 |
| Rio de Janeiro-Facebook |
Reader Polls is an opportunity to provide feedback for my readers, most of whom wish to remain anonymous, although I know of some via Facebook and Blogger and can deduce others that may be readers, that are not interested in commenting on my blogs or dialogue with me by email in regard to blog articles.
At least at present.
Those that do comment on my blogs and dialogue with me by email have a further opportunity to influence blog content.
Assistance requested and as with the Google/Blogger blog statistics in regard to individual post pageviews, responses will be considered in regard to future blog content.
Thank you very much,
Russ:)
End
From
Twenty Two Words
 |
| Not too many around here it appears... |
 |
| Agreed. Often annoying. |
 |
| I can make equal salad at home but not equal pizza... |
 |
| Ballet works against the stereotype... |
 |
| Interesting information, but a boring version of Facebook. Even Google+ is less boring. |
 |
| I disagree, it should be Mcfatastics or Mcflabulouses-Flickr |
 |
| Same for Canada's Much Music.-Flickr |
 |
| In the neighbourhood... |
It's so difficault to answer all the questions. After every answer I am sent to another source :)
ReplyDeleteI went through it once, I understand Nadya.
ReplyDeleteIt is a free service and they place an ad on the page.
I think I just hit the back button with Google Chrome.
Thanks and have a very good weekend.
Me too (back button). But still not sure that all the questions were answered :)
ReplyDeleteIt will not let an IP address repeat answers, so you might be able to figure that out.
ReplyDeleteThank you again, Nadya...
Hi, I like your sponsors and their commercials and their ads very funny
ReplyDelete-Dr. Smiles-
Someone has to pay the bills...
ReplyDeleteThanks
Well I think this is a really good idea ;) I should try doing this too!
ReplyDeleteGIRL ABOUT TOWN BLOG
LIKE MY BLOG ON FACEBOOK :)
FOLLOW MY BLOG ON BLOGLOVIN :)
This is really interesting, You're a very skilled blogger.
ReplyDeleteI've joined your feed and look forward to seeking more
of your fantastic post. Also, I have shared your site
in my social networks!
My blog :: start making money online today free
Thank you, Nicole. Will check out your online work.
ReplyDeleteYes I am hoping to increase my blog marketing knowledge through these polls that will hopefully gather more data over time.
Russ:)
Oi Russ, gostei da enquete, respondi todas as questões. Acho que dá uma idéia para o autor do blog do que as pessoas valorizam no blog. Amei! Parabéns pelo blog, adorei a foto do Rio de janeiro. beijos, uma linda semana para você!Obrigada pela amizade.
ReplyDelete'Hi Russ, I liked the poll, answered all questions. I think it gives an idea to the author of the blog that people value the blog. Loved it! Congratulations on the blog, I loved the picture of Rio de Janeiro. kisses, a beautiful week for you! Thank you for the friendship.'
ReplyDeleteEva, thank you very kindly. I hope to see Rio, Brasil and South America.
Blessings to the family.
Phantom goal
ReplyDeleteStraight talk Video on making $100,000 online (no hype)
ReplyDeleteHype? Likely.
ReplyDeleteAlso very unlikely a person can make that with an online business, that is outside of marketing programs to make supposed 'big money'.
Great post. I am dealing with some of these issues as well..
ReplyDeleteThe Reader Poll questions are a good idea, but too many questions for my taste. Maybe do one question every 4-5 or more posts?
ReplyDeleteReasonable.
ReplyDeleteRespondent fatigue in an issue, and can likely be deduced from results, however, it is handier for me to look at it at one source.
Also size-like I did for my UK degrees but in poll format, not academic propositions.
Also, is there a guarantee, although your idea is good that some will not be fatigued by seeing this on more than one post?
As in, 'Is this going to be routine, being polled all the time?'
Thanks to The Jeff...
It is just difficult to get people to do polls or questionnaires.
ReplyDeleteIt is like pulling teeth. My two UK ones took months and added a lot of work.
I like the spoofed logos. Wondering where you got those from.
ReplyDeleteI placed the link for the first group, in red after 'From', and the rest were from Flickr, noted.
ReplyDeleteCheers, sir.
"... it is handier for me to look at it at one source."
ReplyDeleteI can see that, and it makes sense. The problem is, as Nadya L mentioned, when it takes you to another page and you have to keep hitting the back button. That gets tiring. If all you had to do was click once for each question, then click Submit, the number of questions wouldn't be such a hassle.
Also, is there a guarantee, although your idea is good that some will not be fatigued by seeing this on more than one post?
As in, 'Is this going to be routine, being polled all the time?'
That's why I said only every 4-5 posts. Or maybe even less often. But if there is a poll that doesn't take you to another page every time you answer one question, that would make things much more convenient, I think. Or, click a radio button to answer each question, but only have one 'Submit' button, instead of a Submit button for each question.
'The problem is, as Nadya L mentioned, when it takes you to another page and you have to keep hitting the back button. That gets tiring. If all you had to do was click once for each question, then click Submit, the number of questions wouldn't be such a hassle.'
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Legitimate.
Free service wants ads looked, for one.
I placed the link for the first group, in red after 'From', and the rest were from Flickr, noted.
ReplyDeleteThanks, I'm going to steal some of those from that page and put them on Facebook---though I won't use any of the ones you used. Actually, what I will do as well, is put a link to both blogs on my Facebook page.
Then, when you become a professor at Harvard, while at the same time traveling worldwide to speak to audiences of 100,000+ in your spare time, plus publishing your new book (which becomes published in 260 different languages and becomes a bestseller) you can pay me to advertise your site!
A post I invite readers to chip away at if needed....
ReplyDeleteFree service wants ads looked, for one.
ReplyDeleteYeah, true, and that is becoming an increasing hassle on the Internet. Sometimes you can't even get to the page you're trying to read until you get past the ad first. I hate that.
I was the first responder so I realize it is not ideal...:)
ReplyDeleteI'vе been exρloring for a bit for any high-quality articles or weblog ρosts in his kind of space.
ReplyDeleteThoughts on Election vs. Free Will
ReplyDeleteI used to believe that God 'elects' or 'chooses' some for salvation simply because He knows the future, and He knows who will accept Him and who will reject Him. However, if I could look 50 years into the future and see who will be President then, and I say that I will elect and choose who will be President 50 years from now, it's really not me electing or choosing him, because I merely know who will be elected and who the people will vote for 50 years from now. My knowing who will be elected to be President 50 years from now is not the same thing as my choosing and electing and controlling who will be President 50 years from now. Therefore, mere foreknowledge is not the same as choosing or electing. Knowing what will happen in the future is not the same as causing it to happen.
Yes...
ReplyDeleteAnd having looked at a Greek scholar like Bauer, verses and related passages like Ephesians 1 and Romans 8 do not support merely the idea of one being chosen in Christ, but one is chosen as an individual in Christ.
God knows whom he chooses because he wills it.
More thoughts on Election
ReplyDeleteI now believe that, if God chose no one to be saved, then everyone would go to Hell, and God would be perfectly justified in allowing that to happen, because we all fully deserve Hell, so that would be completely fair to send everyone to Hell.
However, God is not only just and righteous; He is also love. So, to demonstrate His grace, mercy and love (for His glory), He chose a remnant to be saved.
(And, in the Bible, a remnant was always saved...for example, only Noah's family was saved, while the rest of humanity was drowned in the Flood. Only the Jews were chosen in the Old Testament, while all other nationalities were left to follow after their false gods.)
If God allowed all men to be saved, then there would be no real justice, because there would be no real and true and final punishment for sin. However, if God sent all men to Hell, then He would not be loving.
So, He chose some to demonstrate His love/mercy/grace upon, and some to demonstrate His justice on. On the surface, it seems unfair to us, but we need to remember that God is sovereign, He owns us all, and He can do with us as He pleases. And He is perfectly just to allow any or all of us to go to Hell if He wants, because all of us are wicked and rebellious sinners. So He has no obligation to do even the slightest good for any of us. Yet He sends rain on the just and the unjust, and He saves some of us, even though He is not obliged to.
"For *he chose us* in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love *he predestined us for adoption to sonship* through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will — to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves." (Ephesians 1:4-6)
"In him *we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him* who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will." (Ephesians 1:11)
"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, *who have been called* according to his purpose. For those God foreknew *he also predestined* to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And *those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified;* those he justified, he also glorified." (Romans 8:28-30)
'I placed the link for the first group, in red after 'From', and the rest were from Flickr, noted.'
ReplyDeleteAll good.
Speaking of which, I am not happy with the American Academy of Religion as they turned down my journal article which is part of Chapter 1 from my PhD, conformed to their format, because it is not acceptable to Religious Scholars and should be for Theologians.
Sounds lazy.
I become so sick of the academic BS.
Not going to renew my membership with them when I have no chance of publishing in their journal!
"Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” ***It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort,*** but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?" (Romans 9:10-24)
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteRosetta Stone Language Course
Rosetta Stone Version 4 TOTALe Language Course
Interactive program engages learners with speech recognition, an online community, and live tutored sessions
'It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort,*** but on God’s mercy.'
ReplyDeleteTrue.
Saved unto good works (Ephesians 2, 1 Corinthians 3 related).
Speaking of which, I am not happy with the American Academy of Religion as they turned down my journal article which is part of Chapter 1 from my PhD, conformed to their format, because it is not acceptable to Religious Scholars and should be for Theologians.
ReplyDeleteSounds lazy.
I become so sick of the academic BS.
Not going to renew my membership with them when I have no chance of publishing in their journal!
When I visited a Lutheran seminary many years ago and sat in on a class or so, they attacked the miracles of the Bible. I imagine they are likely even worse today. The 'religious establishment,' which Jesus attacked during His time on Earth, is, in many places and many times, against the true biblical Christ, I would say.
For example, when I took a World Religions class at one college I attended, they showed a film narrated by Martin E. Marty. That guy may be a Lutheran religious "scholar," but (at least at that time) he was no more a regenerated Christian than any pagan is, despite his impressive Resume:
[He received a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1956, and served as a Lutheran pastor from 1952 to 1962 in the suburbs of Chicago. From 1963 to 1998 he taught at the University of Chicago Divinity School and latterly held an endowed chair (the Fairfax M. Cone Distinguished Service Professorship). He served as president of the American Academy of Religion, the American Society of Church History, and the American Catholic Historical Association. He was the founding president and later the George B. Caldwell Scholar-in-Residence at the Park Ridge Center for the Study of Health, Faith, and Ethics. He has served on two U. S. Presidential Commissions and was director of both the Fundamentalism Project of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Public Religion Project at the University of Chicago (sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts). He has served St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota since 1988 as Regent, Board Chair, Interim President in late 2000, and now as Senior Regent. He retired after his seventieth birthday and now holds emeritus status at the University of Chicago; he additionally served as Robert W. Woodruff Visiting Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at Emory University 2003–2004.]
SOME FAMOUS CALVINISTS:
ReplyDelete(many of the greatest soul-winners the church has ever seen were Calvinists)
-John MacArthur
-Alistair Begg
-Erwin Lutzer
-Jonathan Edwards
-George Whitefield (evangelist & preacher)
-C.H. Spurgeon
-William Carey (missionary)
-John Knox (founder of Presbyterianism)
-Martin Luther (Protestant Reformer)
-Matthew Henry (bible commentator)
-David Livingstone
-John Foxe (Foxe's Book Of Martyrs)
-James White (theologian)
-John Piper
-D. James Kennedy
-R.C. Sproul
-Joshua Harris
-Martyn Lloyd-Jones
-R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
"And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, *you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit **guaranteeing** our inheritance* until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory."
ReplyDelete(Ephesians 1:13-14)
The Greek word translated "deposit" (arrabon) speaks of a down payment that was made to secure a purchase. The moment you were saved, the Spirit of God became the down payment on God's final installment of your eternal glory. In modern Greek, arrabon includes the idea of an engagement ring, a deposit securing something in the future. The Holy Spirit is our guarantee that Christ will come again and take us with Him. In that sense, we can view the Holy Spirit as God's engagement ring to his Church, a sign of His deep love and His guarantee to keep His promises. Jesus and His Father give us a guarantee of His promise to marry us. If that marriage in Heaven does not happen between Him and us, then He is a liar, because He broke His guarantee. So, if a person can lose their salvation, then God is a liar.
Christ purchased us. If He purchased us, He owns us, and we cannot get out of it. Therefore, a person cannot lose their salvation, because Christ bought them. He did not purchase every single person, for if He did, then every single human being would go to Heaven. He only purchased the Elect. And if He purchased us, then our belonging to Him has to do with Him, not with us.
Salvation is the work of God, not of man. It has to do with the sovereignty of God. The fact that salvation is the work of God, and not of man, works to the praise and glorification of God. But if it is up to man, then it works to the praise of man.
Good points, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteI do not usually publish such negative comments, but I think something should be stated.
Theologians and for that matter Philosophers of Religion, are Religious Scholars, especially Theologians as the second group may work more with Philosophy overall.
I find this approach over-selective and it seems too political.
Why cannot other scholars read outside of what they deem acceptable at some points?
I may very well, when I have time over the next couple of years, reformat the article as needed and resubmit to another journal.
ReplyDeleteThis just shows that even though many academics state journal articles are essential for employment, these works cannot be depended on because of a 90% rejection rate in this example.
I also submitted book ideas but no one publishes theodicy.
Basically it comes down to who you know largely for employment and publishing.
The great unsaid...
I find this approach over-selective and it seems too political.
ReplyDeleteWhy cannot other scholars read outside of what they deem acceptable at some points?
I would say a similar problem exists in the Scientific community, maybe even to a more extreme extent, regarding any papers, studies or evidence that points to Creationism. In fact, Creationists cannot get their views accepted by mainstream science because they are prevented from publishing in mainstream scientific journals.
In the movie "Expelled," Ben Stein "travels the world on his quest, and learns an awe-inspiring truth...that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure, and even fired - for merely believing that there might be evidence of "design" in nature." (from the DVD back cover.)
For example (though not from the above-mentioned movie), in 2005, biology professor Caroline Crocker was let go from George Mason University because, in her classes, she decided to put all references to evolution into one one lecture and give the evidence for and against evolution.
"Censoring professors and students who air alternative views to evolution goes against the idea that a good education consists of providing arguments from all sides," said Brian Fisher, President of Coral Ridge Ministries."
"One wonders why, with all the evidence, the (Godless) theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised."
(Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, former professor of physics at the University of Maine at Farmington)
'I would say a similar problem exists in the Scientific community, maybe even to a more extreme extent, regarding any papers, studies or evidence that points to Creationism. In fact, Creationists cannot get their views accepted by mainstream science because they are prevented from publishing in mainstream scientific journals.'
ReplyDeleteYes.
In my case, including self, seven persons with Doctorates have accepted the work, in whole or part.
So, I was turned down for political reasons.
More on Election:
ReplyDeleteIf man comes to Christ only through free will, and not through the sovereign election of God, then that means when you witness to someone, if they do not accept Christ, it is at least partially your fault, because if you had done a better job presenting the gospel, they might have come to Christ. So therefore, their eternal damnation could be in part because you did not do a good job evangelizing. So therefore, from that perspective, we are partially responsible for someone's salvation or damnation. If the lost person is free to choose or reject the gospel, and it it completely up to them alone, then if the Christian who is witnessing to them doesn't present the gospel in a way that persuades that lost person to want to accept it, then that Christian presenting the gospel is at least partially at fault, because if they had done a better job, that lost person might have been saved. When a Christian witnesses to people and presents the gospel to them, and people do not respond – if that Christian really thought that it really depended on them (the fact that the lost person didn't respond), it is feasible that the Christian could become extremely depressed and, in guilt and anguish, I could even imagine an extreme instance where a Christian who believed that might even go home and pull out a knife and plunge it into their heart because they were such a failure, and because that lost person, or those lost people, going to Hell would be partially their fault, because their gospel presentation was not compelling enough.
On the other hand, if salvation is up to God's sovereign election, then when we witness to someone, all we are responsible for is to tell them, and we don't have to worry about the outcome, because that is up to God.
Ultimately, the salvation of souls depends upon the Lord God, and he has graciously given us the opportunity of being instruments in the accomplishment of his work. We are called to partner with Him and share in the great and glorious work of the Great Commission. We get the easy part (telling), and He does the rest. No higher calling could any individual ever have than being a co-worker with the Lord.
To go back to bed on a positive note:
ReplyDeleteSaw my GP/MD after the course Tuesday and he noted I had lost more weight, in agreement with scale. This without any metabolism meds. So, probably I am back to metabolism close to when I when in early 20s.
Do drink more herbal tea...
'On the other hand, if salvation is up to God's sovereign election, then when we witness to someone, all we are responsible for is to tell them, and we don't have to worry about the outcome, because that is up to God.'
ReplyDeletePrice is Right...ding ding ding ding
So, I was turned down for political reasons.
ReplyDeleteSo many decisions and events in this world depend on politics and/or money. As we know, this world is corrupt with sin.
"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."
(1 John 2:15-17)
To go back to bed on a positive note:
ReplyDeleteSaw my GP/MD after the course Tuesday and he noted I had lost more weight, in agreement with scale. This without any metabolism meds. So, probably I am back to metabolism close to when I when in early 20s.
Do drink more herbal tea...
Please do not feel obligated to respond to my comments right away. If a day or two goes by before they are responded to, I understand.
Good news, though, regarding your weight!
I will make one more comment, and that will be it for now.
I think I got this from John MacArthur's website:
ReplyDeleteThe Bible says prior to salvation, all people are dead in sin--spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-3). In this state of death, the sinner is utterly unable to respond to any spiritual stimulus and therefore unable to love God, obey Him, or please Him in any way. Scripture says the mind of every unbeliever "is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:7-8). That describes a state of total hopelessness: spiritual death.
The effect of all this is that no sinner can ever make the first move in the salvation process. This is what Jesus meant in John 6:44, when He said, "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him."
This is also why the Bible repeatedly stresses that salvation is wholly God's work.
-In Acts 13:48 we read, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."
-Acts 16:14 tells us that Lydia was saved when, "... the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul."
-Romans 8:29-30 states, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."
-Ephesians 1:4-5,11 reads, "Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will ... also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will."
-Ephesians 2:8 says even our faith is a gift from God.
-In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul tells his readers, "God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation."
-Second Timothy 1:9 informs us that God "has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity."
If God's choice of the elect is unconditional, does this rule out human responsibility? Paul asks and answers that very question in Romans 9:19-20. He says God's choice of the elect is an act of mercy. Left to themselves, even the elect would persist in sin and be lost, because they are taken from the same fallen lump of clay as the rest of humanity. God alone is responsible for their salvation, but that does not eradicate the responsibility of those who persist in sin and are lost--because they do it willfully, and not under compulsion. They are responsible for their sin, not God.
The Bible affirms human responsibility right alongside the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Moreover, the offer of mercy in the gospel is extended to all alike. Isaiah 55:1 and Revelation 22:17 call "whosoever will" to be saved. Isaiah 45:22 and Acts 17:30 command all men to turn to God, repent and be saved. First Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 tell us that God is not willing that any should perish, but desires that all should be saved.
Finally, the Lord Jesus said that, "the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out" (John 6:37).
In summary, we can say that God has had a special love relationship with the elect from all eternity, and on the basis of that love relationship chosen them for salvation. The ultimate question of why God chose some for salvation and left others in their sinful state is one that we, with our finite knowledge, cannot answer. We do know that God's attributes always are in perfect harmony with each other, so that God's sovereignty will always operate in perfect harmony with His goodness, love, wisdom, and justice.
He is good for that...
ReplyDeleteFrom
ReplyDeleteThe religion of peace
'Question:
Does the Quran really contain dozens of verses promoting violence?
Summary Answer:
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.
The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.
Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.'
Sample:
ReplyDeleteThe Quran:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.