Home Anchored

Category: Articles

All big posts

  • Society vs. Bible: Different teachings

    Society vs. Bible: Different teachings

    Society says: Marry the person you love.

    Bible says: Love the person you marry.

    What teaching is better? I think both are good, but the one from the Bible is more important. That’s because the Bible teaches you to love your spouse always, and not just while it feels great.

    You can certainly follow the teachings of the Societies, but if you don’t follow the Bible teachings as well, you won’t have a long and successful marriage. To put it simply, you can marry someone you didn’t fall in love with and choose to love that person (and that person chooses to love you), like an arranged marriage for example, and you’ll have a long and happy marriage, whereas if you fall in love with someone, marry them, but then don’t choose to love them unconditionally even when butterflies fade away, you’re marriage will be a disaster.

    That’s what society gets wrong about marriage, it’s too focused on feelings you can’t control like falling in love. The problem with that is that those feelings of love are hard to separate from feelings of lust, and lust only brings disaster. One good way to answer the age-old question “Is it love or lust” is when you are in the middle of a big fight, when that person you think you love has irritated you so much – in those moments, do you still try your best to stay respectful? Do you still feel love for that person regardless of the fight you’re having? If you do, then it might be something worth fighting for.

    Society: If you find the right person you’ll be happy.

    Bible: Become the right person to be happy.

    The key takeaway from this is don’t look for fulfillment in other people (or things FYI). If you feel bad about yourself, then the problem is already somewhere in your life, and you must find it. Finding a good partner (or people in general) for your life is much easier once you’ve dealt with yourself first.

    Society: Love is a feeling.

    Bible: Love is a choice.

    I’ve pretty much covered this in the first part. I would just like to add that divorce is a choice, not a feeling. Same way, love is a choice, not a feeling. You choose to love someone, you choose to respect someone (so you don’t cheat or humiliate them) and in that same way, you choose to not get divorced.

    Society has a LOT of problems with divorce. This comes from the fact that people no longer view marriage as something sacred but rather as some business deal, and each business deal can be canceled. I don’t think I would ever get divorced, that’s because I’ve talked with my wife about it and firstly there is just too much respect between us to cheat or do anything unholy like that, but even if we did, if God can forgive us that so can we forgive each other.

    It’s like the saying “Two wrongs don’t make it right”, if one of us was unfaithful and therefore sinned before God, how would it help if we then separate and therefore sin even more?

    Choose love, and choose respect, always!

    Society: When it gets hard, just leave.

    Bible: When it’s hard lean on me & each other.

    This is just what I was saying so there is no real need for me to repeat myself. Take care and make good choices rather than live by your feelings.

  • Why jihad happens?

    I am quoting a post I saw on X.com written by Dan Burmawi and I will just highlight in bold what I believe are key parts of his long post:

    Let me tell you why would a Muslim drive his car into a crowd of innocent people. I was raised Muslim, and I know exactly why this happens. It’s not poverty. It’s not oppression. It’s not even radicalization. It’s the logical outcome of Islamic doctrine itself.

    It doesn’t matter if you’re a Muslim or not, we as human beings carry guilt deep inside us. We know we are not good enough, and we spend our life trying to redeem ourself through good deeds, thinking it will make the suffocating guilt go away.

    Christianity for example offers a way out of guilt, a solution not based on your works but on Christ’s. Salvation isn’t earned, it’s given. You accept that you can’t redeem yourself, because Christ already did everything on your behalf. That means you’re free. Free to live, free to build, free to serve, free to love.

    And when a Christian feels lost, broken, and in need of forgiveness, they can go to church, talk to a pastor or priest, and leave knowing they are forgiven.

    Islam, on the other hand, doesn’t offer redemption, it weaponizes guilt. Instead of providing salvation, Allah exposes you, hold your sins over your head, and threatens you with hellfire and torture in the grave.

    The Quran isn’t a book of peace, it’s a book of threats. It bullies Muslims into obedience through fear, humiliation, and punishment.

    So what happens when a Muslim seeks redemption? They try to be better Muslims. They pray, fast, give to charity, go on Hajj, do everything Allah commands. But it never works. I know. I did it.

    And no matter how much you pray, no matter how much you try, the guilt never goes away. Because deep down, every Muslim knows it’s not enough. Allah always demands more.

    Allah loves those who die fighting against the infidels. That’s not an opinion, it’s in the Quran, in Hadith, in every lesson taught to children.

    This is why Muslims, even the so-called “moderates”, always hesitate to condemn terrorism. Because they know jihad is required by Allah. They might not be willing to commit it themselves, but they cannot say it’s wrong.

    So when a Muslim fails to reach peace through religious rituals, they have two choices:

    Give up, stop being devout, and learn to live with the guilt, or commit to jihad, because that’s the only way to be true to yourself.

    The Quran spells it out clearly: “Kill those who do not worship Allah or obey the Prophet” (9:29)

    So when a Muslim embraces this identity fully, killing infidels isn’t just justified, it’s joyful. It’s an act of:

    • Saving yourself
    • Obeying Allah
    • Securing your eternity
    • Finally escaping the crushing weight of guilt

    This is why a Muslim can drive his car into a crowd of innocent people and feel nothing but satisfaction. Because for the first time in his life, he finally believes he has done something worthy of redemption.

    When Muslims tell you that Islam is a religion of peace, and that Jihad is just a minor, misunderstood concept, and Islam is all about Tawba (repentance), don’t believe them. Anyone who actually reads the Quran without sugarcoating it knows that’s a lie.

    Jihad isn’t just more emphasized, it’s glorified, rewarded, and commanded over and over again. Repentance, on the other hand, is an afterthought, conditional at best, and often linked directly to violence.

    If repentance was really the heart of Islam, you’d expect the Quran to be filled with verses about mercy, unconditional forgiveness, and spiritual renewal. Instead, it’s packed with over 100 verses commanding Muslims to fight, kill, and spread Islam by force.

    Take Surah At-Tawba (9:111):

    “Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed…”

    That’s not about prayer. That’s not about personal growth. That’s a transaction, your life in exchange for jihad and paradise. If you fight and die for Allah, you get an automatic pass to heaven.

    Tawba is rarely discussed on its own, and when it is, it’s almost always tied to submission, forced conversion, or Islamic supremacy.

    Repentance in Islam isn’t between you and God, it’s a tool of submission. It’s not just about feeling remorse or changing your ways. It’s about proving your loyalty to Islam, and in many cases, that means jihad.

    Look at Surah At-Tawba (9:5), the so-called “Verse of the Sword”:

    “And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them… But if they repent, establish prayer, and give zakah1, let them go on their way.”

    You’re only forgiven if you convert, pray, and pay up. If not, Death.

    Compare that to Surah Muhammad (47:35-36):

    “So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior…”

    Islam doesn’t preach peace when it’s in a position of power. It only offers peace as a tactic when Muslims are weak. Tawba isn’t about mercy, it’s about forcing submission.

    If Islam was truly centered on repentance, you’d expect it to be the best way to earn Allah’s favor. But that’s not how it works.

    The fastest, easiest, and most guaranteed way to be forgiven and go straight to paradise isn’t through prayer, fasting, or charity. It’s through Jihad.

    Surah As-Saff (61:10-12)

    “O you who believed, shall I guide you to a transaction that will save you from a painful punishment? [It is that] you believe in Allah and His Messenger and strive in the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives. That is best for you, if you should know.”

    Fight and die for Allah, you’re saved. Repent, pray, and try to be a good person? No guarantees.

    Jihad is not a “misinterpretation”. It’s the backbone of the Quran’s message.

    The biggest and most suicidal mistake the West has made about Islamist is assuming that they are like us. They are NOT!

    Their mass emigration is not because they are searching for a better life. They are invading us with an intent to conquer us from within. They act peaceful while they are a minority and then strike when they become majority or close to majority.

    They lie because the Quran permits lying to infidels and calls it Taqiyya. They lie while waiting to kill or convert us all at the first opportunity.

    1. Zakat (or Zakāh) is one of the five pillars of Islam. Zakat is the Arabic word for “Giving to Charity” or “Giving to the Needy”. ↩︎
  • Off-topic – AI and Warfare: The Threat of Autonomous Drones

    Off-topic – AI and Warfare: The Threat of Autonomous Drones

    The AI has been around for quite some time and it keeps getting better and more sophisticated. It’s no wonder that a certain amount of people, I would even say the majority of people, are worried that AI might overthrow us and surpass us to the point that it is no longer in our control but rather has its own artificial conscience. That would mean that it has gained the ability to do what it wants and, what’s scarier, what IT thinks is best which can encompass a lot of actions that we, actual people, would deem horrific.

    This topic has been talked about a lot, but I will talk about something else, related to AI. It has been almost 10 years since I first talked about that with my older brother, and that is future warfare and drones. The topic came up because we both love talking about history and wars and this was an era when RC toy helicopters became popular and widespread. One day, during the walk with our dog, we started talking about how dangerous drones could become and weaponized.

    Sadly, as we’ve seen in Ukraine for the past three years, drones have become a large part of warfare, not just big sophisticated drones like the MQ-1 Predator, but the simplest, cheap, and disposable drones that lead the course of the battle. I’ve even seen footage from the drone that shows soldiers beneath it begging the drone operator to spare them, as they can’t do anything else except beg for mercy. I’ve also seen drone footage that shows a mortar shell being dropped on soldiers beneath it.

    Can it get worse?

    However, what the two of us talked about was far worse than what we see today happening in Ukraine. What we predicted is mass-produced weaponized, cheap, and disposable drones that can be dropped from a cargo plane at high altitudes and in large numbers. We were talking about drone swarm attacks with hundreds or even thousands of drones. Those drones could be only a few centimeters in diameter and need to carry only one bullet or small explosive charge. At the time of discussion, it seemed like some science fiction horror, because such an attack would require a lot of drone operators, and many drones would probably collide with each other and fall to the ground.

    We realized that such attacks probably can’t be done with advanced artificial intelligence, but once such AI is developed, such attacks would be alarmingly easy to conduct. AI could easily control every drone, without them colliding, and even use facial recognition technology for targeting specific people. How could anyone escape a swarm of 1000 drones that are the size of a wasp (or probably even smaller in the future), each one equipped with a small explosive charge, controlled by AI using facial recognition (or some other method) to identify you and ram your head and detonate itself?

    I believe that AI today has reached or is about to reach a point allowing it to conduct such an activity. This is what scares me the most in my life, by far. Such technology could be the end of us. What bothers me sometimes is how much attention is given to the dangers of AI outsmarting us, but people fail to see the risk of weaponizing the AI and how such a weapon would be more dangerous than the nukes, as it would be accessible to almost anyone.

  • Reconsidering the Crusades: Justified or Not? Video included

    Reconsidering the Crusades: Justified or Not? Video included

    If you have access to History Channel on your TV or something similar you’ve probably seen some documentaries about the Crusades. What you can see in those documentaries (or movies taking place in that time of history) is that the Crusades are represented as the worst and most shameful part of our history, especially in terms of Christian history. But were they really so wrong and barbaric as described? Could it be that they were justified?

    First and foremost, as in any war, no side is perfect and the Crusades weren’t an exception. This is the part that no documentary fails to mention and often emphasizes the most, but what I’ve often seen is that they either fail to mention the context that led to the Crusades or diminish the context behind them.

    Crusades were holy wars between the Christian world and the Islamic world. Islam had been around for almost 500 years before the launch of the First Crusade in 1095. During that time Islam had spread by force throughout Christian lands of the Middle East, Africa, and the Iberian peninsula. The Muslims started robbing and killing Christians who were traveling to visit the Holy Land.

    The Byzantine Emperor requested aid from the West and this was a big deal since the relations between the West and the East were not good considering this happened shortly after the division of Christianity into the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1054. However, Pope Urban II looked past any disagreements between them, he encouraged military support for the Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos and called for an armed pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

    The Crusaders were tasked with taking back Jerusalem into Christian hands and protecting any Christians on their journey to the Holy Land. Were they unjustified? I think not. The Crusades were launched after centuries of Islamic aggression. What I think is that the media is using the Crusades as another reason to attack the Christians and portray us as bad people. You can see evidence of that month after month, the most recent example is staying silent when Christians are being massacred and slaughtered but informing us in detail when Muslims are dying. The reality is that Christians are the most prosecuted religion but the media is doing a great job in concealing that.

    Not to talk too much, here is a great video about the Crusades. Special thanks to the Pax Tube channel for making this video and allowing me to use it here on my site.

  • Comments on banners during Women’s Day march

    Comments on banners during Women’s Day march

    Don’t pay too much attention to the cover photo, it’s an AI generated image so it has lots of weird stuff.

    Another International Women’s Day is behind us, and we saw many marches of women in various cities around the globe promoting “women’s rights”. You could see many different banners of different themes (some having no connection to women).

    Let’s discuss a few:

    Abortion is primarily a political question/topic.

    Is it really? I do agree that politicians use the topic of abortion to gain votes, but I would never say something to this extent. Abortion is before anything a moral question. Is it moral to abort the pregnancy, therefore killing a baby, for your convenience?

    When women stop, the whole world stops.

    Fun example, once upon a time in Iceland, almost all of the female population went on strike. The economy went on normally, the only thing was that HR offices received no complaints during the strike.

    But now let’s get real, if either gender stopped doing what they usually do (men or women), the world as we know it would collapse. But you can’t say the phrase “When men stop, the whole world stops” because you would be accused of misogyny.

    My eggs, my omelet.

    Firstly, disgusting. Secondly, you do what you want with your eggs, but once those eggs are fertilized it’s no longer YOUR EGG, now it is YOUR CHILD, and no matter that it’s yours, you don’t have the right to kill it.

    Loud for Gaza, loud about genocide.

    What does that have to do with Women’s Day or Women’s rights?

    When I see this type of panel on protests or marches I know I am looking at somebody extremely ignorant and here is why. Firstly I suspect he/she writes and claims this because it is popular and wants to be a part of the movement without knowing much about the topic. If my suspicion is correct then that by itself is enough to characterize a person as not intelligent and ignorant, but this is hard to prove without interviewing them in person about the topic.

    The thing that proves to me they know nothing about what they support is the fact that you don’t see anyone marching for the thousands of Christians murdered in Syria a few days ago, about 70 Christians beheaded in Congo a few weeks ago, and countless other persecution of Christians around the world. Why is that? Because the media did almost no coverage of such incidents, and the knowledge of people marching for Gaza/Palestine extends only to the amount the mass media covers.

    The media doesn’t cover it probably because it’s not really convenient to portray the religious majority (in the West) as the one in danger, as the one persecuted. For some reason, only the minority is allowed to play the victim card, until they become the majority, once Islam becomes the majority in a country they won’t care about our minority status as Christians. I’m not making this up, you can see what happened to minorities in the Middle East, most recently in Syria – thousands dead.

    Does anyone look at how all this happened between Israel and Gaza? Has anyone read any history about the conflict, if they did they would soon realize that Hamas is not a victim. Hamas kept attacking Israel for years and Israel would almost always retaliate with a small attack, then one day Hamas decided to invade Israel, kill a bunch of people, and take a bunch of prisoners. Then Israel has had enough and decided to end Hamas, Hamas kept hiding and using civilians as human shields.

    Hamas attacked Israel knowing they couldn’t beat IDF(Israel Defense Forces), they knew they could use civilian casualties to gain public left-wing media support and they are using it to their advantage quite well so far. I mean, they must have known that, and if they did, that makes them terrible people – using your own civilian lives just to portray someone you can’t stand as the bad guy. Or maybe they didn’t know, which I doubt because that would mean they are incredibly unintelligent.

    I know this seems like I am pro-Israel, I’m really not, but the sheer manipulation and cold heart(using civilian lives as a commodity) of Islam, in this case Hamas, makes me want to puke and any problem I have with Israelis goes to second plan. Like comparing losing your house type of problem with breaking your arm type of problem; I’d rather have the house with a broken arm than an arm in one piece without a house.

    So what are you marching for exactly, and why aren’t you loud about the genocide of Christians? Let me guess, you are afraid you’ll be accused of Islamophobia. Since “phobia” means irrational fear of something and fear of Islam is definitely not irrational, Islamophobia doesn’t exist.

    No means no.

    Say no to sex then so you most likely won’t need to even think about saying yes or no to pregnancy as you won’t get pregnant.

    “Well, what about rape??” – an (airsoft) gun every leftist pulls out at some point during abortion discussion. Now tell me honestly, do you think the number of rapes, or should I say the number of rape-related pregnancies (because not every rape case will result in pregnancy, actually only a fragment of them will, statistically) is relevant for the broad abortion discussion?

    The number of abortions worldwide yearly is over 70 million(for comparison that’s more than the death toll of WWII, which lasted 6 years). It’s not a secret that almost all of the abortions are done due to personal preference of the mother, not incest, not health risks, not rape. All those others are so marginal that they should never be used as an argument, and by using them you’re just showing you are on the left side of the bell curve.

    Without the right to an abortion there is no free will.

    What to even say about this? I want to know what exactly gives a woman a moral right to an abortion?

    • Is it because it’s not a living human being? Because that’s not true, even if you are not religious, scientifically speaking that’s not true (you can find the source on the FAQs page).
    • Is it because it’s her child so it’s her right to choose? Then why not allow killing of born babies, she’s theirs mother too.
    • Is it because that baby is inside the mother’s body? That child is in there growing, you are feeding it and nurturing it. It is not part of your body, it has a body of its own, one proof of that is that the mother and the baby don’t always have the same blood type. If the baby was part of your body then you would share the blood, your blood, but it’s not like that, babies have their own blood pumping through their veins.
    • Is it because the woman is the one who will have to go through the troubles of pregnancy and the pain of childbirth so she should have a right to decide? That is the dumbest argument for abortion in my opinion. This is just running from responsibility, if you’ve had sex (especially unprotected sex) you have to bear the risk that you might end up pregnant and that you will have to have a baby. Nowadays, people mostly think “Oh well what’s the worst thing that can happen, if it sticks then we’ll just remove it and keep having sex the way we want to”. Also, pregnancy and childbirth are normal things that every mammal goes through, your bodies are made for it. If you have such an attitude towards a woman’s right to decide to abort because she has to go through pain and discomfort then that immediately implies (by application of gender equality) that a man can also choose to abort the baby that’s his that he doesn’t want (and the women does) because he doesn’t want to pay child support, it’s his money and having a baby doesn’t really fit into his life, it would cause him discomfort. By doing so it’s no longer solely a woman’s right to demand an abortion. By the way, I am convinced that the majority of men supporting abortion rights are doing it so they can fuck around more freely knowing that if the girl gets pregnant she has abortion as an option so that he would be relieved of all responsibility. If abortion was illegal then men would actually have to be more careful to not screw their life up financially (due to potential child support payments) over a one-night stand and would choose their partners more carefully.