Islam @ MindSay 
christianity
“The Worlds Religions Versus Le-way”
Over the years I have taken it upon myself to study the worlds religions and learn as much about them as I can. I have come to the conclusion that they are all as valid as any other and tend to agree with those who believe that God has and will continue to send messengers on His behalf to offer new and different insights into His character.
I find it interesting the way that many religions (especially the monotheistic ones) seem to have evolved over time by making small (although often significant) changes to the earlier ones. It seems as though God has sent prophet after prophet into the world only to find He must send another to correct the errors of those who came before the most current one.
Among the earliest of the great mono-theistic religions was Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is well known to have had a great deal of influence on many of the worlds religions, including Judaism and Christianity. It’s almost ironic that Zoroastrians (of which there remain a few) have long believed that a messiah will be born to a virgin much like what Christianity is based on. Some scholars have even proposed that the Three Wise Men were actually Zoroastrian priests based on the direction from which they came.
I also find it interesting what Zoroastrianism has to say about Heaven and Hell. According to it’s teachings God will judge people based on the number of good deeds they have tallied compared to how many bad deeds they are responsible for. A person who has managed more good deeds than bad ones will go to Heaven while those who fair otherwise will be condemned to Hell. They even believe in a place like Purgatory where those who have committed the same number of good deeds as bad will take residence (if only for a time).
This is clearly a simplistic approach to justice which other religions would ultimately do better to address. Christianity offered us an entirely different means of salvation. Jesus based it on a persons faith in Him which is no more fair, if not even further from the truth than Zoroastrianism. Along came Islam and Submission to God which made a little more sense (as a path to salvation) but still based a persons salvation on what they do or do not believe. The Bah’ai Faith and a number of other religions attempted to unify the worlds religions by suggesting that it didn’t matter what religion a person belongs to but only that they follow the path God has prepared for them.
The problem with all of these religions is that none of them allow a person to have a relationship with God without following certain moral expectations (or, at least, attempting to). According to Le-way, the way to go to Heaven is to surrender the knowledge of good and evil which can be accomplished in as many ways as there are to be sincere. The difference is that Le-way condemns no one to hell but provides liberty and justice for all in a place I call Utopia (also called The Land of Oz). Those who have yet to turn their will and their lives over to the care of God will not experience the fires of hell but rather Perfect On-going Justice, Actual Free-will and a Permanent 2nd Chance (to surrender the Knowledge of Good and Evil and go to Heaven). I call it the right to be a fool or not to be.
Man I have to tell you Church’s Chicken is one of the best fast food franchises serving good tasting Chicken. Alas, being a confirmed Islamophobe, I may think twice before I patronize Church’s Chicken again.
JRH 5/1/08
Erick Erickson of Redstate.com has sent an e-list email encouraging his readers to protest to Congress about Larry Lessig of Google and Barack Obama.
His complaint is threefold.
1. Larry Lessig is pro-Net Neutrality.
2. Larry Lessig is virulently anti-Christian and moves Google in that direction.
3. Lessig is a huge political supporter of Obama; thus Obama has another guilt by association by allowing Lessig’s support of his campaign.
I am not sure if I understand Erickson’s anger about Lessig being for Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is like the sun, it shines its light on the good and evil at the same time. Net Neutrality certainly allows the evil in this world to exploit a form of communication; however Net Neutrality offers the same exact ability for good to be on the Internet.
I am guessing Erickson’s ire is because Google under Lessig’s direction may be guilty of not allowing pro-Christian websites to be accessed via the Google search engine. If the allegation is true (and I don’t doubt that it is), then Lessig’s defense of Net Neutrality is Leftist hypocrisy. In essence Lessig is promoting Leftwing pro-Mohammedan websites and ridiculing Christ and Christian websites as well as definitely NOT providing neutrality for all users of the Google search engine.
This is a revelation that saddens me. I like using the Google search engine. Unfortunately I am finding out when I place a search for some Christian specific information, Google may be biased as a guide.
Then there is Barack Obama. Obama openly receives support from anti-Christian Lessig. Could this further expose light on Obama’s other associations with Nation of Islam racist Louis Farrakhan and Black Supremacist Christian Jeremiah Wright?
Couple this with Obama’s recent denigration of Pennsylvania rural dwellers (ergo all rural dwellers) as ignorant gun-toting individuals that rely on religion for solace on and comfort and what do you have a picture of?
It is a picture of an anti-Christian candidate running for the Democratic nomination for President.
************************
Obama Adviser Denigrates Jesus. Don't let him get away with it.
Redstate.com Email Alert
Erick Erickson
April 21, 2008 7:04:14 AM
ACTION ITEM: Call the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee at 202-224-5115 and protest Larry Lessig and Google denigrating Christ while Google censors Christians online. Details below.
A friend and adviser to Barack Obama, Larry Lessig, is going to testify before Congress on Tuesday to advocate for "net neutrality," a position strongly supported by Google,Inc.
Google, recently allowed Larry Lessig to talk to Google employees. During his talk, Lessig showed a video of Jesus, depicted as gay and wearing a diaper singing the song "I Will Survivor" until Christ is run over by a bus. You can see for yourself here.
Lessig told Google's employees, "This is a little bit touchy to some people. I don't get it, so just chill."
Google and Lessig believe that intellectual property rights should be curtailed and internet providers should be forced to allow anyone and everyone to use their networks.
While Google is pushing net neutrality and blaspheming Christ, Google is also censoring Christians online. As I document here, Google has censored a pro-life group online. Google has also been sued for anti-Christian discrimination in the United Kingdom.
Of course, while Google is happy to censor Christians while denigrating Christ, Google has gone out of its way to censor content that might offend muslims.
Google should have no right to demand open access to your internet while censoring and denigrating Christians on its network. And the Senate should not give Larry Lessig a platform to advocate Google's position while Google behaves in that manner.
Call the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee and tell them you find it disgraceful that Google could advocate an open internet while censoring Christians and laughing while Larry Lessig denigrates Christ. The number is 202-224-5115.
Also, please forward this to your friends. Have your friends join this list. We should not let the left get away with denigrating Christ and sending those who do to Congress to advocate for companies that routinely censor Christians.
Together, we can stop this.
All the best,
Erick Erickson
Editor, RedState.com
Forward This Email to a Friend
Most of these people have a live and let live policy as well. They really don't care what someone believes, just as long as that person doesn't try to force their beliefs (whether it be through direct force or via laws or lobbying) on everyone else. They all share a fundamental belief that religion causes harm to society. Looking at the history of religion, they have a point.
Obviously, some religions are much more of a threat to civilization than others. It seems that every faith goes through it's "wild" phase, where it becomes ruthless, brutal. Judaism actually chronicled this period in their holy book, where they engaged in a deadly ethnic cleansing campaign against the people living in Canaan because God supposedly "gave" them that land. It makes me wonder, wouldn't it have been easier for God just to make all those people disappear? It seems kind of pointless for an all-powerful universe creator to rely on a former slave army to destroy cities one-by-one. At any rate, running into a Jew back then would have been pretty scary. However, nowadays Judaism is relatively peaceful. There's a few militant sects, but nothing out of the ordinary for any other religion. There are even militant sects of Buddhism.
Then we have Christianity, an offshoot of Judaism. For the first few hundred years, they were pretty peaceful, and there were a lot of martyrs...then they became the ones in charge. The middle ages saw a reign of Christian terror filled with Inquisitions and Crusades. Now, the church has calmed down quite a bit, and fits in pretty good with the modern world.
Right on cue, Islam seems to be going through it's rough phase, and as religions go is probably the most threatening to world peace as a whole. More violent acts are done in the name of Islam every year than those done for all other religions combined. There is also an unwillingness among the majority of so-called "moderate" muslims to condemn this violence. Will Islam "mellow out" if given enough time? Or will the availability of weapons of mass destruction to such an unstable and violent belief system spell the end for us all? Only time will tell.
It's understandable to see religion as a threat to peace, but I think those who would see the end of all religion make one mistake: they lump all religions as the same thing, and they're not. People in Israel don't go to bed at night worrying about those Amish suicide bombers. Religion comes in all shapes and colors, some of which are completely benign, doing absolutely no harm to society. Many religions practice good things. Charities for example are often run by churches. It's incredibly closed-minded to pronounce a blanket condemnation on all religion.
The real and true threat to any civilized society is absolute thinking. In other words, the threat is seeing everything on "black" or "white" terms. Nothing is "absolutely" good or evil, and thinking along those "you're either with us or against us" lines can cause a lot of problems. It got us into this disastrous war with Iraq, among other things. Certainly religion can play a part in encouraging this behavior, but it's not unique to any one philosophy. It's dangerous no matter which God one believes or doesn't believe in. By putting blanket condemnations on things you don't like, you marginalize them. Proclaiming something "good" or "evil" stops one from truly evaluating it. Not even Adolf Hitler was completely evil.
This group of non theists also makes this mistake. People like Dawkins and Hitchens marginalize religion and give it no redeeming value whatsoever. I may agree with them on their stance that there (probably) is no God or Gods, but I don't think you can just marginalize the faith of billions away like that. That line of thinking is just as dangerous as that of the rabid evangelical or the Muslim suicide bomber. The conflict comes when people come together and have wildly different ideas about good and evil. The smaller this world gets, the less isolate we become, the more and more we'll have to abandon that kind of thinking, or I fear it could be the end of this civilization.
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]