On The Treatment of Animals

            Killing an animal in order to eat is not in any way immoral or wrong, however cruelty towards the animal while it is alive is immoral and unacceptable. After the flood God allowed man to kill animals for sustenance, not for torture. Animals, unlike man, have no soul which means their lives do not carry on after death. Animals have a body and instinct, much like a computer or robot is programmed to perform specific tasks, but no soul which sets humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. The argument may be made that animals can communicate which means that they do have a soul, like humans. Communication is different from speaking, a monkey can sign for food, a dog can let you know it need so use the restroom and so on. This takes repetitious training and does not denote any kind of soul but rather simplistic thinking as a monkey can not develop these kind of skills on his own, let alone form any kind of complex sentence that would denote any kind of actual feeling connected to that word, as far as love, happiness, or even sadness. Animals cannot connect words to feelings, apart from a want or desire for something.

This does not mean animals cannot feel any kind of pain, on the contrary, animals are quite capable of feeling pain and therefore it is our responsibility to make sure that they do not suffer, especially on account of our gluttony. God gave man dominion, to authoritarian control, over the earth and everything in it. We rule over the earth and creation on behalf of God, not as bloodthirsty tyrants, and this is exactly what we are doing. Animals have become nothing but a commodity, an object, a source of food and not a living breathing creature capable of experiencing pain. Not as a beautiful creation of God, but as something to be used, abused, and profited from. What does that say about us, that animals treat us more humane than we treat them? 

Countless animals are tortured and killed, not only for food, but in the name of science, for the greater good of mankind. This really is a very slippery slope of “the end justifies the means”. Since animals mean little science deems them fit for study through means of torture, to better mankind. Smash a monkeys head in to understand brain trauma in humans, but what is stopping them from experimenting on other humans? Now, when I said this what kind of person did you imagine? I would like to think that most of us immediately thought of, what we view as, the typical human being. Of course not one of use would ever allow a fellow human being to be subjected to such tortures, no matter how it may benefit mankind. However, science would likely use an outcast of society, someone easy to demonize, perhaps a convict, maybe even a prostitute, and it is highly likely that even homeless could be used. All easy targets, none of them would be missed, and it is easy for all of us to write them off as being non-human, beastly, waste. Much like we already feel towards animals. 

I find the inhumane a cruel treatment of animals to be unacceptable and quite disturbing. We can peer into the soul of an individual who has little regard for the living breathing creation of God and see little or no compassion. God allowed us to kill and eat animals, and this should not be something that we delight in doing, killing, but do in remembrance of  the sin that caused this. Each day I find it more and more difficult to consume the flesh of the animal, even though I do not kill it, nor see it killed, or even abused. The mere thought that I have no idea how this animal died or how this animal was treated, turns my stomach.  

Emancipation of the Woman

        

       Why do you paint your faces? Is the reason to “enhance your beauty”? Is not the beauty given by God sufficient? The outward beauty was created by God and hence should not be altered, while the inward beauty depends upon the individual and can be altered or enhanced. If you wish to enhance your beauty then be obedient to God and let it radiate outwardly from within. Do you not know that painting your face and dressing in an immodest fashion is sinful? If you do this, and it is indeed a sin, and you bring a man to look upon you in lust, is your sin then doubled? I am not saying that women who act in this manner are whores, I am merely showing that they have more in common with a whore than with the saints. To approach the body and blood of our Lord with painted faces, partially exposed breasts, and or tight fitting clothing is disgraceful. 

I am sure that many will come to view what I am saying as sexist enslavement, hardly, these words are that of emancipation. You are not slaves to this world so why is it that you willingly embrace its chains? The world tells us that this behavior is liberating, but I find this to be deceit. Many women refuse to leave their homes unless they have their make-up on, and their fashionable clothing . Since this is a sin and they are unable to separate themselves from it, they are not free in any sense of the word. They have become slaves to sin. Since much of this behavior brings the wandering eyes, and the weakness in men, to look upon them in sin, they have compounded their sin. Therefore our women have embraced the shackles of this false freedom, then compound the weight of their sin with another, whom they brought to sin, how is this liberating?

A prostitute does not dress modest. She does not humble herself by keeping covered. She must dress provocative in order to draw the attention of men. What is the purpose of an Orthodox Christian woman dressing herself in a similar, provocative, fashion? Does this become different and acceptable when the woman is Orthodox? Absolutely not. While the intent of the Orthodox woman, most likely, is not to draw men into sin, she herself is still sinning and bringing others to sin. This demonstrates there is little difference in appearance between a prostitute and any woman who dresses in a provocative, even slightly revealing, fashion. What was the first thing Adam and Eve did after they fell into sin? They covered themselves, and God had fashioned clothing for them. Did God fashion for eve a nice tight fitting top that enhanced Eve’s breast size and showed a fair amount of clevage, and did He fashion short and very tight shorts? God would not fashion such degrading clothing, even for those who have disobeyed Him. If Adam and Eve fled from God because they were naked, why is it acceptable for anyone to approach the body and blood of Christ looking like a whore? 

He that endures to the end shall be saved.

                  Not only did Christ suffer in order to save us, but He also suffered in order to teach us. Suffering is an inescapable fact of life and often times it seems as if the righteous suffer more than the wicked. It seems as if life is unfair, why do believers suffer more afflictions? The world persecutes the righteous and God permits this suffering that we might draw closer to Him. In Christ's passion we are taught exactly how we are to suffer. When Christ was before the High Priest, he was questioned, beat, and spat upon, and yet He remained silent in action and word. It was only when Caiphas asked if He was the messiah did Christ reply, testifying to the truth. From this response Christ was spit upon, struck in the face, and mocked. He politely asked why He had been struck, asking if He had spoken evil, the tell Him what it was. Christ teaches us through this that we should remain silent in the face of our accusers except in proclaiming the truth of Christ. Trying to reason with the unreasonable will not bring about any fruit, remain silent in action and word.

                 When Christ was scourged He did not complain, or even plead His case. When the crown of thorns was placed upon Him and the soldiers mocked Him, He remained silent in action and word. He did not try and explain to them that He is God in the flesh, nor did He condemn them. Christ shows us that no matter how we are afflicted, by illness or persecution, that we are to remain silent in action and word. Bearing these afflictions with a contrite and humble heart is a greater testimony of Christ than any word or deed. When we are mocked for being Christian we do not judge nor hate, but again remain humbly silent in action and word.

                When Christ embraced His cross and carried it to Golgotha, after being beaten, scourged, and mocked, could have easily given up had He chose to. Instead Christ carried on, despite the torment, pain, and the mockery. We too must embrace our cross, this means to accept our suffering, afflictions, and mockery. Carry our cross to golgotha (golgotha, the place of the skull, representing death) despite everything we may face, the humility we may encounter, and the seemingly unbearable weight of the cross.

                On the cross, Christ had clearly gone through inexplicable torture and pain. Watching the children He created curse Him, drive nails into His flesh, and mock Him, yet He prayed for them all. He listened to a condemned man, the thief, and forgave him putting this thief before Himself. Even in His final moments He was concerned not for Himself, but for His mother, giving her to His apostle, St. John. When we have reached our threshold for pain and suffering, the only words we should speak are those of prayers. Especially for those who may be persecuting us, and above all forgive them. We also learn that we should put ourselves aside for others who may be in need, no matter what we may be dealing with, we should never be so selfish as to put ourselves above others. The same is said for when Christ, despite Him being near death, still had concern for His mother's well being.

               How much love Christ has for us that He consistently put others before Himself, yet He is God incarnate! To remain silent and humble, to embrace your very suffering and death, to pray for those driving nails into your flesh, to put everyone before you, even though you have suffered tremendously and are on the verge of dying. Christ has taught us how to love through suffering. That suffering is not a condemnation, but a virtue. If we can follow the example of Christ and suffer patiently with a humble and contrite heart, then through this we might know Him and attain salvation.

And remember "He that endures to the end shall be saved." Mt. 10:22

The Fault of Man (Tiktaalik and the Fossil Record)

"if tiktaalik was  discovered in a cenozoic era,It could have been a blow to evolution,but it has been discovered between the strata of fish and amphibians and the amazing part is if you look at tiktaalik anatomically it's head resembles a croc with a body of a fish which leads us to a logical conclusion that a fish is going out of water around 375 million years ago,again two seperate fields of science,geology and anatomy going in concordance with each other." - (identity of person concealed)




              I was not aware that having a resemblance to something proves anything. This shows an assumption or implied interpretation on the part of scientists. Claiming that tiktaalik's placement in the fossil record and its resemblance to both fish and crocodile proves evolution as a fact is quite a large assumption. If a person resembles a primate, does that then mean they are closer to monkeys than man? Variations within species does not prove that overtime a species changes into another, and it certainly does not prove evolution to be fact, no more than the existence of Christ proves His divinity. This argument, however, is considered a "typical creationist argument" a nice ad hominim attack in an attempt to villify any who dare question evolution. May I then use evidence that clearly supports my religion and the existence of Christ to prove that God exists? History, scripture, and archaeology are all in concordance with one another, so logically we can conclude that God is fact. I am only using the same logic that is used by this gentleman, and other scientists, to prove that evolution is fact.


            I am not trying to attack evolution itself, what I am criticizing is the mentality of those who feel that evolution is a fact. If you wish to believe it, I am not going to criticize anyone for that. However to say scientifically that something is a fact, when in reality you must assume these bones came from another species, would not be fact but assumption. If that is enough for a person to believe, then so be it, that is not my business, but to parade this as fact is downright absurd, just as many atheists believe that proclaiming God is absurd.

          What is most amazing to me about the fossil record is that it does not show, as many claim, a pattern of transitional forms but explosions of mass biological diversity without plausible evolutionary transition. There are many fossils appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, with no evidence to link it to any other previous fossil. At first look, a diagram of the fossil record looks to prove exactly what evolutionists have been saying, but upon further investigation we are left scratching our heads. Often times there are millions of years in between so called "transitional fossils", as if these animals lept from one variation to another over night, as opposed to a slow change over time.


           I love it when new "missing links" are discovered, because it's then--and only then--that Darwinists admit how precious little evidence had previously existed for the evolutionary transition in question. When reports came out of an alleged example of a fossil representative of the stock that might have led from fish to tetrapods -- Tiktaalik roseae -- evolutionists finally came clean about the previous lack of fossil evidence for such a transition:

"The relationship of limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) to lobe-finned fish (sarcopterygians) is well established, but the origin of major tetrapod features has remained obscure for lack of fossils that document the sequence of evolutionary changes."

(Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, and Farish A. Jenkins, "A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan," Nature Vol 440: 757-763 (April 6, 2006))

Authority Jennifer Clack even admits that before finding Tiktaalik, the large morphological gap between fish and true tetrapods was "frustratingly wide":

"It has long been clear that limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) evolved from osteolepiform lobefinned fishes3, but until recently the morphological gap between the two groups remained frustratingly wide. The gap was bounded at the top by primitive Devonian tetrapods such as Ichthyostega and Acanthostega from Greenland, and at the bottom byPanderichthys, a tetrapod-like predatory fish from the latest Middle Devonian of Latvia."(Jennifer A. Clack & Per Erik Ahlberg, "A firm step from water to land," Nature440:747-749 (April 6, 2006); emphasis added)

Again Daeschler et al. reiterate the lack of evidence previous fossils provide for a transition, focusing on deficiencies in what was previously considered to be the closest fish to tetrapods (see the diagram below as well):

"Panderichthys possesses relatively few tetrapod synapomorphies, and provides only partial insight into the origin of major features of the skull, limbs and axial skeleton of early tetrapods. In view of the morphological gap between elpistostegalian fish and tetrapods, the phylogenetic framework for the immediate sister group of tetrapods has been incomplete and our understanding of major anatomical transformations at the fish-tetrapod transition has remained limited."

(Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, and Farish A. Jenkins, "A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan," Nature Vol 440: 757-763 (April 6, 2006)

               Again, I believe the fossil record to be a matter of perspective. It is not "obvious" that anything evolved into another species over time and it is certainly NOT clear. We cannot even logically assume that evolution occurred, based on the fossil record, as demonstrated by Tiktaalik and the millions of years that separate its ancestors. These claims made by science are perspective being pushed as fact, and darwinian interpretation forced onto finds in all areas of science. Simply put, the fossil record does not prove evolution in any way shape or form.

Atheism Defined

First Thought    

  Many atheists choose to define atheism as a “lack of belief”, but is this really a proper way of defining atheism? According to the New Oxford English Dictionary, atheism is “the theory or belief that God does not exist.” Clearly these two definitions conflict with one another as one defines atheism as lacking belief and the other as a belief. The statement “lack of belief” the individual came to this conclusion without choice. For instance, if someone is unaware of, let us say, the Christian God then he very well cannot believe in the Christian God and therefore would lack belief because he is unaware. With the majority of today's atheists, they are well aware of, not only the Christian God but many other religions as well. How is it that they can lack belief in something they are aware of? The statement, lack of belief, makes it seem as if they have made no conscience decision to believe or not to believe. 

As humans we are distinctly different from animals in that we have free will. So while atheists do lack belief in God, they are aware of Him and His religion. When an individual is aware of something, they can then actively decide whether or not to believe. So for an atheist, who is aware of God, who says they lack belief in God, they are not giving the complete definition. Nobody defines themselves by what they do not believe in and nobody would define themselves by things they do not believe in and that they are not aware of. To be an atheist, in its true form, a conscience decision is made and therefore when this is done the person “believes that God does not exist.”

What of those who are unaware of God? While they would fit into the definition of atheism by atheists, a lack of belief, and technically would classify them as atheists, I see fit to distinguish them from those who made a conscience rejection of God. Let us say that a group of individuals who live on a secluded island and have no religion and no knowledge of God. By atheists definition this would mean that these people are atheists, however I disagree. These people have not been made aware of God and therefore do not have the capacity in which to choose to believe or choose to reject Him. According to St. Paul this would not matter “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them.” Rm. 2:14-15 Here St. Paul makes it very clear that even those who were unaware of God and His commandments, are still subconsciously aware of what is right and wrong, His law. Therefore since they have not actively rejected that, they cannot be equivalent to those who have knowingly rejected God. 

What of children? I have heard the argument made by atheists that infants and children are atheists, based on their lack of belief definition. This is a little bit different in that children lack not belief but the capacity to understand belief. Infants also cannot be considered atheists because they lack belief, in this circumstance the infant in not unaware of God, but lacks the ability to make a choice because the infant has not developed enough. Over time the infant becomes a child and begins to develop the capacity with which to understand and to choose. The simple fact is that to be an atheist one must choose to believe their is no God. Simply because someone lacks belief does not make them an atheist, the two are separate states of being.

Second Thought

Atheists reject God, yet they accept the idea of God. How can you lack belief, as they claim, if you believe in the idea of God just not His existence? So while they are atheist in the sense the do not believe in the existence of God, they still believe in the idea of God and therefore cannot “lack belief” completely in God. If we take the argument set forth by Richard Dawkins of a teapot that orbits the earth, would I lack belief in that? No. Mr. Dawkins has put forth this idea, let us assume he truly believes this, I do not have the capacity to disprove his theory but for all I know he could be right. Therefore I cannot “lack belief” in his theory no matter how absurd it may seem to me, so I have to take a position and say, I believe the teapot is not there, I believe your belief is wrong. So while you lack belief in the teapot orbiting our planet, you still have to believe it is not there on the basis that you cannot disprove it. 

      Religion has much more credibility than it is given, simply because it has been with us our whole recorded history. Because of this it must be taken seriously. Our ancestors should not be looked down upon for their religious beliefs, and should not be considered superstitious. After all some of them have created marvels to the likes we cannot even conceive of doing today with our advanced technology. The Egyptians built the great pyramids, and many other fantastic works of art. The Mayans also built spectacular monuments and were able to calculate precise astronomical events well into the distant future. The list is quite lengthy actually. So it is very unfair to perceive our ancestors as living in the dark ages or being primitive in any way, at least until we can accomplish what they have done. It is only fair to take the idea of religion seriously, even if only in a historical sense, we must acknowledge the possibility of a God or gods. Since the majority, without question, acknowledge the historical existence of religion and the role it has played in our history, there is belief, not lack of belief, even if only belief in the idea or history of religion.

Protestantism: The Belief and the Individual

         Is it acceptable to consider protestants Christian? This is something that I cannot answer with any amount of certainty. I do not know the hearts of anyone and therefore cannot pass judgment on my fellow human beings. What I can say with absolute certainty is that protestantism is not Christian. The individual being separate from the belief is subject to be judged only by God, the belief the individual adheres to, however, is subject to all for judgment. This may seem confusing so bear with me in my attempt to explain my position. As a former protestant I have the experience to understand and know the belief system and that I was truly seeking Christ and others are only seeking momentary bliss and self directed worship, not of the true God but a God they want to believe in. So it is possible that a person who is not Orthodox but is actively seeking Christ, be Christian. Again I am not a judge and have no place pointing out who is and who is not, and this is why I condemn the belief system adhered to by protestants and not the actual individuals associated with the belief. 

Why is it that some may consider protestantism to be Christian? I have been told that the Christology of protestantism is the exact same as the Orthodox belief, therefore protestantism is Christian. I think this tends to confuse our youth and those with little knowledge to Orthodoxy. Essentially we are to believe that the same result can be achieved through protestantism as Orthodoxy, both of which are polar opposites. Orthodoxy embracing suffering and rejecting the worldly and protestantism embracing politics, the worldly, often times material pleasure as well as the physical, and the list goes on. Since protestantism is much easier and apparently it is acceptable to many Orthodox to have faith only, why do we struggle the Orthodox spiritual life? If protestantism is Christian and we can achieve the same result as Orthodoxy, what we are doing is pointless and void of meaning. Protestantism cannot be considered Christian without making Orthodoxy relative and insignificant. “You believe there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe-and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:19,20) If we are basing our acceptance of protestantism based on their belief in God, then logically we must assume that the demons are Christians as well. St. James makes this plainly obvious in the verse above. He recognizes that it is a good thing to believe in God, but where exactly does faith alone get you? He states that “..even the demons believe, and tremble!” So the demons believe in Christ, and must understand Christology because they “tremble” according to St. James.

What exactly is the etymology of the word “protestant”? Protestant comes from the word protest which is defined by the New Oxford American Dictionary as: a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something : the Hungarian team lodged an official protest | two senior scientists resigned in protest.

• an organized public demonstration expressing strong objection to a policy or course of action adopted by those in authority : [as adj. ] a protest march.

2 Law a written declaration, typically by a notary public, that a bill has been presented and payment or acceptance refused.

Protestantism is to protest, but protest against what? In this case against religious authority, mainly the Roman Catholic Church or anything similar to it. Protestantism is to rebel against religious authority, the authority passed on to us by the apostles. How is it that we can accept a belief completely opposed to Orthodox Christianity in every way. Protestantism rejects everything that, according to Orthodox tradition and doctrine, makes us Christian. That is a contradiction of our own self and what Orthodoxy is, we accept protestantism as Christian, while protestantism actively rejects what is deemed as a necessity for salvation. 

By accepting protestantism we are creating confusion amongst our people and we cannot buy into this liberal ideology that “we all believe in God, who we share no common opinion.” Accepting this tells our people that protestantism is acceptable, their beliefs, their doctrines, and even their worship. How is this acceptable, but if protestantism is Christian then there is nothing wrong with leaving the church for the path of least resistance. The mind of our youth works like this, they are not mature and tend to find the easiest way to do things, as opposed to the right way of doing things. This is something that cannot be reconciled, why stay in the Orthodox church if indeed protestantism is one in the same, just much easier? Anyone who regurgitates this phrase that protestantism is Christian is contradicting themselves in the same sentence.

“And in one holy, universal, apostolic church..” (The Creed) If indeed you believe that protestantism is Christian, part of the same Christian church, then you must omit this phrase from the Creed and never say it. Protestantism is not one but around 40,000 very different denominations, which also contradicts Ephesians 4:5 “One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.” You must believe that there are many Lords, many faiths, and many baptisms. Simply because there are so many denominations that are distinctly different, their views on our Lord differ, their views on baptism differ, and of course they are distinctly different faiths. So this belief, that protestantism is Christian also contradicts the creed that we have said for centuries, and the Holy Scriptures. 

Let us look back in history and see just how protestants viewed our own Coptic Orthodox Church. Here are some correspondence from the Church Missionary Society about our church.

i. 1752, Moravian Brethren. "..in all their conversation to endeavour to direct attention to the essence of Christianity ... and teach them how, by means of Jesus' merits, they might obtain rest for their souls, true holiness of life, and evangelical liberty, which leave the conscience unfettered by human traditions".

ii. 1850, Church Mission Society. "The missionaries seem to follow almost too strictly the plan on which the mission was begun, to seek the friendship of the clergy, especially the higher clergy of the Eastern Churches, with a view of influencing them gently, in the hope that by slow degrees they would become convinced of their errors and themselves reform their respective Churches. But the system has failed... Individual conversions [of Copts] must be the aim, as the only means of prosecuting reformation".

iii. 1850, Church Mission Society. "Through the Church Mussuin Society missionaries throughout the Nile Valley, hundreds of persons had their knowledge of the way of salvation corrected, their faith directed away from their own works, to the death and suffering and obedience of the Son of God as the reason and ground of salvation from sin and its consequences".

iv. 1852. "Rev Mr. Leider has done good among the Copts, and the young men whom he has instructed refuse on conscientious grounds to enter the priesthood of this corrupt Church.... The American Missionary Association has resolved to establish a Mission among the Copts".

v. 1896. "[The Copts] must have had some glimpse of the light that illumines the soul and leads up to the throne of God. To help such a people [the Copts] to loosen themselves from the chains of superstition, and to come out of the dungeon of darkness into which their surroundings had imprisoned them, and lead them forth into the light and liberty of the Christian faith, is surely a duty and a Christian privilege".

 (Provided by Fr. Peter Farrington)

“For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been given to him by My Father.” From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.” (John 6:64-66) 

Some argue that taking this stance, against protestantism being Christian, will only push protestants away from Orthodoxy. I beg to differ. I do not believe it possible to turn someone away from Christ, since anyone that comes to Christ, must have been given to him by God, how can we stop that? What we can prevent is our own from being deceived and confused by protestantism. The idea that we can  prevent someone from coming to Christ, is absurdity. As the verse above shows, God gives this, who are we to take it away? The fact is we cannot, but we should not further delude those who adhere to protestantism by sending them the message that the true church sees them as equals. How can two opposites be equal? The individual may be sincere and honestly seeking Christ, but the protestant belief can never be Christian just as a lie can never become the truth.

My response to the statement "islam is a religion of peace".

With the recent bombing of our Coptic Orthodox Church in Alexandria, Egypt, I felt compelled to write something. I am not much for politics, but I feel this is a situation in which we have the opportunity to stand up and say something. For all of those who say that "islam is not violent" and is "a religion of peace", your wrong. It just simply is not true. You may know muslims and they may very well be very good individuals, that does not mean that islam is peaceful, it means that they, like most people, are ignorant of their own religion. This is not an insult to muslims, but a factual statement based on the teachings of islam. Many say "I have read the Koran", and if you did, then you are utterly confused. The koran is not an easy read, it is similar to walking into the middle of a conversation, the majority of the time the reader hasn't the slightest clue as to what is happening. This is the necessity of the hadith, which are a collection of writings by mohammed's followers recording what he did and said in his day to day life. This book helps "fill in the blanks". Without it the koran is one big jumbled mess. The hadiths are regarded as being just as holy as the koran, for the daily prayers are not commanded in the koran but by mohammed in the hadith.

With that being said let us extract some verses to look at their meaning. We must remember that unlike scripture, which is interpreted literally AND figuratively, the koran has always been interpreted in a literal form. I will merely present verses and let the reader decide for themselves.

What does islam say of women?

Tabari IX:113

"Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur'an."

Tabari I:280

"Allah said, 'It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.' Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid."

Bukhari:V1B22N28

"The Prophet said: 'I was shown the Hell Fire and the majority of its dwellers were women who are disbelievers or ungrateful.' When asked what they were ungrateful for, the Prophet answered, 'All the favors done for them by their husbands.'"

Qur'an 4:15

"If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death [by starvation] claims them."

What about torture and fighting?

Qur'an 5:33

"The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and make mischief in the land, is to murder them, crucify them, or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides...their doom is dreadful. They will not escape the fire, suffering constantly.

Qur'an 9:5

"When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

Qur'an 5:37

"The [Christian] disbelievers will long to get out of the Fire, but never will they get out there from; and theirs will be an enduring torture."

Ishaq:595

"The Apostle said, 'Get him away from me and cut off his tongue.'"

Ishaq:312

"Umar said to the Apostle, 'Let me pull out Suhayl's two front teeth. That way his tongue will stick out and he will never be able to speak against you again.'"

Qur'an 8:12

"Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: 'I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes."

Qur'an:9:112	"The Believers fight in Allah's Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."
Qur'an:9:29	"Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."

Qur'an:8:39

"Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."

Qur'an:8:39

"So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."

Ishaq:324

"He said, 'Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.'"

Qur'an:9:123

"Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you."

What of this "paradise" spoken of, with virgins?

Qur'an 56:33

"Unending, and unforbidden, exalted beds, and maidens incomparable. We have formed them in a distinctive fashion and made them virgins, loving companions matched in age, for the sake of those of the right hand." [Another translation reads:] "On couches or thrones raised high. Verily, We have created them (maidens) incomparable: We have formed their maidens as a special creation, and made them to grow a new growth. We made them virgins - pure and undefiled, lovers, matched in age.

Qur'an 37:40

Qasirat-at-Tarf (virgin females), restraining their glances (desiring none but you), with big, beautiful eyes. As if they were (sheltered) eggs, preserved."

There are several passages that speak of this "paradise" and not one of them speak of a woman who enters into paradise. Each passage speaks of a man entering paradise, perhaps because women do not enter paradise.

Bukhari:V1B22N28

"The Prophet said: 'I was shown the Hell Fire and the majority of its dwellers were women who are disbelievers or ungrateful.' When asked what they were ungrateful for, the Prophet answered, 'All the favors done for them by their husbands.'"

Are there any other verses? Yes, in fact there are several verses in the hadith in which Mohammed was shown hell, and not once did he see a man suffering in hell.

Are there any other verses speaking of hell?

Qur'an 4:55

"Sufficient for them is Hell and the Flaming Fire! Those [Jews] who disbelieve Our Revelations shall be cast into Hell. When their skin is burnt up and singed, We shall give them a new coat that they may go on tasting the agony of punishment."

Qur'an 37:63

"For We have truly made it as a trial to torment the disbelievers. Zaqqum is a horrible thorn tree that grows in Hell. The shoots of its fruit-stalks are like the heads of devils. Truly they [non-Muslims] will eat it and fill their bellies with it. On top of that they will be given a mixture made of boiling water to drink especially prepared. Then they shall be returned to the Blazing Fire."

Qur'an 74:31

"We have appointed nineteen angels to be the wardens of the Hell Fire. We made a stumbling-block for those who disbelieve and We have fixed their number as a trial for unbelievers in order that the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] may arrive with certainty, and that no doubts may be left for the people of the Book, those in whose hearts is a disease."

So you see, while many Americans are defending them, many who truly follow islam are laughing. Because of the ignorance of the American and the stupidity of the liberal, islam is defended, more so than the Christians who have been persecuted in Egypt for the last 1,400 years! What we need to understand is, there is a difference in denouncing a person and what that person believes. Love the person, despise their beliefs. Islam is based on violence, intolerance, and fear, explain it away all you wish, the teachings are there. I have only shown a fraction of the stupidity within their books. I urge you to change your position, to study the truth and stop being so ignorant.

I challenge you, the reader, to find the same kind of teachings in the scriptures, old testament or new testament. If you are inclined to believe that all religions are indeed the same then it would only be right that you do the proper research in order to validate that belief. I can promise you, there is nothing that resembles islam in scripture.