Islam: A Religion of Lies...

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

But that Alex Jones picture is very disturbing.

Makes you wanna buy more gold, eh?

[Walks_in_islam]

[QUOTE=Evang.Benincasa;1354958]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Lemme check my list. OH yeah...here's a random one!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...r-photography/

Random...right back at you.

You sure had to go a long long way to find that picture. Was that in America?

Your concern for children is touching. Really.

Can you believe that the admins dinged me for posting names one time? UPC Sunday School superintendent gets nailed in a homo sting at a public park, the whole Nation saw it in the news, but its gotta be covered up here.

So although you can't really did up bones in my backyard, or hundreds of miles from my backyard, and you have to go find some raggedy villagers in some far-flung location, can you explain why this goes on for so many years?

The former senior pastor of the First United Pentecostal Church in Redding today pleaded guilty to five felony counts of child molestation in exchange for a 16-year prison sentence.

XXXXX, 65, who remains free of custody on $100,000 bail, is scheduled for sentencing on March 12, said Shasta County Deputy District Attorney Ben Hanna, who prosecuted the case.

XXXX was arrested in early October and charged with 47 felony counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14, as well as 47 related enhancements.

See, it is true that if you marry a young girl in some Muslim countries it is both allowed and acceptable. Such has been the practice for thousands of years, and this practice, as Pliny finally got schooled on, crosses all cultures and boundaries. There is even religious law about this practice and none of the three major religions mention or address this practice. Some Muslim countries have changed this, and some have not.

You have asked about yourselves. I did specifically give you a case about tongue-talking Pentecostals but you bowed out because although you teach the same things and use the same verses to line out your plan for salvation you say that "OH the UPC does not do that"

Really.

I say you do and I say you cover it up like a nasty boil. Here is an example that I believe you will have difficulty squirreling out of. Unfortunately the names are in the court records. The mods will ding me or not I guess but if you lie about something then I guess you earn the right to read about what you "don't notice".

http://law.justia.com/cases/californ...10/supp20.html

People v. Hodges - these winners are not the criminals, they are appealing their convictions for the COVER-UP.

Directly pasted from the appellate court records. The facts, as such, are undisputed and undisputable.

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the convictions.

Facts

At trial, the victim, 20-year-old Christine G., testified she had attended South Bay Christian Academy, a school operated by the South Bay United Pentecostal Church. The school and church were located in the same building. Christine testified she had been a student at the school from age seven until she graduated from the high school at age seventeen. Appellant Arthur E. Hodges was president of the school (as well as the pastor of the church), and appellant, George Grant Nobbs was principal (and assistant pastor). Christine went to see appellant Hodges because he was the spiritual leader of the church and the head of the school.

Christine testified that when she was 17 years old (in March 1988) she decided to seek help from appellant Hodges by telling him her stepfather, Lyn M., a minister in the church, had been molesting her for many years. Christine testified she confided in a classroom teacher who, in turn, made an appointment with Mr. Hodges during the school day. Appellant Nobbs gave Christine permission to leave class early on the day of the appointment to see Mr. Hodges.

Christine testified she told Mr. Hodges what her stepfather had been doing to her: he touched her breasts and private parts. She testified Mr. Hodges [10 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 25] told her that he believed her. Christine did not want him to tell her stepfather, but Mr. Hodges said that he would have to be confronted. Mr. Hodges told Christine he would make arrangements for her to leave home when he talked to her stepfather. Christine went home and stayed in her room.

Christine testified she met with Mr. Hodges the day after he spoke with her stepfather. He told her that her stepfather confessed to everything and that he would be handling the situation. Mr. Hodges told Christine not to tell anyone about what her stepfather had done to her.

A few days later Mr. Hodges called Christine back into his office. He told her he had sent her stepfather to a retreat. Mr. Hodges handed her a letter of apology from her stepfather. This was approximately two weeks after their initial meeting.

Mr. Hodges wanted Christine's mother and stepfather to come into the office after she read the letter. Mr. Hodges wanted Christine to go home with her parents because she was seeing her boyfriend against his instructions. Christine told Mr. Hodges she did not want to talk to her parents. He insisted, and they came into the office and spoke with her. Christine pleaded with Mr. Hodges not to make her go home with them because she was afraid of her stepfather. Mr. Hodges arranged to have her parents pick her up from school the next day and bring her home. Instead, Christine ran away. She also told others about the situation even though Mr. Hodges told her not to.

Does that "ran away" story sound familiar? I saw this myself, not from sexual but from physical abuse. Again, licensed UPC minister's kid.

After running away, Christine received instructions to return to see Mr. Hodges. She went to his office during school hours. Appellant Nobbs was also there. Mr. Hodges told her unless she returned home she would not be allowed to return to school and she would not graduate. This meeting was held approximately a week and a half after Christine was given the letter. Christine returned home and left immediately after graduation.

Raylene M., Christine's mother, testified she was unaware her husband had been molesting her daughter until she was called to the church by Mr. Hodges. She stated Mr. Hodges insisted he handle the situation within the church. She testified Mr. Nobbs was aware of the facts, and she often went to him for strength and comfort.

Detective Duffy, a child abuse detective for the San Diego Police Department, testified that on August 19, 1988, he was assigned to follow up on a telephone call made by Christine regarding molest allegations. He stated he personally interviewed Christine. His partner interviewed her older sister, Michelle. After the interview, he decided to speak with appellants. This was [10 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 26] in September 1988. He and his partner went to the school and spoke first with the principal, Mr. Nobbs. After they informed Mr. Nobbs of their investigation, Mr. Nobbs stated he was not at liberty to talk about the situation alone; he would have to call his superior, Mr. Hodges.

Mr. Hodges came down from his office and introduced himself as the president of the school. The officer admonished him. Mr. Hodges told the detective in general terms he was aware of the allegations of molest, that Christine had disclosed to him many of the details, and he had handled the situation regarding Christine's stepfather. When asked why he did not report the information to the police office or child protective services or if he knew he was mandated to report, Mr. Hodges told the officer he knew of the reporting laws, and he understood he was a mandated reporter. Mr. Hodges told the officer he wanted to take care of the matter within the church. Mr. Hodges stated he disciplined the stepfather by having him write a letter of apology to the victim and by having the stepfather confess in front of the entire congregation. Additionally, Mr. Hodges took away his ministerial license. Mr. Hodges also told the officer he instructed Christine to return home; if she did not, she would not graduate.

Detective Duffy then went to Mr. Nobbs's office. He admonished Mr. Nobbs and asked him if he was aware of the allegation of molest. Mr. Nobbs told the officer he was aware of the situation. The officer also asked him why he did not report the molest since Christine was a student at his school. Detective Duffy testified Mr. Nobbs admitted he was aware that he was a mandated reporter and knew the laws. He did not report the suspected abuse because he and Mr. Hodges wanted to resolve the situation within the church. Mr. Nobbs told the officer he, as principal of the school, could not have allowed Christine to attend school if she was not living at home. He also stated he and Mr. Hodges talked to Christine about not being able to graduate unless she returned home.

Mr. Hodges testified he is the spiritual leader of the South Bay United Pentecostal Church. He stated he met with Christine in his office, the pastoral office of the church. The meeting began with a prayer. His wife was present. He stated Christine told him she was having trouble forgiving her stepfather. She told him her stepfather was hugging her wrong, letting his hand brush against her breast. She also told Mr. Hodges she felt her stepfather's penis touching her from behind.

Mr. Hodges told Christine they would have to confront her stepfather. Christine told Mr. Hodges she did not want the police involved. He stated [10 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 27] that after talking with Christine, he prayed and sought advice. He did not know he was supposed to contact the police. Even more important, he did not contact the police because he believed that his role in the matter was a pastoral one, specifically dealing with Christine's inability to forgive her stepfather. He did not believe the incidents described by Christine were "sexual abuse"; he believed they were sins. He stated he had to follow the Scriptures concerning disciplining a Christian.

Mr. Nobbs testified he is the assistant pastor of South Bay United Pentecostal Church. The major scope of his duties is to assist the pastor. He is the elder of the division of education. He is principal of the South Bay Christian Academy, responsible for the day-to-day operation of the school. He stated he discussed the situation with Mr. Hodges primarily in the context of his taking over Lyn M.'s ministerial duties. He stated Christine would have been able to attend school and graduate so long as she was living in harmony at home. If her parents had allowed her to live outside the family home, he would have no objections to her attending school and graduating. Her parents, however, wanted her home. He believed that when he received information concerning what had taken place between Christine and her stepfather, he was acting in a pastoral capacity as assistant pastor. Mr. Hodges told him there had been inappropriate touching by the stepfather. He knew no other details.

The jury found both appellants guilty as charged.

Wanna play "double jeopardy" and guess how many more of these cases are floating around out there? Pliny wanted to play too. He's not really around this thread anymore. I think you are going to figure out that I am not really someone that you are going to pull off lying to.

[Walks_in_islam]

He did not know he was supposed to contact the police. Even more important, he did not contact the police because he believed that his role in the matter was a pastoral one, specifically dealing with Christine's inability to forgive her stepfather. He did not believe the incidents described by Christine were "sexual abuse"; he believed they were sins. He stated he had to follow the Scriptures concerning disciplining a Christian.

The above is what I know happens in the United Pentecostal Church when a crime is committed.

Do you deny that the official position of the United Pentecostal Church is to have an abuser confess, "attend a retreat", and get off scot free?

In this case, since the entire church heard the abuser's public confession, the entire church covered it up. The victim had to call the police herself.

You people picked the wrong dude to tell lies to.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

He did not know he was supposed to contact the police. Even more important, he did not contact the police because he believed that his role in the matter was a pastoral one, specifically dealing with Christine's inability to forgive her stepfather. He did not believe the incidents described by Christine were "sexual abuse"; he believed they were sins. He stated he had to follow the Scriptures concerning disciplining a Christian.

The above is what I know happens in the United Pentecostal Church when a crime is committed.

Do you deny that the official position of the United Pentecostal Church is to have an abuser confess, "attend a retreat", and get off scot free?

In this case, since the entire church heard the abuser's public confession, the entire church covered it up. The victim had to call the police herself.

You people picked the wrong dude to tell lies to.

I am not a member of the UPC but I can assure the OFFICIAL POSITION is not to cover up these things.

You say this happens "all the time" among us. But what of you and "your ranks"? Burning churches, raping nuns, kidnapping and raping Christian girlsand then THE AUTHORITIES cover up by claiming the girl converted, mob riots, beheadings, massacres, suicide bombings of metro buses, school buses, market places, harems, enslaving people, sodomy, sodomite pedophilia running rampant and verifiably happening "all the time" in several undisputably Islamic cultures, etc etc etc.

YOU may decry all those things but by the rule of judgment you render here them's are YOUR peeps.

This kind of back and forth never really goes anywhere but hey what else we all gonna do on a Friday night, right?

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I am not a member of the UPC but I can assure the OFFICIAL POSITION is not to cover up these things.

You say this happens "all the time" among us. But what of you and "your ranks"? Burning churches, raping nuns, kidnapping and raping Christian girlsand then THE AUTHORITIES cover up by claiming the girl converted, mob riots, beheadings, massacres, suicide bombings of metro buses, school buses, market places, harems, enslaving people, sodomy, sodomite pedophilia running rampant and verifiably happening "all the time" in several undisputably Islamic cultures, etc etc etc.

YOU may decry all those things but by the rule of judgment you render here them's are YOUR peeps.

This kind of back and forth never really goes anywhere but hey what else we all gonna do on a Friday night, right?

I assure you it is their official position and I have personally witnessed it.

"This for that" can go on forever true. In the meantime, when "my peeps" catch terrorists they will cheerfully and with clean conscience execute them until this twisted application of Islam stops.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

He did not know he was supposed to contact the police. Even more important, he did not contact the police because he believed that his role in the matter was a pastoral one, specifically dealing with Christine's inability to forgive her stepfather. He did not believe the incidents described by Christine were "sexual abuse"; he believed they were sins. He stated he had to follow the Scriptures concerning disciplining a Christian.

The above is what I know happens in the United Pentecostal Church when a crime is committed.

Do you deny that the official position of the United Pentecostal Church is to have an abuser confess, "attend a retreat", and get off scot free?

In this case, since the entire church heard the abuser's public confession, the entire church covered it up. The victim had to call the police herself.

You people picked the wrong dude to tell lies to.

You need bacon in your diet worse than the breath of life.

Nothing gets covered up, if it was covered up you wouldn't be able to access the court records on line. So, what about the two honor killings done in the good old US of A. I see you don't mind child brides as long as they are in Yemen? So, I see you skipped over the Egyptian cab driver who killed both of his daughters in Texas? i didn't have to go a long way for that one.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/166368674...#sp=show-clips

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

I assure you it is their official position and I have personally witnessed it.

"This for that" can go on forever true. In the meantime, when "my peeps" catch terrorists they will cheerfully and with clean conscience execute them until this twisted application of Islam stops.

How old are you? Are you in your 20s?

Anyway it isn't the official position of the United Pentecostal Church International to protect pedophiles. But I guess you can't Google the trash you wish you could produce.

Walks what about honor killings in Texas, is that the official position in your religion? A man will shoot his two beautiful daughters 11 times?

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Walks in Islam, this is from their website.....

CHURCH BELIEFS

We believe…

"In the one eternal God who is the Creator of all things. He exists in three Persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. He is totally loving and completely holy."

I mean you can find information on Bad Apostolic Pentecostals, so what is your disconnect? Do you know that not everything that is a "tongue talker" is an Apostolic or a UPCer? Are you drinking the water from your wudu? Or are you just absolutely clueless on the original point I was trying to make with shazeep? He and I was posting concerning heinous Church history, which Apostolic Pentecost has never launched a Crusade against anyone with knights and swords, Ruling bishops over countries, torturers, racks, and hatchets. Then you come in and offer not UPCI bad behavior, not Apostolic Pentecostal bad behavior, but one case with a Assembly of God situation with a Russian child, and when I post about " So, WIA, you going to bring up African Charismatics next who practice witchcraft?" You reply "I'll stick with tongue-talkers right in the good old US of A." Then you post on some run of the mill Trinitarian Pentecostal group in Australia? Walks, you then post to me that "If you are tongue-talking apostolics and they are tongue-talking apostolics then you are the same to me and you are the same to the rest of the planet." But the article wasn't about tongue talking Apostolics, but your point is that all tongue talkers are the same? So, that would apply to you as Muslim. You can't defend Islam, because your stabbing and slabbing comrades outweigh anything you can Google concerning the United Pentecostal Church International or the Apostolic Movement of One God Jesus name folks. Which you failed to do. So, you feel the logic of sameness with all Pentecostals are the same as all Christianity, High Church the same as Low Church, so on and so on. Then you missed what I was posting to shazeep. In saying that, then you are in the quandary, Apostolic movement has never taken over countries, through conquest of sword and beheading those refuse conversion. Mocking of the Apostolic movement, or drawing disparaging cartoons of their prophets, teachers, apostles or Jesus Himself never caused them to hack off hands or heads.

Your religion isn't one of non-retaliation, or peace seeking. While Allah is merciful and all benevolent, you will find that many of his adherents aren't merciful and benevolent, but violent.

Do the math, calculate the history of the Islamic invading hordes across the world during the time of Islamic conquest, and go through history of their bad behavior to our present, and put it up against what you Google on Pentecostals...African Witches, Robert Tilton and all.


Really think about that while having jumu'ah

You all use the same book, that makes you all the same. This is the brush that you and your lot paint me and others like me with. There can be much good in the application of your book. Some of the most horrible practices in the history of mankind were done in the name of the same book, same words, same verses and how can that be?

It is the same within Islam.

From the Quran, Surah 2:

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

If one believes or follows this very clear command - can someone really justify "forced conversions?" Although "forced conversions" are not exampled ANYWHERE in the bible this has been a practice in various countries around the world, even practiced towards Native Americans in our own country.

There are dozens of ways to take Quranic verses out of context and make whole doctrines from them. There are Fatwas that contradict other Fatwas. Like christianity, there are sects and schools varying from the belief that ONLY original law applies to sects and schools that have modified the law for changing times.

There are Islamic countries that never make the news, and Islamic countries that make the news all the time.
You asked about the tax. In early Islamic law, Jewish and Christian beliefs were accepted. There was no distinction between the faiths.

Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabaeans, any who believe in Allah, and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

The Jizan tax was this:

Muslims were required to pay a Zakat tax annually. It goes to charity. They are still required. Muslims (all men) were required to perform military service. Mandatory military service is no longer required. Christians and Jews were not. Christians and Jews were subject to a parallel tax which put them under protection of Muslims (who were required to protect them) and exempted them from both the mandatory Zakat tax and military service.

Were they to convert to Islam, they would be subject to serving in the military and the mandatory Zakat tax.

The answer is no, none of the Muslim countries (that I have travelled in) tax non-Muslims but Muslims are still required to pay Zakat. Many countries have parallel sets of laws for Muslims and non-Muslims. Malaysia, for instance, allows public drinking of alcohol by non-Muslims but applies Islamic law (lashing) to Muslims who drink in public.

Clear? You are free to consult "sheikh google" to test the above for accuracy.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You need bacon in your diet worse than the breath of life.

Nothing gets covered up, if it was covered up you wouldn't be able to access the court records on line. So, what about the two honor killings done in the good old US of A. I see you don't mind child brides as long as they are in Yemen? So, I see you skipped over the Egyptian cab driver who killed both of his daughters in Texas? i didn't have to go a long way for that one.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/166368674...#sp=show-clips

If the victim had not contacted the police herself in spite of being specifically told by the ministry not to tell anyone then it would have been covered up.

What's next? Islam was responsible for the Kennedy assassination?

Please source which Islamic Hadith, which Quranic passage, any, form the basis for "honor killings".

I will save you some time. Here is what your neighbors up in Canada have concluded about the origins of this practice.

From the Canadian department of Justice

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/c.../hk-ch/p3.html


6. Honour Killing - In Countries with Islamic Law

In many Arab countries, the practice of honour killing dates back to pre-Islamic times when Arab settlers occupied a region adjacent to Sindh, known as Baluchistan (in Pakistan).57 These Arab settlers had patriarchal traditions such as live burials of newly born daughters. Such traditions trace back to the earliest historic times of Ancient Babylon, where the predominant view was that a woman's virginity belonged to her family.58

There is no mention of honour killing in the Quran or Hadiths. Honour killing, in Islamic definitions, refers specifically to extra-legal punishment by the family against a woman, and is forbidden by the Sharia (Islamic law). Religious authorities disagree with extra punishments such as honour killing and prohibit it, so the practice of it is a cultural and not a religious issue. However, since Islam has influence over vast numbers of Muslims in many countries and from many cultures, some use Islam to justify honour killing even though there is no support for honour killing in Islam.

Traditional interpretations of Islamic law (or Sharia) prescribe severe punishments for zina, or extramarital sex, by both men and women. This is, however, not a new practice; it has been around since ancient times and is common practice in other religions and cultures as well. Under Islamic law, premarital sex could be punished by up to 100 lashes, while adultery is punishable by lethal stoning. The act must, however, be attested by at least four Muslim male witnesses of good character. Punishments are reserved to the legal authorities, and false accusations are themselves punished severely.

The execution of the Saudi Arabian princess Misha'al is an example of an honour killing in which the execution did not follow any Islamic religious court proceeding but was ordered directly by her grandfather after she admitted adultery.59

Interpretations of these rules vary. Some Arabs regard it as their right under both tradition and Sharia (by the process of al-urf), though this contradicts the views of the vast majority of Islamic scholars (fuqaha). Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran has condemned the practice as "un-Islamic", though punishment under Iranian law remains lenient for those who commit honour-based killings.

In Indonesia, generally believed to be the country with the largest Muslim population, honour killings are unknown, as is the case in parts of West Africa with majority-Muslim populations and in many other Islamic countries such as Bangladesh. According to Sheikh Atiyyah Saqr, former head of the al-Azhar University Fatwa Committee:

Like all other religions, Islam strictly prohibits murder and killing without legal justification. Allah, Most High, says, "Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward is Hell for ever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him and prepared for him an awful doom." (An-Nisa': 93) The so-called "honor killing" is based on ignorance and disregard of morals and laws, which cannot be abolished except by disciplinary punishments

I ignored it not because I dodged it but because it is not found in the Islamic teachings (anywhere) and thus is not an Islamic practice. It is found in tradition and this tradition predates Islam. As noted by your (more studious) neighbors, honor killings are actually prohibited in Islamic law.

Summary: It was a stupid analogy. Next?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Malaysia, for instance, allows public drinking of alcohol by non-Muslims but applies Islamic law (lashing) to Muslims who drink in public.

Clear? You are free to consult "sheikh google" to test the above for accuracy.

Wow, a religion that will whip the snot out of you if you are caught drinking.