Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs

Bishop E.W. Jackson: Exodus Now! Blacks, Christians, Godly Must Leave Democrat Party

Pay for My Contraception or Else!

In case you can't read the lettering on the cartoon image at left, here it is:

"If you don't want women to get abortions, don't oppose coverage for contraceptives that would keep them from getting pregnant."

In other words, nobody should have to pay for their own contraception. And if any girl or woman gets pregnant and doesn't want to be, it's your responsibility. (Funny how these same people who want free contraception don't want anybody regulating their bedroom activities!)

The old-fashioned "wait until you're married" rule for having sex (which at least most girls used to enforce) is so passe now, in fact, it's so passe that it's cause for mockery and off-color joking directed at anybody stupid enough to utter the thought. If a celebrity, heaven forbid, is foolish enough to make such a promise out loud, the press waits to see if he or she can keep that promise and if he or she doesn't, you can bet the snide remarks will escalate. Further more, there's not a smidgen of slack given to a celebrity who pledged virginity until marriage if that celebrity ends up divorced. BAM! Get a divorce and the mockery doubles should that person dare to date again.

Among the noise makers who occupy many of the voice boxes of our nation, the concept of virginity has lost its classification as "noble and good" along with heroism, patriotism and other virtues adults used to promote in their youth. Their ideas about what is "noble and good" include gay marriage, rights for Islamics, "green" technology and doling out other people's money to help the poor. Does anybody ask why virginity and heroism and patriotism were considered "ideals" for centuries and why they were promoted? Nope. Us moderns is smarter than you passe folks. (Most teenagers are smarter than their parents, after all, they were born more recently.)

In practical terms the basic attitude seems to be: the sex drive is so overwhelming that nobody can control themselves, so why bother? It's normal. Rutting is normal. So, go forth and rut. (Am I using hyperbole?)

If evolution is true, then rather than moving forward (after centuries of promoting virginity and the other passe virtues which our predecessors thought were "noble and good") toward a population of more advanced beings, we've slipped back into a more animal-like state where hormones take over and a male or a female lose control when the sex drive flares up. Give me contraception now! I've got to do it right now! And I don't want to do any yard work to pay for it!

Anybody who's ever owned a pet knows that when the animal goes in heat, there's no stopping that burning urge to make or get pregnant! The animal roams about howling, seemingly in pain, until a beast of the opposite sex in the same species arrives and then let the coitus begin! Don't care where and don't care who's watching! Male animals in the wild go berserk and practically kill each other fighting to collect and retain the most females. Human males are encouraged to adopt a lower version of that model, just rut and move on. More like how insects do it--except women don't often kill their sexual partners.

The pill didn't clarify anything or free anybody. Since we have contraception and that present day "last ditch" alternative, abortion, the whole business is ten times more muddled than it's ever been before in history. The sixties idea that, "The pill is great! Now we can have all the sex we want with no consequences," has turned out to be worse than a pipe dream, it's turned into a nightmare. Generations of kids whose progenitors thought they could fool around without having to take responsibility for their actions now darken the doors of public schools. Some don't know who their sperm donors were and might be on their fourth or fifth male in the house sleeping with their mother. Many are ignored and ill-fed, barely able to interact with other human beings because they've had so little socializing with Mom and Dad, some of them are hardly able to speak beyond the most infantile utterances! Young males growing up without fathers roam the streets beating each other up and killing one another in drive-by shootings or trapping each other in drugs and crime because there's no mature male to show them what it means to be a man. What a great society all this "free" sex has wrought! Give them welfare!

Of this group, the lucky ones that sprang from the loins of parents who bought into the "free sex" lie are those whose progenitors recognized the folly of their ways and tried to do better. Of this group, the more highly evolved try to make a marriage and raise their kids. Other offspring of this newly enlightened group are farmed out to be raised by mature grandparents, some are lucky enough to have both genders of grandparents living with them. But far too many of these children conceived by a male who wanted to have sex and a female who believes she's supposed to let him have ended up dead before they could even take their first breaths!

Sex is way more important than almost anything!

But, let's face it: once conception occurs, the only difference between the initial ball of cells and a baby is time and the proper conditions! Everything that will make that mass of cells into a baby is there at the moment of conception.

We're talking about a human being.

A human being who was invited into the universe, not an invasion force to be repelled at all costs!

Despite all the years and years of sex ed with the bananas and the condoms and the graphics provided by Planned Parenthood, somehow or other many people of all ages don't seem to recognize that the sex act is an invitation to a potential human being to come join us here on planet earth. It's not about the boy "getting off" and the girl feeling loved--it's about making babies. The pleasure part is just the anesthesia to bond parents to each other and lull them into happy mode before the baby is born and keeps them up all night for months, years on end.

Back-alley abortions used to be the dread of females who made a stupid mistake, or who were trapped in abusive relationships, or forced into sexual relations. Abortion rights advocates used the gruesome portrait of the victimized pregnant woman suffering a coat-hanger abortion as their clarion call for legalizing the barbarous act.

Fine, legal abortion is better than back alley coat hangers, but the abortion promoters didn't stop there! Abortion has become a millions-of-dollars profit industry in the United States, subsidized by tax dollars, with lobbyists in Washington who work to make sure the abortion industry remains legal and lucrative.

Arrive at a Planned Parenthood clinic and not only will the employees dispense contraception, but if a woman thinks she's pregnant, they will administer a pregnancy test and help her get an abortion. Adoption is not on their list of services. (Neither are mammograms though Planned Parenthood labels itself a "health" provider.) And they don't want anybody lurking around outside suggesting to their customers that adoption might be a viable alternative nor do they want any states making laws that require the woman see an ultrasound of the mass of tissue they're about to murder before they go through with the deed. It would interfere with their profits.

These days, abortion is promoted about as much as contraception and both are pushed almost as much as rutting!

Abortion advocates wailed about the evils of back-alley abortion clinics, but women going into abortion clinics today aren't treated much better than they were in those bad old days. Recently, a woman in Chicago died after a botched, second trimester abortion performed in a Planned Parenthood clinic. Here's a link discussing it: Woman dies after botched abortion. or if this link is a dud, google "botched abortion," an article about one is certain to turn up. While you're at it, google "second trimester abortion" and click on the "image" link. A page full of those photos should make your heart ache and cause you to lose your dinner. If it doesn't you're well on to your way to becoming one of the walking dead like the living heart donors who do this kind of thing for a living.

Why, if the woman was going to get an abortion anyway, would she wait until the second trimester boggles the mind.

But the point is, having legal abortion clinics doesn't necessarily result in fewer deaths for women or less grief and agony for women.

Planned Parenthood has no love for these women seeking abortion, why should they? The "mother" wants to kill someone and they're more than happy to be paid to do the deed. The woman walking in is just an opportunity for profit. The respect level by default is going to be pretty dang low.

It doesn't matter what rationalizations are trotted out. Nobody willing to commit murder will have respect for someone who wants to have the murder done, unless that someone has the power to kill the hired murderer themselves. There's no respect in the "dog-eat-dog" world of killing other human beings except for the biggest, meanest dog and that only as long as he's the top killer.

People today argue that rutting is just human nature, well, so is lack of respect for someone willing to hire someone to kill--especially who kills by extracting a human life from inside another person's body. The one paying for the extracting didn't have respect for life to start with, why should the extractor have respect for either the life of the being who will be extracted or the one from whose body he or she is removed?

Which leads us back to the beginning: a culture that casts off old mores without understanding why generation after generation promoted those mores will create for themselves and their progeny a disastrous mess. Disastrous mess, here we come!    
    

Marilyn                           

Isn't It Ironic?

Oil Company subsidies/deductions

President Obama recently proposed eliminating certain subsidies for the oil industry with the claim that as they are making billions in profits they do not need subsidies from the government.  The industry countered that they were legitimate deductions recognizing real, if difficult to explain, needed expenses.  Congress blocked the whole thing, but what were the real issues? 

The question of whether a particular deduction is a legitimate expense or a government subsidy is frequently a matter of opinion. 

Profitability is another question.  Profitability is determined by percentage Return On Investment (ROI).  It does not matter if the return is in billions of dollars or is mere pennies.  A profit of ten cents on an investment of one dollar is an ROI of 10% and a profit of one billion on an investment of one hundred billion is a ROI of 1%. the one dollar investment is ten times as profitable.  ROI is a signal to the market that more or less investment is needed in that particular area.  Investment, and therefore, activity and research will move away from low ROI and toward high ROI.

Except (yes, in economics there is always an except) for the factor of risk.  High risk activities require a high ROI.  Low risk activities require a lower ROI.  Since WWII, the oil and gas industry has been a relatively low risk business in the aggregate (which is the primary concern of large multinationals) and a high risk business in specific locals (which affects small independents more).

The subsidies/deductions were put in place at a time when the fledgling industry needed encouragement  and the Government saw a need for more oil.  Whether they are still needed today is a technical question that depends primarily on what is desired for the future of the industry.  There are some good arguments both for keeping and for phasing them out.  (NOTE: Phasing them out is not the same as simply ending them as was proposed by the Obama administration.)

So what happens if they are phased out or ended?  Over the long run eliminating these subsidies/deductions will mean a higher effective tax rate on the industry which is a rise in cost and will result in higher prices for all oil products.  The existence of these breaks is built into the current price and a change must cause a response.  If such an elimination is phased in over several years, with some reasonable warning, the change would simply be absorbed and adjusted for with appropriately higher prices on all oil and gas based products. (Which means pretty much everything else will rise in price also.)   

If these deductions are suddenly ended it has other effects.  In addition to the above it would also produce some important short term results.  One would be a small increase in Federal revenues.  A second would be a (probably large) decrease in domestic drilling.  This would happen because if a sudden change in profitability occurs it would force businesses to reexamine current plans before going forward.  If the government chooses to inflict a sudden change on businesses, the costs of risk have to be recalculated.  The most important things businesses need are stability and predictability.  If rules that have been in place for a century can be suddenly obliterated without even an opportunity to adjust, then the whole issue of risk must be reconsidered. In climates of unpredictable change, the cost of risk would need to increase, thus Oil Company profits would probably also increase over the long run as a higher ROI was demanded by risk averse investors.

The environmental lobby has made it very clear that they believe the cost of energy should rise.  This is a consistent position they have held for more than 30 years.  They have reasons.  I disagree with those reasons, but that discussion is for a different post.  The Obama administration has consistently supported the environmentalist position.  I respect that position even though I disagree with it. The proposed action of removing subsidies/deductions in the oil industry is entirely consistent with an effort to increase energy costs specifically in the area of fossil fuels.

What I do not respect is the effort to hide the fact that this action would increase energy costs and the fact that such an increase is specifically the reason for the proposal (plus the usual political jockeying).  One of the primary things holding down the economy is uncertainty over potential future governmental regulations. (As I stated earlier, business needs stability and predictability.)  Such sudden and dramatic changes in major rules are a threat to an economy that is already near frozen with fear of what the government will do next.

If this post causes you to have even more questions, good.  Maybe you need to ask more questions.

Dan

Arrogance and Vanity in the Human Scientist

There's plenty of arrogance and vanity in the ordinary human being, but scientists often seem worse. This is probably due to that fact that they're generally well educated, are actually pretty smart and have lots of training--things which often tend to make people assume they're qualified to make bold declarations the rest of us should listen to and obey or adopt.

Examples of these sorts of public assertions are quite numerous. Don't eat eggs: they cause high cholesterol. A few years later: eggs are good. Or don't eat butter; it's bad for your heart, eat margarine instead. A few years later: margarine is bad, very bad, so bad we must ban it from restaurants in New York! Butter is good. Eat butter.

Recently the entire paradigm of the dinosaur world had to be reworked because someone realized that fossils previously thought to be separate species are actually babies or juveniles. You'd think that would be pretty obvious. Duh, not every fossil is a grown-up, how can it be?

Or how about the old assertion that RNA was junk genetic material that didn't really do much which lately has been found bogus. Actually, RNA does a heck of a lot and is vital.

One of my all time favorite expert opinions: humans only use 10% of their brains. That one was recently overturned when it was realized that most of the brain is busy, very busy, doing stuff the consciousness is unaware of. Ok, I don't know about you, but you'd think that should be pretty obvious too.

Isn't there a paradigm, easily proven, about how the body is very efficient and doesn't keep any useless things around--like muscle? If you're a couch potato, you lose muscle or if you're an astronaut, you lose bone. It's been proven. You can prove it. Just lie around on the couch for a few weeks. So, that leads me to ask, why would we have so much junk genetic material and so many brain cells if they're all doing nothing? Funny, scientists weren't asking that question, but instead thought themselves quite smart and mouthed off their ideas in an arrogant, know-it-all, vain sort of way. Only to be later proved wrong. Thankfully, eventually discovering something once thought correct is actually wrong is the beauty of the "scientific method" which early scientists, most of whom were Christians, invented.

John W. Moffat in his book Reinventing Gravity (how human beings can "reinvent" gravity, I haven't discovered yet) asserts:

The Greek mind was abstract, fond of ideals and patterns, and slipped easily into Christianity's Earth- and human-centered theology. It took many centuries for thinkers such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton to break with the enmeshed Platonic and Christian views of the universe, to turn astronomy and physics into sciences, and to develop the idea of gravity.

The implication here, though not explicitly stated, is that these guys he listed were somehow superior to Christians--that they weren't really Christians. Maybe he thinks they only pretended to be so they could get along in society. Actually, they were all Christians. They didn't break from their Christianity, they broke from the Greek model of thought. And, it was their Christianity that encouraged them and enabled their liberation.

Galileo wrote:

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

Christianity is not the stumbling block many present day scientists think it is. A person who truly follows Christ will receive revelation, as Kepler, Copernicus and Galileo did, because to follow Christ is to hunger for truth and God doesn't withhold truth from the honest seeker.

Just because a person doesn't fit in with the dogma of his day doesn't make him a sure-enough heretic or unscientific.

How one interprets what the Bible says can be a stumbling block, as Galileo discovered, and Copernicus knew--which is why Copernicus didn't allow any of his stuff to be published until he'd died. Certainly there are Christians who, like the church fathers of Copernicus' and Galileo's day, are stuck in an erroneous paradigm. Unbelieving scientists aren't immune, as much as they'd like to think they are.

It behooves each mortal to listen to and weigh what the opposition has to say and then check one's tendencies toward arrogant vanity. It's all too easy to be exposed as a fool in the end.

Marilyn

Lava fields in Northern New Mexico from Capulin Mountain

Noam Chomsky is onto something

The November 2011 issue of Discover magazine features an interview with libertarian socialist, anarcho-syndicalist and radical linguist, Noam Chomsky.

On page 71 the interviewer says that parents marvel at how their children develop language. "It seems incredible that we know so little about the process." In response, Chomsky talks about how the new born baby "has some information about its mother's language. It can distinguish its mother's language from some other language when both are spoken by a bilingual woman." He then mentions William James calling what an infant experiences as "blooming, buzzing confusion." He said, "Somehow the infant reflexively selects out of that complex environment the data that are language-related. No other organism can do this: a chimpanzee can't do that." He wonders, "How did these things evolve?"

If I didn't know any more about Chomsky than what I've read in this article, his question "How did these things evolve?" lets me in on his foundational paradigm: he believes in Darwinism or a modified version of Darwinism.

How did language evolve? Good question. Don't see a whole lot of value for literature when a person is trying to get away from a tiger or live through a drought. It just doesn't seem to me that nature really gives a fig about literature. And to think that infants already have this amazing ability to perceive language out of all the cacophony that surrounds them. Couldn't have anything to do with what the "fetus" heard in the womb of any sort of special relationship between the mother and the infant, at least from the infant's point of view, before birth, could it?

The God of the Bible is a God of words which He uses to create things, to speak into being the universe and all the laws that govern it. He also spoke animals into being and when He spoke them, included how their organic parts would fit together and work in concert. When He created human beings, He formed the man's body from dirt and then breathed into him the "breath of life," or to put it another way, He breathed into the man the very thing that made him different from all the other living creatures: language, art, music, self-consciousness, etc., all powered by an eternal spirit. He was created in the Image of God.

From this view, language is inherent in humans. It did not evolve, it was included in the package when humans were created. It's part of the Image of God.

The phrase, "...no other organism can do this..." is very telling. If evolution were true, then there would have to be some kind of evolutionary benefit to language. It would seem that lots of other creatures would have language or be developing it. Like chimpanzees for example, who have complex societies and carry on group behaviors. But, no, they're not evolving language. We can't even make them evolve language despite all the years people have spent trying to teach apes sign language.

Noam Chomsky is onto something and it's right in front of his face, but I don't think he's seeing it.

Marilyn

Science vs. Faith

Scientific American's September 2005 issue reports on a Templeton Foundation conference where the objective was to find common ground between science and religion. Antagonism between science and religion isn't a given; scientific pioneers such as Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Boyle were all devout Christians, yet they laid the foundation for modern science.

According to Scientific American, Biologist Richard Dawkins challenged physicist John Barrow's faith in a debate. Barrow emphasized the fine-tuning of the universe as an indicator of the existence of a Creator Designer.

Dawkins said, "Why not just accept that fine-tuning as a fact of nature? Why do you want to explain it with God?"

Barrow responded dryly, "For the same reason you don't want to."

"Everyone laughed except Dawkins, who protested, "That's not an answer!" Scientific American, pages 24 - 28, article titled: "Clash in Cambridge."

The foundational paradigms of persons involved in the debate are the crux of the antagonism. Barrow sees a Designer's hand at work while Dawkins refuses to. Just as Dawkins resists abandoning his paradigms, so too does Barrow and the opposing parties are at an impasse. Both assert the other party is not being reasonable or logical.

God insists He be accepted by faith. To Barrow, evidence in abundance to prove God's existence is obvious while Dawkins claims he's yet to see any. Martin Rees, author of Just Six Numbers says "the universe is unlikely, very unlikely, deeply, shockingly unlikely," yet he insists no Designer was involved. He believes our universe is only one of an infinite number of other universes, therefore it could still have been created by chance. His theory can't be proven--we can't see past the edge of our universe--he's accepting his theory by faith!

In the end, persons cannot escape the element of faith! No definitive, beyond-a-shadow-of-doubt, without-question proof that God exists and that He created everything will ever be discovered. No definitive, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt, without-question proof God didn't create the universe will ever be discovered either. Whatever a person believes, it will be believed by faith. And that's just the way God wants it.

You May be TIME's Person of the Year, but Big Media is Still in Control

Douglas Rushkoff writes in the March 2007 issue of Discover magazine, (page 70), "I wonder how many people picked up Time's "Person of the Year" issue, gazed into the silver mirror on the cover, and felt genuinely proud to be among the 300-million-or-so people the magazine's editors felt deserved this special honor. After all, we had some stiff competition."

I say, "Yes, how about the American soldier? Eh? But he only counts if he resides in a body bag." I digress.

I wasn't proud. My initial reaction was to hold the magazine delicately with two fingers and gaze about for a trash can. What a cop out! The 300-million-or-so people of the United States "Person of the Year?" Condescending snobbery. If I had any questions about how intelligent the Powers of Media thought I was, I am now no longer in doubt. They're convinced I'm an idiot.

"Welcome to your world," the Time article begins. "For seizing the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game..."

"Welcome to your world?" What? You're sitting in my house and you're welcoming me? Excuse me, where's the barf bag. The only way these clowns can acknowledge ordinary joes like MySpace users, bloggers and YouTube freaks is if they can do it from the safety of their corporate towers in the secure knowledge they still hold the power they deign to assign to us. I'm not fooled, o, ye Corporate Honchos with your six or nine figure salaries and trips to the Bahamas on corporate accounts.

As Rushkoff rightly points out, "Instead of our paying to watch a movie in the theater, we pay to make and upload our own movies online. Instead of paying a record company to listen to their artists' music on a CD player, we pay a computer company for the hardware, an Internet access company for the bandwidth, and a software company for the media players to do all this..."

Yes. It's true. They've come around from behind, while we thought we were empowered and took our money in order to empower us.

Rushkoff says, "Time's willingness to acknowledge the power of Internet users everywhere hints at corporate America's confidence that it has finally weathered the storm: If what's playing on YouTube is the best "the people" can come up with, then media monopolies have nothing to fear."

Does your face sting at such a thought? And we've thought we mattered.

Rushkoff agrees with my first impression of the Time article--gee, the mirror isn't very clear and it seems more like a snub than anything. A snub, a "see--you're not as hot and mighty as you thought, you 300-million-or-so slobs you. We're still "da man!"" It just fits with my general conviction that the media thinks the ordinary joe is basically an idiot.

We, the people, have made some headway, but becoming Time's "Person of the Year," makes it look like it hasn't been much! Like it's all been symbolic! Like we've actually just been wasting our time. Being chosen "Person of the Year" with such confident nose thumbing shows "journalists" (a group of persons the Founding Fathers thought of as the lowest class of humanity), are still in the power seats telling us what they want us to hear and guiding our stupid lowlinesses toward what they feel are correct decisions. Hear, hear. Where's that barf bag?

We are, according to Rushkoff, "...creating content using expensive consumer technologies and uploading it to corporate-owned servers using corporate-owned conduits...we're doing it with software made by corporations whose own interests are embedded in its very code...User agreements...require us to surrender some or all of the rights to our own creations..."

Our behavior is monitored, we're categorized and cubbyholed for advertizing campaigns on sites like this one, iTunes, Second Life, Gmail..."Each and every key stroke becomes part of our consumer profile; every attempt at self-expression is reduced to a brand preference," says Rushkoff. Gak.

Rushkoff concludes, "...But in the end we're still glued to a tube, watching mostly crap, arguing like angry idiots, surrendering the last remains of our privacy, and paying a whole lot more to large corporations for the privilege."

Oh well, here I am blogging away. I'll be looking for a way to get back at you Corporate Honcho.

Wonky PETA Wars

Mary C. Pearl received Senator William Proxmire's "Golden Fleece" award awhile back for applying for funding to research how rhesus monkeys behave in the wild. The "Golden Fleece" is given to the person or group Proxmire believes begs for money to pay for bogus science. Personally, I don't think Pearl's research idea was bogus. Rhesus monkeys were widely used in laboratories and it makes sense to have a base line for how they'd act if they weren't trapped in wire cages in colorless, sterile rooms.

Her recent article in Discover magazine, April 2007, touches on the confusing, hypocritical world of political fighting over animal rights and government funding.

She faults The Center for Consumer Freedom web site for "misleading polemics designed to alarm animal lovers." The site's reference to PETA's killing of "defenseless creatures" is based on PETA's practice of "humane euthanization of unwanted dogs, cats and other pets at a PETA-run animal shelter."

Wait. What's wrong with The Center for Consumer Freedom holding PETA's feet to the fire on this one? If it's ok to kill "unwanted dogs, cats and other pets" living in a PETA-run animal shelter, then why isn't it ok to kill cows for food and mink for fur? I don't get it. What's the difference?

It's a mad, mad world all right.

Morality and Faulty Morality Testing

The May 2007 issue of Discover magazine features an interview with evolutionary biologist, Marc Hauser, beginning on page 62. He uses hypothetical examples of moral dilemmas to discover what persons actually believe regarding moral choices.

The first example in the article is a contrast between these two scenarios:

Scene one: a trolley is running wild down the tracks, a person has to choose between throwing the switch and saving five people but killing one or leaving the trolley alone and killing five people. Should the person pull the switch or let the trolley take its course?

Scene two: a healthy person walks into a hospital where five people are dying of diseases that can be cured with transplants from his body. Do the medical people jump him and take his organs and thereby save five people while killing one or not?

First, in scene one, the person facing the dilemma will most likely do nothing because he'll stand there with his mouth hanging open while his brain tries to process all the issues he's facing. Studies of crisis situations reveal very few people are able to act at all. When a nigh club burned, most of the people remained seated exactly where they had been before the fire started while panic and the inability to process all their issues kept them pinned. The poor fool Hauser has placed in the dilemma will most likely do nothing, therefore proving nothing regarding morality, except that after he finally processes all the information and his issues, he'll probably feel like a worm.

Second, the trolley is an inanimate object, it is not a group of medical personnel in a hospital. It is not contemplating taking the five persons' lives, in fact, it is not contemplating anything at all; it's incapable of contemplation! Medical personnel will not take the life of one healthy person to save five unless that healthy person walks up to the counter and says, "I'm here to donate myself to science." Jumping a healthy person for any reason which will result in his death is called "murder" unless it is a war situation, then it's called "defending your country," and is not considered murder.

These two scenarios have nothing in common to prove anything about morality.

In another example Hauser contrasts these two scenarios:

Scenario 1: A violinist (I have no idea why the violinist part matters, except maybe he thinks there's more moral value to a talented person compared to someone who has no talent) is suffering kidney failure. A woman, sleeping peacefully in her bed wakes up to discover she has been hooked up to this sick violinist. She is told that if he can remained hooked up to her for 9 months, he will recover and his kidneys will be able to function on their own. Will the woman permit this or not?


Scenario 2: A woman wakes up one morning to discover she's pregnant. Will she keep the baby or not?

Hauser crows that even Christians say that the woman linked to the violinist should be permitted to tell him to buzz off and this proves that morality has nothing to do with religion. Duh, I don't get it. Exactly what do these two examples have to do with one another? Didn't someone teach Hauser that sex can and often does lead to conception? Unless the pregnant woman was raped, these two examples have absolutely nothing in common whatsoever. A woman who has consented to have sex with someone should not wake up surprised to discover she's pregnant. FYI: for all you evolutionists, feminists, etc. take note: sex (boy + girl) = baby. It's simple, so simple even a caveman can figure it out.

In the scenario, the woman who was hooked up to the violinist didn't consent to even permit him into her bedroom, never mind all the medical personnel it would take to complete the procedure--she was essentially raped. Christians have long held that raped women may abort babies conceived as a result of the rape. Christian morality is consistent, but either the Christians involved in this study hadn't thought through all the variables involved in these two examples or, as in the case of so many of these types of studies, they weren't permitted to discuss the two cases with the questioner. For instance, it's likely they were not permitted to say, "These two scenarios have about as much in common with one another as the Rocky Mountains have in common with a Florida beach."

Hauser and the Discover interviewer, Josie Glausiusz, seem to believe that they've hit upon something enlightening about human nature, natural selection and morality, but actually they've only proved they have faulty paradigms driving their research. With faulty paradigms, their research results are false. But you can be sure, with evolutionists at the helm, their results will become the paradigms for future policies that will drive programs for quite some time.

Are You Disgusted?

USA Weekend published an article in their December 13th, 2009, issue:

"An emotional reaction to impurity might inform conservative values."

The author states that if you'd be disgusted to discover you're drinking out of someone else's cup, you're probably Conservative.

What? Liberals aren't disgusted by this? They don't mind sharing swine flu virus or any number of other illnesses that can be transmitted by drinking from a sick person's cup?

According to the research, people who were disgusted by unflushed toilets were found to be more conservative than people who weren't disgusted. Obviously these people doing the research haven't been in very many unsanitary bathrooms otherwise they wouldn't be disparaging people who find unflushed toilets disgusting. Either that or, they're just nasty. I've heard there are people out there who are nasty, they like nasty things like unflushed toilets and snot nosed handkerchiefs and mugs with lipstick on them. Do you really want to be classified as a "Liberal" if it means you're someone who doesn't mind sharing a cup with a snagging, gagging person?

Quote from the article: "The more sensitive to disgust you are, the more you might react intuitively negative to sexual or other bodily behaviors that might be seen as unusual or immoral," says Yoel Inbar of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government."

I wonder what John F. Kennedy would say about all of this. He seemed kind of disgusted by some things, like mooching off the government. He said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." He was referring to whining and looking for a hand-out. These days the government wants a hand out. They want a hand out from any American who's got any money. They really believe in "ask what you can do for your country." They want to take from us whatever we earn so they can dole it back out to us as they see fit. They want to turn us all into a bunch of whiner babies. The government is a whiner baby. I'm disgusted.

Science Daily wrote back in June, 2009:"Easily grossed out? You might be a Conservative"

iStock photo from "Science Daily"

"Conservatives have argued that there is inherent wisdom in repugnance; that feeling disgusted about something -- gay sex between consenting adults, for example -- is cause enough to judge it wrong or immoral, even lacking a concrete reason."

Wait. Do these people not know what happens when gay people have "sex?" Do they really not know what gay men do? I mean, they insert body parts not designed to be inserted in places where stuff is only supposed to come out--do they not know this?!

Has it come to this, that basic hygiene is now passe, falling away like women having to wear dresses not pants and men having to wear hats out-of-doors? If you object to someone sneezing all over your coffee now you're one of those horrid conservatives. If you want to get with the program, go find unflushed toilets to use, soiled cups to drink out of and some gay men to applaud.

UGH! I'm disgusted. I guess I must be conservative!

Creationism vs. Evolution

First we need to understand exactly what is meant by some important terms. Because different people use them different ways, I’m going to give the definitions, as I understand them to be commonly used, and then address the problems with each as I define it.

People who believe the world was created in six 24-hour days about 6000 years ago normally use the term “creationism.” Creationists insist their way of interpreting the Bible is a strict literal interpretation.

“Intelligent design (ID)” is a scientific argument that the structures seen in the world are too complex to have been created by chance. Basically intelligent design supporters say that a very complex thing such as a bird’s wing or an eye requires too many separate pieces to have evolved by chance and therefore indicate a designer. Unfortunately intelligent design has been used as a “scientific” explanation of how God created the world in six days. That idea is not actually part of intelligent design but the use of it in such a way has discredited ID.

The term “evolution” refers to the idea that the universe and all life is the result of random chance operating continuously over some 15 billion years with the earth existing for the last 4 billion years.

The Problems:

The concept defined above as “creationism” is not actually in the Bible. The idea that the universe was created 6000 years ago was a calculation made by a German monk in the 1400’s.

For anyone who actually knows two languages, it quickly becomes obvious that a strict literal translation from one language to another is literally impossible. Ancient Hebrew has very few words compared to English and no vowels. Many words in Hebrew have multiple meanings. Translators do their best to translate these words given the context and their understanding of the Bible. However, sometimes translators miss the mark that may have been intended in the original text. In the case of Genesis, science has actually shed light on some words, in my opinion. Examples, the Hebrew word “evening” and the word for “disorder” are the same. The Hebrew word for “morning” and the word for “order” are the same. In addition the word for “day” and the word for “era” are the same. So the phrase normally translated as, “...evening and morning, the first day” could also be translated “...disorder to order, the first era.” So which translation is correct?

First we can look to history. The Pharisees were an extremely legalistic group who knew the Old Testament intimately in the original Hebrew. In spite of all their calculations and interpretations, they never came up with an age for the world. That alone is a good indication that the calculations of a German Monk 1400 years later are not Gospel and should not be blindly accepted. In addition, it must be recognized that the Word of God as revealed in the Bible and the Word of God as revealed in nature are both true. And they should agree. If the Word of God and the evidence in nature don’t seem to agree then understanding of one of them is in error. The error could be in either one’s understanding of the Bible (some Christians cannot conceive that their own understanding of the Bible might be in error) or in one’s understanding of nature (some scientists cannot conceive that their understanding of nature might be in error). So let’s examine some evidence from nature.

The Grand Canyon is extremely difficult to explain in terms of 6000 years. But even more difficult are the series of islands culminating in the Hawaiian Islands. This group of islands and seamounts extends for several hundred miles to the northwest from Hawaii. They are rather clearly the result of a series of volcanoes forming each in turn as they have passed over a hot spot in the Earth’s crust. Even now a new island is forming but will not break the surface of the sea for perhaps another 1000 years. There is simply no way to explain these islands in terms of 6000 years of creation. Some would argue that the explanation is simply “God made it that way.” If God “made it that way,” then God would be presenting false evidence in nature. This assertion “God made it that way” denies the validity of the evidence found in nature and by extension (without intention of doing so) implies God is a liar. This is not biblically acceptable. A foundational principle of Christianity is God cannot lie.

In conclusion, I cannot accept creationism, as defined above, because I do not believe it is correct either scientifically or biblically.

Intelligent Design is an entirely different thing. There are numerous evidences of intelligent design. One good book on this topic is The Science of God, by Gerald Schroeder. Another is Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe.

Essentially, intelligent design says complex things are useless (perhaps even fatal to the organism) in a partial, half completed form. Therefore nothing living could have been formed by a series of small incremental improvements. Darwin himself admitted that if such irreducible complexities existed his theory of evolution would break down. The flagellum, which is useless without any of its 30 plus complex proteins, is an example. Another is the cascade of events allowing blood to clot. Numerous cellular events defy all efforts to explain how they could have evolved without guidance. Other examples can be discovered in the above mentioned books.

The response from evolutionists has been to insist that even though they have no explanation, they have faith that there must be one. Serious science is based on actual evidence. An accurate, elegant scientific theory is the one that best explains what we know, not what we have faith we will someday figure out. If the proponents of intelligent design would stop with simply saying that the best explanation for the things we know is that there must have been some source of intelligent design, the theory is virtually unassailable. The problem comes when people try to add more into the theory then they actually have evidence to support.

Classical Darwinian evolution is scientifically dead. Darwin theorized a continuing series of tiny changes that over vast periods of time produced all the variety of life. At that time archeological development of the fossil record was in its infancy. There simply was no evidence one way or the other.  

Over the last 150 years enormous amounts of research has been done on innumerable fossil strata throughout the world. In all of this research no definite transitional forms have been found much less a continuous series of transitional forms. Species spring into the fossil record fully formed and continue essentially unchanged until they eventually disappear. If classical Darwinian evolution had any validity at all, transitional forms should dominate not only the fossil record but also the living animals that surround us. In actual fact, the fossil evidence shows little change except for the dramatic sudden appearance of numerous new forms at certain key points that are defined as new ages in paleontology. These species appear fully formed and in much too short a period of time to be explained by traditional evolutionary theory.  

Francis Crick wrote: “Given the weaknesses of all theories of terrestrial genesis (the origin of life on earth), directed panspermia (the deliberate planting of life on earth) should still be considered a serious possibility,” page 86, The Science of God.

Francis Crick was a committed atheist who realized that evolution simply could not explain the evidence discovered in the fossil record. He sought to explain it by attributing the sudden appearance of life to space aliens. Other scientists have come up with concepts like “guided evolution” or “punctuated evolution” (with no idea of what caused the punctuation) to explain the sudden appearance of life forms in the fossil record. These ideas have possibilities, but the classic Darwinian theory is now no more then a pseudo-scientific religion based on faith in spite of evidence.

The conflict between creationism and evolution is often presented as a choice in which you must agree either with me, or you must agree with my opponent. This is what is called a false dichotomy. Both sides try to justify their own position by pointing out the errors in the other side’s position. I believe both sides are fundamentally wrong and cannot be defended on their own terms.

Islam vs. Christianity: A Comparison Study

At left, the name of Allah in Arabic

If the Koran and the Bible are both the Word of God, then the two books should agree about everything of significance.





I. Who is God?

• A. Allah is singular.

• 1. “Sura” or “chapter” 112 from the Koran: “Say, God is one God; the eternal God: he begetteth not, neither is he begotten: and there is not any one like him.”

• B. Elohim is plural.

• 1. Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God...” God is translated from the Name “Elohim” a latent plural Name composed of the following parts: “El” = Strength + “ohim” indicating a minimum of Three Persons in One and meaning “Faithfulness, to Bind Oneself with an Oath.”

• a. Elah or Allah, is the singular form of “Elohim.”

• C. Elohim has a Son.

• 1. Psalm 2:1-9: “Why do the nations rage and the people plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against His Anointed One. “Let us break their chains,” they say, “and throw off their fetters.” The One enthroned in Heaven laughs; the LORD scoffs at them. Then He rebukes them in His anger and terrifies them in His wrath, saying, “I have installed my King on Zion, my Holy Hill.” I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, “You are my Son (or today I have begotten You); today I have become Your Father. Ask of Me what you, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will rule them with an iron scepter; You will dash them to pieces like pottery.” See Revelation 12:5; 19:15

• 2. Matthew 3:13-17: “Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?” Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” As soon as Jesus was baptized, He went up out of the water. At that moment Heaven was opened, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on Him. And a voice from Heaven said, “This is My Son, Whom I love; with Him I am well pleased.”

• a. Jesus is begotten of God, He is His Son, His Anointed One and King.

• b. See also: John 1; Hebrews 1; Colossians 1:15-20; I John 1:1-3; 4:9 & 10.

• 3. Believers become the children of God through faith in Jesus, (the Greek form of the Hebrew name Yeshua or, as translated into English, Joshua which means “God will Save”) The English Name, “Messiah,” is “Christ” in Greek and means “The Anointed One.”

• a. Believers have the privilege to call Elohim “Father,” or “Daddy,” see Romans 8:15, “...you received the spirit of sonship. And by Him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are Elohim’s children.”

• b. See also: Psalm 68:5.

• D. Allah has no sons; he is not a father.

• 1. Mary, sura 19:35, "It beseems not Allah that He should take to Himself a ! son, glory to be Him; when He has decreed a matter He only says to it "Be," and it is."

• 2. The Cattle, sura 6:101, "Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created everything, and He is the Knower of all things."

• 3. The Children of Israel, sura 17:111, "And say: (All) praise is due to Allah, Who has not taken a son and Who has not a partner in the kingdom, and Who has not a helper to save Him from disgrace; and proclaim His greatness magnifying (Him)."

• 4. The Believers, sura 23:91, "Never did Allah take to Himself a son, and never was there with him any (other) god-- in that case would each god have certainly taken away what he created, and some of them would certainly have overpowered others; glory be to Allah above what they describe!"

II. How do Elohim & Allah deal with sin?

• A. Elohim is perfect and His standards are perfect, see II Samuel 22:31; Psalm 18:30; 19:7; Leviticus 19:2. He loves the sinner and sent His Son to pay for sin

• 1. Adam had one law and he broke it, see Genesis 2

• a. Elohim is perfect and everyone who desires to gain favor with Him through works or deeds must also be perfect.

• b. Nobody can do this

• 2. Galatians 3:10-12; 21-22: “All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law” (Deuteronomy 27:26). Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith, “ (Habakkuk 2:4). The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them,” (Leviticus 18:5). Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree,” (Deuteronomy 21:23)...For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.”

• 3. Elohim sent His Son not only to reveal His Personality and His will to humanity, but to demonstrate His immense Love by taking upon Himself the death penalty rightly laid upon every human head.

• a. Romans 5:8: “God (Elohim) demonstrates His Love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

• b. I John 3:4 & 5: “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that He appeared so that He might take away our sins. And in Him is no sin.”

• c. See also Matthew 5:48; 20:28; 26:28; Luke 22:37; John 3:16; 10:9-11; II Corinthians 5:21; Romans 3:23; I Thessalonians 5:9 & 10

• 4. Jesus taught Elohim loves prodigals and earnestly seeks their return to righteousness, see Luke 15:11-24

• 5. Elohim does not take pleasure in the death of sinners, see Ezekiel 18:23, and does not desire that any should perish but that all should have everlasting life, see II Peter3:9

• B. Allah does not love sinners.

• 1. Allah does not have a standard of perfection, but a person’s good deeds must outweigh his bad deeds.

• a. See: The Elevated Places, sura 7: 8 & 9: “And the measuring out on that day will be just; then as for him whose measure (of good deeds) is heavy, those are they who shall be successful; And as for him whose measure (of good deeds) is light those are they who have made their souls suffer loss because they disbelieved in Our communications.” Also, The Prophets, sura 21:47: “And We will set up a just balance on the day of resurrection, so no soul shall be dealt with unjustly in the least; and though there be the weight of a grain of mustard seed, (yet) will We bring it, and sufficient are We to take account.”

• 2. The Elevated Places, sura 7:31: “O children of Adam! attend to your embellishments at every time of prayer, and eat and drink and be not extravagant; surely He does not love the extravagant.”

• 3. The Women, sura 4:107: “And do not plead on behalf of those who act unfaithfully to their souls; surely Allah does not love him who is treacherous, sinful.”

• 4. The Dinner Table, sura 5:49: “And that you should judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires, and be cautious of them, lest they seduce you from part of what Allah has revealed to you; but if they turn back, then know that Allah desires to afflict them on account of some of their faults; and most surely many of the people are transgressors.”

• 5. The Women, sura 4:168 & 169: “Surely (as for) those who disbelieve and act unjustly Allah will not forgive them nor guide them to a path except the path of hell, to abide in it for ever, and this is easy to Allah.”

• 6. The Immunity, sura 9:2: “So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot weaken Allah and that Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers.”

III. What do Elohim & Allah value? How do Elohim & Allah obtain followers?

• A. Elohim values love above all else. I Corinthians 13:13: “And now these three remain faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

• 1. “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets,” Matthew 7:12

• 2. “You have heard that it was said, “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in Heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even the pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect,” Matthew 5:43-48

• B. Allah does not teach love.

• 1. “Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home,” The Immunity, sura 9:73

• a. “The true believers fight for the cause of Allah, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of satan,” The Women, sura 4:76

• b. “Those who stayed at home were glad that they were left behind by Allah’s apostle (Muhammad), for they had no wish to fight for the cause of Allah with their wealth and with their persons. They said to each other: “Do not go to war, the heat is fierce.” Say to them, “More fierce is the heat of hell-fire!” Would that they understood.” The Immunity, sura 9 81.

• c. “So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish,” Muhammad, sura 47:4

• d. “And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers,” The Cow, sura 2:190 & 191

• e. “Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves; you will see them bowing down, prostrating themselves, seeking grace from Allah and pleasure; their marks are in their faces because of the effect of prostration; that is their description in the Taurat and their description in the Injeel; like as seed-produce that puts forth its sprout, then strengthens it, so it becomes stout and stands firmly on its stem, delighting the sowers that He may enrage the unbelievers on account of them; Allah has promised those among them who believe and do good, forgiveness and a great reward,” The Victory, sura 48:29

• C. Jesus ended the Old Covenant where God commanded believers to make war on idolaters when their sin was full blown and at His command, but no such mitigating circumstances exist in the Koran—no such redemption is available.

• 1. “Therefore there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of Life set me free from the law of sin and death,” Romans 8:1

• D. Christians convert by love, Muslims convert at the point of the sword

• 1. “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples,” John 8:31.

• 2. “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. All men will know that you are my disciples if you love one another,” John 13:34

• 3. “All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I will be with you always, to the very end of the age,” Matthew 28:18-20.

• 4. “The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch,” Acts 11:26. The name “Christian” means “little Christ.” These men did the works Jesus did—healing the sick, casting out demons—and loved as Jesus loved to the point where the people began to call them “the little Christs.”

• 5. “You have heard it said, ‘Eye for an eye, and tooth for tooth,’ (Leviticus 24:20). But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you,” Matthew 5:38-42.

• 6. “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful,” The Immunity, sura 9:5

• 7. “Allah does not forbid you to be kind and equitable to those who have neither made war on your religion nor driven you from your homes. But he forbids you to make friends with those who have fought against you on account of your religion and driven you from your homes or abetted others so to do. Those that make friends with them are wrongdoers,” The Examined One, sura 60:9

IV. What do Elohim & Allah say about women and marriage?

• A. “So God (Elohim) created man in His Own Image, in the Image of God He created him; male and female He created them,” Genesis 1:27

• 1. the term “man” contains both male and female and the term “him” is used as a generic pronoun qualified by “male and female He created them.”

• 2. “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him,” Genesis 2:18.

• a. the Amplified Bible adds these descriptors to the noun “helper:” suitable, adaptable, completing.” God does not see His creation as good or the man complete until woman is on the scene.

• 3. Therefore, Elohim values men and women equally highly. The woman is to complete the man and the man is to complete the woman. Men and women have different temperaments and gifts and complement one another, and the two together, in marriage, compose the “Image of God.”

• 4. After Adam and Eve sinned, Elohim cursed the woman saying, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you,” Genesis 3:16

• a. Paul says, “I Corinthians 11:3: “Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”

• b. Ephesians 1:22: “And God (Elohim) placed all things under His feet and appointed Him to be Head over everything for the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fill everything in every way.”

• c. Ephesians 5:22-33 (excerpts included here): “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is Head of the Church, His body, of which He is the Savior...Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her...In this same way, husband ought to love their wives as their own bodies...”

• d. Paul is speaking of a headship of servanthood, to serve his wife and give himself up for her as Jesus died and does everything for us—this is the kind of headship Elohim is speaking of

• B. Allah has took the first woman from the first man: “O people! be careful of (your duty to) your Lord, Who created you from a single being and created its mate of the same (kind) and spread from these two, many men and women; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, by Whom you demand one of another (your rights), and (to) the ties of relationship; surely Allah ever watches over you,” The Women, sura 4:1.

• 1. “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other...,” The Women, sura 4:34

• 2. “...the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise,” The Cow, sura 2:228

• 3. “(if) he is not able to dictate himself, let his guardian dictate with fairness; and call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other,” The Cow, sura 2:282. Allah does not value women equally, it takes two women to equal one man.

• 4. “As for those (women) from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them,” The Dinner Table, sura 4:34. Allah encourages men to not sleep with their wives and to beat them if they fear “rebellion.”

• C. Elohim commanded, “Do not commit adultery,” but Jesus upped the ante. “You have heard it said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart,” Matthew 5:27 & 28.

• 1. Jesus places a high value on the internal man—his thoughts, desires, attitudes—should be pure and guided by love at all times. Rather than according to the trend of His day and definitely contrary to Islam which demands women cover themselves because their bodies cause men to sin, Jesus places the responsibility on the man. (The Koran: “...tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands...,” The Light, sura 24:31)

• 2. Ephesians 5:31: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” Paul quotes Genesis 2:23 & 24

• 3. I Timothy 3:2, in speaking of the qualifications for deacon Paul says, “Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife...”

• 4. Elohim’s ideal is for a man to have one wife, see Proverbs 5:18 encourages a man to enjoy the wife of his youth rather than give in to seeking a younger wife (Elohim doesn’t approve of mid-life crisis divorces); Proverbs 31:10: “A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies.”

• D. Allah permits multiple wives, “...marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one...,” The Women, sura 4:3.

• 1. “And (as for) those who accuse their wives and have no witnesses except themselves, the evidence of one of these (should be taken) four times,” The Light, sura 24:6. Does this mean that the husband’s word is worth four times that of his wife?

• 2. Allah doesn’t place high value upon wives and children: “O you who believe! surely from among your wives and your children there is an enemy to you; therefore beware of them; and if you pardon and forbear and forgive, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Your possessions and your children are only a trial, and Allah it is with whom is a great reward,” The Mutual Deceit, sura 64:14 & 15.

• E. Jesus protected women without denying their sinfulness, see Luke 7:36-50; John 8:1-11

• 1. He spoke with great love and respect to a sinful woman, revealing to her for the first time to anyone His true identity, see John 4

Excerpts from the Koran

Regarding unbelieving relatives:

“Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers,” The Immunity, sura 9:23. In other words, you can’t be friends with unbelievers—not even if they’re part of your own family.

“It is not for the Prophet, and those who believe, to pray for the forgiveness of idolaters even though they may be near of kin (to them) after it hath become clear they are people of hell-fire,” The Immunity, sura 9:113. In other words, don’t pray for unbelievers, not even if they’re your kin.

“Thou wilt not find folk who believe in Allah and the Last Day loving those who oppose Allah and his messenger, even though they be their fathers or their sons or their brethren,” She That Disputeth, sura 58:22

Regarding Jews and Christians:

“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people,” The Dinner Table, sura 5:51

“And you will most certainly find them (the Jews) the greediest of men for life,” The Cow, sura 2:96

“Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers,” The Cow, sura 2:98

“Hast thou not seen those unto whom a portion of the Scripture hath been given, how they believe in idols and false deities, and how they say of those (idolaters) who disbelieve: “These are more rightly guided those who believe”?” The Women, sura 4:51
In other words, Jews and Christians (unto whom a portion of the Scripture hath been given) believe in idols and false deities.

The Immunity, sura 9:30, "And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Regarding the identity of Jesus:

The Women, sura 4:157: "And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure."

The Women, sura 4:171: "O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector."

The Dinner Table, sura 5:75 The Messiah, son of Marium is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away.

The Dinner Table, sura 5:110, "When Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! Remember My favor on you and on your mother, when I strengthened you I with the holy Spirit, you spoke to the people in the cradle and I when of old age, and when I taught you the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat and the Injeel; and when you determined out of clay a thing like the form of a bird by My permission, then you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission, and you healed the blind and the leprous by My permission; and when you brought forth the dead by My permission; and when I withheld the children of Israel from you when you came to them with clear arguments, but those who disbelieved among them said: This is nothing but clear enchantment."

Koran excerpts taken from this site:

http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/