LF: Obama on DC Jihadis: "Fiercely loyal Muslims"

Title: Obama on DC Jihadis: "Fiercely loyal Muslims"
Source: Atlas Shrugs
URL Source: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/ ... is-fiercely-loyal-muslims.html
Published: Dec 11, 2009
Author: staff
Post Date: 2009-12-11 09:48:16 by Joe Snuffy
Keywords: War on Terror, Obama, US Muslim terrorists
Views: 36311
Comments: 91

Obama on DC Jihadis: "Fiercely loyal Muslims"

Crazy, man.

Check out the TOTUS's response today to the devastating news of five DC Muslim students tracked down and arrested in Pakistan. They were plotting jihad. What did Pres Moe say? He speaks about fiercely loyal Muslims ....loyal to whom exactly?

(vid hat tip KGS)

Obama spent a month in Pakistan during his college years ....perhaps he is, uh, sympathetic.

Here is a sampling of different posts in the past three months of fiercely loyal Muslim activity here in the good old USA:

Chicago Muslim Charged In Mumbai Islamic Massacre Planned More Terror Attacks in India

AMERICAN JIHAD: FBI INVESTIGATING 5 MISSING MUSLIM STUDENTS IN DC, POSSIBLE ARREST IN PAKISTAN

“I said he was acting...like a terrorist,” roommate of Jihadi who Murdered Binghamton Professor

Muslims of America Domestic Terror Jihad training camp videos to be released

Chicago Jihadis who Plotted to bomb Danish Cartoon Publisher at Halal Slaughterhouse Tied to Mumbai

Muslim Sentenced to Six-year jail term in Plot to Blow up Sears Tower: "Islamic terrorism is one of the most tremendous problem that this country now confronts ... this defendant took an oath to Al-Qaeda"

Beltway Jihadi Sniper John Muhammad: Death to the Jihadi Tonight

Fort Hood Jihad

Going Muslim on a Photographer outside Michigan Mosque

Son of an Imam Killed in Gun Battle with the FBI in Detroit is Arrested

Michigan Mosque leader killed during Islamic gun battle with fed

Hush Hush: Huge Fed/FBI Raid on Chicago Halal Goat Meat Slaughterhouse

Boston Muslim Terrorist Son of MAS (Muslim American Society) Leader

Another Conviction of Muslims Engaged in Plotting Islamic Attacks Against American Overseas

NY Imam Indicted in NYC Terror Attack Plot

Massive Muslim Attack Averted: "plot to kill two prominent US politicians and carry out a holy war by attacking shoppers in US malls and American troops in Iraq"

Obama First Female Veiled Islamist Appointee, Dalia Mogahed, Promotes Sharia, Says it's "Misunderstood

"New York Muslim indicted for plotting to kill U.S. troopswww.dallasnews.com/shared...ombarrest.1b177db8b.html" target="_blank">

www.dallasnews.com/shared...ombarrest.1b177db8b.html" target="_blank">FBI arrests Jordanian for downtown Dallas bomb plot...

NYC: Muslims Protest "RACIAL PROFILING" in wake of arrests in major jihad terror plot

www.reuters.com/article/m...ws/idUSN2447383520090924" target="_blank">Illinois man charged in plot to bomb federal offices...

www.reuters.com/article/d...ws/idUSTRE58N6YT20090924" target="_blank">Terror suspects accused of targeting Marine base in Quantico...

cbs3.com/local/SEPTA.Broad.Street.2.1206878.html" target="_blank">Men vanish after taking photos of Philly subway system...

Click for Full Text!

It's amazing that most Americans do NOT know what the term Jihad means. If they did, they would stop using it as a terrorist act.

Jihad describes the ethics and morals of the Muslims. Jihad is the internal fight between right and wrong, moral and immoral, selfishness and selflessness, etc. The inner peach and equilibrium is then reflected outward in an attempt to create peace and harmony in society. Jihad is not about waging wars on others. Jihad does promote self-defense.

For all the sick twisted freaks committing acts of violence in the name of Islam, the true Muslims know Allah will send them to hell as they are in direct violation of Allah's commandments given to the people through the prophet Mohammad, recorded in the Qur'an.

Every group of people has extremists that carry out atrocities against other people or even their own people. Some do it in the name of one religion or another and some do it in the name of a race or a country. Some are simply psycho freaks.

Holy Wars. Muhammad believed in holy war (the Jihad). By divine revelation he commanded his followers: “fight in the cause Of God” (sura 2:244). He added, “fight and slay The Pagans wherever ye find them” (sura 9:5). And, “when ye meet The Unbelievers (in fight) Smite at their necks” (sura 47:4). In general, Muslims were to “fight those who believe not In God nor the Last Day” (sura 9:29). Indeed, Paradise is promised for those who fight for God. Sura 3:195 declares: “Those who have left their homes . . . Or fought or been slain,— Verily, I will blot out From them their iniquities, And admit them into Gardens With rivers flowing beneath;—A reward from the Presence Of God, and from His Presence Is the best of rewards” (cf. sura 2:244; 4:95). These “holy wars” were carried out “in the cause Of God” (cf. sura 2:244) against “unbelievers.”

Sura 5:36 declares that “The punishment of those Who wage war against God [i.e., unbelievers] And His Apostle, and strive With might and main For mischief through the land Is: execution, or crucifixion, Or the cutting off of hands And feet from opposite sides, Or exile from the land.” Acknowledging that these are appropriate punishments, depending on “the circumstances,” Ali offers little consolation when he notes that the more cruel forms of Arabian treatment of enemies, such as, “piercing of eyes and leaving the unfortunate victim exposed to a tropical sun,” were abolished! (Ali, 252, 738). Such war on, and persecution of, enemies on religious grounds—by whatever means—is seen by most critics as religious intolerance. In view of these clear commands to use the sword aggressively to spread Islam and Muslim practice down through the centuries, Muslim claims that “this fight is waged solely for the freedom to call men unto God and unto His religion” have a hollow ring (cf. Haykal, 212). Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library (508). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Everything you quoted happened in the Bible as well. What's that supposed to prove?

Let me suggest you learn the difference between the Old Testament and New Testament prior to making that statement.

I know the difference, and thank you for that statement. Jesus changed everything, but Jesus is God. Before Jesus, God didn't know what it was like to actually live on Earth in the flesh. After he sent Jesus, as himself incarnate, his ideas changed. Jesus brought love to the Earth. Jesus taught God to love. Instead of an eye for an eye, it became love thy enemy and turn the other cheek. Jesus was considered a radical by his fellow Jews. Did you know that the name Jesus means God Saves? Jesus also said that it was extremely difficult for the wealthy to enter the kingdom of heaven, as God, the Protector, takes care of physical needs.

I read where the Ten Commandments should no longer be relevent because they are in the Old Testament and the Old Testament is no longer relevent. I don't remember where I saw it, but that's not the case, as Jesus discusses the Ten Commandments as well, in the New Testament.

The only thing odd about the Bible is that it does not tell about Jesus' entire life. Only his birth, him at age 12, and them him at age 30 until his death 3 years later. They did discover other Testaments that are older than those included in the Bible. One of them talks about Jesus making birds from clay as a child and then bringing them to life. There is much more out there than we know. The Bible is not complete.

Look up the word immutability, which is one of the attributes of God. It means God does not change.

“Jesus Christ” is a composite name made up of the personal name “Jesus” (from Gk Isous, which transliterates Heb/Aram yšû (a)Ó, a late form of Hebrew yhôšûaÓ, the meaning of which is “YHWH is salvation” or “YHWH saves/has saved”) and the title, assimilated in early Christianity to Jesus as a name, “Christ” (from Gk Christos, which translates Heb mš1a7; and Aram mš17;Ò, signifying “anointed” and referring in the context of eschatological expectation to the royal “son of David”). The name “Jesus Christ” thus binds together the historic figure Jesus with the messianic role and status that early Christian faith attributed to him. In Jesus’ own lifetime, his name, since it was common in Israel, called for a specifier: “Jesus the Galilean” (Matt 26:69; cf. 21:11), or, more often, “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus the Nazarean.”

Nine of the Ten were brought over into the New Testament. However, Christians are not saved by obeying any of the Ten or Nine, because they are under grace through faith, and not law.

The Gnostic Texts are not older than the New Testament texts we have today...no way. Furthermore, they contain many errors and are not in harmoney with the New Testament.

According to Jesus: Those who commit murder are liable for judgment; those who are angry with their brothers are also liable [extended the law from the OT]. Committing adultery is wrong; looking at a woman lustfully is also wrong [extended the law from the OT]. Do not take an eye for an eye [as stated in the OT]; respond with love. Love not only your neighbors, but your enemies as well [a change from the OT]. Pray for those who persecute you.

Furthermore, as you state, other texts are not in harmony with the NT, the New Testament is not in harmony with itself. One gospel states one thing, while another Gospel states something different. I do understand the reasons for the differences and they in no way make the Bible false. They are simply different points of view from different viewers of the events. If you know what I mean.

Other gospels circulating in the early Christian church were not included in the canon of the New Testament. They include magical stories of Jesus’s infancy, such as an account of his making clay birds and then bringing them to life. The Gospel of Thomas, one of the long-hidden manuscripts discovered in 1945 by a peasant in a cave near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, is of particular interest. Some scholars feel that its core may have been written even earlier than the canonical gospels. It contains many sayings in common with the other gospels but places the accent on mystical concepts of Jesus:

Jesus said: I am the Light that is above them all. I am the All, the All came forth from me and the All attained to me. Cleave a (piece of ) wood, I am there; lift up the stone and you will find Me there.

From the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary: On paleographical grounds P. Oxy. 1 has been assigned a date shortly after 200 C.E.; the copying of the other two Greek fragments is estimated to date from various decades in the mid–3d century. Analysis of the handwriting of the Coptic text, which is well preserved, indicates that it was copied just before the year 350. According to the critical edition of the Coptic text by Layton (1989: 7), the admixture of Sahidic and Subakhmimic forms indicates that the language of this translation is “a literary language,” apparently “written by a speaker” of Subakhmimic “attempting, artificially, to conform” to Sahidic. Freedman, D. N. (1996). The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday.

From Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics: Gospel of Thomas, The. The Claim of the Critics. Some radical critics of the New Testament claim that the Gnostic (see GNOSTICISM) Gospel of Thomas is equal or superior to the New Testament and that it does not support the resurrection of Christ. The so- called Jesus Seminar places the Gospel of Thomas in their otherwise severely truncated Bible. Both stances are serious challenges to the historic Christian faith. The Gospel of Thomas was discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, near Cairo in 1945 and was translated into English in 1977. While some have attempted to date parts of it earlier, the Gospel of Thomas is most reliably dated no earlier than A.D. 140–170. It contains 114 secret sayings of Jesus. Defenders of the Gospel of Thomas include Walter Baur, Frederick Wisse, A. Powell Davies, and Elaine Pagels. An Evaluation of the Credibility of the Gospel of Thomas. The best way to evaluate the credibility of the Gospel of Thomas is by way of comparison to the New Testament Gospels, which often the same critics have grave doubts about (see NEW TESTAMENT, HISTORICITY OF; NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS, RELIABILITY OF; NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS). When this comparison is made, the Gospel of Thomas comes up seriously short. The Canonical Gospels Are Much Earlier. Assuming the widely accepted dates of the Synoptic Gospels (ca. A.D. 60–80), the Gospel of Thomas falls nearly a century short. Indeed, there is evidence of even earlier dates for some Gospels (see NEW TESTAMENT, DATING OF), as even some liberal scholars admit (see Robinson, John A., all). O. C. Edwards asserts of the Gospel of Thomas and the canonical Gospels that “As historical reconstructions there is no way the two can claim equal credentials” (27). And Joseph Fitzmyer adds, “Time and again, she is blind to the fact that she is ignoring a good century of Christian existence in which these ‘gnostic Christians’ were simply not around” (123). The Gospel of Thomas Is Dependent on the Canonical Gospels. Even if the Gospel of Thomas could be shown to contain some authentic statements of Jesus, “no convincing case has been made that any given saying of Jesus in the Gospels depends on a saying in the Gospel of Thomas” (Boyd, 118). Rather, the reverse is true since the Gospel of Thomas presupposes truths found earlier in the canonical Gospels. The Gospel of Thomas Portrays a Second-Century Gnosticism. The Gospel of Thomas is influenced by the kind of Gnosticism prevalent in the second century. For instance, it puts into the mouth of Jesus these unlikely and demeaning words: “Every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven” (cited by Boyd, 118). The Gospel of Thomas’s Lack of Narrative Does Not Prove Jesus Did No Miracles. The fact that the author(s) of the Gospel of Thomas did not include narratives of Jesus does not mean they disbelieved in Jesus’ miracles. The book seems to be a collection of Jesus’ sayings rather than his deeds. The Canonical Gospels Are More Historically Trustworthy. There are numerous reasons why the New Testament Gospels are more trustworthy than the Gnostic ones. First, the earliest Christians were meticulous in preserving Jesus’ words and deeds. Second, the Gospel writers were close to the eyewitnesses and pursued the facts (Luke 1:1–4). Third, there is good evidence that the Gospel writers were honest reporters (see NEW TESTAMENT, HISTORICITY OF; WITNESSES, HUME’S CRITERIA FOR). Fourth, the overall picture of Jesus presented in the Gospels is the same. The Basic New Testament Canon Was Formed in the First Century. Contrary to claims of the critics, the basic New Testament canon was formed in the first century. The only books in dispute have no apologetic effect on the argument for the reliability of the historical material used to establish the deity of Christ. The New Testament itself reveals that a collection of books existed in the first century. Peter speaks of having Paul’s epistles (2 Peter 3:15–16). In fact, he considered them on a par with Old Testament “Scripture.” Paul had access to Luke’s Gospel, and quotes it in 1 Timothy 5:18. The churches were instructed to send their epistle on to other churches (Col. 4:16). Beyond the New Testament, there are extrabiblical canonical lists that support the existence of a New Testament canon (see Geisler and Nix, 294). Indeed, all the Gospels and Paul’s basic epistles are represented on these lists. Even the heretical canon of the Gnostic *Marcion (ca. A.D. 140) had the Gospel of Luke and ten of Paul’s epistles, including 1 Corinthians. The Second-Century Fathers Support the Canonical Gospels. The second-century Fathers cited a common body of books. This includes all the crucial books that support the historicity of Christ and his resurrection, namely, the Gospels, Acts, and 1 Corinthians. Clement of Roman (A.D. 95) cited the Gospels (Corinthians, 13, 42, 46). Ignatius (ca. 110–115) cited Luke 24:39 (Smyrnaeans 3). Polycarp (ca. 115) cited all the Synoptic Gospels (Philippians 2, 7). The Didache often cites the Synoptic Gospels (1, 3, 8, 9, 15–16). The Epistle of Barnabas (ca. 135) cites Matthew 22:14). Papias (ca. 125–140) in the Oracles speaks of Matthew, Mark (following Peter), and John (last) who wrote Gospels. He says three times that Mark made no errors. What is more, the Fathers considered the Gospels and Paul’s epistles to be on a par with the inspired Old Testament. Thus the Fathers vouched for the accuracy of the canonical Gospels in the early second century, well before the Gospel of Thomas was even written. The Resurrection Account. The Gospel of Thomas does acknowledge Jesus’ resurrection. In fact, the living, resurrected Christ himself speaks in it (34:25–27; 45:1–16). True, it does not stress the resurrection, but this is to be expected since it is primarily a “sayings” source rather than historical narration. Furthermore, the Gnostic theological bias against matter would downplay the bodily resurrection. Conclusion. The evidence for the authenticity of the Gospel of Thomas does not even compare with that for the New Testament. The New Testament dates from the first century; the Gospel of Thomas, the second. The New Testament is verified by many lines of evidence, including self-references, early canonical lists, thousands of citations by the early Fathers, and the well-established dates for the Synoptic Gospels. Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library (295–296). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

You can say God does not change, but there is a definate difference between God's commands in the Old Testament versus the New Testament. Jesus made these changes. Not only did Jesus change some of the laws from the Old Testament, he extended others. I will give you an example. God did not change, but there are two different covenants. There is a big difference you are missing. Christians are not under law, but grace.

Those are labeled apparent contradictions, apparent but not real. Only those not grounded in the Scriptures see contradictions. I have never found one.

Bible, Alleged Errors in. Critics claim the Bible is filled with errors. Some even speak of thousands of mistakes. However, orthodox Christians through the ages have claimed that the Bible is without error in the original text (“autographs”; see Geisler, Decide for Yourself). “If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in Scripture,” Augustine wisely noted, “it is not allowable to say, ‘The author of this book is mistaken’; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood” (Augustine, 11.5). Not one error that extends to the original text of the Bible has ever been demonstrated. Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library (74). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.