Amillennialist

Archive for May, 2009|Monthly archive page

Twisting Divine revelation to in order to make YHWH a monster

In Calvinism, Justification, Trustworthiness of Scripture on May 25, 2009 at 6:42 PM

Just like the prophet from hell Mohammed/Mohammad/Muhammad.

Another odd and hostile comment from someone enamored with Calvin’s capricious and malevolent deity (must have struck a nerve!), this time from Go Share Your Faith (the author did not leave a link; I assume that is his/her site. If not, let me know, and I’ll fix it).

He/she writes:

It would be nice if your bias was a little less severe so that you could quote scripture accurately:

“I longed to gather you like a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing.”But it’s actually:

“I longed to gather your children like a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing.”what’s the difference?

One is a false proof text taken out of context.

The other is Jesus rebuking the pharisees for their behavior and pronouncing woe’s upon them…no mention of Him weeping over their ability to “resist his attempts at saving them”

You accuse others of bias but you have a streak of bias a mile wide and it’s showing.

The woes precede the lament.

Here is Matthew 23:37 according to the English Standard Version:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!”

Jesus said, “I longed to gather your children . . . but you were not willing.”

You make Christ a liar.

If you want to make a distinction, what is the difference between “Jerusalem” and “your children” in this verse?

Jesus said, “the city” murdered prophets. How? Parking fines?

Cities don’t kill prophets, people do.

(Would its “children” be suburbs?)

Or are you claiming that the Pharisees and their fellow hypocrites are “Jerusalem”? If so, when Jesus warns the “Daughters of Jerusalem” to weep for themselves and their children, is He actually calling them, “Daughters of the Pharisees”?

If you limit Jesus’ comments to the hypocritical religious authorities He was condemning, who are their “children”? The people of Jerusalem, or just their converts — “twice the children of hell”?

Even under that misinterpretation, Christ longed to gather the Pharisees’ proselytes, but the Pharisees were not willing. (The Pharisees were able to disbelieve for their converts?)

Does not “Jerusalem” here represent the people of Israel in general?

The point of my citing that verse is that YHWH longed to save unbelievers, but they refused.

And that’s why you don’t like the passage.

You and your buddy John Calvin are like the older brother in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. You think that you alone deserve Heaven, and you’re mad that anyone else is going to be there.

God’s mercy should not be a source of anguish for you. His love extends to all people. Christ died for all. He is the atoning sacrifice not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world.

In trying to prove that God creates people for hell, you twist an expression of God’s grace into an expectation of perdition.

You make Gospel into Law and His words meaningless.

Just like Rome. Just like much of Evangelicalism.

Just like . . . the Pharisees.

In your zeal to make God a monster, you jump to conclusions regarding the verse not necessarily supported by the rest of Scripture.

You are correct that here in Matthew, the preceding verses have Jesus pronouncing condemnation against the religious authorities opposing Him (the condemnation brought on them by their own refusal of His “gathering,” not “divine” whim!).

But what do you do with Luke 13?

Here the same lamentation follows a number of different topics, including Christ’s teaching and preaching.

Rather than a series of woes, the last part preceding the lament is a comment intended for Herod. Notice its conclusion:

At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, “Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.”

And he said to them, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.’

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord'” (Luke 13:31-35)!

An observation about Israel’s tradition of murdering God’s messengers is followed by an expression of the sorrow that that God feels for (even) His rebellious people.

Jesus takes Herod’s bloodlust (and the Pharisees’ warning) as an opportunity to foreshadow His own Passion and the events of Holy Week, which leads into His lament for those whom He longed to save and for whom He was about to die.

But that’s not good enough for you. You have to make this about Christ creating on a whim people for destruction.

In your effort to defend your heresy, you make the Son of God a son of hell.

So, I have a question for you: According to your theology, how do you know whether or not you’re going to Heaven?

For if Calvin’s god arbitrarily chose before the foundation of the world some for Life and some for Hell, how can you know of which group you are a part? You know that some will be sent to destruction who worked in Christ’s name, to which defense He will reply, “I never knew you.”

You can’t be good enough, you can’t try hard enough, you can’t resist sin enough or do enough good works to know that you’ve been picked, because you still sin.

The Scriptural answer to my question is this:

Christ has died for the sins of the whole world, so I know that He died for mine, too.

Thanks be to God!

Advertisements

Twisting Divine revelation to in order to make YHWH a monster

In Calvinism, Justification, Trustworthiness of Scripture on May 25, 2009 at 6:42 PM

Just like the prophet from hell Mohammed/Mohammad/Muhammad.

Another odd and hostile comment from someone enamored with Calvin’s capricious and malevolent deity (must have struck a nerve!), this time from Go Share Your Faith (the author did not leave a link; I assume that is his/her site. If not, let me know, and I’ll fix it).

He/she writes:

It would be nice if your bias was a little less severe so that you could quote scripture accurately:

“I longed to gather you like a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing.”But it’s actually:

“I longed to gather your children like a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing.”what’s the difference?

One is a false proof text taken out of context.

The other is Jesus rebuking the pharisees for their behavior and pronouncing woe’s upon them…no mention of Him weeping over their ability to “resist his attempts at saving them”

You accuse others of bias but you have a streak of bias a mile wide and it’s showing.

The woes precede the lament.

Here is Matthew 23:37 according to the English Standard Version:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!”

Jesus said, “I longed to gather your children . . . but you were not willing.”

You make Christ a liar.

If you want to make a distinction, what is the difference between “Jerusalem” and “your children” in this verse?

Jesus said, “the city” murdered prophets. How? Parking fines?

Cities don’t kill prophets, people do.

(Would its “children” be suburbs?)

Or are you claiming that the Pharisees and their fellow hypocrites are “Jerusalem”? If so, when Jesus warns the “Daughters of Jerusalem” to weep for themselves and their children, is He actually calling them, “Daughters of the Pharisees”?

If you limit Jesus’ comments to the hypocritical religious authorities He was condemning, who are their “children”? The people of Jerusalem, or just their converts — “twice the children of hell”?

Even under that misinterpretation, Christ longed to gather the Pharisees’ proselytes, but the Pharisees were not willing. (The Pharisees were able to disbelieve for their converts?)

Does not “Jerusalem” here represent the people of Israel in general?

The point of my citing that verse is that YHWH longed to save unbelievers, but they refused.

And that’s why you don’t like the passage.

You and your buddy John Calvin are like the older brother in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. You think that you alone deserve Heaven, and you’re mad that anyone else is going to be there.

God’s mercy should not be a source of anguish for you. His love extends to all people. Christ died for all. He is the atoning sacrifice not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world.

In trying to prove that God creates people for hell, you twist an expression of God’s grace into an expectation of perdition.

You make Gospel into Law and His words meaningless.

Just like Rome. Just like much of Evangelicalism.

Just like . . . the Pharisees.

In your zeal to make God a monster, you jump to conclusions regarding the verse not necessarily supported by the rest of Scripture.

You are correct that here in Matthew, the preceding verses have Jesus pronouncing condemnation against the religious authorities opposing Him (the condemnation brought on them by their own refusal of His “gathering,” not “divine” whim!).

But what do you do with Luke 13?

Here the same lamentation follows a number of different topics, including Christ’s teaching and preaching.

Rather than a series of woes, the last part preceding the lament is a comment intended for Herod. Notice its conclusion:

At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, “Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.”

And he said to them, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.’

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord'” (Luke 13:31-35)!

An observation about Israel’s tradition of murdering God’s messengers is followed by an expression of the sorrow that that God feels for (even) His rebellious people.

Jesus takes Herod’s bloodlust (and the Pharisees’ warning) as an opportunity to foreshadow His own Passion and the events of Holy Week, which leads into His lament for those whom He longed to save and for whom He was about to die.

But that’s not good enough for you. You have to make this about Christ creating on a whim people for destruction.

In your effort to defend your heresy, you make the Son of God a son of hell.

So, I have a question for you: According to your theology, how do you know whether or not you’re going to Heaven?

For if Calvin’s god arbitrarily chose before the foundation of the world some for Life and some for Hell, how can you know of which group you are a part? You know that some will be sent to destruction who worked in Christ’s name, to which defense He will reply, “I never knew you.”

You can’t be good enough, you can’t try hard enough, you can’t resist sin enough or do enough good works to know that you’ve been picked, because you still sin.

The Scriptural answer to my question is this:

Christ has died for the sins of the whole world, so I know that He died for mine, too.

Thanks be to God!

B. Hussein Obama only cares about school kids when they advance his agenda

In Barack Hussein Obama, Liberal hypocrisy, Racism on May 23, 2009 at 8:15 AM

Pomona high school students make a video articulating how the failing economy hurts them (just about everyone is affected), and Obama rushes out to the West Coast like a lawyer chasing an ambulance.

Why not waste thousands of taxpayer dollars even though we’re facing “the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression”? It’s a chance for a photo-op and an opportunity to bash the former president! You might even find a female, Hispanic-with-hyphenated-surname superintendent for your administration.

But little kids from Virginia coming to the White House for a visit, a trip they’ve planned for a year?

No, he can’t.

It’s good to see that the Chief Executive has his priorities straight: Terrorists can get into the U.S., but five- and six-year-old schoolchildren can’t get into the White House:

Parents say they tried to make it on time, but their chartered buses hit heavy traffic that slowed them down substantially. They thought they were supposed to show up by 10:15, but they say they arrived at 10:25 instead, and couldn’t get in.

“The person who headed this White House trip up came out and said, ‘I’m sorry, the White House tour’s off.’ There were a lot of crying kids,” parent Barbara Stine said.

. . . “Here we have President Obama and his administration saying, ‘Here we are for the common, middle class people,’ and here he is not letting 150 5- and 6-year-olds into the White House because he’s throwing a lunch for a bunch of grown millionaires,” Stine said.

B. Hussein Obama only cares about school kids when they advance his agenda

In Barack Hussein Obama, Liberal hypocrisy, Racism on May 23, 2009 at 8:15 AM

Pomona high school students make a video articulating how the failing economy hurts them (just about everyone is affected), and Obama rushes out to the West Coast like a lawyer chasing an ambulance.

Why not waste thousands of taxpayer dollars even though we’re facing “the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression”? It’s a chance for a photo-op and an opportunity to bash the former president! You might even find a female, Hispanic-with-hyphenated-surname superintendent for your administration.

But little kids from Virginia coming to the White House for a visit, a trip they’ve planned for a year?

No, he can’t.

It’s good to see that the Chief Executive has his priorities straight: Terrorists can get into the U.S., but five- and six-year-old schoolchildren can’t get into the White House:

Parents say they tried to make it on time, but their chartered buses hit heavy traffic that slowed them down substantially. They thought they were supposed to show up by 10:15, but they say they arrived at 10:25 instead, and couldn’t get in.

“The person who headed this White House trip up came out and said, ‘I’m sorry, the White House tour’s off.’ There were a lot of crying kids,” parent Barbara Stine said.

. . . “Here we have President Obama and his administration saying, ‘Here we are for the common, middle class people,’ and here he is not letting 150 5- and 6-year-olds into the White House because he’s throwing a lunch for a bunch of grown millionaires,” Stine said.

FDR to extend hand in friendship to world’s Nazis in speech from Hitler’s bunker this June 4th, 1943

In Aliens in America, Barack Hussein Obama, Defending jihad, Liberals aid jihad, Liberals hate the American military, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic on May 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM

The following weekend, he’ll be in Japan attempting to repair relations with the island nation through a talk delivered from Emperor Hirohito’s palace.

This comes on the heels of the President’s comments made outside Auschwitz that Nazism deserves “respect.” Mr. Roosevelt also suggested that the nations of Europe and Asia should advance the Peace Process by making sacrifices, including “Land for Peace.”

“We must dialogue with the moderate elements of the Waffen-SS, kamikaze, and banzai units,” he declared.

The White House has announced details of Mr. Roosevelt’s charm offensive. He plans to bow deeply to both Hitler and Hirohito as a sign of mutual respect, apologize for Pearl Harbor, Midway, and the Holocaust, and reassure both empires of his continued commitment to bankrupting and disarming America in the name of “Main Street.”

As a sign of the United States’ good will, the President will release members of the German and Japanese militaries captured in combat into American society at taxpayers’ expense.

Additionally, American successes in Doolittle’s Raid, the Battle of the Coral Sea, and Midway have now been redesignated “Embarrassing Failures of Diplomacy;” the methods used to decipher Japanese communications leading to the American “victory” at Midway have been published in the New York Times, and the Cryptanalytic Unit responsible for the intelligence that gave America the advantage there has been accused of lying by one of Mr Roosevelt’s closest allies in Congress.

Plans for actions at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, and Normandy have all been postponed and await Nazi and Japanese approval.

President Roosevelt also unveiled Executive Order #12071941 establishing “Overseas Contingency Operations Relocation Camps.” Americans opposing the President’s policies will be designated “extremists” and evaluated for the confiscation of their First through Tenth Amendment Rights.

The Order also gives the president the authority to monitor and suspend all radio, telegraph, and pen-and-paper communications.

Allied leaders could not be reached for comment.

No genetic basis to homosexuality

In American Psychological Association, Christianity, Homosexuality, Sanctification on May 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Whether homosexuality is genetic or not — and it appears now that there is no evidence of a genetic component — it is an expression of our sinful human nature.

The Sixth Commandment (in the Roman Catholic and Lutheran traditions), “You shall not commit adultery” is speaking not only of the physical union of one person with another who is not their spouse. This fact Christ makes clear in His Sermon on the Mount: Even looking at a woman lustfully, a man is guilty of breaking the commandment in his heart. The Apostles wrote also by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the body is His temple; therefore, we should honor God with our bodies. Numerous passages relate God’s expectations for holiness, purity, and decency.

The Sixth Commandment not only restricts behavior, it shows us that we are to use our bodies as gifts from God for His glory and according to His will, and that is within one marriage between one man and one woman.

For those who want to argue that “they can’t help it,” yes, who can help sin? All of us break God’s commandments, we all violate His will in thought, word, and deed every day. None of us is innocent. None of us has the right to condemn others for their sin. However a desire contrary to God’s design enters into the human heart — whether through an accident of biology, indoctrination, victimization, or the desire to do evil — we must tell the truth.

All honest people have a responsibility to tell speak God’s Word, to uphold His commands, to obey them, and to encourage others to do the same. Christians especially.

The APA is an interesting case. Homosexuality and other perversions of God’s design used to be classified as mental illnesses; with enough political pressure, it removed the designation. What will they say now that there is no evidence of a genetic basis?

A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no “gay” gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.

A. Dean Byrd, the past president of NARTH, confirmed that the statement from the American Psychological Association came in a brochure that updates what the APA has advocated for years.

Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

However, in the update: a brochure now called, “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” the APA’s position changed.

The new statement says:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. …”

“Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to ‘prove’ that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed,” Byrd wrote. “The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality.”

Byrd said the APA’s documents both new and old “have strong activist overtones,” but the newer document “is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care.”

“On the question of whether or not therapy can change sexual orientation, the former document offered a resounding ‘no,'” Byrd wrote. “However, the current document is much more nuanced and contains the following statement: ‘To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective.'”

A spokesman for NARTH said the change in statements, although not new, is considered significant for the organization. The APA declined to return a WND call requesting comment.

Byrd questioned whether the APA now plans to study the effectiveness of a variety of therapies for homosexuality.

“Many are entirely without validation, yet practitioners regularly receive Continuing Education credits for teaching these same therapies through APA-approved courses. Perhaps it is time for APA to hold all therapies and all therapists to the standard which they advocate for reorientation therapy,” he said.

But he wrote that the changes are substantial, with even a change in the APA’s recommendations for additional information.

“Most intriguing are the recommended resources for further reading. The former brochure referred readers to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; to Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and to Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), all activist groups,” Byrd wrote. “The current brochure refers readers to the American Psychological Association, Mental Health America, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.”

NARTH documents other evidence of a lack of a “gay” gene, too.

For example, Douglas Abbott, a University of Nebraska professor, concluded, “If homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms, their children would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction. But they aren’t more likely, so therefore it can’t be genetic.”

NARTH also rebuts some of the advocacy positions taken by homosexual proponents.

“The term ‘homophobia’ is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds,” NARTH explains. “Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia – or irrational fear – of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled ‘homophobia.'”

WND has reported on those who have left the homosexual lifestyle, and the opposition they face, including when a homosexual advocate attributed the crime of rape to the “sickness” of the ex-“gay” movement.

Among other recent developments in the ongoing argument over the ‘innateness” on homosexuality:

* A New England organization reports members of a transgender lobby promised to shadow grandmothers and others who will be collecting petition signatures on a traditional marriage amendment.

* Actions by members of the homosexual community prompted the American Psychiatric Association to cancel what was to be a discussion of the lifestyle.

* And prominent leaders of the homosexual community have stated that only they benefit from hate crimes laws, laws that enhance a penalty for crimes already covered by other statutes based on the thoughts that accompany the criminal act.

Regina Griggs, the executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, said her organization and staff members repeatedly have been attacked simply because of their message: that there are such individuals as former homosexuals.

Some attacks have been physical, such as a 2007 incident at the Arlington County Fair. Police told WND, there was a confrontation between an individual who got upset over the PFOX message about leaving homosexuality and a volunteer at the fair booth.

“One officer told me today he was on patrol at the fair when a woman approached him and told him a man had knocked over pamphlets at the PFOX booth and assaulted another man there. The officer then spoke to the alleged victim. He did not want to press charges and therefore no written report was filed,” said a statement issued by John Lisle, media relations officer for the Arlington County police department.

“Based on the description the officer was given, he located the suspect at the fair. Another officer escorted that gentleman off the fair grounds,” his statement continued.

The result? Pro-homosexual activists vigorously condemned Griggs for “making up” the story when she alerted supporters about the situation.

“Regina Griggs has lost all credibility and must resign in shame for her dishonest behavior,” wrote Wayne Besen, executive director of the homosexual advocacy group Truth Wins Out. “What PFOX did was warped, twisted and an insult (sic) real hate crime victims.”

Those who condemn homosexual behavior also face electronic badgering. When Sally Kern, an Oklahoma lawmaker, vocally rejected the homosexual lifestyle, she was inundated with tens of thousands of e-mails in a coordinated attack on her beliefs. Some of the e-mails threatened her.

No genetic basis to homosexuality

In American Psychological Association, Christianity, Homosexuality, Sanctification on May 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Whether homosexuality is genetic or not — and it appears now that there is no evidence of a genetic component — it is an expression of our sinful human nature.

The Sixth Commandment (in the Roman Catholic and Lutheran traditions), “You shall not commit adultery” is speaking not only of the physical union of one person with another who is not their spouse. This fact Christ makes clear in His Sermon on the Mount: Even looking at a woman lustfully, a man is guilty of breaking the commandment in his heart. The Apostles wrote also by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the body is His temple; therefore, we should honor God with our bodies. Numerous passages relate God’s expectations for holiness, purity, and decency.

The Sixth Commandment not only restricts behavior, it shows us that we are to use our bodies as gifts from God for His glory and according to His will, and that is within one marriage between one man and one woman.

For those who want to argue that “they can’t help it,” yes, who can help sin? All of us break God’s commandments, we all violate His will in thought, word, and deed every day. None of us is innocent. None of us has the right to condemn others for their sin. However a desire contrary to God’s design enters into the human heart — whether through an accident of biology, indoctrination, victimization, or the desire to do evil — we must tell the truth.

All honest people have a responsibility to tell speak God’s Word, to uphold His commands, to obey them, and to encourage others to do the same. Christians especially.

The APA is an interesting case. Homosexuality and other perversions of God’s design used to be classified as mental illnesses; with enough political pressure, it removed the designation. What will they say now that there is no evidence of a genetic basis?

A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no “gay” gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.

A. Dean Byrd, the past president of NARTH, confirmed that the statement from the American Psychological Association came in a brochure that updates what the APA has advocated for years.

Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

However, in the update: a brochure now called, “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” the APA’s position changed.

The new statement says:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. …”

“Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to ‘prove’ that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed,” Byrd wrote. “The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality.”

Byrd said the APA’s documents both new and old “have strong activist overtones,” but the newer document “is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care.”

“On the question of whether or not therapy can change sexual orientation, the former document offered a resounding ‘no,'” Byrd wrote. “However, the current document is much more nuanced and contains the following statement: ‘To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective.'”

A spokesman for NARTH said the change in statements, although not new, is considered significant for the organization. The APA declined to return a WND call requesting comment.

Byrd questioned whether the APA now plans to study the effectiveness of a variety of therapies for homosexuality.

“Many are entirely without validation, yet practitioners regularly receive Continuing Education credits for teaching these same therapies through APA-approved courses. Perhaps it is time for APA to hold all therapies and all therapists to the standard which they advocate for reorientation therapy,” he said.

But he wrote that the changes are substantial, with even a change in the APA’s recommendations for additional information.

“Most intriguing are the recommended resources for further reading. The former brochure referred readers to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; to Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and to Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), all activist groups,” Byrd wrote. “The current brochure refers readers to the American Psychological Association, Mental Health America, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.”

NARTH documents other evidence of a lack of a “gay” gene, too.

For example, Douglas Abbott, a University of Nebraska professor, concluded, “If homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms, their children would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction. But they aren’t more likely, so therefore it can’t be genetic.”

NARTH also rebuts some of the advocacy positions taken by homosexual proponents.

“The term ‘homophobia’ is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds,” NARTH explains. “Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia – or irrational fear – of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled ‘homophobia.'”

WND has reported on those who have left the homosexual lifestyle, and the opposition they face, including when a homosexual advocate attributed the crime of rape to the “sickness” of the ex-“gay” movement.

Among other recent developments in the ongoing argument over the ‘innateness” on homosexuality:

* A New England organization reports members of a transgender lobby promised to shadow grandmothers and others who will be collecting petition signatures on a traditional marriage amendment.

* Actions by members of the homosexual community prompted the American Psychiatric Association to cancel what was to be a discussion of the lifestyle.

* And prominent leaders of the homosexual community have stated that only they benefit from hate crimes laws, laws that enhance a penalty for crimes already covered by other statutes based on the thoughts that accompany the criminal act.

Regina Griggs, the executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, said her organization and staff members repeatedly have been attacked simply because of their message: that there are such individuals as former homosexuals.

Some attacks have been physical, such as a 2007 incident at the Arlington County Fair. Police told WND, there was a confrontation between an individual who got upset over the PFOX message about leaving homosexuality and a volunteer at the fair booth.

“One officer told me today he was on patrol at the fair when a woman approached him and told him a man had knocked over pamphlets at the PFOX booth and assaulted another man there. The officer then spoke to the alleged victim. He did not want to press charges and therefore no written report was filed,” said a statement issued by John Lisle, media relations officer for the Arlington County police department.

“Based on the description the officer was given, he located the suspect at the fair. Another officer escorted that gentleman off the fair grounds,” his statement continued.

The result? Pro-homosexual activists vigorously condemned Griggs for “making up” the story when she alerted supporters about the situation.

“Regina Griggs has lost all credibility and must resign in shame for her dishonest behavior,” wrote Wayne Besen, executive director of the homosexual advocacy group Truth Wins Out. “What PFOX did was warped, twisted and an insult (sic) real hate crime victims.”

Those who condemn homosexual behavior also face electronic badgering. When Sally Kern, an Oklahoma lawmaker, vocally rejected the homosexual lifestyle, she was inundated with tens of thousands of e-mails in a coordinated attack on her beliefs. Some of the e-mails threatened her.

New site, same tired logical fallacies, historical revisions, and outright falsehoods in defense of jihad

In Deceiving non-Muslims, Defending jihad, Hijab, Maheen Siddiqi, Maimonides, Obedient Muslims vs. moderate Muslims, The truth about Islam on May 10, 2009 at 11:28 PM

Offered in response to a “rebuttal,” from here. I hope Ms. Siddiqi is sincere but misinformed.

Hello, Maheen,

“freedom does not protect you from looking ignorant when you quote sacred text out of context.”

Please, show me where I’ve misrepresented the Islamic texts I posted. It should be easy to do, since I am so “ignorant.” (Didn’t Mr. Appel say we were supposed to be nice?)

“I encourage you to educate yourself on the sacred tradition of hijab and follow it through its heritage in all of the Abrahamic faiths, including Christianity.”

What “sacred tradtion” has hijab outside of Islam?

It is true that propriety in worship in the ancient church included clear gender
distinctions, but that was completely devoid of the tyranny in Muhammad’s
“revelation” and practice.

“Christianity too has quite a violent past but one should not blame the religion for the work of the ignorant. I do not attribute the savage crusades to the peaceful Christian friends that I have, and likewise, you should not attribute the evil works of some Muslims to the beautiful faith of Islam and other Muslims.”

[At least she admits Islam’s “violent past.” Now, to address the Source and Sustenance of that bloodshed!]

That’s a false moral equivalence and a false tu quoque, two “arguments” offered often by jihad’s apologists in response to the genocidal content of their own authoritative texts.

Where have I blamed “other Muslims”? Where did I “attribute the evil works of some Muslims to . . . Islam”?

I quoted Allah and his apostle.

Ironically (and tragically, for non-Muslims) enough, so do those Muslims practicing the “evil works.”

How are you going to convince them that they too are “ignorant” and taking passages “out-of-context”?

How will you persuade [“]all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, Sunan Abu Dawud, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Khaldun, Muhammad Muhsin Khan, S. K. Malik [. . .] Averroes, al-Ghazzali, numerous Shi’ites,[” (credit Robert Spencer)] etc. of their grievous error?

Are you honestly unaware of Islam’s traditional understanding and practice of offensive jihad against non-Muslims? If not, will you engage in honest discourse? If you are unaware, how can you engage in intelligent discourse?

Christians did commit great sins during the Crusades. (Do you know why the first was called by Pope Urban II? It was for the defense of Christians under siege by . . . Islam.)

When Christians murder, do they do so in fulfillment of Christ’s commands and in accord with His example or not? Since you are expert enough in Christian theology to claim that the hijab is a sacred tradition in Christianity, you must know the answer.
Produce one verse that has Christ commanding believers to enslave or slaughter
non-Christians.

Since you are so well-versed in Islamic theology that you can say that I am “ignorant” and taking passages “out-of-context,” when Muslims slaughter innocent non-Muslims in Allah’s name, is that in fulfillment of his commands and Muhammad’s example, or not?

When, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror . . . ’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220), did he really mean, “I’ve succeeded by love and good deeds”?

“If you go so far as to denigrate the Prophet Muhammad”

“denigrate”?

Muhammad married little Aisha when she was six and began raping her when she was nine. What “context” makes that okay? Does that not deserve “denigration”? Are you aware that one of Khomeini’s first acts when he came to power was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to nine? Why is that?

What about Muhammad’s assassinations of those who mocked him — Asma bint Marwan, Abu Akaf? The beheading of the 600-900 bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza? Muhammad and his followers raping women whose brothers, fathers, and husbands they had just slaughtered? The attack on the innocent Jewish farmers, tilling their fields in the Khaybar Oasis [(credit Hugh Fitzgerald)]? What decent person should not feel rage at such evil?

That is the “Perfect Man,” “uswa hasana[,]” you defend.

If someone who commits theft, slavery, rape, pedophilia, genocide, and blasphemy — and commands others to do the same, calling it “divine” — does not deserve to be denigrated, who does?

More importantly, how can any decent person aware of what Muhammad said and did not condemn his words and deeds?

You claim respect for the Prophets of YHWH and His Christ — how then can you defend Muhammad? For he stated that whoever claims Allah has a son is a blasphemer. If Allah is YHWH (He is not), then Muhammad is calling Jesus a “blasphemer,” since Christ called Himself the Son of God.

“Just look at Spain. Muslims, Christians, Jews, and agnostics/atheists all lived peacefully under the Muslim rule of Spain for hundreds upon hundreds of years; however, the moment Christians overthrew the Muslims, they slaughtered every Muslim man, woman, elderly and child.”

If things were so peaceful, why did the Spaniards slaughter “every Muslim” as soon as they regained their freedom? Why did they overthrow them in the first place?

So, is that what you’ve been taught, or is that what you’ve been taught to offer as a rebuttal to non-Muslims who discover Islam’s texts and history?

“Do a little more reading with the aid of understanding of what you read in a historical context, and you will find a lot of your false notions answered.”

You’re going to have to show from Qur’an, ahadith, and sira that:

-When Muhammad commanded, “Invite . . . demand the jizya . . . then
fight,” he really meant, “Invite . . . make small talk . . . befriend.”

-When Muhammad told some Jews, “accept Islam and you’ll be safe,” he really meant, “Let’s have a potluck! How ’bout those Greeks?”

-When Muhammad began raping little nine-year-old Aisha, he was really only giving the local kids a puppet show.

-When Muhammad commanded that whomever leaves Islam should be murdered, he really only meant to exclude him from Bingo.

Here’s a final quotation for you; perhaps he didn’t really mean what he said, just like Muhammad:

“Remember, my coreligionists, that on account of the vast number of our sins, God has hurled us in the midst of this people, the Arabs [Muslims], who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us … Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they….”

–Maimonides, victim of Islam in conquered Spain.

Al-Andalus was no paradise for non-Muslims. It was — to varying degrees — just what Allah requires (Qur’an 9:29). Pact of Umar, anyone? You know what that requires, right?

Again, please show from the Islamic texts where I’ve erred. Show me where I’ve been false or unfair.

I encourage you to put your faith in Christ, the Son of God, Who reconciled you to His Father in His body on the cross. True religion is in Him alone.

You can find me at my ‘blog.

Regards,

Amillennialist

[Note: Internet Explorer 8 in Windows 7 RC formats posts terribly.]

Brangelina and Muslim terrorists indistinguishable?

In Defending jihad, Slumdog Millionaire, The truth about Islam on May 6, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Disregarding the Left’s general alliance with Islam in dismantling stone-by-stone the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western Civilization, the attempt below to transfer the Islamic predilection for child slavery to wealthy Western celebrities doing who-knows-what is ill-conceived.

It seems defensive.

Another reply to Mr. Appel here:

Adoption is not human-trafficking.

Even though I believe a lot of what “Hollywood celebrities” espouse is harmful, I don’t believe equating well-intentioned entertainers with wealthy Arab sheikhs is at all justified.

What’s the worst that can happen in either scenario? With Brangelina, you might develop a sense of entitlement (or retinal damage from the paparazzi). With a sheikh? How about being a nine-year-old “wife,” per Muhammad’s example with little nine-year-old Aisha?

That little [actress] was not offered as chattel because of Western tourists’ indifference. That was something her father chose.

(And even though it’s a bit of a tu quoque argument, and a false one at that) How many “Westerners” sell their children for any reason? At any price?

Hijabs on the move

In Hijab, Non-violent jihad, Obedient Muslims vs. moderate Muslims, Resisting Jihad, The truth about Islam on May 6, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Can you imagine individuals walking American streets, going about their business, proudly displaying swastikas or the Rising Sun of Imperial Japan?

In 1942?

Neither can I.

Something odd occurred this past Sunday. During an Arabian horse show’s climactic demonstration, a group of brightly-clad Muslimas wheeled their strollers and hijabs from one side of the stadium to the other directly in the view of the entire audience, paused once they reached the other side of the stadium, and then left.

They were making a statement.

Islamophobic? Not in light of the Muslim Brotherhood’s declared intention to subvert the American Constitution from within and subjugate the West to Allah.

Approaching eight years after 9/11, many Americans are ignorant still regarding Islam. How many Muslims are?

A “Christian” who married what I thought was a decent, Muslim-in-Name-Only Muslim once defended the hijab from my charge that it was a symbol of slavery and death by asserting stupidly that “Mary covered her head.”

Lots of people cover their head. Only one covering symbolizes fourteen centuries of global slavery, rape, and slaughter.

From here:

Mr. Appel,

I disagree . . . kindly, openly, and nicely.

I quoted the words of Muhammad and his allah, yet you call them “cheap shots,” “anger,” and “prejudice.” What does that say about what you believe about those passages?

I was not attacking the author; the fact that my comment was allowed here speaks to her respect for freedom of speech and her generosity. I am attempting to alert all people of good will to the Source and Sustenance of fourteen centuries of suffering and death for billions of non-Muslims and Muslim women, children, and apostates.

With regard to the hijab, I realize that some Muslim women choose to wear it for their own reasons. That does not change the fact that since Muhammad practiced covering his property (wives, concubines, slaves), and Allah calls him “a beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please” him, the hijab/niqab/abaya are mandatory for the devout:

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex . . .” (Qur’an 24:31).

“Aisha used to say: ‘When (the Verse): “They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms,” was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces’” (Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 282).

“Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘Allah’s Apostle used to offer the Fajr prayer and some believing women covered with their veiling sheets used to attend the Fajr prayer with him and then they would return to their homes unrecognized’” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 368).

[Explanatory note: Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin in tafseer of this hadith explains: “This hadith makes it clear that the Islamic dress is concealing of the entire body as explained in this hadith. Only with the complete cover including the face and hands can a woman not be recognized. This was the understanding and practice of the Sahaba and they were the best of group, the noblest in the sight of Allah . . . with the most complete Imaan and noblest of characters. so if the practice of the women of the sahaba was to wear the complete veil then how can we deviate from their path?”]

“Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. ‘Umar used to say to the Prophet “Let your wives be veiled,” but Allah’s Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam’a the wife of the Prophet went out at ‘Isha’ time and she was a tall lady. ‘Umar addressed her and said, “I have recognized you, O Sauda.” He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “Al-Hijab” (A complete body cover excluding the eyes)’” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148).

On a related note, I would ask you to produce from any other major religion’s sacred texts open-ended, universal commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the “invitation” to conversion. This is unique to Islam.

On the other hand, Jesus taught and practiced, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and, “Love your enemies.”

Muhammad butchered those who resisted him. Christ died for the sins of all people, including Muslims.

There is no moral equivalence between the two.

Hijabs on the move

In Hijab, Non-violent jihad, Obedient Muslims vs. moderate Muslims, Resisting Jihad, The truth about Islam on May 6, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Can you imagine individuals walking American streets, going about their business, proudly displaying swastikas or the Rising Sun of Imperial Japan?

In 1942?

Neither can I.

Something odd occurred this past Sunday. During an Arabian horse show’s climactic demonstration, a group of brightly-clad Muslimas wheeled their strollers and hijabs from one side of the stadium to the other directly in the view of the entire audience, paused once they reached the other side of the stadium, and then left.

They were making a statement.

Islamophobic? Not in light of the Muslim Brotherhood’s declared intention to subvert the American Constitution from within and subjugate the West to Allah.

Approaching eight years after 9/11, many Americans are ignorant still regarding Islam. How many Muslims are?

A “Christian” who married what I thought was a decent, Muslim-in-Name-Only Muslim once defended the hijab from my charge that it was a symbol of slavery and death by asserting stupidly that “Mary covered her head.”

Lots of people cover their head. Only one covering symbolizes fourteen centuries of global slavery, rape, and slaughter.

From here:

Mr. Appel,

I disagree . . . kindly, openly, and nicely.

I quoted the words of Muhammad and his allah, yet you call them “cheap shots,” “anger,” and “prejudice.” What does that say about what you believe about those passages?

I was not attacking the author; the fact that my comment was allowed here speaks to her respect for freedom of speech and her generosity. I am attempting to alert all people of good will to the Source and Sustenance of fourteen centuries of suffering and death for billions of non-Muslims and Muslim women, children, and apostates.

With regard to the hijab, I realize that some Muslim women choose to wear it for their own reasons. That does not change the fact that since Muhammad practiced covering his property (wives, concubines, slaves), and Allah calls him “a beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please” him, the hijab/niqab/abaya are mandatory for the devout:

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex . . .” (Qur’an 24:31).

“Aisha used to say: ‘When (the Verse): “They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms,” was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces’” (Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 282).

“Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘Allah’s Apostle used to offer the Fajr prayer and some believing women covered with their veiling sheets used to attend the Fajr prayer with him and then they would return to their homes unrecognized’” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 368).

[Explanatory note: Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin in tafseer of this hadith explains: “This hadith makes it clear that the Islamic dress is concealing of the entire body as explained in this hadith. Only with the complete cover including the face and hands can a woman not be recognized. This was the understanding and practice of the Sahaba and they were the best of group, the noblest in the sight of Allah . . . with the most complete Imaan and noblest of characters. so if the practice of the women of the sahaba was to wear the complete veil then how can we deviate from their path?”]

“Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. ‘Umar used to say to the Prophet “Let your wives be veiled,” but Allah’s Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam’a the wife of the Prophet went out at ‘Isha’ time and she was a tall lady. ‘Umar addressed her and said, “I have recognized you, O Sauda.” He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “Al-Hijab” (A complete body cover excluding the eyes)’” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148).

On a related note, I would ask you to produce from any other major religion’s sacred texts open-ended, universal commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the “invitation” to conversion. This is unique to Islam.

On the other hand, Jesus taught and practiced, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and, “Love your enemies.”

Muhammad butchered those who resisted him. Christ died for the sins of all people, including Muslims.

There is no moral equivalence between the two.