Ongelofelijk hoe de haatzaaiïng en valse berichtgeving over de Islam verder gaat. Vooral in Amerika heeft men duidelijk zulk een schrik te pakken dat alles dat maar enigszins verwijst naar islam of moslim als duivels wordt aanschouwt.
Overal ter wereld vinden wij mensen die beweren dat Islam van Satan is, waarbij zij dan die satan een duivels persoon mee bedoelen die iedereen tot eeuwige verdoemenis brengt.
De Amerikaans-Iraanse voorganger Saeed Abedini heeft 15 jaar na '11 september' een controversieel bericht geschreven op zijn Facebookpagina.
"Na 15 jaar sterven er iedere dag nog steeds mensen als gevolg van de leer van de islam. Ja, we moeten Van Moslims Houden, maar we moeten ook de hele wereld duidelijk maken dat de Islam Van Satan Is,"
aldus Abedini. Heel wat mensen beschouwen de wereld in oorlog sinds 11 september 2001. Voor de predikant is het duidelijk waar al het kwaad vandaan komt. Hij schrijft
"Wij Zijn In Ooorlog, zeg ik in het bijzonder tegen onze politieke leiders.,
Vervolgens voegt de predikant bij zijn tekst een video waarin hij volgens hem duidelijk maakt dat
"Christenen Geloven Dat De Islam Van Satan Is. Wie de leer van de islam aanhangt is een volger van Een Satanische Religie. De meest voorgangers en christenen durven dit geluid uit angst niet te laten horen. Daarom Verklaar Ik Luid En Duidelijk Dat De Islam Is Gesticht Door Satan Om Moslims Ervan Te Weerhouden Om Gered Te Worden Door Het Bloed Van Jezus. Satan Wil Hen De Hel In Sturen."
schreeuwt Abedini, waarna hij Johannes 10:10 citeert,
'De dief komt alleen maar om te stelen, te slachten en verloren te laten gaan; Ik ben gekomen, opdat zij leven hebben en overvloed hebben.'
In zijn boodschap, die u in het volgende artikel onveranderd kan vinden, roept hij verder op om te beseffen dat wij in oorlog zijn. Hieraan wil hij de politici herinneren, alsof hij hen ook aanport om werkelijk ten oorlog te trekken.
Disney's Friends for Change (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
To become justified we ourselves do have to act in the right way. We must act justly and we also have to enact it. It’s in our own hands.
The word, “Tzedek,”
which means “justice,” also means “righteousness.” The Hebrew word “Tzedaka,” which means “charity,” comes from that same word, “Tzedek,”
which can mean that they are connected. Unless righteousness
is rooted in kindness, in compassion, and in being a giver and caring
for the poor and needy, etc., it is not “just.”
Being “right with God”
but not with your fellow man is not aligned with heaven.
The world has chosen to go its own way, but along the way many people also demanded to have judges. As such we got the judges and in the Book of judges or "Shoftim" we can see how an unjust society may be tried but also directed.
In the Torah portion of Shoftim, “justice”
is not a single word, because it is not a single concept. The double
word is its own congruence. That’s the alignment to strive for – justice
that is righteous and righteousness that is just – rooted in kindness,
caring, and giving. Says Robert Frost,
“Nothing can make injustice just but mercy.”
What is done wrong shall have its consequences. Even when we regret what we did wrong we shall have to bear the consequences. sometimes we even may think we did the right thing but did something wrongly or it turned out badly. Living in this world we are under the events of this world, dependant on others but also on our own. And it is that self that can make the better choices, leaving those who want to be off the world for what they are and may think of us. They may laugh with us for us choosing an other way of life. But we have to make that important choice and have to go for the right way. Even when we have the right intentions things may go wrong, but at least then we tried. Whatever we do it can always be that the world does not like it. When we did it with a right heart and good intentions who is to blame?
When we live in this world, we do have to grow up and have several decades of
trying. With falling and standing up again we learn. By trial we grow and learn our lesson:
we might not be able to repair our world, we
might not be able to change our community, we might not be able to uplift our family,
we might not get to our goal,
That all seem so bad (you would think). But it should not all so be so bad. When we as person can change and become better in the end, it is not at all bad. We should be able to transform ourself.
Each of
us has the ability to perfect our own soul; to begin that process of
self-transformation.The crux of this
story:
we can’t begin to change the world, unless we first begin to change
ourselves.
Best is that we try to be in alignment with the heavenly rules and statues God provided for His creation.Every day we should think about the Most Divine Creator and see ourself in His creation. Where do you want to stand in it? Where do you place yourself? Are we willing to change ourselves and are we willing to try to go for a new spiritual life? To get justice ourselves we have to show others justice and should we have charity and mercy for others. At the same time we should be willing to change and to get ourselves transformed under the working of greater forces than those of this world. Believing in the Great power of That One Who gave the authority to Jesus to judge mankind, we shall have less to fear when we try to follow those words of that sent one from God.
Following Jesus we can put our hope in becoming justified and when becoming righteous enjoying already now the blessings of a new life.
Investec media centre at Lord's cricket ground (cropped) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The saying is that 'there is no time like the present', but in today’s
reading Paul puts it this way after quoting God’s words through Isaiah:
“Behold now is the favourable time; behold now is the day of salvation”
(2 Corinthians 6:2).
Now is the favourable time for us to decide whether
we are on the Lord’s side and will live sensing both the blessings and
help he provides in our godless world – and the responsibility that
comes with it.
Voor de Parsja Dewariem 5776 vroeg het NIK zich af of de Bijbel voor de mens van vandaag, die leeft in een wereld van revoluties, automatisering en atoombewapening nog betekenis kan hebben.
In het verre verleden hielden heel wat mensen vast aan de bijbel die zelfs een invloed had op het taal gebruik. Heel wat zegswijzen kwamen uit de Heilige Schrift.
De Bijbel is steeds een belangrijke bron van inspiratie geweest voor het religieuze denken en heeft een diepgaande invloed gehad op de culturele
ontwikkeling in Europa, Amerika en het Nabije Oosten. Niettemin lijkt de
Bijbel voor velen niet veel meer te zijn dan een achtenswaardige stem
uit het verleden.
Twee honderd jaar geleden mag het dan een veel ter hand genomen boek geweest zijn, nu nemen nog maar weinig mensen de tijd om er in te lezen. Niet veel mensen zijn er nog in geïnteresseerd en hebben geen behoefte meer om nog een persoonlijke relatie aan te gaan met een onzichtbaar Wezen dat voor velen zo onbegrijpbaar lijkt te zijn.
Maar die onbegrijpbaarheid komt echter doordat de meeste mensen zich laten leiden door menselijke doctrines, waarbij zij volstrekt willen vasthouden aan de drie-eenheid.Dit maakt veel van de teksten zo gecompliceerd en wat tegenstrijdig. Indien de mensen die Drie-eenheidsgedachte maar eens durfden opzij te schuiven zouden zij veel vlugger tot een beter inzicht komen en makkelijker al die oude teksten begrijpen.
De mensen moeten beseffen dat de Bijbel het Opperwezen als een persoonlijke God beschrijft, die over
de natuur heerst en de menselijke geschiedenis stuurt. Het Opperwezen
wordt niet slechts als eerste oorzaak van al het zijnde gezien, die in
een ver verleden de wereld schiep maar Zich sindsdien uit Zijn schepping terug
zou hebben getrokken en het universum aan zijn wetmatig lot zou hebben
overgelaten.
Dat Dit Overmachtig Subliem Wezen alles in de hand zou hebben stoort veel mensen, maar doet hen ook vragen stellen waarom dan wel bepaald slechte dingen gebeuren. Men stelt zich dan vragen bij die relatie van dat Supperwezen.
De Schepper van hemel en aarde blijft betrokken bij de mensheid en Zijn relatie tot de
mens blijft van persoonlijke aard. Het Opperwezen kent Zijn onderdanen
en wil door hen gekend worden.
De verhouding tussen God en mens wordt in
de Bijbel beschreven in ethische categorieën: op de mens wordt een
ethisch beroep gedaan.
Volgens het NIK is het een Ich-du relatie, die de mens niettemin
vrijlaat in zijn keuzes en hem een grote individuele
verantwoordelijkheid toekent, samengevat in het ethisch monotheïsme van
het jodendom. Maar die Ik-Jij verhouding gaat nog verder in de goyim generaties en treft ook de niet Joden die keuzes zullen moeten maken.
Elk van ons moet beseffen dat wij in evenbeeld naar God zijn geschapen en een geweten ingeplant hebben gekregen. Elkeen heeft een natuurlijk instinct dat een besef van goed en kwaad voor legt. Daarin moet elk wezen zijn keuze bepalen en uitzoeken welke richting hij of zij uit wil gaan.
De Bijbel is een oevolutionair boek: een belangrijk thema vormt de bevrijding van de mens
van incestueuze gebondenheid aan bloed en bodem, van het onderworpen
zijn aan afgoderij en slavernij. Het hoofdthema vormt Imitatio Dei, het
wandelen in de voetsporen van God en het opgaan in Zijn eigenschappen.
Het mens- en wereldbeeld wordt bepaald door het begrip verheffing,
waarin alle onderdelen van de schepping worden betrokken.
De Bijbel is zo uniek omdat daarin Gods `denken; centraal staat.
De
Bijbel is een buitenwerelds gegeven, dat niet naar de maatstaven van
religies, die ontstaan zijn vanuit enig cultureel volksbewustzijn,
beoordeeld kan worden.
De Bijbel ontmoette in de loop der eeuwen de
grote wereldculturen, die `man-made’, materialistisch of
intellectualistisch van aard waren. Vandaar dat de Bijbel altijd in
confrontatie trad met de verschillende oude beschavingen.
Golden ratio in pyramids (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
At The Thousand-Year View the writerN.S. Palmer who has degrees in mathematics, economics, philosophy, and biology, looks from his mathematical eye-view at the writers of the set apart books of the Bible.
By the Christadelphians there are also several who like to find all the mathematical cues in those sacred writings. for me this sometimes goes too far, but that is just my impression.
For "nerds" like N.S.Palmer (like he calls himself so), it’s very exciting to look at the numerology and mathematics used in the Bible.
The writer looks at the favourite number pi which is often the only thing people remember from geometry class in school, but for him is the most interesting in the Bible. In the Bible it can be found in two places (Kings 7:23 + 2 Chronicles 4:2)
Other Biblical references to mathematics are little strained. In life, the Golden Ratio
(1.618..) occurs frequently, especially in art and architecture. In the
Bible, Exodus 25:10 says that God commanded Noah to build the Ark of
the Covenant measuring 2.5 by 1.5 cubits, and 2.5 divided by 1.5 is
1.666. Some writers say it refers to the Golden Ratio, but unless the
Vilna Gaon came up with something like he did with pi, it doesn’t look
like it to me.
At Islam is Nazism with a God I gave an answer to the question on what I thought of her concern for freedom of speech.
A video is presented on that site and like on may sites we can find several remarks and find lots of sayings of which we can agree with or not. On the internet is a lot to find by which we can or do not want to interact with people face to face. In most instances people get to see and react to texts of people we don’t see and in most cases even don’t know them.
The danger of such encounters is that such visits to different websites as well as message boards may give the visitor not the feeling they really are talking with other human beings who have their feelings like we do have ours.
N.S. Palmer who has degrees in mathematics, economics, philosophy, and
biology and is currently affiliated with Hebrew College, blogs for The Jerusalem Post and The Jewish Journal as well as his own blog where he writes
the people we encounter on the Internet seem less real to us than those
we meet in person. As a result, we tend to take them less seriously as
human beings. We are less inclined to worry about hurting their feelings
or treating them unjustly. Quite realistically, we are also less likely
to worry about arguments leading to physical confrontation or
retribution.
Perhaps it is that knowledge of not having to face that person and of being sure that we shall not encounter that person in real life, that gives for some the permission to do impermissible acts.
Often it is that anonymity which lets forget many that they should be talking decently and act politely to the other on the other end of the line.
It is like the professor says, that we
We are sitting in our homes where
nobody can see us. We are less inclined to feel shame if we do something
hurtful.{Why Are People So Mean on the Internet?}
It is that non-seen other, which makes so many chatters or internet users, to forget all decency and respect for the other.
Occasional anger and frustration make take on appropriate forms. Bottled up rage many let their steam go off when they get on the computer.
When we had the MSN Groups it started already to go the wrong way, people forgetting any decency, norm and values. Today it did not change for the better. The opposite, it became even worse, and many seem to take certain words or language for normal.
We seem to find more and more people who resort to insults, name-calling, and other kinds of online
vitriol. In a way they sometimes go so far we feel pity with them because they can not control their feelings nor their anger, which shows us how frustrated they are. Luckily we know they are either venting anger that has nothing to do with us, or
they are deliberately trying to goad us into a screaming match.
When we look at what is said on the internet, and see how many lies are told or how many are raging about, without any blush on the cheeks, we could wonder how much we should allow and how far Free speech may go.
Brooke Godlstein looks at those people who shout they are Hamas.
Their actions may have us wonder how far Free Speech goes. Can we allow
negation of the Holocaust? Can we allow people to cry for hatred against
one or another nation or race? the same could be asked about the
allowance of money entering a coutnry for funding of certain
organisations, be it right wing (Nazi, extreme Jewish/Christian or
Muslim fundamentalism) or extreme left wing (extreme Marxism or
Communism).
How far wants one to go to allow free speech when it is known that
those speakers are funded by terrorist organisations and also steer to
terrorist acts?
I think when a organisation wants to dominate and not allow an other
to have the right to speak it should be counter acted. They should be
able to have their say but others should have the right to react to them
as well. But here the State or Government has a duty to fulfil to have
everything under control and to watch those who want to dominate others
and could endanger our society. As soon as the secret intelligence
encounters dangerous elements they should make them public and show all
in the nation who those ‘preachers’ or ‘speakers’ are and what they do
plus what the danger of them for the nation is.
Pamella Geller is right to say we need to talk about this. Everything
should be considered and spoken off. It would be wrong to allow only
one party a voice and to censure an other.
A State have to assure all its citizens that they all have the right to
look at something, to study something, but also to criticise something.
As such Judaism, Christianity but also Islam should be able to judged
and criticised by the citizens of the nation, being them atheists, Jews,
Christians, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists or from other religions. all
sorts of religions and nor religious group should be able to be put
under the magnifying glasses.
Though we do have to be careful not to call all religious people or
non-religious people savages. At the moment there is a tendency to
declare all religions awful and the cause of evil. In Europe, and
probably also in many parts of America, many think religion is the cause
of evil, and everything has to be done to stop religious awareness. In
North America the many Christians would cry high from their tower, but
by their heavy actions against other religions they could cause the same
reactions as we now have to undergo in Europe.
The interviewer of Geller shows she understood the Quran and the
meaning of Jihad = struggle. Geller her perspective of that Jihad or her
view of holy war is not the view of the bible nor the quaran wich both
speak about the holy war which has already gone on for ages (spoken of
in the Torah, Prophets, Hebrew Writings, Greek Writings, Quranic
verses).
Geller telling that christians would not behead others in the name of
Christ does not seem to know her history nor the present Asian
situation where still such things happen today. Even in the States of
America we can find people like the Westboro Baptist Church who shout
hate and hurt other people a lot. In the States there have been also
Christians who said they were against killing the unborn but did not
mind killing doctors who worked at abortion clinics. That are also
Christians who bring damage to others in the name of their religion. The
same we can find fundamentalist Jews who kill others, so called in the
name of their religion. Look at what happens in Israel and how certain
fundamentalists take in the land of others and protect their settlements
with violence.
But please do not forget that politician violence and non-religious
related violence is still the most common violence. The majority of
terrorist acts have nothing to do with religion. The majority of
believers in the different religions, pagan or not pagan, preach for
self-development in a peaceful atmosphere.
We do not have to abridge or stop our free speech for not offending
any body, be it savages or even civilised human beings who think
differently. When not having the same idea it will always be possible to
have a conflict of ideas and can there be the possibility to offend
some one. That is part of the consequences of free speech, we have to
endure or to allow.
When Geller talks about savages and savagery would she consider the
native American as savages, like her ancestors did or would she
recognise that many Europeans who came to conquer the country of those
natives behaved as savages? Did she ever thought of the fact that
certain Muslims may consider those white people who live there in the
North American halfround, who fornicate and have no good morals, could
also be considered savages today by other nations or peoples?
The indigenous people of America had also their own civilised rules
of conduct and way of life, which came disturbed by the colonial
intruders. the same for the white Europeans who conquered spaces in the
Southern halfround of this globe. In the name of Christ they also
oppressed many peoples and pushed their own believes and faith into
their throat. Many so called Christians even did not mind to take people
captive and rape and sell them, not even interested if they would die
in bad circumstances or not.
Perhaps it would not be bad to reflect on the similarity of the early
crusades and collonialisation with the present crusade of certain
Muslims or Arabic peoples.
It is true that we have a problem today which many try to avoid or to
go out of the way, thinking it would go away by not talking about it.
Not talking about it is wrong. We just should do everything to have it
possible to talk about those issues and to have clear voices showing all
the issues and how certain people could be a danger for the community.
Though each person who wants to bring something in debate and wants
to talk against something, like being against a book or movie, should
have knowledge of that book or move. Not like Geller not having seen the
trailer nor the movie. And a trailer can not even say it all. When one
wants to be against something the person has to know what he or she is
against, and as such should have had contact with it, read or seen it.
today we do find too many christians who are against the Quran because
they think certain things are standing in that book, because they only
heard the false preachers misusing that book and twisting verses. The
same about several Christians who do not know their own Scriptures,
often never having read the full Bible, from A to Z, but in the ban of
false teachers who only present verses taken out of context and looked
at from human doctrine.
the interviewer has good reason to say that when Geller wants to take
on this issue we would expect to have her taken interest in that issue
and having studied it. She telling it does not mater and she did not
need to know … proofs she only wants to take her own idea and wants
others to go for her restricted ideas only, not needing to have the real
truth of what is all behind it or how it really is and who is really
spoken about.
She is right to say we do not have to like what is said, because that
is freedom of speech, but than she too should allow others the same
right to have that freedom, to talk like she does about things they seem
not to know so well. It is for others then to come in to the circle of
debate and show both parties that they might have it at the wrong end of
the stick.
Personally I thing, and certainly for politicians, those who have a
higher position in society or have a special role in a community,
should take up their responsibility and to look at things in a
honourable and humble way, trying to stay correct to the matter, having
looked at it seriously, in honour and conscience. It is the task of a
politician to know the subject, to have studied it before speaking about
it. She has to take care that she or he is honest to both parties
involved and try to enlighten all, with showing what can be known and
trying to uncover what is hidden for the public.
Geller considers herself as the messenger, but she forgets or does not
want to see she herself is excluding the freedom of speech for those
who do not agree with her or have an other view. She also seems not
willing to see that the media have an important role to play in show
both sides of the medal. The media also has to bring the voices of all
parties involved. That is also part of the freedom of speech, and giving
the public the right to come to their own conclusions, without imposing
their own views (hopefully – though all media stations are naturally
influenced in a certain way or have a certain starting view).
Nobody may be couched in silencing the voice of freedom of speech.
