An Eye for an Eye

This news article intrigued me the other day.

About how the Koran says, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and a soul for a soul".
Suggesting that these Muslims are merely following a biblical precept to the letter.

An article that suggests that we, as products of Darwin's enlightenment- should hold such barbarism in contempt.
Pretty easy to say... from a distance.

Yet, this precept is far from biblical.  Far from the letter of the Mosaic law.  And far from the letter of Christianity.

But what puzzled me- was where the Islamic "scholar" of this news article included "soul for a soul".
Which is not an accepted translation of this verse in the Koran.  Since this verse should be translated "life for life"- and not the "soul for soul" appended by that scholar.

Yet, that scholar's "soul for soul" concept is found elsewhere in the Koran.  Thirteen verses earlier.  In the eleventh and thirteenth words. 
Here we are told that the concept "soul" is to be taken in a genitive sense with the thirteenth word.  And in the accusative sense with the eleventh word of this verse.
Note the differences between the thirteenth

and the eleventh

words.
Not exactly an identical substitution of a "soul for a soul".  Where the one "soul" is to be accused- while the other "soul" remains accursed.  Obviously some categorical distinctive that is being overlooked by the "scholar" of that news article. 
A categorical distinctive that should also applied to the "eye for an eye" etc.
A distinctive that suggests some form of equivalence- yet not exact equivalence.
A distinctive that is recognized by followers of the Mosaic law.  The law that Mohammad  alludes to.

Now what I found fascinating in my research, was not merely that Islamic justice appears overwhelmingly retaliative rather than restorative - but also that Islam appears to hold contempt for any interpretation of this particular verse that might suggest a genitive "savior" .
Holds contempt for any interpretation that might suggest a soul-ish savior.  Indeed, contempt for the interpretation of this verse by Arab scholar Bijan Moeinian:


"Based upon this incidence, I decreed to the children of Israel (and such passages are missing in the existing bibles except a few verses in Thalmud) that: “Whoever kills a human being (unless the latter being guilty of murder or spreading corruption on earth) should be looked upon as though he has killed the entire humanity and whoever saves a life should be considered as the savior of whole mankind.” However, in spite of many Prophets which came to them with undeniable miracles, the majority of them chose to disregard the Divine laws".

Contempt for the mere suggestion of a "savior".
And Bijan didn't even go all the way- by properly saying "soul savior" either!

Yes, contempt for a savior.  Contempt of a proper "soul for a soul".
Contempt which will land them... in a land of contempt.

Without a Hitch

In case you haven't heard-it seems unlikely that Hitchens will see another one of his memoirs published. It seems Hitchens is at the brink of death- and that we will be without a Hitch shortly.  Esophagus cancer.

That's too bad.
I like Hitchens.

I can appreciate his brutal honesty.  His uncompromising tenacity.  His bravery and his audacity.
Hitchens is a man in which I find very little deceit.
Hitchens is a man of which even Jesus might say, "In Hitch I find little guile " (cf. John 1:47).  And yet... I expect Jesus will find Hitchens guilty.  Guilty of contempt.
His contempt for Christ.
His contempt for his Creator.
For his insisting that, "if there actually were a Creator- then this Creator is actually evil".
For his insisting, "can anyone good be responsible- for this pernicious evil"?
His contempt for the Creator who creates good- from a pernicious evil.
His contempt for the Creator who can grant resurrection- from a pernicious crucifixion. 

Now what sort of eternity might I envision- for an uncompromising Hitchens?

A persistent pleading with a publishing house on fire,.
A persistent pleading for a keyboard that doesn't burn his fingers.
A persistent pleading for Johnny Walker with ice.
A persistent pleading through an esophagus on fire.

A persistent itch for even one ear to hear him.
A persistent itch for even one breast to accompany him.
A persistent itch from that "worm that never dies" -Mark 9:48.
A persistent itch... for Hitch. 

One For The Tipper

Yes, and not unlike our previous post- Al and Tipper Gore are also at the brink of divorce. And have probably been at the brink for a long time as well. Yet strangely- Christianity Today thinks that it may actually be good to be at the brink. That 'separation may actually be "pro-marriage"'. That separation may actually 'stimulate you to reconsider... separation'! That unfaithfulness may actually 'stimulate you to reconsider... unfaithfulness'.

But to be fair to the Gore's- this is just a "trial separation". To see if a real separation might actually work. To see if a real separation might be in the globe's best interests. As if the globe really cares.

And they are boldly going forth in a New Direction. Forging a New Covenant between themselves. A Covenant to forsake the Covenant that they had with each other- for an indeterminate while. While they determine if they should actually return to the Covenant- that they had actually had with each other. That they were to forsake all others for. For quite a while.

But does this New Direction really work? Is this separation not really sin? Is this separation not really unfaithfulness? And is not- what is not of faithfulness... not really sin (Romans 14:23)?

Does it not appear that the globe's-pal-Al has "exchanged faithfulness for a lie" (Romans 1:25)? Not appear that Al has exchanged his faithful Tipper- for little more than Air Miles? Not appear that this separation will bring Al to a much more "inconvenient truth"? To a much more inconvenient exchange?

After all, did not the extended separation of Jesse from a filming Sandra- not stimulate Jesse to an inconvenient exchange of tits for tatt's? Or did not the extended separation of Elin from a touring Tiger- not stimulate Tiger to an inconvenient exchange of long drives for mini-putts?

Yet Al and Tipper think that separation from each other might stimulate them to... be faithful? To whom? To what? To Al's Mother Gaia?

Well, if Al and Tipper pass this "trial"- then they are certainly eligible for a divorce. And legally, it takes a year long "trial"- for them to pass. No questions asked. And only half that "trial" time if they opt to give "just cause" for a divorce.

Yes, a considerably longer trial than is required for Muslims or Jews to obtain a divorce (seems it takes Muslims or Jews only "an hour or two" trial). Yet, Tipper seems willing to endure yet- one more year. Yes, one for the Tipper. Then, rather than opting to give the specious cause of 'spiritual adultery'- after a year Tipper can give the less than specious cause of "irreconcilable differences". Some difference. More patience.

However, what was this editor at CT thinking? Why would he publish this article?
And what was this Director-of-Family-Formation-Studies at Focus on the Family thinking? Why would he write this article? Why would he endorse this separation?
And why would Focus not ask this Director to step down for his similar marital unfaithfulness?
Or this endorsement of Gore's unfaithfulness?
Odd that Focus didn't mind asking it's founder- to step down. Didn't mind asking Dr. Dobson to separate from "The Family". Seems they had some irreconcilable differences.

Yet, does it not seem that Christianity Today and Focus have lost... their focus? Seeming to think that the faithfulness of today- should be different than the faithfulness of yesterday? Seem to have separated themselves from the world of faithfulness- and have entered a whole New World of pragmatism? Seeming to think that they should become 'all things- that they might save some' (1 Cor. 9:22)?
Even if it means endorsing separation? Even if it means endorsing unfaithfulness?
As long as it makes the globe happy?

Should Benny Stalk Suzie?

Not too flattering a picture of Suzie, sorry.
I actually like her better than Benny though. Not nearly as duplicitous. Not nearly as deceitful.
Not nearly as vain. Not nearly as heretical. And actually kinda pretty.
Yet is she being "unbiblical" as Benny claims?
Seems Benny wasn't telling the whole story either. Again, much less shock and awe than claimed by Benny.
Seems they've been apart a few years already. Already been unfaithful. Already sinning against each other. Unless Benny is now bereft of manly passion. And Suzie bereft of lady lust.
Yet, marital obligations extend far beyond providing sex (although good biblical scholars would argue that this is Paul's primary argument for getting married). Far beyond providing food. And far beyond providing clothing (Exodus 21:10).
After all, who would contend that they do not include providing shelter? Transportation? Or defense?
Yet how do you defend an 'absentee' wife? One that seems more than a little absent upstairs as well as downstairs.
And Benny likely knew that Suzie was physically 'absent' for a while. Quite a while in fact.
And Benny likely knew that Suzie was being "unbiblical" for a while as well. Quite a while in fact. And it seems Benny did little to defend Suzie from various wolves. Little to defend Suzie from various heresy. Little to defend Suzie from a sickening Shaw. Shaw's aberrant view of marriage. And Shaw's abhorrent view of sex.
Yes Benny, it likely was "unbiblical" for Suzie to leave you (1 Cor. 7:10) . Unless Benny was defaulting in his obligations too (which is pretty unlikely, huh?).
However, if Suzie will not submit to biblical authority. Will not submit to the churches counsel. Then Benny should let Suzie leave- and with the churches endorsement (Matt 16:19)!
What!!!?
But in that last post you said that Benny should "kiss up", Ron.
And indeed Benny should "kiss up"- if Suzie 'puckers up'.
Yet there is currently no indication of Suzie submitting or 'puckering up'. Currently no indication of Suzie truly being a Christian. Despite her peculiar past manifestations. Despite her being an alleged "Pastor".
Now, this was essentially the same counsel that I gave Greg at Desiring God.
Indeed, Greg's 'absentee' claims to want "nothing to do with God". "Nothing to do with biblical counsel". "Nothing to do with church". "Nothing to do with covenant". "Nothing to do with Greg".
And Greg should respect her aversion. These are not the fruit of a "born again" person. These are the fruit of a barren person.
And as 1 Cor. 7:15 says, Greg should not be "stalking" a barren person (we'll deal with the moderator at that blogs rebuttal to me- on my mature brother blog).
Likewise Benny should not be "stalking" Suzie.
And unless she 'puckers up' soon--- Suzie is 'all show and no go'. All fluff and no stuff.
A gold ring in a pigs snout. And Benny should sow no more seeds in this sow.

Update:  Seems Benny is intent on another sow now.  Seems he couldn't be civil enough to wait out the civil- waiting-period for a divorce.  Seems Benny was conquered by his "passions".  And Suzie by her lack.

Separating Hinn from His Hiney

Yes, Benny Hinn's 'Hiney' has filed for divorce.
They have been separated for about 30 days.
And married for about 30 years.

"Irreconcilable differences", Mrs. Hinn claims.
Shock and awe, Mr. Hinn claims.

Which begs the biblical question, "Which differences are irreconcilable?"
And the question, "Which differences are not?"

Grounds which dear Dr. Mike- ably presents here.
And grounds which I have not as ably- presented elsewhere.

Yet are they truly "irreconcilable"?
And if shock and awe is truly the case- was there any intervention? Any Biblical counseling?
Or is Hinn or his filing Hiney above such compassionate counseling ?

Now, it remains to be seen- if Hinn can pull another alleged miracle- of out of his alleged gift.
The great miracle of reconciliation. Before she is truly "loosed"- 1 Cor. 7:15.

But if he truly has the Holy Spirit- he has an obligation to try.
To "pursue the things which make for peace" (Rom. 14:19)- lest his hiney be hung out to dry.

So get on your knees- and kiss hiney, Mr. Hinn.
Kiss her hiney till the cow comes home.

And then kiss her till her kisser sleeps.
Cuz only fools will kiss a tombstone.

Separating The Fish From The Flock

Yup, kinda weird huh?
His Name?
Yes, that too.

That and Mr. Fish still thinking that MacArthur's church- is a false church with a false gospel.
And as usual Phil Johnson does a fine job with his updated post on Fish here.

Now, I doubt that I would have been as patient with Fish- as his elder Johnson was.
Think I woulda tossed him to the sharks waaay sooner.

Yet-
Am not terribly disturbed by Fish's view on corporal punishment. As Johnson seems to be.
Am not terribly disturbed by Fish's view on masturbation. As Johnson seems to be.
Am not terribly disturbed by Fish's view on polygamy. As Johnson seems to be.

But with Johnson, I do find Fish's view on the Trinity- as ludicrous!

On this issue Fish is like a fish out of water. Not even flapping on the dock.
Suffocatingly far- from the brink of orthodoxy.

A 'compound-being of "nine"', huh?
Even blowhard Hinn retracted that ninesense :)

Oops, wait a minute- "Jerusalem is God". Better make that ten.
Oops, wait a minute- "The Throne, the Heavens and His Kingdom" are also God. Thirteen!

And given Fish's theological training- he has no excuse.
Despite his premature swim from the school- he is far too obtuse.

He bit the Master's Seminary that fed him.
Then bit the master that led him.

And even if Fish- has a sound bite on the how of justification.
Still, he doesn't know who he is justified by.

Was he justified by the God-man?
Or justified by "two men"?

Is his faith in God incarnate?
Or God "eternally carnate"?

Is this Fish incredibly shallow?
Or just hobbled by a fish-eye lens?

Will this Fish become "one-flock with one shepherd"?
Or remain a fish without a school.

Will this Fish subscribe to the Rule of Faith?
Or struggle to maintain the 613 Mosaic rules.

We shall attempt to deal with one of those rules at my mature brother blog.
A rule that Pharisee Fish maintains- the death penalty for Sex During Menstruation.

My apologies for this present post.
Not as sanctifying as the previous post.

But as Johnson might say, "Sometimes ya  just gotta take out the trash".