Month: July 2016

As Zen Garcia and I were having a discussion, other people chimed in with various comments as follows.

Someone wrote:

I believe that Cain’s lineage is of Adam because, as we know, Adam also partook of the literal fruit. So, I don’t think the serpent seed came as a result of Eve having relations with Lucifer as a serpent. Eve said that she had begotten a man from the Lord (not Lucifer) in Genesis 4:1. However, there were relations/consummation/sex between the fallen angels (there was more than one kind) and human women that not only were resulted in the Nephilim (Giant hybrid beings) in Genesis 6 but also snake-like people (hybrid reptilian people).

Zen replied thusly:

Actually the original passage references that she got a man child from the angel of the Lord. And then she added from her husband another child Abel. IV. And Adam knew Hava [Eve] his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she

conceived, and bare Kain [Cain]; and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord. And she added to bear from her husband Adam his twin, even Habel [Abel].

As noted, I had to keep going over the issue of the Targum again and again as Zen merely referred to a Targum, of which there are many, without citing to which one he was referring and yet, referring to it as the original text or passage.

Here is my reply:

You are right [name withheld] and please take anything and everything that Zen says with a grain of (Dead Sea) salt. He tells you that “the original passage references that she got a man child from the angel of the Lord” but this is only not accurate, I have already responded to him in writing on this issue. He makes it sound as if the original Bible manuscripts reference “the angel of the Lord” but especially with today’s tech anyone can look up an interlinear Bible (such as you can find at Blue Letter Bible) and see that this is not the case.

What he is doing, without telling you, is quoting the Palestinian Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Targums are Aramaic translations mixed with paraphrases/interpretations of the Bible. This Targum dates to the sixth century AD (no, not BC) which is a full 1,500 to 2,000 years after the Book of Genesis was written (depending on when one dates Genesis).

This same person wrote the following:

As you can see I’ve said “amen” throughout Dr. Pugh’s interview with me a few months ago and she’s a godly woman and I believe Zen Garcia is a godly man. If we disagree regarding the serpent seed theory, they’re still our brothers and sisters in Christ, right?
If I’m wrong and the serpent seed started with Eve and Lucifer having sex (after much research), then I’ll concur. For now, I believe there was a fallen angel/human women conception that resulted in the half reptilian beings called Nephilim in Genesis 6. Gary Wayne says there were different types. I just don’t think it started with Eve and Lucifer.

I replied thusly:

I agree with a few things you stated: indeed, if Zen salvation is based on Jesus’ sacrifice by grace thought faith then we are brothers. I also believe that the Genesis 6 affair (as I call it) involved fallen angel/human women conception which resulted in beings called Nephilim (however, I do not see how anything reptilian came out of it [or as this person previously put it, “hybrid reptilian people”]). I also do not think it started with Eve and Lucifer (who is a Cherub and not an Angels so another point against Zen’s 600 AD misinterpretations, in fact, the “angel of the LORD” is loyal to God but Satan is not so they cannot be the same person even if we grant Zen’s erroneous use of the Targum).

Now, I wrote to Dr. Pugh about Zen some time ago telling her how he was teaching that we are here to bring “dharma,” how he plainly contradicts the Bible (such as his claims that Adam and Eve where non-physical beings of light that did not live on Earth pre-fall even while the Bible states time and again the exact opposite), etc., etc., etc., and she was very concerned and stated that she would pray for him and may need to contact him about it all.

I was aware of Dr. Joye Jeffries Pugh as I reviewed her book “Eden: The Knowledge of Good and Evil 666” see here.
Also see Were Adam and Eve beings of light? and Zen Garcia on Adam & Eve as beings of light not from Earth.

Zen Garcia and Dr. Joye Jeffries Pugh

Someone else wrote:

He says the Garden of Eden story is a metaphor, but it is actual history. He says the parable of the wheat and tares is history, but is actually a metaphor..

Zen Garcia replied:

Each of these stories actually have both metaphorical and historical implications.

I chimed in with:

From having heard a lot of statements by Zen, including that we are here to bring “dharma,” it is clear that the apocrypha (of all sorts) not only helps us understand the Bible better but corrects the Bible. Thus, he will claim that Adam and Eve where beings of light that lived on another planet pre-fall when the Bible very clearly tells us that they were physical beings who lived on Earth.
This is why he will make claims such as that “Each of these stories actually have both metaphorical and historical implications.” so that he can misapply and contradict them and when called on it, he can step back and claim “metaphorical and historical”–which means that he can twist and turn them so as to force them to state his preconceived conclusions.

Someone else still, commented thusly:

So what does this say of Adam? If eve eating of the fruit has sexual connotation which led to the birth of Cain, that is also saying Adam had sexual relations with Satan because he also ate of the fruit. Sorry I don’t buy this.

Zen replied:

You obviously did not even watch the video or listen to the interview because I specifically addressed this issue. And explained that Adam’s eating of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was him repeating the sexual act with Eve resulting in the birth of Abel. Which is why it says in this particular portion the text ‘And she added to bear from her husband Adam his twin, even Habel.’

Well, the person replied to Zen stating that they wrote the comment before completing hearing the whole interview and when he had done so, he saw that Zen had covered the issue.
However, I replied thusly:

[name withheld], please do not back down from what you can plainly see that the Bible is clearly stating. What Zen did it to re-interpret (or rather, misinterpret) it. First he wants to claim that the fruit is a sexual act and that the tree is the serpent even though the serpent is the serpent. Now, the text states that Eve saw “a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof” with thereof referring to the tree “and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her” fruit from the tree “and he did eat.” So they both ate fruit from the tree: they both had sex with Satan (as per Zen’s assertions). Moreover, Adam is cursed for eating the fruit but if fruit was sex with Eve then why is he cursed for having sex with his wife?

Also, note that he is not quoting to you from texts based on the Hebrew but from the Aramaic Palestinian Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which dates to the sixth century AD which is circa 1,500 to 2,000 years after the Book of Genesis was written (depending on when one dates Genesis). Zen prefers this very, very, very late dated text because it is a translation which incorporates interpretation and includes Jewish folklore.

Someone else seems to be asking a question with a bit of broken English so I sought to ensure that I understood them within my reply. Here is this question:

ok this may be a stupid question but would they had had no intimate knowledge of each other before this act? my understanding was that they were not even aware of skin until after they sinned.

Here is my reply:

Are you asking if Adam and Eve had intimate knowledge of each other before eating the fruit? We are not told yes or no. We are also not told that “they were not even aware of skin until after they sinned.” Rather, they were naked before they sinned and were not ashamed.

They replied this way:

ok yes that was my question that you answered. Thanks. I’m having a really hard time believing any of this teaching as being scriptural or truth.

Again, I had to ask just to make sure but here is my reply:

If by “any of this” refers to Zen’s claims then you are right. You can simply read the Bible and know, for a fact, that he is in error.

This person replied thusly:

Yes that’s what I was referring to Zen’s claims. I listened to another one of his interviews and he was talking about things like a pre Adam world and population and that we came from a collision from another planet. millions of years back a female demi god threw a planet and the result was so that earth is now spinning and just close enough from the sun to have life start. also there being other gods than the God of the bible, demigods that have there own races, the Garden of Eden was not on earth and so on. just very odd beliefs. I noticed he also becomes very defense aggressive and rude if some disagreed with him in the comments

Here is my reply:

Right you are. Having followed his work for some time now it seems to me that he got taken away by a wind of (false) doctrine. He started reading lots of apocrypha and rather than using the Bible to correct the apocrypha he gave himself over to the apocrypha and when it contradicts the Bible he sides with the apocrypha no matter how late dated it is, no matter how few manuscripts we have or from when they date, no matter how it was complied, etc., etc., etc. He lost his ability to discern truth via the Bible as his guide and now seeks to ready apocryphal (non-, un- and anti-biblical) views into the Bible no matter how many problems it causes him.

He seems more interested in protecting his books and the apocrypha than the Bible. And sadly, many “ministries” just take his word for everything and will not challenge him.

The reply was:

yes I noticed what you are saying, I was very happy to read your comments to valid my concerns with his teaching. nobody else seemed to want to say anything against it or are using any discernment. I also had a check in my spirit when he said how many books he had written and so quickly. and how he didn’t stick to the bible as the foundation. Older does not always mean its better also. I wonder if he is the first to teach this theory of Eve having conceived a child from Lucifer and that the fruit was not really fruit outside the original texts.

I noted:

Good points friend. I would love to be able to get lots of quotes such as the things you mention that he claims (sadly, most may be from audio and I hate transcribing). Also, it is true that older does not always mean better but Zen does not necessarily rely on older as is the case with the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan from the 600s AD. The Serpent Seed theory goes back a few decades so no, Zen is not the first.

The reply was:

And thank you for making the date clear on the text Zen used. I feel that is very important. The reason I said older does not always mean better is because In another interview Zen did. He stated that he often used the older version of text or books many predating the Bible. I noticed if the text he used was older then what is in the canonized bible he would tend to prefer the older especially when it helped his theories. Even if it contradicted the bible or other versions of the same text itself. And yes your correct in that those quotes where all from audio recordings. I don’t think most people realize how easily some of the things Zen states can potentially stumble someone’s walk or study of scripture. Its always best to research what you hear and not just trust another’s word in these matters.

I replied:

Thank you in turn. You will also notice that (as he did above) Zen provides generic info about Targumim in stating that they began to be produced in the time before Jesus. Sure, but the fact is still that the one upon which he relied dates to more than half a millennia AFTER the time of Jesus. Another issue he may have problems with is that there is a difference between the time that a text was supposedly written and the time of the earliest manuscript we have. For example, if Enoch wrote the “Book of Enoch” [about which I have written much, here] then it is thousands of years old but the earliest manuscript we have dates to just before the time of Jesus so as cannot verify that it is any older than that. In other words, someone could come along and claim that the “Book of Enoch” then it is thousands of years old but they would have no way whatsoever to prove that.

Here is another attempt at redirecting the Bible’s record towards Serpent Seed of Satan ends:

Remember, Eve was beguiled by the serpent. She THOUGHT she had “gotten a man for the Lord,” and that IS what she said, BUT she’d been tricked.

Here is my reply:

The beguilement of Eve is said to pertain to her partaken of the fruit when she knew the fruit had been forbidden, “the woman said, “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.” On your view this means something to the like of that she was tricked into having sex with Satan. Yet, on your view that is all that follows namely, that she was tricked into having sex with Satan—period. There is no indication whatsoever that her beguilement means that she did not know who her baby-daddy was. Hey, maybe she should have gone on the Maury Povich show—capiche? “Satan, you are not the father!” ;o)

Another comment touches upon an issue that I have had to deal with time and time again which is generic, uncited, references the original passage or Genesis 4:1 or as this person put it…

This is a mistranslation from the aramaic bible from an angel of the lord. And cain and abel were twins born under superfecundation.

As for superfecundation, I dealt with this issue in Zen Garcia on Eve’s desire for the Angel of the LORD

As for the Targum issue, here is the reply—again:

Friend, it is not a mistranslation from the Aramaic bible as the translation in the video is based on Hebrew manuscripts. One of the various Targumim has “the angel of the Lord” and that Targum, which is Pseudo-Jonathan, dates to the 600s AD so it is a very, very late dated text which is a paraphrase of the Hebrew and also included much Rabbinic folklore. Also, Satan is a Cherub not an Angel and the Angel of the LORD is loyal and would never have had sex with Eve.

For my whole Serpent Seed of Satan series including my discussions with Zen Garcia, see see here. In the next segment we will consider how Zen Garcia gives up the Serpent Seed of Satan polemical ghost.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia
Facebook: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia

Herein we conclude, from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, considering “Serpent” and “Dragon” within the context of Satan in text generally termed the Apocrypha, Deutero Canonical, Pseudepigrapha, Gnostic Texts, etc. (see my article on the Apocrypha here). The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations.
The quotations within section pertain to references to serpent and dragons when the term is applied to evil entities and not merely to reptiles. For example, Bel and the Dragon obviously contains references to a dragon but it is a reptile.
See my section on Angels in general and in apocryphal texts here. See my section on Cherubim and Seraphim in general and in apocryphal texts here.

Serpent & Dragon in Infancy Gospel of James aka Protoevangelium of James aka Gospel of James and Preaching of Peter.

Infancy Gospel of James aka Protoevangelium of James aka Gospel of James – 140-170 AD
13 For just as Adam was in the hour of his singing praise, and the serpent came, and found Eve alone, and completely deceived her, so it has happened to me also.

Preaching of Peter – 100-150 AD M.R. James’ The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1924 AD) which contains The Preaching of Peter includes a note which states, “There are certain other fragments of a ‘Teaching of Peter’ which may be another name for the Preaching. Opinion is divided. Probably the first, from Origen, is from the Preaching. The others are of a different complexion”:

Origen on First Principles i, prologue 8. But if any would produce to us from that book which is called The Doctrine of Peter, the passage where the Saviour is represented as saying (lit. seems to say) to the disciples: I am not a bodiless spirit (demon): he must be answered in the first place that that book is not reckoned among the books of the church: (and then) it must be shown that the writing is neither by Peter nor by any one else who was inspired by the spirit of God.

In the next segment, we will begin a section on Demons.

Jesus Got it Right and So Could You

“Jesus taught that there is within every human being a higher, or spiritual, self which is the Christ, sometimes defined as the ‘universal idea of sonship.’This means that we are all sons and daughters of God, that some part of God resides in everyone. The Christ is a living presence which expresses through us.

Ernest Holmes writes that ‘Jesus never thought of himself as different from others. His whole teaching was that what he did, others could do. He located the kingdom of God within himself.'”1

A virtual Science of Mind creed states,

“We believe in God, the Living Spirit Almighty; one, indestructible, absolute and self-existent Cause…We believe in the incarnation of the Spirit in everyone and that all people are incarnations of the one Spirit…

We believe that the universal Spirit, which is God, operates through a universal Mind, which is the Law of God.”2

If Jesus taught that there is a higher spiritual-self Christ-universal idea of sonship within every human being why are we not provided with book, chapter and verse along with this statement? This is merely more rewriting of Christianity, as we considered in part 7.
We were all created by God but we are not all children of God, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name” (John 1:12). We do not become something that we are already. That some part of God resides in everyone is completely foreign to the teachings of Jesus and is instead the teachings of pantheism, Hinduism, New Age, Mind of Science, et al.

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By now we know that the latest reason—read excuse—for murder, riots, destruction, etc. did not have anything to do with celebrating 9/11—wink, wink, nudge, nudge—no, no, no, banish the thought; it was ignited by a movie about Muhammad the trailer for which was posted to YouTube.

The trailer for the movie The Innocence of Muslims had been on YouTube for 2 months prior to the premeditated attacks.

So what is it that no one is saying about the movie? Let us get to that after some background.

Since the current puppet show battle field is to divide and conquer, Muslims are being pitted against America (whom they see as Christian) whilst being peppered with the Jews for good measure as they are the ultimate target. Thus, this stunningly low budget movie is reported to have been financed by Jewish donors who contributed $5,000,000.00 towards the project.

The “actors” in the movie claim to have been misled and were told that “they were appearing in a film about the life of a generic Egyptian 2,000 years ago.” This generic Egyptian went by the name of Master George (’cause everyone knows that Geroge was a traditional Egyptian name of two millennia ago).

Master George is depicted as a pedophilic, homosexual, religious scammer, philanderer, womanizer and bloodthirsty dictator (yes, a homosexual womanizer, who would’a thunk it?).

One of the actresses, Cindy Lee Garcia, stated, “In the script and during the shooting, nothing indicated the controversial nature of the final product.”

Right, right, right, because portraying a generic Egyptian 2,000 years ago as a pedophilic, homosexual, religious scammer, philanderer, womanizer and bloodthirsty dictator is not controversial but a specific Arab circa 1,500 years ago is controversial. So, shove off you Egyptians, besmirching you is perfectly acceptable but not so for the religion of peace.

The reason that no one knew that Master George was Muhammad (besides the fact that the actors appear cluless in general: hey “George” is not an acient Egyptian name, hey we are not dressed like ancient Egyptians, etc.) is that the name Muhammad was, very poorly, dubbed in after shooting was completed.

So what is it that no one is saying about the movie? Just a few more thoughts.

Muslims are (allegedly), shall we say, upset by the film so the film is banned, censored, deleted, gone because it caused violence. Batman caused violence and is still making bank: why was it not banned, censored, deleted, gone? What is going to happen when Will Smith releases his retelling of the story of Cain and Able with a vampiritic twist (reportedly some time in 2013 AD)? Will, Christians go on a blood thirsty rampage? No, they will be as extreme as to say, “Well, I guess that I won’t watch that movie…and I’ll pray for Will Smith.”

You see, when Muslims riot, murder and pillage the (supposed) source of their anger is attacked. But when Christians lovingly express their displeasure in peacefull ways, they are attacked and that which dispeased them is praised.

So what is it that no one is saying about the movie?

The same thing that no one says when, every couple of years, the very same things happens. Whether it is cartoons, movies, books, etc. no one says, asks, talks about, demands from Muslims whether or not the depiction of Muhammad and Islam’s early (and ongoing) years is accurate, true and factual.

No, no, no, we can discuss whether Jesus was married, whether Paul was a homosexual, etc., etc., etc. but we are not allowed to have an academic, intellectual, scholarship based discussion about whether Muhammad was a pedophilic, homosexual, religious scammer, philanderer, womanizer and bloodthirsty dictator.

This would be too real for Muslims and their non-Muslim supporters.

For some info relating to this subject in general see True Freethinker’s page on Islam

For some interesting differences between Jesus and Muhammad, see the following series:

Part 1: Introduction

Part 2: Heavenly Bliss

Part 3: Virgin Birth Affirmed

Part 4: Regarding Wives

Part 5: Muhammad’s Sins?

Part 6: Divinely Approved War and Curses

Part 7: Regarding Miracles

Part 8: Jesus’ and Muhammad’s Revelation and Mission

Part 9: Jesus’ and Muhammad’s Heavenly Journey

Part 10: Intercession

Note that he ultimately blames the victim, he still blames Salman Rushdie, “The book itself destroyed the harmony between peoples and created an unnecessary international crisis.” The book destroyed harmony and created an international crisis? Rushdie destroyed harmony and created an international crisis?

Nay, the Ayatollah Khomeini, his fatwa and the particular Muslims who supported it destroyed harmony and created an international crisis.

Next, note that for some reason he decides to throw some raw meat at both, those who oppose and support him,

When asked about my opinion regarding blasphemy, I could not tell a lie and confirmed that – like both the Torah and the Gospel – the Qur’an considers it, without repentance, as a capital offense. The Bible is full of similar harsh laws if you’re looking for them.

He is attempting to sidetrack the conversation by saying, “Hey, look over there instead, look at the Bible!” Indeed, such diversionary tactics may work on those who support him and would like nothing better than to turn from an evil perpetrated in the name of Islam to besmirching the Bible, Judaism and Christianity. Yet, in doing so we find that the raw meat is not kosher. Note the footnote that he attaches to this statement:

In Exodus 20:7 the Third Commandment openly states, “You shall not take the name of The Lord in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless”. It also says in Leviticus 24:16, “And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregations shall surely stone him.” Again, quoting Matthew, 12: 31-32, Jesus is reported to have said, “Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit, shall not be forgiven.”

In addition regarding other crimes it says in Leviticus 20: 14, “And if a man take a wife and her mother he shall be burnt with fire”; also in Leviticus 20: 15, “if a man lies with a beast, he shall surely be put to death,” and in Exodus 21:17, “Anyone who curses his father and mother must be put to death.”

The reason that Jews have not stoned anyone for millennia is that the Torah was agreed upon by the Jews/Israelites/Hebrews who agreed to live by it within the relevant time, place and government. The Torah was for those who lived millennia ago within YHVH’s theocratic kingdom within the Land.

From a Jewish perspective: the Torah still holds as a moral guide and as an elucidator of various rituals yet, since particularly the time of the Babylonian captivity Jews have congregated themselves into congregations: the era of the synagogue was born (I wrote about this history for the MCOI Journal: part 1, part 2, part 3). Thus, just as certain rituals, such as animal sacrifices, are impossible to carry out in a kosher manner without the priesthood and the Temple likewise, certain aspects of the legal aspect of the Torah cannot be carried out any longer. This is somewhat of an insider’s reference but sing the scepter has been taken away and Shilo has not come (according to Rabbinic Judaism) not only has the Messiah missed his due date but Jews have no right to carry out capital punishment as a Jewish religious judicial system sentence (what the secular Israeli government does is another issue). For insight into this insider’s reference see: When Was the Messiah Expected?

From a Christian perspective: the Torah is a moral guide and the entire—and here is the key term—“Old” Testament was written for our learning. The—and here is another key term—“New” Testament is now in place.
This is actually, somewhat, understood by Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam who stated,

However, the application of such Biblical and Qur’anic injunctions is not to be outside of due process of law, in a place or land where such law is accepted and applied by the society as a whole.

Thus, the difference is that while there is no Jewish context or setting (and certainly no Christian context or setting) in which capital punishment for blasphemy could be carried out, there are various places where it could be in an Islamic context.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we make another entry into the Unbelievers Compliment Christianity

files. This one comes along with a real life juxtaposition which dichotomizes Christianity and Islam and what one can expect from besmirching (or, being thought to have besmirched) these religions, their prophets, their holy texts, their gods, etc.

i Minaj is an American pop singer and Hamza Kashgari is a Saudi journalist. For her dealings with Christianity (actually, Catholicism) she is praised as bold, daring, inventive, artistic, etc. For his dealings with Islam he is facing the death penalty. The above referred to file is titled Unbelievers Compliment Christianity because time and time again allegedly bold, daring and courageous personages are applauded for besmirching Christianity with the worse byproduct being Christians saying, “Well, I won’t watch it/read it/buy it and will pray for them.”

Apparently, i Minaj thought that the Grammys was the best time and place to reenact “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” (a 2005 American courtroom drama horror film directed by Scott Derrickson) in conjunction with her song “Roman Holiday.”

Catholic League president Bill Donohue noted:

Minaj’s performance began on stage with a mock confessional skit. This was followed by a taped video depicting a mock exorcism. With stained glass in the background, she appeared on stage again with choir boys and monks dancing.

Perhaps the most vulgar part was the sexual statement that showed a scantily clad female dancer stretching backwards while an altar boy knelt between her legs in prayer. Finally, “Come All Ye Faithful” was sung while a man posing as a bishop walked on stage; Minaj was shown levitating.

And finally, the accurate clincher:

…what is not in doubt is the irresponsibility of The Recording Academy. Never would they allow an artist to insult Judaism or Islam.

Executive producer of the Grammy telecast, Ken Ehrlich, stated, to “CBS This Morning” that they do not limit the creativity of their artists. Minaj claims that the producers of the Grammys actually handpicked the song she was to perform. This is excellent news as next year you can surely expect each and every religion to be besmirched at the Grammys—cant’ wait!

The journalist Hamza Kashgari faces arrest and the death penalty for his comments about Islam’s prophet Muhammad. Thus far, he has been detained by the Malaysian police.

His “crime” was writing an account of an imaginary meeting Muhammad which he posted to Twitter. For this, the Saudi king himself has reportedly called for his arrest and he is being accused of apostasy and blasphemy (a Saudi capital offense).

Here is one of his blasphemous, inflammatory, evil, condemnatory and ill willed Tweets which he addresses to Muhammad:

On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you’ve always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you.

How dare he…right?

Therefore, lesson learned:

1) Live in a country premised upon Judeo-Christian principles, besmirch Judeo-Christianity, make millions of dollars and gain millions of adoring fans.

2) Live in a country premised upon Islamic principles, praise Muhammad, make millions of enemies who call for your death.

You may have noticed that after the attacks of September 11th we were told that true Muslims would never perpetrate terrorist acts. Those terrorists had high-jacked Islam because Islam is a religion of peace. This was America’s national cry ranging from the media, to pop-culture.

As a side note, we have been told a great number of times that all Muslims are not terrorists, this is true but who ever said that they were? I have never, ever, nowhere, never heard anyone, anywhere say that all Muslims are terrorists. I’ve heard plenty of people say that they are not, but I have never, ever heard that they were. This denial of the obvious, and that which no one has ever stated, is perhaps due to America’s overactive politically correct movement.

Back to the point, have you noticed that in complete contradistinction, Christianity has not been afforded the same sympathy and empathy in regards to those who have acted in malicious manners in the name of Christianity? Yet, Christianity is a religion of peace and those “Christians” who have acted maliciously in its name have high-jacked it.

This is quite factual when we consider the fact that there is no scripture that could rightly be utilized to back up maliciousness. Nor can any excuse be found in the life, words, or actions of Jesus Himself. True, scripture has been twisted to such ends but in an unviable manner.
Who argued against slavery in the USA, who argued against the Salem witch-hunt, as well as various other misdoings? Well-educated Christians who took the Bible seriously. But wasn’t it Christians who started slavery in the USA and the witch-hunts at Salem. This is precisely the point-those people misused the scripture in order to back up what they already wanted to do.
Later on, well educated Christians who took the Bible seriously came along and said that regardless of what we may want to do we must see what scripture wants us to do. Perhaps it should also be pointed out that African slaves were bought from African-Muslim slave traders (who continue selling African slaves to this very day). If you have ever seen a map of Salem which marks the place of residence of the witches, and their accusers, you’ll note that it seems to have a lot more to do with class warfare that anything else.

People who have studied Islam were very surprised when, after September 11th, we were told over and over again that, “Islam means peace.” We were surprised because for about one and a half millennia Islam had meant submission but now, thus saith the politically correct movement, it means peace. Salaam Aleikum is the common greeting amongst Muslims and what does it mean? It means peace be unto you. Salaam is equivalent to the Hebrew shalom, it means peace. Islam means submission, submission to Allah under Islamic religion. It may very well be that Islam has salaam as part of a root word but one and a half millennia of Arabic proves that Islam means submission.
But even if the title of a religion means peace that would in no way ensure that the religion would be practice in that way. Many Muslims who want Islam to not be related to the extremist terrorists are the same people who still hold enmity against Christianity (or the Roman Catholic Church) for the Crusades. But the Crusaders clearly high-jacked Christianity because the God espoused by Christianity is “the God of peace” (Hebrews 13:20), and Jesus the Christ is the “Price of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).