Recently, the newly formed Oklahoma chapter of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was reported to have given a presentation to the Oklahoma State School Boards Association and offering them plenty of material to bring Islam into the public schools in Oklahoma.
I didn't find this article in any newspaper in Oklahoma, oh no, I found this article on Islamonline, a Dubai based Islamic internet site which is owned, in part, by HAMAS/Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader, Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Al-Qaradhawi) who openingly supports suicide bombers! The article was submitted to them by CAIR!
http://www.islamonline.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=33302
I found this article about a book written by the Pope. "The Real Jesus", not in any newspaper in Oklahoma, oh no, I found this article on Islamonline, a dubai based Islamic internet site which is owned, in part, by HAMAS/Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader, Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Al-Qaradhawi) who openingly supports suicide bombers!
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1176631630902&pagename=Zone-English-ArtCulture%2FACELayout
And then there is this about a movie made by Mel Gibson. I just knew he had to have something to do with Islamic terrorism.
http://www.islamonline.net/English/ArtCulture/2004/02/article01.shtml
First they brought witchcraft into our schools. "Harry Potter" books, and now information about a different religion! I remember seeing something in one school book about Mayan and Toltec cultures and religion. We all know how horrible those religions were with all that blood sacrifice, wars and such. Thank goodness the Spanish put an end to that. Saw something on Buddism too. Those hideous Japanese and their religion. Think of how many Americans they killed for their "Divine Emperor" during World War II.
Big difference. The articles you are referring to were picked up in the media and put on the website.
CAIR OK press release was not carried in any newspaper that I'm aware.
You tell me.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Man
Big difference. The articles you are referring to were picked up in the media and put on the website.
CAIR OK press release was not carried in any newspaper that I'm aware.
You tell me.
Tell you what? There are lots of stories that happen locally that are not in local newspapers but get posted in specialty papers, specialty interests, online, etc. Stories that happen in the Black Community, Asian, Hispanic, Gay, bikers, tatoo artists, people who like horses, quilting, the Jewish community, Unitarians, you name it. I dont think most presentations to the "Oklahoma State School Boards Association" make the local news, let alone Reuters.
In surfing the net, I found out that the Oklahoma School Boards Assocation deny that CAIR did a presentation. What is going on here?
Sounds like you got bum information. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't mean it's true.
I was unaware that Christianity was losing so many people. I figured for sure, as loud as the right-wing nuts were shouting in the 90's, that they'd picked up some people. But they didn't, go figure. They decreased by 7% of the US population between 1990 and 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
One of the pitfalls to making your Religion a part of Politics I suppose.
Unless they do some drastic soul-searching and change it up a bit, self-described "Christians" will be just another minority within a few decades.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
I was unaware that Christianity was losing so many people. I figured for sure, as loud as the right-wing nuts were shouting in the 90's, that they'd picked up some people. But they didn't, go figure. They decreased by 7% of the US population between 1990 and 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
One of the pitfalls to making your Religion a part of Politics I suppose.
Unless they do some drastic soul-searching and change it up a bit, self-described "Christians" will be just another minority within a few decades.
Very insightful, Michael. I heard some facts from the Tulsa SoBaps last year that confirmed what you are saying, but on a local level. THe majority of their churches are in decline. That's just membership, too. Attendance is even worse. (I wish I could find those figures)
I absolutely agree with you that the church crossing over into politics is one major cause of the decline. This is just my opinion, and no specific factors were included in the SoBap report, but I think it's obvious.
Just curious - what other factors do you believe are involved? (Anyone - not just MichaelC)
Attrition. I always kind of knew the mainline protestants were losing. Primarily through attrition, people die and there weren't enough youngsters to carry on. People find the religion of their youth, dated and ineffective. But I figured Evangelical Churches might have made up for it, that's the "new thing" in relative terms, which they obviously haven't made up for losses.
The Church I was brought up in, it's a mainline Protestant, maybe 75% are just plain elderly, and you have a few families and children, most of whom will move on to other things eventually, and eventually disappear.
There may be a time where the only large Christian groups are Evangelicals and Catholics with Baptists running a distant 3rd. Just because of attrition, and an inability to change, and an inability to appeal to people..
Yep. The number of people who don't go to church is one of the fastest-growing segments in the United States.
"Since 1991, the adult population in the United States has grown by 15%. During that same period the number of adults who do not attend church has nearly doubled, rising from 39 million to 75 million - a 92% increase!
"These startling statistics come from the most recent tracking study of religious behavior conducted by The Barna Group, a company that follows trends related to faith, culture and leadership in America. The latest study shows that the percentage of adults that is unchurched - defined as not having attended a Christian church service, other than for a holiday service, such as Christmas or Easter, or for special events such as a wedding or funeral, at any time in the past six months - has risen from 21% in 1991 to 34% today."
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=163
I also think maybe people are really fed up with "religion" as it is presented and represented and are more "spiritual" minded. The attrition is obvious, I guess my question is - Why the attrition?
I guess the SoBaps could do their own survey, but how many people would actually answer truthfully if they know who it is that is asking the question?
Is it that life is too busy?
Is it that the caricature of the christian and televangelist has caught up to them?
Is it because the church is speaking about issues that are irrelevant?
How much of it can be attributed to the very public failings and actions of high-profile preachers?
Could it be about the church losing focus (politics, money and power instead of whatever that gospel thing is supposed to center on - loving your neighbor)?
Some of you who have "left the church behind" (or maybe you feel that the church has left you behind) I would love to hear why.
I think, restored2x, that the answer to many of your questions would be "yes."
yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, AND, I think, because folks who have become a part of this new 'information age' now have a world of diversity at their fingertips. This quickly brings into question the position that our faith is the one true faith and others are all on the train to hell.
^ditto.
Obviously, Christianity (everything that term entails) has been the dominant religion for quite some time in this country. But, ultimately, if you repeat the same action over and over again you're not going to get different results. There's a point in Christianity where all logic seems to fail. It mostly has to do with preservation.
I've seen a lot of articles about Christians concerned about why their religion seems to be shrinking. And they're answer is; we need to be more over the top and in people's faces. Do the same thing, just do it louder. That's not going to work.
A lot of what Christianity focuses on today, seems to be "hating the sin", rather than the love aspect of the religion. That may fly in certain Christian circles, but it won't fly in Secular society. And as diverse as this country is, and as diverse as it's becoming, that "hate" aspect becomes more and more of a losing battle. So, if Christians choose to keep their focus there, I don't see how they can possibly reverse the trend.
Which makes people like Carlson Pearson an anomaly, and special. They took that focus away. They're chances of survival long-term, are pretty good in relative terms. Obviously, anything can shut down a church, but their line of thought has a good chance of growing.
Thanks to all. I'm gonna send some preacher friends to this thread - very enlightening.
Anyone - please feel free to do more.
Better yet - PM me - I just realized that this is thread hijack! Maybe I'll start a different thread sometime in the future.
Well, one other thing, don't expect to "win." It's more about survival, than winning. Certain denominations are probably just doomed to failure, primarily because they won't change. And, faced with outside competition, other religions other opportunities, it's not likely that Christianity will see long-term growth anyway. It will probably fluctuate some, but in the long-term Christianity in the US is probably on the decline, just as it has been in Europe.
That being said, some churches will be equipped well enough to not only survive, but to grow. Some will actually make necessary changes, and work on Christianity as a more internal/spiritual/accepting concept, rather than the proselytizing/external/demanding concept. People will still be interested in being Christian, but they'll be less interested in a religion that requires that they constantly project Christianity in all that they do. They'll be less interested in a religion that demands reason and logic, depending on the case, be discounted or demonized.
That's a long ways off, especially for here in Tulsa. Small steps couldn't hurt though.
There seemed to be such a large fervor towards more fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity for a long time. Lots of people flocked to those churches. It appears that over time the newness, ferver, "wonderful expectation" or whatever you want to call it, begins to wear off for many. They find that life is still pretty much the same, that these people arent really much different, coupled with the fact that they begin to see people saying one thing, pretending one thing, then doing and living another. Or that simply when they joined they were in one place in their lives, once the challenges of that place were adressed and they moved on they found themselves with people who had no more to offer. The message was the same, but they needed something at a higher level. Some churches only have a limited view and dont adequatly serve different people who are at different stages in their lives.
I have seen quite a few people personally who went into this or that church zelously and for years were out there preaching the gospel, hearing voices, miraculous cures, thinking that life was going to be wonderful...Then you run into them years later and find them disenchanted, frustrated and even angry at some of the lies and hypocracy they were constantly confronting. (Heard one friend say. some of the people he knew who touted and believed most in faith healing turned out to be the most out of shape and constantly getting sick, whining people he had ever met. lol They could always point to the time they were "miraculously cured" it sounded wonderful at first, you could really be drawn in by the strength and wonder of their beliefs and the way they talked. But then in real life, over the years, you began to see how often they were ill, prayed, nothing happened, would never mention those times if you asked them, just remembered the exceptions they shared amongst themselves. etc.) The "magic" was definitely gone, the story that was sold began to fall apart. While still Christian, the views have moderated, become a bit more nuanced. All the answers arent to be found in one church or its version of Christianity and how "God works".
There are different types of churches. There are different types of people. Many people evolve and change over time. A very strict, narrowly defined church may attract people of that manner, or someone who is in a particular place in their life for example. But once that person changes, the narrower the churches views or reach, the narrower the range and kind of people it serves, the more likely it is for that person to move on.
The last couple of months I have gone away from being a regular church goer to spending time with a televised religious experience.
I now watch the Sunday services from "Our lady of the NFL."
We pray for touchdowns.
Wow guys. I am so glad I joined this forum. You have obviously thought this thing out. With all the bickering and stuff on here sometimes, you have taken a subject that is very delicate for many and eloquently and logically answered my question.
Thanks a bunch. This subject fascinates me.
I was just wondering if all Muslims follow the religious ruling of the Islamic Society of North America. Is this the highest Muslim authority in America?
I was surprised to read on Islamonline which is based in Qatar a fatwa or religious ruling about an American holiday:
Dr. Muzamil Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Soceity of North America (ISNA), issues the following Fatwa:
Halloween is an old pagan holiday of the witches and the dead. Later some Christians tried to Christianize it by calling it "All Saints Day". However there are still many Christians who resent it and consider it a bad holiday. Some of them even call it a "helliday."
Whether Christians accept it or not, we Muslims should not accept this holiday. It is meaningless. Wearing costumes, going tricking and treating and decorating houses with witches, spider nets and wasting so much pumpkins, etc., are all repugnant things. It is strange to see reasonable people acting as weirdo and doing foolish things. It is also becoming quite dangerous nowadays. Some people really act like monsters and witches. Muslims should not participate in this holiday.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543074
quote:
Originally posted by restored2x
I also think maybe people are really fed up with "religion" as it is presented and represented and are more "spiritual" minded. The attrition is obvious, I guess my question is - Why the attrition?
I guess the SoBaps could do their own survey, but how many people would actually answer truthfully if they know who it is that is asking the question?
Is it that life is too busy?
Is it because the church is speaking about issues that are irrelevant?
How much of it can be attributed to the very public failings and actions of high-profile preachers?
Could it be about the church losing focus (politics, money and power instead of whatever that gospel thing is supposed to center on - loving your neighbor)?
Some of you who have "left the church behind" (or maybe you feel that the church has left you behind) I would love to hear why.
Well since many of the regulars have participated in thread-jacking, I'll add my .02. [;)]
Is it that life is too busy?
Used to be Sunday was a day off for everyone except pastors. Over the last 25 to 30 years, with the exception of a few, retailers and restaurants are open 7 days a week. There are other businesses which are now staffed 7 days a week. Now we have kids sports on Sundays which never happened when I was a kid- not even practice.
Is it that the caricature of the christian and televangelist has caught up to them?
It's not the primary reason I don't go to church regularly, but I do think the well-publicized escapades of "famous" ministers has made a lot of people like myself wonder if all the rest of the men and women of the cloth are as disingenuous.
Is it because the church is speaking about issues that are irrelevant?
Each faith believes it speaks the inspired word of God. I can't really think of specific irrelevant ways a church speaks unless they are leaving out what their followers expect to hear.
How much of it can be attributed to the very public failings and actions of high-profile preachers?
I don't think it's helped. It's definitely created a ton of cynicism toward organized religion.
Could it be about the church losing focus (politics, money and power instead of whatever that gospel thing is supposed to center on - loving your neighbor)?
That has a lot to do with it. I have a whole logn dissertation on this, you and I can discuss it over lunch sometime, I'll spare readers here with a 5000 word essay. Churches get so large, their focus winds up getting away from the original purpose of spirituality and charity. Instead it turns into a weekly fund drive to make the utility payments, debt service, payroll, and saving up for the next big building project.
The constant reminders of my financial responsibility to the church is probably the #1 reason I don't have a church home. To me that detracts from the spiritual experience.
Some of you who have "left the church behind" (or maybe you feel that the church has left you behind) I would love to hear why.
I grew up in the Episcopal Church. St. John's and Trinity. Along about 1990 the church figured out their membership was down to about 2mm or so and shrinking (might have been 1mm, that's been a long time ago). They were thinking maybe they needed to become more evangelical.
To me the Episcopal mass was a Sunday obligation learned from the time I was a small child. Aside from being an acolyte (altar boy) and being in youth group, I never got a sense of belonging. I would also look around on Sundays and see the same people in their same pews reciting many of the rituals from rote.
I belonged to Methodist, and Covenant churches and felt fairly comfortable there, but again they were two churches getting too big to competently serve all members. Big enough there was sort of a pecking order amongst parishioners.
I had a personal epiphany about 7 years ago. I finally figured out there was a difference between religion and spirituality. Spirituality being the personal relationship with God, Yahweh, or Allah, religion just being one of the ways you can find and nurture that relationship.
For me, it's a daily one-on-one with God. It's not based on diluted or interpreted messages of others. That being said, when I do go to church these days, there's almost always something I heard at church that day I was needing to hear.
I really don't feel the church is leaving the parishioners behind. People are growing intellectually. Miracles are now explained away by science or random chance. People feel their church is too restrictive toward a life-style they want to be able to live guilt-free.
People progressively want God to bend to their will, instead of living within His will or discipline. Think about how long people have tried to get the Vatican to change it's stance on divorce, birth control, and abortion. A lot of people have gotten weary of living with a preacher-induced cloud of sin hanging over their heads.
I think we will see Carlton Pearson's church grow beyond Tulsa. Other preachers don't like the message because they think if everyone is already saved, what's the point in going to church? Kind of hurts their livlihood, right? I think people still want fellowship with others on a similar spiritual path. I think even if everyone is saved, there's always room to learn to become a better humanitarian.
To answer, and further hijack the thread lol, why I dont personally go to church? I don't feel or see much of a reason to.
I have found a church that seems to fit my temperment, personality, and the way I think. Boston Avenue Methodist. I am not the jumping up and down, singing, flopping around on the floor speaking in tongues type person at all. For those who are, go for it and have a blast[8D]. But please dont put me down because I am not. I am more the intellectual, analytical, meditative type. But I will watch Dr Biggs at Boston Ave on TV, that way I dont have to bother with the standing up and singing part, absolutely positively bores me to tears, mind-numingly boring. If ya try to kick back and read or do something else while everyone else is singing, I dont care how nice they are, there is always some little old lady around that will give ya dirty looks. I am like "What? is there some rule that says ya HAVE to sing?" Perhaps I am just too independent, or just haven't found my place.
I think I am a good person who is always trying to be better to grow and become more, to improve myself and to make the world a better place. I have plenty of room to grow, I pretty much know what I need to do, its just getting off my butt and doing them, creating those life habits. I need to relax more, really relax, do yoga, garden, watch sunsets and smell the roses more. I need to exercise more and eat better. Need to work on building friendships, having family and friends over more often, visiting them more often. Need to read more, travel and explore the world more. I am not unhappy or feel alone, dont have financial troubles, am the absolute luckiest person when it comes to my job. All in all, not bad and getting better.
Why go to church? One reason I can think of is this...
When someone is at a really bad point in their lives or hurting, or when someone has an addiction problem,,, the church can have remarkable success with helping them. Even more than programs that don't have a religious bent. The church, the way it works, what it asks of people to do, the life structure it sets up, and how it asks them to think can definitely make an improvement in that persons life. It can be exactly what they need. But if your not at that place, those very things can be annoying lol. You may be at a different stage and those things may not be of help to you. Perhaps thats when you begin to take on another chapter in your life and become the person who helps, rather than the helped. You, in a way, become the church that people go to, you carry it around with you werever you go, its essence showing in the daily things you say and do. Perhaps a church will have others like yourself there. Perhaps it will not.
Its kind of like growing up. Many a young person gets to the point where they have issues with their parents. 1. There are those that basically stay children in relation to their parents, and keep the "issues" going. 2. those that grow to be equals with the parent, sometimes realizing they have to demand that the parents treat them as an equal and not as a child. 3. Sometimes the adult child evolves further than the parent and in essence the roles become reversed, the child has to accept that they are the responsible adult, do the right adult things, and be understanding of the parent and their "faults and failings". 4. You cant pick your parents, but you can pick your friends. Sometimes your parents turn out to have been people you wouldnt have picked as friends. Not because either is more or less mature etc. but simply because your different people that dont get along.
People often find that they face those same options, transitions, and realizations with the church.
Recently, the newly formed Oklahoma chapter of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was reported to have given a presentation to the Oklahoma State School Boards Association and offering them plenty of material to bring Islam into the public schools in Oklahoma.
This press release ison Islamonline, a Qatar based Islamic internet site which is owned, in part, by HAMAS/Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader, Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Al-Qaradhawi) who openingly supports suicide bombers! The article was submitted to them by CAIR OK, the Council of American Islamic Relations of Oklahoma!
The Oklahoma Schools Boards Association has denied that CAIR OK did this presentation so there is a definite misunderstanding here or something.
http://www.islamonline.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=33302
-----
Do most American Muslims follow the religious ruling or fatwas of the Islamic Society of North America?. Is this the highest Muslim authority in America?
I was surprised to read on Islamonline issued a fatwa about an American holiday:
Dr. Muzamil Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Soceity of North America (ISNA), issues the following Fatwa:
Halloween is an old pagan holiday of the witches and the dead. Later some Christians tried to Christianize it by calling it "All Saints Day". However there are still many Christians who resent it and consider it a bad holiday. Some of them even call it a "helliday."
Whether Christians accept it or not, we Muslims should not accept this holiday. It is meaningless. Wearing costumes, going tricking and treating and decorating houses with witches, spider nets and wasting so much pumpkins, etc., are all repugnant things. It is strange to see reasonable people acting as weirdo and doing foolish things. It is also becoming quite dangerous nowadays. Some people really act like monsters and witches. Muslims should not participate in this holiday.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543074
Continuing the interesting hijacking of this thread (who cares if Muslims don't like Halloween; I'm indifferent to it myself), I found myself nodding when I read Artist's post.
I quit going to church years ago because, frankly, I could think of about a million things I could do that are more useful or enjoyable.
A few people I know have said, "Maybe you haven't found the right church home." After much trial and as much error, I've resigned myself to that there is no church home for me. I went to my family's church through my teenage years, and have been in dozens of churches since. I finally stopped going because I didn't feel the presence of God, Allah, or whatever she calls herself these days [:P] and decided to stop fooling myself.
This does not mean there is disbelief. I feel the presence of God when I'm in in the wilds of western Oklahoma and New Mexico, when I'm caring for my beehive, and when I'm listening to Solomon Burke or the Blind Boys of Alabama on my Mp3 player. I'm just a different kind of cat.
I've also grown dismayed with how stupid or myopic some so-called Christians are. I do NOT believe the Bible is the unerring word of God, if for no other reason because it's been translated and retranslated umpteen times by human beings who are fallible. When you're dealing with that many centuries, languages and the inherent accuracy problems with the oral traditions from where Scriptures sprang, something's bound to get fouled up. Why people delude themselves of this possibility is beyond me.
And then you have these fools who believe the universe is just 6,000 years old -- at a time when you can look into the night sky and see stars that are millions of light years away.
I've also grown weary of what I call religious arrogance. You've got people of all stripes who are absolutely convinced their religion is THE way. The last I checked, the Supreme Being has not sent a tangible message on whose religion is best, if there is one at all. There is no proof whatsoever which belief system is best, so to be all arrogant about Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism is presumptuous. Apparently the question, "Has it ever occurred to you that you could be wrong?" has never crossed their minds.
And some cite religion to maintain morality. Feh. Some of the most moral people I know are agnostics or atheists. Good manners and compassion will do as much as any religion. And since they don't know whether there's a better world awaiting, they're motivated to make the current world a better place NOW. This is not a bad thing.
Do you hijackers not see that what you do helps give serious credibility to my inquiries?
Freedom to inquire and the quest for the truth cannot and will not be cowed into silence.
It just gives me more strength.
Now kakie...this forum is a conversation...people add their thoughts and sometimes the discussion goes somewhere else.
Just because no one answers your question, it doesn't mean you get credibility.
You seem very informed and opinioned on religious issues. I enjoying reading differing viewpoints, but don't feel qualified or pushed to answer every question raised. Frankly, I like threads better that include what posters actually think rather than two posters trying to fight and demand each other answer each of their questions.
Kakie, the thread has evolved. Discussions do go off into tangents and often taken on a life of their own.
It's been my experience that as long as the off-topic replies are civil and/or interesting, the moderator will leave it alone.
Perhaps the reason no one is answering your inquiries is because the tangent is more interesting.
Artist and RW- two excellent honest replies in your own walks and beliefs.
I truly believe God speaks to us in ways and places we each uniquely understand. For some it comes in a church, synagogue, mosque, or temple. For some it's admiring the colorful vistas of the mesas of the American southwest, for some getting out and helping the community in tangible ways, for some it comes in creativity, for some deep meditation, and for someone else it might be setting out to circumnavigate the globe in a small sailboat.
The ways in which we can be touched by a power greater than ourselves is limitless as long as you have open eyes, ears, mind, and heart.
In other words, there's no limits in where we can find our own personal spirituality and how we have communion with God though there are some who don't even recognize it as God but still get the same feeling. Personally, the God of my personal understanding isn't disappointed when I don't go to church on Sunday.
I don't hold anyone else's beliefs against them until it starts to impinge on mine. I never try to influence my views or personal spiritual walk on anyone else. If there's something that is appealing to others, I don't mind sharing what I have found but I won't push it on someone else un-solicited. To some, I'm sure they think I'm headed straight to hell. So be it, if that is their opinion. Last I checked they aren't God and aren't equipped to make that judgement.
"O God, that men should put an enemy in their mouths to steal away their brains!"
William Shakespeare
Othello. Act 2, Scene 3
Recently, the newly formed Oklahoma chapter of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was reported to have given a presentation to the Oklahoma State School Boards Association and offering them plenty of material to bring Islam into the public schools in Oklahoma.
This press release is on Islamonline, a Qatar based Islamic internet site which is owned, in part, by HAMAS/Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader, Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Al-Qaradhawi) who openingly supports suicide bombers! The article was submitted to them by CAIR OK, the Council of American Islamic Relations of Oklahoma!
The Oklahoma Schools Boards Association has denied that CAIR OK did this presentation so there is a definite misunderstanding here or something.
http://www.islamonline.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=33302
-----
Do most American Muslims follow the religious ruling or fatwas of the Islamic Society of North America?. Is this the highest Muslim authority in America?
I was surprised to read on Islamonline issued a fatwa about an American holiday:
Dr. Muzamil Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Soceity of North America (ISNA), issues the following Fatwa:
Halloween is an old pagan holiday of the witches and the dead. Later some Christians tried to Christianize it by calling it "All Saints Day". However there are still many Christians who resent it and consider it a bad holiday. Some of them even call it a "helliday."
Whether Christians accept it or not, we Muslims should not accept this holiday. It is meaningless. Wearing costumes, going tricking and treating and decorating houses with witches, spider nets and wasting so much pumpkins, etc., are all repugnant things. It is strange to see reasonable people acting as weirdo and doing foolish things. It is also becoming quite dangerous nowadays. Some people really act like monsters and witches. Muslims should not participate in this holiday.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543074
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Just because no one answers your question, it doesn't mean you get credibility.
If that was the case, I would be highly credible and RM would be giving credibility to almost every thread on here. As it is, we're just incredulous... or incredible. Ask our wives.
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Do you hijackers not see that what you do helps give serious credibility to my inquiries?
Freedom to inquire and the quest for the truth cannot and will not be cowed into silence.
It just gives me more strength.
Oh great, just what we need from
kakie and this new character,
Jeff Man, who I suspect is kakie's sockpuppet... more
moral-absolutist-spam!Which brings us back to the subject of this thread-jack... religion.
I grew up with the evangelical, fundamentalist church and institutions that would "stand up for what's right" and insist you had to "stand for something or you'll fall for anything."
I grew away from these churches after starting to catch onto the fact that this sect of Christianity wasn't really dedicated to
finding the truth. They were (and still are, IMO) dedicated to
Proving Their Truth.I remember having a great deal of respect for an elder of my church, who was one of those unassuming " humble servant/teacher" types. Well studied. Not a preacher, not an evangelist, not a modern-day "prophet." Just a wise-sage, or what we'd call in the church at the time... a "man of God" who knew "the word."
I went to his house and his always subservient wife would offer me something to eat or drink. I was already kinda offput by the condescending way the man treated his own wife. I walked into his study and saw books... lots of them... tons of them... megatons... not enough wall space, so there were also shelves filled with books in the hallway, dining room, living room, etc...
I got curious. I started looking... all these books were commentaries on the Bible... the Word of God. Understandable, I guess, for someone who is a dedicated teacher in Sunday School. But I kept looking... surely, somewhere in this house would be a "Popular Mechanics" or books about sports or poetry or classical music or literature, etc...
I found none. Although I did see a special section of books on the "end times," the evils of "secular humanism," how the church had become "carnal" or how secular and contemporary christian music is used as an "instrument of the devil," even when this music contains Christian lyrics.... after all, Satan was a musician, wasn't he...???
Years later, it made me wonder if I hadn't been part of a "socially acceptable cult."
Here was someone I respected when I was a teenager... yet I got more than a little repulsed at the time by the narrow focus of his book collection... especially for someone who claimed to be "non-denominational."
Fundamentalist muslims and fundamentalist christians have more in common than either group will ever admit... one of those things is a mutual hatred of all things "secular" and "humanist." It would explain why devout muslims would have a disdain for Halloween. And could explain why a Shiite I worked the drive-thru with at Arby's back in college, would have been so interested in my classical musical tastes and conservative evangelical religious beliefs.
He called himself an Iranian who despised the Shah, and looked down on more moderate middle-eastern students, especially the ones who called themselves "Persian" rather than "Iranian"...
--
to be continued...
Speaking of religion, which is not what this thread is about but hey I'll go with the flow.
Yusef Qaradawi, was once listed on IRS forms as one of four directors of the Islamic Society of Boston, and appeared in a 2002 fundraising video for the new sprawling mosque complex built in the neighborhood of Roxbury. After Boston Herald articles about Qaradawi's unsavory views, the Islamic Society of Boston defended Qaradawi on its website as a "leading Muslim scholar."
In 1995, Qaradawi spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, told followers, "We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America."
Isn't the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood to create a global Islamic state and take down America?
Sounds like the Muslim Brotherhood was taped after having a few too many beers. It's all empty bluster -- and 12 years ago, to boot.
Let me repeat this again -- Muslims are of no direct and substantial threat to the United States.
Why are you scared of a religious group that makes up less than 1 percent of the U.S. population, of which the humongous majority wants to make money, raise families and live peacefully?
I'm not buying into your skeeredy-cat rantings that have no logical basis. There are much bigger and more pressing things to worry about.
The reason his statement is old is likely because he's banned from the U.S. and is considered a global terrorist.
Documents about the Muslim Brotherhood's plan to destroy America was just brought to light by the Federal Government a couple months ago.
Numerous national Islamic organizations were identified for their relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood. None have denied this relationship.
Qaradawi urges Muslims to defend Iran
Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:34:40
Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a prominent cleric, has urged Muslims to defend Iran, should Washington launch an attack on the country.
In an interview with Islam-Online, Sheikh Qaradawi stressed Muslims' duty to fight against the enemies of Islam, adding that Muslims should defend Iran if it is attacked by the US.
The Egyptian cleric added that as Iran is a Muslim country, it is "obligatory for all Muslims" to resist any possible attack the US might launch against the country.
"The US is an enemy of Islam that has already declared war on Islam under the guise of war on terrorism," said the president of the International Association of Muslim Scholars.
Qaradawi also voiced his support for Tehran's right to peaceful nuclear technology, urging the regional countries to follow diplomacy to resolve their disputes.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=27058§ionid=351020101
Coming full circle here. Why was a press release from CAIR Oklahoma of interest to Islamonline over in the Middle East? I can see why they carried something about the Pope as he is a world religious leader. But of what interest could Islamonline located in the Middle East, owned in part by a U.S. global terrorist, possible have about bringing Islam into the Oklahoma Public schools?
Something else Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood, has written; that while Islam was twice evicted from Europe - from al-Andalus and from Greece - it is now in the process of returning.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Sounds like the Muslim Brotherhood was taped after having a few too many beers. It's all empty bluster -- and 12 years ago, to boot.
Let me repeat this again -- Muslims are of no direct and substantial threat to the United States.
Why are you scared of a religious group that makes up less than 1 percent of the U.S. population, of which the humongous majority wants to make money, raise families and live peacefully?
I'm not buying into your skeeredy-cat rantings that have no logical basis. There are much bigger and more pressing things to worry about.
There is reason for a rational fear amongst people in American society. It only took 19 radical Muslims to drag us into a six-year long war on terrorism. It's radical Muslims in Iran which might wind up dragging us into WW-III. I'm not losing sleep over it, but it's worth keeping an eye on it.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
There is reason for a rational fear amongst people in American society. It only took 19 radical Muslims to drag us into a six-year long war on terrorism. It's radical Muslims in Iran which might wind up dragging us into WW-III. I'm not losing sleep over it, but it's worth keeping an eye on it.
And this equates to bombarding the forum with stereotypes and the "evils of Islam" six years after 911, how?
And we we're dragged. We didn't invade a couple of Middle Eastern countries. Is that correct? We have no responsibility in that at all do we?
Concern is one thing, pee-pants Xenophobia or simple Christian fundamentalist bigotry are something completely different.
Which one is more evil, Islam or Homosexuality? Just wondering.
<Conan wrote:
There is reason for a rational fear amongst people in American society. It only took 19 radical Muslims to drag us into a six-year long war on terrorism. It's radical Muslims in Iran which might wind up dragging us into WW-III. I'm not losing sleep over it, but it's worth keeping an eye on it.
<end clip>
The result of this whole sorry episode is that we're a half-trillion dollars poorer (and counting) and more soldiers dead than what was lost on 9/11, with not much to show for it.
The fear should not be directed at a few zealots who got lucky knocking down a couple of buildings. This fear is irrational. Muslims have no chance whatsoever in overthrowing the country. It's time to grow up and quit acting like there's a killer Muslim behind that bush, behind your computer, or under your bed.
The fear should be directed at our government because its extraordinarily stupid decisions have much greater repercussions on our freedoms.
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Recently, the newly formed Oklahoma chapter of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was reported to have given a presentation to the Oklahoma State School Boards Association and offering them plenty of material to bring Islam into the public schools in Oklahoma.
I didn't find this article in any newspaper in Oklahoma, oh no, I found this article on Islamonline, a Dubai based Islamic internet site which is owned, in part, by HAMAS/Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader, Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Al-Qaradhawi) who openingly supports suicide bombers! The article was submitted to them by CAIR!
http://www.islamonline.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=33302
I didn't know Oklahoma had a pro-terrorist organization(other than the KKK) in Oklahoma.
Unlike Muslims, the KKK once held prominent spots in Oklahoma government.
Muslim Brotherhood
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6386
The Project
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={67736123-6864-4205-B51E-BCBDEF45FCDE}
Thats their plan, but Gods plan is different.
God's plan, apparently, is to make all Christian fundamentalists look like they are nuts. As always, God is fulfilling his plan, quite successfully.
Twould be hilarious if God was just being sneaky about it, making you all look like kooks, only to shock the crap out of us later with how reasonable you are.
There's no conspiracy to make fundamentalists look like goofballs. They do that very well on their own.
Putting the FUN in fundamentalism.
Boy, do I agree with you about fundamentalism:
CAIR was started by 3 officials from the Islamic Association of Palestine which was shut down by the federal government for funding terrorism. The founder of IAP was Mousa Marzook - the current Deputy Political Bureau Chief of HAMAS. Marzook was deported and is now deemed a global terrorist by the U.S. Federal Government.
These 3 top officials are still at CAIR
Two of these officials were tape recorded by the FBI planning or attending a meeting with HAMAS.
CAIR has had 4 or 5 of its employees convicted of terrorism related charges.
CAIR's founder and executive director, Nihad Awad, was the IAP's public relations director.
CAIR chairman Omar M. Ahmad, in July 1998 told a crowd of California Muslims, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
CAIR will not condemn Hamas or Hezbollah terrorist groups. Hamas is an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The influence of this organization in American will likely be political.
CAIR is being embraced by the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City and Tulsa.
KKK terror attacks since 9/11? 0 (I did a search and came up with nothing)
Islamic terror attacks (not deaths just attacks) since 9/11: nearly 10,000
Yes, indeed fundamentalism is deeply troubling.
quote:
Twould be hilarious if God was just being sneaky about it, making you all look like kooks, only to shock the crap out of us later with how reasonable you are.
It would be pretty fun to have the last laugh, but then, I don't think anyone would be laughing.
I really haven't said anything on this thread, but I have been reading everyone's posts. I could post quite a bit and it would be a long read, but I don't really have the time to do it.
There is a common theme that I see in most of the posts I will comment on....
It looks as though most are disillusioned with the church and everyone seems to understand God in their own way. I guess I would wonder where you (whoever) have gotten your concept of God from? Other people, books, lectures, or the Bible? I've always believed it's best to go to the source for information, so to me, the Bible would be the best place to find out about God and what he's up to.
A lot of stats have been passed around earlier on. One I saw a while back said that something like 85% of people believe in God. What does that mean? Do they believe he exists, that there is a God, have faith in Him, etc..? I have found that "God" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. So in order to talk about religious things I have to bring it around to Jesus. Most people have a problem with that and that's fine. Jesus said he would be a stumbling block to people.
Why do /did you go to church? Was it because you felt you need to, it was the right thing to do, social reasons? I would think that if someone was compelled to go because of some particular personal reason, they would never be interested in attending or becoming active.
From my own experience; growing up, I rarely went to church, maybe 2-3 times ever. My parents were annoyed with people that kept wanting them to join the church so they quit going. When I became a Christian, things changed. I started wanting to read the Bible and go to church. It wasn't from my own desire, but from a change in my heart that was telling me to go. My point here is that church is not about rituals, it's about relationship. Unless the reason is to visit with God on his terms and to hear what he has to say, it's pretty much pointless, hence, no desire to go or it's meaningless. Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one gets to the Father, except through me. (John 14, 6).
As for the hypocrites in the churchs...I say, so what! Are we more concerned with them or with God. My focus of going to church is to talk to God and listen to ways I can improve my relationship with him.
So the bottom line is, where do you stand with Jesus?
What are you trusting in to get to heaven? If you were to die tonight, would you go to heaven? What are God's requirements to get in?
Also, don't twist my words. I have not said "If you don't believe in Jesus your doomed to burn in hell" or called anyone a "sinner" or anything like that. I have just asked some pointed questions to get people thinking about the "here and now" and the "later on". Comment if you like.
I never have understood the term Christian Fundamentalist. If you believe in the fundamentals, you are a Christian. It's kind of a redundant term.
Feel free to call me a kook, bigot, or whatever. I don't really care. I already have been just for stating fact.
That's actually not a bad point, what makes a Christian Fundamentalist, a Fundamentalist?
According to http://www.answers.com/fundamentalist&r=67
Fundamentalism
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2. a. often Fundamentalism: An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
2. b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.
quote:
I never have understood the term Christian Fundamentalist. If you believe in the fundamentals, you are a Christian. It's kind of a redundant term.
Which begs the question, what are the fundamentals? It can only be redundant if you deny the Christianity of many if not the majority of Christians.
Example, plenty of Christians (regardless of opinion) don't purposefully hate on Homosexuals. It doesn't make them less Christian.
Example, many Christians are accepting of the concept that humans have rights. In all that entails.
Example, many Christians aren't concerned with evangelism, they leave other people alone.
Example, many Christians accept mainstream scientific principles.
Example, many Christians don't believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. It's more of a road map, a display of the moralistic stories meant to help you be a better person.
If everyone had to be just like you to be a Christian, you'd be the only one.
<Wingnut wrote:
So the bottom line is, where do you stand with Jesus?
What are you trusting in to get to heaven? If you were to die tonight, would you go to heaven? What are God's requirements to get in?
<end clip>
Answer to all: Beat the heck out of me. Anyone who claims to have those answers is going by faith alone -- or guesswork.
Trouble is, you've got a lot of people who have the faith that they have the right answer, yet they all have widely different answers. Someone has to be wrong, yet no one is really sure who is.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
That's actually not a bad point, what makes a Christian Fundamentalist, a Fundamentalist?
According to http://www.answers.com/fundamentalist&r=67
Fundamentalism
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2. a. often Fundamentalism: An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
2. b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.
quote:
I never have understood the term Christian Fundamentalist. If you believe in the fundamentals, you are a Christian. It's kind of a redundant term.
Which begs the question, what are the fundamentals?
Fundamental, or strick, or conservative, or literal, or pure or true Islam is what is tearing up the world. 10,000 islamists attacks since 9/11.
There are several world-wide movements in place to create a global islamic state. If it takes 100 years they will be seeking this goal. Unless we stand up to it.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Someone has to be wrong, yet no one is really sure who is.
I'm pretty sure it's Wingnut.
[:P]
I tried everything in my power to resist.
In an editorial opinion in the Dallas Morning News, it recapped the Holy Land Foundation Terrorism Funding Trial.
..."Despite the absence of verdict, what emerged was highly valuable and deeply damaging evidence that the radical Muslim Brotherhood is the guiding light behind the U.S. Muslim community's leadership. It is impossible for any intellectually responsible person to regard as positive or even benign organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamic Society of North America, Islamic Circle of North America, Muslim American Society or others who presume to speak on behalf of all American Muslims.
..."Earlier this month in Washington, a handful of prominent Muslims gathered to explain to an American audience why the Muslim Brotherhood was a clear and present danger both to American Muslims and the nation. Naser Khader, a Muslim parliamentarian from Denmark living under death threat for speaking out against Islamic radicals, even called U.S. government officials "useful idiots" for continuing to succor extremists...
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-dreher_28edi.ART.State.Edition1.4224821.html
Michael,
I think some things need to understood first. There has to be a standard that can be looked at, used, and understood. That would be the Bible. Some like to say "It was interpeted wrong", "people make mistakes" etc. Lets understand "All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work" . (2 Timothy 3:16,17)
If you were all powerful and worked through men, would you allow your words to be said wrong? I wouldn't if it was me. With that said, let believe that the Bible is true and correct.
quote:
Which begs the question, what are the fundamentals? It can only be redundant if you deny the Christianity of many if not the majority of Christians.
I don't really agree. I don't see how someone can just start claiming that they are a Christian without Christ. Sin is what separates us from God and Jesus came to bridge the gap for us. Romans 10: 9, That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 1John 1:9, If we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
I don't know how one can claim to be a Christian and not believe the Bible. I don't believe that one can pick and choose what parts to believe. If it is from God, (see above), why would one not believe it? Yes there are some different ways people believe, but it needs to have the Bible back it up or it most likely a theory developed by man and not God.
As for fundamentals I think the Apostles creed sums it up well:
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic (universal Christian) Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.
quote:
If everyone had to be just like you to be a Christian, you'd be the only one.
Why would I be the only one? You can't say that. You don't know me or my beliefs.
It's not like everyone just makes up what they will believe. I know some people don't like things in the Bible and won't believe it or agree with it (like hell for example) but that doesn't make the Bible incorrect, or that there are others that do believe it.
quote:
Example, plenty of Christians (regardless of opinion) don't purposefully hate on Homosexuals. It doesn't make them less Christian.
I don't think I understand you point, but it sounds correct.
quote:
Example, many Christians aren't concerned with evangelism, they leave other people alone.
True, but that will be less of their reward in heaven. The Bible, of course, tells us to spread the Gospel, but some people won't for various excuses.
quote:
Example, many Christians accept mainstream scientific principles.
Whats wrong with that? There is a lot of science that lines up with the Bible.
quote:
Answer to all: Beat the heck out of me. Anyone who claims to have those answers is going by faith alone -- or guesswork.
All these answers are in the Bible. I John 5:13, These things I have written to you who elieve in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
This is not complicated, although some will make it out to be.
quote:
Trouble is, you've got a lot of people who have the faith that they have the right answer, yet they all have widely different answers. Someone has to be wrong, yet no one is really sure who is.
That gets back to the standard, the Bible. If we can't trust what God has said, then everything people have believed in forever is in vain, then it doesn't matter. I would rather put my faith in something true and resonable than something that is made up or changes all the time.
quote:
I'm pretty sure it's Wingnut.
By all means correct me. What am I wrong about? What standard do you guys go by?
Thanks for listening.
Wingnut wrote:
If you were all powerful and worked through men, would you allow your words to be said wrong? I wouldn't if it was me. With that said, let believe that the Bible is true and correct. [...]
I don't know how one can claim to be a Christian and not believe the Bible. I don't believe that one can pick and choose what parts to believe. If it is from God, (see above), why would one not believe it? [...]
If we can't trust what God has said, then everything people have believed in forever is in vain, then it doesn't matter. I would rather put my faith in something true and resonable than something that is made up or changes all the time.
<end clip>
You have many texts that claim to be divinely inspired. One of them could be wrong, and among those that could be wrong is the Bible.
See above. As I've said before, some things are bound to get lost in translation. I know intelligent Christians who scrutinize the Scripture and are skeptical. Skepticism is healthy, and does not mean disbelief.
As for your last point, how do you know parts of the Bible weren't made up? You don't. And your last sentence assumes that God has remained the same, where the Bible shows that God evolved over time as a more merciful and less vengeful being.
Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: Islam's "Conquest of Rome" Will Save Europe from Its Subjugation to Materialism and Promiscuity
Following are excerpts from a program with Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi, which aired on Qatar TV on July 28, 2007.
Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: "Some friends quoted a hadith that says Islam would conquer Rome. Does this mean that we will vanquish the Europeans once again?"
[...]
Al-Qaradhawi: The conquest of Rome – the conquest of Italy, and Europe – means that Islam will return to Europe once again. Must this conquest necessarily be though war? No. There is such a thing as peaceful conquest.
[...]
Al-Qaradhawi: The peaceful conquest has foundations in this religion, and therefore, I expect that Islam will conquer Europe without resorting to the sword or fighting. It will do so by means of da'wa and ideology. Europe is miserable with materialism, with the philosophy of promiscuity, and with the immoral considerations that rule the world – considerations of self-interest and self-indulgence. It is high time Europe woke up and found a way out from this. Europe will find no life saver or life boat other than Islam. Islam will save Europe from the raging materialism from which it suffers. The promiscuity, which permits men to marry men and women to marry women, is horrifying. All religions condemn this. [Islam] is capable of granting Europe and the entire West the world to come, without denying them this world. It can grant them faith without denying them science. It can grant them truth, without denying them power. It can connect them to the heavens, without tearing them away from the earth. It can grant them spirit, without denying them matter. The message of Islam is a message of global balance, and therefore, I believe the next conquest will be conducted through da'wa. But, of course, the Muslims must start acting in order to conquer this world.
Watch the clip: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1592.htm
quote:
And your last sentence assumes that God has remained the same, where the Bible shows that God evolved over time as a more merciful and less vengeful being.
"I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.( Malachi 3:6)
God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent;
Has He said, and will He not do it?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
(Numbers 23:19)
quote:
As for your last point, how do you know parts of the Bible weren't made up? You don't.
It's easy to make that kind of claim, but hard to prove. On the other hand, we have no evidence that it is made up. The Bible is cross-referenced through out. It would be very difficult to make some of it up.
Let's give God some credit. As before, God is sovereign, he can keep his word from being perverted by man. There are men that will twist what it says to suit their own purpose, which is to deceive people for their money and such.
quote:
As I've said before, some things are bound to get lost in translation.
Read the front pages of a Bible. It takes years to translate the Bible. Many of the original texts are used by teams of scholars to make the translations as correct as possible. Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls that have been translated, which have turned out to be books and parts of the Bible, have turned out to be virtually verbatim to todays translations.
quote:
You have many texts that claim to be divinely inspired. One of them could be wrong, and among those that could be wrong is the Bible.
The quotes I posted are from the Bible. As I said before, it's easy to discount the Bible by saying it could be made up or in-correct, but there is no proof after all these years to support those statements.
Those that believe the Bible is made up or faked should read
Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh Mcdowell, a former atheist.
I think the question " What is God?" is fundamental to understanding what God says and wants. What the Bible says.
There are the 2 very different perspectives of God. I like how Carl Sagan put it...
In a 1996 interview with NPR's Fresh Air, Sagan said: "I find that you learn absolutely nothing about someone's belief if yu ask them 'Do you believe in God?' and they say yes or no. You have to specify which of the countless kinds of God you have in mind." Now, the word God is used to cover a wide variety of very different ideas, ranging maybe from the idea of an outsized light-skinned male with a long white beard who sits in a throne in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow--for which there is no evidence, none at all--to the view of Einstein, of Spinoza, which is essentially that God is the sum total of the laws of nature. And since there are laws of nature ... if that's what you mean by God, then of course there's a God. So everything depends on the definition of God."
How you understand or "interpret" something like the bible greatly depends on your "approach" or perspective to "What is God?"
Basically this will determine what parts of the Bible you interpret as being literal or figurative.
Is God literally a "He"? or is God literally "Love"? That right there is pretty critical if you ask me.
If X=10 and 10=ab then ab=X right?
If "God is Love" and "God is Good" and
"God is Wisdom, Knowlege, Truth, Life, Alpa and Omega, All in All, etc." all of those things are the same, just different facets of one thing.
One scientist was saying. "We know we havent found the "equation for everything" because what we have isnt beautiful enough. Even in math, pure science, the truth is beautiful. E=MC2 is said to be a beautiful equation.
When someone is in a relationship and they are being abused, they say they are in love or love the person. We know its not Godly Love, for Love is also Beautiful and Wise, Good and Truthful. To be in a Godly relationship we look to those things.
God is all of those things, all of those facets. Isnt there a story that is told about the devil which says he was incredibly beautiful, wise, intelligent, etc. but he was missing one component, one facet and that was his folly. Likewise we have the well worn fable of the "mad scientist" with all the answers and knowlege but no love or goodness. its "the knowlege of man, not Godly Knowlege". Thats the difference between the two. We hear of stories of love gone wrong because it isnt complete, it doesnt contain a balance, its not a Godly Love that is being sought.
When one asks "What does God say or want me to do?" are we asking a pagan like being? Or are we asking "What does Love tell me to do, Wisdom tell me, Goodness tell me, etc.?"
Thus, logically, the more of all of those facets we have in our life the the closer we are to God. God is all of those things together, they are all facets of the same thing.
But here again, how you see the world, how you interpret the Bible, depends on what you take to be literal or figurative. Is "God is Love" a literal or figurative statement? Or is "God our Father" a literal or figurative statement?
If God says build your house upon the rock, not upon the sand. Is it a supernatural being saying that or is it Knowlege "knowing that the house can get washed away" or Love "caring about the possibility that someone could get hurt or killed", saying that? Knowlege, Love, Wisdom, Life, says build your house upon the rock, not upon the sand. When we walk with God are we walking with a supernatural being or are we walking with Love, Wisdom,... the All in All, the Cosmos.
"The Cosmos is said to be. Everything that is, was and will be. Its all time, every atom, every galaxy, every thought, every law of nature, every breath."
So you see. Even if the words are the same, people can understand them quite differently. You say the Bible is perfect in translation. But there is still debate as to how to translate it. Even the word God, Lord, LORD, GOD, Spirit, spirit, etc. can be different in different bibles. Even if its the same word but has a capital letter or not is different. And that alone can influence the perspective of what you are reading.
Deuteronomy 10:17
For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God,...
Thomas Jefferson... "notice what words he capitalizes" Laws of Nature and Nature's God...
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator...
This seems to be another example of someone ascribing to the "God = Sum Laws of the Universe" perspective. Creator as Cosmos.
The question, "What is God" "?=God" "?=X" is "fundamental".
Kakie,
Sorry to keep going on the tangent, but I agree with you about the threat we face as a nation. It remindes me of the story about the frog in the pot. Put a frog into hot water and he'll jump out right away, but if you put him in cool water and slowly turn up the heat, he won't feel the change and die. The threat is slow and subtle, but there nonetheless. Here are some of the ways it's happening:
http://www.meforum.org/islamist.php
Yes, some will say this means nothing, but the muslims have said they will take over. Why not believe them. Look at Europe and England. England will be an Islamic country in 20 years. America will be further out, but the aim is to get it here. They have said so and we're doing little to stop it.
quote:
"I find that you learn absolutely nothing about someone's belief if yu ask them 'Do you believe in God?' and they say yes or no.
I agree. Everyone's view of God is different. Thats why I say let's narrow it down and talk about Jesus, who he was, and what he did.
Let's also keep in mind that Sagan was an atheist.
quote:
How you understand or "interpret" something like the bible greatly depends on your "approach" or perspective to "What is God?"
quote:
Basically this will determine what parts of the Bible you interpret as being literal or figurative.
Why do we not read the Bible and find out God's attributes and let that form our view of God? Why do we have to conceive theories about God on our own without any real information about Him? I have heard so many people say "I don't think God is like that", or "I don't believe God will do that" or something similar. That tells me that they are working off of their own self-conceived belief about God, than what the Bible really says about God.
To read the Bible, one really needs to spend some time on it. Things that may sound odd or contridictary, are explained in other areas. That's why the early church would "search the scriptures daily" so they would have a full understanding of what it says. People today don't really do that. They just believe what they are told, and in some cases it's wrong. I see that God has taken the guesswork out of understanding HIs Word.
quote:
Even if the words are the same, people can understand them quite differently. You say the Bible is perfect in translation. But there is still debate as to how to translate it. Even the word God, Lord, LORD, GOD, Spirit, spirit, etc. can be different in different bibles.
Thats why we have to go back to the original Greek and Hebrew texts. There are different meanings for the different terms. A concordance is very handy for looking up those types of words. My
Strongs Concordance is all about every word in the Bible and it's meaning in the Greek and Hebrew so we can have a clearer understanding of what was meant when it was said.
Thanks for your point of view.
I know that the Muslim Brotherhood had "training camps" in Oklahoma. Does anybody have any more details?
Thanks
quote:
I know that the Muslim Brotherhood had "training camps" in Oklahoma. Does anybody have any more details?
I did see a map awhile back that had all the known camps listed and one was in Oklahoma. It was south of here. I'll see if I can find that info for you.
As a soon-to-be Anglican priest (less than three weeks away), I have seen the church (as a whole, no matter the denomination) both shrink and grow in these last few years. We, at the parish I serve, get a lot of people who have grown cynical of their Christian upbringing in the Lexington, KY area. Because we are Anglican, we don't fall on the evangelical line or the Catholic line. We're considered a bridge, and people want to join for that reason. It's close enough to home, but the ability to drink and smoke (moderately) are not condemned. On top of this, liturgy goes back to the active practice of Scripture (which most liturgy originates from). So we have seen growth, but it is less frequent than it used to be.
Concerning the church, the answer to growth is love. I was raised fundamentalist, and so the "prove them wrong" motif was drilled into my head from a young age. I steered away from it when I entered seminary... It's interesting, really. I am not sure where the church actually got that model fundamentalist take from. Typically the beginning church was all about the love of Christ, and nothing about proving the pagan religions wrong (although they did try to legitimize their call to the Jews). As such, Christianity is falling below the majority line in America. However, it has occurred time and time again in the nation's history. That is the reason for the various great awakenings. Several people understood a need, found an appealing theology, and helped the church explode. Eventually, though, the trend of great awakenings will die. Why? Too many denominations as is.
This aside, studies have shown that even though the Church has lost its appeal in many circuits within the American context, Catholic and Orthodox churches are continuing to grow in the US... it's just that the evangelical sector is losing more than the Catholics and Orthodox are gaining. 57% of people were active Christians in 1990, now it's 49%.
On top of this, Christianity is continuing to grow in the world. Unlike Muslims, the majority of this is attributed to converts, not births. In Africa and South America this is realized more-so than anywhere else. The growth is astronomical there.
<Wingnut writes:
Sorry to keep going on the tangent, but I agree with you about the threat we face as a nation. It remindes me of the story about the frog in the pot. Put a frog into hot water and he'll jump out right away, but if you put him in cool water and slowly turn up the heat, he won't feel the change and die. The threat is slow and subtle, but there nonetheless.
<end clip>
Interesting analogy. Too bad it isn't true. It's an urban legend.
http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp
As a scientist observed:
"As the temperature of water is gradually increased, the frog will eventually become more and more active in its attempts to escape the heated water. If the container size and opening will allow the frog to jump out, it will do so."
This sort of reminds me of all the stuff I've read in recent days about Muslims and religion -- not based in common sense or facts, but on fear and myth.
Quit being ruled by fear, folks. And be skeptical.
And thank you for inadvertently proving my point.
Here is the map I was looking for. It's on page 23. It lists all the places that are known training camps.
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/ulFuqrab.pdf
Of course, having training compounds in our country, that neighbors hear gunshots from regularly, that has known terror connections, doesn't mean we have anything to worry about.
Gee, you'd better call the cops, then. [}:)]
Oops! Too late! Homelandsecurityus has already tipped them off!!! [}:)]
Note that the document is more than a year old.
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
quote:
"I find that you learn absolutely nothing about someone's belief if yu ask them 'Do you believe in God?' and they say yes or no.
I agree. Everyone's view of God is different. Thats why I say let's narrow it down and talk about Jesus, who he was, and what he did.
Let's also keep in mind that Sagan was an atheist.
Sagan was not an atheist.
quote:
I know that the Muslim Brotherhood had "training camps" in Oklahoma. Does anybody have any more details?
LoL it's called South Tulsa... They walk around naked on Turkey Mountain scaring people...
Christians have killed more unbelievers than anyone in history, and so it is always wise to be humble and contrite with regard to making otherwise hypocritical statements about the violent propensities of other faith tradtions.
10 minutes discussing the crusades would help drive this point...
(This is a little Inside to a Article in the Oklahoman Tommorow by Dr. Robin Meyers)
quote:
Sagan was not an atheist.
http://rationalatheist.com/biographies/carl_sagan.html
Carl Sagan quote:
I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
Here is the map I was looking for. It's on page 23. It lists all the places that are known training camps.
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/ulFuqrab.pdf
Of course, having training compounds in our country, that neighbors hear gunshots from regularly, that has known terror connections, doesn't mean we have anything to worry about.
This would be the same Homeland department that holds press conferences without the press? With employees pretending to be reporters?
They now have a credibility gap to with the competency gap that they earned after the Katrina.
An atheist does not believe in the existance of gods or God. Sagan said he did believe in a God. He considered himself to be a very spiritual person as well. Your specific religion may say that there is a heaven, but just because someone does not hold to all the tenants of that religion does not mean they do not believe in God.
Sagan talked about his then-new book The Demon Haunted World and was asked about his personal spiritual views: "My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it," he said. "An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."
Sagan resisted the atheism label and self-described as an agnostic.
In a 1981 interview with U.S. Catholic, Sagan said: "I have some discomfort with both believers and with nonbelievers when their opinions are not based on facts ... If we don't know the answer, why are we under so much pressure to make up our minds, to declare our allegiance to one hypothesis or the other?"
In a 1996 interview with NPR's Talk of the Nation, Sagan said (when asked about religious beliefs): "Where's the evidence? Now, the word God is used to cover a wide variety of very different ideas, ranging maybe from the idea of an outsized light-skinned male with a long white beard who sits in a throne in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow--for which there is no evidence, none at all--to the view of Einstein, of Spinoza, which is essentially that God is the sum total of the laws of nature. And since there are laws of nature ... if that's what you mean by God, then of course there's a God. So everything depends on the definition of God."
In a 1996 interview with NPR's Fresh Air, Sagan said: "I find that you learn absolutely nothing about someone's belief if yu ask them 'Do you believe in God?' and they say yes or no. You have to specify which of the countless kinds of God you have in mind."
In another 1996 interview, Sagan told Joel Achenbach: "An atheist has to know more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God."
Sagan does not deny the existence of God. Nor does he affirm it. As he quips in the lively Q&A section appended to the lectures, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." What Sagan does do is insist on the primacy of scientific method and scientific evidence, and he holds the many and various "proofs" of God's existence up to these scientific standards. Most are found wanting. But Sagan is not harsh in his critiques of religious thought; he is more perplexed by theology's narrow and unimaginative vision.
Sagan took his own spirituality seriously -- indeed, he defined science as "informed worship." The closest he comes to articulating his own view of God is to describe admiringly the philosophies of Spinoza and Einstein, who basically considered God the sum total of all the laws of physics. These laws, he emphasizes again and again, govern not just the Earth and humanity but every solar system and every star and every galaxy. They are not local ordinances
quote:
This would be the same Homeland department that holds press conferences without the press? With employees pretending to be reporters?
I don't know! I doubt it. He was looking for the map and that is where I found it. That's all I'm supplying.
What the report is about is neither here nor there. You read it and decide. I would think if gov't level law enforcement is investigating this group, there must be something to it.
Rage wrote:
Christians have killed more unbelievers than anyone in history, and so it is always wise to be humble and contrite with regard to making otherwise hypocritical statements about the violent propensities of other faith tradtions.
I'd like to know where you got your information. What source? Making statements without at least providing a link to the source isn't helpful.
Thanks.
<Wingnut wrote:
What the report is about is neither here nor there. You read it and decide. I would think if gov't level law enforcement is investigating this group, there must be something to it.
<end clip>
Very well.
I've decided this report is crap.
The map was posted more than 14 months ago, and there have been no arrests relating to them. If there were terror-training sites, you know damned well that the FBI would be all over it like flies on sh*t and that high-profile arrests would have occurred already. About the only thing you'll find in those site are pot growers.
Just because the government investigates something doesn't mean there's something there.
WMDs in Iraq would be a good example. Or the rape by Duke lacrosse players that wasn't.
quote:
I'd like to know where you got your information. What source? Making statements without at least providing a link to the source isn't helpful.
Ohh I tought you had a Bible on you but you can buy one at Border's or Wal-Mart...
I think they even have a Bible for Dummies at Baren's N Noble for like $20...
quote:
Originally posted by Rage
quote:
I'd like to know where you got your information. What source? Making statements without at least providing a link to the source isn't helpful.
Ohh I tought you had a Bible on you but you can buy one at Border's or Wal-Mart...
I think they even have a Bible for Dummies at Baren's N Noble for like $20...
Just as I expected, you made a statement:
"Christians have killed more unbelievers than anyone in history, and so it is always wise to be humble and contrite with regard to making otherwise hypocritical statements about the violent propensities of other faith tradtions."I ask for some backup and your answer is to get a Bible. Great reply.
I believe most of the Crusades were to fight off Islamic domination. Read up, buddy.
Back on point. Lets talk more about CAIR
-- Anyone remember this old investigation?
DID THE FED'S COVER UP OKLAHOMA UNIVERSITY BOMBING?
Patrick Briley ?October 12, 2005 ?
Engineering student Joel Hinrichs was blown up while he sat on a park bench 100 yards from a stadium holding 84,000 football fans attending the game between Kansas State and the University of Oklahoma (OU) in Norman. Hindricks was blown up by a powerful peroxide based explosive TATP that was also used in the recent London train bombings and by shoe bomber Richard Reid. The explosion occurred around 7:30 pm on October 1, 2005 during the start of the Islamic Holy week of Ramadan.
The bomb that killed Hinrichs was also laced with nails and other shrapnel material. The Norman police also reported that they knew for certain on September 28,2005 from one of their police officers that Hinrichs tried unsuccessfully to buy almost 1000 pounds (22 bags) of ammonium nitrate fertilizer at Ellison's, a Norman feed store.
WorldNetDaily and the local CBS affiliate, KWTV, Channel 9 have since reported that Islamic jihad materials were later found in Henrichs' room at the OU Parkview apartments. It was also reported that over 1000 pounds of explosives were found in Henrich's apartment that was shared by several OU Islamic students including Pakistani Fazal M. Cheema. The Parkview apartments are less than a block from and across the street from the Norman Islamic mosque. OU student witnesses have seen Hindrichs and Cheema going out of the Norman mosque for months.
Hinrichs dropped out of OU after 2002. From 2003 until he re-enrolled at OU in the spring of 2005, the whereabouts of Joel Hinrichs is still unaccounted for by the FBI according to news reports by KWTV. After he returned Hinrichs registered his car for only nine months until February 2006. During the time he was unaccounted for at OU, was Hinrichs being recruited, indoctrinated and taught about explosives by Islamic terrorists in US or foreign training camps? When he returned to OU in spring 2005 Hinrichs suddenly took on Pakistani Fazal M. Cheema and other Islamic students as his roommates, started visiting the OU mosque, and grew a full beard, the symbol of new Islamic convert.
On the night of Hinrichs' death, the FBI picked up and interrogated Fazal Cheema and OU Arabic instructor Hossam Barakat who were attending a party together. But after the Parkview apartments were cleared of explosives Cheema was allowed to return to the apartment he shared with Hinrichs. Barakat was also released.
KWTV did a follow up story at 6 pm on October 5, 2005 revealing that Fazal M. Cheema had a one-way ticket for Algeria that had been purchased shortly before the bombing of Hinrichs at OU. Within hours of the story the FBI contacted KWTV and told the station they were headed in the wrong direction and KWTV management decided did not to re-air the broadcast at 10 pm.
By October 7, 2005 the FBI was back on the phone telling KWTV to back away from reporting stories of the involvement of the Norman Islamic mosque and Hinrichs' Pakistani roommate Fazal Cheema. Yet the FBI also told KWTV that the FBI had lost track of Cheema!
9/11 hijackers Al Shehhi, Al Hazmi, AlAttas as well as Zacharias Moussaoui and FBI informant Melvin Lattimore (his Muslim name is Menepta) all stayed in the Parkview apartments and had been in the Norman mosque across the street. The FBI knew this when they tried to shut down KWTV's investigation of the mosque.
In the fall of 2001 the FBI also investigated and the DOJ tried to prosecute an OU Pakistani student Haider who attended the Norman mosque. Haidar had sent anthrax threats to a woman and claimed allegiance to Bin Laden. During the incident Haidar was given a job at the Parkview apartments by OU President David Boren.
Boren was Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and was extremely close to CIA director George Tenet. Boren and Tenet were eating breakfast together on the morning of 9/11. OU had a sudden visit on August 2001 by Boren's close friend and CIA agent David Edger. Edger had been tracking Atta, Alshehhi and fellow 9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah in Germany for over three years. Jarrah's ticket on the PA flight was purchased at OU's library while Edger was at OU.
David Boren has been proactive since Hinrich's death in trying to downplay the involvement of certain Muslims and the Norman mosque in the OU bombing. Boren held a press conference on October 2, 2005 claiming that Hinrichs was a loner who had emotional problems and had committed suicide without ever having contemplated hurting anyone. Boren paraphrased and then handed out a press release prepared by the head of the OKC FBI office, Mr. Hernandez and the DOJ's US attorney for Western Oklahoma, John C. Richter. The press release assured the public that it was safe to reopen OU to classes on the following Monday.
Yet by October 4, 2005 Richter and the FBI sent out another press release, this time falsely stating categorically that "At this time, there is no known link between Hinrichs and any terrorist or extremist organization(s) or activities. The press release is false and misleading because the FBI and DOJ knew of the history of the Norman mosque, the Parkview apartments and the Islamic jihad materials found in the apartment Cheema shared with Hinrichs.
On October 7, 2005 Boren's Vice President of Student Affairs called OU's newspaper, the Oklahoma Daily, and pressured the editor to stop reporting on the Muslim and mosque connections to the OU bombing. Within minutes of the call an OU Arabic instructor pressured the editor about the paper's coverage and story describing Hindichs' and Cheema's Arab companions who was also questioned and then released by the FBI.
On the night of October 7, 2005 KWTV management gave airtime to Mohamed Elyazgi, an Islamic community spokesman. Elyazgi made the usual CAIR organization type complaint that news media and law enforcement was being unfair to the Muslims. Elyazgi claimed that Henrichs had no ties to the Islamic community or to the OU mosque. KWTV management, after pressure by the FBI, did not even try to rebut Elyazgi's remarks. Elyazgi's wife is on the ethnic advisory board of OK governor Brad Henry. Like GW Bush, Governor Henry has hosted a Ramadan dinner last year in his Executive mansion to placate and cater to CAIR officials and Muslims who want Ramadan put on an equal footing with Christmas. Even FBI Director Robert Muller has held several Islamic sensitivity seminars for FBI agents and praised CAIR leaders at CAIR sponsored events.
John C Richter succeeded in having a federal court in Oklahoma City seal the search warrant FBI agents used to get into the apartment Hinrichs' shared with Cheema. What was found in the search was also sealed but not before KWTV had learned and reported on the identity of Cheema, the Hinrich visits to the mosque and the 1000 pounds of explosives and Islamic jihad materials found in Hinrichs' apartment. If Hinrichs acted alone and really had no links to terrorists' organizations or activities, then why did Richter seal the search warrant and the results of the search?
The cover up by John C Richter, the FBI and Boren of the possible Islamic terror connections to the OU bombing may be for more than because of GW Bush, Mueller and Boren loyalties and sympathies for CAIR and Islam. The cover up was also because the FBI and DOJ already knew of the Islamic terrorist activities at OU.
The FBI, DOJ and the National Security Council (NSC) were aware that Zarqawi had communicated to Bin Laden earlier in 2005 that the Islamic Holy week of Ramadan, the time of the OU bombing, would be used as a time to attack targets in the US.
It has been reported that some security officials were using unprecedented procedures to pat down and search attendees to the OU Kansas State game unlike had been done at the previous OU Tulsa home game or other previous OU home games. The Norman police had been alerted beforehand that Hinrichs tried to buy 1000 pounds of ammonium nitrate.
It is extremely likely that the FBI would have had the Norman mosque and Parkview apartments infiltrated and under wiretap surveillance after 9/11 because of the presence of 9/11 hijackers and Lattimore. The FBI investigated the mosque and the Parkview apartments also after the anthrax threat from Haider shortly after 9/11.
I reported on September 20, 2005 before the OU bombing on the sudden DOJ dispatch of and swearing in of John Richter as "acting" US attorney for Western Oklahoma on September 6, 2005 New Police State Terror Pretext Mission for DOJ Official? Richter had recently served as the assistant Attorney General for the DOJ Criminal division. Richter is an expert on using wiretaps in terrorism cases. The DOJ sent Richter to OK because the FBI and DOJ had learned of a new terror threat emanating out of Oklahoma and likely from the previous hot bed of Islamic terrorism, the Norman mosque and Parkview apartments.
Richter was the US attorney sent to Oklahoma by Chertoff and Ashcroft in October 2001 to prosecute the Black Muslim Melvin Lattimore on a minor firearms violation and to get him out of the public limelight so the press and public would not learn of Lattimore's roles with the 1993 WTC and 1995 OKC bombings. Richter also knew in 2001 that Lattimore had helped 9/11 hijackers AlShehhi, AlAttas, Atta, AlHazmi, and Moussaoui during the time they visited the Norman Airman flight school, went to the Norman mosque and while they stayed with Lattimore at the Parkview apartments.
The Norman mosque is owned and controlled by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). Tulsa OK resident Mujeeb Cheema, serves as the executive director of NAIT and on the board of CAIR, the Islamic political and legal group in the US. NAIT and Mujeeb Cheema have controlled OKC, Tulsa and San Diego mosques for over ten years. These same Tulsa and San Diego mosques directly helped 9/11 hijackers going through the Norman mosque and the Parkview apartments while they attended flight schools in San Diego, Norman (Airman flight school) and Tulsa (Spartan flight school). The FBI used FBI agents Stephen Butler and Ken Williams and FBI informants Melvin Lattimore, Adjai Collins and Abdussater Shaikh to monitor the hijackers as they passed through the Norman, Tulsa and San Diego mosques and flight schools.
The same NAIT controlled Tulsa and OKC mosques were also directly involved in the OKC bombing and were being monitored with the FBI and DOJ protected informant Melvin Lattimore. The FBI attempted to infiltrate the OKC mosque after the 1995 OKC bombing and after the FBI raided the OKC mosque in March 13, 1995 looking for members of professor Sammy Al Arian's terror cell in Florida. OK Congressman Ernest Istook told two OKC deputy sheriffs on the night of the OKC bombing that the FBI had received advanced warning from a local terror group tied to the OKC mosque.
Mujeeb Cheema had one or more close relatives who attended OU in 2002 and 2003; relatives that listed Mujeeb Cheema's exact Tulsa address in the OU student directory. Note that Fazal Cheema's middle initial is "M", the same first letter in Mujeeb Cheema's first name. Are Fazal and Mujeeb Cheema relatives?
Mujeeb Cheema has been an employee of Hawkins Oil International in Tulsa OK since before the OKC bombing. Mujeeb has made frequent trips to Pakistan for Hawkins Oil and their directors, Bud MacFarlane and a Mr. Anderson. MacFarlane and Anderson are two famous NSC members. MacFarlane was involved in IranContra for Reagan and HW Bush. Anderson was the architect of the CIA's Phoenix project in Viet Nam.
A high level official of the Pakistani ISI has the last name Cheema. The CIA has had close ties to the Pakistani ISI for over three decades. Are either Fazal or Mujeeb Cheema connected to the high level Pakistani ISI official with the same name? Or are Fazal or Mujeeb Cheema, like Boren, tied also to the CIA and to the NSC?
Norman immigration attorney Mitchell Gray contributed information for this article.?
© 2005 Patrick Briley - All Rights Reserved
I know Patrick Briley is conspiracy nut, but he does dig hard and bring up interesting evidence.
His published a on-line book about this called Revelations. It's 135 pages of interesting reading.
His effort has to be admired and he truly believe what he writes.
Revelations (//%22http://ztruth.typepad.com/ztruth/files/patrick_bailey_revelations.pdf%22)
Spoonbill, you called him a nut, not me.
That doesn't bode well for his credibility.
The Muslim Brotherhood's "Military Work" in the US
By The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT)
The Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial is already proving to be a watershed event in terms of exposing the inner-workings of the Ikhwan, or the Muslim Brotherhood, in the United States. The exhibits released by the U.S. district court in Dallas paint the picture of a semi-secretive organization bent on recruitment, expansion, subversion, and – as Doug Farah pointed out in his excellent post - The Smoking Gun on the Muslim Brotherhood's Agenda, transforming the United States into an Islamic state. One of the documents released, quoted by Farah, is a strategy memo by Mohamed Akram (Adlouni), (More on Akram below) that explains that the Brotherhood in America wages:
...a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.
If there are any questions about what sort of American jihad is envisioned by the Brotherhood, Zeid al-Noman (aka Zaid Naman) lays it out for us. Al-Noman (listed in the personal phone books of both convicted PIJ leader Sami al-Arian and Hamas deputy political bureau chief Musa Abu Marzook), was introduced as Masul or "official" of the Executive Office of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood before a speech he gave in the early 1980s on the Brotherhood in America somewhere in Missouri – likely in Kansas City. In this fascinating speech, al-Noman explained the history of the Movement, going into detail about its roots in the Muslim Students Association (MSA) and the establishment of other front-organizations.
However, perhaps the most disturbing information revealed by al-Noman was the "special activity" of the Brotherhood in America, which was one of thirteen goals outlined in his speech. Another was "securing the group."
An audience member later asked the question:
Um [Unidentified Male]: By "Securing the Group", do you mean military securing? And, if it is that, would you explain to us a little bit the means to achieve it.[sic]
Ze [Zeid Al-Noman]: No. Military work is listed under "Special work". "Special work" means military work. "Securing the Group" is the Group's security against outside dangers. For instance, to monitor the suspicious movements on the...,which exist on the American front such as Zionist; Masonry...etc. Monitoring the suspicious movements or the sides, the government bodies such as the CIA, FBI...etc, so that we find out if they are monitoring us, and we are not being monitored, how can we get rid of them. That is what is meant by "Securing the Group."
The next question was why the North American Brotherhood did not have different organizational methods from the Brotherhood in the Islamic world. Al-Noman disagreed with that assessment, as an example of different organizational methods, he said:
If the asking brother is from Jordan, for instance, he would know that it is not possible to have military training from Jordan, for instance, while here in America, there is weapons training in many of the Ikhwan's camps.
Al-Noman continued, detailing the travels of Ikwhan members to campsites and conducting training:
In some of the regions when they go to a camp, they take two things, they would request a camp which has a range, a shooting range and one which has a range to shoot, one which has a range which they use for shooting. You would find that in some of the camps. They would get an advanced permit for that.
Al-Noman reported the difficulty of training in Oklahoma due to suspicious authorities, but noted that in Missouri they had found a more inconspicuous santuary for their subversive militancy.
The importance of these camps? Al-Noman gave the audience an example of a good sister, (in this case, the wife of an Ikhwan member), as a woman who:
...had just gave birth, just delivered two or three days ago and her husband leaves her and attend Ikhwan camps. If he tells her, "I will stay and take care of you", she would tell him. "no." She does not accept.
There has been much debate over the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood. Some contend that the movement has become peaceful, while others say it is inherently violent. The strategy memo and this discussion of weapons training formally conducted by the Muslim Brotherhood within the United States should cause those involved in that debate to sit up and take notice.
Who is Mohamed Akram (Adlouni)?
Akram was on the initial board of directors of the United Association of Studies and Research (UASR), a HAMAS front that was based in Northern Virginia from approximately 1991 through 2004. UASR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF case, was headed by Ahmed Yousef who now serves as political advisor to head of HAMAS in Gaza, Ismail Haniya.
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/08/the_muslim_brotherhoods_milita.php
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
quote:
Originally posted by Rage
quote:
I'd like to know where you got your information. What source? Making statements without at least providing a link to the source isn't helpful.
Ohh I tought you had a Bible on you but you can buy one at Border's or Wal-Mart...
I think they even have a Bible for Dummies at Baren's N Noble for like $20...
Just as I expected, you made a statement: "Christians have killed more unbelievers than anyone in history, and so it is always wise to be humble and contrite with regard to making otherwise hypocritical statements about the violent propensities of other faith tradtions."
I ask for some backup and your answer is to get a Bible. Great reply.
I believe most of the Crusades were to fight off Islamic domination. Read up, buddy.
http://www.buckcash.com/opinions/temp/Christian_Crimeline.htm
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Spoonbill, you called him a nut, not me.
That doesn't bode well for his credibility.
Had to beat you to it!
He does have some good research and people have tried to refute his facts and failed. It's his asumptions that are goofy.
He's a Bush hater and thinks there is some top down conspiracy going back to the GHW admin.
However, in wrestling with his own insanity, he digs up things that people in government have tried to suppress, not because of some grand conspiracy, but because they would be embarrassing to officials and organizations.
It may not be happening here, but it is there...
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23304
Some food for thought..
Flight 93 Memorial (//%22http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58562%22)
"Just as I expected, you made a statement: "Christians have killed more unbelievers than anyone in history, and so it is always wise to be humble and contrite with regard to making otherwise hypocritical statements about the violent propensities of other faith tradtions."
I ask for some backup and your answer is to get a Bible. Great reply.
I believe most of the Crusades were to fight off Islamic domination. Read up, buddy.
http://www.buckcash.com/opinions/temp/Christian_Crimeline.htm"
-------
This is laughable. It's someone's opinion not fact.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Man
[i
This is laughable. It's someone's opinion not fact.
Wow, you can read a URL. You asked for examples... Why not try looking up some of the events and read more?
Ustasa terrorists killed 500,000 Serbs, expelled 250,000 and forced 250,000 to convert to Catholicism. They murdered thousands of Jews and Gypsies."[6] The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum says:
quote:
Just walk away.
Give me the pump
the oil
the gasoline
and the whole compound, and I'll spare your lives.
Just walk away. I will give you safe passage in the Wasteland.
Just walk away and there will be an end to the horror.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/MadmaxII5q.jpg)
Kakie, you've been busted. You are clearly posting as both Jeff Man and Kakie. You got confused about which of your identities asked Rage to clarify his "Christians have killed more unbelievers" post and you outed yourself.
quote:
JEFF MAN Posted – 11/07/2007 : 10:14:11
quote:
Rage wrote:
Christians have killed more unbelievers...
I'd like to know where you got your information. What source? Making statements without at least providing a link to the source isn't helpful.
Thanks.
Three posts later...
quote:
KAKIE Posted – 11/08/2007 : 15:34:33
Just as I expected, you made a statement: "Christians have killed more unbelievers than anyone in history..."
I ask for some backup and your answer is to get a Bible. Great reply.
This is amusing to me because Kakie seems to question others' credibility and bolster her own as a matter of course.
Now that this has been exposed, here are some funny Kakie/Jeff Man shilling examples from the Oklahoma Lawmaker Shows Prejudice Against Islam (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7890%22) thread...
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Man
Your unwilliness to answer questions about what you wrote leaves me to conclude you cannot be considered a realiable person...
I applaud Kakie for trying to dig a little deeper with the tough questions that must be answered about Islam. More people in Tulsa need to do the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Man
Bombarded by bigotry? Hey Kakie was asking about what you wrote, buddy.
Ok, you said you would answer questions one at a time. So here goes - I'm just using one of Kakie's questions. It's a good place to start.
I somehow think you will worm you way out of anwering it but prove me wrong:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Man
Kakie brought up some excellent points here. In The United States Islam is a minor religion in terms of its followers. This is a fact...
Kakie find Islam, the religion itself troubling. Not one post here that has responded has helped to ease Kakie's concerns. Not one. Instead it is bigotry for her to talk. Most Interesting...
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Man
LOL - you really are a fear mongering nutjob
Man, do you really think the best way to discuss something is to call someone a name?
You know it just makes Kakie's position look stronger.
Which of these two guys do you want to be, kakie?
KAKIE (Bernie Kay, male, 66, Tulsa) or JEFF MAN (Jeff Davis, male, 58, Broken Arrow)?
Please do not start duplicate accounts just to agree with yourself and if you wish to cite a story, do it only once and only if it is relevant to the thread.
Gee, you'd think they'd get their sockpuppets straight. [}:)][}:)][}:)]
Kakie or Jeff Man or whoever you are, you'd better sign off TulsaNow for good. Your credibility is gone forever.
quote:
Originally posted by joebaloney
Which of these two guys do you want to be, kakie?
KAKIE (Bernie Kay, male, 66, Tulsa) or JEFF MAN (Jeff Davis, male, 58, Broken Arrow)?
Dang, buddy. Two posts so far. Two home runs. Nice work.
Although I swear that when I checked those two profiles on 11/4, I'm almost certain that KAKIE's stated that he/she was 59 years old, not 66... what a difference a day makes, huh? [;)]