Now that Christmas is not so far away, we are having a fresh round of them… the end-of-year cocktail party.

I go when invited but more out of curiosity than anything else. It is always the same. How easy it would be to hang out in a corner balancing a glass of something, paper napkin and fussy nibble, and not get to speak to anyone at all. Why must it always be me to initiate and maintain a conversation, or else stand around on my own? How much the others like to talk about themselves with seldom a genuine question in return. Then when there is space for some comment, all care must be taken to keep it well under 50 words max as the average cocktail party attention span usually doesn’t go over that. Brief, witty and pithy is what works.

Sometimes it is more inspiring just to observe. So few people really listen, really attend, or show any real interest on these occasions. My observations have lead me to contemplate just how self-centred we can be. Last night, although I spoke with others, listened and responded thoughtfully - bright, witty and pithy - nobody, absolutely nobody, asked me anything pertaining to myself at all. What a dull and boring type I must appear! I should probably ask my hairdresser to dye my locks that new electric lime colour next time. Maybe that would provoke a question. Or might I just be marginalized back into the corner with a plate of delicious chocolate-dipped strawberries all to myself? Given the strawberries and a half-good shiraz, things could always be worse.

Know how to listen and you will profit even from those who talk badly. Plutarch

Sometimes these thoughts on self-centredness lead me back to this whole blogging thing. Why do I think anyone is really interested in what I have to say? And interested enough that I should publish it world-wide at that? Well, I did say in the beginning that this was kind of an experiment… I’d see how it worked out.

But there are things that I believe important to be made known. There is a lot of misinformation and ignorance out there in the world, folks being fooled into following what has been dishonestly told to them, or not asking good questions and listening, really listening, to whether the answers make any real sense. Sometimes it seems that the 50 words max attention span is not just a cocktail party phenomenon, fish bowled for more poignant revelation, but true of the rest of life also. How much do we prefer to talk than to listen? After all, it takes effort to actively listen, to think critically about what is heard, and to respond appropriately with some perceptiveness, sensitivity and understanding. It may also require a change of mind, but the odds are high that something worthwhile will be learnt from doing so. And although it may be quite blatantly self-centred of me to consider my thoughts worthy of world-wide publication, I still hope that doing so may have others consider what truth they know and what it is that actually verifies it.

It is what we know already that often prevents us from learning. Claude Bernard

The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. Alvin Toffler

Proverbs 18: 2 A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.

A journalist investigates scientific evidence that points toward God.

Softcover: 427 pages
Publisher: Zondervan Publishing Company (March, 2005)
Language: English
ISBN: 0310252946
Product Dimensions: 6.75 x 4.25 inches

From the back cover:

“My road to atheism was paved by science . . . But, ironically, so was my later journey to God.” - Lee Strobel.

During his academic years, Lee Strobel became convinced that God was outmoded, a belief that colored his ensuing career as an award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. Science had made the idea of a Creator irrelevant - or so Strobel thought.
But today science is pointing in a different direction. In recent years, a diverse and impressive body of research has increasingly supported the conclusion that the universe was intelligently designed. At the same time, Darwinism has faltered in the face of concrete facts and hard reason.

Has science discovered God? At the very least, it’s giving faith an immense boost as new findings emerge about the incredible complexity of our universe. Join Strobel as he reexamines the theories that once led him away from God. Through his compelling and highly readable account, you’ll encounter the mind-stretching discoveries from cosmology, cellular biology, DNA research, astronomy, physics, and human consciousness that present astonishing evidence in The Case for a Creator.

Mass market edition available in packs of six.

Lee Strobel interviews some wellknown devout Christian Biblical scholars for the answers to questions that he puts to them. The contents of the book are divided into chapters with the following titles, the name of the interviewee in parenthesis:

1. Doubts about Darwinism (Jonathan Wells)
2. Where science meets faith (Stephen C. Meyer
3. The evidence of cosmology: beginning with a bang (William Lane Craig)
4. The evidence of physics: the cosmos on a razor’s edge (Robin Collins)
5. The evidence of astronomy: the privileged planet (Guillermo Gonzales & Jay Wesley Richards)
6. The evidence of biochemistry: the complexity of molecular machines (Michael J. Behe)
7. The evidence of biological information: the challenge of DNA and the origin of life (Stephen C. Meyer)
8. The evidence of consciousness: the enigma of the mind (J.P. Moreland)

Lee Strobel concludes with a chapter entitled The Cumulative Case for a Creator, and provides excellent notes and references for further exploration.

Again, another great book from Lee Strobel, one I have enjoyed reading and can recommend to provide answers to challenges aimed at the Christian faith.

A journalist investigates the toughest objections to Christianity.

Softcover: 409 pages
Publisher: Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan (2000)
Language: English
ISBN: 0-310-23528-6
Product Dimensions: 6.75 x 4.25 inches

One reviewer who posted to Amazon.com had the following to say:

“If you have questions about your faith, then this is a good starting point for your investigation. There are other books that go into more detail on all the issues raised here, and you may want to purchase these as well for further study. But this is a very good starting point for answering those nagging doubts about your faith in Christianity and one’s faith in the person of Jesus.”

Lee Strobel, a former atheist and now devout Christian, has a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School and was the award winning legal editor of the Chicago Tribune. He brings his skills as a legal investigative journalist to the examination of evidence in support of the Christian faith, asking wellknown Christian Biblical scholars for their answers to some of the toughest questions asked of Christianity.

The following are the objections (questions) raised to which the book gives a rational and intelligent response:
1. Since evil and suffering exist, a loving God cannot.
2. Since miracles contradict science, they cannot be true.
3. Evolution explains life, so God isn’t needed.
4. God isn’t worthy of worship if He kills innocent children.
5. It’s offensive to claim Jesus is the only way to God.
6. A loving God would never torture people in hell.
7. Church history is littered with oppression and violence.
8. I still have doubts, so I can’t be a Christian.

Lee Strobel concludes with a chapter called The Power of Faith, and provides excellent notes and references for further study.

I wholeheartedly recommend this book as a worthwhile introduction to some of the most difficult questions that are raised to challenge the faith and beliefs of Christians. Also, the responses herein may well bring a seeker to faith in Christ.

An investigative legal affairs journalist probes the evidence for the divinity of Jesus.

Paperback: 304 pages
Publisher: Zondervan (September 1, 1998)
Language: English
ISBN: 0310209307
Product Dimensions: 8.6 x 5.6 x 0.8 inches

Lee Strobel, former legal editor at the Chicago Tribune and a former non-Christian skeptic, sets out in his book to “determine if there’s credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the Son of God.” He interviews 13 devout Christian Biblical scholars and puts to each of them basic questions concerning credible evidence that supports the divinity of Jesus. He continues to probe their answers to produce a compact and interesting summary of the apologia that exists to support the case for Christ.

One major criticism of his work is that no critics of Christianity are interviewed, and so no counter-arguments are explored except very briefly in the form of questions to develop the answer of his interviewee. The result therefore is hardly balanced reporting although he does produce a good case for one side of the debate, a case that cannot be dismissed without serious consideration.

All the same, as the publisher comments on the back page: “This remarkable book reads like a captivating, fast-paced novel. But it’s not fiction. It’s a riveting quest for the truth about history’s most compelling figure. What will your verdict be in The Case for Christ?”

The questions asked (and the scholars who respond) are as follows:
1. Can the biographies of Jesus be trusted? (Dr Craig Blomberg)
2. Do the biographies of Jesus stand up to scrutiny? (Dr Craig Blomberg)
3. Were Jesus’ biographies reliably preserved for us? (Dr Bruce Metzger)
4. Is there credible evidence for Jesus outside His biographies? (Dr Edwin Yamauchi)
5. Does archaeology confirm or contradict Jesus’ biographies? (Dr John McRay)
6. Is the Jesus of history the same as the Jesus of faith? (Dr Gregory Boyd)
7. Was Jesus really convinced that He was the Son of God? (Dr Ben Witherington III)
8. Was Jesus crazy when He claimed to be the Son of God? (Dr Gary Collins)
9. Did Jesus fulfill the attributes of God? (Dr D. A. Carson)
10. Did Jesus - and Jesus alone - match the identity of the Messiah? (Louis Lapides, M.Div., Th.M.)
11. Was Jesus’ death a sham and His resurrection a hoax? (Dr Alexander Metherell)
12. Was Jesus’ body really absent from His tomb? (Dr William Craig Lane)
13. Was Jesus seen alive after His death on the cross? (Dr Gary Habermas)
14. Are there any supporting facts that point to the resurrection? ((Dr J. P. Moreland)

There is a summary conclusion that addreses the question: What does the evidence establish, and what does it mean today?
Strobel’s bibliographical recommendations at the end of each chapter seem to be generally excellent.

This is a worthwhile book for those seeking intelligent rational answers in support of Christian beliefs about Jesus.

A car breaks down in a remote isolated area and a few moments later another vehicle turns up, stops and the occupants are able to help. The anxious driver of the first vehicle is greatly relieved and later tells the story, exclaiming “It was a miracle!”

A home owner has put his house on the market and it sells immediately. The fortunate seller is very happy, now able to go ahead with the purchase of another property, and grins “It was a bit of a miracle!”

I work the soil in my garden and make it ready for sowing some seeds. With careful weeding and watering, in time my garden is a mass of colourful blossoms and the neighbour looking over the fence comments on the “miracle” of new life every Spring.

But what exactly is a miracle?

So often when I hear this word used in everyday conversation its meaning appears to be along the lines of something very good that happened just at the right time, or something we might have known would happen (as in the case of my flowers) and is very nice that it does. Sometimes there is a sense of awe about the event, enough for a few thoughts of reflection, enough to reassure that all is as it ought to be, but usually only the amount required to balance the anxiety experienced in the first place and no more.

First of all, “miracle” is a word that I think has had the stuffing knocked out of it. It is a feature of this post-modern age that stuffing gets knocked out of things. Where there is a rejection of any ultimate foundation upon which knowledge or reality is based, we are left with the notion that objectivity is an illusion. We are told that it is not possible to know reality because the only thing we can know is our own perception of reality, not reality itself. So that gives licence to the use of the word “miracle” in any way we wish. If I think something is a miracle, then so it is - for me. If you disagree that it is a miracle, then for you it isn’t a miracle. There is no way of knowing if in reality it is really a miracle or not. In short, anything goes.

Since I am very uncomfortable with the definitions and philosophy of postmodernism, and have a strong preference for the notion that an ultimate foundation does exist and that reality can be known directly, my idea of what constitutes a miracle is neither politically correct nor in agreement with a loose use of the word. Yes, I was told in Church and Sunday School that “life is a miracle” and that “every Spring we see the miracle of rebirth” and that God is behind all of that. That is certainly one way to use the word that allows God some entry into His world. But to me, a miracle is something far more pronounced than the experience of mere good fortune illustrated by the first two examples up above.

I like the following definition of Richard L. Purtill cited by Josh McDowell in The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, (Nelson, TN, 1999):

A miracle is an event brought about by the power of God that is a temporary exception to the ordinary course of nature for the purpose of showing that God has acted in history.

Miracles to me have a supernatural quality about them - something that doesn’t ordinarily happen, but are compatible with characteristics of God, the Creator. Obvious examples would be those amazing events that skeptics are constantly tripping over - instantaneous healings, the Virgin Birth, Jesus turning water into wine, Jesus walking on water, the Resurrection, the Ascension. A miracle is the direct entry of God into His world in a way that promotes good and glorifies His being.

These days it is not politically correct to believe in miracles, those events that have a supernatural quality about them, and so the word “miracle” has become suitably redefined in our language to cover all manner of fortuitous happenings and no longer offend those who might otherwise be offended. Remove the content and the word is benign. Whereas these fortuitous happenings may well be the direct hand of God, were they miracles whereby something outside the normal course of nature took place? Just how many folk using that word actually mean to praise God and speak of His goodness by doing so? Or how much is just lip service, the stuffing knocked out by the postmodern “content-free” revision of our language?

What do you understand by the word “miracle”?

For some time now I have noticed a growing anathema in myself towards most things “politically correct” as they are generally dishonest and grossly discounting, both of me and my true beliefs, and of others and their right to know the truth.

Returning to the paid workforce for a spell about 10 years ago I knew I was going to be faced with a requirement to accept the current politically correct view regarding The Treaty Of Waitangi, a contentious piece of writing (there being 3 different versions) considered to be our nation’s founding document. This bothered me for many reasons, and while thinking through the issues I asked a friend for her advice. Her response was this: “Do what we all do - lie through your teeth!” And that is exactly what it comes down to. If you need a job in the public service of this country, and your views on this subject are at variance with those you “should” hold, then you have to lie (or in some other way avoid upsetting the PC brigade) or else immediately fail at your job interview. You are had over a barrel.

A friend recently enrolled for a course at the local Polytechnic to learn “desktop publishing” and was shocked to discover that the first part of the full-time course consisted of 2 weeks devoted entirely to learning the PC version of “The Treaty of Waitangi”. This was a pre-requisite and full attendance plus a Pass mark was mandatory before one could continue and learn anything about desktop publishing. It obviously wasn’t going to be enough just to “lie through your teeth” on some enrolment form, but in order to learn what you set out to learn required you to sit through the political brainwashing as well. You can be sure that arguing a different position would not hold you in high esteem and may well risk a Fail mark instead. And just what on earth does it have to do with learning desktop publishing anyway?

Do you remember the Aesop’s Fable about the man, the boy, and the donkey? The intended moral was that, should you try to please all you end up pleasing none. In just the same way, by using the excuse of not upsetting anyone, the politically correct have sanitized and purified forms of expression, dictated what are acceptable ideas, and are demanding that our thoughts and speech must become like the fool who would please everyone. We all must accept such ideas as truth or be regarded as rednecked bigots, ignorant and insensitive, unenlightened and intolerant. All clear thinking and straight talking is to be laced into the straitjacket of official truth. We are to lose our backbone and sway in whichever direction is considered friendliest to all others concerned. We are to sacrifice our honesty and integrity on the altar of niceness.

But what about honesty and integrity? What about my own beliefs and truths? I say that they actually do matter to me, and it matters to me that I am honest and live by what I know to be true, that I don’t deny my own reality by acceding to the trendy brainwashing of the times. It is one thing to be all things to all people to live alongside them and attempt to convince them of the truth that you know, as the apostle Paul speaks about in his first letter to the Corinthians, but it is quite something else to become what you are not by giving up your truth and exchanging it for something you know to be false and in doing so deny your own reality.

So where is this leading?

One of the things that concerns me greatly is the effect of the liberal left in their efforts not to offend anyone, through exercising their tyranny of political correctness, of progressively ridding us of our Judeo-Christian cultural heritage. In doing so, they are creating a cultural vacuum that lays us wide open to invasion by more aggressive ideologies. There is evidence of this process already underway in countries where post-modernism is rampant. The ideology that concerns me most is Islam. The name “Islam” means “submission” - submission to Allah. The objective of Islam is world wide dominance - whole world submission to Allah. As we continue to weaken ourselves culturally through political correctness, denigrating and spurning our own heritage, we are inviting Islam to come and live with us and when they are ready, to turn and take us for their own. We offer no cultural resistance as we are so busy pleasing everyone else, taking care not to offend them with our own customs and traditions.

When I began blogging under the title of “Judah’s Journal” I intended to write about whatever was of interest and concern to me, all manner of things including my Christian faith and the simple nuts-and-bolts of daily life. I intend to continue doing so. However, I have been reading widely on Islam, focussing on scholarly writings of those who have not been afraid to tell the truth rather than the deception offered by Islamic apologists. The truth is quite terrifying, and for a Christian it emphasizes even more the need to witness to our own truth and reclaim our Judeo-Christian cultural heritage as something that really does matter.

Every so often I come across someone who is like-minded on various issues, and recently I discovered Mark Alexander, author of Dawning of a New Dark Age: A Collection of Essays on Islam.

Mark has graciously agreed to reciprocate links between our two blogs, his and mine, and I would like to point the reader to the link in the left-hand column here to his extremely worthwhile blog called A New Dark Age is Dawning, and encourage frequent visits. He writes much the same as I think also, and he writes it very well. This is not for the feint-hearted. The message is honest plain speaking, the truth broken out from the straitjacket of political correctness and spoken with conviction and concern for our future, and is in accordance with the writings of people such as Dr Mark Gabriel, Robert Spencer, Vernon Richards and others of their stature.

This transient life of mortal things
see-saws, slides, and tandem swings
provides the playground as time tears
the length and breadth of all my years
leaving bruises, well skinned knees
and hiccoughs too, excuse me please

The slips and falls, the ups and downs
my cycled life on merry-go-rounds
will have me giddy, short of breath
sore and aching, and until death
be the teaching learning tool
of this behaviour changing school

All mortal things will die one day
the playground here will pass away
and I will too, but not my soul
which is eternal, heav’n its goal
and what I learnt from what was taught
will be recorded on my report

I cannot make the grade alone
the course is tough, too tough I groan
and my behaviour’s not the best
I’m tired too and need a rest
but thanks to One I can unbrace
since this diploma comes by grace

(© Judah, 19-11-2005)

We went to the movies this evening, on reflection a rather rare activity for us although we did go to see “Gallipoli” the other night. There is usually not much on that we want to see… not much that doesn’t contain wanton violence, explicit sex scenes and offensive language. What is wrong with film directors that they cannot make something of quality that does not rub your face in the worst of human ugliness, or have you attend in other peoples’ bedrooms, attempting to make voyeurs of us all?

“Gallipoli” was a little different. There were no bedroom scenes, but the war was real and the horrors of war. This was a documentary film, and the new angle that it’s predecessors had excluded was the perspective of the Turkish forces who were strenuously defending their homelands from the Allied invaders. Even so, we did not learn anything new… nothing that we did not already know. I guess we are well read on this small snippet of history. War is simply a terrible thing and the dead turn to dust leaving grieving kin no matter which side they are on. Perhaps the greatest good that came from that tragic campaign is the very strong bond of friendship now existing between Turkey and the ANZACs, based on the deep mutual respect for each other that developed on that far too bloody battlefield.

The movie tonight was a treat, a NZ production based on the true story of a Kiwi called Burt Monroe and his motorbike that originally did 54 mph but with some homegrown improvements it broke the land speed record in 1967 at Bonnerville, Utah. The characters were real, warts and all, but good folks and genuine.

Of course, avoiding the ugliness of life is certainly possible as the audience of Cho-Liang Lin who has to be one of the greatest violinists of all times. Last week he played the Brahms’ violin concerto with the NZ Symphony Orchestra and I was in seventh heaven for days afterwards. This was no ordinary performance. This was a master of sheer genius stature playing like nothing I have ever heard before.

Once upon a time I could take the seemy side of life in my stride, but now I find it increasingly dismays and disturbs me. The more that I seek what is good, what is pure and admirable, noble and true, the more distressing I find the opposite of them. This is not the weak and insipid, leached and bleached stuff of timidity and cowardice, but the fullblooded greatness of a reality that truly matters. It is as though the goodness and excellence that I seek is akin to being in His presence where He captivates and captures, wholly and honestly, with the lure of the most perfect fisherman of them all… Himself. In Him there is no ugliness, no evil.

Philippians 4: 8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

Matthew 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

When it comes to the three largest monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, we hear that all three share Jesus.
The Jews acknowledge Him as a prophet but deny that He is the promised Messiah.
The Muslims lay claim to Him as their prophet ‘Isa and speak of Him in the Qur’an although also deny His deity.
The Christians believe He is part of the triune Godhead, the Son of God who fulfilled the prophecy of the Scriptures and through His crucifixion and resurrection brought salvation to all believers in Him.

But is ‘Isa of the Qur’an really Jesus of the Bible, the historical Jesus who walked about on Earth around 2000 years ago?
Personally, I do not believe so. In fact, the ‘Isa of the Qur’an does not share the same “vital statistics” or essential facts of Jesus Christ despite the Muslim claim that it is He of whom Muhammad makes reference.

Islam appropriates the history of Judaism and Christianity to itself.

It is quite arguable that Allah is not the triune Christian God, the Creator whom we call Our Father, but that Mohammed when preaching to the Meccans did not introduce a new god, but proclaimed that one of their many gods, Allah, was the greatest and only god. After all, the Meccans did not accuse Mohammed of preaching a different god than they knew. He demanded that they believe in one god, not many as were accepted before.
This view is contraversial but there are some very sound points that support it. Ex-Muslim Abdullah Al Araby makes a strong case for this view in his article God of Christianity vs. Allah of Islam.
Muhammad was backing for a win and a place - while reigning in the beliefs of his own pagan Arab brothers who already worshipped the god called Allah (who incidentally had three daughters in pre-Islamic times), he was linking the name of Allah to the religious histories of Judaism and Christianity as a way to claim them also for Islam. The Jews and Christians saw through this deception and would have none of it.

Dallas M. Roark, Ph.D. writing in his article Is there a true religion? argues this position and sums up as follows:

We cannot conclude that the god of Islam is the same as Yahweh of the Old Testament who becomes Incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth to redeem mankind. This finality in Christ eliminates any other coming prophet such as Muhammad. The epistle of Hebrews speaks with finality about God’s last word, his highest word, coming in his Son. Islam cannot therefore be regarded as an extension, culmination, or completion of the Judeo-Christian tradition. While there are prophets mentioned in the New Testament they were in agreement with the Christian Gospel and did not seek to supersede the New Testament revelation or claim a different revelation.
(Mt. 23:34; Acts 11:27-29; 13:2-3; 15:32;21:9-11; 1 Cor. 12:28-29; Eph. 2:20; 3:5;4:11, for example)

But then, concerning Jesus, the description in the Qur’an of the prophet who is supposedly Him is not at all the same as the Jesus in the Bible. Islam has appropriated Jesus, renamed Him, changed His history, and produced a quite different character which it is claiming to be Him.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Qur’an was written in the 7th century AD. It simply cannot be regarded as having any authority whatsoever to inform us about Jesus of Nazareth. It also offers no evidence at all for its claims about biblical history. And futhermore, its numerous historical errors reflect at best a garbled understanding of the Bible.

Dr Mark Durie, writing in his article ‘Isa, the Muslim Jesus, has the following comment to make:

The Jesus of the gospels is the base upon which Christianity developed. By Islamicizing him, and making of him a Muslim prophet who preached the Qur’an, Islam destroys Christianity and takes over all its history. It does the same to Judaism.

This article is well recommended for an outline of the differences between Jesus and the Muslim prophet ‘Isa. It may also be found here.

(Dr Mark Durie is an Anglican Minister at St Hilary's Anglican Church Kew. He is also a senior associate of the Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at the University of Melbourne, with the honorary title of Associate Professor, and was formerly head of the Department of Linguistics and Language Studies. He has written several books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, an Islamic people of Indonesia, and was elected to the Australian Academy of Humanities in 1992 for this research work. He served as a member of the Council of the Academy for a term during the 1990's.)

He goes on to say the following:

Author Shamim A. Siddiqi of Flushing, New York put the classical position of Islam towards Christianity clearly in a recent letter to Daniel Pipes, New York Post columnist:

“Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad were all prophets of Islam. Islam is the common heritage of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim community of America, and establishing the Kingdom of God is the joint responsibility of all three Abrahamic faiths. Islam was the din (faith, way of life) of both Jews and Christians, who later lost it through human innovations. Now the Muslims want to remind their Jewish and Christian brothers and sisters of their original din [religion]. These are the facts of history.”

This historical negationism — appearing to affirm Christianity and Judaism whilst in fact rejecting and supplanting them — is a lynchpin of Muslim apologetics. What is being affirmed is in fact neither Christianity nor Judaism, but Jesus as a prophet of Islam, Moses as a Muslim etc. This is intended to lead to ‘reversion’ of Christians and Jews to Islam, which is what Siddiqi refers to when he speaks of ‘the joint responsibility’ of Jews and Christians to establish ‘the Kingdom of God’. By this he means that American Christians and Jews should work to establish shari’ah law and the rule of Islam in the United States.

Muhammad is the prophet of Allah, but was he a prophet of God?

Dr Dallas Roark again:

Mohammed is unlike any prophet in the Bible. Many of his claims to revelation are self-serving. Mohammed’s claim that Muslims could have only four wives while he can have any woman he wanted is self-serving. Mohammed could not stand ridicule and that is why he put to death a Meccan woman who wrote satirical poetry against him. The commands to kill the infidels, those who rejected him, makes Mohammed a man of war, not peace, Mohammed led his forces in about 18 battles and planned about 38 others. The history of Islam beginning with Mohammed is a history of war, conquest, greed, and tyranny. Islam does not allow freedom of religious expression. It does not understand, or acknowledge that forced worship, coercive worship is not real worship at all. Forced worship would only please the Devil, not Yahweh.

All the same, those of us who know the Jesus of the Bible, not the ‘Isa of the Qur’an, know what we must do. Despite what from our perspective is the evil agenda of Islam, we must continue to follow the command we were given.

Will you walk into my parlour?” said the Spider to the Fly,
‘Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy;
The way into my parlour is up a winding stair,
And I’ve a many curious things to shew when you are there.” …

We watched the History Channel the other night… “Inside Islam: why the book of Islamic law makes it so difficult for Muslims to separate religion and politics“. I thought it was going to be interesting, and so it was… how Islam beguiles us with a pleasantly peaceful picture of itself to lull us lackadaisically into a lethal lair.

I watched almost mesmerized as a softly spoken turban-headed imam told his version of Islam while all the time had to be knowing that his Qur'an teaches nothing of the sort. All the same, I noticed the parts he missed out - firstly, the bit about Muhammad, his cruel and ruthless bloody raids on the caravans of the Quraysh, the plundering and raping and murdering, and revealing messages from Allah that justify his actions. From being a tiny despised community in Mecca, Muhammad’s followers moved to Medina and, striking terror into the hearts of their enemies, quickly became a violent force with which the pagans of Arabia had to reckon. I was waiting to hear that bit, but it never came. Instead we heard tolerant peaceful Qur’anic surah (verses) but our teacher forgot to mention that they have actually been cancelled according to Islamic theology. He also forgot to tell us that the Qur’an commands Muslims to make war on Jews and Christians, indeed on all infidel or unbelievers, until they submit to Islam or else be killed.

We were told how Muslims have always lived amicably alongside Jews and Christians, allowing others to practise their own religions and different lifestyles. But this imam forgot to mention the heavy poll tax (jizya) that was put on them, with laws about their dress that must distinguish them as Dhimmis (guilty ones) and deny them rights afforded Muslims. Dhimmis were to feel themselves subjugated - belittled, humiliated, subdued. Islamic apologists claim that dhimmitude is a thing of the past, yet nowhere in the Islamic world today do non-Muslims enjoy full equality of rights with Muslims.

Then the imam turned his attention to Islamic culture, and how much it blossomed while Europe blundered through the Dark Ages. But the truer picture is that this flowering did not come as a result of Islam itself, but from the non-Muslims who served their Muslim masters in various capacities. Their claim to the invention of the astrolabe is undone by the fact of its development and perfection long before Muhammad was born. It is true that Muslims established the first pharmacies and required standards of knowledge and competence from doctors, but it was the Belgian physician Vesalius who published the first accurate description of human internal organs - Muslims were forbidden to dissect bodies or to make artistic representations of the human body. The Muslim al-Khwarizmi is given credit for mathematical discoveries, but the principles he worked on without adding much that was new had already been discovered centuries before he was born - including the notion of zero which Muslims attribute as their own invention. In fact, Islam killed scientific and philosophical inquiry. With the common assumption among them that the Qur’an is the perfect book, no other book was needed and nothing from any other source, especially from the infidel, was seen as necessary anyway. The imam didn’t deal with any of these little details but softly intoned his advocacy of his faith as the great fertile fathering of modern thought and invention.

We heard how the Christian Crusaders had stormed into Muslim lands in the 11th and 12th centuries and committed their terrible atrocities for which we “people of the book” must hang our heads in shame. It was not mentioned that Muhammad, his followers and successors, had seized Christian lands - Jerusalem and the Holy Land - some 450 years earlier because Islamic theology has it that if any land has ever, at any time, belonged to the House of Islam, then it belongs for ever. The imam preferred the idea that the Crusades were acts of unprovoked aggression by Europe against the Islamic world. There was no room for the longer view that has the Crusades being a delayed response to centuries of Muslim aggression which grew more fierce than ever in the 11th century. I heard not a murmur along the lines that these wars were for the recapture of Christian lands and the defence of threatened Christians, not religious imperialism with the objective to convert Muslims (or anyone else) to Christianity by force.

So… we heard what a tolerant and peaceful religion is Islam. We heard not a sound of the deception that is Islam although its silence was louder than all the words from the imam’s lips. We were all to believe these softly spoken words of a very peaceful sounding man.

… Alas, alas! how very soon this silly little Fly,
Hearing his wily, flattering words, came slowly flitting by;
With buzzing wings she hung aloft, then near and nearer drew,
Thinking only of her brilliant eyes, and green and purple hue —
Thinking only of her crested head — poor foolish thing! At last,
Up jumped the cunning Spider, and fiercely held her fast.
He dragged her up his winding stair, into his dismal den …

So what do you believe, my reader?

And now dear little children, who may this story read,
To idle, silly flattering words, I pray you ne’er give heed:
Unto an evil counsellor, close heart and ear and eye,
And take a lesson from this tale, of the Spider and the Fly.

(The Spider and the Fly ~ Mary Howitt)

One of Leonard Bernstein’s best serious compositions is the five movement Serenade for orchestra and violin. The movements are each named after characters in Plato’s dialogue, The Symposium, and the setting is a banquet at the house of Agathon where the host, Socrates, and others speak on the subject of love. Bernstein wrote of his composition:

“The music, like the dialogue, is a series of related statements in praise of love, and generally follows the Platonic form throughout the succession of speakers at the banquet. The relatedness of the movements does not depend on common thematic material, but rather on a system whereby each movement evolves out of elements of the preceding one.”

The elderly Israeli lady whom we normally find sitting next to us at NZSO concerts was not there the other night. We usually enjoy her entertaining insights and perceptive little comments on members of the orchestra, but we know she is not one for 20th century composers… which probably explained her absence. I cannot make such a blanket statement about any “Age” of music as I often find something to like in all of them. On this occasion we were treated to the exceptionally brilliant talents of Taiwanese-American virtuoso violinist, Cho-Liang Lin, who seeks out contemporary composers and puts heart and soul into his playing. The performance was pure magic for me, but not so for hubby who prefers a common theme to an evolving development of elements. For neither he nor our absent companion, despite his physical presence, did it start where either of them happened to be.

So how many places can one person be? Whereas one’s body is anchored to a set of physical dimensions, it is fun that the mind can experience some freedom from those physical restrictions and travel the realm of ideas. We can find ourselves in many places that way. And in varying degrees, according to the measure we each have of the ability to empathize with others, we can also place ourselves where another happens to be.

The other day someone who said he was not very religious voiced a question about God, about how one can know for sure that God exists. Not being very religious, this was more of a casual interest… just a question he had in the back of his mind, he said. What I was hearing from him was no pressing need expressed on his part, no intensive search after God. It was just a question… rather like one might wonder at breakfast time what one should plan for dinner tonight. To my way of thinking, a good answer should meet the nature of the question, and in this case using this analogy be appealing to someone who had just eaten breakfast and is not too serious about dinner just yet. Of course, the faint wafting aroma of newly baked bread and freshly ground coffee can arouse the appetite of even the most replete breakfaster. Savouring this can lead to a pleasurable anticipation of dinner later in the day. On the other hand, the immediate delivery of a second plate of bacon, sausages and eggs is just too much, and when served up with the ubiquitous epithet “Enjoy!” or some other supposedly well meaning comment that overshoots the mark, I cannot leave the scene quickly enough. Yes to the aroma, but No to the second helping. That does not start where I happen to be.

On the one hand I enjoy and applaud the enthusiasm of Christians for whom the Gospel message is so evident in their lives, and completely understand their wish (and our Lord’s command) to share the truth. I appreciate the sense of urgency that goes with it too. And yet on the other hand, I find my own enthusiasm is tempered by another consideration. It is not I who deals with the souls of others, but it is the work of God who uses me. Therefore I must listen to His voice and heed His direction. There is a little matter of obedience, of self control and discipline, and something that I see as being the hallmark of God… that which He gives matches perfectly the need that exists. I believe that God starts where someone happens to be.