Five Great Bible Covenants

Sunday 2 september 2018

by David Padfield

In form, a covenant is an agreement between two people and involves promises on the part of each to the other. The concept of a covenant between God and His people is one of the central themes of the Bible. In the Biblical sense, a covenant implies much more than a contract or a simple agreement between two parties.

The word for “covenant” in the Old Testament also provides additional insight into the meaning of this important idea. It comes from a Hebrew root word that means “to cut.” This explains the strange custom of two people passing through the cut bodies of slain animals after making an agreement (cf. Jer. 34:18). A ceremony such as this always accompanied the making of a covenant in the Old Testament. Sometimes those entering into a covenant shared a meal, such as when Laban and Jacob made their covenant (Gen. 31:54).

Abraham and his children were commanded to be circumcised as a “sign of covenant” between them and God (Gen. 17:10-11).

At Sinai, Moses sprinkled the blood of animals on the altar and upon the people who entered into covenant with God (Exo. 24:3-8).

The Old Testament contains many examples of covenants between people who related to each other as equals. For example, David and Jonathan entered into a covenant because of their love for each other—this agreement bound each of them to certain responsibilities (1 Sam. 18:3).

The remarkable thing is that God is holy, omniscient, and omnipotent; but He consents to enter into covenant with man, who is feeble, sinful, and flawed.

In this article, we want to examine five great covenants of the Bible.

God’s Covenant With Noah

Centuries before the time of Abraham, God made a covenant with Noah, assuring Noah that He would never again destroy the world by flood (Gen. 9).

Noah lived at a time when the whole earth was filled with violence and corruption—yet Noah did not allow the evil standards of his day to rob him of fellowship with God. He stood out as the only one who “walked with God” (Gen. 6:9), as was also true of his great-grandfather Enoch (Gen. 5:22). “Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations” (Gen. 6:9). The Lord singled out Noah from among all his contemporaries and chose him as the man to accomplish a great work.

When God saw the wickedness that prevailed in the world (Gen. 6:5), He told Noah of His intention to destroy the ancient world by a universal flood. God instructed Noah to build an ark (a large barge) in which he and his family would survive the universal deluge. Noah believed God and “according to all that God commanded him, so he did” (Gen. 6:22).

Noah is listed among the heroes of faith. “By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith” (Heb. 11:7).

With steadfast confidence in God, Noah started building the ark. During this time, Noah continued to preach God’s judgment and mercy, warning the ungodly of their approaching doom. Peter reminds us of how God “did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly” (2 Pet. 2:5).

Noah preached for 120 years, apparently without any converts. At the end of that time, “when … the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah … eight souls were saved through water” (1 Pet. 3:20).

People continued in their evil ways and ignored his pleadings and warnings until the flood overtook them. When the ark was ready, Noah entered in with all kinds of animals “and the Lord shut him in” (Gen. 7:16), cut off completely from the rest of mankind.

Noah was grateful to the Lord who had delivered him from the flood. After the flood, he built an altar to God (Gen. 8:20) and made a sacrifice, which was accepted graciously, for in it “the Lord smelled a soothing aroma” (Gen. 8:21).

The Lord promised Noah and his descendants that He would never destroy the world again with a universal flood (Gen. 9:15). The Lord made an everlasting covenant with Noah and his descendants, establishing the rainbow as the sign of His promise (Gen. 9:1-17).

Another part of the covenant involved the sanctity of human life, i.e., that “whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man” (Gen. 9:6). Every time we see a rainbow today we are reminded of that agreement—this covenant has not been done away with. As long as God still sends rainbows after a storm, capital punishment will still be a part of God’s law for the human race.

God’s Covenant With Abraham

In making a covenant with Abraham, God promised to bless his descendants and make them His own special people—in return, Abraham was to remain faithful to God and to serve as a channel through which God’s blessings could flow to the rest of the world (Gen. 12:1-3).

Abraham’s story begins with his passage with the rest of his family from Ur of the Chaldeans in ancient southern Babylonia (Gen. 11:31). He and his family moved north along the trade routes of the ancient world and settled in the prosperous trade center of Haran, several hundred miles to the northwest.

While living in Haran, at the age of 75, Abraham received a call from God to go to a strange, unknown land that God would show him. The Lord promised Abraham that He would make him and his descendants a great nation (Gen. 12:1-3). The promise must have seemed unbelievable to Abraham because his wife Sarah was childless (Gen. 11:30-31; 17:15). Abraham obeyed God with no hint of doubt or disbelief.

Abraham took his wife and his nephew, Lot, and went toward the land that God would show him. Abraham moved south along the trade routes from Haran, through Shechem and Bethel, to the land of Canaan. Canaan was a populated area at the time, inhabited by the war-like Canaanites; so, Abraham’s belief that God would ultimately give this land to him and his descendants was an act of faith.

The circumstances seemed quite difficult, but Abraham’s faith in God’s promises allowed him to trust in the Lord. In Genesis 15, the Lord reaffirmed His promise to Abraham. The relationship between God and Abraham should be understood as a covenant relationship—the most common form of arrangement between individuals in the ancient world. In this case, Abraham agreed to go to the land that God would show him (an act of faith on his part), and God agreed to make Abraham a great nation (Gen. 12:1-3).

In Genesis 15 Abraham became anxious about the promise of a nation being found in his descendants because of his advanced age—and the Lord then reaffirmed the earlier covenant. A common practice of that time among heirless families was to adopt a slave who would inherit the master’s goods. Therefore, because Abraham was childless, he proposed to make a slave, Eliezer of Damascus, his heir (Gen. 15:2). But God rejected this action and challenged Abraham’s faith: “‘Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.’ And He said to him, ‘So shall your descendants be'” (Gen. 15:5).

Abraham’s response is the model of believing faith: “And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness” (Gen. 15:6). The rest of Genesis 15 consists of a ceremony between Abraham and God that was commonly used in the ancient world to formalize a covenant (Gen. 15:7-21). God repeated this covenant to Abraham’ son, Isaac (Gen. 17:19). Stephen summarized the story in the book of Acts 7:1-8.

The Mosaic Covenant

The Israelites moved to Egypt during the time of Joseph. A new Pharaoh came upon the scene and turned the Israelites into common slaves. The people cried out to the God of their forefathers. “So God heard their groaning, and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob” (Exo. 2:24). After a series of ten plagues upon the land of Egypt, God brought the Israelites out “of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand” (Exo. 32:11).

Three months after leaving the land of Egypt, the children of Israel camped at the base of Mount Sinai (Exo. 19:1). God promised to make a covenant with the Israelites (Exo. 19:3-6). Before they even knew the conditions of the contract, the people agreed to abide by whatever God said (Exo. 19:8).

This covenant was between God and the people of Israel—you and I are not a party in this contract (and never have been). The Ten Commandments are the foundation of the covenant, but they are not the entirety of it.

After giving the first ten commands, the people asked the Lord to speak no more (Exo. 20:18-20). Moses then drew near to the presence of God to hear the rest of the covenant (Exo. 20:21). After receiving the Law, Moses spoke the words of the covenant to all of the people, and the people agreed to obey (Exo. 24:4).

Moses then wrote the conditions of the covenant down, offered sacrifices to God, and then sprinkled both the book and the people with blood to seal the covenant (Exo. 24:8). This covenant between God and the people of Israel was temporary—God promised a day when He would make a new covenant, not only with Israel but also with all mankind. “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jer. 31:31-34).

God’s Covenant With David

Another covenant was between God and King David, in which David and his descendants were established as the royal heirs to the throne of the nation of Israel (2 Sam. 7:12-13).

This covenant agreement reached its fulfillment when Jesus, a descendant of the line of David, was born in Bethlehem. The gospel of Matthew starts off by showing Christ was “the Son of David” (Matt. 1:1), and thus He had the right to rule over God’s people. Peter preached that Jesus Christ was a fulfillment of God’s promise to David (Acts 2:29-36).

The Covenant Of Christ

The New Testament makes a clear distinction between the covenants of the Mosaic Law and the covenant of Promise. The apostle Paul spoke of these “two covenants,” one originating “from Mount Sinai,” the other from “the Jerusalem above” (Gal. 4:24-26). Paul also argued that the covenant established at Mount Sinai was a “ministry of death” and “condemnation” (2 Cor. 3:7, 9).

The death of Christ ushered in the new covenant under which we are justified by God’s grace and mercy—it is now possible to have the true forgiveness of sins. Jesus Himself is the Mediator of this better covenant between God and man (Heb. 9:15). Jesus’ sacrificial death served as the oath, or pledge, which God made to us to seal this new covenant.

The “new covenant” is the new agreement God has made with mankind, based on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The concept of a new covenant originated with the promise of Jeremiah that God would accomplish for His people what the old covenant had failed to do (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 11:7-13). Under this new covenant, God would write His Law on human hearts.

When Jesus ate the Passover meal at the Last Supper with His disciples, He spoke of the cup and said, “this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Luke’s account refers to this cup as symbolizing “the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20).

When Paul recited the account he had received concerning the Last Supper, he quoted these words of Jesus about the cup as “the new covenant in My blood” (1 Cor. 11:25).

The Epistle to the Hebrews gives the new covenant more attention than any other book in the New Testament. It quotes the entire passage from Jeremiah 31:31-34 (Heb. 8:8-12). Jesus is referred to by the writer of Hebrews as “the Mediator of the new covenant” (Heb. 9:15; 12:24). The new covenant, a “better covenant … established on better promises” (Heb. 8:6), rests directly on the sacrificial work of Christ.

The new covenant accomplished what the old could not, i.e., the removal of sin and cleansing of the conscience (Heb. 10:2, 22). The work of Jesus Christ on the cross thus makes the old covenant “obsolete” (Heb. 8:13) and fulfills the promise of the prophet Jeremiah.

Conclusion

Unlike the Mosaic covenant, the new covenant of Jesus Christ is intended for all mankind—regardless of race. In the Great Commission Jesus sent His apostles into the entire world so they could tell the story of the cross (Luke 24:46-47; Matt. 28:18-20). The gospel call extends to every man and woman today!

Are we motivated to defend ourselves against Muhammad’s soldiers?

August 30, 2018

The Prophet Muhammad forced his neighbors to believe in him by the sword. In Norway, people in hijab, burka, niqab and other religious Islamic uniforms would do the same if they had the opportunity. The question is, is Norway well motivated to defend us against Muhammad’s soldiers?

Leyla Hasic is a spokeswoman in the Islamic Council of Norway and uses Niqab, and Bjørn Harald Hegreberg Garborg leads the student parliament at Oslo Met. Both are engaged in the discussion of banning face-covering garments.

I think it’s sad that Leyla Hasic, in a young and strong age, makes a spokeswoman for ideologies that hold women down, instead of enlightening the world with the love of Allah. She could fight for something more important. However, a conservative Islamist will always confirm the Quran’s narratives that women are slaves both here on earth and up there with Allah. Unfortunately.

Fresh air is needed in conservative environments. Such environment is hazardous to health. You get sick without noticing it. The dark forest that the religious leaders have pushed millions of young people deep into is full of poisonous plants.

I wish that Leyla Hasic and others in her situation could be released from captivity. There are many who have locked themselves into Islam’s cage in the hope of a better life up there with Allah. Some people feel outside and feel welcome in the community they live in. One may feel that one’s voice is not being listened to, and then it may be tempting to choose an aggressive way of attention. Like to fully cover.

If you want to show the world who you are, Leyla Hasic, you must show yourself. Tell about your dreams, thoughts and ideas by making yourself visible as the sun. Let your heart warm the hearts of others with true love. It will make Allah very happy.

The train still has not left you, and you have many opportunities to fill the days with good deeds. Just open the heart completely and let the love flow. You do not have to hide behind big black clothes. It gives no pleasure.

Garborg, the chairman of the student parliament at Oslo Met, will meet in Finland’s hood if someone is thrown out of teaching because of the ban on face-covering garments. If this is correct, it’s just sad – a misunderstood “solidarity”.

Bjørn Harald Hegreberg Garborg needs help filling the heart and the brain with knowledge of Islam. It is dangerous to believe in the Islamists’ version of religion. They condemn an ​​unfeigned Islam, and it’s just nonsense when they talk about mercy on women.

An example: In Egypt, female television programmers were forced to use hijab. Many of them were threatened with life if they threw the hijab. Killing in Allah’s name happens to women all over the world on a daily basis. In Iraq, Christian women are killed, including in Basrah where I come from.

The Hijab phenomenon has many historical explanations. Throughout the ages, the garment has been used to signal different things; like the woman do not want to marry that you are over a certain age, that you are not interested in sex that the men should abstain that the woman is not for a slave for sale or as protection for example to hide from watchers while in the mosque, etc. The Islamic uniforms we now see most were created by Umar ibn al-Khattab (581-644), not by Allah.

In Umar ibn al-Khattab’s time, women who did not use hijab were not free women. They were women who could be sold and bought entirely legally by businessmen, powermen and the rich. Do Norwegians know that Umar ibn al-Khattab ran for women who went without hijab and whipped them in front of everyone on Mekkas square? Many Muslims do not know that either. Many should therefore take the time to read the Hadiths.

Many Norwegians try to be kind, warmhearted, merciful, democratic and liberal by defending the Islamic uniforms. Do Norwegians understand that their ignorant attitudes harm us who have fled from the false values ​​of Islamists?

Every time we see men in holy jihadist uniforms (a kind of robe that stops in the bones of non-Muslim countries), we know that these men send a message that they believe that the society in which we live is a horde community. Let us not have to accept that Islamists define us as uncle and unbelief.

I hope my chronicle gets Norwegian politicians, as well as young men and women who blindly listen to religious leaders to use their heads. I ask you to focus on the truth and stop taking into account what conservative religious people want and want. Let’s be a free society that does not force people into a crowded cage of hijabs, burcas, niqabs and other religious uniforms.

Hareide disagrees with his own deputy head of the Parliament on homosexuality

Thursday, 23 August 2018

KrF’s breakdown Hans Fredrik Grøvan believes that the gay marriage should have been undone. Now KrF leader Knut Arild Hareide clarifies that he disagrees.

It has created waves in KrF that the party’s family and marriage spokesman Geir Jørgen Bekkevold was a priest in a gay wedding this summer. It has been so far that people in central office have asked the spokesman to go and over 100 members have signed out.

The prominent KrF tops and parliamentary deputy Hans Fredrik Grøvan have said that the wedding ceremony “should have been undone”. KrF leader Knut Arild Hareide has not yet wanted to go out and support Bekkevold and the wedding ceremony.

But at the NRK Political Quarter radio program on Thursday morning, Hareide says he has full confidence in Bekkevold as a family spokesperson.

“This is a decision that Geir Jørgen Bekkevold takes as a priest. And to get up in what he does as a priest, I think it’s going to be completely wrong, “Hareide told the NRK program.
– Your agent says that this should have been recorded internally in the party and that it should be unsettled, ask the programmer.

– I disagree with that.

The truth about Islam

Thursday 2 August 2018

 Islam does not mean peace. Mark Durie, specializing in Islamic language, says in the Independent Journal article that Islam was first called the religion of peace as late as 1930. This became more popular in the 70’s since Muslims would present their religion to the West. The Qur’an never says that Islam is the religion of peace.

Nor does this do the tradition of Muhammad. The Arabic word Islam means “surrender.” It is attached to the word, “salaam”. Durie thinks this is a military metaphor that comes from aslama meaning “surrender”. This means that one is surrendered in warfare. That was the way Muhammad used the word. He said to his neighbor, “If you surrender, you will have peace”.

Peace then comes after the war, as one has surrendered to Islam. According to David Cook, “Understanding Jihad”, Muhammad was directly involved in 86 battles. This is more than 9 battles a year. Afterwards, Islam spread through the sword. To quote Nabeel directly, “Apart from the first thirteen years of Islamic history, when Muslims were not enough to fight, Islam has always had an elaborate practice or doctrine of war.”

So war is the only thing Islam can promise. The war against the unbelievers, ie us.

The men of faith in Japan

Thursday 2 August 2018

Did you know that among the world’s least reached peoples, are the Japanese considered the second largest?

The coutry counts about 127 million people. Even though there has been a mission in the country for more than 50 years, less than one percent of them have received Jesus. Should we conclude that it is an impossible task to reach the Japanese with the gospel? No, of course not. We will still run a mission in Japan. But perhaps it might be useful to think of some new thoughts for how we can go forward to reach more Japanese with the message of Jesus.

The situation today is that 7 out of 10 Christian Japanese are women. We in the Norea Medieval Mission have recently prayed to God that He will show us how to go forward to bring more Japanese men to Jesus. It is He who by His Holy Spirit ultimately calls people to repentance. But all who have received Jesus and who have become His followers on earth are in different ways Jesus’ hands and feet.

Japanese men often have strong loyalty to the workplace, much like soldiers have to their superiors. High labor standards are basically positive, but only up to a certain point. When the loyalty of employers and colleagues becomes so extreme that it is at the expense of the relationships of their own family, it becomes unhealthy. Ultimately, such an attitude can be directly destructive both for the individual family and for society as a whole.

Having discussed the situation in Japan with national Christian and foreign missions to the country, it has begun to draw an interesting picture. Could it be thought that the key to reaching Japanese men with the gospel of Jesus could be to establish small groups of people? We think so. Therefore, we are now launching Men of Belief in Japan. The study plan, which is specifically aimed at men, has been thoroughly tested and tested in a number of countries. Call for repentance and follow-up of Jesus goes hand in hand with the profound of Christian values ​​for family life and society. Teaching is disseminated both through written material and via radio and the Internet.

We have good partners in Japan who are ready to launch the Men of Belief as soon as the material is translated into Japanese, and they expressly believe that this may be a key to reaching out with the gospel in this country. Will you stand with us in prayer that this commitment will succeed and that the work will lead to a spiritual breakthrough in Japan? Imagine, in this way, that we could help reach the world’s second largest undead group of people with the gospel of Jesus!

Some truths about Islam

Sunday 15 july 2018

Islam is the ideology of evil. Being a slave of the moon god and submitting to his regulation is Satan’s bright side. He was the light angel in heaven before he was thrown out. Today, he blends many with his false light.

Islam is an instrument for bringing the world into a darkness that no one has ever seen before. I fight Islam with prayer and Muslims are saved in many Muslim countries. Christians throughout the world pray for salvation for Muslims.

The battle between Sunni and Shia is proof of Satan’s wrath against those who interpret Islam wrong. Other Muslims such as Ahmadiyya are banned by Shia and Sunni. So Islam is a hedonistic belief with many ideological principles that will make it impossible to lead Islam to world domination.

Gay love is a sin

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

The church must make a settlement with gay hatred in Christian communities
Faith can move mountains, but who moves the faith?

If the church believes serious about being a church for all, it must make a settlement against the gay hatred that characterizes many Christian communities. It does not help her hands and lean back on her own marriage decision.

Fortunately, the Church has come up with better thoughts than preaching death and eternal spoilage over people who love some of the same sex. Unfortunately, there are plenty of dark powers that behind closed prayer doors condemn gay practice, paralyzed marriage and believe that the family is reserved for heterosexual couples. In order to fight this, we have to take the debate on Christianity’s own premises. The church must make a settlement with the homophathy in many Christian communities.

We have all read from them: Good adults, Christian, white men, happy to live in a charming little village along the coast in southwestern Norway or in northern Norway. They share in common that they are strongly engaged in or lead a reactionary Christian environment. In the newspaper slots and the church magazines they call out the wrath of God and a good dose of oldest condemnation of people who will “destroy the foundation of society: the family.”

In the comments fields are the pitiful provocators, but in their environments they are the king on the hill. Both places push the Bible and the word of God in front of them.

Their starting point is always the same: We can read in your book of Moses and Paul’s words about all possible suffering and misery that will hit those who dare to defy the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual intercourse. By virtue of the Bible, they spread their message, but they rarely encounter theological contamination. It’s no use so all world celebrities, politicians, commentators and bloggers had taken a total distance from the statements. Doomsday preachers and celebrities speak neither in the same language nor to the same audience.

I’ve seen the consequences. Young and old who are driven to the edge of the dungeon to grasp Christianity and “one true faith.” Women and men who live a life of eternal denial or a double life next to spouse and children. For some of them the pressure is too big. Some end their relationship with the church, while others end life. Where are the moral philosophers of the Christian Movement then? Where are those who speak of charity, mercy and mercy? Where are the critical voices that ask “We went too far”?

For too many years, the church has despised and denied the overthrows of gay and sexual minorities as a global Christian world order has been committed for centuries. Things are on the way, but the majority of the world’s churches have not seen the light. Not everyone here on earth.

Why does not the church and the Christian people make a final settlement with this kind of theological thinking? Where are the church’s employees, bishops and priests? Where are the Christian editors in our country and the day, or are the birds of prey? All we hear is the deafening silence.

On a case-by-case basis, discrimination against gay and sexual minorities remains unprecedented. The examples are many: In the Salvation Army, gays are excluded from participating in church work and faith. Normally, employees risk losing their jobs because of their partner, while the MorFarBarn organization is leading the attack on gay parents and homosexual marriage together with 36 other organizations and churches.

Faith can move mountains, but who moves the faith? The Bible and the understanding of it have always been interpreted into the time we live in. Also in the church there are voices that make a blow for a more human view of skeptic love. It’s all reason to shout. Yet they are so little and apparently they have to fight the fight in their own rows.

With its silence, the church and the Christian people communicate an attitude to attitudes and theological thinking that has a hateful and, at best, discriminatory character. One can quickly get the impression that Kristen Norway believes that God’s love and mercy are just as great that it fits into the bedroom to discriminate against you and the partner you have chosen. If that is not the case, they should make a settlement with the homohate on Christianity’s own premises.


My comment about it is:

Everyone must understand that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible. It is not for discussion sometime. The Norwegian Church has become political and no longer follows the Bible. I’ve signed off a long time ago. Many free churches in Norway follow the Bible better and have taken a stand on this question. I feel that time has come to choose side, and I choose the Bible in this. Homosexuality is a sin and will always be. But everyone has forgotten that God hates sin but loves the sinner. Therefore, we are equal to God. But practicing gay is to fall off that priviledge.

If Islam were a Violent Religion Then All Muslims Would Be Violent

The Truth:

This argument presumes that it is valid to make assumptions about an ideology based on the behavior of adherents. However, if this were the case, then we would have to conclude that Islam is different and dangerous. True, most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim. If Islam is a religion of peace, why is it the only one that consistently produces religiously-motivated terrorist attacks each and every day of the year?

Rather than answer a question with a question, let’s just say that the reason most Muslims don’t kill is that, regardless of what Islam may or may not teach, it’s wrong to kill over religion. Most people know deep down that if God wanted people dead for not believing in Him, then He’s perfectly capable of doing the job Himself.

Here’s a similar question with identical logic to the “If the Quran taught violence then all Muslims would be violent” argument:

“If the Quran taught that a thief’s hand should be cut off, then all Muslims would cut off hands.”

We can all agree that very few Muslims cut off hands and that a majority (perhaps) believe it is wrong to do so. If the logic were sound, then this would be proof that the Quran does not say to cut off hands.

But the Quran does say this… quite clearly, in fact:

Cut off the hand of the thief, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah. Quran 5:38

This is also the example set by Muhammad according to the Hadith (Bukhari 81:792). Yet, the vast majority of Muslims do not do this.

What this means is that proof of what Islam teaches or what the Quran says is not necessarily found in what the majority of Muslims choose to do or not do.

As individuals, Muslims make their own choices about which parts of their religion they practice and which parts they would rather dismiss via the guise of “context”.

Adherents may think or say whatever they want to about Islam, it doesn’t change what Islam says about itself. As a documented ideology, Islam exists independently of anyone’s opinion. As such, it may be studied objectively, apart from how anyone practices or chooses to interpret it.

The Quran plainly teaches that it is not only proper to kill in the name of Allah in certain circumstances, but that it is required. Muslims who don’t believe in killing over religion either do not know of Muhammad’s example or tacitly prefer a moral law that is independent of it. Those who put Islam first or know Islam best will think and act differently, even if they are in the minority.

Few Muslims have ever read the Quran to any extent, much less pursued an honest investigation of the actual words and deeds of Muhammad (which were more in line with hedonism, deception, power and violence than moral restraint). The harsh rules that Muslim countries impose on free speech to protect Islam from examination also prevent it from being fully understood.

As Taslima Nasreen succinctly puts it, “Islam is a violent ideology. Most Muslims are not violent – because they believe Islam is not violent.”

In the West, many Muslims, devout or otherwise, simply prefer to believe that Islam is aligned with the Judeo-Christian principles of peace and tolerance, even if it requires filtering evidence to the contrary. They read into the Quran what they want to see.

But, while most Muslims are peaceful in spite of Islam, others are dangerous because of it. It is what some of us comfortably refer to as “radicalization” – an ‘affliction’ that is conspicuously endemic to Islam.

Purists who take Islam to heart are more likely to become terrorists than humanitarians. Those most prone to abandoning themselves to Muhammad’s message without a moral filter are always the more dangerous and supremacist minded. They may be called ‘extremists’ or ‘fundamentalists,’ but, at the end of the day, they are dedicated to the Quran and the path of Jihad as mandated by Muhammad.

This explains why Islam is a constant challange that becomes harder to deal with as the number of Muslims increases.

Islam should not have an impact on our society:

Monday, May 14, 2018

support for mosques must be stopped!

As a society, we shoot ourselves in the foot if we give the same privileges to Islam that we give to the Folk Church, “says Pernille Vermund, leader of New Citizens.

Mosques should not be treated equally with the people church. State support for mosques must be stopped, says Pernille Vermund, leader of the party New Citizens in Denmark.

Politicians are naive in their misunderstood tolerance to Islam. The ideology of Islam stands for all the opposite of Western values, democracy and equality. Therefore, Islam must have no influence on our society, “says Pernille Vermund. Vermund elaborates on a debate post she has and another New Citizen candidate, Poul Højlund, had in the newspaper JyskeVestkysten Monday. (The article is not online)

Here in the country one must believe and think as you please. That’s how it should be. The state must not interfere. Therefore, we must not forbid Muslims to believe. Faith is a private matter. But Islam must have no influence on society. Muslims’ religion must remain private, “they write in the article.

«In three specific areas, the state supports Islam and involves Islam in society. Muslims who pay to the Sharia mosques can withdraw the amount from tax. Imams can, on behalf of the state, make two Muslims legal formally married people. And Sharia preachers from abroad receive a residence permit under special conditions. ”

“As a community, we shoot ourselves in the foot by giving the same privileges to Islam as we give to the People’s Church. Islam is both a religion and an ideology. Islam is both faith and politics. It can not be separated. You might think that our politicians had gradually realized that Islam is a danger to democratic societies. Islam must not be recognized but forced back, “writes Vermund and Højlund.

Religion damages society, the chronicle of atheist Håvard Pedersen

Why should we tolerate women’s oppression, discrimination and alternative facts as long as it is disguised as religion?

The leader of the Christian People’s Party, Knut Arild Hareide, is concerned. He is worried about the newly expanded government’s value creation, and calls the new government platform for “extreme secular”. Contrary to Hareide, I think religion has no place in politics, or society in general.

“If you think I’m going to burn in hell, I think you should be opposed.”

At the beginning of the 2000s a movement called nyateism occurred. The movement is based on an idea that religion should not be tolerated, but instead, it is combated and criticized with rational arguments. Not through attacks on religious people, but on religion itself and the content of it. The term is often used as a clue of atheists who are perceived as excessive missionaries, or too offensive to the beliefs of others. It is also what separates them from other atheists.

I even identify myself as a newcomer. I sincerely mean that religion as a concept is harmful to society. Here you will hear why:

Most religions proclaim that unbelief should be sent to hell on the day of judgment. With such an active condemnation, I have difficulty seeing how to claim self-exempt from condemnation. If you think I’m going to burn in hell, I think you should be opposed. Your children get what you think about me and my children get what you think about me. Such attitudes are not healthy.

“I sincerely mean that religion as a concept is harmful to society.”

People’s need for group affiliation is not a mechanism to shake off. This is what forms nations, holds soccer teams all over the world, gives us identity policies and keeps the technology war between iPhone and Android trailers. Religion plays the same strings to give the feeling that those who belong to religion are the ones chosen, while the rest are outsiders. This is a direct obstacle to humanity being able to work effectively together. For how can you feel fellowship with others when your god tells you that they are less worthwhile?

Most people understand that a constructed and thousands of years old model of the world will be contradicted by science. It is not natural for religions. When they encounter resistance, they respond in the same way every time – with fighting.

“How can you feel fellowship with others when your God tells you that they are less worthwhile?”

One thing is how many scientists who have been hunted, imprisoned and in many cases killed because of their allegations. But how many potential scientists has the world missed because one has learned not to question God’s will? How many hundred years has science been held back in total? I am pretty sure that today there is still a large proportion of people who grow up in the belief that quantum mechanics, evolution and even elementary astronomy are trivial or just theories.

This component should strictly not require a thorough explanation. Still, books that say that all you need to do after raping a girl is considered to pay her father a handful of silver coins for saints.

“There is hardly a religion that does not say that women and men have different values.”

In humanity, the very essence is that every human being is responsible for his own actions. Religion teaches us the opposite: God has predetermined all that happens, evil actions are due in many cases to evil demons, and forgiveness is a matter between you and your god. Studies have been conducted showing that atheists are underrepresented in prisons. Think about the next time someone denies religious morality as high-value – there are more religious than non-religious in jail. .

Ethics and morals are in human nature. Therefore morality is largely common to all cultures of the world, even those who do not have religion as a common denominator. But basing their world’s understanding of fables obviously does something about your innate compass, compared to atheists.

Yes, it is a memento going on in most religions and you literally interpret fewer and fewer religious writings. But what does people do to read these evil attitudes in their holy books, even if they do not live by them? Is not it like saying that you think Jewish jokes are okay to push as long as you do not really stand for the message?

It affects us to have this inheritance in our society. That’s why I’m a New Yorkian. Because I want humanity to get the best possible conditions, and I’m pretty sure it does not have religion as a significant factor.

1 2 3 4 5