Coptics Aid In Endangering Free Speech - Muslim Cleric Burns the Holy Bible

Hey guys, in case you don't know in a recent protest a Egyptian Muslim Cleric tore the Bible to shreds and some of the Muslim protestors burnt the rest of it. Read about that here.

I was reading in the comment section over here (same story)

Here are what some western Christians posters had to say about this incident:

1. Anne von Kanada says:

   September 14, 2012 at 4:30 am

   You can tear up all the Bibles you want. Christians don’t worship a book. Our God is greater than that. Your screaming, yelling, rants about Jews–makes you look like the barbarians you are. Please don’t come and live in my country. Government, please wake up!
   
2. Joe get says:

   September 14, 2012 at 5:12 am

   I’m a roman catholic, and I couldn’t care less if Muslims tear up the bible, burn it or piss on it. Big deal. Next…
   
3. Softly Bob says:

   September 14, 2012 at 5:20 am

   Ooh, you’ve offended me now – boo hoo. I’m crying. My god is so fragile that every time you burn a bible or piss on it, he starts to cry like a baby. I’m going to throw a tantrum now. What I really need to get my anger out is to murder a few people and then sodomize an ambassador. That will make me feel better!
   

Good for them!

However, notice the difference between western Christians, and subjugated Dhimmi Coptic Christians, according to the same article:

Dr Maraghy, who is the chairman of the Coptic Coalition, said that tearing and burning the Holy Bible, which all Christians in the world believe in, is a "villainous and barbaric act." He added that it is not permitted at all to defame religions. "The same hurt feelings we felt by the film which insulted the prophet is the same that we felt by this criminal act," he said.

He vowed that the Coptic Coalition will not ignore such "ignorant people" but will prosecute them. The Maspero Coptic Youth Union has called on President Morsy to intervene immediately to put an end to any efforts which would kindle the fire of sedition between Muslims and Copts.

Another complaint was also filed this morning against Abu Islam by Karam Gabriel, lawyer with the Copts of Egypt Coalition, for his recent burning of the Holy Bible as well as his previous insults to Christianity through his books and through his Islamic Nation TV Channel.

The Coalition, which has among its members Muslims and Copts, has issued an official statement condemning the film insulting the Prophet of Islam. Magdy Saber, spokesman for the Union, condemned Abu Islam's tearing and burning of the Bible in front of the Copts who were present before the US Embassy, where they had gone in support of their Muslim brothers regarding to prophet's film.

Have the Coptics been left this utterly delinquent by their Mohammadan masters? That they would salvage their own religion and replace it with a new political agenda in establishing lawful consequences in destroying a Bible is unthinkable. Or maybe this is this just overt Muslims trying to cast a spell upon the West into believing Christians are like the Muslims, that they believe these kinds of acts should be made illegal because this is genuinely offensive and/or hate speech?

I don't know for sure, but it seems the Coptics wanted the Muslims to just act consistent with their own standards:

Saber demanded from officials to take the necessary measures to prevent sedition among the Egyptians. "If we condemn the film-makers of the prophet film who live outside Egypt," he said, "we should also condemn this disgraceful act in Egypt, stressing the need to punish Abu Islam for his irresponsible actions."

But are Coptics stupid enough to actually think demanding the Muslims act consistent isn't going to backfire? Since what this will be used of as an example of "religious defamation" and it will be credited to the cause of introducing the religious blasphemy bill into the U.N.

Now we know more than one group of religious adherents want to see actual legal punishments for such free speech, I find this very disturbing.

New Debate: Are Muslims On The True Path? Royalson vs Nadir Ahmed

The following debate subject is entitled "Are Muslim On The True Path?" The debaters are Nadir Ahmed, infamous Muslim Apologist vs Royalson a Christian Apologist and Critic of Islam.

Further movie protests cause a Lutheran church burned down in Pakistan

The President of Pakistan has condemned the burning down of a Lutheran сhurch and called for the protection of Christians in the country.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari also condemned the destruction of a school and offices in the city Mardan and urged local authorities to protect Christians.

According to the president: "The destruction of property, especially the places of worship of other religions, is contrary to Islam and should be condemned."

After Friday prayers Pakistani protesters angered by the film "The Innocence of Muslims" broke into the Anglican Church of St. Paul.

They destroyed the altar, tore up Bibles and then set fire to the building.

The protesters then broke into a school, a library, an information center and the homes of two priests and a school teacher, where they destroyed everything in sight and wrote "Allah Akbar” on the walls. (source)

Prophet film protesters clash in Greece

Greek riot police have used tear gas and pepper spray to disperse Muslim protesters who clashed with officers during a rally against the American film that denigrates Islam's Prophet Mohammed.

A general strike in Bangladesh shut down schools, public transport and businesses, while a few hundred people peacefully marched in Pakistan.

Iranian students burned flags in Tehran to protest the recent publication of lewd caricatures of the Mohammed by a French satirical magazine.

About 300 Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims peacefully rallied in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad, to protest the film.

"There will be no peace in the world until we respect each other's religion," Sikh leader Deedar Singh said.

In Athens, six people were detained during the demonstration at a central square on Sunday, police said. About 600 people attended the rally, which featured heated speeches, but was mostly peaceful.

Some in the crowd then wanted to march to the US Embassy, which is about three kilometres away from Omonia Square. They tried to break through police lines several times, but riot officers pushed them back.

The violence occurred at the end of the rally, when small groups of protesters threw objects at police. Three cars were damaged and three storefronts smashed.

Banners were displayed in English, denouncing the film and called on the US to hang the filmmaker. One told President Barack Obama "we are all with Osama", referring to Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader who was killed in a US raid in Pakistan in May 2011.

The amateurish film has sparked violent protests throughout the Muslim world for nearly two weeks. They have resulted in the deaths of at least 49 people, including the US ambassador to Libya. (source)

Innocence of Muslims Full Movie 74 Min

Is Muhammed Prophesied in the Bible? James White vs Zakir Hussain

Should Muslims get more offended by Syrian atrocities than Prophet attacks?

On the day that Hizbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, called the infamous anti-Muslim film the ‘worst attack on Islam’, another more sinister video has emerged.

Alongside this new video is an image that should shock the Arab world but so far there have been no riots or embassy attacks. The picture shows a small girl in Syria, beheaded. Syrian regime forces were allegedly responsible for the gruesome murder of this young girl.

The video, which was uploaded to YouTube several months ago, shows a Syrian man covered in bruises and scars. Assad’s soldiers appear to be whipping and slapping him while they insist that he calls Assad ‘God.’ It’s an extreme form of blasphemy for a Muslim to be involved in.

Syrian bloggers and activists were quick to point out the hypocrisy: a silly video of actors insulting the Prophet sparked chaos across the Arab world but such brutal human rights assaults have been ignored.

One Syrian tweep started to categorize the pictures and videos as ‘insulting to Muslims’ and ‘non-insulting to Muslims’, putting the beheaded girl in the latter category. So the question remains: why has a b-list film, insulting the Prophet Muhammad, caused so much more outrage?

The answer may have more to do with government policy than a group of amateur actors. Although the attacks on the US embassy in Libya were apparently planned before the release of the film, the two events were not unrelated.

Those countries that felt the most intense reaction were the recent ‘Arab-Springers’: Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia. They have felt resentment towards the West and the US for many years as leaders that were seemingly endorsed by American presidents, perpetrated terrible acts at home.

Yemen has also felt the side effects of US drone attacks, resulting in numerous civilian casualties. So just as these countries took their independence and regained their dignity, they feel themselves mocked and vilified by the US. It’s a potent combination and the effects have been shown around the world this week.

Yet still the atrocities in Syria continue with a growing vacuum of complaint from the Arab world. Activists say if they could inspire even half the outrage of the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ movie, the situation would quickly improve.

Do you think Muslims overreacted to the Prophet attacks? Should there be more outcry about Syria? Tell us what you think below. (source)

Australian Muslim Protests In Sydney

The following article was to Politically Correct to accurately entitle the title.

But I want you all to know what is happening in AUSTRALIA. In one of the most wonderful places of all, Australia is corrupted by adherents of the Sharia.

Is anyone ever going to be honest enough to just say "Islam IS POLITICAL". Is anyone going to be honest enough to stop ballshitting and calling these vocal protests as a "vocal minority" when indeed 85% of Muslims whom are Sunni's agree with the jurisprudence given by Islam, that criticism of Mohammed is prohibited and punishable by death under Islamic Law?

As a Kiwi watching this following clip, it's awfully difficult to not feel sickened by such filth infiltrating our beautiful countries.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-gas-sydney-protesters-20120915-25yrb.html

Google will not remove anti-Islam film from YouTube following White House request for review

Google will not remove the YouTube video that has been cited as the spark for demonstrations raging across the Middle East and North Africa, the company announced Friday.

The decision comes following a White House request for the trailer for ‘Innocence of Muslims’ to be reviewed under the company’s policies.

The Obama administration is not explicitly asking YouTube to remove the film, but to check if it meets their standards.

"The White House asked YouTube to review the video to see if it was in compliance with their terms of use," Press Secretary Jay Carney said.

The company determined that the video was within guidelines.

“However, we’ve restricted access to it in countries where it is illegal such as India and Indoesia, as well as in Libya and Egypt given the very sensitive situation sin these two countries,” a spokeswoman said.

The trailer for "Innocence of Muslims" has been used as a rallying cry by those attacking U.S. embassies and consulates around the world. Several top lawmakers, though, have questioned whether the film -- in the case of the deadly attack on the consulate in Libya -- was used as a cover to execute a pre-planned attack on American officials.

Critics have accused the Obama administration of putting too much focus on the film itself, and faulted the administration for continuing to condemn it.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a ceremony Friday marking the return of the remains of the four Americans killed, again described that video as "senseless" and "unacceptable." But she also called on leaders in those countries to stop the violence.

"The people of Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob. Reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries need to do everything they can to restore security and hold accountable those behind these violent acts," she said.

Meanwhile, The Associated Press reports that federal probation officials are investigating the California filmmaker linked to the video. He had previously been convicted of financial crimes.
Fox News' Wendell Goler contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/14/white-house-asks-youtube-to-review-anti-islam-film/#ixzz26WUfg4DQ

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Benghazi - Islam-insulting film triggers attacks on US consulate in Libya

I woke up extra early today which almost never happens, perhaps that was "psychically" connected with posting this story....

Here is more:



If you are wondering why an innocent Ambassador is dead, and what exactly was the nature of this particular "American" crime?

Here is the trailer from the movie itself!

Cross Examination, James White vs. Rober Sungenis, Predestination Free Will?

Is God Unjust? Romans 9 Free Will?

It was interesting to hear the Catholic Perspective on Romans 9. Sungenis position seems to be it's perfectly legitimate for God to harden the heart of those who harden themselves first. Where as White appears to take the view that God can harden first, God is not obligated to work in any chronological order.

But what was especially interesting was when White asked him "Then what is Paul's objection mean then?" regarding "who can resist his will?" And Sungenis pointed out in his view the objection was raised because God can react and harden, and then the person can blame God for hardening the person further and being unable to resist his will. So there is still an objection to be made even in the Free Will view.

Question here is, is the free will position(Sungenis own position) anymore moral or legitimate than Dr White's? Personally I don't believe so.

Perhaps Sungenis didn't know that Islam teaches the same thing:

Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad Peace be upon him) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe. Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, (i.e. they are closed from accepting Allah's Guidance), and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment. And of mankind, there are some (hypocrites) who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day" while in fact they believe not. They (think to) deceive Allah and those who believe, while they only deceive themselves, and perceive (it) not! In their hearts is a disease (of doubt and hypocrisy) and Allah has increased their disease. A painful torment is theirs because they used to tell lies.Quran Chapter 2:6-10

Verily, Allah is not ashamed to set forth a parable even of a mosquito or so much more when it is bigger (or less when it is smaller) than it. And as for those who believe, they know that it is the Truth from their Lord, but as for those who disbelieve, they say: "What did Allah intend by this parable?" By it He misleads many, and many He guides thereby. And He misleads thereby ONLY THOSE WHO ARE Al-Fasiqun (the rebellious, disobedient to Allah). 2:26

It is therefore inevitable, if God hardens a persons heart, then he has increased that individual's delusion, blindness, and stubbornness, he has taken away their ability to hear and see. In fact Romans 11 says likewise:

What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day.” And David says: “a stumbling block and a retribution for them. May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.” Romans 11:7-10

In fact it's highly likely that God himself (as opposed to Satan) is the referent in this verse as argued for by Sam Shamoun:

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The God of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4

A plain reading and exegesis of the text would lead us to conclude this is God the Father in the immediate and neighboring context.

To add to the fire, it is known the Bible teaches there exists a Divine Council, a divine panel or court of gods who congregate together in order to execute the will of the chief God, YHVH. This happens to include Satan and his demons who are known as "Sons of God", or simply gods themselves. It is thus indisputable even if God was not directly responsible for blinding the mind of the disbelievers, God certainly gave permission to the evil agents to fulfill his will like he did in the case of Satan and Job.

Why does Sungenis have a problem with God hardening the heart in some instances but not all instances is also not made clear. If free will truly existed, we would be free to choose God until the day we die, thus putting an end to even Sungenis version of free-will.

Adam And Free Will

 

James White points out when those elect attain their own post-resurrected glorified bodies, the believers will have a type of impeccability. Believers in heaven will not be capable of sinning or having evil desires. Dr White shows a distinction between this state of existence and the state of existence endowed upon Adam. Adam was not made perfected, meaning he was not made incapable of sinning. James White puts it the best:

"The will decides based upon the desires that are presented to it by a persons nature, we can't tell what Adam's nature was outside of knowing there was no sin, but there was no perfection in him which would keep him from having an evil desire, which evidently he did which lead to his fall...Not only did God have knowledge of what Adam was going to do, but if God's knowledge of the future is based on his decree, then it was apart of God's decree"

It is interesting to note that James White remains agnostic about whether Adam had free will but then points out the will is decided based upon desires and he claims Adam clearly had evil desires.

Dr White seems to shoot himself in the foot here. Why does Dr White not conclude Adam did not have free will based upon these two facts alone.

• God's decree (as elaborated by Dr White) 
• The desires given to Adam which Adam must have followed, as the will decides based upon desires, if something has more than one desire then clearly the will, will indeed fulfill each and every desire.

The next objection to add is not made to Calvinists or Dr White since Dr White already accepts Adam was set up to fall and fail and was predetermined and decreed to sin, but to those who accept Free Will. Dr White's logic here is indisputable.

I want to add something I said elsewhere in a discussion with Mkvine:

This next was the most funniest part of it all (ME QUOTING MKVINE): "I can hardly make sense of this objection. Yeah, God gave the spirits permission to perform dark-arts (assuming there was no trickery involved). JUST LIKE HE GIVES US PERMISSION to sin or go to church or buy a car or eat a cheeseburger etc. Just because GOD GIVES US PERMISSION permission doesn't mean that he is commanding us to do it."

(MY RESPONSE TO MKVINE:) If I give my daughter a car (the ability) and then the permission (my approval) considering her nature, needs and desires (rebellious sinner and curious teenage girl/or in the case of demons: evil) to go to the party. Do you think she will go to the party?

Lets think about this. I create something, but I don't merely create something I give it all the abilities, I decide it's nature, it's desires and inclinations, I give it my consent and approval and I set it up to go to the party, will it then, go to the party Mkvine? :)

And to add further what Dr White said: "The will decides based upon the desires that are presented to it by a persons nature".

I found I am not the only person to make such objections, similar objections have been made by the the great Apologist Sam Shamoun, in his dismissal of the Muslim God, Allah:

Thus, not only does Allah mislead the ungodly, he is the one who actually makes them ungodly in the first place and sends them straying from the very beginning! In other words, Allah has already determined beforehand who will be misled and has chosen not to grant certain individuals the ability to follow the guidance, thereby turning them into rebel sinners. Allah then decides to continue to lead these individuals astray for not believing in his message!(1)...

If Allah created the movements, or lack thereof, of every single thing then doesn’t this clearly establish the fact that a creature's every single action, desire, or word, whether good or bad, was created or foreordained by Allah, otherwise s/he wouldn’t or couldn’t speak, desire, or act in a certain way? Since Zawadi himself admits that Allah actually does create the evil that he wants to occur then how does this not prove that Allah has already decided to create people for both heaven and hell, and even created the very actions that they will do which will lead them to either one of these eternal abodes? (source)

Or how about in the same article:

In light of what Islam teaches the obvious questions to ask are, how can a person believe in the message at all if Allah doesn’t will it for him/her? What choice does man really have when Allah creates even his very desires, words and actions beforehand? And how can people be condemned for their unbelief when Allah has created them for disbelief and has chosen to send them to hell before creation itself?...


First, pointing to what the Holy Bible teaches concerning Divine sovereignty, predestination, human responsibility etc. will not answer or solve the objections raised by the orthodox Muslim doctrine of predestination. This approach will demonstrate at most that both the Christian and Islamic traditions have major theological, philosophical and logical problems with their teachings concerning predestination and human choice.

Of course Shamoun tries to show how Christianity is different in some senses because God loves all people and died for all sinners. To begin with these kind of Calvinists are known as 4 pointers or Amrydians, because they don't fully accept the implications of "limited atonement". But what this implicitly shows and attests to is Shamoun would conjoin with me in attacking Islam and High Calvinism (a position Dr White holds) because in this position God neither loves all the world, nor does he die for every human just like Islam.

But it further adds more confusion. Many People have objected to the Trinity on the grounds that God is schizophrenic. While I agree this is an invalid objection in that case, here this objection may be held. If God only predestines a portion of those whom he loves to his eternal grace this only further compounds the problem. If it is true that "every being acts on it's desires presented to it by it's nature", then God is acting contradictory with his own desires by not predestining all of those whom he loves. Dr White makes further and better objections against the "soft Calvinism" position, but for now we know that Christianity does indeed have the same problems as Shamoun accuses Islam of having.

But getting back to point. It is therefore true that a will must follow it's desires, meaning Adam had no choice but to fulfill all the desire given to him by his nature created by God. In fact God could have created every human being with the attribute of impeccability, meaning humans are incapable of experiencing evil desires or sinful actions, it is therefore inescapable, every Christian Theist must concede God wanted and designed, purposed, decreed and planned the fall of Adam.

Does God give only certain people the ability to repent? Yet he calls all men everywhere to repent, Doesn't that strike you as odd?

 

Dr James White answered this brilliantly:

"God's will in the law says thou shall not kill, and yet God's decree was that Jesus should die upon the cross, we have to allow all of those texts to stand together and recognize the difference between the revealed will and that of his decree"

As usual it is Calvinism (and the great defender of Biblical Calvinism Dr White) which seem to be advocating the most scripturally and logically sound position.

Understandably many non-Calvinist Christians heavily object to Calvinism. But on what grounds? Are the grounds scriptural or logical or are they moral grounds?

If a Christian does object to such a God, yet we find this to be the Biblical God, we have several choices. We either become a predeterminist and object to the God we think exists and become part of the rebellion. Further more we could investigate into evaluating whether such a diabolical being exists at all in the first place like here on AnsweringAbraham.

James White "Discussion" with Ehteshaam Gulam

I must confess I think Sam Shamoun really fixed the questions himself at question time. As these questions are far to thoughtful for the average audience. Man, even Gulam couldn't understand such a unequivocal question, and he is the "representative". Another sham really.

By the way in case you haven't seen Gulam's response to Farhan Qureshi's apostasy, I highly recommend the video where he almost breaks down, best entertainment ever. I literally would pay to see videos made like that every week.

Adnan Rashid vs. James White - Trinity and Shirk

I have to be honest and admit, I could barely watch this debate. Adnan is another "stage performer debater" or quite simply "a showman" like all the most popular Muslim Dawahgandists.

He talks loudly, with breaking rapport and with irrational certainty and a non-anchored vast dynamic range. How many times does one have to repeat "Dr White" or "Ladies and Gentlemen"? He comes across as rude, arrogant, aggressive and most importantly insincere, he clearly wants his Muslim brothers to come out thinking he has accomplished a mighty victory rather than just sitting down and having a genuine conversation. This is the same mentality illustrated by the deceased Deedat and still to this day Zakir Naik.

This enough alone is to discard this incoherent, rambling shambles. Honestly I can't believe I use to take the time to listen to every last nonsense speaker and debate similar to this. How does Sam Shamoun do it? Knowing Sam I know there is almost nothing he hasn't seen, but I must confess I am slacking behind these days, I use to only do one thing, that was living my life evaluating arguments and researching. Now this is a perfect example why this isn't necessary. Because people like Adnan don't give a dam about any of that, they are more interested in getting the high from defeating an opponent.

Now I don't think James White is perfect, but I must admit there are just some apologists like Bassam Zawadi and James White who actually seem to "interact"and actually don't come across as showmen. The other peculiar thing is White comes across as passionate, but it does seem Adnan brings out the more aggressive side in Dr White, why is another reason Adnan should not be given any status. For some it's about the argument, for others it's about performance skills and the great feeling of winning over the opponent. Of course adding the "religious complex" only makes it worse, these faith-found illiterate masses think they are exalting and working for the grand designer, as if garbage like this would impress such a being?

Besides the obvious Adnan had no clue how to cope with the time restraints, and he simply didn't study basic Christian beliefs before debating. For example he represented Christianity as believing Jesus is "a God" when Jesus "Has a God". Such a basic fundamental error alone is enough to discredit this huckster and fraud.

Finally note how the actual topic was hardly discussed .Shirk is obviously an Islamic concept thus it's necessary to prove that "partners sharing the being of Allah" is equivalent to "persons". It's quite obvious "partners" refers to gods or entities outside the being of Allah, thus the Quran doesn't mention the "being" of Allah. It's also necessary to prove that Allah not only doesn't have a son in the physical sense (as described in the Quran) but it must be proven God cannot have a divine son whose eternal generation is derived from Allah. In conclusion the fundamental suppositions of the debate are not even contested or explicitly dealt with.

Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Moonies, dies in South Korea Self-proclaimed messiah notorious for mass weddings and creation of Unification Church dies aged 92

He married thousands of people in mass weddings, made millions from his church's business interests and was accused of brainwashing his members and breaking up families.'

But the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church – whose followers became known as "Moonies" – managed to shed the mantle of suspicion and ridicule to become a friend of political and religious leaders before his death in South Korea on Sunday, aged 92.

Moon saw himself as a messiah and created a church that became a worldwide movement and claims to have around 3 million members, including 100,000 in the United States.

Ahn Ho-yeul, a Unification Church spokesman, told the Associated Press that Moon died at a church-owned hospital near his home in Gapyeong, north-east of Seoul, with his wife and children at his bedside, two weeks after being hospitalised with pneumonia.

The church was seen as a cult in the 1970s and 80s, and was regularly accused of conning new recruits, holding them against their will, splitting families and forcing initiates to give over their life savings.

The church responded to accusations by saying many other new religious movements faced similar attacks in their early stages. Allegations of brainwashing which were common in the 1980s have rarely been heard since.

Moon was born in what would become North Korea in 1920 to a family that followed Confucian beliefs, but when he was 10 years old the family converted to Christianity and joined the Presbyterian church.

Moon said he was 16 when Jesus Christ called upon him to complete His work. He said he resisted twice before finally accepting the task.

He was jailed for five years by the North Korean government in 1948, but escaped in 1950 when his guards fled as United Nations troops advanced. He was an active anti-Communist throughout the cold war.

Moon founded the church in 1954 amid the ruins of South Korea and promoted a mixture of Christianity and his own conservative, family-oriented teachings. He preached new interpretations of lessons from the Bible, and fused elements of Christianity and Confucianism – outlining his principles in his book, Explanation of the Divine Principle, published in 1957.

In later years, the church built a business empire that included the Washington Times newspaper, the New Yorker Hotel in Manhattan, Bridgeport University in Connecticut, as well as a hotel and a car plant in North Korea. It acquired a ski resort, a professional soccer team and other businesses in South Korea, and a seafood firm that supplies sushi to Japanese restaurants across the United States.

In 1982, the church sponsored the American film Inchon, about the Korean war.

Moon began rebuilding his relationship with North Korea in 1991, when he met the country's founder, Kim Il Sung, in the eastern industrial city of Hamhung. In his autobiography, Moon said he asked Kim to give up his nuclear ambitions, and Kim responded that his atomic programme was for peaceful purposes and he had no intention to use it to "kill my own people".

"The two of us were able to communicate well about our shared hobbies of hunting and fishing. At one point, we each felt we had so much to say to the other that we just started talking like old friends meeting after a long separation," Moon wrote.

He added that he heard Kim tell his son: "After I die, if there are things to discuss pertaining to north-south relations, you must always seek the advice of President Moon."

When Kim died in 1994, Moon sent a condolence delegation to North Korea, drawing criticism from conservatives at home. Kim's son and successor, Kim Jong Il, sent roses, prized wild ginseng, Rolex watchesand other gifts to Moon on his birthday each year. Kim Jong Il died late last year and was succeeded by his son, Kim Jong Un. Moon sent a delegation to pay respects during the mourning period for Kim Jong Il.

The church leader also developed good relationships with conservative American leaders, including Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior. However, he was found guilty of tax evasion in the United States, where he lived for 30 years, and served 13 months of an 18 month sentence.

As he grew older, Moon quietly handed over day-to-day control of his multibillion-dollar religious and business empire, companies ranging from hospitals and universities to a ballet troupe.

His youngest son, the Rev Hyung-jin Moon, was named the church's top religious director in April 2008. Other sons and daughters were put in charge of the church's business and charitable activities in South Korea and abroad.

After ending his first marriage, Moon wedded a South Korean, Hak Ja Han Moon, in 1960. She often was at Moon's side for the mass weddings.

Their youngest son told the Associated Press in a February 2010 interview that Moon's offspring do not see themselves as his successors.

"Our role is not inheriting that messianic role," he said. "Our role is more of the apostles, where we share … where we become the bridge between understanding what kind of lives [our] two parents have lived."

Moon is survived by his second wife and 10 children.

Marriage lines

The Reverend Sun Myung Moon's mass weddings were a central aspect of the Unification Church. He conducted his first in Seoul in the early 1960s, and the "blessing ceremonies" grew in scale over the years. A 1982 wedding at New York's Madison Square Garden, the first outside South Korea, drew thousands of participants.

"International and intercultural marriages are the quickest way to bring about an ideal world of peace," Moon said in a 2009 autobiography. "People should marry across national and cultural boundaries with people from countries they consider to be their enemies so that the world of peace can come that much more quickly."

In 2009, Moon married 45,000 people in simultaneous ceremonies worldwide in his first large-scale mass wedding in years, the church said. (source)

The problem of textual corruption for Allah

I have heard  the argument against Christianity that since the nature of YWH is all loving and all powerful  therefore there should be no problem of evil .  I thought of applying the problem of evil against Islam but instead of calling it the problem of evil but the problem of textual corruption.

1. If Allah exists then he is omniscient, omnipotent and his Word is non corruptible 
2. The world contains corrupted words of Allah, I.e the Injill and Torah 
3. If Allah were omniscient, omnipotent and his Word is non corruptible  then the world would not contain corrupt words of Allah.
4.  It is not the case that Allah  exists

Possible way of explaining the problem away, which would open up a can of worms is to claim that Allah was being deceptive when he said non can change his words. And that would open up numerous problems, one would be that Muslims don't have certainty that Allah has perfectly preserved the Quran since his words can be corrupted.  

Secondly a Muslims couldn't argue and say since the Injill and Torah are corrupted they couldn't possibly be the words of Allah, because Allah's words are subject to corruption.

Barry White-Just The Way You Are

Jonny recants Open Theism and becomes a Biblical Calvinist

My co-author wrote a post exposing Open Theism directed to Jonny.

Jonny has now recanted his position:

jonnykzj: ANSWERING ABRAHAM: btw i saw an article refuting my view on open theism. Ive changed my posiiton so cld u plz remove tht article or put at the top tht jonnykzj has changed his view n is now Calvinist