To be a true follower there must be faith and in faith it needs practice so as to abide closely on the laws of the Do's & the Dont's. What is supposed to be? Be it what to eat and what not to eat, On what is considered Kosher or of the "Halal & Haram"... For mankind are governed and bound by its Creator. Ever since...
People cannot change their skin colour or national origin or ethnicity (characteristics known as ‘immutable’ by the US courts), but is possible to change their religious beliefs. This difference means that an extreme speech attacking one’s race is an attack on a person’s unchangeable characteristic and thus goes to the core of his identity, while an attack on one’s religion is, however important to him, merely a belief that he chose to adopt.
My Oh My...
“the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race… If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error. (76)”
‘On Liberty’ that each opinion is important as each somehow contains a portion of truth, regardless of how out of norm or foolish it may initially sound, and it is only by collision of adverse opinions that the real truth can be found. It is the reconciliation, he says, and combination of opposite opinions with capacious and impartial adjustments that will only lead to correctness.
Freedom of expression is not limited to popular opinions — if it was, it would be pretty much pointless — but also protects opinions which are out of norm. For example, in the case of Handyside v United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that pluralism and real democracy demands the protection of expression that are not only inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb the state or the public.
However, when can freedom of expression, despite its importance, still be limited, for reasons such as safety of the State? How can freedom of expression be reconciled with the potential threats of extreme opinions?
For example; What makes a Malay “progressive” (or “liberal”) and what makes a Malay “backward” (or “conservative”)? What also needs explaining is why is “conservative” regarded as the opposite of “progressive” — meaning conservative” is “un-progressive” or “backward”.
Progressive vs Conservative
Is a Malay (like me) who goes to an English-medium school instead of going to a mother-tongue or vernacular school (such as a Chinese or Tamil school) progressive or un-progressive?
Is a Malay (like me) who marries outside his race instead or marrying someone of his/her own race (like most Malaysians) progressive or un-progressive?
Is a Malay (like me) who supports the rights of Shias to practice their religion progressive or un-progressive?
Is a Malay (like me) who believes there is nothing wrong with Hindus eating beef or with Malays eating pork progressive or un-progressive?
Is a Malay (like me) who thinks Chinese should stop all their silly and superstitious beliefs and customs progressive or un-progressive?
Is a Malay (like me) who thinks the Christians have been misled and believe in fairy tales that are so un-progressive progressive or un-progressive?
Is a Malay (like me) who supports the rights of LGBT's to exist progressive or un-progressive?
Is a Malay (like me) who feels there are just too many Hindu temples in a country with so few Hindus progressive or un-progressive?
Yes, we need to establish when does a Malay become progressive and when does a Malay become un-progressive. I have given you some examples above as to why I believe I am a progressive Malay but the list can be longer.
It is submitted that the prohibition on racially-extreme opinions cannot be extended to religiously-extreme opinions because unlike a racial group, a religious group can be changed. People cannot change their skin colour or national origin or ethnicity (characteristics known as ‘immutable’ by the US courts), but is possible to change their religious beliefs.
This difference means that an extreme speech attacking one’s race is an attack on a person’s unchangeable characteristic and thus goes to the core of his identity, while an attack on one’s religion is, however important to him, merely a belief that he chose to adopt. An attack on a belief or faith, however extreme, is a still only a comment on an idea, and cannot suffice to permit a prohibition in any State that protects freedom of speech.
In the beginning Adam was alone
Busy naming all creations
Till Adam fall...
Into a Deep sleep Dreaming Alone On a Boulevard Of Broken Dreams
Fallen In Wonder...
If its free will or a choice
If its destined or pre written
To befall such Broken Dreams... Till then I Walk Alone!!! #dreams #boulevardofbrokendreams #walk #alone #iwalkalone #broken #adam
Nonetheless, some may argue that religious affiliation is more central to their identity than race. For example, Muslims who are born into the religion may find their religion paramount to their identity and as it is difficult (or impossible) in Malaysia for Muslims to renounce or change their faith, religion to them is an immutable characteristic.
However, religious identity is still essentially a cultural concept for its boundaries are not fixed or determined. It must be legitimate in any free society to discuss its values and those of the practices associated with its beliefs, for that discussion forms part of public discourse. To punish extreme criticisms — which as extreme as they are, are equally beliefs — reflects viewpoint biasness and the lack of neutrality of the State. This biased State intervention destroys the foundation of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. It is not the business of the government to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine or certain religious communities to ensure that they remain reputable or do not lose members due to public criticism.
It is not clear why religion should be privileged over other ideologies (as it is after all also an ideology), or why it should not be possible to mock somebody who lived many hundred years ago and who still has a lot of influence today because this person happened to have founded a religion. After all, this belief in a religion cannot be proven scientifically and has the semblance of validity only because it is shared by a critical mass of believers. It should be open for scepticism and cannot be taken as self-evident.
Therefore at the end of the day, the duty of the State is to remain neutral and not take sides or protect certain religions. The use of the threat of sedition laws to silence opposition in the name of religion or racial harmony has to stop.
Fundamentalist (a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion.
But what do you mean by progressive Malays? How do you define the word progressive? What is the mark of progressive Malays? When do Malays become progressive and when do Malays become regressive?
This is just like the word ‘fundamentalist’. Fundamentalist is nowadays used to mean a Muslim who kills people. He is an extremist. He is a terrorist. A fundamentalist is actually someone who believes that original religious laws should be followed very strictly and should not be changed.
Christians in many parts of the United States actually consider themselves fundamentalists. In fact, the United States has more fundamentalist Christians per capita than any other country in the world. Does that surprise you?
Just to digress a bit, 75% of Americans are Christians and 10% are atheists. The prison population, however, is made up of 75% Christians and 0.02% atheists. That shows you do not need to believe in God or to have a religion to be good, does it?
So, just like the word fundamentalist, we need to define what the word progressive means since every single day we are hearing about progressive Malays saying this, that or the other.
Would we consider Chinese who want to abolish Chinese schools as progressive Chinese or Indians who want to close down Tamil schools as progressive Indians? I mean, even if that Chinese wants to abolish Chinese schools but he or she still believes that number 8 is lucky while number 4 is unlucky and that you need to place mirrors in front of your house to scare away the devils I would not regard that person as progressive.
In that same spirit we need to define what progressive Malays mean. If that Malay drinks beer or brandy is he or she progressive? If that Malay does not believe in religion and is an atheist is he or she progressive? If that Malay marries outside his or her race instead of marrying a fellow Malay is he or she progressive?
Progressive can mean many things. In fact, it can mean anything. So it is time we define the meaning of progressive Malays since we talk about it every day.
For that matter there are many non-Malays who are not progressive so while we talk about what is a progressive Malay we should also discuss what makes a non-Malay progressive as well.
Only, then we do not need to talk about progressive Malays or progressive non-Malays but progressive Malaysians.
Breaking Them Heart By Heart....
There are still many non-Malays who still believe that the Bible is the word of God and that Jesus is the Son of God.
To me, these people are not progressive. In spite of all the evidence that these beliefs are nonsense they still believe in it. What about Hindus and Buddhists also with their non-progressive beliefs?
I will not label any Malay as progressive until he or she can reject all nonsense such as religion and declare that he or she is an atheist. If it is just about Article 153, the affirmative action policy, meritocracy, ending racial quotas, appointing a non-Malay prime minister, etc., to me that is not progressive yet. So show me a Malay who openly declares that the Qur’an is not the word of God and that the Garden of Eden, Paradise, the virgin birth, heaven, hell, angels and demons are Zoroastrian beliefs that seeped into Judaism and then were borrowed by Paul to invent Christianity and which later became Islam, then I would call that person a progressive Malay.
COMING HOME...
Upon the Fall, poor Beast is longing for a Home....
A Fallen Angle to some
But a Beast to many...
In the end every creation
Shall be rested
In a place known as Home...
Conservative Mind
Iblis (or Satan) has a wife, or many wives, and his wives are all the women who do not cover their heads.
Iblis has a religion and his religion is called Infidel.
Iblis has a meeting place and these meeting places are concerts, entertainment centres, shops, arcades, designer outlets, markets, bazaars, and so on.
Iblis lurks in toilets, bathrooms, and all sorts of ‘dirty’ places such as massage parlours, brothels, bars, pubs, and places similar to Hard Rock Café.
Iblis uses bait such as beautiful women, models, air stewardesses, etc., to win converts (so make sure you marry the ugliest woman in the country).
Not easy to understand the Malay mind, is it?
Anyway, once you gain an insight into how the Malay minds works can you now understand why we face a host of problems with Muslims, Malay Muslims in particular?
Abraham said, “One day believers from all over the world will come to visit you (the Ka’abah) but sadly the ibadah of only one in ten will be accepted by Allah (God).”
This ‘religion of peace’ fallacy was to make it easier to ‘market’ the religion. But only Christians and Muslims do this false marketing. The Jews do not pretend that Judaism is a religion of love and peace. They take your land by force and kill you if you resist. That is what Judaism, Christianity and Islam are really all about — about conquest and domination.
Conservative Mind
While the 27 Bibles of the New Testament define Christianity as a religion of love and peace, the 40-50 Bibles of the Old Testament have an entirely different and opposite definition of Christianity.
The Jesus Movement (much later called Christianity) was founded on the resistance to Roman occupation and was actually militant in nature and not about love and peace
Some Christians will argue that Christians follow the New Testament Bibles and not the Old Testament Bibles. Hence the violent form of Christianity espoused by the Old Testament no longer applies while the love and peace version of Christianity as espoused by the New Testament does.
That is not true one bit. The New Testament does not tell the stories of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, etc. — the 46 books of Catholicism, 39 books of Protestantism or 50 books of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Why do Christians believe the story of Adam and Eve, the story of Noah, the story of Moses, the story of Joseph, plus the many other stories from the Hebrew Bibles? All these stories are from the Old Testament Bibles and not from the New Testament Bibles.
Muslims and Christians will continue to fight until one of them is wiped out
That means Christians DO believe in the Old Testament Bibles and not just in the New Testament Bibles. Hence Christianity is NOT a religion of love and peace but a religion of violence and war. And in this same spirit, so is Islam, which basically follows the Old Testament.
To understand the three Abrahamic faiths, you must first discard your denial syndrome and call a spade a spade. For more than 2,500 years the Abrahamic faiths — starting from Judaism, and then Christianity, followed by Islam around 1,000 years after Judaism — were about war, conquest and domination.
In the Old Testament, God orders us to cleanse this earth (or ethnic cleansing) by totally annihilating the enemies of God. Gays must be exterminated, every last one of them. Idol-worshippers must be exterminated. Those who reject God must be exterminated. God rains death on entire cities. God floods the world so that every last creature dies.
Messed-Up Bible Stories 6 - Sodom and Gomorrah
There is only death and destruction if you defy God
Kill! Kill! Kill! That is the message from God. And good Muslims follow God’s command.
Yes, there is some element of love and peace. But it is love and peace for fellow Jews, fellow Christians, or fellow Muslims. Muslims call each other ‘brother’ or ‘sister’. But Muslims DO NOT call, say, Hindus or Jews, ‘brother’ or ‘sister’. In fact, Muslims believe Jews are cursed by God. And yet Abraham, the father of Islam, was a Jew, as was Jesus who Paul ‘converted’ to Christianity — after he died a Jew.
This ‘religion of peace’ fallacy was to make it easier to ‘market’ the religion. But only Christians and Muslims do this false marketing. The Jews do not pretend that Judaism is a religion of love and peace. They take your land by force and kill you if you resist. That is what Judaism, Christianity and Islam are really all about — about conquest and domination.
Hence, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah and the Flood, Abraham and his sons, Moses and the Pharaoh, Sodom and Gomorrah, Joseph and Egypt, etc., are all stories from the Old Testament, not from the New Testament. If Christians believe in those stories that means they believe in the Old Testament.
Conservative Mind is to FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!
(Be a Man Stand UP & FIGHT) Long before Islam the Arabs were fighting one another. When Prophet Muhammad died they continued fighting and even created ‘two Islams’, so to speak — the Sunni and the Shia (both calling each other heretics). Fighting is in the Arab DNA. Then you have the Arabian Arabs, the North Africans, the Turks, the Persians, and so on. And all hate one another. So the British were able to exploit this division to not only break up the Ottoman Empire but to create the state of Israel as well. So, don’t blame the west or the British. Blame the Arabs.
A conservative mind believes in Adam & Eve, Ain't Adam & Steve...
Fighting one another is in the Arab DNA, which is why the French and British were able to destroy the Ottoman Empire and create the state of Israel
Would you blame the Jews for wanting their own homeland? Since long before Jesus Christ the Jews were persecuted. Of course, it was also partly their fault because they dominated the economy and this created a lot of resentment. Then they did not assimilate but kept to themselves and stayed apart from non-Jews.
But the problem is the Jews were 'pendatang' or immigrant in every country they lived in and they had no interest in becoming ‘locals’. Because they had no nation of their own, they became insecure and were very sensitive to criticism. Any race or community that does not have its own country and needs to 'tompang' in other people’s country feels very insecure and cannot tolerate criticism, even in these modern times. They also become militant, which is what the Jews were like long before the time of Jesus Christ.
Now the Jews have their own country. But Israel is surrounded by enemies so the Jews need to continue to be militant. At the moment Israel is quite secure because it is more or less the 51st state of America. As long as America is still around Israel is safe. But if China ousts America as the policeman of the world, the entire scenario will change.
Conservative Mind (To be Deceived)
The Qur'an openly states many times that Allah is the 'best deceiver'.
de·ceive (dē sēv′, di-)
transitive verb deceived -·ceived′, deceiving -·ceiv′·ing
to make (a person) believe what is not true; delude; mislead
Archaic to be false to; betray
Did Allah deceive people into thinking that Jesus was crucified, thereby promoting a religion he condemns? Does not Allah teach Muslims to harshly judges the Christians for believing in the deception that he himself perpetrated? The answer is a resounding, yes.
Surah 4:157 "That they said (in boast), 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of Allah' - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not."(Yusuf Ali translation)
Surah 4:157 "And because of their saying: 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger' - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain." (Pickthall translation)
Surah 4:157 "And their saying: 'Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah'; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure." (Shakir translation)
We can see from the three different translations of the Quran, done by three different Muslim translators, that Jesus was not crucified, but it was made to look as though he was crucified. We then have to ask who is the one who perpetrated this deception. We find the answer in Islamic commentaries.
"God cast his [Jesus’s] likeness to him and so they thought it was him [Jesus]."1
"Allah made Tatianos look like Jesus and so they killed him instead of him."[ibid. Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas]
"It is said God caused the resemblance of [Jesus] to fall on one who slandered him, and he was killed and crucified in his place."2
"...it is widely understood in the Islamic tradition as meaning that Jesus was not crucified or killed at all; it only appeared so unto them, that is, to the Jews as well as to most of Jesus’ followers."3
So, in Islam it is Allah who perpetrated the deception so that it appeared Christ was crucified when, according to Islam, he really was not. But this brings up a major concern. How can Muslims trust Allah to be honest with them if it is he who perpetrated the very deception that he himself condemns?
Boom Boom ROOM... Kaboom!!!!
Conservative Mind: Deceived by Christmas?
Here’s the One Major Thing Everyone Gets Wrong About Christmas...
For many, Christmas brings about lavishly decorated storefronts, religious services, celebrations with family and friends, and, of course, presents galore. People pray, sing, dance, and exchange gifts on the days leading up to Christmas in order to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ—and yet, what most people don't even realize is that December 25 isn't actually Jesus's birthday.
The Bible gives a modest yet detailed account of Jesus Christ's birth: He was born in a barn surrounded by farm animals, shepherds, and angels. Within these recordings of Jesus's birth, though, there is not a single mention of a specific date nor a set time of year, according to the Biblical Archaeology Society.
In the earlier years of Christianity (before 200 A.D.), Jesus's birth was not even considered significant enough to be celebrated. An early Christian scholar named Origen of Alexandria went as far as to mock the Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, calling them "pagan" practices.
The Miracle of Re-Interpretation... Peace Be Upon Everyone...
Ah, Lord God! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people The Targum paraphrases this verse thus: "And I said, Receive my supplication, O Lord God; for, behold, the false prophets deceive this people and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace." The prophet could not reconcile this devastation of the country with the promises already made; and he appears to ask the question, Hast thou not then deceived this people in saying there shall be peace, i.e., prosperity? (Adam Clarke, The Adam Clarke Commentary, Commentary on Jeremiah 4:10, Source)
1 Kings 22:20-22
20 And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?' "One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'
22 " 'By what means?' the LORD asked. " 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. " 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'
Here we see that the man said that he would resort to lying in order to entice Ahab and God supported the idea and told him to go ahead and do it!
And when people did start to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ years later, December 25 was not even the first date that they chose to do so on. As Britannica explains, people originally thought Jesus was born on January 6. Other dates that were considered were May 20, April 18, April 19, May 28, January 2, November 17, November 20, March 21, and March 25, according to Christianity Today. Eventually, after much deliberation, Pope Julius I landed on December 25 as the date of Jesus' birth in the middle of the third century.
Was December 25 the chosen date of our Christmas celebrations due to Biblical proof? Not quite. Rather, according to History, the church chose this date in an effort to replace the pagan festival held on the same day: the Saturnalia festival. First called the Feast of the Nativity, the custom of celebrating the birth of Jesus on December 25 eventually spread from Egypt to England, and thus Jesus's birthdate was all but set in stone.
However, not everyone sees December 25 as Jesus's day of birth. According to Euro News, most Orthodox churches celebrate Christmas on January 7 in accordance with the old Julian calendar.
So, the bottom line is, it's not for certain when Christ was born—even though "Silent Night" had us believing it was December 25 for all these years!
Man Plays God....
Is the death sentence by hanging NOT violent, NOT barbaric and humane? And you can get hanged just for bringing ganja or heroin into Malaysia whereas in some countries ganja is legal — as it should be if Lucky Strike, brandy and whiskey are legal. Likewise, heroin is legal for hospital used.
Is execution by a bullet in the head for highway robbery (such as in China) humane while amputating the hand of a highway robber more barbaric (than a bullet in the head, even for women)?
During WWI, the British executed by firing squad hundreds of IRA ‘rebels’ for the crime of ‘waging war against the king’. The excuse given was that England was at war with Germany so any opposition to the government will be classified as an act of treason and punishable by death. (And when ISIS does this they are called barbarians).
When it suits them, governments will use “violent, barbaric and inhumane” laws to restore or maintain peace and order. America will even send its army, navy and air force to invade other countries and to oust foreign governments for the sake of “the peace and security of America”. Yes, to keep New York safe, they will bomb Baghdad back into the Middle Ages.
If Sikhs believe their religion mandates wearing a turban then go ahead and wear it. But when Muslims believe that the Sharia is laws ordained by God why do non-Muslims tell Muslims what to do and whether they should follow or ignore the Qur’an?
The excuse that the Sharia or Hudud are violent, barbaric and not humane, which is why they should be opposed, is a lame excuse and a kafir one at that too. The Abrahamic faiths themselves (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are violent, barbaric and not humane. All three religions propagate punishments of all sorts, the death sentence included. Even gays are supposed to be put to death if you follow what the Bible says.
Of course, Christians will say that that was all in the past. Since post-WWII, Christianity has become more liberal and no longer executes by burning alive at the stake witches, gays, apostates, heretics, those who blaspheme, or infidels.
Protestants no longer murder Catholics and Catholics no longer murder Protestants and Protestants no longer classify Catholics as Kafir (and vice versa).
Sure, they no longer do such things. But the Bible is still there. They have not rewritten the Bible to legalise everything that is haram in Christianity. What is haram is still haram. The ‘new’ Bible has not classified these as halal. The only thing is the church now closes both eyes to all these haram things so that Christians can do what is haram and feel like it is halal.
That is called 'tipu diri sendiri' or hypocrites. Now you can have gay priests and they can continue to be priests instead of being put to death like how the Bible has ordained. In essence, Christians no longer follow the Bible.
Muslims, however, still follow the Bible, at least as far as the Old Testament goes. Hence Muslims are actually far better Christians than the Christians themselves.
Now please stop telling Muslims that Christians are peaceful people while Muslims are violent people just because Muslims still follow the Bible while Christians have long ago turned their backs on the Bible.
Oh, and by the way, the Bible says Jesus sujud when he prayed to God and he greeted his followers with ‘As-salamu alaykum’??
Are you a liberal?
LET’S play a short game of 50 questions for a change: Do you eat beef?
If you do, can you accept another person’s right to insist that they should not eat beef? If, they believe that eating of beef is immoral, cruel and sacrilegious, can you accept that they have a right to hold such a belief?
Are you willing to listen to them persuade you to follow their beliefs? Are you willing to engage with them in a discussion, civil, heated, maybe argumentative or even downright ugly arguments, without resorting to threats or violence, on the pros and cons of eating beef?
Will you, at the outset of such discussions or arguments, be open to be persuaded otherwise should their arguments be compelling enough for you to change your mind? And if at the end of said discussion or arguments, both of you still disagree with one another, will you be able to say something to the effect of, “Okay to each his own, we agree to disagree” and part with your acceptance of the person’s absolute right to hold an opinion or belief completely against what you believe?
Do you answer YES to each of the above questions?
Now let’s change the word “beef” with any word you can think of. Anything.
Change it to any issue or subject-matter related to football, any sports, culture, politics, education, religion, whatever – can you still hold to YES to each of the above questions?
If your answer is still YES – then you are a LIBERAL. That is it.
The Oxford English dictionary defines “liberal” as an adjective which describes someone or something who is “willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas”.
By the way, you are either pregnant or you are not. You are not super pregnant by being with twins or even quintuplets, you are just pregnant with more babies to deliver. As such, the same as you cannot be super pregnant, you cannot be a super liberal.
You are either a person who is open minded to new ideas and are willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own or you are not. That’s just being a liberal.
You are either a liberal or you are not. There is no such thing as being super liberal, so let’s not be stupid about that. That is why I will always insist on the right of anyone to say anything no matter how much I disagree with it, short of causing clear harm to the immediate public, a litmus test being crying fire in a crowded theatre when there is none.
But what brings liberals to such a way of thinking? It is basically premised on two guiding principles:
1. Allowing freedom of thought and speech is the bedrock of how ideas can be tested without fear or favour. Being open-minded is how one allows bad ideas, even those we hold dear, can be challenged, dissected, analysed and changed for the better one to take its place.
2. Basically for a liberal there is no sanctity of ideas or beliefs that cannot be analysed or challenged. It is the common sense, the pursuit of truth by evidence as best we can determine is the very essence of what has made human civilisation progress for the better.
So when people oppose liberalism, what exactly are they opposing? They are opposing the freedom for us citizens to think and debate freely in a democratic society. Hence you have laws of sedition, blasphemy, leste mejeste, all to shut you up.
A nine-year-old is apparently mature enough to be married but educated adults in this country cannot engage in free discourse for fear of causing “confusion” or insulting others, and apparently some human beings are above being criticised as if they are God, when God himself allows for free will.
So when they say liberals are a threat to society, what exactly are they concerned about?
They are concerned that the free speech and free thought and the debate engendered by liberals will expose the weakness of their position, and the untenable ideas by which their powers and influence are derived from.
So when we tell them why religious classes are indoctrination and not education, and is a polarising influence in public schools and the solution is to have it outside of the public school system – do they argue with you on the issues? No. They call you a liberal anti-religion.
God is eternal (is not born and never dies), is all-knowing (knows everything that happened in the past, what is happening now, and what will happen in the future), is all-powerful (nothing happens without His will), is perfect (makes no mistakes), and much more. These are some of the properties of that God.
With all those properties does God not know that His creation, humankind, is going to turn out the most imperfect and evil creature on earth? Does this not contradict God’s properties?
It is also said that God was sad and disappointed with humankind. God got very angry so He brought the Great Flood and wiped out entire humankind except for Noah and his family. So God has human emotions after all. He felt sad, disappointed and angry, just like how weak humans would feel.
And God admitted that He made a mistake, another weak human trait. But with all that power that God possesses He was not able to set humankind straight. So He erased his mistake by wiping out humankind in a Great Flood except for Noah and his family.
Then God recreates humankind from the only surviving family left. And then God recreates exactly the same imperfect and evil humans that He had originally wiped out because they were imperfect and evil. With all that power, God was still incapable of correcting His earlier mistake and He still recreated the same worthless human beings until to a point that He also send a 'Begotten Son' to the world in a so call miraculous virgin birth of a Messiah. And if all that is true why would God want to mess up humankind by giving us so many religions that do not make sense and are illogical and which bring untold misery and suffering to humankind?
Or is it that religion never came from God in the first place and were mere inventions of humankind and that is why religions are a mess because if religion did come from God there would be only one and it would be perfect... Or is this just an ideology of deception?
And when you feel life ain't worth living
You've got to stand up
And take a look around You look up way to the sky.
And when your deepest thoughts are broken,
Keep on dreaming, boy,
'Cause when you stop dreamin' it's time to die.
And as we all play parts of tomorrow—
Lord knows— Some ways will work and other ways will play.
But I know we can't all stay here forever.
So, I wanna write my words on the face of today.
And then they'll paint it....