Posts
This comes via Aisha's lost doll. What the hell kind of religion is this? Why are we putting up with it? It's time to put a stop to this. I don't care if it hurts some people's feelings. And if they riot over feeling insulted, I don't care about that either. Islam is intolerable. Toss 'em.
8 comments:
Dag,
Thanks for showing the real Mohammed. This cartoon was taken from http://www.hinduunity.org/, a site dedicated to defending Hindus from the depredations of Quaker rape gangs and blood-crazed genocidal Anglican vicars.
Seriously though, I've heard it said that Jesus made a prophecy predicting the coming of Mohammed -
Luke 17 verses 1 and 2:
Then said he unto the disciples "It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than he should offend one of these little ones"
The word 'offend' had a stronger sense when the KJV was written than it does now. 'Violate' or 'corrupt' might be better synonyms.
Are there any Christians out there who can confirm this interpretation?
Thanks for the link. I hope it's live here so our readers can go directly:
http://www.hinduunity.org/
We should all keep in mind that we in the geographical west aren't the only ones suffering from Islamic jihad. India is too, and they've been suffering from it for almost as long as anyone on Earth. They, being Hindu, don't even warrant the minimal "protection" offered to dhimmis: they are destroyed physically and have been so for centuries upon centuries. The Muslim conquest of India is a crime one can hardly read about without screaming. the problem of Islam is universal.
If we want to know the future of Europe we can look to the history of India for our visions:
Legacy of Muslim Rule in India
by K. S. Lal
I really can't help too you much, but I remember a quote about Mohammed's coming, saying that "he will be a wild donkey of a man- who will never be at peace with the world"... or words to that effect. I'm sure others who know more will ring in.
That quotation comes from Genesis 16:22, quoted and descibed below. I've taken part of the article which you can follow by copying the link. Sorry I can't provide it directly.
When Abram was seventy-five years old, God promised him that through his “seed” the nations of the earth would be blessed. But as yet, the patriarch had no offspring. A decade rolled by and still no child blessed the home of Abram and Sarai.
Finally, Sarai suggested that a child be produced by a union between Abram and Hagar, Sarai’s Egyptian handmaid, for such was an accepted custom in those days, as reflected in the Code of Hammurabi (146).
When Hagar conceived, she flaunted her proud condition before the barren Sarai; infuriated, Abram’s wife drove the slave out of the camp. As Hagar travelled toward her homeland, she was visited by the “Messenger of Jehovah,” himself a divine being (Genesis 16:7,13). The Messenger informed Hagar that she would bear a son and his name would be Ishmael (“God hears”).
Within this general context, a number of remarkable prophecies were made regarding Ishmael and his descendants. Some consideration of these matters should be of interest to Bible students in these days of political conflict.
It was foretold that Ishmael would be
“a wild ass among men; his hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. And he shall dwell over against all his brethren” (Genesis 16:12).
Later, it was said of Ishmael that God would “multiply him exceedingly,” and that he would be the father of “twelve princes” and a “great nation would proceed from him” (17:20). These prophecies have been stunningly fulfilled. Note the following historical facts.
1. Ishmael grew up, married an Egyptian woman, and begat twelve sons who became princes over their respective tribes (Genesis 25:12ff) – exactly as prophesied (17:20). These people inhabited the territory between Havilah (probably in NW Arabia) and Shur (near the Egyptian border), and were one of the several peoples who were the ancestors of the Arabians (cf Genesis 10:7,25-30; 25:1-4,13-16). Today, Arab-dominated territories are much more extensive even than in Bible times.
2. lshmael was characterized as a “wild ass.” What is the significance of that expression? Several ideas have been suggested. Hamilton contends that the habitat of the wild ass is in the waste places (cf. Job 39:5-8), hence, the idea is that of a life of nomadic existence (p. 454). Anderson/Freedman thought that the figure hints of a “forlorn and friendless” existence (p. 505; cf. Genesis 21:20). Baur/Harrison suggested that thewild ass was a creature proverbially skilled at escape – only a hunter of “obvious prowess” could capture him (Bromiley, p. 905). All of these descriptives are traits of the bedouin tribes of the Arabian peninsula.
3. Of special interest, though, is the foreboding indication that the descendants of Ishmael would be a fierce people – “his hand against every man, every man’s hand against him” (Genesis 16:12).
Moses wrote that the Ishmaelite “abode over against all his brethren” (Genesis 25:18; cf. 16:12b). Many scholars believe that this language reflects a hostile disposition (cf. NIV). William Beck’s, An American Translation, renders the phrase: “They fought with all their relatives.” E.A. Speiser argued that the language depicts the attacks characteristically made upon the lshmaelites’ various kinsmen (p. 188).
History has amply illustrated the warlike temperament of the Arabian people. Thomas Newton, who traced the bloody history of the Arabs with precision, said these people “live in a state of continual war with the rest of the world. . . they have been such enemies of mankind, it is no wonder that mankind have been enemies to them again” (p. 23).
http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/hisHandAgainstEveryMan.htm
Aisha's lost doll, I've got the Jerusalem Bible here, and Luke 17:1-2 says:
He said to his disciples, 'Obstacles are sure to come, but alas for the one who provides them! It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone put round his neck than that he should lead astray a single one of theese little ones. Watch yourselves!'
My bible comes with footnotes, and 'little ones' is seen more as a diminutive term for Jesus' followers than specifying children.
Well done, Dag
and as to the reference to Luke 17, very similar, but perhaps more clear language, is in Mat 18:6
Thanks for pointing that out, maccusgermanis. I think Mattew 18:1-6 says it best.
(I'm new to bible study. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.)
No problem I had to look it up myself. You don't need an excuse, you need a Bible with a concordance.
Post a Comment