All Comments (143)

tezsnrfux vfjuygzme xmeod ouij aydt jshcu cdzvloxt

tezsnrfux vfjuygzme xmeod ouij aydt jshcu cdzvloxt

tezsnrfux vfjuygzme xmeod ouij aydt jshcu cdzvloxt

m494k

Liberated,
I told you I won't condemn anything because you insist.

But for God's sake, don't condemn OT, NT or anything else. Condemn the governments, politicians, groups that kill innocent people. Not just Binladen, or Saddam. Not just Hitler and Mussolini. EVERYONE of them from Kings/mullahs of Christendom of the past to perpetrators of all modern day wars.

That's the issue here. And that issue, you keep side-stepping. And that makes you and people like you EXTREMELY dangerous.

see- you never answered my question- whos the enemy this week? and you never will because like me- you wont know til tv tells you who to hate this week-
now for your edification-

Thursday, July 28, 2005

CAIR backs Fatwa against Terror
English, Arabic, Urdu radio anti-terror PSAs released

(Washington, D.C., 7/28/05) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today offered its support for a fatwa, or Islamic religious ruling, against terrorism and extremism issued by the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) and endorsed by more than 120 U.S. Muslim groups, leaders and institutions. (The term "fiqh" refers to Islamic jurisprudence.) The fatwa, released during a news conference this morning at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., states in part:

"Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians' life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram – or forbidden - and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not martyrs ... In the light of the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah we clearly and strongly state: 1. All acts of terrorism targeting civilians are haram (forbidden) in Islam. 2. It is haram for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence. 3. It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians. We issue this fatwa following the guidance of our scripture, the Qur’an, and the teachings of our Prophet Muhammad – peace be upon him."

SEE: http://www.cair-net.org/downloads/fatwa-english.txt

SEE: "U.S. Muslim Scholars to Forbid Terrorism", "From Muslims in America, a New Fatwa on Terrorism"

In a statement read at the news conference, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad said: "United, we can confront the terrorists and frustrate their goal of sparking an apocalyptic war between faiths and civilizations ... The presence here today of American Muslim leaders indicates the willingness of our community to strengthen national security and to work with policy-makers to gain victory over this international menace to humanity." CAIR urged that the fatwa be read by Imams, or Islamic prayer leaders, at Friday prayers across the United States.

Awad also announced the release of radio versions of CAIR’s 30-second “Not in the Name of Islam” television public service announcement (PSA) in English, Arabic and Urdu. The PSA campaign ties into CAIR’s “Not in the Name of Islam” online petition drive designed to disassociate the faith of Islam from the violent acts of a few Muslims. To listen to the PSAs, go to: English | Arabic | Urdu | TV Video

CAIR, America's largest Muslim civil liberties group, has 31 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding. To read CAIR's Mission, Vision Statement and Core Principles, go to: http://www.cair-net.or

ps the quran already condemsn and renounces militancy-
BUT YOU HAVE TO READ IT TO FIND OUT

do your own homework lib you take up enough of my energy

lib- it was a sarcastic remark intended to point out that some accusatory and implicitly condemnatory questions, by their very nature , can have no good or satisfactory answer-

you know i posted at long length and in detail on the women in religion muslim panelists that

there is no beating of wives in islam-

dont be sneaky- you read those posts and already know that

In case you need additions to your "wishy-wash" version of the Koran, see:
http://womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2482
and
http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html
and
stay out of my neighborhood and off planes until the Koran renounces and condemns militancy, slavery and mistreatment of women.

Your commentary about beating wives shows you are well trained in Islam.

I rest my case and proceed to reading some new books by Professor Crossan. Here's hoping he will soon "crossanize" the Koran as well as he has "crossanized" the NT

im watching Religious and Ethics Newsweekly right now and theres the sweetest story about Zanzibar and a program called Heifer International and its about muslims and christians sharing their livestock and helping each other and the major effect its had on their society-

see liberated- this is the kind of thing that is positive and working toars solutions-

even if someone deconstructs the Qur'an to your specific liking- will it make any difference in the world?

use your prolific energies to thing of creative solutions to the problems you love to dwell on-

it will change your perspective-
now peace lib and dont worry- i dont know where you live and dont really care what plane youre on-

i deal with fearful people every day- and a little bit at a time i use good manners and an honest smile and happy heart to counter unfounded and irrational fears-

peace

so youve changed your question finally-
does that mean youve given upon the shia sunni condemnation youve been demanding this long time?

so i guess you were stumped as i am by my question-
whos the enemy this week?

yes lib- i ahve power over time and space to know where your neighborhood is and what planes youll take so i can avoid them-

well i guess this means youve inally realized the silliness of your former qustion and have moved onto anew vague and silly accusation-

liberated- do you not realize these arent even usually religious issues you have problems with but political ones?

can you make a distinction?

it is not your religin (or lack) or mine that is any problem-

it is small groups of biased and prejudiced people who have no desire for peace in any form-

i just got here lib- what could the 'real issue' that im avoiding be?

that i refuse to foster paranoia and fear?
that i have a real desire for dialogue and open communications?
that i have no prejudice good or bad for any group of humans- each individual is recognized for their own mentality and action-

i cant condemn or endorse any grouping of people you can come up with-

all christians are kind?
all muslims terrorists?
what next- african americans cant swim?
white people cant dance?

liberated you are never going to drag me down to any negativity-
i have boatloads of energy and tenacity-

right is right - and it is wrong to spread fear

so who is the enemy this week?

there arent slave passages in the quran - or militant passages to renounce lib-

i cant renounce what isnt there

by the way are you still beating your wife?

Victoria,

That I am. In the meantime, stay out of my neighborhood and off any plane I might be on.

LIBERATED - you are so predictable

Victoria,

And your avoidance of the real issue continues.

The issue:

Do you or do you not condemn and renounce the militant and slavery passages of the Koran??? Yes or No!!!!

LIBERATED HAVE YOU GOE OFF YOUR ROCKER??

ALRIGHT- Here are the "statistics" for the OPINION i posted-

Posted February 17, 2007 4:01 AM ok?

there you go- the statistics for the subjective opinion i posted- are you pleased with how i substantiated the fact that i had an opinion?

one thing i cant figure though-

WHO EXACTLY ARE THE "ENEMIES " OF AMERICA NOW?

SHIA OR SUNNI?

did you ever read 1984?
remeber when george winston was watching the captured enemies being driven through the jeering crowds? and he asked- werent they our allies last week?

so who is it liberated? the shia are our friends now?
why didnt we help the lebanese then? last year in july?
theres lots of shia there- and not all shia are hezbollah- are iraqi shia more special?
but especially-

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE GO INTO IRAN?
theyre not arabs-theyre persians-
theyre not sunni- theyre shia-

do we kill the persian shia then?
do we start hating the iraqi shia too? or just the persian ones?

and what about the kurds?
are all kurds good and under our protection?

what about the ones blowing up sunnis and secularists in turkey?
should we send them arms?
or are they terrorists because theyre killing innocents?

friend or foe?
blow em all up and let god sort em out?

whaddaya say liberated?

i get too confused about who im supposed to hate this week-
perhaps you could draw me up a diagram so i can direct my personally unaffected and disinterested but politicaly correct hatred at the right group-

id hate to expend all that venom and then discover id facilitated the deaths of 'friends"

maybe the tv will tell me---

BUT ILL TELL YOU ONE THING LIB-

I AM NOT BUYING THAT BOOK BY CROSSAN SO PLEASE STOP PUSHING IT!

and by the way- crossan is defintitely and by far not even close to the first person to surmise the writings of timothy were by a later sympathizer-

i was never a pauline apologist liberated-
and so youve switched authorship from paul to timothy to ?

it still doesnt negate the statement- and it doesnt say anything about the 14 other examples and historically valid figures cited-

and by the way- if you start flooding the posts with some islamaphobic bashing-

i will drown these pages with my own voluminous posts i can just copy and paste from the on faith here and ive some time off and nothing much to do right now-

mercy lib- maybe you got bored not having me to yell at-

okay= peace as always

(you know lib this is as aggressive as ive ever gotten to you so its nothing personal you know)
but really- who is our enemy?

Fulan,

So finally you found some scripture and references. I recommend posting the slavery, anti-female and militant passages of the Koran for comparison. I condemn and renounce them all. Apparently you cannot which makes you very, very dangerous.

By the way, Professor Crossan has concluded that many of your cited references are not from Paul. See his books, The Historical Jesus and In Search of Paul for added details.

Some details:

A specific analysis of 1 Timothy by Crossan:
"First Letter to Timothy [1 Tim]. The three Pastoral Epistles of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus were composed by the same author in the general Aegean area during the peaceful years after 120 CE and were pseudepigraphi­cally attributed to Paul. "

Here is what Father Ray Brown, noted NT exegete and author of An Introduction to the New Testament had to say about the Timothy epistles.

p. 654,

"Authenticity: Probably written by a disciple of Paul or a sympathetic commentator on the Pauline heritage several decades after the apostle's death."

Liberated,

You said, "You cite years but no references and you use the significantly stupid comments by so-called Christians (if they made them) to sanctify the significant stupid passages in the Koran."

These are the most important figures in your history. But if you insist they stupid (Aquinas was stupid???), the how about something from the very "word" of God? Read and condemn, which of course would mean you are a Christian who doesn't believe in his God's words!!

Corinthians 11:3: "...Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God. (NIV)".

Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."

Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

1 Timothy 2:11-15:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent..."

Now, what moral high ground do you have to criticize the Koran, tell me!!!!! Go fix your Bible first.

As for as the verse you keep referring to, here is what it means and how we understand it. What you translate as "beat them up" is actually means a "tap on the hand" to awaken/remind an over-reacting woman who is consumed by rage. Beating up any human being, man or woman, is EXPLICITLY forbidden in Islam, period. Our Prophet never in his entire life hit anyone, except once defending himself on the battlefield.

As for saying "man and woman are equal", I think that is a bizarre statement and should therefore be qualified. What do you mean they are equal? In what respect? Do you mean equal rights? Islam grants them equal rights. Do you mean equal in terms of how close you can get to God? Islam puts no restrictions on women in that regard. Do you mean they are biologically the same? That's preposterous. Do you mean they have the same roles in family and society? If that were naturally possible, your Christian couples who vow to stay together "till death does them apart" wouldn't be suffering from the staggering divorce rate, the domestic violence, the single motherhood, the prostitution.....

Men and women are different. Women are more emotional, physically weaker obviously but on the other hand women are more affectionate, more organized, more merciful.Islam takes into consideration theses differences. How many women cab drivers or construction workers have you seen? Why don't men and women participate in sports together? Why should we have separate bathrooms for men and women?

It's not who is inferior and who is superior. It's simply who can mentally and physically do what best. If raising children and taking care of the household is an inferior job and not a sacred trust, then God help us... and no wonder we have teen pregnancies, drugs, std's, crime etc. Precisely because woman has become the slave of the corporate world. She is forced to compete with men and that destroys her and her family. America is the best example of that. Anna Nicole Smith is another :)

For your further info, in Islam a woman DOESN'T have to work outside her home, but if she chooses to do so, she is free to do so. Not a revision this: but the Prophet's wife was a business woman. And when she earns money, it's entirely hers, she doesn't split it with husband or children. It's the husband's responsibility to provide for her and her children. If you say Islam is anti-masculine religion, you will have a better shot at convicing someone!!!!

So I don't need to renounce anything. I know what it means and I know how my Prophet understood and practiced it.

As for your comments about Saddam, you know you are fooling yourself. Saddam was a Baathist = non-believer with concensus of all Islamic schools of thought. Saying he had anything to do with Islam is a rediculous as saying he possessed WMD's... hahaha. More importantly, he was an ally, YES AN ALLY Of AMERICA and AMERICA supported him against Iran, Kurds, Shi'ites and even indirectly encouraged him to attack Kuwait, with the obvious result that the US is now permanently stationed in the Gulf. What business does America have in the Middle East? Protecting the internationally recognized butchers of Israel or the "bastard", occupying, oppressive Zionist entity, (whoich was by the way created in 1949, to punish Palestinians for the crimes of Christian Germany)?

Like Victoria said, sing a new song, man.

Fulan,

You cite years but no references and you use the significantly stupid comments by so-called Christians (if they made them) to sanctify the significant stupid passages in the Koran.

As I noted previously, I renounce and condemn any militant or anti-feminine passage in any text or commentary to include Christian, Judaic or Koranic books. Please do the same.

Hmmm, Saddam Hussein, now there was an example of Muslim who followed the militant passages of the Sunni Iraqi Koran. Iraqi Shiites and Islamic Kuwait and Iran apparently were considered non-believers. Just how many versions of the Koran are there??

.... and don't even get me started with the place of women in Christianity or the West. In the latter, they are nice tools to sell your products and raped and killed by the hundreds.

And here is what Christendom has to say about women. Enjoy.

Clement of Alexandria (150?-215?): "Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman."

Tertullian (160?-220?): "Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil's doorway. You led astray one whom the devil would not dare attack directly. It was your fault that the Son of God had to die; you should always go in mourning and rags."

Ambrose (339-97): "Adam was deceived by Eve, not Eve by Adam... it is right that he whom that woman induced to sin should assume the role of guide lest he fall again through feminine instability."

Augustine (354-430): "Woman was merely man's helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God."

Pope Gregory I (540-604): "Woman is slow in understanding and her unstable and naive mind renders her by way of natural weakness to the necessity of a strong hand in her husband. Her 'use' is two fold; [carnal] sex and motherhood."

Thomas Aquinas (1225-74): "[Woman] was made only to assist with procreation."

John Knox (1513-72): "Woman was made for only one reason, to serve and obey man."

John Wesley (1703-91): "Wife: Be content to be insignificant. What loss would it be to God or man had you never been born."

Southern Baptist Convention (2000): "A wife should submit herself to the leadership of her husband. Leadership in the church should always be male."

Local church in Holland (2004): "More and more we see women being placed in the position of Elder or Pastor in churches. Is this a good thing? Well, if your goal is to undermine the authority of the Word of God, it's a good thing."

Liberated, don't forge what I told you a few posts ago: any cricism of Islam and Muslims should come from someone who has higher moral ground. Otherwise, it's a bunch of ballony.

Liberated, In response to this:
"And for the millionth time, the atomic bombs dropped on Japan saved the lives of 100,000 GI's and the lives of even more Japanese citizens who would have perished in the invasion of Japan and the subsequent battles."

How very nice of you!! Somehow alwayas concerened about saving innocent lives!!! Iraqis, thank the Americans for saving you from Saddam, it's ok if you lost a million lives, since dying under US occupation is better than living under Saddam, won't you agree?

The detterrent effect of a nuclear weapon could have been achieved without a single human being dying if it was dropped on places uninhabited; the Japs would have surrendered. If they didn't, you could always drop another one. But it was the same logic as bin Laden's at work: there is no innocent/civilian Japanese, they are all to be slaughtered. Don't even try to tell me the nuclear bmobs dropped on Japan were weapons of mercy. It sounds too pathetic and it's an insult to those thousands incinerated by those blind nukes!!!

Consider this hypthetical scenario: Bin Laden did 9/11 because somehow, he knew US will attack the Middle East again (reasonalbe since Iraq was planned prior to 9/11). So he's saying I am doing this 9/11, even though it will kill innocent people in America, it will save a million innocent lives in Iraq (reasonable estimate of Iraqis dead when the war would be over). Would you accept that excuse?? Why not? It sounds more credible than your pathetic attempt at justifying the annihilation of Heroshima and Nagasaki!!! And which ones would you keep justifying: there is simply too much brutality by the Christendom committed throughout history. There is something inherently evil about this pattern that starts with forcible conversions (Inquisition) and continues through Colonialism, WWI, WWII and the current hegemony of the world. Chrsitendom's history is an INSULT to the pure and blessed name of Jesus and I am sure he is the first one to denounce and curse everything Christianity has done to humanity, from enslavement of Blacks to wiping out of Indians, to the Japanese, the Colonial victims of occupation and the current occupatoins around the world.

Call it power and arrogance and say "I will do as I please because I CAN do as I please", but don't, for God's sake, name it mercy!! Don't tell me you saved the Japanese. Two more of those monsters and the Japanese race would have ceased to exist!!

You are so funny, I can not even get you to denounce the horrific things even most Christians would not hesitate to condemn, and yet you insist that I denounce my holy book?? Are you out of your mind?

Count: Inquisition, Crusades, Colonialism, Indians wiped out, blacks enslaved, WWI, WWII, and almost ALL wars of the 20th and 21st century.... All are perpetrated by Christian/white killers.

Yet, Mr Liberated, Mr I-Am-The-Follower-of-the-Prince-of-Peace would not even distance himself from these, because in his distorted world-view, call yourself Christian and you are saved, no matter what you do. You call that a religion?? I call it a bunch of fables with enigmatic characteres making web after web of lies and tying them to Jesus, and then assuming that gives them the right to enslave the entire human race. Keep on dreaming: the world will not take crap from anyone anymore. Long live Peace and Justice. Down with Injustice and War.

Fulan and Victoria,

Please verify your statistics. Without doing so, you continue with your Islamic "wishy-wash".

I am not condemning the Koran just those militant parts and the parts that enslave women.

To repeat: Your "context" might be different from other Muslims, but the Koran is used by your mullahs to persuade Muslims to kill and maim fellow Muslims and also to kill and maim innocent non-believers of all ages plus themselves as witnessed by the almost daily suicide bombings done in the name of allah.

Simply answer the question, " Do you renounce and condemn the passages in the Koran that these mullahs use to kill fellow Muslims and innocents? Yes or No?

If you want another way of life to follow, I recommend the Koran without the militant passages, without the passages that make women inferior, and without the passages that allows slavery to include harems and polygamy. Doing this would also make you a follower also of the NT without its many embellishments (See Professor Crossan's books- Professor Crossan is a member of the On Faith panel and has listed the embellishments of the NT in great detail on the websites and in the books previously noted).A hate-free Koran and an embellishment-free NT would be the first step in the great and needed convergence of religions.

And for the millionth time, the atomic bombs dropped on Japan saved the lives of 100,000 GI's and the lives of even more Japanese citizens who would have perished in the invasion of Japan and the subsequent battles.

Victoria, well said. No matter how much I condemn Al-Qaida and the like, "Liberated" won't be pleased until I condemn my very own holy book, which of course I won't.

So the Shias and Sunnis just started killing each other in Iraq and the born-again went in to bring peace? Or did he actually open the flood-gates of hatred that had been formenting under Saddam's rule quarter of a century. Saddam who? Saddam the ally of Uncle Sam against Iran. Saddam whose infamous handshake with Rummy is a "known known", as much as you'd like for it to be "unknown". Saddam whose brutality against Shias and Kurds and using of Chemeical and Biological weapons against them was carried out under the tutelage and sponsorship of conservatives in America. It is rediculous, rather preposterous to suggest that somehow Dumb Dubya has nothing to do with the carnage in Iraq. So crzay that even he himself will disagree with you!!

Also, not all the casualties are sectarian. Abu-Ghraib wasn't Shia-Sunni. It was born-again's folks who authorized it and did it.

And oh, the sanctions after Gulf I. Remember, when Albright said half a million infants, 500,000+ LITTLE BABIES, that died as a result was worth the price!! Those babies weren't Shias or Sunnis, they were little, cute innocent babies. This was done by people who would rather let people like Michael J. Fox die rather than allow stem-cell research. Hypocracy at its very worst.

Shias and Sunnis elsewhere, by and large are co-exisitng peacefully together. But you are right, Nagasaki was actually the Shia city and Hiroshima the Sunni city and they just swallowed each other alive. The anti-American Japanese would just place the blame for their own inter-sectarian killing on the angelic Americans!!!

fulan- dontworry about it- concerned has been chasing me around petulantly stamping his feet and DEMANDING that i condemn people he doesnt know or care about- obviously there is some preconceived triumphant repsonse that hes been waiting to trumpet for awhile-

at least liberated is learning that people rarely respond to confrontational demands just because they are spokenloudly and repeatedly-

he also demands that muslims rewrite the qur'an- presumably to please his tastes-

just ask him any question in the world and watch how it turns into islamophobic paranoia-

liberated you need to sing a new song!

Fulan,

What are you talking about? The butchering of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians is due to the Sunni and Shiites killing and maiming each other. The idiocy of their belief in some descendent of your "prophet" is responsible for the situation and makes a sham out of Islam until it is resolved.

Once again the embellishments to the NT are specifically noted by Professor Crossan in his book, The Historical Jesus. Please spend $15 to educate yourself. A synopsis of the embellishments can also be found at http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf. Use your Edit/Find menu to quickly access the NT passages of interest. As clearly noted in the book and on the net site, embellishments are noted with a minus or minus/plus sign.

Some of the embellishments as per the Jesus Seminar can also be found at http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html. This site is directly related to the Crossan site.

And the Koran, OT and NT are not the words of any god.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

Like I said, I am NOT going to condemn anything just because you ask me to do so. Do you want me to condemn self-defense?

Out of context use by whatever mullahs you are referring to is absolutely horrendous and I do condemn it and condemn any violence against civilians or forcing people to convert, not despite of, but BECAUSE of Islam's teachings.

However, do YOU condemn the Holy Inquisition, the Crusades, Heroshima and Nagasaki and the butchery in Iraq going on now? No? I knew you wouldn't! By all accounts, these Christian/Western brutalities directly resulted in the death and maiming of millions upon millions of innocent human-beings.

And for God's sake, how on earth can you equate hundreds of thousands killed by the orders of our beloved born-again Christian Commander-in-Chief and only a few hundred killed by crzay terrorists who are only reacting to the atrocities of the "born-again" anyway.

Where is the parallel here? It's so rediculous that, statistically, the terrorists can calim higher moral ground, even though, ideologically I see no difference between the terrorists and those war-mongers, born-agains of the Christian world.

As for your Bible, which parts are embelishments and which ones are not, I will never know. And anyway, the questions is not even whether it's a nice book or whether its words are nice and soothing and its stories interesting. The question is, is it the word of the real, true God? All evidence shows the contrary, and you know it.

I think these words are appropriate to Mr. Khatami's remarks on anxiety--

HERE ARE SOME WORDS OF IBN HAZM

. In all the actions listed here, anyone who pauses to reflect will see that anxieties inevitably occur, such as problems which arise in the course of the action, the impossibility of performing the impossible, the fleeting nature of any achievements, and the inability to enjoy something because of some difficulty. There are also bad consequences which arise from every success: fear of one’s rival, attacks by the jealous, theft by covetous, loss to an enemy, not to mention criticism, sin and such things. On the other hand, I have found that actions performed with an eye on eternity are free from * every kind of * fault, free from every stain, and a true means of dispelling anxiety. I have found that the man who is striving for eternity may be sorely tested by bad fortune on his way but does not worry; on the contrary, he is glad, because the trial to which he is subjected gives rise to hope, which aids him in his endeavour and sets him the more firmly on the path towards his true desire. I have found that, when he finds his way blocked by an obstacle, he does not worry, because it is not his fault, and he did not choose the actions that he will have to answer for. I have seen such a man be glad, when others have wished evil upon him, and be glad when has undergone some trial, and be glad, always [living] in a permanent state of joy while others are permanently the opposite. You should therefore understand that there is only one objective to strive for, it is to dispel anxiety; and only one path leads to this, and that is the service of the Most High God. Everything else is misguided and absurd.

9. Do not use your energy except for a cause more noble than yourself. Such a cause cannot be found except in * Almighty * God Himself: to preach the truth, to defend womanhood, to repel humiliation which your Creator has not imposed upon you, to help the oppressed. Anyone who uses his energy for the sake of the vanities of the world is like someone who exchanges gemstones for gravel.

10. There is no nobility in anyone who lacks faith.

11. The wise man knows that the only fitting price for his soul is a place in Paradise.

SORRY I POSTED THE ABOVE POST ANONYMOUSLY BY MISTAKE-

CTORIA :

HEALTH BENEFITS OF PRAYER

Preliminary findings of a research project carried out by Universiti Malaya's biomedical engineering departmenU show that the positions Muslims take during their prayers benefit the heart and spine.

The study also showed that the postures boost the capacity for memory and increase attention.

Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said the research reaffirmed the power of prayer in every Muslimأ¢â‚¬â„¢s life.

"The study investigates the physiological interactions and effects of the salat postures on the human body," said Abdullah, who likened salat postures to those practiced now in yoga.

"Since the majority of our population are Muslims, it is both of interest and importance that we not only understand the spiritual benefits of salat, but also ... its biological and medical effects," he added.

Muslims are obliged to pray five times a day; at dawn, midday, afternoon, sunset and evening. Each prayer consists of several simple positions during which Muslims recite verses from the Holy Qurأ¢â‚¬â„¢an.

Worshippers usually begin their prayers with a standing posture, followed by a deep bow and then a sitting position on the knees. The praying person then touches his/hers forehead to the ground, stands up and repeats the whole process until he/she finishes the prayer.

Previous studies found that Muslim prayers, often directed in the direction (qibla) of the Ka'ba shrine in Mecca, can be therapeutic for the mind and the body.

According to an article on ww.islamicvoice.com, the postures of the prayers stretch various muscles and nerves, giving a constant physical therapy to all the joints of our bodies. This protects arthritis, and reduces back pains and disc problems.

Since praying provides Muslims with mental satisfaction, it can also reduce anxiety, depression, stress and tension which are also considered to be contributing factors to various diseases.

Moreover, performing ablution, which involves washing the face, mouth, nostrils, ears, and arms before praying, has great health advantages, like preventing tooth decay, and reducing bacterial infections.

-- AJP and Agencies

I am really happy to see someone talk about prayer in this forum- as a muslim- prayer is a most ever constant force in my life- my husband and i rise before sunrise every day and join in prayer- and during the day wherever he is- i know that were both praying around the same time-

one of the most beautiful things ive contemplatd is the fact that when i think of the entire world as a whole- (muslims pray at strictly proscribed times)
i know that like a great flower unfolding moving across the face of the earth in a rhythm and like a great unseen dance (well seen by ALLAH) there is the pattern of the rising and prostrating of believers in some beautiful unison- like the greatest most sublime clock of adoration- and that any given second in the day or night- constantly as the sun moves in its orbit- there is someone saying the words we all say- in the same language-in a perfect harmony, with the exact same intent-worship and a giving of the heart to our god- just giving-(we do the petition part after prayer if we choose)

thanks for giving me the chance to express this.

peace and salaams

it is in this we all share a certain cohesiveness isnt it?

Fulan,

Your "context" might be different from other Muslims, but the Koran is used by your mullahs to persuade Muslims to kill and maim fellow Muslims and also to kill and maim innocent non-believers of all ages plus themselves as witnessed by the almost daily suicide bombings done in the name of allah.

Simply answer the question, " Do you renounce and condemn the passages in the Koran that these mullahs use to kill fellow Muslims and innocents? Yes or No?

If you want another way of life to follow, I recommend the Koran without the militant passages, without the passages that make women inferior, and without the passages that allows slavery to include harems and polygamy. Doing this would also make you a follower also of the NT without its many embellishments (See Professor Crossan's books- Professor Crossan is a member of the On Faith panel and has listed the embellishments of the NT in great detail on the websites and in the books previously noted). A hate-free Koran and an embellished free NT would be the first step in the great and needed convergence of religions.

Mr. Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

I told you about the "militant" passages. They have their context and their place. We do fight the enemy who attacks us. We don't turn the other cheek.

And yes, I do condemn any misuse of the Koran by any extremists. (I don't think you will ever condemn the thousands dead in Iraq so far or those who did it or the nuking of the Japanese for that matter).

Try as I might, I was not able to find a more direct answer to your question.

I expect the same kind of direct response from you. Don't hide behind "embelishments", and "blind faith" and your useless website links.

Religion and Hereafter can not be based on guess work or what your parents were following. Tell, me just tell me, which Bible should I follow if I wanted to convert? Which should I beleive when I find the "embelished" contradctions? I am still waiting, YES, I swear I am, for a better, more logicla religion than Islam. If you have it and don't want to share it with me, you are indeed a miser. But if you don't have it, then, I don't see the difference between you and those you call atheists!! They are misguided and so are you.

Fulan,

And the Islamic "wishy-wash" continues. Simply answer "Do you condemn and renounce the militant passages of the Koran". Yes or No?

And you have not understood any of the previous discussions on this blog. Please review all the commentary for the last three months.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

There is nothing new in what you say nor in your references. I am sick and tired of your rhetoric. You keep referring me to your dubious sources!!

Just tell me, how and under what circumstances and logic 1 = 3 ?????

Did Jesus ever say he's the son of God, begotten not created?

I told you Koran tells me to fight my enemy when I am under attack and that's how I and the billion+ Muslims worldwide have been taught to udnerstand and practice it since childhood. I don't care how much you rant about militant passages. I have never harmed anyone in my life precisely BECAUSE I am a Muslim. Just to re-assure you, I hereby do denounce and condemn in the most severe terms all acts of unjustified violence and ANY violence against innocent civilians, no matter who the perpetrator.

BTW, on evidence of a bloody past, if I am to be feared because of 9/11 and similar acts of violence by nut-cases hijacking just causes, you, White Christian (I am only assuming here) should be feared 10,000 times more! The mere thought of nuking of the Japanese civilians by the followers of the peaceful religion of Christ alone should send chills down everyone's spine!!! Not to speak of the horrendous annihilation of American Indians, Inquisition brutalities, and yes the more recent hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq alone. And, cutting you a slack, I am not going to count the dead in Afghanistan, Somalia or else where. I am not even counting those killed indirectly through the puppets of Uncle Sam from Egypt to Saudi Arabia to Pakistan. So my friend, if there is anyone to be feared, it is YOU and those like you!!! No wonder then that the whole world abhors America and Americans. Little do they know, there are millions of peace-loving people in America, as gullible as they are to believe the myth that Christianity is!!

Fulan,

I don't think you understand what I have written. Read it again and also the cited references and books.

With respect to Islam, it is a sham as long as the militant passages in the Koran remain. If you do not renounce these passages please stay out of my neighborhood and off any plane I might be flying on. You are not to be trusted.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

There is no point arguing with you. You didn't show me Jesus saying he is the son of God in any special way (ie, begotten not created), and that he is one manifestation of the concept of Trinity! (ie, 1=3 !!!!)

Consider this: a witness comes to court and gives the judge descriptions that are as inconsistent and contradictory as the NT. Do you think any judge will accept his testimony? Won't he soon be in trouble for perjury or held in contempt? A book that has so many "embelishments" may be a nice story book or history book, but it being the word of God meant to show humanity the right path??? Give me a break!!!!

I feel your problem. You just don't want to face the truth, do you? You think something bad will happen to you if you question your religion. For once, do go to this link: http://www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm

Be fair and consider the arguments of those who criticize your religion and maybe God will show you the right path. Or at least you will have done your best to be objective. As for me, I commit myself, right now, and you be my witness as well as anyone else reading this, that if you prove to me that there is another religion (be it Christianity or any other religion) that is better than Islam or makes more sense than Islam, then I will convert to it right away.....

Fulan,

All of your answers are in the references I recommended. See also the list of NT exegetes at
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added references to the Father and Son see http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb045.html

See also the On Faith panel discussion about Jesus being the son of God: December, 2006 Question,

An excerpt from Professor Crossan's commentary:

"But among those three metaphors, Jesus as Son of God is very special because that was the title of Caesar on coins and inscriptions, statues and structures all over the Mediterranean world at the time of Jesus’ birth. To confess that title of Jesus was to de-confess it of Caesar, that is, to commit your life to peace through justice rather than peace through victory. It still is."

i.e. The title of Son of God was copied from the description/title of Caesar.

and how do i know in the process of embelishments, they didn't add new things. and how about major incosistencies like Jesus being the son of God and then him telling people to only worship God? and that God is one??? And when did Jesus EVER say he is God?? Where? Show me!! Not somethig that can be interpreted in a million ways, but a stright forward "I am the son of God, and we are three: Father, Son, Holy Ghost". This being the foudation of your faith, is not even there in the corropted, thousand-and-one versions of your Bible. How pathetic!!!

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

Well, instead of referring me to some apologetic professors, answer the inconsistencies. My point is not even the inconsistencies. My point is God can not make mistakes. His words also do not need to embellished/enhanced. Why, God's words were not good enough?

More importantly though, nothing in Christian dogma makes sense. Go tell a 2 year old 1 = 3 and he will laugh at you, and that my friend is your problem!! You religion dosen't make sense. Try telling bright human beings "Just plunge in, don't question anything, have blind "faith", and you will be saved!!" How rediculous!! There can no be no such thing as blind faith; faith should make sense, as it concerns the life hereafter. That sense I find in the logic of Islam. And that sense is something thousands of Americans from all races and all walks of life find each year, despite all the negative propoganda by almost everyone, who keep trying to defame Islam. What you can't take away from Islam though is: it makes perfect sense. It's not just "believe in in someone as your savior and you will be saved, no action required". If only some people could see. For verily it's not the outer eyes that are blind, but the eyes of the heart. May God show you the right path. Amen.

Ben,

See http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html.

As per Crossan and also the Jesus "Seminarians" and others the Last Supper was a later addition to the NT.

An excerpt from the reference noted above:

"At the same time, Luedemann concludes that the portrayal of Jesus celebrating such a ritual on the night before his death is not historical. He is clear that there is "no generic relationship" between any actual final meal and the Lord's Supper understood in cultic terms. He also denies the Passover character of the supper as a Markan creation. Like Meier (below), Luedemann does accept the saying (Mark 14:25) about drinking wine in the kingdom of God as authentic. He concludes: (this saying) "hardly came into being in the early community, for in it Jesus does not exercise any special function for believers at the festal meal in heaven which is imminent. Only Jesus' expectation of a the future kingdom of God stands at the centre, not Jesus as saviour, judge or intercessor."

Fulan,

You are a bit late with the NT comparisons. The Jesus "Seminarians" to include the On Faith panelists Professor Crossan and Borg and NT exegetes for the last 200 years have been pointing out the discrepancies between/among the various NT gospels/epistles.

e.g. http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb122.html
122- not of/from the historical Jesus. Request for Sign: (1a ) 2Q: Luke 11:29-30 = Matt 12:38-40; (1b) Matt 16:4a; (1c) Gos. Naz. 11; (2a) Mark 8:11-13 = Matt 16:1,4b = Luke 11:16.

http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf
362. not of/from the historical Jesus, Prophecies of Disbelief: (1) John 12:37-43;

See the referenced sites and also Professor Crossan's book, The Historical Jesus for an analyses of all your citations. Professor Crossan's analyses by the way shows that over 50% of the NT passages are embellishments added by later scribes to enhance the Good Word.

Veritas vos Liberabit, Anonymous and others who believe OT is no good and abrogated and NT is the source of guidance, keep reading for the contradictions in your "Holy Book". I know you have spent so much time trying to find fault with Islam and Quran. It will be a good investment to read the following, it's long, but hey, it's about NT and Jesus :)

(1) According to Mark, chapter 8, verse 12, Jesus says: "In truth, no sign shall be given (by me) to this generation (which refers to the generation of Jews who rejected his claims)." John chapter 12 verse 37 (cf. Acts chapter 2 verse 22) says, in evident contradiction, that Jesus gave "many signs" to this same disbelieving generation of Jews.

(2) Mark, chapter 6, verse 5 says that Jesus "could do no miracle" on at least one occasion. The word is could (not would) which means it was not possible for Jesus to perform a miracle at that time. But Mark, chapter 10, verse 27 says just the opposite, that "with God all things are possible." Hence, Jesus is eliminated as a god.

(3) In John, chapter 5, verse 31, Jesus supposedly says: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." But a little later he reportedly exclaims: "Even if I bear witness of myself, yet my witness is true (John 8:14)." Furthermore, to make matters even more confused and conflicted, this passage was added to the Christian Bible in the sixth century. It is first found in a paper called "Liber Appologeticus" in the fourth century. It is noted that the words are sixth century additions to the original text. The footnote in the Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says these words are "not in any of the early Greek manuscripts or in the earliest manuscripts of the Vulgate itself." It is interesting that the Catholic church, who originally added this verse would admit now that it a spurious addition to the Greek Testament!

(4) It is supposedly the Last Supper. John, chapter 13, verse 36 has Peter ask Jesus: "Where are you going?" Then John, chapter 14, verse 5 has Thomas say to him: "We know not where you are going." But John, chapter 16, verse 5, has Jesus reply: "None of you are asking me where I'm going!" Because Peter asked Jesus where he was going, it is very clear that Jesus has deliberately lied.

(5) In John, chapter 7, verse 38, Jesus reportedly says: "Scripture said: 'From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water'." There is no such passage in the Hebrew Tanach or anything resembling it.

(6) Matthew 2:23 says that: "He came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene." There is no mention of this in the Ketuvim (the prophets). This narrated prophecy does not even exist! In the Old Testament (King James Version), the words "Nazareth" and "Nazarene" do not ever appear!

(7) John 17:12 mentions a "son of perdition" and says the "scriptures are being fulfilled." There is no reference, however, to a "son of perdition" in the Tanach.

(8) Jesus says that it was Zechariah, son of Berechiah, who was killed in the Temple courtyard (Matthew 23:35). Apparently Jesus didn't read the Bible very closely or he would have known it was another Zechariah, whose father was Jehoiada, who was killed there (II Chronicles 24:2-22).

(9) Regarding Jesus' stepfather, was he Joseph son of Jacob son of Mattan son of Eliezer (Matthew 1:15-16) or Joseph son of Eli son of Mattat son of Levi (Luke 3:23-24)? And how can both sets of genealogical tables validly include Shealtiel and Zerubabbel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27), given that both of these men are descendants of Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:16-19), of whom G-d has said: "No man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling any more in Judah" (Jeremiah 22-30)?

(10) Was John the Baptist Elijah, as Jesus claimed (Matthew 11:14)? If so, why did John himself deny it (John 1:21)? Would "Elijah" have been so unsure of Jesus' messianic identity (Luke 7:19-20)? And where in our Scriptures is it written that Elijah would be mistreated, as Jesus claimed (Mark 9:13)? Don't our Scriptures indicate, to the contrary, that Elijah will be successful in his mission of restoring harmony among the people (Malachai 4:5-6)? Moreover, Mark 9:11-13 and Mark 6:16 declares that: "Elijah has come" and "It is John who I beheaded." There is no indication from the Tanach that Elijah would be beheaded. I refer you, once again, to Malachai 4:5-6.

(11) Who's to judge the sinner? According to Jesus in John, chapter 5, verse 22: "For the Father judges no man but has committed all judgment to the Son" (meaning Jesus himself). But, then Jesus contradicts himself; "I judge no man" (John 8:15) and "I did not come to judge the world (John 12:47)." So who did? Listen to Jesus this time: "You (disciples) shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19:28). Unfortunately, this contradicts Jesus' original warning to them: "Not to judge, lest you be judged (Matthew 7:1)."

(12) Paul says. "It is shameful for a man to wear his hair long" (I Corinthians 11:14). Glaringly, this is the only way Jesus is ever pictured.

(13) "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:8). Yet, Jesus asserted the contrary; that he "did not come to bring peace on earth, but a sword" in Matthew, chapter 10, verse 34.

(14) John, chapter 14, verse 9 says: "he who has seen me (in reference to Jesus) has seen the Father." This would include his mother, disciples, and others. However, the Torah teacher that "He who has seen the face of G-d shall die (Exodus 33:20)." This Torah verse amounts to eternal damnation in fundamentalist Christian theology. (Note: Even in our times, thousands of Christians claim to have seen Jesus.)

(15) According to Acts 7:53 and Galations 3:19, the Holy Torah was given to the Jewish people by "angels." But, according to Exodus 20:1, it was given to Moses by G-d: "And G-d spoke all these words."

(16) Acts 7:14 says that 75 souls went down to Egypt. Yet, Genesis 46:27 it says "threescore and ten" (70) went down to Egypt.

(17) Jesus tells Peter to buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Peter reportedly uses his sword to cut off the ear of a Temple guard (John 18:10; Matthew 26:52-53). But Jesus, even though he urged Peter to buy a sword, criticizes Peter: "All those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword (Matthew 26:52)."

(18) Continuing with Matthew 26, we find in verses 17 through 20 that the Last Supper was a Passover Seder. On the contrary, we find in John 19:14 that it was the preparation day for the Passover.

(19) Hebrews, chapter 9, verse 22 says: "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin." But, the Bible, in Isaiah, chapter 43, verses 23 through 25 teaches just the opposite; "You (Israelites) have not honored me (G-d) with your (blood) sacrifices. (Nevertheless) I will forgive your sins." And Hosea, chapter 14, verse 2 says G-d accepts "words" of thanks (prayer in place of sacrifices).

(20) Romans, chapter 10, verse 13: "For whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." But Matthew, chapter 7, verse 21 says "Not everybody who says to me (Jesus), Lord, Lord, shall enter the Kingdom." Thus, we learn that Jesus is not G-d or an emissary of G-d.

(21) It is claimed in Ecclesians 1:4 that the earth does abideth forever. In II Peter 3:10, the opposite is stated.

(22) Further, why does John 8:14 say that: "If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true if John 5:31 says "If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is not true?"

(23) According to Matthew 17:11 and Mark 9:2, Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after six days. Or was it eight days in accordance to Luke 9:28?

(24) The claim is made that Jesus "justified" the sinner (Romans 4:5; Romans 15:9). But, the Bible in Proverbs 17, verse 15 teaches that "He who justifies the sinner is an abomination to G-d."

Conclusion

If there is any area in which the Christian Bible's imperfections and errancy is most apparent, it is that of inconsistencies and contradictions. The book is a veritable miasma of contradictory assertions and obvious disagreements, which is to be expected in any writing formulated over approximately 1,500 years by 40 or 50 different writers, few of whom seemed to be precisely concerned with what the others had penned.

In fact the writers were just never there.

I am not interested in Apologetics. I like reading honest and objective research. I have done plenty of studying and researching for the past three years. Maybe you can answear this. Why is it that Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation before the passover in John's gospel but crucified on the day of the passover in the other three gosples. According to the synoptics Jesus had the last supper as a seder meal but John said it was a regular meal after washing the feet of the appostles. could you explain that. Is the holy Ghost the author of confusion?

Ben,

NT exegetes like Professor Crossan have listed the authors and publication years of the various epistles and gospels. See,

http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf
e.g.

1. First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians [I Thess]. Written from Corinth in late 50 CE (Koester, 1982:2.112).
2. Letter of Paul to the Galatians [Gal]. Written from Ephesus possibly in the winter of 52-53 CE (Koester, 1982:2.116).
3. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians [1 Cor]. Written from Ephesus in the winter of 53-54 CE (Koester, 1982:2.121).
4. Letter of Paul to the Romans [Rom]. Written from Corinth in the winter of 55-56 CE (Koester, 1982:2.138).

See also two of Professor Crossan's books, The Historical Jesus and In Search of Paul, to get a more contemporay view of what really happened in first century Palestine.

Who ever wrote 1John was no appostle of Jesus; That's for sure nor was the writer of the gospel according to John. No one left their wrinting signed sincerely yours such and such. The NT is a collection of ananymous writings by pseudonyms except for epistles of Paul and some of them are falsly attributed to him. This collection was put together in the fourth century and the name inspired by God was stuck on it. Talking about the antichrist, maybe you should try Paul. His teaching is defenitely anti Jesus' teaching. How come Jesus never prophecied that a person would come after him and would explain the crucifixion and its meaning to humanity. The blood sacrifice is Paul's invention. Mark, Luke, Matthew and John don't talk about any blood sacrifice. How come? The NT is full of contradicting doctrines; maybe that's the reason there are over twenty thousand Christian denominations in the world today. Each believing they are saved and the others are going to hell...

Fulan,

You are grasping. The NT superseded the OT so your OT citations are nul and void. And the OT is so full of myths, it can be hardly considered the word of any god. Even the NT, as per Professor Crossan, is over 50% embellished. What Muslims need to do is have the religious pros like Professors Crossan and Borg, update the Koran to a rational document fitting life in the 21st century not fitting the life of wandering nomads taking directions from an illiterate "prophet" in the 7th century AD.

Andy in Arlington

A good neighbor loves his friends enough to tell them the truth so that they can be set free from deception. One who hates his neighbor would withhold the truth that can make him free.

Fulan,

The Jesus Muslims believe in is not the Jesus of the Bible. The Apostle John said that whoever denied that Jesus was the Son of God was and antichrist. He wrote:

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 John 2:22-23).

Muhammad denied this as follows:

"Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten" (Qur'an 112:2-3).

“They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers” (Qur’an5:72).

Therefore, Muhammad was an antichrist. You too are spouting this false doctrine and believe the lie of Muhammad who denies that Jesus died of the cross and arose from the dead. This is a direct attack on one of the central teachings of Jesus Christ. He came to pay the debt for our sins and raise from the dead so that we could have new life. He did that for you. Satan does not want you or anyone to see this truth so he created a religion through Muhammad. This religion denies that Jesus is the Son of God who became a man to die on behalf of man, to pay the debt for sin that man could not pay. He then arose from the dead so that all who would believe would have eternal life.

We all know John 3:16. Qur'an 112:2-3 is a direct attack on John 3:16 and it is a denial that Jesus is the Son of God. John said that “No one who denies the Son has the Father.” That means that Muslims do not know God. Now, stop treating Islam like it is some kind of good religion that has been high-jacked by extremists. Muhammad was an Antichrist and Islam is a deception of the Devil. I pray that Muslims would see the truth of Jesus Christ the Son of God and be set free from their bondage.

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16).

Veritas,
if that is what your religion teaches, why are you not practicing it's teachings it on this forum in regard to your Muslim neighbors? It has always been my belief that Christ is very troubled by the vast majority of his supposed followers, and that if he would appear today in person would probably be completely rejected by them.

To Veritas vos Liberabit:
Are the quotes from the Bible (read above) figurative too?????