http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585125669588896670&q=illustra+media&total=362&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Also, check out "Evolution - a theory in crisis" by Michael Denton.

Be sure to watch the whole thing. Even Darwin refutes the idea that natural selection can make the leaps in species that we in modern times want natural selection to explain. By the way; if your qualifications to speak to this outweigh the qualifications of these people, let me know. I pray you won't continue to be brainwashed in to believing evolution is THE explanation for the origin of species.

I think evolution is taught because it's a default. Even the professor in the above linked video was angry because he went on to get his Phd in biology and had never heard the idea of intelligent design. If you want to be fair, you should allow the teaching of ALL theories rather than just one and let people make up their own minds.

Your frustrations above tell me you are in conflict with the seeking of truth. If you're right, then why must you attack instead of just arguing your point? I know the answer to that question, but you have to ask yourself that.

May God richly bless you in your search for truth!

So, I finally watched this vid, and yeah, its pretty out there... sort of... so, swedishfriend, to answer your questions about the historical accuracy of his argument:

All that stuff about Amenhotep IV and the introduction of a one god, whom he called Aten, is pretty much true... also, Nefertiti (of the beautiful bust that is in Berlin) was his wife, and Tutankhamen (King Tut) was his son, (or perhaps nephew, its debatable) and the second heir to his throne. There is a pretty good article on wikipedia about him and Atenism if you need a starting place.

However, the central thesis of this video, that the word 'Amen' is somehow derivative of the name 'Amenhotep' is dubious at best... in fact I think its probably just plain wrong. I consulted a few different Etymology Dictionaries, and they all list 'Amen' as having derived from the Greek 'amen', which in turn seems to have come from Hebrew word for 'truth', roughly spelt out a-m-n, and was used in both languages as way to say 'truthfully' in agreement to something. One source on the matter states that it was only recorded as being used at the conclusion of prayers from 1230 CE onward, about 2600 years after the rule of Amenhotep, which, in my mind, is a bit long to suddenly revive something like that for the sole purpose of ending off a prayer.

Also, linguistically, although the Egyptian language of modern times is grouped with other Semitic languages (like Hebrew) this is only due to the Arab invasions and their influence in the region. The language of the New Kingdom was much much different and unlikely to have influenced Hebrew, which evolved separately in the East.

Lastly, I find it highly unlikely that early Christians drew inspiration from the name Amenhotep for religious reasons related to the origins of monotheism, because once Amenhotep instituted Atenism, he changed his name to Akhenaten, which would have been the name appropriate to him in a religious context. That is also how he was primarily remembered throughout history, as most all of his monuments were carved with his new name. The name 'Amenhotep IV' was not likely to have been remembered in connection with the new religion of the one god.

So, raven's vote: this guy is full of crap with this theory, don't take it seriously, but, do pursue your interests in the ancient world (I certainly do )... however, this vid is crazy and highly entertaining... so, upvote from me.

Alright, I can roll with this. Just to let you know, I’m not going to go to any internet sources to argue against points you make here. This is all out of my own little brain, so I apologize if it is vague...or whatever.

First of all, Qruel, you describe the differences between the CJCLDS and “biblical Christianity”. Would you mind telling me what biblical Christianity is? As far as I can tell, interpretations of the Bible among Christians are hugely varied. Not only that, but there are several versions of the Bible that are vastly contradictory to one another. Some denominations have gone so far as to simplify the Bible into more understandable language. I haven’t seen any big objections to that sort of thing going on. You asked, “How would you feel if one day someone all of a sudden added religious books onto biblical scripture that changed much of the philosophy of the Christian faith and even went as far as to say that the bible has been corrupted and that the new books were now the "true" word of god.” I ask you how you would feel if God felt that it was time to give us additional scripture. What if at this time He chose to give us scripture that is more applicable to our day, more concise, more clear, more easy to understand? Anyone who has ever read the Bible on their own knows that it can be hard to understand and that it often seems to contradict itself. What if He restored prophets to the Earth? What if modern revelation exists just as it did long ago? Nobody “changed” anything here, Qruel. The Bible HAS been corrupted. It’s made obvious simply by the fact that there are different versions! Why is it so ridiculous to suppose that there is no one translation of the Bible that is entirely accurate? It’s been a long time since it was written. By stating that we believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly, we are not disqualifying the Bible! We love and use the Bible every day! I spent two years of my life studying it in high school, and a semester in college. I study it every week in church. I read it before bed. We read and believe in the King James Version. We just don’t want to state that we believe false translations of the Bible. What the heck is so offensive about that?

“It should be noted that the LDS Church frequently uses terminology similar to that of biblical Christianity in communicating its doctrines, but often with drastically different meanings or connotations. This tends to obscure the fundamental differences in doctrine to the casual observer.”

Yes, we interpret the Bible very differently from most people. Catholics interpret the Bible very differently from most people. Baptists interpret the Bible very differently from most people. Presbyterians interpret the Bible very differently from most people.

As I’ve stated before, there are many interpretations of the Bible. I love how Christians all of a sudden lump themselves together when they talk about how LDS doctrine “drastically differs” from mainstream Christianity. Since when did all those Christians agree with each other? What is mainstream Christianity? What does it believe? Sure, you can make some generalizations, but even the nature of the Trinity is disputed among Christians. The Book of Mormon does not contradict the Bible as we interpret it. The Bible doesn’t contradict Christian doctrine as they interpret it. Big whoop-di-doo. Now all of a sudden our interpretation is bogus just because it isn’t popular. Alrighty, then.

“This teaching is generally not publically promoted in modern times, nevertheless, the internal teachings state that the other denominations are "abominations" to God, and that the LDS Church is the only true church that bears the "restored" gospel of Jesus Christ.”

This is a blatant attempt to make it seem like we’re ashamed of the belief that we are the only true church. I certainly am not afraid of that principle. I’m proud of it. Any church that doesn’t believe it is the only true church is full of it. Logically, rationally, there cannot be more than one truth about any one thing. There cannot be three distinct AND true ways to interpret the nature of God. It’s ridiculous. Any church that claims to preach truth and only truth must logically claim that it is the ONLY truth. We may not blab about it all the time because we don’t want to offend people. Any member of the church who seeks to apologize for this doctrine is missing the point. The opposite of truth is lies. Lies are an abomination. I’m sorry if calling other churches an abomination to God hurts people's feelings.

“The LDS Church teaches that all humans existed prior to life on earth as the "spirit children" of the Heavenly Father (and his wife/wives) in heaven, and that our earthly birth came about when our spirit willingly chose to inhabit a physical body on earth.”

This is just a difference in interpretation of the doctrine that we are all children of God. We take it more literally. This doctrine can be backed up by the Bible. I don’t think any more needs to be said on the topic.

“LDS theology states that God (or more commonly referred to as "Heavenly Father") is an exalted and glorified man, that he has a physical (albeit immortal) body. It is also taught that qualifying Mormons can also become gods, just like the Heavenly Father, in the next life, and produce spirit offspring (presumably to populate another earth.). The doctrine of the Trinity as accepted by Biblical Christianity is rejected by LDS theology. The LDS Church teaches that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are "spirit children" of God, and that Jesus is unique in that he is also the fleshly son of God (conceived by a physical union of the Heavenly Father and Mary). It is also taught that Lucifer, or Satan, is also one of the Heavenly Father's spirit-children, making him a "spirit brother" Jesus.”

The phrasing of the sentence, “It is also taught that qualifying Mormons can also become gods, just like the Heavenly Father…” is confusing. We believe that everyone can become gods. We also believe that baptism is a necessary ordinance in order to become a god. We believe that only through the power of God, the priesthood, can people be baptized. We also believe that the priesthood must be given by someone who has it. Before Joseph Smith restored the church, the priesthood did not exist on the Earth because it had been lost and so we believe that no one but the members of our church hold the true priesthood and the authority to baptize. So, yes, you have to become a member of our church in order to receive the ordinance of baptism in this life. But if you die without ever becoming Mormon, all is not lost. You’ve still got time.

Remind me to talk about eternal progression into gods and the separate nature of the Godhead at another time. I don’t have the energy right now and it’s going to take a lot of explanation.

“The LDS Church accepts the Book of Mormon as their primary scripture and the inspired Word of God, supplemented by the Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. The Bible is accepted as the Word of God only insofar as it has been translated correctly. However, the qualifier attached to the Bible substantiates a belief that the Bible has been significantly corrupted over the centuries, and is therefore not entirely reliable as the Word of God.”

“Primary scripture”? I’ve never heard that before. Can any Mormons around here tell me if they agree that the Book of Mormon is our primary scripture? I already addressed the issue of the translation of the Bible. I would like to restate that if you came to our church and saw the way that we treat the Bible you would see that we do not disqualify the Bible but that we occasionally refer to a Joseph Smith translation which usually differs only slightly, but may differ quite a bit in some cases. But, honestly, it isn’t as if we took all of the scriptures about one topic and changed them to fit into our doctrine.

“Generally speaking, prophecy is seen as progressive and changeable. New revelations are not uncommon throughout their history, and critics will point out that many of these revelations tend to be revelations of convenience in order to accommodate a particular circumstance or situation. A case in point is the revelation that allowing of African-Americans to enter the priesthood (which had been prohibited until the 1970s). Other prophecies, such as Joseph Smith's claims about what will be found on the moon, have remained (and are likely to remain) unfulfilled.”

This is where I’ll leave it for now. I’ll come back to the rest of this stuff later if a have time or the inclination. But, first, I have to break my rule and use an internet source to address the issue of moon-men. I love that little drive-by jab at Joseph Smith. I had never heard of that before so I did a search and I’m just going to post the first two relevant things I found on the topic.

“The idea that Joseph taught the moon is inhabited comes from the writing of Oliver B. Huntington in 1881 (his journal) and in 1892 (the Young Woman's Journal). Huntington claimed that Joseph Smith's father had given him a patriarchal blessing in 1837 which promised that he would preach the gospel to the moon inhabitants.
Close examination reveals that Huntington was only ten years old when he was given this blessing and that his recollections were made over fifty years later. Also, it turns out that the blessing was given by his own father, not Joseph Smith's father.
According to a copy of the blessing in the Church archives (Blessing Book, vol.9, pp.294-95), it was only one of many given the same day at the same meeting, and none were recorded in detail at the time. Orson Pratt took sketchy notes as the blessings were given, then filled in details later by consulting those who were there. An examination of the blessing shows that the recorded blessing was much more vague than Huntington remembered.
It also appears that Huntington may have picked up on a rumor that Joseph Smith had given a description of the inhabitants of the moon. This description, which Huntington recorded in his journal, is the original source of the anti-Mormon claim that Joseph described the moon inhabitants. Because his journal is also cited in a Young Woman's publication of the Church, it supposedly gives more credibility to the critics. The statement, which appeared in a two-page article by Oliver B. Huntington entitled "The Inhabitants of the Moon" in the Young Woman's Journal, is as follows:
As far back as 1837, I know that he [Joseph SmithJ said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do. That they live generally to near the age of a 1,000 years.
He described the men as averaging nearly six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style (Young Woman's Journal, Vol.3, p.263).
From what is quoted here, the most we can conclude is that 0. B. Huntington was familiar with rumors of statements that were attributed to Joseph Smith. However, there is nothing in the writings of Joseph Smith or those who recorded his words prior to his death that even hints of any these views about inhabitants on the moon. This earliest recollection was recorded in 1881, 37 years after the prophet's death.
Even if it turned out that the prophet held these views, nowhere does scripture suggest that a prophet is not allowed to speculate about things that haven't been revealed. Many people during the Nineteenth Century, both the learned and not-so-learned, were speculating on this subject. Joseph Smith's personal opinions and what he taught as revealed doctrine, however, are two entirely different things. The idea that he taught it as a revealed doctrine is based upon Oliver B. Huntington's fifty-year-old, correct or incorrect memory of his blessing, and a rumor that was current in 1881.”

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/moon.htm

President Henry B. Eyring said,
“Now what about the Prophet Joseph Smith? I don't know whether he said men live on the moon or not. But whether he did or not troubles me not in the least. A prophet is wonderful because he sometimes speaks for the Lord. This occurs on certain occasions when the Lord wills it. On other occasions, he speaks for himself, and one of the wonderful doctrines of this Church is that we don't believe in the infallibility of any mortal. If in his speculations the Prophet thought there were people on the moon, this has no effect on my belief that on other occasions, when the Lord willed it, he spoke the ideas that the Lord inspired him to say. It is for these moments of penetrating insight that I honor and follow him.”

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/moonmen.htm

I guess this is some kind of pet argument against the validity of the prophet Joseph. The website Qruel copied from is so obviously propaganda meant to hurt the CJCLDS it makes me laugh. Silliness, silliness. I think that little side note that they throw in about the moon is pretty underhanded. They probably don’t expect anybody to actually look into it. This is pretty characteristic of these websites and the people who so devoutly believe them.

I lied again. One last thing. By arguing these points, I'm attempting to show that Mormons are not Christians as Christians define themselves today. To me, Christians today represent a skewed form of Christianity. This is my personal opinion, by the way. I want to be called Christian because I am Christian. Maybe the rest of them aren't.

Gorgon, Thinking about politiancs and pandering, I've never seen Ron Paul pander when speaking, which makes me respect him that much more. I've never seen him attack another candidate. If politicians were more like him I think people would not be so politically polarized in this country. Again, he is the only religious candidate I would trust in office not to set policy according to his personal religious beliefs.

I don't think that "all" christians do not think that mormons are not christians. I think most people (christians) don't know enough about what the mormon religion claims (asserts) to know or form a viewpoint. As most religions there is a lot of personal subjectiveness when talking about religion. It seems to me only fundamentalist have a problem with mormon theology.

that text above was from a christian site (which i linked to) I'm sorry if i did not make it clear enough that those were their specific views.

I think it can be summed up as this (from a christian viewpoint)

how would you feel if one day someone all of a sudden added religious books onto biblical scripture, that changed much of the philosophy of the christian faith and even went as far as to say that the bible has been corrupted and that the new books were now the "true" word of god.

I imagine that has a lot of fundies/christians pretty pissed off (when they find out that and more...)

I found a really great outline of some of the other arguements that christians bring up (link at the bottom). I found this really interesting as I had not heard some of the specifics beforehand.

A Brief Description of LDS Doctrine and Teachings

What follows are a few key points of distinctive doctrines taught by the LDS Church, but by no means an exhaustive list of LDS teachings. These in particular are given to demonstrate how it differs from that of biblical Christianity. It should be noted that the LDS Church frequently uses terminology similar to that of biblical Christianity in communicating its doctrines, but often with drastically different meanings or connotations. This tends to obscure the fundamental differences in doctrine to the casual observer. (For a more detailed and authoritative look at LDS doctrine, we recommend you check out their online publication of Gospel Principles , which is available in the .pdf format; Adobe Acrobat Reader is required.)

The LDS Church is the only true church.
This teaching is generally not publically promoted in modern times, nevertheless, the internal teachings state that the other denominations are "abominations" to God, and that the LDS Church is the only true church that bears the "restored" gospel of Jesus Christ. In recent years, however, many within the LDS Church have taken active measures to appear more palatable to traditional Christianity. Many of the doctrines which set it apart from biblical Christianity have been downplayed (though not recanted). Nevertheless, because of the gross differences between LDS doctrine and orthodox Christian doctrine, and because of aberrant LDS teachings that depart from the biblical standard, Christendom in general does not recognize the LDS Church as another Christian denomination. These distinctives, however, are becoming blurred by a growing "ecumenical" attitude at an alarming rate; due in part to a general lack of education or agreement on Mormon distinctives, or for that matter, a lack of education or agreement on Christian distinctives.

The LDS view of the nature of humanity.
The LDS Church teaches that all humans existed prior to life on earth as the "spirit children" of the Heavenly Father (and his wife/wives) in heaven, and that our earthly birth came about when our spirit willingly chose to inhabit a physical body on earth.

The LDS view of the nature of God.
LDS theology states that God (or more commonly referred to as "Heavenly Father") is an exalted and glorified man, that he has a physical (albeit immortal) body. It is also taught that qualifying Mormons can also become gods, just like the Heavenly Father, in the next life, and produce spirit offspring (presumably to populate another earth.). The doctrine of the Trinity as accepted by Biblical Christianity is rejected by LDS theology. The LDS Church teaches that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are "spirit children" of God, and that Jesus is unique in that he is also the fleshly son of God (conceived by a physical union of the Heavenly Father and Mary). It is also taught that Lucifer, or Satan, is also one of the Heavenly Father's spirit-children, making him a "spirit brother" Jesus.

The LDS view of the fall of humanity.
The LDS Church teaches that Adam and Eve were the first "spirit children" to inhabit physical bodies on earth. Their temptation by Satan to eat the forbidden fruit and subsequent fall is characterized as part of God's plan, using the premise that had they not done so, then they would not be able to reproduce, and thereby provide physical bodies for other spirit children. It is also the teaching of the LDS Church that unless a spirit child inhabits a physical body, he cannot be elevated to godhood in the next life.

The LDS view of scripture.
The LDS Church accepts the Book of Mormon as their primary scripture and the inspired Word of God, supplemented by the Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. The Bible is accepted as the Word of God only insofar as it has been translated correctly. However, the qualifier attached to the Bible substantiates a belief that the Bible has been significantly corrupted over the centuries, and is therefore not entirely reliable as the Word of God.

The LDS view of revelation and prophecy.
Generally speaking, prophecy is seen as progressive and changeable. New revelations are not uncommon throughout their history, and critics will point out that many of these revelations tend to be revelations of convenience in order to accommodate a particular circumstance or situation. A case in point is the revelation that allowing of African-Americans to enter the priesthood (which had been prohibited until the 1970s). Other prophecies, such as Joseph Smith's claims about what will be found on the moon, have remained (and are likely to remain) unfulfilled.

The LDS view of salvation and the afterlife.
Salvation in LDS terms refers simply to the resurrection (return to life), which has been provided to all men via the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It differs from the biblical Christian view, which is that salvation is a rescue from God's punishment for sin, and the right to live eternally in God's presence. The afterlife is also viewed differently. The LDS teachings concerning the afterlife involve three levels of glory, and one is assigned to a greater or lesser level of heaven, according to one's performance on Earth. The highest level, the "Celestial" heaven, is reserved only for those who have met all the requirements of the LDS Church, including, among other things, temple marriage, and strict obedience to the commands. The LDS also teaches what is called "The Outer Darkness," which would be roughly equivalent to hell, a place of torment reserved for those who reject the gospel (as presented by the LDS Church). This is in contrast to the Biblical description of the afterlife, in which anyone who embraces the unmerited salvation of Jesus Christ will be blessed eternally in God's presence, and those who reject it will be eternally condemned in hell.

Additional Comments.
Anyone who delves into Mormon doctrine, thought, and teaching quickly realizes that it is not a simple matter. A systematic theology can hardly be said to exist in Mormonism. It is convoluted, and often contradictory. Many LDS theologians and apologists have undertaken a systematic approach to defining the doctrines and theology of the Church (a notable example being Bruce R. McConkie, author of Mormon Doctrine). The LDS Church as an organization rarely gives any official endorsement of church theologians or apologists, although unofficially, as in the case of McConkie, they may be considered authorities by the general Mormon public. In addition, Church leadership are quick to skirt the more esoteric aspects of their doctrine, particularly those doctrines which are most blasphemous to Christians. For example, when asked about the man-becoming-God doctrine on a Larry King Live interview, LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley evaded the question, and hinted that it was an anachronism that was generally not taught anymore. However, comments made by President Hinckley during LDS church conventions clearly indicate that this doctrine is alive and well in the internal structure of the LDS Church.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

A Brief Description of LDS Practices and Lifestyle Distinctives

LDS values.
The LDS Church is often praised by outsiders for their promotion of traditional family values and morality. Emphasis is placed on family and community support, patriotism, chastity, and respect for civil law. Politically LDS members (as a rule) tend to be conservative.

LDS restrictions.
The LDS Church prohibits the use of alcohol, tobacco, and "hot drinks" which in practice is coffee and tea (and caffeine in general). This restriction is also known as the "Word of Wisdom." LDS members are generally "Sunday Sabbatarians," that is, Sundays are considered to be holy days and not to be desecrated by working, entertainment, or other types of non-religious activities. The degree of strictness may vary.

LDS requirements.
The members of the LDS Church are expected to faithfully attend church (in some cases attendance is taken and absence is noted); they are expected to pay a strict 10% tithe of their income; young men are expected to serve two years on a "mission," the location and logistics of which are determined by the Church.

LDS structure & hierarchy.
The LDS Church is organized by wards (individual congregations) and stakes (groups of wards in a particular area, often using a common meeting or "stake" house). A member is assigned to a ward based on where he/she lives in a community. Each ward has a leader known as a bishop. The stake is led by a stake president. (No women are allowed in the priesthood or bishopric of the LDS Church, or in any of the higher church government positions, however certain societies within the church are led by women.) The LDS church does not have "pastors" or "ministers" in the sense that most Christians would think of them. Nearly all the leadership of the LDS Church is done on a volunteer basis, i.e., they are not paid clergy members. This is a fact that many Mormons take as a point of pride over most traditional Christian churches, which further substantiates the belief among them that the non-LDS churches are corrupt. However, higher positions of leadership within the LDS Church are not only paid, but paid extremely well.

Sunday church services generally consist of a time of singing hymns, sometimes a sacramental meal, and sharing of "testimonies" by the ward members (each member is encouraged to participate in the giving of testimonies, which affirm their faith in the LDS Church). There is no "preaching" in the sense that traditional Christianity thinks of it, but individual members and/or leaders may be called on to share or teach during church services. Children and youth are taught scriptures and LDS principles in separate classes.

LDS temples.
The LDS temples are a focal point of the LDS religion. Temples are where the religious rituals, most of them very secretive, take place. People are baptized, "sealed", and married, in the temple ceremonies. LDS members also practice "Baptism of the Dead" where deceased individuals are baptized by proxy in order to secure membership in the Church for them. Access to the temples are restricted to those who have been deemed worthy by their church leaders, and have been given a "temple recommend." Worthiness is generally determined by the bishop or stake president based on overall lifestyle, being up-to-date on tithing and other requirements of the Church.

LDS missions & missionaries.
Young men, generally out of high school, are expected to serve two years on a mission. While this is not an official requirement for advancement in the church, it is generally an unwritten expectation. Latest estimates are that only about one-third of young LDS men actually go on missions. The mission place is determined by the Church with little or no input on the part of the would-be missionary or his family, though the family must incur much of the expenses related to the mission. The location may be in North America or anywhere in the world. They are sent out in pairs, wearing black suits and white shirts, and their objective is to teach others (often door-to-door) about the Church and to encourage people to embrace the Book of Mormon and join the LDS Church. While on a mission, the missionaries are often subject to certain restrictions, which include limited contact with their families. While most missionaries are men, unmarried women are also allowed to go on a mission, if they so choose. Sometimes couples will serve together on missions, typically after retirement.

http://www.mormonchallenge.com/mormonism.htm

Qruel: one other thing to keep in mind about the widely varying beliefs of mormons (like any religion)

Today, there are many schism organizations who regard themselves as a part of the Latter Day Saint movement, though in most cases they do not acknowledge the other branches as valid and regard their own tradition as the only correct and authorized version of Smith's church. Most of these organizations are small. The vast majority of Latter Day Saints belong to the largest denomination, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which reports 13 million members worldwide. The second-largest denomination is the more ecumenical Community of Christ, which reports over 250,000 members. The third largest is The Church of Jesus Christ, with fewer than 20,000 adherents.(that was from wiki)

from the google description:
This is the mindblowing 5-part video documentary series Evidence of Revision whose purpose is to present the publicly unavailable and even suppressed historical audio, video and film recordings largely unseen by the American and world public relating to the assassination of the Kennedy brothers, the little known classified "Black Ops" actually used to intentionally create the massive war in Viet Nam, the CIA "mind control" programs and their involvement in the RFK assassination and the Jonestown massacre and other important truths of our post-modern time. The U.S. Government's Orwellian "Office of Public Diplomacy" has been in existence in various forms and under various names since World War ONE. The union of American governance and American corporate interests began in Abraham Lincoln's day and the massaging of "public truth" began even before the Roman Empire. The more you know about "real history" versus "official history", the better equipped you are to see behind the lies of our times, even as they are told to you. Evidence of Revision sweeps "official truth" into the dustbin of history as it may be revised even as it is being written. Each part cca 100 min. long, 8 hours all together. A must see for everyone

Part 1: The assassinations of Kennedy and Oswald as never seen before

Part 2: The "Why" of it all referenced to Viet Nam and LBJ

Part 3: LBJ, Hoover and others. What so few know even today.

Part 4: The RFK assassination as never seen before

Part 5: The RFK assassination continued, MK ULTRA and the Jonestown massacre... all related.

This is only $20 for 5 dvd's... if you dig it, you should buy it! http://www.wingtv.net/evidenceofrevision.html

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Charles, Chaplin, Smile, Michael, Jackson, Modern, Times, 20s, 30s' to 'Charles, Chaplin, Smile, Michael, Jackson, Modern, Times, 10s, 20s, 30s' - edited by swampgirl

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Charles, Chaplin, Smile, Michael, Jackson, Modern, Times' to 'Charles, Chaplin, Smile, Michael, Jackson, Modern, Times, 20s, 30s' - edited by swampgirl

"Essentially, Genesis sets out to answer "why did this happen?" while Darwin's theory answers "how did this happen?" -bhyphenlow

Evolutionary theory as properly understood does indeed answer 'why did this happen.' (Answer: natural selection.)

This is the same reason why evolution occurs in modern time frames, for example, in viruses and bacteria.

Honour killings are a terrible crime - one which is NOT sanctioned by Islam. I will upvote this because it is a crime that people should be aware of and that we should all try our hardest to stamp out. However, while I accept that the verse you sight is problematic - it becomes a lot more problematic when it is taken out of its historical and Qur'anic context. Furthermore, the verse you cite has nothing to do with the killing of the poor Yazidi girl in this video. The girl was killed for belonging to an ethnic and religious minority - the Kurdish Yazidis - who were persecuted under the secular rule of Saddam as well.


The Qur'anic/historical context. The verse in question - Qur'an 4:34 - is proceeded by the following verse (Qur'an 4:33): "And to every one We have appointed heirs of what parents and near relatives leave; and as to those with whom your rights hands have ratified agreements, give them their portion; surely Allah is a witness over all things." This verse concerns inheritance and succession. It is stating simply that there is a new system of inheritance - that relatives receive a fixed share, and that any debts left over by the deceased must also be settled out of the inheritance fund. Prior to the revelation of the Qur'an women in the Arabia peninsula had been treated treated appallingly - kidnap and rape were common, as were excessive beatings. Furthermore, women were inherited like property! The Qur'an lead to a social revolution in which women went from being inherited to being guaranteed a fixed share of the inheritance. Now, understandably, this was not an easy sale to the pagan Arabs of Arabia. Particularly since the beginning of the next verse states that men will have to provide financial support to women: "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because THEY SPEND OUT OF THEIR PROPERTY". Some scholars conjecture that all the talk of obedience was used to sell the idea of women receiving a fixed share of inheritance to the pagan Arabs.

Now the section of the verse that is particularly problematic when taken out of its historical context: "As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly)." Firstly, in light of the treatment of women before the revelation of the Qur'an, a light beating - while completely objectionable and condemnable by modern standards - seems light in the historical context in which the verse was revealed. This verse is NOT an open invitation to beat women. Furthermore, the following verse (Qur'an 4:35) states: "And if you fear a breach between the two, then appoint judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them, surely Allah is Knowing, Aware." This verse states that if there is any disharmony between the two parties then the two parties should enter into arbitration in order to resolve their dispute harmoniously. This verse begins 'if you fear a breach' - in other words, before any problems result in admoniting or light beating appoint arbitraters between the parties.

Overall, in its proper historical and Qur'anic context the verse in question is far less problematic. Taken together the three verses state that women, rather than being inherited, will inherit a fixed share (once any outstanding debts have been taken care of). Women were effectively economically liberated for the first time. Secondly, rather than the appalling treatment of women prior to the revelation of the Qur'an, and the complete lack of regulations regarding how a women should be treated, a man could now only beat his wife lightly - and even then only as an absolute last resort. Furthermore, before such extreme measures are permitted, arbitration should be pursued in order to restore harmony between the parties. Again, this was a huge advance in women's rights.

Now literalists - a minority - would look at those verses and argue that they are frozen in stone and that they still apply today. A non-literalist - the majority of Muslims - would argue that those verses were revealed within a particular historical context. The modern world is very different from the Arabian peninsula at the time of Mohammad. Therefore we must look at the maqasid al-Shari'ah - the higher aims and objectives of the Shari'ah. What was the reasoning behind the verses? Firstly, that women should receive a fair share of the inheritance of the deceased's estate - and NEVER be inherited. In these modern times, when families are more nuclear and less tribal, that means a greater share than that guaranteed by the Qur'an. Secondly, women should not be subject to violence, and that if a dispute arises between a married couple then arbitration should be used to restore harmony before any unpleasantness occurs. This is the kind of reasoning which was used by the judges in Tunisia to develop a legal sytem based on Shari'ah law, which provides complete equality to women in all areas of public and private life (in accordance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)) - for example marriage, divorce, inheritance, no polygamy, no honour killings etc.

All this is why I can honestly claim that Islam was originally intended to liberate the women of the Arabian peninsula. It's just unfortunate that it has been hijacked by a vocal minority of literalist, ahistorical, misogynists.

Best

Gwaan

P.S. The following video I posted on honour killings in Jordan is worth watching: http://www.videosift.com/video/Riz-Khan-The-Fight-Against-Honour-Killings-in-Jordan Unfortunately it died in the queue - please save it someone!!!. As it points out, honour killing predates Islam.

I accept that the verse you sight is problematic - but it becomes a lot more problematic when it is taken out of its historical and Qur'anic context.

The Qur'anic/historical context. The verse in question - Qur'an 4:34 - is proceeded by the following verse (Qur'an 4:33): "And to every one We have appointed heirs of what parents and near relatives leave; and as to those with whom your rights hands have ratified agreements, give them their portion; surely Allah is a witness over all things." This verse concerns inheritance and succession. It is stating simply that there is a new system of inheritance - that relatives receive a fixed share, and that any debts left over by the deceased must also be settled out of the inheritance fund. Prior to the revelation of the Qur'an women in the Arabia peninsula had been treated treated appallingly - kidnap and rape were common, as were excessive beatings. Furthermore, women were inherited like property! The Qur'an lead to a social revolution in which women went from being inherited to being guaranteed a fixed share of the inheritance. Now, understandably, this was not an easy sale to the pagan Arabs of Arabia. Particularly since the beginning of the next verse states that men will have to provide financial support to women: "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because THEY SPEND OUT OF THEIR PROPERTY". Some scholars conjecture that all the talk of obedience was used to sell the idea of women receiving a fixed share of inheritance to the pagan Arabs.

Now the section of the verse that is particularly problematic when taken out of its historical context: "As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly)." Firstly, in light of the treatment of women before the revelation of the Qur'an, a light beating - while completely objectionable and condemnable by modern standards - seems light in the historical context in which the verse was revealed. This verse is NOT an open invitation to beat women. Furthermore, the following verse (Qur'an 4:35) states: "And if you fear a breach between the two, then appoint judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them, surely Allah is Knowing, Aware." This verse states that if there is any disharmony between the two parties then the two parties should enter into arbitration in order to resolve their dispute harmoniously. This verse begins 'if you fear a breach' - in other words, before any problems result in admoniting or light beating appoint arbitraters between the parties.

Overall, in its proper historical and Qur'anic context the verse in question is far less problematic. Taken together the three verses state that women, rather than being inherited, will inherit a fixed share (once any outstanding debts have been taken care of). Women were effectively economically liberated for the first time. Secondly, rather than the appalling treatment of women prior to the revelation of the Qur'an, and the complete lack of regulations regarding how a women should be treated, a man could now only beat his wife lightly - and even then only as an absolute last resort. Furthermore, before such extreme measures are permitted, arbitration should be pursued in order to restore harmony between the parties. Again, this was a huge advance in women's rights.

Now literalists - a minority - would look at those verses and argue that they are frozen in stone and that they still apply today. A non-literalist - the majority of Muslims - would argue that those verses were revealed within a particular historical context. The modern world is very different from the Arabian peninsula at the time of Mohammad. Therefore we must look at the maqasid al-Shari'ah - the higher aims and objectives of the Shari'ah. What was the reasoning behind the verses? Firstly, that women should receive a fair share of the inheritance of the deceased's estate - and NEVER be inherited. In these modern times, when families are more nuclear and less tribal, that means a greater share than that guaranteed by the Qur'an. Secondly, women should not be subject to violence, and that if a dispute arises between a married couple then arbitration should be used to restore harmony before any unpleasantness occurs. This is the kind of reasoning which was used by the judges in Tunisia and other countries.

All this is why I can honestly claim that Islam was originally intended to liberate the women of the Arabian peninsula. It's just unfortunate that it has been hijacked by a vocal minority of literalist, ahistorical, misogynists.

Best

Gwaan

"Islam is a great example, basically the rule of islam is, (in addition to all other values, good and bad) that you MUST indoctrinate, or that in not submitting totally to God, you dont even really count as a human being. This is not something I invent, its part of most religions, but Islam is worse than most religions in this aspect."

What a load of ill-informed nonsense! It deeply depresses me that most people in the West equate Islam with the creed of a small minority of fanatical, intolerant bigots who believe that a simplistic, literalist, unthinking and misogynist interpretation of Islam must be forced upon everyone else. I've said this before, and I'll say it again:

Islam teaches that 'there is no compulsion in religion' لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّين (Qur'an 2:256). Furthermore the Qur'an states that 'Had thy Lord willed, everyone on earth would have believed. Do you then force people to become believers?' وَلَوْ شَاء رَبُّكَ لآمَنَ مَن فِي الأَرْضِ كُلُّهُمْ جَمِيعاً أَفَأَنتَ تُكْرِه النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَكُونُواْ مُؤْمِنِينَ(Qur'an 10:99). These verses have been used as the basis of freedom of religion and freedom of worship laws in many Islamic states. The Medina Document - which is the constitution established by Muhammad for the first Islamic state in Medina - guarantees freedom of belief and worship to Christians, Jews and Polytheists. In modern times an example would be Article II of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

Islam also advocates dialogue with other peoples:

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُم مِّن ذَكَرٍ وَأُنثَى وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُوباً
وَقَبَائِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوا إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ
خَبِير

"O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another." (Qur'an 49:13)

Instead of condemning and stereotyping all Muslims why don't you try talking to them. Hate destroys people, dialogue brings them closer together.

Firstly - the issue of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). This is an appalling crime, and one that is sadly prevelant in some parts of the Islamic world (I have studied FGM under the leading expert on women's rights in Africa - Dr Fareda Banda). However, it is important to be clear about the position of the Shari'ah with regards to FGM - and to do this I am going to have to provide a detailed explanation of some aspects of Islamic law.

Male circumcision is advocated by Islam - as it is by the Jewish faith. There is no dispute about this. However, there is a great deal of dispute about FGM. There is nothing in the Qur'an which advocates FGM. The most important source of Islamic law after the Qur'an is the hadith - sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. The hadith were compiled about 300 years after Muhammad's death. While some are authentic and beyond dispute, others are not and have been held by scholars of Islamic law to be weak. The only possible justification for female circumcision is the following hadith:

"A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina [Madîna]. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: 'Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband." (Sunan Abu Dawûd, Book 41, #5251.)

It is important to look at the authenticity and strength of this hadith. The hadith is found in the Sunan of Abu Dawud - an important collection of hadith. However, the compiler himself - Abu Dawud - classified this hadith as "weak". A hadith can be classified as weak for a number of reasons - but normally it is because the chain of transmission (isnad) from the Prophet to the compiler is broken or incomplete. When this happens, it is often suspected that the hadith could be fabricated. Consequently, one cannot derive a legal ruling from a weak hadith. Therefore, the vast majority of experts in Shari'ah law believe that there is no justification for FGM in Islam.

However, FGM still exists in parts of the Islamic world, and the above quoted hadith is sometimes used to justify it. What is important to note is that in those countries where Muslims advocate FGM and justify it by reference to Shari'ah law, Christains also practice FGM and justify it by reference to the bible. In reality, FGM is a practice who's origins lie not in the religious texts of the major world faiths but in the barbaric traditions of traditionally male-dominated societies.

Secondly, I will try and qualify what I think Farhad means when he says that "Sharia is no in no way representative of the religion of Islam." Shari'ah in many of its modern manifestations is not representative of the rich traditions of Islam. Much of the rigidity which people associate with Shari'ah law is a relatively recent phenomenon brought about by a number of factors. For example, there was an inherent flexibility in classical Islamic law. For example, there were five schools of law (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Zahiri) who differed in their opinions on certain issues, and this gave Shari'ah an inherent pluralism. Judges could choose between the positions of the various schools, and exercise their own judgment in order to reach fair judgments. However, in the 19th Century there was an enormous amount of pressure put on the Islamic world by the West to reform its legal system - either directly, in the form of colonialism, or indirectly in the form of economic/military pressure - to change its legal system in order to facilitate trade with Europe. The result was that the Ottoman empire, during the Tanzimat reforms, instead of working within the rich Islamic legal tradition, simply got rid of Islamic law in many areas and replaced it with European style legal codes. The Islamic law which was kept was that which would be called in Western legal systems the law of personal status - family law, inheritance. But, what the Ottomans did was codify this law - they codified one of the key Hanafi manuals of Islamic law. A similar codification occured in India under the British resulting in what was referred to as Anglo-Muhammadan law.This codification - which has continued in recent years throughout the Islamic world - has removed the inherent flexibility and pluralism in Islamic legal thinking. It has meant that judges only have one opinion to choose, and it has also meant that many judges have stopped practising ijtihad - deriving the law from its sources. All progressive scholars in the Islamic world agree that the Islamic tradition of ijtihad must be revitalized. Scholars must turn back to the sources - Qur'an and hadith - and derive Islamic law which is appropriate for modern times, and which is flexible.

There are some important examples of ijtihad worth mentioning. In the sub-continent, the prevailing legal tradition is Hanafi. Under Hanafi law, the grounds on which a woman could apply for divorce were limited. However in a landmark case, the judges used ijtihad to ensure that women could divorce much more easliy. What they effectively did was adopt a position from Maliki law and extended it. In Tunisia, women have complete legal equality with men - in marriage, divorce, no polygamy, etc. Morocco has also made important advances similar to those taken by Tunisia. In both cases it is important to note that instead of replacing Islamic law, scholars instead embraced the flexibility and pluralism inherent in the classical Islamic legal tradition. They derived new Islamic law - based on the Qur'an and the hadith - which provided full equality for women.

frasera

I agree with you that Islam is a homophobic religion - in a number of places the Qur'an condemns male homosexuality (Qur'an 7:80-82, 26:165–175, 27:55–58, 29:28–29). Another verse (Qur'an 4:15–16) is often used to condemn lesbians. In many modern Islamic states homosexuals are persecuted and if often beaten, jailed or executed. I totally condemn the persecution of homosexuals as does any decent person.

The issue of apostacy is far more complicated. Islam teaches that 'there is no compulsion in religion' لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّين (Qur'an 2:256). Furthermore the Qur'an states that 'Had thy Lord willed, everyone on earth would have believed. Do you then force people to become believers?' وَلَوْ شَاء رَبُّكَ لآمَنَ مَن فِي الأَرْضِ كُلُّهُمْ جَمِيعاً أَفَأَنتَ تُكْرِه النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَكُونُواْ مُؤْمِنِينَ(Qur'an 10:99). These verses have been used as the basis of freedom of religion and freedom of worship laws in many Islamic states. The Medina Document - which is the constitution established by Muhammad for the first Islamic state in Medina - guarantees freedom of belief and worship to Christians, Jews and Polytheists. In modern times an example would be Article II of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. Nowhere in the Qur'an is death proscribed as the punishment for apostasy. The only basis for such a view is a hadith (saying of the Prophet Muhammad transmitted by his companions and family) which states 'kill whoever changes his religion'. There are many thousands of hadith and Islamic scholars have spent centuries arguing over their authenticity. The hadith in question is an ahad hadith - meaning that unlike many other hadith which are mutawatir (transmitted by many people) it was only transmitted by one person. Many Islamic scholars have therefore cast doubt on the authenticity of this hadith. They are supported in their conclusion by the fact that neither Muhammad or any of his successors ever sentenced someone to death for apostasy. Over the centuries many prominent Islamic scholars have held the view that apostasy should not be punished by man - the punishment, if any, is up to God and will come in the afterlife.

Islam is not incompatible with the UDHR nor is it a sexist religion. I have worked extensively with human rights and women's rights activists throughout the Islamic world. It may suprise you to know that many of the most vocal supporters of human and women's rights in the Islamic world are also devout Muslims. Take Tunisia as an example. The Tunisian legal system is based on Shari'ah law. Yet it is a system of Shari'ah law which provides equal rights for women - in inheritance, marriage, no polygamy, etc. These rights were guaranteed not by abandoning Shari'ah law but by embracing the flexibility inherent in it. Many Islamic countries have also signed the CEDAW convention (Convention for the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women). Initially they had reservations against some key articles (9,16) of that convention on religious grounds - but these reservations are starting to be lifted as a result of lobbying and pressure from Muslims.

I beseech you and others not to propogate simplistic, ill-informed views about Islam and the Islamic world. Seek to understand and communicate rather than to slander and condemn.

In reply to your comment:
“sorry that is apologist nonsense. a religion based on god should have no flaws, and well, islam is about defective as it gets. you don't get to pick the few good bits to justify the rest which is horrifying.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ (believe it or else...)
islam is incompatible with the universal declaration of human rights.
http://www.iheu.org/node/1541
it is a bigoted homophobic sexist intolerant religion that asks for tolerance from others. just look up apostasy if you want to see the "freedom" that is islam.
”

frasera

I agree with you that Islam is a homophobic religion - in a number of places the Qur'an condemns male homosexuality (Qur'an 7:80-82, 26:165–175, 27:55–58, 29:28–29). Another verse (Qur'an 4:15–16) is often used to condemn lesbians. In many modern Islamic states homosexuals are persecuted and if caught often beaten, jailed or executed. I totally condemn the persecution of homosexuals as does any decent person.

The issue of apostacy is far more complicated. Islam teaches that 'there is no compulsion in religion' لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّين (Qur'an 2:256). Furthermore the Qur'an states that 'Had thy Lord willed, everyone on earth would have believed. Do you then force people to become believers?' وَلَوْ شَاء رَبُّكَ لآمَنَ مَن فِي الأَرْضِ كُلُّهُمْ جَمِيعاً أَفَأَنتَ تُكْرِه النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَكُونُواْ مُؤْمِنِينَ(Qur'an 10:99). These verses have been used as the basis of freedom of religion and freedom of worship laws in many Islamic states. The Medina Document - which is the constitution established by Muhammad for the first Islamic state in Medina - guarantees freedom of belief and worship to Christians, Jews and Polytheists. In modern times an example would be Article II of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. Nowhere in the Qur'an is death proscribed as the punishment for apostasy. The only basis for such a view is a hadith (saying of the Prophet Muhammad transmitted by his companions and family) which states 'kill whoever changes his religion'. There are many thousands of hadith and Islamic scholars have spent centuries arguing over their authenticity. The hadith in question is an ahad hadith - meaning that unlike many other hadith which are mutawatir (transmitted by many people) it was only transmitted by one person. Many Islamic scholars have therefore cast doubt on the authenticity of this hadith. They are supported in their conclusion by the fact that neither Muhammad or any of his successors ever sentenced someone to death for apostasy. Over the centuries many prominent Islamic scholars have held the view that apostasy should not be punished by man - the punishment, if any, is up to God and will come in the afterlife.

Islam is not incompatible with the UDHR nor is it a sexist religion. I have worked extensively with human rights and women's rights activists throughout the Islamic world. It may suprise you to know that many of the most vocal supporters of human and women's rights in the Islamic world are also devout Muslims. Take Tunisia as an example. The Tunisian legal system is based on Shari'ah law. Yet it is a system of Shari'ah law which provides equal rights for women - in inheritance, marriage, no polygamy, etc. These rights were guaranteed not by abandoning Shari'ah law but by embracing the flexibility inherent in it. Many Islamic countries have also signed the CEDAW convention (Convention for the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women). Initially they had reservations against some key articles (9,16) of that convention on religious grounds - but these reservations are starting to be lifted as a result of lobbying and pressure from Muslims.

I beseech you and others not to propogate simplistic, ill-informed views about Islam and the Islamic world. Seek to understand and communicate rather than to slander and condemn.

peretz pt 2:

I believe that there is a far more common and realistic hypothetical out there in the wacky lawless (or "shock the conscience" standard) world of the Rumsfeld Archipelago. There is the recent case of Maher Arar.

This man was innocent. The Canadian intelligence was wrong and unreliable. He was tortured for little reason by a nation that supposedly embraced the Enlightenment long ago and supposedly hated Stalinism. And judging from what my colleagues have told me, there are many more people like him (cabdrivers, uneducated waterboys, people that rubbed Pakistanis the wrong way) than plotters like the evil bin Laden in the secret prisons and Guantanamo.

Of course, the other issue that attaches to your question is whether Congress really wants to make the United States the first civilized nation in modern times to specifically provide unbridled executive/monarchical discretion for what would properly and universally be seen as a transparent breach of the minimum, baseline standards for civilized treatment of prisoners established by Common Article 3. I hate the idea of removing the checks or oversight on any of the branches of the US Government, especially this venal and corrupt Executive Branch.