I think so too. It's got to be. There is no rational explanation otherwise.

<They have become hostile towards their own western civilisation and see Islam as a sort of anti-western club they can join to parade their dissent to society.>

Very well stated. There is a poster on the other page that fits this profile nicely, and you know who that is.

If we are to believe the Koran, then we are to believe that Muhammad raped a 9 year old girl (his "wife"). That makes him a pedophile. Why in the world would any normal person follow a pedophile?

Again, I point to the Jesus/Muhammad comparison above, as is taught in Islam.

Only a true liberal fundamentalist could observe Muslim culture, see that it's everything they hate, and then say, "That looks good. I'll be one of them".

Tossing gays off tall buildings?

Stoning little girls for the crime of being raped?

Come on!

It's beyond ridiculous to look at all that and say, "What? I don't see anything? Oh, you mean these one or two Muslims? Oh, that's just a tiny minority".

They try to convince everyone that it's like 0.000001% bad muslims as opposed to 99.999999% good muslims!

<Good Islam vs. Bad Islam>

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2016/...

<'Good’ Islam and ‘bad’ Islam are as intimately related as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and Mr. Hyde always predominates in the end.>

<Good Islam and Bad Islam are two halves of the same coin … we’re trying to convince Dr. Jekyll to help us fight Mr. Hyde. And Dr. Jekyll might even help us out, until he turns into Mr. Hyde.>

<The proof of this thesis lies in our fear that the slightest criticism of Islam will force the moderates (good Muslims) to join the extremists (bad Muslims). But if Muslims can so readily convert from Jekyll to Hyde, can there have been much difference between the two in the first place?>

<Nobody worries that an insult to the Catholic Church or even to Jesus is going to suddenly turn moderate Catholics into masked terrorists. The almost universal fear that moderate Muslims can be easily driven into the radical camp is an acknowledgement that the distance between the two is not that great.>

<When John Kerry says “the real face of Islam is a peaceful religion based on the dignity of all human beings,” he is projecting Western and Christian values onto a culture that is decidedly anti-Western and anti-Christian.>

Agreed. That's why I bring up the stuff no one wants to talk about. The fact the Muhammad was a pedophile is a big deal, or it should be to any rationally thinking person. It makes some people irate, like <the turban>, but it makes other uncomfortable. I guess they are afraid at what they might read or hear.

It doesn't pay to just gloss over the facts. Also, they act as though you are attacking them when you bring up certain very ugly facts about Islam. But why? These are found in their holy books after all.

People have to get over this politically correct fear and start talking plainly. Political correctness stifles free speech and even inhibits freedom of thought. Look at the terror attack in San Bernardino just a few months ago. The one where these "moderate" Muslims (a couple) went and killed a whole bunch of coworkers, even all the people that came to their baby shower. Allah Akbar and the whole works. Well, if you remember correctly, the neighbor had deep suspicions about their recent activity but failed to notify the police for fear of being called RACIST or ISLAMOPHOBE.

This has to stop. Shining a light on Islam, no matter what, is a good thing to do because soon people will get used to it. Then, the more that look at it, the more they can see what it really is.

Surely this sort of thing must be considered abhorrent to any decent human being, and it defies belief that anybody who did something like this could be considered a holy prophet!

However, if Muhammad didn't actually exist, then the explanation could be that the Islamic leaders of the time projected back onto their "prophet" their own deviant behaviour to try and justify their own actions.

In any event, these issues should be openly discussed and debated in a sensible manner so that the truth may be revealed, yet as you say, whenever anything even slightly perceived as being disrepectful to Islam is mentioned, the fanatical muslims and their obsequious apologists literally go beserk!

Instead of engaging in a rational debate for the edification of all, they instead respond in their usual knee-jerk reaction by attacking the messenger and engaging in 'whataboutery'.

They obviously take any criticism of Islam as a personal attack upon themselves, which makes no sense, since as you correctly point out, these accounts are found in their own holy books and traditions!

One thing <the turban> won't do is say, "Yes, raping a nine year old makes *anyone at all* a pedophile". He just won't go there. His defense mechanisms spring into action and he begins his denial talk. You know how it goes.

I also wanted to know what reasons <the turban> had that kept him from thinking that theism is true, and along with that, I wanted to know what happened to those reason and what new reasons replace them. Remember, he prided himself on being logical, rational, skeptical, smart and so on.

He is unable to express himself in this regard with any sort of clarity or articulation. But what I think is that he never really doubted God's existence in the first place, and the skepticism was just a lie he deceived himself with. If this is true, he won't admit it because it's kind of embarrassing perhaps.

<sugardom>, one time <the turban> told me that he doesn't want to talk about his reasons for converting, even though he announced his conversion on the page where he gives his reasons about everything. He just said it's faith and that I should have faith too and not need to have arguments and reasons for what I believe.

As though you can only have one or the other; reasons or faith. I think this is nonsense. True, most people think that God exists because they have some sort of inner experience that lets them know they are not alone and that God exists. That is, they experience God in their lives as some kind of perceptible force. Nobody just reads all these arguments for theism and says, "Gee, I guess God exists".

On the other hand, there really are good reasons to think that God exists. There is evidence from the natural world around us from the cosmic beginning, why anything at all exists instead of just nothing, the existence of objective moral values, the fine tuning of the universe, the applicability of mathematics to the universe, our ability to think "about" something, the resurrection of Jesus - there are many good reasons by way of logic, observation, reason and argument, to think that God exists.

Come out <focus> - tell some jokes man!

<my former profile>

I still have it. I just needed some comedy lately so I put up some videos. Besides, nobody here knows anything about that stuff lol...

<the turban> has answered a question finally, but as you can see he didn't answer it directly. But still, he gave a defense for raping 9 year olds.

He's very upset with me over this and is calling me a child molester now lol.

Surely this sort of thing must be considered abhorrent to any decent human being, and it defies belief that anybody who did something like this could be considered a holy prophet!>

You would think, but go to the <rogoff> page and read <the turban's> defense of the act for yourself. He's going postal now.

Everyone on the page is taking issue with his defense of Muhammad's pedophilia. <miss scarlet>, <jlspouge>, <user not found>, <jbc>, <sugardom>, <me>, - practically the whole page.

But <the turban> just goes along, whistling a happy tune, with Images of the Prophet (pbuh) in his mind.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...

<Austrian Teacher Investigated After Telling Class Mohammad Was a Child Molester

Jim Hoft May 8th, 2016 10:23 pm 50 Comments

An Austrian middle school teacher is being investigated by prosecutors after telling her class the prophet Mohammad was a child molester. austrian teacher

Mohammad’s third wife Aisha was nine years-old when the marriage was consummated. Apparently, telling the true story of Islam is forbidden in Austria today. Vol.at reported, via Vlad Tepes:

A middle school teacher allegedly referred to Mohammed as child molester in front of her pupils. The prosecution was informed; the provincial education department now awaits the investigation.

A Bregenzer teacher is said to have described the founder of Islam as a child molester in front of her students. “Yes, there is this allegation against a teacher,” the provincial educational counsellor Bernadette Mennel confirms the corresponding complaint. The education department had immediately forwarded the case to the prosecutor.

They check whether the allegations are true. Due to the ongoing investigation, no further information on the case is currently available through the state school board. If the allegations were true, the teacher would have to face consequences. “Such statements are unacceptable,” stressed Mennel to VOL.AT. However, they would await the outcome of the prosecution, before making decisions.

The accusation that Muhammad was a child molester is not new. It refers to Mohammed’s third wife Aisha bint Abu Bakr.

She was betrothed to Mohammed at the age of six years, and according to tradition at nine years the marriage was consummated.>

For instance, we have people who believe the rapture will happen at this time and others that think it will happen at that time, and still others that think it won't happen. These Christians fight to the death over these things and they shouldn't.

Another example: Christians fight over the age of the universe and whether or not Genesis should be read literally or non literally. They divide their brothers with this talk while they should just leave it alone as it's not the fundamental aspect of Christianity.

However, I think it is important that the Bible be understood properly otherwise it will be seen as irrelevant in the modern world.

If fundamentalists insist on everything in the Bible being taken literally, in contradiction to the overwhelming scientific evidence, as well as the intent of the ancient authors, then the Word of God becomes marginalised and not taken seriously.

It doesn't help the Christian faith if we just condescendingly pat the fundamentalists on the head and say "Oh yes, that's all right, you can still believe the universe is only 6,000 years old and that Noah built an ark for a world-wide flood etc".

As brothers in Christ, it is our duty to challenge these silly ideas and help them to better understand the Bible.

Sometimes that includes using stern words, at other times humour, but I'm never intentionally disrepectful.

My attitude is always...

"Instruct the wise and they will be wiser still; teach the righteous and they will add to their learning."

Imagine, both with the same goals of strengthening each others faith, but both possibly unintentionally undermining the others' faith instead.

Personally, I deal with Christians in a different way and with a different style of communication than I do with atheists and antiChristian people.

Concerning the edification of Christians among each other, I try to keep in mind Paul 2:23 “But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.” Christians quarreling over little details not connected to atonement are doing more harm than good, if any good at all.

Have you read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity? https://www.dacc.edu/assets/pdfs/PC...

There is audio on youtube as well.

I have to say, the ideas expressed in this book changed the way I think about finding common ground with Christians of all denominations. In my opinion, this book is worthy of good study and reflection. In fact, I was thinking about listening to the audio book version tonight as I start to wind down, because this topic of Christian quarreling has been on my mind for a while. I think there is some wisdom in C.S. Lewis' approach as explained in Mere Christianity.

I feel like this verse is worth a lot of reflection.

I wonder if <ohio> or <optimal play> or <playground player> can tell me how exactly one is to "cast"?

It's easy to say, "give it all over to the Lord" but how does one "give" anxieties, cares, concerns and troubles over to the Lord?

It's easy to say, "Just let God handle it - he knows how" but how exactly does one "hand over" anxieties, cares, concerns and worries?

When we experience anxieties and worries, we know we have them because we experience them. We don't have them in the same sense that we have a baseball in our hand that we can just give to someone else.

With what hand do we hold onto worry and anxiety? What is it exactly that "has" or "holds" onto worry?

Can you imagine being full of worry, anxiety and dread, like a room full of light, and then as though you shut the lights out, the room goes dark - and your worries are gone, handed over to God?

We are to cast our concerns to God and go in peace. This is what we are supposed to do. In fact, some consider worry to be a sin in itself. But people hate worrying and if they could, they would simply not worry and enjoy the relief.

https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christ...

<Somewhere in Lebanon we meet with a young woman named Karima*, a refugee from Aleppo. She still covers her hair, but the change in the way she dresses compared with when she first arrived in Lebanon is obvious. She became a Christian more than two years ago. Karima and her husband, also a convert, are now working with one of the churches in Lebanon, both as teachers to Syrian refugee children. They had their doubts about Islam before they came to Lebanon. She saw miracles happen in her life because the pastor of a church prayed for her. God provided a place for them to live, a job and even healed her seriously sick son.

“Up until now, my parents didn’t know about my conversion because they fled to another country. My family is very conservative; they are Shiites. If they heard about my conversion, they would kill me. We would lose our children.”

Since her conversion, she has participated in discipleship groups. “The biggest change in my life is that I know I have eternal life. My name is written in the book of life. God gave me peace in my life and He gave me joy. Life is beautiful, even in the midst of all the trouble.” >

I find this to be an amazing quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...

I appreciate the methodical approach of C. S. Lewis as he begins with 'The Law of Human Nature' which is to say 'Objective Moral Values' and moves on to how that is best understood within Christianity and what it means in terms of belief and behaviour.

He has the ability to elucidate complex ideas in simple everyday examples, such as the Law of Nature (OMVs); "Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong — in other words, if there is no Law of Nature — what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?" (page 12)

And his use of simple logic; "My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet." (page 25)

Concepts of justice and meaning; "Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too — for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist — in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless — I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality — namely my idea of justice — was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." (page 26)

Reflections on Christ; "The perfect surrender and humiliation were undergone by Christ: perfect because He was God, surrender and humiliation because He was man. Now the Christian belief is that if we somehow share the humility and suffering of Christ we shall also share in His conquest for death and find a new life after we have died and in it become perfect, and perfectly happy, creatures. This means something much more than our trying to follow His teaching. People often ask when the next step in evolution — the step to something beyond man — will happen. But on the Christian view, it has happened already. In Christ a new kind of man appeared: and the new kind of life which began in Him is to be put into us." (page 34)

Intelligence within Christianity; "[A]s St, Paul points out, Christ never meant that we were to remain children in intelligence: on the contrary, He told us to be not only "as harmless as doves," but also "as wise as serpents." He wants a child's heart, but a grown-up's head. He wants us to be simple, single-minded, affectionate, and teachable, as good children are; but He also wants every bit of intelligence we have to be alert at its job, and in first-class fighting trim...The fact that what you are thinking about is God Himself...does not mean that you can be content with the same babyish ideas which you had when you were a five-year-old." (page 41)

Christianity itself is an education; "It is, of course, quite true that God will not love you any the less, or have less use for you, if you happen to have been born with a very second-rate brain. He has room for people with very little sense, but He wants every one to use what sense they have...God is no fonder of intellectual slackers than of any other slackers. If you are thinking of becoming a Christian, I warn you you are embarking on something which is going to take the whole of you, brains and all. But, fortunately, it works the other way round. Anyone who is honestly trying to be a Christian will soon find his intelligence being sharpened: one of the reasons why it needs no special education to be a Christian is that Christianity is an education itself." (page 41)

Christian morality; "People often think of Christian morality as a kind of bargain in which God says, "If you keep a lot of rules I'll reward you, and if you don't I'll do the other thing." I do not think that is the best way of looking at it. I would much rather say that every time you make a choice you are turning the central part of you, the part of you that chooses, into something a little different from what it was before. And taking your life as a whole, with all your innumerable choices, all your life long you are slowly turning this central thing either into a heavenly creature or into a hellish creature: either into a creature that is in harmony with God, and with other creatures, and with itself, or else into one that is in a state of war and hatred with God, and with its fellow-creatures, and with itself." (page 48)

Properly understanding Christianity; "There are certain things in Christianity that can be understood from the outside, before you have become a Christian. But there are a great many things that cannot be understood until after you have gone a certain distance along the Christian road." (page 71)

Faith vs Deeds; "Christians have often disputed as to whether what leads the Christian home is good actions, or Faith in Christ. I have no right really to speak on such a difficult question, but it does seem to me like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary." (page 73)

The Trinity; "In God's dimension, so to speak, you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a cube is six squares while remaining one cube. Of course we cannot fully conceive a Being like that: just as, if we were so made that we perceived only two dimensions in space we could never properly imagine a cube. But we can get a sort of faint notion of it. And when we do, we are then, for the first time in our lives, getting some positive idea, however faint, of something superpersonal — something more than a person. It is something we could never have guessed, and yet, once we have been told, one almost feels one ought to have been able to guess it because it fits in so well with all the things we know already." (page 79)

God in relation to time; "Almost certainly God is not in Time. His life does not consist of moments following one another. If a million people are praying to Him at ten-thirty tonight, He need not listen to them all in that one little snippet which we call ten-thirty. Ten-thirty — and every other moment from the beginning of the world — is always the Present for Him. If you like to put it that way, He has all eternity in which to listen to the split second of prayer put up by a pilot as his plane crashes in flames." (page 81)

"Suppose I am writing a novel. I write "Mary laid down her work; next moment came a knock at the door!" For Mary who has to live in the imaginary time of my story there is no interval between putting down the work and hearing the knock. But I, who am Mary's maker, do not live in that imaginary time at all. Between writing the first half of that sentence and the second, I might sit down for three hours and think steadily about Mary. I could think about Mary as if she were the only character in the book and for as long as I pleased, and the hours I spent in doing so would not appear in Mary's time (the time inside the story) at all." (page 81)

The Holy Spirit; "God is love, and that love works through men — especially through the whole community of Christians. But this spirit of love is, from all eternity, a love going on between the Father and Son." (page 85)

The Church; "It is easy to think that the Church has a lot of different objects — education, building, missions, holding services. Just as it is easy to think the State has a lot of different objects — military, political, economic, and what not. But in a way things are much simpler than that. The State exists simply to promote and to protect the ordinary happiness of human beings in this life." (page 95)

The next step for modern man; "Perhaps a modern man can understand the Christian idea best if he takes it in connection with Evolution. Everyone now knows about Evolution...everyone has been told that man has evolved from lower types of life. Consequently, people often wonder "What is the next step? When is the thing beyond man going to appear?" Imaginative writers try sometimes to picture this next step — the "Superman" as they call him; but they usually only succeed in picturing someone a good deal nastier than man as we know him and then try to make up for that by sticking on extra legs or arms. But supposing the next step was to be something even more different from the earlier steps than they ever dreamed of? And is it not very likely it would be? (page 104)

"[T]he Christian view is precisely that the Next Step has already appeared. And it is really new. It is not a change from brainy men to brainier men: it is a change that goes off in a totally different direction — a change from being creatures of God to being sons of God. The first instance appeared in Palestine two thousand years ago." (page 104)

Obviously I have mainly provided quotes rather than comments, since it seemed easier to just let C. S. Lewis speak for himself.

After more than 70 years this work still stands the test of time and is rightly judged a Christian Classic!

I agree that Lewis has a wonderful way with words, explaining some difficult things in such a simple way and with simple logic. I also appreciated his methodical approach by starting with the Law of Nature or OMV.

For me, I like the way he stays far away from any contentious issues and focuses on the very heart of Christianity. I think this is so important and such an underrated approach.

I really enjoyed your long commentary (even made a cup of tea to read your responses) and I hope you can offer some of your own insights as they come to you in the near future as you reflect on this.

I really liked his explanation of what repentance is, how it is a continual becoming. He talks about repentance as a complete surrender. This is the passage:

Yes, I also like how C. S. Lewis illuminates the concept of Christian repentance in that manner.

That extract, from Book II 'What Christians Believe' (4) The Perfect Penitent, wrestles with Christian repentance in terms of the Atonement, "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3).

He prefaces his thoughts on this matter, "The central Christian belief is that Christ's death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start."

And continues, "We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed." and then leads into the extract you reproduced.

It's interesting that Lewis seems to distinguish between a criminal punishment and a debt forgiveness.

As you point out, the concept of repentance is understood as surrender, a kind of death.

Lewis goes on to say, "Remember, this repentance, this willing submission to humiliation and a kind of death, is not something God demands of you before He will take you back and which He could let you off if He chose: it is simply a description of what going back to Him is like."

"You and I can go through this process only if God does it in us"