I was musing about the term Biblical Christian and how to shorten it, if it was necessary to do so. I found out that BibliChristian has a nice ring to it. It's unfortunate that Biblical needs to become an adjective to modify 'Christian,' because this is technically extraneous. A Christian should by definition believe the Word of God--the Bible, and act accordingly. However, many Christians are not very Biblical. There are many who deny important doctrines, that nonetheless don't deny them salvation, so they are saved, but dangerous for future generations, because they open the door of compromise farther with each step, until suddenly there's apostasy.
There are of course also 'christians' (little 'c'), whose church doctrines are heresies that, if believed, would jeopardize someone's salvation, whereas there may of course be some people within such churches that nonetheless believe the Truth, and thus are saved...though their number are probably few.
What's a Biblical Christian? Well, one who believes the Bible, of course! Basically it's anyone who accepts the Divine Inerrancy of the original autographs of Scripture, and the practically-nearly-essentially-perfect inerrancy of the manuscripts that have survived to the present day. Taking this position inevitably leads to a particular view of scripture that many people have today, though a minority of people on earth, unfortunately. By following the grammatical-historical approach to interpreting Scripture, you ought to arrive at a belief that can be summed up by the Statements of Faith on the sites Got Questions and Answers in Genesis. Both are .org addresses.
I fully adhere to both statements of faith in every detail. Won't you go check them out?
That's all I had for this post. :) So I might refer to myself and "true Christians" as "Biblichristians" from now on, as it suits me. Go ahead and do so, too. But only if the word accurately describes you. Otherwise you can stick to using that little c. ;)
~EriK
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Arabic Words Every Non-Muslim Should Know
Since I am limited to what I know, I won't claim this to be complete, but only include the words that I have come to be familiar with, in the hopes of educating others to be aware of the deception.
Qur'an: The holy book of Islam. It completely consists of a collection of notes that people copied down of whatever Muhammad said when he claimed to be having a 'revelation.' It was completed after his death, by people who were close to him and heard his every word. However, the Qur'an is not everything Muhammad said, but simply what he claimed to be hearing from Gabriel, as a 'revelation from Allah.'
Sira: Biographical Material. Nearly everything else muhammad did that wasn't included in the Qur'an and Hadith.
Hadith: Sayings of Muhammad. (The Talmud of the Qur'an). Except that it has divine force to it, whereas the Talmud is not claimed to be divinely inspired, as far as I know, but to be interpretations of the Jewish Bible. The Hadith, on the other hand, is the same in the plural and singular, and refers to extensive collections of brief to medium-length narrated passages of what people reported that Mohammed had told them when they asked him a question. The Hadith contain all the really incriminating evil stuff about Sharia Law, end-times prophecies, subjugation and persecution of nonbelievers--particularly Jews, and sexism. The most complete collection is by Al-Bukhari, although there are some significant portions that another compiler had that were absent in Bukhari, whose name slips my mind at present.
Sunna: A word that refers to both the Sira and Hadith.
Tafsir: Commentary on the Qur'an. Typically, the earlier they are, the more authoritative they should be considered, because of the proximity of the writers in time and space to Mohammed and his teachings.
Shirk: polytheism. "Associating partners with God." The 'greatest sin' in Islam. Muslims see Christianity as polytheism, because they adamantly believe that what Christianity says is that there are 3 Gods. They vehemently deny the Trinity. They see christians as polytheists and pagans. Also, believing that God could indwell a human body grates at their ears, as it does for Judes, and they say "a man cannot be god."
Islam: submission. It does not mean peace. There are thorough analyses of this word out there. Find them if you're skeptical. For one, if Salaam Alaikum means 'peace be upon you,' and 'Islam' means 'peace,' wouldn't they say 'Islam alaikum?' They don't. Because Islam doesn't mean peace. The point? Not a big deal from the 'submission to god' aspect, technically, except that muslims knowingly lie to people when they say that 'Islam means peace.'
On that note....
Qur'an: The holy book of Islam. It completely consists of a collection of notes that people copied down of whatever Muhammad said when he claimed to be having a 'revelation.' It was completed after his death, by people who were close to him and heard his every word. However, the Qur'an is not everything Muhammad said, but simply what he claimed to be hearing from Gabriel, as a 'revelation from Allah.'
Sira: Biographical Material. Nearly everything else muhammad did that wasn't included in the Qur'an and Hadith.
Hadith: Sayings of Muhammad. (The Talmud of the Qur'an). Except that it has divine force to it, whereas the Talmud is not claimed to be divinely inspired, as far as I know, but to be interpretations of the Jewish Bible. The Hadith, on the other hand, is the same in the plural and singular, and refers to extensive collections of brief to medium-length narrated passages of what people reported that Mohammed had told them when they asked him a question. The Hadith contain all the really incriminating evil stuff about Sharia Law, end-times prophecies, subjugation and persecution of nonbelievers--particularly Jews, and sexism. The most complete collection is by Al-Bukhari, although there are some significant portions that another compiler had that were absent in Bukhari, whose name slips my mind at present.
Sunna: A word that refers to both the Sira and Hadith.
Tafsir: Commentary on the Qur'an. Typically, the earlier they are, the more authoritative they should be considered, because of the proximity of the writers in time and space to Mohammed and his teachings.
Shirk: polytheism. "Associating partners with God." The 'greatest sin' in Islam. Muslims see Christianity as polytheism, because they adamantly believe that what Christianity says is that there are 3 Gods. They vehemently deny the Trinity. They see christians as polytheists and pagans. Also, believing that God could indwell a human body grates at their ears, as it does for Judes, and they say "a man cannot be god."
Islam: submission. It does not mean peace. There are thorough analyses of this word out there. Find them if you're skeptical. For one, if Salaam Alaikum means 'peace be upon you,' and 'Islam' means 'peace,' wouldn't they say 'Islam alaikum?' They don't. Because Islam doesn't mean peace. The point? Not a big deal from the 'submission to god' aspect, technically, except that muslims knowingly lie to people when they say that 'Islam means peace.'
On that note....
Muslim Invasion Strategy, Part 1
I've seen numerous examples by other bloggers and more prominent leaders in the Internet-aided effort to educate people to the dangers of Islamization and awaken them to action. Often, some will have great insights that others don't include.
I decided to work from a few sources (which I will try to relocate and give credit to later) and include a couple ideas I haven't run across elsewhere, in the most complete Blueprint for Islamic Jihad I've yet seen. One could even call it Mohammed's Handbook for Islamic Conquest: How to Infiltrate, Intimidate, Devastate and Subjugate the Nations of the Khuffar. Khuffar being a slur intended for unbelievers that basically carries the same visceral hatred, racism, religious bigotry, sexism, culturism, etc that the words 'cunt,' 'nigger,' 'faggot,' 'redneck,' and 'pervert' carry...combined. Except that anyone who is not a muslim is this thing. If anyone of the above words offend you, be offended by the word Khuffar, or at least realize that it's supposed to be offensive, even if we don't realize it, nationally. Maybe I'll do a post about the word some other time.
There are 6 stages to the systematic breakdown of Islamic Conquest that I've developed: Infiltration, Consolidation, Sectional Control, Metastasis, Civil War, and Totalitarianism. I haven't developed the other 5 quite as fully as I have 'infiltration,' since America is only currently at that stage, while Europe is in some places at stage 2 or 3. So I'll post this in installments. Part 1 is below printed, and satirically presented as a handy guide to successful Islamic Jihad by the average practicing muslim.
A description of the first stage of Islamic Conquest: Infiltration, is posted after the jump.
I decided to work from a few sources (which I will try to relocate and give credit to later) and include a couple ideas I haven't run across elsewhere, in the most complete Blueprint for Islamic Jihad I've yet seen. One could even call it Mohammed's Handbook for Islamic Conquest: How to Infiltrate, Intimidate, Devastate and Subjugate the Nations of the Khuffar. Khuffar being a slur intended for unbelievers that basically carries the same visceral hatred, racism, religious bigotry, sexism, culturism, etc that the words 'cunt,' 'nigger,' 'faggot,' 'redneck,' and 'pervert' carry...combined. Except that anyone who is not a muslim is this thing. If anyone of the above words offend you, be offended by the word Khuffar, or at least realize that it's supposed to be offensive, even if we don't realize it, nationally. Maybe I'll do a post about the word some other time.
There are 6 stages to the systematic breakdown of Islamic Conquest that I've developed: Infiltration, Consolidation, Sectional Control, Metastasis, Civil War, and Totalitarianism. I haven't developed the other 5 quite as fully as I have 'infiltration,' since America is only currently at that stage, while Europe is in some places at stage 2 or 3. So I'll post this in installments. Part 1 is below printed, and satirically presented as a handy guide to successful Islamic Jihad by the average practicing muslim.
A description of the first stage of Islamic Conquest: Infiltration, is posted after the jump.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Musing About the Next 10 Years
I, like most people, I imagine, like to sit and think about what the world will be like in the future. I've been wondering about what the chances are that we'll face a significant military or terrorist threat in the next 5 or 10 years... could we be nuked? Invaded? What are the chances? The following is pure speculation with a bit of current events thrown in. Enjoy if you're curious. :)
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Should Christians Attempt to Predict the Rapture's or Tribulation's Arrival?
Can the Day of the Lord be predicted ahead of time?
Summary: The way I've always understood it is that no one will be able to guess the date of the end of the world ('the Day of the Lord'), but that there will be abundant signs and fulfilled prophecies to indicate to discerning believers that the time is approaching. One ought to be able to get a sense of how close we are to the end of the world, and we ought to be able to tell when parts of Scripture are fulfilled, but we will never be able to pin the date of the Day of the Lord considerably far ahead of time. The Bible is clear that Jesus will come when no one expects Him, so if someone is expecting him, logically, He won't be coming then. Now, let's explore some Scripture to this effect.
Summary: The way I've always understood it is that no one will be able to guess the date of the end of the world ('the Day of the Lord'), but that there will be abundant signs and fulfilled prophecies to indicate to discerning believers that the time is approaching. One ought to be able to get a sense of how close we are to the end of the world, and we ought to be able to tell when parts of Scripture are fulfilled, but we will never be able to pin the date of the Day of the Lord considerably far ahead of time. The Bible is clear that Jesus will come when no one expects Him, so if someone is expecting him, logically, He won't be coming then. Now, let's explore some Scripture to this effect.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
But Seriously, How'd Christianity Become so Popular?
It wasn't always popular, after all. But people have never stopped flocking to the Good News.
People have made the Cross into a kitchy jewelry icon,
and Christians take the blame for everything that ever happened, even when there's nothing to be blamed for
But it's an easy way to endear yourself to your followers
....face it, many people nowadays like to give off the appearance of Christianity in order to make people like them more. Christianity is easy to believe, novel, romantic (for those who care about the story at all), helpful to one's social standing, economically appealing in order to get a large consumer base, and a source of good stuff to quote to make yourself sound wise and good.
Wait, what?
On the other hand, those who dislike Christianity assert that it's intolerant, sexist, an attractive myth, etc etc.
Stop, stop it now!
Nothing is right about these views. Neither one. Christianity may have been morphed in the public perception into a convenient fairytale, or alternately an oppressive theofascism, but this is not Christianity, and it was NOT easy to attract converts in the beginning.
How hard is Christianity to believe? We live at a different time and place than 1st century Greece, Rome, Jerusalem, etc. It's conceivable that if Christianity as it is currently understood started today, it would easily catch on for reasons easily thought of. But would it's message really have been easy to believe for the people that the Word went out to in the early days of the church?
The goal of this post is to highlight key points of disagreement about Christian Doctrine that would have ensured that it would NEVER have caught on, much less lasted thousands of years, long enough to become as popularized and romanticized as it is today, unless there was something tangible behind the claims made.
People have made the Cross into a kitchy jewelry icon,
The cross. A symbol of wealth and success.
Christmas has been turned back into a pagan holiday,Does not make me think of Jesus.
and Christians take the blame for everything that ever happened, even when there's nothing to be blamed for
Seriously?
But it's an easy way to endear yourself to your followers
You will know them by their fruit.
....face it, many people nowadays like to give off the appearance of Christianity in order to make people like them more. Christianity is easy to believe, novel, romantic (for those who care about the story at all), helpful to one's social standing, economically appealing in order to get a large consumer base, and a source of good stuff to quote to make yourself sound wise and good.
Wait, what?
On the other hand, those who dislike Christianity assert that it's intolerant, sexist, an attractive myth, etc etc.
Stop, stop it now!
Nothing is right about these views. Neither one. Christianity may have been morphed in the public perception into a convenient fairytale, or alternately an oppressive theofascism, but this is not Christianity, and it was NOT easy to attract converts in the beginning.
How hard is Christianity to believe? We live at a different time and place than 1st century Greece, Rome, Jerusalem, etc. It's conceivable that if Christianity as it is currently understood started today, it would easily catch on for reasons easily thought of. But would it's message really have been easy to believe for the people that the Word went out to in the early days of the church?
The goal of this post is to highlight key points of disagreement about Christian Doctrine that would have ensured that it would NEVER have caught on, much less lasted thousands of years, long enough to become as popularized and romanticized as it is today, unless there was something tangible behind the claims made.
Why is Christianity so Popular?
This is not a naive question; it is actually quite profound when you think of it.
There are 2.1 billion estimated people who would claim adherence to Christianity in the world. The runners-up of note are Islam at 1.5 billion, secularists at 1.1 billion, Hinduism at 900 million, Buddhism with 376 million, Sikhism (the original Chrislam) at 23 million, and the children of Israel coming in with a poky 14 million. I'd be really curious to see if these statistics changed greatly as of the most recent census.
Wow, looks like Christianity's really popular! And with a world population somewhere between 6 and 7 billion (probably much closer to 7), that means Jesus' got a 30% approval rating! That's better than President Obama's rating, and probably most other presidents (not going to bother looking up that statistic).
So why is the world so messed up? You'd think two vs. 5 would be pretty good odds, especially when not all nonChristians are actively causing chaos. We're all made in God's image, after all, so one would expect that even those who reject God would behave somewhat morally, having The Law written on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15).
Then whence cometh evil?
There are 2.1 billion estimated people who would claim adherence to Christianity in the world. The runners-up of note are Islam at 1.5 billion, secularists at 1.1 billion, Hinduism at 900 million, Buddhism with 376 million, Sikhism (the original Chrislam) at 23 million, and the children of Israel coming in with a poky 14 million. I'd be really curious to see if these statistics changed greatly as of the most recent census.
Wow, looks like Christianity's really popular! And with a world population somewhere between 6 and 7 billion (probably much closer to 7), that means Jesus' got a 30% approval rating! That's better than President Obama's rating, and probably most other presidents (not going to bother looking up that statistic).
So why is the world so messed up? You'd think two vs. 5 would be pretty good odds, especially when not all nonChristians are actively causing chaos. We're all made in God's image, after all, so one would expect that even those who reject God would behave somewhat morally, having The Law written on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15).
Then whence cometh evil?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)