the perspective of an impersonal superior force with no personal interest in mankind, I’d accept that as a viable perspective. But Gods of religious scriptures seem much too man made and sexist. To quote “Can we not look at the Universe and marvel it, without believing in some guy up there who says Eww gay.”
        The issues raised in the Bible seem so petty and trivial as compared to the vastness of cosmos. It’s unfathomable for a being so progressed as to create the universe to bother himself with such irrelevant issues. Killing 42 children cause they made fun of a bad guy. Yea, that reeks of truth doesn’t it? Finally, the data of God is not only ancient, but also unverified. You can’t expect it to be correct and as such can’t expect it to be the truth. It’s extremely dubious and has gone through so many alterations.


      • I do like the way you present your arguments and unlike others, do not use bible as a source of proof for God. Let’s end the discussion for now and reflect a bit. And here’s a thing that benefits us both, The truth will remain the truth, regardless of whether you believe in it. ”
        So if what you believe is correct, then it’ll be correct whether I agree or not. I don’t really object to religious teachings, but I don’t like dogmatic thinking they promote and how they’re not supposed to be questioned and if you question them it’s blasphemy. You don’t have that dogmatic thought, and are quite interesting to talk to. And after such a lengthy discussion if you think I got some good points or like my style of talking, please give my posts a read. (Sorry, but I gotta promote when I can xD)
        Anyways, thanks for taking time and discussing and we’ll talk again sometime later.


      • I’ve actually been away working, for which our discussion had to be paused for awhile. 🙂 Nonetheless, it’s an exciting exchange of ideas to return to. When readers reply that they find the biblical depiction of God “too man-made”, or too anthropomorphic for their tastes, I’d ask how else would God actually communicate to Their creation. Binary code, like the now famous movie Contact, or another method. For God They would surely want humanity, especially sinful man, to understand their predicament, by which, they’d realize God for who They are, humanity’s rescue. To recognize God would mean God’s communication to humanity would have to be in fathomable terms.

        Take an example of anthropomorphic descriptions of God, how else would God (particularly an all loving God) commune with Their creation. Certainly not by confusing humanity with an unintelligible sequence of ones and zeroes or algebraic formulas, for most people today in our technologically advanced age aren’t so equipped as to translate such communication. Anthropomorphic description are about God stooping to our level, operating in a way you and I can understand. Remember with me when God “searched” for Adam in the garden (Genesis 3:9), or when they visited Abraham and Sarah before Sodom was destroyed (Genesis 18), in the first occasion, pious Jews in the ancient world found no tension in the fact that God humoured Adam by asking that he would show himself and God’s omnipresence (Psalm 33:13-14), or Their omnipotence (1 John 3:20), meaning, God can be both described as knowing everything, in addition to revealing Himself in human history in human friendly terms (e.g. appealing to us in an appropriate language). Anyone who’s had a conversation with children knows how they sometimes need to be humoured, or taught in ways which might appear silly to other adults nearby, yet, for the child, they’re utterly invaluable teaching methods.

        God’s appearing to Abraham, His divine presences (shekinah), and Christ Himself! They’re each about our Father bridging the gap when humanity were either unable or unwilling, unable at best, unwilling at worst. God simply knows He is God, which in my reading isn’t arrogant, it’s accurate. For readers to be offended by such would most likely mean it’s not in God where’s there’s pride, but in man, for pride, arrogance, it’s these which hate pride and arrogance when perceived in someone else (even wrongly perceived). To describe God, who’s maximumly great, as ego centric, surely wouldn’t follow. Moreover, when God’s loves is on the table humanity are considered arrogant, “How dare you insist this world was made with people in mind?!” critics might complain, yet, when God’s justice and glory are tabled for discussion, God’s arrogance supposedly is an offence. It’s not however appropriate that you or I mutilate God’s essential attributes by subtraction or addition, rather they’re inseparable aspects of an omni attributed divine designer.

        You’ve highlighted God’s egotism by way of the “golden lamb” incident, however, I’m unsure of any such incident having taken place, unless you’re meaning the golden calf upon mount Sinai, as found in Exodus 34. However, when read, the Exodus account isn’t to do with “constant worship” or an unruly God who demands your adoration, but rather, Aaron, having been coerced by their people, makes of gold an idol, even the gold which God swore to the Jewish nation while He saved their camp out of Egypt. In fact, upon having made their false gods, Aaron is quoted to have said “These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” If the situation had merely been the withholding of “constant worship” than everybody would be in trouble, instead, Israel had misplaced their affections to so great an extent that they had endangered the entire nations safety from sin.

        Consider in another way, imagine you had an infant, one desperately sick, and in answer to their ills you knew of a cure, one which worked without doubt 100% of the time, however, their parents reply to your suggestion by saying “No, we’re not interested.” They continue “You see, we’ve been looking into homoeopathy. That’s a better fit.” You’d reply their child doesn’t need mint, they need proper medical care, which you’re able to provide. God’s people attributing their rescue from Egypt to the work of an inanimate, golden calf, one made of the very gold they took from out of Egypt, would be no better than using a pinecone to treat bullet wounds, that’s how serious sin always has been (it’s life-threatening).

        When you write God’s sexist, homophobic and arrogant, that’s to use moral language, yet, without an outside referent whereby to make moral judgements, such charges are totally adrift in a sea of relativism (that’s very much an atheist’s dilemma). To an atheist, how does one even go about criticising sexism, since, women need not read how I, being male, have greater bone density, muscle mass, height (generally), and an assortment of other physical attributes which are far beyond theirs, so, for an atheist, I’m simply more able, fitter than my female counterparts. In Christianity, males and females are different in role, but not worth, in fact, both men and women are made “in the image” of God (that’s tremendously empowering for people everywhere). Whereas in an atheistic universe, people may prefer men and women to be equals, or prefer they’re afforded equal worth, although they’re simply not equal, and any desires to the contrary are purely personal preference.

        Consider Bible commentary on the ways in which men and women should treat one another, for after asking that wives might submit to their husbands, husbands are commanded: “love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.” Sexism, surely not, my friend.

        With regards to homosexual desires, they’re not in and of themselves condemned in the Bible material, but rather, it’s to act upon and treat men as women in some sexual manner which would be what God considered sinful. Gay sex would be condemnable, for which certain heterosexual couples are just so likely to fail in regards to their behaviour. That’s not our purpose (it’s harmful), and due that Christianity provides humanity purpose, whereas atheism fails to do so (and even undermines purpose) there’s cause to be thankful, even thankfulness amidst those who experience same sex attraction. They’re at liberty not to “be gay”, which is an invention of pop culture psychology, instead, they can be more. In addition to the above you describe biblical issues as “trivial”, about which allow for me to write one thing, that being that in my experience, the more gifted an individual intellectually, the less they’re inclined to describe something as trivial, for example, where I myself may find some field of study utterly dull, or irrelevant, I’m yet very conscious that an expert in the very same field would find its nuances and framework totally extraordinary. Similarly, who can imagine an omniscient God who’s also disinterested or uninvolved? (they sound less than omniscient).

        You write “it’s unfathomable” for the being who created the universe to bother himself with such issues as those which you and I might find irrelevant, however, in reality, it’s “unfathomable” that an omniscient God wouldn’t bother with such matters. The Scriptures explain how God takes such care that even a sparrow doesn’t fall to the ground without Their knowledge (Matthew 10:29), and yet, many people consider their lives irrelevant too. The God of Scripture even extends Their care to the cosmos, of which you’re so in awe: ““To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One. Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls forth each of them by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.” (Isaiah40).

        Briefly, with regards to the challenge that the Bible contains “[the] Killing [of] 42 children cause they made fun of a bad guy.” I’d imagine you meant “bald guy.” as in when (in the Torah) she-bears are described as “mauling” 42 young men who harassed God’s prophet (2 King 2:24). To make two clarifications, firstly, none of the men, as they most likely were what people today would describe as grown men, are said to have been killed or died on account of their being attacked by either of the she-bears. I understand it’s easy to assume that they had been killed, however, to assume so would be to go beyond what’s being explained in the relevant passage, and that’s an unsafe practice generally. If you’d like to read fuller an answer on the mauling chapter, I’ve covered its details elsewhere:

        In closing, I’d very much enjoy interacting with when you shared “Finally, the data of God is not only ancient, but also unverified.” Ancientness however doesn’t work against some document’s historicity, for example, no matter how old an inscription or document, its message of “the world’s not flat!” isn’t useless on account of its ancientness (truth, as you’ve shared, would be truth regardless). My articles and uploads from 2015 aren’t less reliable solely because they’re not 2017 articles. You’ve shared afterwards how they’re “unverified”, nonetheless, that’s only uncomfortable for the believing historian if (A). They’re truly unverified, in concert with (B). You’d expect that they were more heavily verified. Think about this with regards to our goblins exchange, as there’s good reason to dismiss fairies and goblins at the bottom of the garden, but no reason to reject God on the same grounds. Similarly, an event which ought to have been attested better than our current data allows, that’s an uncomfortable or disheartening fact, yet, events which are clearly meant to be read as localised events, they’re most often lost to history forever! Localised events needn’t be attested in global ways, rather, that which has survived ought to be treasured simply on account of how rare great histories are.

        Verifiable histories vs. unverifiable histories.

        When you’ve described certain parts of the Bible (or our “God data”) as unverifiable, I’d have to write and ask, how much have you studied the first century historicity behind Jesus’ Resurrection and crucifixion? Which I’d ask because historians have come to an overwhelming consensus on the facts behind the end week of Jesus’ life and apparent return. In terms of God data, that’s not me writing “The Bible says it, thus I believe it.” Instead, it’s about what can be proven historically. You might reject Bible documents from your collection of sources, however, if they contain historically identifiable facts which you can drawn from OUTSIDE of the New Testament, are they valuable data in the study of God?


      • Matthew 10:35. I don’t quote bible much, but since you did it so much, I felt obliged. Simple means of communication? Drop by and say hi. WhatsApp me. I’m sure God could conjure up an IPhone and a sim. And with omniscience he’d have my number. I mean come on. God can create the universe, flood the world, but is somehow unable to forgive those he created and must’ve known, due to omniscience, that would fuck things up. He is able to do almost everything, but to forgive others, he must impregnate a girl, create his son, torture his son, engage in cannibalism (bread is my body, wine is my blood and whatnot) then kill the said son, then bring back the son. Seems rather complicated. Saying it’s okay, I forgive you would be much easier. And people talk of making a deal with the devil, but apparently this source of goodness goes around making bets with Satan and enjoys fucking up normal people’s lives for the fun of it? I mean, if he is omniscient he would’ve known Job would remain faithful so no reason to fuck his life up.


      • 5 For I have come to turn

        “‘a man against his father,
            a daughter against her mother,
        a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
        36     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[a]

        37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

        Your God sounds absolutely loving.


      • But we have to be fair to the material, my friend. We can’t join the text part way through and then slander God as unloving because we’re not reading in context. To read Matthew rightly, in context, as its original author and speaker intended, that can be properly done by reading the nearby material, in addition to other methods of good hermeneutics, and that’s not merely true insofar as Bible studies are concerned, rather that’s true for simply reading online messages or cards wishing you a happy birthday (you’ve got to read in context).

        Before jumping into Matthew 10:34, let’s read together Matthew 10:16-20: “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.”

        The above, which is in context to be read as prophetic, plainly reads as both referring to wrongful imprisonment, martyrdom (Acts 7:59), and judicial murder (2 Timothy 4 6-8). Christ even goes so far as to teach in the very same chapter “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Therefore we’re reading absolutely nothing to do with either Jesus or Their followers using swords, behaving violently or subjugating anyone (in fact the opposite would be true).

        Remember with me “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” That’s how early Christians understand Jesus’ teachings. If you’d like, I’ve discussed the material in several places.


      • An example from a conversation I had with a Muslim friend of mine, during our conversation I brought up Qur’an 9:29, for which they complained that “fight” doesn’t necessarily mean fight with one’s hands and feet and swords, to which I replied I understand that’s possible, but Qur’an 9:111 helps me in my understanding of 29, for in 111 it reads “They [meaning Muslims] fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed.” I asked my co-worker, how else can I understand Qur’an chapter 9:29, which says: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” They remained silent. I asked on another occasion, with regards to the death penalty for apostates in Islam, “Should we research this together?” They had a computer right in front, and yet, they refused. God forgive me if ever I’m so hard-hearted as that. Context matters, buddy. I’m giving the context, we’ve got to be fair.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s