Part IIa: The Immorality of Homosexuality: Levitical Law

In perhaps the most explicit and clear denunciation of homosexual behavior found inLeviticus the Old Testament, the Book of Leviticus spells out in no uncertain terms that “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22).

This is followed-up two chapters later with a similar statement: “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.  Their bloodguiltiness is upon them” (Lev. 20:13).

The context is found in Leviticus 18:3, where the Lord God explains to Moses that he and the nation of Israel would not enter the Promised Land and do what was done in Egypt, where Israel was coming from, or in Canaan, where Israel was going.

Israel was not to be like her pagan neighbors, who had engaged in all kinds of sexual promiscuity and perversion, in adoration and worship of their deities.

Instead, Israel was to be holy; for the Lord God Almighty is holy (Lev. 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:7, 24, 26; 21:8).

Israel was not to imitate, emulate, simulate, reduplicate, or impersonate what she had seen or heard done by those who had “defiled” themselves through same-sex relations and practices.

Often homosexual sympathizers wish to blow past this clear injunction and make the Levitical passages out to reflect a patriarchal stance against women that is no longer relevant by comparison to today’s ethics, much like Matthew Vines recently did in his book God and the Gay Christian (pg. 77-93).

But such nonsense is easily shown to be exactly that when one simply observes the context and the language being used to condemn same-sex liaisons.

Again, the Lord is commanding Moses to relay to the people that they were not to be like the Egyptian or Canaanite pagans and imitate their sexual mores.

The first 18 verses of Leviticus 18 deals with all of the sexual combinations that the pagans embraced, and that which the Israelites were to shun.

Most of those practices involved some sort of incest.

The euphemism used to denote the sexual taboo is coined in the phrase, “uncover the nakedness” of so-and-so.

It is then that God hands Moses the restrictions,

Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual impurity.

And you shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her.

Neither shall you give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord.

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.

From there God tells Moses that the Israelites were not to “defile” themselves by participating in “any of these things,” because they were abominable.

To be defiled was to make oneself unclean, morally, spiritually, and ritually.  One was not to become like the world, which hates God and would later hate Jesus (Jn. 15:18-19).

To be abominable (Heb. to’eba) meant to make oneself morally repugnant, abhorrent, or detestable.

Of course, immoral perverts like Matthew Vines wish to mitigate the term to make homosexuality more palatable or acceptable.

So, instead of homosexuality being the morally disgusting practice that it is, he gravitates to the left-leaning ideas of academician Phyllis Bird, who concluded that abomination “is not an ethical term, but a term of boundary marking,” with “a basic sense of taboo.”

But, once again, given all of the company found in Leviticus 18, one must stretch beyond the “boundary” of credulity to conclude that when God informed Moses that committing all the sexually immoral practices found in that chapter, God really was not thinking ethics when He deemed them “abominable.”

Later in Leviticus 20:13 we read, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.  Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”

Here “detestable act” is the same Hebrew word translated earlier as “abominable.”  It meant something morally disgusting, abhorrent, and equal with committing an act of idolatry.

Remember Molech earlier?

What God had in mind when He told Moses that homosexuality was abominable or detestable was more than just stretching a boundary, as if one was placing cone markers on a field to play a game of soccer.

No, those who engaged in homosexuality were guilty of committing a capital offense (“bloodguiltiness”), that is just how far out of “bounds,” morally, they had gone.  They were to be put to death.

But for the grace of God, today, they still would be, even though the practice remains morally reprehensible, as we will see later.

So, from the Levitical law code it is clear that homosexuality is a morally disgusting practice that the Israelites were to distance themselves from.  Anyone with an ounce of moral decency and common sense would do the same thing.

No Gay MarriageHomosexuality is of the world, of which Egypt was a type.  Those who practiced it were worthy of death, not the blessing of God and a marriage certificate.

Lawmakers today need to heed what God has said about homosexuality, and the company it keeps, lest the nation reap the fruits of the abominable seed that it sows.

Leave a comment

Filed under Homosexual Marriage, Homosexuality, Homosexuality, Social Issues, Uncategorized

Part II: The Immorality of Homosexuality: Sodom & Gomorrah

The history of immoral homosexual behavior begins in the sister cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18-19), which are now thought to have existed somewhere south of the Dead Sea region.

Sodom and Gomorrah mapAt the time of their heyday, Sodom and Gomorrah were thriving metropolitan areas, being a part of what came to be known as the “Pentapolis” or five cities (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar).

One positive thing the Bible notes about Sodom and Gomorrah is that prior to its destruction it was located in a valley that was “well watered everywhere,” meaning that it was most likely lush and suitable for farming (Gen. 13:10).

Later we are told that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with brimstone (i.e. sulfur) and salt; that it had become a burning wasteland, and no one could farm.  Its fruit had become poisonous (Deut. 32:23).   In fact, even grass could no longer grow there (Deut. 29:23).

It’s destruction was so complete that there were no survivors (Isa. 1:9), and it was promised no one would live there again (Jer. 50:40).  To this day, no one has, as both cities are now thought to be submerged beneath the waters of the Dead Sea.

Aside from that, Sodom and Gomorrah became notorious for perversion of all kinds, although some within the homosexual community only wish to pinpoint the citizenry’s lack of hospitality as its greatest sin, which is pure nonsense.

From the biblical text we read that “the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly” (Gen. 13:13).  The concept of wickedness (Heb. ra’im) carries with it the meanings of “repulsive,” “evil,” or morally acting contrary to the will of God.

Elsewhere we see that the people of Sodom were arrogant, gluttonous, lazy, and narcissistic (Ezek. 16:49).

But the sin which led to their destruction Sin of Sodomwas sexual immorality of the most abominable kind.  According to Genesis 18:20, their favorite brand of perversion, homosexual sodomy, was “exceedingly grave,” or that which was to the degree of severity where a moral “outcry” of divine intervention was in order.

Of course, that outcry had to have come from outside the borders of the cities, given that when Abraham played “Let’s Make A Deal” with God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah—if ten righteous people could be found—the Bible records that there was only one: Lot (2 Pet. 2:7).

That is not to say that Lot’s wife and daughters were spared, but the wife longed for the cities by looking back upon them during their destruction, and was immediately turned into a pillar of salt.  It could be concluded that the reason that she was turned into salt was because of the lack of saltiness in her and Lot’s witness while living there.

As for the daughters, they were carnally-minded as well, having schemed to commit incest with their father, Lot, getting him drunk, in a cave, after leaving the valley of destruction.

And even Lot was “hesitant” about leaving even during the impending judgment, he was so calloused by all the perversion taking place right beneath his watch as a city administrator.  So, he was no paragon of moral virtue himself.  Nevertheless, he is the only one declared “righteous” of all the patrons of those two cities.

When one turns to the immediate story of the demise of Sodom and Gomorrah we find that the men of the city were obsessed with the anal seduction of other males to the point where it was not safe to be out at night.

That was the whole gist behind Lot’s insistence that those who came to judge Sodom and Gomorrah—as well as salvage whatever might not reek of the stench of immoral perversion—not to spend the night in the city square (Gen. 19:2).  Homosexual rape ran rampant.

Regardless, however, when the perverts of the city found out that there was fresh meat to be molested, they showed up in droves at Lot’s house.  Both young and old, from every quarter of the city, they surrounded the premises in hopes of taking turns getting to know (a euphemism for having sexual intercourse) Lot’s guests.

Lot’s response was to plead that they not act “wickedly,” which stems from the Hebrew word ra’a and means “evil” or “detrimental in terms of its effects on man” (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2:854).

So desperate was Lot in trying to prevent the Sodomites from raping his guests that he offered his two daughters in exchange, assuming that to rape them was more natural, and mildly less evil, than raping the two men.

They refused his futile offer and began to force the issue by pressing hard against Lot, nearly breaking down the door of his residence in their feverish pitch to satisfy their lust to commit what Jude called “gross immorality” (Jude 7).

Fortunate enough for Lot, the two men inside rescued him and blinded the perverts.

The rest is history, as Lot and his guests, along with Lot’s wife and two daughters escaped.  The next day both Sodom and Gomorrah were completely destroyed, and not because its citizen were merely bad hosts.

They were steeped in homosexual perversion, which to this day the actual act still takes its name: Sodomy.  An ungodly, grotesque, vile act between two men, as they abuse their bodies and minds to ingratiate themselves while fostering a false image of God.

If there was only one example that sensible people needed to illustrate what happens to a city, a state, or nation that embraces the tawdry, learned behavior of homosexuality, it would be Sodom and Gomorrah.

Re-criminalize_sodomyMay our legislators and lawmakers wake up to that reality, repent of their actions which has led to the sanctioning of perversion, and start considering what is moral and/or immoral from God’s perspective, rather than from the fallen human perspective which has a natural desire to wallow in the immoral pigpen of debauchery and destruction.

Leave a comment

Filed under Homosexual Marriage, Homosexuality, Homosexuality, Uncategorized

God is dead: Where do we go from here?

Originally posted on

“Put on the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil” (Eph. 6:11).

Recently I was invited by an apostate of Christianity, now turned full-bloomed atheist, to reconsider my Christian faith.  He has seen the light, he claims, and believes there is a “better way,” namely his way.

So, after giving it some thought, I’ve decided to momentarily concede the argument and accept his proposal.  God is hereby dead—yet not as Friedrich Nietzche once proclaimed, for even he knew that if God was truly dead, because “we have killed him,” then man must arrogate himself to the status of a god to take His place.

Rather, God simply does not exist.  Now where do we go from here?  Who determines our morals, what is right, and what is lawful?  Why should I give a rip about the hurting?  In fact…

View original 1,370 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Why States Are Losing the Same-Sex Marriage Debate (Part I)

Unless a person has been on sabbatical somewhere in the backwoods of Arkansas or on a lofty mountain peak in Alaska, then it ought to be obvious that the homosexual agenda is ramping up to a fever pitch, and states are losing their civil identity amid the onslaught.

Same-sex MarriageOne can barely turn on the television, radio, or especially Internet, and not be bombarded by story after story that the homosexuals have won a victory in this state or in that courtroom.

Many of the stories revolve the whole idea of same-sex marriage, which is an oxymoron, if one really stops to think about it from God’s perspective.  Adam and Steve?  Eve and Eva?  Really?

Recently a court decision was made that added to all the sodomite jubilation which struck down two states—Indiana and Wisconsin—and the laws that they had established to prevent the marriage of homosexuals.

If one reads through the decision, one easily comes to the conclusion that the decision was not only correct, but, based on the rationale of those in Indiana and Wisconsin, it should have been overruled.

Now, before anyone goes into a panic thinking that this writer has lost his collective mind and that he in any way condones homosexual marriage, much less homosexuality at all, let him explain why he agreed with the decision.

Let him also explain that toward the end Title_Page_Court_Decisionof the decision, a gaping door was left open, that if any state legislator is paying attention, that legislative body could take advantage of it and slam it shut, once and for all on the homosexual lobby.

But, given how those legislator’s think, it is highly unlikely they will seize the opportunity, and whatever other creepy-crawly thing wanting its sexual proclivities recognized as a “minority” will be walking through that door instead.

First, the reason why the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh District, located in Chicago, Illinois, was correct in overturning both Indiana’s and Wisconsin’s laws forbidding homosexual marriage is simply because of the bogus reasoning those state’s used to define marriage.

According to biblical precedent, marriage is between one man and one woman for the express purposes of (1) magnifying the glory of God by reflecting His image in their union; (2) to dispel man’s loneliness—which was the only thing God considered “not good,” when He created humanity—by providing an opposite that was “suitable” for him; and (3) to provide a way for humanity to obey God by being fruitful and multiplying, filling the earth with human offspring.

When one turns to the decision rendered, none of that was offered as a defense to prevent homosexuals from marrying.  Instead, one finds the following rationale as recorded in the decision:

[Indiana]…defends its refusal to allow same-sex marriage on a single ground, namely that government’s sole purpose…in making marriage a legal relation (unlike cohabitation, which is purely contractual) is to enhance child welfare.  Notably the state does not argue that recognizing same-sex marriage undermines conventional marriage.

So, in the Indiana legislature’s way of thinking, marriage is only a legal contract designed to enhance child welfare?  Does that sound even come remotely close to what God says about marriage?  No wonder this was shot down.

The whole idea behind Indiana’s law was to try and force fathers to marry those whom they were having children with, so as to prevent “unintended births.”  Again, that is a legitimate definition of marriage?

Wisconsin’s rationale was not any better than Indiana’s.  The kicker in their whole flawed argument was, “allowing same-sex marriage creates a danger of ‘shifting the public understanding of marriage from a largely child-centric institution to an adult-centric institution focused on emotion.’”  What?  Marriage is child-centric?  Since when?

Gay Parade floatAs already mentioned, though, what the justices did amid their skewering of both the Indiana and Wisconsin lawyers, was open up a door of opportunity so wide that one could drive a Gay Parade float through it.

Twice it was mentioned, “But neither Indiana or Wisconsin made a moral argument against permitting same-sex marriage.”

Here we have one of the most “abominable,” detestable, and perverse acts that two humans could commit with each other (Lev. 18:22-30; 20:13) and no one at the state level decided to base their laws upon moral arguments?  Absolutely amazing.

In Part II on this subject an address will be made of the immoral aspect of homosexuality, and why, if these state legislator’s really want to bring civility back into their laws, they must take the judge’s challenge in this case, and present a case based on the moral turpitude of homosexuality.

Otherwise, as the judge’s hinted in the decision, polygamy will be next.  Then, who knows what after that?  Legalizing bestiality, child molestation, or maybe even rape?


Filed under Homosexual Marriage, Homosexuality, Homosexuality, Uncategorized

The Delivery Room Invitation

It’s been a while since posting here.  Busy getting the dissertation ready for printing and binding, as I’ve finally received the green light to do so.  In the meantime, I have just completely another parody that you might enjoy reading, dealing with the faulty notion of “free will,” particularly as it pertains to invitations given at the end of most sermons on Sunday mornings.  Of course, as always, your thoughts are welcome, so long as they deal with the message and not the messenger.  Enjoy.

The Delivery Room Invitation

Leave a comment

Filed under Christianity, Salvation, Uncategorized

The Atheist’s Teeny-Tiny Naturalistic Straw Man

Atheism_The Case Against GodContinuing the critique of George H. Smith’s Atheism: The Case Against God, he does what all atheists do in his attempt to deny what he knows is true—namely, that God exists—by erecting a straw man.

Except his straw man is so teeny-tiny, because of the naturalism it is based upon, that one feels great pity for George for erecting it in the first place.

Smith tells the reader, “I shall use the term ‘god” generally to designate any supernatural or transcendent being, and when I claim not to believe in a god, I mean that I do not believe in anything ‘above’ or ‘beyond’ the natural, knowable universe.”

In other words, unless he, as well as all atheists, cannot measure the supernatural or transcendent by naturalistic means, then George is not going to believe it, because it just cannot exist by his standard of knowing anything.

He then goes on to cite two well-known, but very poor, “Christian” examples to make his case, along with a few unknowns, who he thinks are irrational, yet representative of Christian thought: Liberal theologians Paul Tillich and John A. T. Robinson.

His effort is tantamount to someone citing The Watchtower or Book of Mormon as representative of Christian thought, and then criticizing those sources because they just do not fit the person’s preconceived notions of what he believes is Christian.

Smith’s whole schtick is to try and convince the reader that the only means by which to judge reality is through naturalistic means.  And just what would that entail?

It means that unless Smith can see something with his own two eyes, taste something with his tongue, smell something with his nose, feel something with his body, or hear something with his ears, then that something—in this case the supernatural, transcendent, God—cannot be known.

And if something cannot be known, then it does not exist in the natural realm.  It is irrational to even speak of such a non-entity, since there is nothing intelligible by which a person can relate to even have a discussion.  Smith wrote,

“Supernatural” tells us what a god is not—that it is not part of the natural universe—but it does not tell us what a god is.  What identifiable characteristics does a god possess?  In other words, how will we recognize a god if we run across one?  To state that a god is supernatural does not provide us with an answer.

He later continues, “The belief that god is basically unknowable is the most important epistemological element of theistic belief.”

The problem with Smith’s argument is that it is such a monumental straw man, that if it ever caught fire, it would burn for days.First of all, to say that God is supernatural or transcendent is not to say something negative about Him, but something that is positively characteristic of Him, although not exclusively so.  What does that mean?God infinitely exists above the fallen natural Psalm 139_7-10condition of all humans, but remains immanently present and aware of all that goes on in the natural world.  It is why the Psalmist would write,

Where can I go from Thy Spirit?  Or where can I flee from Thy presence?If I ascend to heaven, Thou art there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, Thou art there (Ps. 139:7-8).

Such as statement, though, is not an endorsement of pantheism.  Pantheism teaches that all things are of the same essence as God.  Rocks, trees, your car, et cetera.The Bible makes it clear that God is distinct from His creation.  God created all things, but God is not all things.Second, just because God is “supernatural” does not mean that He is unknowable.  That is the old deistic heresy, which basically says that God created all things and then walked away and let the universe do its own thing; God cannot be known since He has removed Himself from the scene.Well, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—or Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate—is not the God of Deism.  How do we know this?  Because as the writer to the Hebrews put it,

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (Heb. 1:1-2).

In other words, God is knowable simply because He has revealed Himself; He has spoken to humans “in many portions (lit. “many times”) and in many ways,” but especially through the person of Jesus.And when one adds the advent of the Holy Spirit, who impressed upon certain holy men from God to write down His message, then we have additional testimony of just who God is, what He is like, and what He expects from those who He has created (Jn. 14:26; 2 Pet. 1:20-21).God is knowable!Finally, to answer Smith’s question about how would one recognize a god, if one came across those claiming to be Him, is simply to compare what they say with what God has revealed.God has made it clear that He is it; there are no other gods besides Him.

“Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me” (Isa. 44:6).”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (Jn. 1:1, 14).

Therefore, that in itself ought to tell the person that whomever is a liar to be claiming to be God.  Moreover, Jesus said to beware of those who would come along claiming to be him as well (Matt. 24:5, 23).  They were to be considered “false prophets.”The whole point is, God has provided explicit, concrete, objective data as to who He is and what He is like, as a “supernatural,” “transcendent,” knowable person and being, and atheAtheism and Evidenceists like George H. Smith do not have a leg to stand on, especially when they prop up straw man arguments to claim otherwise.The question becomes, why ignore the data or the “evidence,” if you will?  Is that not what the atheist is constantly clamoring for: the “evidence”?God has said.  Is it His fault that the atheist refuses to listen?But, then again, teeny-tiny men made of straw are so much more appealing and firm than is the infinite God of the universe’s self-revelation, is it not?


Filed under Atheism, God's Existence

Barak Obama: The Islamic State’s Best Friend

President Obama ISIS SpeechLast night Barak Obama addressed the nation on what his strategy was going to be to counter the Islamic militant group known as ISIS or ISIL in Syria and Iraq.

What a joke that turned out to be!

Obama showed about as much enthusiasm over getting rid of ISIS as most college football fans would be enthused about giving up their fix on Saturday afternoons.

Oh, it’s not that a couple of ISIS soldiers will not be killed and couple of bombs will not go off here and there.  There will be both.

But, when it comes down to really dealing with the Islamic problem—and don’t kid yourself, because the problem is Islamic—Obama is definitely not its worst enemy; he is conceivable is one of its best friends.

The evidence for drawing such a conclusion comes via his speech itself.

Yes, I laboriously sat through and listened to every word he spoke, hoping to hear something that might be different.  Not only was I sorely disappointed, I was not surprised either.

Three statements did stand out like sore thumbs which clearly indicate just where Obama’s real allegiance seems to lie in this whole ISIS conflict.

The first and second statements came early-on in his speech when he said, “Now let’s

If it walks like a duck…

If it walks like a duck…

make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic.”

What????  The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant is not Islamic???

You mean, the offshoot of al-Qaida militants—that even Obama admitted to in his speech—who have been wreaking havoc throughout the Middle East, North Africa, Yemen, and Somalia are not driven by Islamic ideals as taught by the Islamic warlord, Muhammad, and found in the Koran and Hadith, is not Islamic?

Well, pray tell, what ideology drives these clowns if it is not Islam?

Oh, that’s right; they are Christians, Sikhs, and Hindus.  I forgot.  Please forgive me.

Obama followed up that stupid statement with, “No religion condones the killing of innocents.”  Again, really?

What about the religion of Islam, Mr. President, and its “Verse of the Sword,” found in 9:5 of the Koran?

It tells the Muslim to “kill the Mushrikun wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush.”

Or what about Surah 5:33, Mr. President, which instructs the followers of Islam to engage in revenge upon those who reject its message, “that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.”

Or how about the Hadith (Bukhari 4.159.271) which recorded Muhammad as saying, “Who is ready to kill Ka’b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew).”  Muhammad bin Maslama replied, ‘Do you like me to kill him?’  The Prophet replied in the affirmative.  Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say what I like.’  The Prophet replied, “I do (i.e. allow you).’”

Clearly, if one religion in human history condoned indiscriminate killing of the innocent, as outlined it in its holy books, it is Islam.

And just what has ISIS or ISIL done on a regular basis, except to follow Muhammad and the Koran’s commands, Mr. President?

So, ISIS is not just a terrorist organization, “pure and simple;” it is rooted in Islamic ideology, thereby making it an Islamic terrorist organization.

But, Obama’s stupid comments aside, he made a comment later on in his speech that amounted to tipping his hand as to where his real allegiance is.

After giving a few lines of his usual campaign rhetoric—does this guy ever stop campaigning?—and giving himself credit for his leadership prowess, he made this statement: “And it is America that is helping Muslim communities around the world not just in the fight against terrorism, but in the fight for opportunity and tolerance and a more hopeful future.

Excuse me?  Why the qualification that America is helping Muslim communities around the world?  Why the qualification that America is fighting for Muslim opportunity and tolerance?  What happened to everyone else, regardless of what they believe?

Could it be, Mr. President, that it is YOU that is committed to the Muslim cause more than anyone else, aside from those attending the mosque on Fridays, and that you are using American personnel and resources for that cause, and in turn against Americans worldwide?

If not, then why the Muslim qualifying statements?

After last night, if anyone has any confidence that Obama is going to do anything against the Islamic State, he would have to be a fool.

Otherwise, where was his strategy for protecting Americans on American soil?

Where was his commitment to seal the borders and start rounding up militant Muslims in American mosques?

And what about the literally thousands of Muslim terrorist wannabes serving life sentences in our prison system?

You see, Mr. Obama, if you don’t take care of the terrorists at home, then dropping a bomb or two on trucks moseying down a dirt road, which may or may not contain ISIS terrorists, doesn’t mean squat.

Clearly the President of the United States has no clue what he’s doing, he doesn’t care, or more than likely, he is in bed with the terrorists.

MuslimsAnd what we saw last night was simply another one of his dog-and-pony shows that was served up not to do anything meaningful to punish the Islamists where it really hurts, but to let them know he has their best interest in mind.

After all, isn’t that what a good friend does for his friends?


Filed under Barak Obama, ISIL, ISIS, ISIS, Islam, Islamic State