Islam and the West- my Facebook thread

I found this video recently courtesy of Cranmer


Cranmer begins his article like this ""When you're asked an awkward question, you can either distract and deflect as the politician does; you can ruminate and reflect as the philosopher does; you can equivocate and obfuscate as the diplomat does.Or you can answer the question explicitly and directly, as the soldier does."

A comment on Cranmer said "There are moderate Muslims but there is no such thing as moderate Islam".

A view I heartily endorse, so I posted it on Facebook. The replies came back over the next day or so, so here's the thread:

Mike started with
"Watching this video prompted me to consider the similarity between the Koran, Mein Kampf and Das Kapital. The authors of at least two of these were probably madmen, and all three authors presented a totalitarian system that can only exist i...n its own enviroment, making it an imperative to destroy any opposing system. The concept "hate the sin but love the sinner" is incomprehensible to such a system, which can only understand "hate the sin and destroy the sinner". The old adage "kill or be killed" presents a dilemma to the Christian, since if we choose to "love the sinner", the sinner will still try to kill us, so we are presented with a choice that challenges our ethics: do we pray or fight, or even do both? This calls for a great deal of wisdom and faith, and total trust in God. Is the cry of Jehoshaphat enough "we don't know what to do but our eyes are on You" ?"

My reply "Islam cannot exist without the West. Where else would the arabs go when they want to get drunk and go whoring? And they do, oh yes they do!"

Mike: "I know they go to Mecca every year, do you reckon they do more than just play bingo there, then?"

Richard chipped in with "Where's morality in the Bible though?!"

I replied "I'd be happy to sit and go through the Bible with you any day. I'm happy to point out all the inconsistencies and bits I don't agree with. I will however, also show you all the consistenies, the continuous narrative, the fulfilled prophesie...s, the bits I can't argue against, and the undeniable (to me) fact that it has the ring of truth.
Morality is an absolute. If it's not, if morality changes to suit the conditions, then it's not absolute, and it's not morality.
Which makes me a sinner in need of grace and salvation. Over to you."

Mike came back with "You could start with the 10 Commandments, Richard. And could I ask you where the immorality is in the Bible?"

Richard came back later with "I suppose you could start with "Stone disobedient children" (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) and go from there really...Leviticus makes interesting reading as well. I'm no expect in these texts but I certainly don't consider the Koran to be any more immoral than the Bible."

Good point. Worthy of a response. Here it is.
"Touche. These laws belong to a different age, like "Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together" Deut 22:11. Everyone and anyone can point to the book of rules to justify their actions- look at council jobsworths for example. My beef with Islam is that there is no peace, no love, no forgiveness, and because Mohammed said so, no chance of ever changing it. The Old Testament pointed to the New- and you must study Isaiah to see where and how and why. Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah, Jews believe that he wasn't, and the Messiah is still to come, but Islam gives no hope, because Mohammed is the final revelation, and therefore there is no hope, only chaos and violence.
When your book of laws allows you to keep slaves, to deny women any rights and to kill all unbelievers, it pretty much gives you carte blanche to do anything you like. It sickens me.
However, I will add that all organised religion sickens me, not because of the truth they claim for themselves, but on their insistence that everyone must live according to rules they set. The unassailable fact is that the first duty of any organisation is to ensure its own survival, and the first casualty will ever and always be truth.
Politicians lie to ensure the survival of their party, church leaders lie to ensure the survival of their denomination or faith. It's what they do. It's genetically inbred.
Jesus never set up any organisation. He never founded a church. He lives his life as an example to us all. He was arrested on a trumped up charge because he was seen as a threat to the established religion and the rulers of the day. And they murdered him. Everyone who accepts the corrupt practices of religion, or thinks that any evil thought word or deed that keeps an organisation in power is OK are guilty by association.
The difference between Islam and Jesus teaching is that under Islam we must all die, because there is no forgiveness, but Jesus promised that all who believe in him can be forgiven, because when he was murdered on the cross, all the sins of the world were paid for in a way that I don't understand, or have to, because all I have to do is to say I'm sorry and accept that Jesus death paid for my sins, and follow him.

It's when the church and state gets involved that it all goes wrong.
But back to your point. Because Mohammed "married" his 9 year old cousin and had sex with her, does that mean that paedos can claim that they were only following his teachings?"

I expect there will be more.....But for now, the fact that we are able to have this conversation speaks volumes about the freedom we currently enjoy. I suspect it will not last for long. We are rushing headlong towards a totalitarian society (wrong word, try world) where children are encouraged to spy on their parents, where everything is illegal unless it is permitted, and people like me will have the knock on the door in the middle of the night to look forward to.

Drugs- supply and demand

There's an interesting article in today's Mail. An "expert" has come out with a new theory on how to solve the cannabis problem. You can read about it here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311819/Legalise-cannabis-sales-cut-crime-save-NHS-millions-says-expert.html
This is what he has to say:
"The Aberdeen University professor, who has dedicated the last four decades to researching the drug, said that the current prohibition clearly isn't working and feasible alternatives include producing branded products that undergo strict safety tests. Made under licence, they would be free of contaminants and sold in shops, removing the risk of users also being sold harder drugs.
Those who wanted to use the drug could apply for a licence.
Professor Pertwee told the British Science Festival in Birmingham: 'We have to have a car licence, we used to have a dog licence, so why not have a cannabis licence so you can only take it if it is medically safe to do so?
'That would exclude some people who are have a risk of becoming schizophrenic.'

This won't work for very practical reasons. The government are able to tax alcohol and tobacco because they have access to every part of the supply chain.

Can you for one moment imagine the drugs barons allowing the government access? Or giving away a proportion of their profits?

If so, then what we have have is the drugs barons buying off the police and government in return for registering for VAT?

What about if the government set up its own cannabis supply chain to be sold through Tesco? They would then become one of the world's largest drug manufacturers and suppliers and I can see that going down well on the world's stage.
Prohibition doesn't work. banning something makes it more attractive to some people.
The first and probably only thing I learned at school when studying economics was to do with supply and demand.
When demand is high and supply is low, the price goes up.
When supply is high and demand is low, the price goes down.

Prohibition didn't work because it tried to cut supply without the corresponding cut in demand. Only a cut in demand can reduce the supply permanently. Why manufacture something that no-one wants to buy?

The decline of this country's manufacturing capacity can be traced to a lack of demand for the product they were offering. The competitor's products were better and cheaper and so manufacturing ceased.

So how does one eliminate the demand for cannabis and other drugs? Shouldn't this form the focus of the expert's studies and research?

As an aside, and I'm not suggesting that this is the answer for everyone,I read a lot about the Welsh Revival of 1904/5. Here's an article about it:
http://www.openheaven.com/library/history/wales.htm

"According to the London Times of February 2nd, 1905 due to the Welsh revival many men abandoned dens of iniquity. Employers noticed a great improvement in the work produced by their employees. A judge named Sir Marchant Williams said that his work was much lighter especially regarding drunkenness and related offenses."

The argument against the long term benefits of the 1904/5 revival is that it did nothing for the long term decline in Christian attendance and observance, but they fail to take into account the huge loss of life in the trenches of the First World War, when every church, every street in every town suffered loss. Loss of the young, the strong, the energetic.

Alcoholics Anonymous use belief in a higher being as a cornerstone of their treatment, so maybe that's the way forward for some.

Perhaps some thought should be given as to why people take drugs and drink themselves senseless?

Is it for the same reason as to why some people absorb themselves in the minutae of other's lives- the cult of the celebrity, played out in dozens of weekly magazines?
Is it anything to do with the vast population of this country that have no part to play in the daily outworkings? That are powerless, thoughtless and hopeless- without hope?

Maybe we need another religious revival....

Get over it

Grumpyoldtwat has produced some posters in response to the increasingly strident Stonewall organisation.
Go to this site for more
http://grumpyoldtwat.blogspot.com/2010/02/gobby-gayers.html

Jesus and Mo

Can I recommend Jesus and Mo to you? Here's the link, or hit the title to this post.
http://www.jesusandmo.net/

Jesus and Mo share a house and drink at the local pub where various theological debates are aired. It's a very clever and funny way of bringing out the differences between Christianity and Islam, and where their views coincide. Here's today's post.

Free will

A facebook friend commented today
"How can God give us free-will AND the threat of Hell? Paradox!"

I replied
"God gives you free will- and then condemns you to hell if you use it...."

Those who know me will know that I used to dabble in theology until I realised that people believed what they want to believe. How else can one reconcile the added extras that the various Christian denominations insist on? Protestants are divided into those who believe that God chose who He is to save before they were born (predestination)and those who don't. Then there is the thorny issue of what happens when believers leave the church. Some will point to their Bibles and insist that it says "once saved, always saved", while others say that if a person leaves the church he has fallen away from the faith and is condemned to hell.
So you can see why I no longer preach or indulge in theology. People believe what they want to believe. How else can one explain the green movement?
It all comes down to choice. I choose to believe that Jesus died for my sins. I choose to believe Him when he says that all who call on His name will be saved.
I choose not to believe anything any of the mainstream churches try to add to my simple belief. It's a matter of choice. My choice.

I found this quote on another website, regarding the difference between the "Common Sense" and "Pragmatism" schools of philosophy. Here's the link
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2010/01/common_sense_ve.html

"For choice is neither predetermined (for that is no choice) or random chance (for that is no choice either) - choice is what it is, neither predetermined or chance. Choice is choice." 19th Century philosopher Thomas Reid