Khashafa wrote, "An insurgent told me that AQAP had invented a bomb called Qaria 1, that produces a huge explosion and throws many times more fragments than other bombs do, and causes fire when it explodes." He said that he was told that the bomb had been tested many times in Zanjibar. 

"AQAP has a nuclear weapon that no country has, and every member of the group is eager to use it," Khashafa quoted an AQAP member as saying. The AQAP member continued "It was the suicide missions that terrified Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Sheikh Dost Muhammad, the Taliban's official for Afghanistan's Nuristan province . . . . [is reported as saying] "Our Jihad [in Afghanistan] is On the Brink of Victory, Allah Willing, and It is Time to Reap Its Fruits" . . .

__________________

>>. . . having been a muslim for so long I can't avoid looking at these issue from both a muslim perspective and a westerner perspective. Almost three decades of islamic faithful devotion don't disappear just because I've left Islam — I can still think like a muslim and analyze problems from an islamic perspective. On the other hand, my European upbringing is something that has never left me, that wasn't wiped away only because I embraced Islam . . . .

To all those non-muslims who like to believe that Islam is a religion of peace and that islamic-related violence is the result of the misinterpretation of islamic teaching carried out by a minority, I'd like to invite them to reflect on some issues which come from my direct experience of Islam.

Everybody probably knows that muslims have 5 obligatory prayers each day. Each prayer has a set number of rak'at — ie: standing up, bowing down, sitting, bowing and then standing up again — so that in total there are 17 rak'at (2+4+4+3+4) minimum in a muslim's day — yet, with extra supererogatory prayers, the number of rak'at goes easily up to a 100 per day. In each rak'ah, during the prayer, the muslims recite Surat al-Fatihah, the opening chapter of the Qur'an. The text of this surah embodies the mindset of the muslim and it is a slef-reminder of the meaning of life and the conduct he/she should follow in this life.

So, let's have a look at the text of surah al-Fatihah:

(1) Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds,
(2) The Beneficent, the Merciful,
(3) Master of the day of Requital.
(4) Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help.
(5) Guide us on the right path,
(6) The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favours,
(7) Not those upon whom wrath is brought down, nor those who go astray.

These 7 verses remind the muslim where he/she stands in this life and the next one. It begins by praising Allah, the one God, Lord of the world, which is a reminder of the monotheistic islamic view. In the second verse, the distinction between God's attributes Beneficent (ar-Rahman) and Merciful (ar-Rahim) is subtle and difficult to render into English; some scholars said that the first refers to His mercy in this life, to all creatures, while the second refers to His mercy in the hereafter, therefore only to the muslims (including all true believers before Muhammad, which muslims consider as muslims)

Verses 3 and 4 remind the duty of devoting this life to obedience of His Will and relying on Him.

In verse 5 the muslim asks to be led on the straight path (as-Sirat al-Mustaqim) which is explained as being a bridge over the Hell fire that each muslim will have to cross in the day of Judgment, the success or failure in the task reflecting the conduct in this life.

Verse 6 clearly states that this path is reserved to those who are the chosen people of Allah, those who have been bestowed with the grace of the guidance of Muhammad and the holy Coran.

Verse 7 reminds the muslims that such a path is not the path of "those who have incurred in the Wrath of Allah" — ie: the Jews, which are considered wicked and treacherous people — nor "those who have gone astray" — ie: the Christians who are considered polytheists because of their distortions of monotheism.

Now, the point I am trying to make is that it only requires to think over these 7 verses to gain an insight into the muslim mindset. Can't you see how muslims prove their «being right» by «proving» others wrong? Muslims, basically speaking, magnify themselves by diminishing the Jews and the Christians.

This is not a minor issue — and surely it is not a minor one for the muslims, who every day, over and over again, recite these verses reminding themselves how lucky they are being on the right path, unlike Jews and Christians. And what is the proof that they are on the right path? Obviously, it is that they are not on the path of the Jews and the Christians!


. . . . Anyone who is wiling to study islamic litterature — ancient or modern, books, conferences or sermons — can't fail to notice the same pattern of surah al-Fatihah reproposing itself over and over again: the main concern is always the «treacherous Jewish enemy» altering the scriptures and conspiring against the muslism, and the «stupid emotional Christians» sabotaging the world with their emotions and lack of intellect. If you fail to see this pattern you must be blind.

This point can never be stressed enough! Christians don't go around diminishing others to proof they are the good guys. On the contrary, their arguments are based on the moral charecteristics of Jesus: they claim to be good because of the good things Jesus did, not because others were scumbags. The Jews either don't profess their being the chosen ones by demostranting that the rest ot the world are worthless . . . . 


When you look at the islamic prophecies of the end of the days, what you will find are depictions of a global conflict caused by the Jews who spread corruption on Earth until the point that Christian and Muslism will fight them in a Holy War in which the Mahdi will lead the Muslims, until Jesus comes back and leads both the Muslims and the Christian into the final Jihad against the Jews.

In a series of well know hadiths, Muhammad foretells that on the final days Jews will hide behind stones and trees but the stone and the tree will speak and shout "Oh Muslim, a Jew is hidying behind me!" and the Muslim will go and kill the Jew; except for a particular tree which is "the tree of the Jews".

Similar "prophecies" are fulfilling: how can you expect peace between muslims and Jews if the muslims have the expectations of a final war against the conspiring Jews? You must look at these prophecies as PRESCRIPTIVE texts, rather that descriptive  — because they shape the future by shaping the expectations the muslims have, and the muslims would never dissapoint their Prophet!


. . . . Many American might not like what I am saying, they might prefer to imagine that Islam is a friendly religion. But it is not so. Surely, many muslims might not share this worldview I've shown you, after all many muslims grown in the USA don't speak arabic and didn't study islamic «sciences» as I did — many did not even travel the muslim world, as a fact.

And I want to be clear on one point: we don't live with Islam, we live with the muslims. Islam is a set of ideas and practices, and without the people who carry and put into practice these ideas Islam would not exist. Every muslim has a choice regarding the level of devotion he/she might invest into his religion and how much to invest in the culture which he/she shares with the other people of his land. So, you will find lots of muslims who will reject any theory that sustains conspirancy theories of Jews ruling the world through a secret government, and so on.

But I warn you: the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad contain the seeds of a hate culture. History is the best witness to what I am saying. Plant these seeds in any land, and if you «water them» with enough knowledge of Arabic language and classical textbooks, you'll end up always with the same islam that we've seen in history from the time of Muhammad to the present day.

Don't be naive, muslims take very literally their sacred texts . . .>>
_____________

___________

>>The concept that Jesus is the Son of God is pivotal to New Testament theology, as we just saw from Rom 1, Col 1 and Heb 1, as well as John 3.

 A classic, ancient, representation of this bedrock principle of the Christian faith is the ICHTHUS -- fish -- creedal diagram and acrostic, as we may see from the following graffiti on a stone in Ephesus:

The Significance of the Ichthus, the Fish symbol, The Cross and the Wheel (HT: Plymouth COC)

That is, "Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ", (Iēsous Christos, Theou Yios, Sōtēr), which translates into English as "Jesus Christ, God's Son, Saviour":

I -- Iota -- Iesous -- Jesus

CH -- Chi -- Christos -- Christ (The Anointed, i.e. Messiah)

TH -- Theta -- Theos -- God

U -- Upsilon -- 'Uios -- Son of

S -- Sigma -- Soter -- Saviour

In short, the concept of Jesus as Son of God, God's Messiah as promised in the Old Testament/Tanakh is inextricably intertwined with the church's core gospel message. This can perhaps best be seen in light of a classic prophecy in Isaiah 7 and 9, which are backdrops for both the Daniel 7 prophecy as already discussed, and for the nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke:

Is 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


Is 9:1b . . .  in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations.
 
        2 ​​​​​​​  The people who walked in darkness
        have seen a great light;
        those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness,
        on them has light shined . . . 

       6 ​​​​​​​​For to us a child is born,
        to us a son is given;
        and the government shall be upon  his shoulder,
        and his name shall be called
        Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
        Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
       7 ​​​​​​​​Of the increase of his government and of peace
        there will be no end,
        on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
        to establish it and to uphold it
        with justice and with righteousness
        from this time forth and forevermore.
        The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

Especially as rendered in the KJV and/or from Handel's Messiah, these are very familiar texts indeed. But, their full force only comes out when we juxtapose them with the key prophecy in Daniel 7 quoted by Jesus at his trial: 

Dan 7: 9 “As I looked,    
                    thrones were placed,
        and the Ancient of Days took his seat;
        his clothing was white as snow,
        and the hair of his head like pure wool;
        his throne was fiery flames;
        its wheels were burning fire.
      10 ​​​​​​​​A stream of fire issued
        and came out from before him;
        a thousand thousands served him,
        and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him;
        the court sat in judgment,
        and the books were opened . . . .
 13 “I saw in the night visions,     
                    and behold, with the clouds of heaven
        there came one like a son of man,
        and he came to the Ancient of Days
        and was presented before him.
      14 ​​​​​​​​And to him was given dominion
        and glory and a kingdom,
        that all peoples, nations, and languages
        should serve him;
        his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
        which shall not pass away,
        and his kingdom one
        that shall not be destroyed.

We see here a prophesied Son of Man who comes in glory and sits at the right hand of the Ancient of Days, a virgin-born infant of promise as a sign, and one who is to be exalted as Supreme Judge and Ruler of an eternal Kingdom. No wonder, these have always been central to the Christian understanding of Jesus the Christ.
 
That is why, for those with opportunity to hear that name and know its significance, the recorded witness of Jesus and the apostles is plain:

 Jn 14: ⁶Jesus said to him, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except by (through) Me. [AMP]

Ac 4: ¹⁰Let it be known and understood by all of you, and by the whole house of Israel, that in the name and through the power and authority of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Whom you crucified, [but] Whom God raised from the dead, in Him and by means of Him this man [healed at the Gate Beautiful of the Temple in Jerusalem]  is standing here before you well and sound in body.  ¹¹This [Jesus] is the Stone which was despised and rejected by you, the builders, but which has become the Head of the corner [the Cornerstone].

  ¹²And there is salvation in and through no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by and in which we must be saved. [AMP]

Rom 1 :  ³[The Gospel] regarding His Son, Who as to the flesh (His human nature) was descended from David,  ⁴And [as to His divine nature] according to the Spirit of holiness was openly ^[a]designated the Son of God in power [in a striking, triumphant and miraculous manner] by His resurrection from the dead, even Jesus Christ our Lord (the Messiah, the Anointed One) . . . .

¹⁶For I am not ashamed of the Gospel (good news) of Christ, for it is God's power working unto salvation [for deliverance from eternal death] to everyone who believes with a personal trust and a confident surrender and firm reliance, to the Jew first and also to the Greek,  ¹⁷For in the Gospel a righteousness which God ascribes is revealed, both springing from faith and leading to faith [disclosed through the way of faith that arouses to more faith]. As it is written, The man who through faith is just and upright shall live and shall live by faith. [AMP]

 Heb 1:¹IN MANY separate revelations [^[a]each of which set forth a portion of the Truth] and in different ways God spoke of old to [our] forefathers in and by the prophets,     ²[But] in ^[b]the last of these days He has spoken to us in [the person of a] Son, Whom He appointed Heir and lawful Owner of all things, also by and through Whom He created the worlds and the reaches of space and the ages of time [He made, produced, built, operated, and arranged them in order].

    ³He is the sole expression of the glory of God [the Light-being, the ^[c]out-raying or radiance of the divine], and He is the perfect imprint and very image of [God's] nature, upholding and maintaining and guiding and propelling the universe by His mighty word of power. When He had by offering Himself accomplished our cleansing of sins and riddance of guilt, He sat down at the right hand of the divine Majesty on high, ⁴[Taking a place and rank by which] He Himself became as much superior to angels as the glorious Name (title) which He has inherited is different from and more excellent than theirs. [AMP]

1 Jn 5: ¹EVERYONE WHO believes (adheres to, trusts, and relies on the fact) that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah) is a born-again child of God; and everyone who loves the Father also loves the one born of Him (His offspring) . . . .   ¹¹. . .  God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.    ¹²He who possesses the Son has that life; he who does not possess the Son of God does not have that life.

    ¹³I write this to you who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) the name of the Son of God [in ^[c]the peculiar services and blessings conferred by Him on men], so that you may know [with settled and absolute knowledge] that you [already] have life, ^[d]yes, eternal life.

 In short, the Ichthus principle is part and parcel of the gospel. To be saved in response to the Gospel, we must penitently trust in and surrender to Jesus the crucified and risen Son of God, Saviour and Lord, who is the out-raying of the Father's glory, the exact representation of his being, who died for our sins in our place that we may have life for that look to the cross that repents, surrenders and trusts God based on his promises in his Word.

The scriptural testimony could not be more explicit.

And so, in a day and age that so often despises the testimony of the Word of God, this, too, is a sobering warning as to what we must do to be saved. Let us see this through the example of the gaoler in Philippi, who -- fearing that the prisoners had fled when a midnight earthquake broke the chains and set the prisoners free, so his life was forfeit -- had been about to "fall on his sword" rather than be shamefully and publicly put to death. But the apostles cried out to him, do yourself no harm for we are all here:

Ac 16: ²⁹Then [the jailer] called for lights and rushed in, and trembling and terrified he fell down before Paul and Silas.     ³⁰And he brought them out [of the dungeon] and said, Men, what is it necessary for me to do that I may be saved?

    ³¹And they answered, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ [^[d]give yourself up to Him, ^[e] take yourself out of your own keeping and entrust yourself into His keeping] and you will be saved, [and this applies both to] you and your household as well . . . [AMP]

We then see easily how this same principle leads to the triune understanding of God, once we factor in Jesus' point that the Spirit who was poured out at Pentecost is another Comforter of the same essential nature.

In turn, as we respond to the One who came in love, died for our sins and rose triumphant over sin and death, we receive the Spirit sent by the Father and the Son, who empowers us in life, love, service and witness. Thus, as Matt 28:18 - 20 instructs, we are baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit: the one and the many conjoined, reflecting the profoundly trinitarian roots of the whole concept and course of salvation. 

This may be illustrated by reminding ourselves of the picture of the shamrock, joined to the Ichthus symbol and leading to a decorated triquetra and the classic Shield of Faith diagram from Unit 3:

When we add the three-fold unity of the Shamrock to the ICHTHUS symbol of early Christianity, we arrive at the Triquetra, a triune symbol of God. This can then be expanded into the Triune Shield of Faith, which symbolically expresses the Nicene and Athanasian creeds

These diagrams help us to see what redemptive, Christian Monotheism is about, and what the significance of Jesus being Son of God is about.  At the same time, the resulting complex unity, redemptive concept of God incarnate as Messiah is strange indeed, so strange that it is such that we humans would not -- nay, could not -- have conceived it on our own: it is a wondrous mystery.

That is, it must be revealed, rather than discovered by human insight and thought [cf.1 Cor 1:17 - 25!]; which is exactly what Christians have always claimed.>>

______________

This concept of God as triune, embracing unity and diversity, can be further visualised in the famous Triquetra, which builds on the concept of the shamrock. (The interlacing three-lobed loop below is the triquetra proper, and each lobe is a vesica piscis, a fish-like shape made from two intersecting circles):

The Shield of the Trinity then captures the classic conception of God as triune more specifically, as we may see from a surprisingly good definition at Wiki (which simplifies the underlying Athanasian creed):

The Shield of Faith, C13

The definition, excerpted:

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, one of the most important in the Christian faith, teaches the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons (Greek: hypostases)^[1] in one divine Being (Greek: Ousia), called the Godhead.^[2]

Saying that God exists as three persons but is one God means that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way. Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well. "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient."^[3]  . . . .

Personhood in the Trinity does not match the common Western understanding of "person" as used in the English language—it does not imply an "individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity."^[9]

To the ancients, personhood "was in some sense individual, but always in community as well."^[9]:p.186 In the Trinity doctrine, each person is understood as having the same identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures.

The doctrine, of course transcends our ability to fully understand. But, in a quantum physics world, that is getting increasingly familiar. An electron or a photon have properties of BOTH waves and particles, and depending on how you interact, you will see one or the other sets of properties.

Sometimes, we say they are wavicles, or speak of a "duality."

But, waves rolling up unto a beach and tiny cricket balls do not exactly seem to be closely similar or easily reconcilable concepts! Be that as it may, on the best physical theory we have, and on a great many experimental results, we are indeed forced to see such things as -- yes, we must echo the Athanasian Creed here: incomprehensible -- wavicles: waves and particles that have a unified identity.

Indeed, we may be bold enough to say that that unity in diversity is a signature characteristic of the cosmos, reflecting its Triune Author. >>

_____________

Clip 1b: on how Patrick is said to have addressed the claimed incoherence of the Christian view of God, laying out the Shamrock Principle of mysterious but nevertheless undeniably real tri-unity:
____________

>> we may begin to see how 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 can make sense: in the case of complex unity, the whole is distinct from the parts or facets of that whole, so there is no logical contradiction here.

That is, the matter is much as the famous (but probably apocryphal) story of what happened when the pagan Irish challenged Patrick:

As a missionary in Ireland, St Patrick was challenged by the pagans to explain the concept of the Trinity. Being a former slave-shepherd in that same country, he did the unexpected -- he reached down and plucked a shamrock, a three-lobed leaf.

Standing back up, he then asked:

"How many leaves are there here? If but one, then why are there three lobes? If three, then why is there but one stem? If you cannot explain the mystery of the shamrock leaf, why then do you expect me to explain the far more profound one of the Trinity?"

And that, according to the story, is how the shamrock leaf became the symbol of Christian Ireland.

Whether or not the story is true, it goes to the heart of the issue of the concept of the Trinity: that the mystery of the One and the Many lies at the core of being, and that we will find this pattern as a signature of the Godhead in many aspects of the cosmos, including in our own lives and thought-world.

In particular, it at once lays to rest the jibe that Christians are fools who believe that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1, for, the shamrock leaf is both three and one at the same time, but not in the same sense, i.e. the question of logical contradiction strictly does not arise. 

For, the essence of a real contradiction is that contradictory statements or implications affirm and deny the same thing in the same sense.  

Thus, the Christian understanding that the unity of the Godhead is complex, not simple -- the one God is manifest in three persons who share a common Divine nature -- cannot be a contradiction, as the one-ness and the three-ness refer to quite distinct things.

Instead, what is being affirmed is that the oneness of God is complex rather than simple, just as the cosmos made by that same Triune God is a unified whole that embraces the vast diversity we see around us; e.g. water manifests itself as solid, liquid and gas, but it is the one and the same substance H-O-H all along. 

We may now elaborate through a diagram that builds on the Shamrock mystery and the Fish symbol used as an early symbol of the Christian faith in Jesus as Son of God and Saviour. For, the Greek word for "fish," Ichthus, can be used as an acrostic for, Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour:

The triune view of God as Complex Unity

This complex unity view of God is quite significant, as it means that the Bible-based, Christian, redemptive triune view of God, the ground of reality, offers probably the only serious solution to the vexed worldview problem of the one and the many: a world of diversity that is also one.  >>

____________

When it comes to discussing worldviews the starting point is the question, Why is there something rather than nothing?{6} As you may already know, there are three basic answers to this question. The pantheist would generally answer that all is one, all is god, and this "god with a small g" has always existed. Second, the naturalist would say that something, namely matter [in some form], has always existed. Third, the theist holds that a personal, Creator-God is eternal and out of nothing He created all that there is . . . .

When we look around at what exists, we see an amazing collection of seemingly disparate elements such as gasses, liquids, and solids, planets and stars, horses, flowers, rocks, and trees. And seeing all of these things we notice that they all exist in some sort of equilibrium or unity. How is it that such diversity exists in such apparent unity? And are we as human beings any more important than gasses or ants? . . . .

The pantheist's commitment to an all-inclusive oneness leaves no room for the real world in which people live, where I am not you and neither of us is one with a tree or a mountain. The naturalist has no problem accepting the reality of the physical world and the diversity present in it. However, there is no solid ground for understanding why it is all held together. In short, [as Francis Schaeffer often noted] there is no infinite reference point so we are left with the circular argument: everything holds together because everything holds together; if it didn't, we wouldn't be here to see it. What a coincidence! In fact, coincidence, or chance, is the only basis for anything. As a result human beings are left with an absurd existence . . . .

Trinitarian theism is the only option that contains within itself an explanation of both the one and the many while saying that people are important. In the Trinity, God has revealed Himself as the eternal, infinite reference point for His creation. Moreover, the Trinity provides the only adequate basis for understanding the problem of unity and diversity since God has revealed Himself to be one God who exists in a plural unity. Ultimately then, as Horrell concludes, "Every thing and every person has real significance because each is created by and finally exists in relationship to the Triune God." [Article, What Difference Does the Trinity Make?, emphases, links and parentheses added.]

OBJ 1: The Trinity is logically incoherent and nonsensical, of the order of 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.


ANS 1: As the Shamrock principle highlights, unity may be complex, and no incoherence occurs if the oneness and the three-ness involved refer to distinct facets or aspects of a unity, as they do here. The Scutum Fidei we have already seen depicts this in a traditional theological diagram, that in the medieval period was actually held to be the heraldic Arms of the Triune God:

The Scutum Fide dates to C13 and by C15 was seen as the heraldic Arms of God, being actually used in visual representations of spiritual warfare per Eph 6

OBJ 2: How could God be One and yet three distinct persons?


ANS 2: How could matter at microscopic level -- e.g. light and electrons -- be both particles [like tiny cricket balls] AND waves [like those headed for a beach], depending on how one interacts with it? We may not fully understand how these things can be about electrons and photons, etc, but we have good reason to accept them as so, hence the whimsical term: wavicle. Similarly, if we have good reason, per the resurrection in fulfillment of prophecy to accept the NT teachings, then even if we do not fully understand, we can see enough to know that this is not nonsense and is not the sort of thing we would make up. Why should we be surprised to learn that God is beyond our full ability to comprehend?


OBJ 3: How could God be the Creator of the cosmos and yet have a mother, brothers, and sisters? Did God demean himself and commit fornication with Mary?


ANS 3: We must not confuse two different understandings of God, simple vs complex unity. Once we can see that God may be Triune, that God the Son should be miraculously incarnate as a virgin-born human child (no act of sexual intercourse was involved . . . ) and then grow up as a man among men, is perhaps an astonishing act of willing humbling of oneself in love, to bring redemption to those who don't deserve it (and too often reject or dismiss it),  but it is not absurd. Not for the God who as to his essential nature is Love Himself.


OBJ 4: The Doctrine of the Trinity was cooked up by Constantine and the Council of Nicea, it has no genuine roots in original Christianity. The Gospels that would tell us better were ordered burned, but a few survived and so we know that traditional Christianity is a Constantine cook-up.


ANS 4: On the contrary, as we have seen above, the Nicene Creed is a faithful summary of the C1 NT. It would also be astonishing that the same church and leaders who stood the fire and sword of Diocletian and others, would now suddenly cave to the notions of a new Emperor in 325 AD, or his heirs over the next fifty years to the point where the creed was re-affirmed and expanded in 381 AD; to make sure that various distortions that had been debated over the intervening generation were rebutted.  It is the Gnostic documents that are being trumpeted on Cable TV or in speculative books and movies etc. that are demonstrably from C2 - 4, and present a syncretism of the deeply hebraic vision of the C1 NT with then current C2 - 4 Hellenistic ideas tracing to vulgarised Platonic thought, mysticism, magic, etc.  Besides, e.g. The Gospel of Thomas cites Diatessaron's harmony of the four Gospels, which was made c 170. Those who have allowed themselves to be misled by Dan Brown's "Fact" declaration at the beginning of his novel, the Da Vinci Code, or the like, are being naive, or are dealing in wishful, poorly researched thinking.


OBJ 5: Isn't the trinity just a thinly disguised pagan doctrine improperly imposed on the true insight that there is only one God?


ANS 5: Pagans simply did not teach the doctrine of a triune all-Holy Living God, Father, Son and Spirit, co-eternal, co-equal, omnipotent and the same essential nature, the God who is Lord, Creator, Goodness Himself, Love Himself, and Reason Himself. Nor, did it teach that God the Son, fulfilling the prophecies of Messiah, would come among us as virgin-born Saviour, dying and rising in fulfillment of the Hebrew prophetic Scriptures, and coming again as our Lord and Judge in the Last Day. Polytheism (as we saw in Unit 3 above) taught myths of many gods and goddesses, which in many cases were more or less magic-working, scandalously immoral and irresponsible super-men projected into the sky or to natural objects and phenomena of various kinds. In direct contrast -- as is tabulated here and as can be seen above -- we can reasonably and responsibly derive from the Bible text precisely the understanding of God that is found in the creeds. Indeed, we can responsibly argue that that is the understanding that is required by the cumulative witness of the texts.


OBJ 6: But, the words "trinity" and "triune" do not appear even once in the Bible, and 1 John 5:7 - 8 is a verse that does not belong in the Bible.


ANS 6: Does the word "monotheism" appear in the text of the Bible? Not at all. Does that therefore mean that the Bible does not teach that there is but one true and ever-living God? Obviously not. In short, the argument is a red herring distractor from the real issue: what is the cumulative witness of the Scriptures, responsibly understood, as to the nature of God? And, while the so-called Comma Johanneum in 1 Jn 5:7b - 8a seems to be a marginal note (perhaps dating to the C3 - 4) that was somehow copied into the main text of the Vulgate (some time in the middle ages), that does not mean that what it says -- " there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth . . . " [KJV] -- is false; nor, does it mean that the NT does not ground the triune understanding of God. More modern translations, once the history of the text was traced, therefore exclude the remarks. Moreover, when the triune understanding of God was formulated in the creeds, this was based on the major texts such as are cited above, i.e. the triune view of God has no need for the unfortunately incorporated marginal note. As well, we should note the way that key passages often speak jointly and tellingly of the Father, Son and Spirit, e.g.:

1. Matt. 3:16-17, "And after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him, 17and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased." [NASB]
   
2. Matt. 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," Note that there is one name and three persons." [NASB]
   
3. 2 Cor. 13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."[NASB]

OBJ 7: But, three persons cannot be one person; that's like saying 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. Why do Christians insist on turning prophets sent by God into partners to set alongside God as though they were equal to God? Is that not gross disrespect for God, idolatry and paganism?


ANS 7: This objection pivots on misunderstandings. The triune understanding -- as defined in the key historic creeds such as the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed in light of responsible study of the Scriptures -- is NOT asserting that there are three persons who are somehow just one person, nor that there are three gods, nor that prophets have been set up to be partners with the one true God, etc. Indeed, the latter creed -- spelling it out, step by step, after decades of back and forth debates that brought out the points most apt to be confused -- in part reads:

". . . the catholic [i.e. universal Christian] faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal . . . The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated . . .  The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal . . .  So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord. For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding . . . "

That is, the scripturally rooted, historic Christian understanding is that there is but one God, who is manifest in three co-equal, co-eternal, uncreated persons, who are not three gods, nor somehow just one person. Similarly, we understand that Jesus -- God, the only begotten and eternal Son -- humbled himself in loving concern and was incarnate among us at a particular place and time in a particular family, in order to redeem us, thus partaking of full humanity as well as being God in essential nature. Then, in willing submission to his Father, he drew into himself the full depth of the venom of sin, tasting the dregs of death for us; giving us eternal life in exchange and crushing the head of the Serpent. Then he seized the keys of death and of Hades, rising as triumphant Lord. This is not at all to be equated  with trying to mistakenly turn a hero or a prophet or even an angel into a god. That is a gross, ignorant or irresponsible and even venomous misunderstanding. One may disagree with it, but in so disagreeing s/he is responsible to correctly acknowledge what Christians believe today and historically have believed, on what basis.

So, let us instead again look at the Scutum Fidei (an apt visual summary that brings together some pretty hard to understand text in one powerful diagram), noting that -- hard as it may be to understand -- the proper sense in which the Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God is such that we must be fully able to talk of God, the Father, and of God, the Son and of God, the Spirit, while distinguishing Father, Son and Spirit as persons:

The Shield of Faith, summarising the creedal, Biblically based triune understanding of God in a diagram tracing to C12

OBJ 8: Jesus cannot be the eternal God because he was born at a given time, did not know all things, slept, grew in wisdom, said the Father is greater than I, etc. He slept, ate, thirsted, drank, and even died. How could an unchanging, eternal God be like that?

ANS 8: This pivots on overlooking a key aspect of the incarnation. Jesus was not half-god, half-man, a demigod or something like that. He was fully God, incarnate as fully man. As a man, he could be born into a family, grow up, eat, drink, sleep etc., and even die. But also, as he was a united person, his death had an eternal, and divine significance: he died as our sinless Saviour and substitute who tasted death for all of us, so that we may have the opportunity to receive eternal life from him. Slick, at CARM, has a useful summary:

 This type of statement is perhaps the most commonly raised attack.  Unfortunately, it fails to take into consideration the Hypostatic Union which states that Jesus had two natures: divine and human.  As a man, Jesus cooperated with the limitations of His humanity, was made lower than the angels (Heb. 2:9), talked about position, and was under the Law (Gal. 4:4), signifying Him being under legal obligations.  Therefore, Jesus would sleep, grow in wisdom, and say the Father was greater than He.  But, these do not negate that Jesus was divine since they reference His humanity and not His divinity. 

There are other verses which reflect His divinity, such as when He said, "Before Abraham was, I AM," ( John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14).  He was called God by God in Heb. 1:8, "But of the Son He says,'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever,'" and John 1:1,14 says that He is "...the Word was God...and became flesh..." This means that Jesus is both divine and human and as a man he would grow, sleep, and learn.  It means that Jesus had a human nature, not that the had no divine nature . . . .

Jesus died.  But, we know that God cannot die.  So, if the divine nature did not die, how can it be said that Jesus' sacrifice was divine in nature?  The answer is that the attributes of divinity, as well as humanity, were ascribed to the person Jesus.  Therefore, since the person of Jesus died, His death was of infinite value because the properties of divinity were ascribed to the person in His death.  This is called the Communicatio Idiomatum. 

OBJ 9: Paul distorted the original teachings of Jesus and created a new Christianity -- which should be called "Paulianity" instead. As a part of that distortion, he invented the doctrine of Jesus as Son of God.

ANS 9: And the C1 historical evidence for such a distortion is? Ans: nil. In fact, from the record in Acts and elsewhere, Paul persecuted the early Christians precisely becaue they were teaching that Jesus was the promised Messiah and end of days Son of Man of Daniel 7:9 - 14 who would sit at the Right Hand of God, and would be given Authority as Judge and ruler of the eternal Kingdom of God.  It is noteworthy, therefore, that at the trial, the first Christian martyr, Stephen:

 Ac 7:55 . . .  [Stephen,] full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” 57 But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together  at him. 58 Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

This is of course exactly the claim that had led the High Priest to tear his robes in declaration of blasphemy and led the controlling faction of the Sanhedrin to conclude that Jesus was thus worthy of death. The resurrection, therefore -- just as Paul asserts in Rom 1:1 - 5 -- is thus a direct Divine response to that accusation, a vindication of Jesus' claim to be the Son of Man.

But, there is more.

It is the ascended Christ who arrests Paul on the road to Damascus in Ac 9, and who tutors him in Arabia for three years. Then, when Paul had returned from his first Missionary Journey, a challenge was made to how he did not compel Gentiles to become Jews in order to become Christians. So, in Ac 15, the assembled apostles and elders in the First Jerusalem Council did not rebuke Paul for distorting the message of Jesus, but received, approved and commended him.

Going further back, when we look in Mark 2:1 - 12, we see where Jesus claims a Divine prerogative, the power to forgive sins, and backs it up by healing the paralytic man who had been let down through the roof.  Among many other things, such as declaring in Jn "before Abraham was, I AM."

Then, as both Peter and Paul faced martyrdom in Rome in the 60's, Peter's final epistle, 2 Peter 3:16, speaks of Paul's writings as being subject to being wrenched by the unstable and unlearned, just as is so with "the other Scriptures."

In short, the "Paulianity" claim is little more than wishfully dismissive thinking.

OBJ 10: The leading Christian Theologians themselves tell us -- including in bestsellers! -- that we need not listen to fundamentalist, Bible-thumping claptrap and proof texts. The Bible as we have it is not trustworthy, or a serious source of knowledge about God, much less the absurd, incomprehensible doctrine of a Trinity. The only sensible approach is to glean from the wreckage what reasonable insisghts and advice we can, then dismiss the rest as outdated anti-scientific, unreliable supernaturalistic myths and speculation.

ANS 10: This objection turns on an indirect attack against the scriptures and the associated Christian worldview. The main response is thus to point to the historic foundations of the Christian faith, and to the worldview foundations of same. However, in summary, there is no good reason (dismissive prejudices and anti-supernaturalistic question-begging do not count) to dismiss the basic accuracy of the NT as history, or to brush aside the fact of predictive prophecy, especially in Isa 52:13 - 53:12. On the strength of that, we have good grounds to take the Scriptures and their teachings seriously, as well as the testimony and experience of the millions of Christians over the centuries who have met God for themselves in the face of Christ, through trusting those same Scriptures.

As for the modernist theologians, perhaps Eta Linnemann -- a former Bultmannian who discarded her own publications in the rubbish on coming to actually meet and be transformed by Jesus -- has most directly set the record straight:

Theology as it is taught in universities all over the world . . . is based on the historical-critical method . . . . [which] is not just the foundation for the exegetical disciplines. It also decides what the systematician can say . . . It determines procedure in Christian education, homiletics and ethics . . . .

Research is conducted ut si Deus non daretur (“as if there were no God”). That means the reality of God is excluded from consideration from the start . . . Statements in Scripture regarding place, time, sequences of events and persons are accepted only insofar as they fit in with established assumptions and theories . . . . 

Since other religions have their scriptures, one cannot assume the Bible is somehow unique and superior to them . . . . It is taken for granted that the words of the Bible and God’s word are not identical . . . the New Testament is pitted against the Old Testament, assuming that the God of the New Testament is different from that of the Old, since Jesus is said to have introduced a new concept of God . . . .

Since the inspiration of Scripture is not accepted, neither can it be assumed that the individual books of Scripture complement each other. Using this procedure one finds in the Bible only a handful of unrelated literary creations . . . . Since the content of biblical writings is seen as merely the creation of theological writers, any given verse is nothing more than a non-binding, human theological utterance.

For historical-critical theology, critical reason decides what is reality in the Bible and what cannot be reality; and this decision is made on the basis of the everyday experience accessible to every person [i.e. the miraculous aspect of Scripture, and modern reports of miracles -- regardless of claimed attestation -- are dismissed as essentially impossible to verify and/or as merely “popular religious drivel”]  . . . .

Due to the presuppositions that are adopted, critical reason loses sight of the fact that the Lord, our God, the Almighty, reigns. [ Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), pp. 83 – 88 as excerpted. Emphases in original; parenthetical notes in square brackets.]

OBJ 11:"Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with him; but He forgiveth anything, else to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin most heinous indeed." With: "Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Messenger of Allah and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One Allah: glory be to him: (for Exalted is He) above having a son . . . " [Quran, An Nisa, Surah 4:48 & 171, Yousuf Ali]. And also: "Allah will say "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, `worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah"? He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden." [Q, 5:116]

ANS 11: This is clearly predicated on a misunderstanding of the Trinity. Jesus is not the biological son of God, but the Eternal Son who was incarnate by a miracle. he is not to be worshipped as a god, but acknowledged as the Living Lord, risen from the dead by God's power, in vindication of that Sonship. And, while Mary is indeed a fellow human being who in the Magnificat speaks of God as her Saviour, there simply  is no orthodox Christian Creed that has ever held that she is to be regarded as a god[dess] alongside the Creator of all Worlds. It is unfortunate that there has been in some quarters an excessive reverence for her, which does in some cases look far too close to idolatry to be proper, but that error has been staunchly corrected for many hundreds of years. Those who persist in such activities, should reflect soberly on the consequences, including as was just cited.

OBJ 12: ". . .  they uttered against Mary a grave false charge. (156) That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";― but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.― (157) Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. (158)." [Q, 4:156 - 158.]

ANS 12: This is of course a direct denial of the consensus historical record of C1, across the Christians, Jews and Romans, that Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was crucified, and died as a consequence of being so executed. The onward implication, of course is that the core substance of the gospel in 1 Cor 15:1 - 11 -- recorded c 55 AD -- is denied and dismissed, and that on the blanket claim that the reciter of the Quran was a prophet of God. It is enough to contrast the recorded testimony of the over 500 eyewitnesses, most of whom were alive when the record was made:

1 Cor 15: 3 . . .  I [Paul] delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. [ESV]

Dawkins, The God Delusion: “The God of the Old Testament [= The God of Israel . . . ] is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully . . . ” [Cf. Lennox- Dawkins debate, here. For a quick initial response to this sort of rhetoric, cf. CARM here and JPH of Tektonics here, here, here and here. Also cf. Vox Day's short book length critique of the new Atheists in a free to download format here. (Available from Amazon here.)]

1] The NCSTS Unit 2, on worldview choice and the general warrant for theism and for biblical Christian faith, with a pause at the JTS Intro Phil course, Unit 2 on a phil toolkit for worldview level thinking and warrant.


2] The NCSTS Unit 9, on the sins (real and imagined) of Christendom, and in response to the well-poisoning rhetoric we just saw, with a pause at the recent Matt 24 watch 150 KF blog post on Hitler, and a look at the Nuremberg investigatory documents on the Nazi agenda for the Churches, to help clear the air of a poisonous and polarising cloud of new atheist talking points. (The KF Reference web page sections on government under God and on the roots of and rise of modern liberty and democracy will help as well, on matters connected to government under just judgement, and on the balance of freedom and liberty required to maintain the civil peace of justice.)


3] The NCSTS Unit 1 on the foundational warrant for the gospel, and the JTS Intro Phil unit on modern theology, to reaffirm confidence in the gospel, the scriptures and the enduring validity of the discipleship call to turn to Jesus as Lord and Saviour.

4] The IOSE Introduction and Survey, to survey and address the origins myth of "scientific" atheism, evolutionary materialism.

5] The IOSE unit on key ideas and worldview alternatives connected to views on origins, to clarify worldview choice.

6] The IOSE Units on origin of mind, man and morality, and on origins science in society (i.e. ethics and related policy issues), to address the ethical issues implied by adopting as a dominant worldview in a culture a view -- evolutionary materialism -- that has in it no foundational IS capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT.


7] Vox Day's The Irrational Atheist (online here, print book here), as a specific rebuttal to the claims and talking points of several of the major new atheists, whose writings seem to be the engine driving much of what we are seeing on the ground or in the media and on the Internet. (The KF reference web page on selective hyperskepticism will help to deal with an underlying intellectual problem, especially the note on the closed, often angry, ideologised mind.)

The Prodigal is welcomed home (Pompeo Batoni, 1773, Wiki)

>>  11 And [Jesus] said, “There was a man who had two sons. 12 And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ [--> That is, he said in effect, I wish you were dead, and I wish to treat you as one dead; going my own way and doing as I please with what you have given to me . . . ] And he divided his property between them. 13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living. [--> For which, he had the "help" of those who sought to profit from is folly, and who encouraged him in the path of wrong]  14 And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to  one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. 16 And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything.[--> So, he was now under the domination, exploitation and oppression of the unjust, learning the hard way, the difference between the government of his Father, and the misrule of those who seek their advantage at the expense of others, indeed, this is a picture of satanic misrule and its destructive effects]

Rom 1:19 . . .  what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [ESV]

Rom 2: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking  and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil . . . 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good . . .  11 For God shows no partiality. [ESV]

THE HEAD of the Israeli army’s military intelligence branch, Maj Gen Aviv Kochavi, says Iran already has enough enriched uranium to make four atom bombs.

In a rare public appearance, he told the annual Herzliya security conference Israel has conclusive evidence that Teheran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

“Iran is vigorously pursuing military nuclear capabilities and today the intelligence community agrees with Israel on that. Iran has over four tonnes of enriched materials and nearly 100kg of 20 per cent enriched uranium – that’s enough for four bombs,” he said.

The technical capability exists, the general said, and the final decision to manufacture a nuclear bomb will be taken by one man.

“When Khamenei gives the order to produce the first nuclear weapon – it will be done, we believe, within one year.”

“In light of the realization of the divine promise by almighty God, the Zionists and the Great Satan (America) will soon be defeated,” Ayatollah Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader, is warning.

Khamenei, speaking to hundreds of youths from more than 70 countries attending a world conference on the Arab Spring just days ago, told a cheering crowd in Tehran that “Allah’s promises will be delivered and Islam will be victorious.”

The countries represented included Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Palestine and Tunisia, all of which have been involved in the Arab Spring.

In his remarks, Khamenei advised the youths to remain vigilant, stating that the Islamic awakening in the region has delivered several blows to the enemies of Islam and that all Muslims, despite their own historical and social differences, remain united in opposing the “evil hegemony of the Zionists and the Americans.”

Khamenei then claimed the current century as the century of Islam and promised that human history is on the verge of a great event and that soon the world will realize the power of Allah.

Many clerics in Iran have stated that Khamenei is the deputy of the last Islamic messiah on earth and that obedience to him is necessary for the final glorification of Islam.

[US Defense Secretary, Leon] Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily . . . 

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak may have signaled the prospect of an Israeli attack soon when he asked last month to postpone a planned U.S.-Israel military exercise that would culminate in a live-fire phase in May. Barak apologized that Israel couldn’t devote the resources to the annual exercise this spring.

President Obama and Panetta are said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold. But the White House hasn’t yet decided precisely how the United States would respond if the Israelis do attack. 

The Obama administration is conducting intense discussions about what an Israeli attack would mean for the United States: whether Iran would target U.S. ships in the region or try to close the Strait of Hormuz; and what effect the conflict and a likely spike in oil prices would have on the fragile global economy.
The administration appears to favor staying out of the conflict unless Iran hits U.S. assets, which would trigger a strong U.S. response . . . .

U.S. officials see two possible ways to dissuade the Israelis from such an attack: Tehran could finally open serious negotiations for a formula to verifiably guarantee that its nuclear program will remain a civilian one; or the United States could step up its covert actions to degrade the program so much that Israelis would decide that military action wasn’t necessary.

If we reach the point where the military option against Iran is about to become "use it or lose it," I highly doubt our government will lose it. I don't think any Israeli government - Right or Left - could risk the consequences of losing that military option and then God forbid Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

I don't believe the US can stop this with sanctions and I don't believe negotiations would be anything but a stalling tactic. I believe the US can stop it with A LOT of covert action that significantly degrades Iran's nuclear program, but then it won't be so covert, will it?

Even if we only manage to put Iran off for a year, that year could have a huge advantage: There may be a new President in Washington who is more willing to confront Iran.

Israel's defense minister says there is growing international awareness that military action against Iran's nuclear program will have to be considered.


Ehud Barak told a security conference on Thursday in Herzliya, Israel, that he senses a change in international thinking. He says world leaders are increasingly realizing that if sanctions don't stop Iran's nuclear program, "there will be a need to consider action."

Israel, like the West, believes Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Israel has been a leading voice in calls to curb the Iranian program. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful.

Israel has repeatedly hinted it is ready to attack Iran, saying that while it prefers a diplomatic solution, "all options are on the table."

Iran's suspected nuclear weapons installations are vulnerable to possible military strikes, Israel's vice premier warned Thursday, suggesting that underground bunkers don't offer sufficient protection . . . .


U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently said even the most sophisticated U.S. bunker-buster bombs [presumably, conventional explosives ones] aren't powerful enough to penetrate all of Iran's defenses.

Yaalon, a former military chief of staff, suggested Thursday that forces guarding the nuclear installations could be targeted. Referring to the debate over bunker-buster bombs, he said that "at the end of the day it's possible to strike all the installations."

In 2010, a Chinese worker could produce just 27% of what his/her American counterpart could for every hour worked. Not because Chinese workers are lazier, nor because American workers are a dialed-in group of high-efficiency automatons. No, American workers hold the advantage largely because of our head start on automation -- we've got better machines . . . . Rising wages in China further erode the advantages of setting up shop there . . . . 

[Now,] labor doesn't account for all of the costs of making a product. As the report's authors note, "Labor content ranges from only about 7 percent for products like video cameras to about 25 percent for a machined auto part." Therefore, since 2000, the tradeoffs for Chinese labor have been economically beneficial for global companies.

But while Chinese laborers are making steady gains in productivity, so too are their wages. BCG offers a succinct view: "Although we forecast that Chinese productivity growth will remain impressive ... output per worker will increase at only half the pace of the rise in wages." In other words, multinational corporations are going to be getting weaker and weaker returns on their investments in Chinese labor.

BCG (Fair Use): Chinese vs American workers -- Productivity vs Labour costs, 2000 - 2015 (estimate)

That could of course open the door to someone who is even hungrier and willing to chop canes more cheaply. But, what happens if someone invents a sugar cane harvester that beats what a village full of cane choppers can do?

A Cane harvester in action -- notice how few people are needed (Source: Earth U [Costa Rica], fair use. Note the EU proposals to modify the harvester to make cane harvesting play a bigger role in a green energy future. Notice as well their note on how dangerous manual harvesting is, with Brazil suffering about 100 deaths per year 2002 -5.)

Share price: US$ 493.42 (and rising)
52 wk range: US$ 310.50 - 497.62
Price/Earnings: 14.04
Market Capitalisation: US$ 460.05 Billion

Apple Inc., together with subsidiaries, designs, manufactures, and markets mobile communication and media devices, personal computers, and portable digital music players; and sells related software, services, peripherals, networking solutions, and third-party digital content and applications worldwide. Its products and services include iPhone, iPad, Mac, iPod, Apple TV, the iOS and Mac OS X operating systems, iCloud, and various accessory and support offerings, as well as a range of consumer and professional software applications. The company sells its products and services to consumers, small and mid-sized business, education, enterprise, and government customers through its retail stores, online stores, and direct sales force, as well as through third-party cellular network carriers, wholesalers, retailers, and value-added resellers. In addition, it offers various third-party iPhone, iPad, Mac, and iPod compatible products, including application software, printers, storage devices, speakers, headphones, and other accessories and peripherals, through its online and retail stores; and digital content and applications through the iTunes Store, App Store, iBookstore, and Mac App Store. As of September 24, 2011, the company had 357 retail stores, including 245 stores in the United States and 112 stores internationally. Apple Inc. was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Cupertino, California.

(i) We are finite, fallible, morally fallen/struggling, and too often ill-willed; but equally,


(ii) There is in our hearts the in-built voice of conscience that reflects the core morality written into the fabric of our being that tells us in no uncertain terms that we are under moral government and must respect and treat our neighbours as we would wish to be treated by them.

When President Bush used the term “Islamo-Fascism” to describe the jihadists who have attacked us, many complained that it reflected prejudice against Muslims. The Council on American Islamic Relations, a “civil rights” organization with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, protested that the term “feeds the perception that the war on terror is actually a war on Islam.” In fact, the opposite is the truth. As the Algerian sociologist Marieme Helie Lucas explains, the term “Islamo-Fascism” was “initially coined by Algerian people struggling for democracy, against armed fundamentalist forces decimating people in our country, then later operating in Europe, where a number of us had taken refuge.” In other words, the term “Islamo-Fascism” originates with moderate Muslims under attack from Muslim radicals, who murdered more than 150,000 Muslims whom they regarded as infidels in Algeria in the 1990s.

Helie Lucas is the founder of the group Women Living Under Muslim Laws, which resists the oppression of women by these fanatics. The term Islamo-Fascism, as she explains, refers to “political forces working under the cover of religion in order to gain political power and to impose a theocracy (‘The Law’ -- singular -- of God, unchangeable, ahistorical, interpreted by self appointed old men) over democracy (i.e. the laws -- plural -- voted by the people and changeable by the will of the people).”

The term “Islamo-Fascism” does not refer to a generalized “war on Islam,” but to a defensive war against the attacks of radicals who have murdered hundreds of thousands of moderate Muslims, Jews, Christians, gays, women and infidels since the first radical Islamic state was formed in Iran in 1979, and the modern global jihad was launched in earnest.

Moderate Muslims who hold to Islam as a religion but reject its political ambitions are happy to live in pluralistic societies that separate religion from the state. Moderate Muslims are willing to live with non-Muslims as equals. It is these Muslims who are the victims of the Islamo-Fascists and the natural allies of the West, which is also the target of the jihad.

The jihadists, who are waging this war, are exponents of political – rather than religious – Islam. They are indeed fascists, sharing crucial ideological convictions with historical fascist movements. [Cf also Horowitz's rebuttal to IslamIST push-back rhetoric, here.]

In a PBS interview, Imam Jihad Turk, director of religious affairs at the Islamic Center of Southern California, said it was acceptable to burn the Quran if it was in a state of “disrepair.”

“When Muslims want to respectfully dispose of a text of the Quran that is no longer usable, we will burn it. So if someone, for example, in their own private collection or library had a text of the Quran that was damaged or that was in disrepair, so the binding was ruined, etc., or it got torn, they might bring it by to the Islamic Center and ask that someone here dispose of it properly if they were unsure how to do that,” Turk said. “And what I’ll do is I’ll take it to my fireplace at home and burn it there in the fireplace. So I sort of take the pages out and then burn it to make sure that it gets thoroughly charred and is no longer recognizable as script.”

Spencer added, “You are supposed to burn a Quran that is worn out and you are not to write in it. Do they have a problem with the burning of the Quran? No, they do it all the time.”

Is the presented information: (1) accurate, (2) fair, (3) kind and (4) balanced?

• B to A: Consistent Score 13 - 16: a reasonably good to excellent service, but if errors keep on cropping up in any one square (e.g. cells 1a, 2c, 3b or 4d), there is a systematic problem (e.g.; 1a: inaccurate headings and leads, 2c: unfair or unjust characterisations of people or institutions, 3b: unkind (say, through sensationalism that exploits people's pain) presentation of stories, 4d: biased context), and corrective action is obviously needed. [The examples make the "structured common-sense" approach plain: do you wish to consume information from sources that are consistently inaccurate in how they headline and lead stories on issues and news? Or, from one that often slanders people or institutions it does not like? Or, tries to make money off sensationalising the suffering of others? Or, tells only half the story through suppressing materially relevant context? Etc.?]
  
  
• D to C: Consistent Score 8 - 12: This source has a major, systematic problem with at least one of the four requirements of sound, straight information, and is probably pushing an agenda counter to the interests of the people of God and the wider community. The source and the editorial policy require major reformation.
  
  
• F: Consistent Score 7 or less: Do not trust this source, period. Warn others about the evident distortion, bias, deception and agenda. If the source has significant institutional power and is unwilling to be corrected, make the creation of an alternative that will consistently correct and expose the errors and agenda a top priority.

^{James 3:5} . . . the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things.How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! ⁶ And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life,^[a] and set on fire by hell.^{[b] 7} For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, ⁸ but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison . . . .


¹³ Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. ¹⁴ But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. ¹⁵ This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. ¹⁶ For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. ¹⁷ But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. ¹⁸ And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

4:1 What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions^[a] are at war within you?^{[b] 2} You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. ³ You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions . . . 

Matt 7: . . .  ³Why do you ^[a]stare from without at the ^[b]very small particle that is in your brother's eye but do not become aware of and consider the beam ^[c]of timber that is in your own eye?
    ⁴Or how can you say to your brother, Let me get the tiny particle out of your eye, when there is the beam ^[d]of timber in your own eye?
    ⁵You hypocrite, first get the beam of timber out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the tiny particle out of your brother's eye.
    ⁶Do not give that which is holy (the sacred thing) to the dogs, and do not throw your pearls before hogs, lest they trample upon them with their feet and turn and tear you in pieces. [AMP]