Stephen

-->

@Dr.Franklin

as long as you dont HATE religon, your not a "phobe"

Being phobic of something doesn't necessarily concern hate. To be phobic is to fear and have a dread of something irrationally. It is not irrational to fear Islam. Islam makes it quite clear what it will do to the non believer unless he/she converts. It also makes it clear what the punishment for apostasy is too: death!!! Islam teaches hate , division and intolerance towards anyone not muslim, which is the total opposite to Christianity

I have no fear of Christianity whatsoever, it doesn't teach hate , division and intolerance to anyone not Christian.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

"You're a bigot! You're a racist! You're an Islamophobe! You're a supremacist!"

Indeed I have had those titles and accusations leveled against me here on Dart often and especially by those who no nothing of this barbaric ideology Or simply won't admit to how violent an ideology it really is. Yet we only have to look and read what it was that some of our great statesmen have warned us of in the past about Islam:

Sir William Muir (1819-1905) said; “the sword of Muhammad and the Quran are the most fatal enemies of civilisation, liberty and truth which the world has ever known... an unmitigated cultural disaster parading as God's will".

Winston Churchill 1874 - 1965: "Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"

William Gladstone 1809 - 1898 : " the Quran,an accursed book, so long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world.

Winston Churchill 1874 – 1965 "The religion of blood andwar is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace is usually the better armed. The Mohammedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. Propagated by the sword, and a form of madness".

Now watch them whine and squeal and try to take this post down:

I am not sure that it will be taken down but I agree, they and their apologist will whine and squeal and stamp their feet as they do regularly the minute I post a thread concerning this barbaric ideology. But they never , ever have answers or solutions.

Anyway, this thread is to do with the hypocrisy when it to scrutinising and criticizing both Christianity and Islam. It appears very clear that it is open season on Christians and Christianity but to do the same with Islam is completely taboo according to the Islam apologists!

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

holes in the body

-->

@dustryder

But why did God make it so we needed to drink water to not die?

The ultimate question is; why did "god" create anything in the first fkn place?

And the only ancient civilisation that has answered the question of; why did god create man? is the Mesopotamians. They tell us we/man were created as a slave species to do the bidding of the "gods". And for those who have missed it, the bible tells us similar.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

Yes they are and one has to wonder if this is intentional or simply out of pure ignorance.
It is both: intentional, if one is a Moo-sausage of the swinery-hood (they whine and squeal over criticisms of their idols they worship) and unintentional viz. ignorance viz. the Muslims do not know the shahada is a false testimony contrary to the ten commandments, thus Islam can not possibly be an Abrahamic religion. Follows: Allah and Muhammad are equivalent, thus Islam is idol worship of a (dead) man viz. satan requires belief-in-and-of-itself for a believer to believe a dead man is a model for living.

I was talking about if it was intentional by the apologists too.

The most reliably religious element of Islam is......

If anything 'good ' can be said about Islam it is that Islam makes no secret of it's goal and intentions and woe betide anyone who stands in it's way. In this sense it is honest in the extreme. I.E. " kill them until all religion is for Allah" Quran 8:39. <<<<< this is a call for perpetual jihad ( war against the non believer) until the the whole world is islamic. Jihad has never gone away, it is, and always has been, the sole intention of Islam

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

the first victim of Islam is the believing Muslim

I agree.

The House of Islam (ie. "believers") religiously scapegoat everything they are themselves guilty of as being the fault(s) of others.

They do indeed but you won't convince the apologist that this is the case.

Any/all attempts to label/smear people criticizing Islam as "racist/bigot/Islamophobe" are actually aiding/abetting Islam's global jihad of attempting to make Islam a/the global 'state' religion which takes the Qur'an/Islam as superior to any/all else.

Yes they are and one has to wonder if this is intentional or simply out of pure ignorance.

Islam is thus the real supremacist state being scapegoated onto so-called "white people" via the Left. Islam has infected the Left beyond reproach.

I couldn't agree more. The barbaric ideology that is Islam makes no secret of its goals & intentions as you have pointed out above as does the quran itself:

Quran 8:39
And fight them until there is no fitnah and[until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease - then indeed,Allah is Seeing of what they do.

Islam is thus a humanitarian crisis that perpetually blames their adversary for what they are themselves guilty of.

Yes it is all the non believers fault simply for not choosing to believe what it is muslims believe. Indeed when an aid worker chooses to go to these war torn conflict and have their head removed it is their own fault.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Sc2uoJ5f8

-->

@crossed

I found the fox news report of Richard Dawkins.Complaining about the hypocrasy of how he can mock Christians but not Muslims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7B9TMfJEQQ

He is a bigot if he insults Muslims but he is a savor is he insults Christianity.

Indeed. There are and have been a few here who will agree with those who are praising Dawkins for his stance on Christianity. They too will also have Dawkins down as a racist bigot when criticizing Islam. Their hypocrisy is nothing short of stunning. They will make all kinds of excuses for this blinding hypocrisy although I have criticized Christianity and the bible much more often than I have Islam and the barbaric Quran

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

ISLAM AND SAVING THE MUSLIM MAN FROM HIMSELF

-->

@AGnosticAgnostic

It is the opposite: perpetual conflict instigated by Islam.

That will be the perpetual conflict known as Jihad mentioned in the barbaric book known to us as the Quran:

Quran 8:39

And fight them until there is no fitnah and[until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease - then indeed,Allah is Seeing of what they do.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

ISLAM AND SAVING THE MUSLIM MAN FROM HIMSELF

-->

@Dr.Franklin

Don't be so ridiculous.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

ISLAM AND SAVING THE MUSLIM MAN FROM HIMSELF

Activist Calls For Importation Of Slave Girls from the Caucuses. Muslim "religious scholars" say it is perfectly legal and allowed by Allah. Just like the good ole' days then when Islam had conquered and ruled swathes of the globe from the Indian subcontinent, and as far West into France, Germany and Spain and North West Europe.

They said " for the average good religious Muslim man that the only way to avoid forbidden relations with women, is to purchase slave girls". It stops the muslim husband straying you see and is not classed as adultery. Clever eh? Clever man that muhammad was.

"We should buy them [slave girls] from Chechnya who are at war (2011). It is better they become slaves [and be raped by our husbands] than to die prisoners".

I wonder how the feminists around the western world are taking this. The silence is deafening.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

Cain was actually the Serpent's son.

-->

@RationalMadman

It would be more sensible and productive to comment on what I have responded or simply do not comment at all on what I have wrote. i.e stick to the subject matter of YOUR OWN thread and not what my attitude to Islam is.

but do not turn to it with that attitude,

Turn to what?

with that attitude,

What attitude?

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

Cain was actually the Serpent's son.

-->

@RationalMadman

I know you 'loathe' Islam but do not turn to it with that attitude,

I do loath Islam. What has my feelings towards Islam to do with the topic here in this thread? Why bring that up here in your own thread with the risk of derailing what could be an interesting thread about the OT creation story?

but do not turn to it with that attitude,

Turn to what?

with that attitude,

What attitude?

It would be more sensible and productive to comment on what I have responded or simply do not comment at all on what I have wrote. i.e stick to the subject matter of YOUR OWN thread and not what my attitude to Islam is.

Created:

5 years ago

0

Posted in:

Cain was actually the Serpent's son.

-->

@RationalMadman

Adam was cuckolded by the serpent,

You may have something there in that the Sumerians ( from where the patriarch Abraham originated) tell us that the lord Ea/Enki was the "serpent lord".

There is also the passage in the scripture that clearly states that Able had a different father to that of Cain. Eve clearly states that Able was a product of the Lord and Eve.

“And Adam knew [had sexual intercourse with] Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain”, Genesis 4:1 KJV.

So the baby Cain is born of a union of Adam and Eve. But then it goes on to say;

“And [then Eve] said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. And she again bare his brother Abel”.

Created:

5 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Tradesecret

I am not sure whether you are talking aliens or from another human culture. In either case, the evidence I submit is not there.

Well with so many references to the space above us (the heavens) and strange craft " a chariot" coming down from the sky to the likes of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:4-28) and things ascending and descending in pillars of flame and clouds of smoke that creates a sound so thunderous that it caused people to cower and lay themselves flat to the earth, you might just be onto something. And it wouldn't be anymore fanciful than your omnipotent being coming down to earth in a "chariot" and then leaving again on pillars of fire and smoke to a thunderous noise.

Watch and listen to this from 1;25 onwards to the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

The foot

-->

@crossed

And he appears to have been proven correct. Corporations have their grubby little greedy hands on all food now and nearly full control of water. They control everything about agriculture and farming. The corporations are the new gods now and the scientists are their priests. Government is for keeping the masses in check for these new gods.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

The foot

-->

@crossed

Welcome to the chat. Anyhow it is outdated science. The appendix supports the immune system.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/84937.php

Taking into account the content of your link, we have to observe then that the appendix cannot protect itself from attack and becoming inflamed and able to burst becoming lethal to the body. And there is the question of how does the immune system cope once the appendix has been removed?

The truth is that no one, it seems, has been able to provide an satisfactory definitive answer to this age old medical question.

It was interesting to read that only Rabbits , possums and wombats apart from humans to have an appendix. Although their appendix are different to a humans. One would have thought Chimpanzees or even pigs would be right up there considering they are considered to be animals so closely related to humans than the above mentioned mammals.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

Ironically, I agree with Trump on the Syria move

Why are the - so called - Democrats over there so eager for Donald Trump to start a war ..with anyone?

They have in the past called him a warmonger and then a dove and now a coward and traitor to the Kurds. It appears to many here in England that President Donald Trump can't do right for doing wrong.

It is a pathetic state of affairs when all those bleeding heart liberals who scream and shout about brave but "wasteful" US casualties and protest about taking the country to war illegally or otherwise are now demanding that the President should attack Iran , and continue to support the Kurds in a conflict thousands of miles away from their own shores.

The USA have done their bit and now should leave those people to take care of themselves. The have had some of the best training in the world from the British and Americans. Trump it appears doesn't want to be a President with blood on his hands, what is wrong with that? He seems to have tried his hardest to establish an accord, if not peace, with North Korea for which he has been getting no praise from the so called Democrats or the MSM.

This is all my own opinion from this side of the water but have anti Trump Americans never heard of the phrase - Credit where It is due ?

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Tradesecret

My point was that despite the usage of the term man in the text, this does not mean "ordinary human".

Yes and I have already agreed that this "MAN" was no ordinary human and that he seemed better informed and above both these patriarchs in status. Queen Elizabeth II is no ordinary human woman is she! She is highly educated, of Royal Blood. She is of the highest status one can be. She is head of a country, an Army, Navy and Airforce and the head of the Church of England i.e she is high priestess. But she is also very very human!

Firstly, Jacob does suggest he is wrestling with God, this flows from the name he called the place.

No,he actually states clearly that he was wrestling with a MAN and suggests a MAN of some status above himself and of some status who is in a position to bestow blessing on people lower than himself. Yet this MAN could not physically subdue or overcome Jacob in a wrestling match. And you really have to take note of what this MAN actually says and not wish something to have been said when it hasn't been said, i.e.

28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”

Did you note that? THE MAN SAID " you have struggled with god and humans" . He doesn't say - because you have struggled with me, I your "god" and humans - does he? He appears to be talking about something entirely different to what had just occurred. This was not a " god" he was wrestling and conversing with, it was a human of some status.

I am not sure what you mean here. But I am convinced that given time you will no doubt present your own theory as fact and tell us all what is actually meant by this "blessing". You have conveniently left out the part where Jacob demands the blessing from the MAN, it is not offered freely by the MAN.
In other words, no matter what I say, you have already formed your conclusion and my input is irrelevant. Thanks again for your arrogance.

Well listen to yourself. You too have formed your conclusion about you religious beliefs (or had them driven into you from an early age) and so to you anyone else's opinion or theories outside your own dogma is irrelevant. But your input is not wasted at all on me. If find it interesting how you like to interpret these scriptures when these ambiguous half stories are highlighted.

You didn't answer my question above,

here it is again:

But just so I am clear, you do mean touch as in physically touching another with one's hand?

You haven't explained what kind of blessing this was that Jacob could demand of this MAN but it was obviously important enough for Jacob to demand for it. You have also failed to explain how it was that Jacob, a mere lowly human of no status was in a position to demand a blessing at all from this MAN that you call a "god".

Thank you for staying on topic.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

king of peace vs prince of peace

-->

@Mopac

So let's stick to the subject matter and not your blind faith. there has been far too much derailing threads with your beliefs without evidence. Go back to the first post and learn what the thread is about before you start preaching anything other than the subject matter Or leave the thread. These so called "gods " were human.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

king of peace vs prince of peace

-->

@Mopac

The teachings of the church, which certainly have more authority than someone who only studies with the intent to refute.

How arrogant and rude. What is the point of any study if not to refute, disprove and debunk or prove it to be correct, honest and factual with evidence based facts and not faith alone.?

Why shouldn't anyone study a subject to prove it incorrect? Or is religion a taboo subject only to be believed truthful without question, scrutiny or criticism. You are no better than the muslim who won't have bad word said about the Quran, Muhammad or Allah.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Harikrish

Humans first appeared in Africa.

Ok. That is a statement and for the sake of argument , I will say I agree. This doesn't answer the question that I have posed you.

If God made humans in Africa in his image, should we assume God is Black.

Now you're saying "IF" after stating that humans did first appear in African AND they were black AND that we "should" assume that a god created them. You still haven't answered my question. Did "god" create these black beings or didn't he? A yes or no will do.

Ok so keeping in mind that what you have written above, when and where did this "god" create whitey?

God did not create whitey.As the humans migrated to other parts of the world the milder climate reduced the melanin pigmentation that turned their skin white.

So are you saying that evolution created Whitey?

They also interbred with Neanderthals

Who "interbred with Neanderthals? I hope you have clear evidence for these claims - by the way, because I shall be coming back to your claims in due course.

which were the survivors of a failed attempt by God to creat humans in his image before he got it right in Africa.

A " failed attempt" by a GOD!!!!!? The "god" of AALLLLL creation actually failed? Are you kidding' me!!!?

Not much of a god then is he and certainly not a god in the way we are led to believe in concerning the almighty powers and "miracles" of the lord "god"? This all sounds very human to me, i.e if at first you don't succeed try and try again.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Harikrish

Humans first appeared in Africa. If God made humans in Africa in his image, should we assume God is Black.

Ok what is the evidence for a "god" creating black people in Africa before he is supposed to have also created white people in Africa?

The first humans appeared in Africa and gradually spread throughout the world. (Out of Africa Theory).

Because of the hot African sun Africans are black. Whites arrived in Africa during the colonial expansion of European countries.

So God had to be Black if he created the first humans(Africans) in his image. God is portrayed as white after Christisns embraced the Bible.

Ok so keeping in mind that what you have written above, when and where did this "god" create whitey?

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Harikrish

Humans first appeared in Africa. If God made humans in Africa in his image, should we assume God is Black.

Ok what is the evidence for a "god" creating black people in Africa before he is supposed to have also created white people in Africa?

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

the impeachment inquiry is a witch hunt

Is there a camera that Schiff doesn't lie to?

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Tradesecret

Yes, I used the word man as well. You did suggest or imply that this "lord" was only human, otherwise your post has no meaning whatsoever.

I am sure you would like to pass off my thread as meaningless and yes I am saying that these "lords" were only human. It is your reply then that is meaningless as you are only repeating what I have written.

My point was that despite the usage of the term man in the text, this does not mean "ordinary human".

And I have stated that to these early patriarchs - Abraham and Jacob - these MEN were recognised as being of some status above themselves. I have also explained that anyone with a title is in some way deemed to be above an "ordinary human being". I am failing to see your point. Is all you are causing me to do in response to you is to repeat what I have already stated. There are many more examples I could give you where one man can be above another and recognised as being so by his / her title. You are beginning to make this discussion circular.

Ordinary humanity does not explain the significant distance between the two wrestling both in ability and in authority.

They were wrestling. The MAN of lower status was winning or getting the better of the other MAN of status. What more would you like to read into that? Are you going to start rewriting scripture to suit your own narrative. It is simply a case of one MAN being in a position to bestow authority on another. As does a Queen to a subordinate commoner.

You seem to suggest that this "man" whom Jacob suggests is "God", is actually a more educated and perhaps more advanced human.

That's correct. You could have started you response to my post right there instead of having me repeat myself.

I am not sure whether you are talking aliens or from another human culture. In either case, the evidence I submit is not there.

Well with so many references to the space above us (the heavens) and strange craft " a chariot" coming down from the sky to the likes of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:4-28) and things ascending and descending in pillars of flame and clouds of smoke that creates a sound so thunderous that it caused people to cower and lay themselves flat to the earth, you might just be onto something. And it wouldn't be anymore fanciful than your omnipotent being coming down to earth in a "chariot" and then leaving again on pillars of fire and smoke to a thunderous noise.

Watch and listen to this from 1;25 onwards to the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc

But you are free to believe whatever you like.

Yes I know.

Firstly, Jacob does suggest he is wrestling with God, this flows from the name he called the place.

Yes he does doesn't he. He also says that this particular god /lord was a MAN doesn't he. I have already stated this why are you causing me to repeat myself yet again.

Secondly, the blessing here is not concretely set out.

I am not sure what you mean here. But I am convinced that given time you will no doubt present your own theory as fact and tell us all what is actually meant by this "blessing". You have conveniently left out the part where Jacob demands the blessing from the MAN, it is not offered freely by the MAN.

26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”

Thirdly, the manner in which he touched Jacob is significant. The text uses the word touch - and implies this wrenched his hip from its socket.

I love it when you interpret words to mean what you want them to mean contrary to what the scripture actually states. But just so I am clear, you do mean touch as in physically touching another with one's hand? You have missed the point that there is no mention of this lord relocating Jacobs hip either, nor any mention of the pain he must have been suffering with such a severe injury. Any medical journal will tell you the pain from a dislocated hip is excruciating . But are we going to discuss what is NOT written in the scripture now?

Now admittedly there are some techniques from some cultures that with a touch can knock a person out - but I have not heard of one where a touch wrenches a hip from its socket.

That would depend on the health and condition of the man having his hip dislocated. Severe arthritis of the hip joint can cause it to dislocate repeatedly and easily..

Such observance by his descendants clearly elevates what occurred here between this man and Jacob to something more than meeting with a highly educated human.

Opinion counts for nothing ,I'm afraid.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

An honest question to progressives about race

It was interesting to note that when this story was proven to be false, the MSM dropped the "white" from the story.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Wrestling and setting fire to bushes.This sort of behaviour doesn't do much for an omniscient god's credibility does it?

No.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Tradesecret

What sort of ordinary man ? What sort of ordinary man ? What sort of ordinary man ? What sort of ordinary man ? what sort of ordinary man?

You also use the the word man a lot too. Neither Abraham nor Jacob state that these men were ordinary. Indeed, on the contrary, they indicate that they are "lord" , which indicates that they were of some statutes above themselves like master and servant in those ancient days. "Lord" is simply a title and nothing more. It does not indicate a supernatural being although I would imagine anyone living at the time who was more intelligent than your average sand trotting tent dweller would be seen and accepted as a "lord".

Today, here in the UK there are nearly one thousand of these jumped up, pompous, self serving "lords" who expect every average joe to acknowledge their status. They too live in a very large house called the Lord's house, it does not indicate that they are somehow supernatural beings. It means that they are definitely far more educated and knowledgeable than your average state school educated Asda shelf stacker. Other examples are pupil and teacher, forman and labourer, tutor and student.

I personally believe that these men aka lords are simply a highly educated (advanced) species of man that some backward tent dwellers respected, admired and also feared.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Blimey! What does all that mean?

Read post 7 above and try to keep up .

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Well, the bible was compiled by a variety of human beings, who probably all created a God in their own individual way.

Maybe. But these are the earliest of patriarchs and I am sure they understood the difference between a human being and a shrub on fire.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@OoDart

God can appear however he desires. He has been a blinding light, a voice in the sky, a burning bush, and even a man.

Quite the shape shifter according to you then. But not to Abraham and Jacob, who, if the bible is to be believed actually met , spoke , ate , drank and wrestled with these MEN!

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@OoDart

But this thread is assuming we believe what the Bible says.

No it doesn't . What ever gave you that idea. I haven't assumed that you do or do not believe anything. I have simply highlighted what THE BIBLE states. Am I wrong in assuming that all believers believe what is written in THE BIBLE!? I think I am right in assuming that is the case and won't mind being corrected.

If of course you do not believe what is written there in the bible, it doesn't alter the stone cold fact that those verses are written in the bible, regardless of whether you believe them or not.

I happen to believe these biblical stories, but I cannot prove them to be true either way.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Mopac

---

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Mopac

Are you not wrestling a man when in striving for the purity of heart to see God you take the ascetic path of subduing the passions? For when you see God, you see that your soul is saved.

Nonsense. This does not alter the stone cold fact that both these biblical characters categorically state that these encounters were with men.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Mopac

Look at youu telling us what we believe. How arrogant.

No it is you telling me what you believe. Go and read what I wrote at post nine thoroughly. You are entitled to believe what you like . I am not attempting to change your mind about your beliefs.

I will tell you what I believe. Scriptural interpretation outside of the church is invalid.

But I have not interpreted the scriptures have I/ I have simply highlighted what Jacob and Abraham tell us IN THE BIBLE!!!

I will tell you what I believe. Scriptural interpretation outside of the church is invalid.

And;

If this is the case why is it hat you refuse to take the Patriarchs Abraham and Jacob at their word. they are there and you was not.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Mopac

this is how we, as created beings living in creation interact with God.

This is simple nonsense. It appears to me that it is you and not Jacob and Abraham who cannot differentiate between what is man and what you believe a god to be and look like.

You have offered nothing to explain why it is that both these biblical patriarchs clearly explain that they were talking , eating and wrestling with MEN yet you won't accept it. This is simple blind ignorance and denial coming from both of you.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@OoDart

Your comparison is ridiculous besides, it would depend on what you do or or do not know about trees and shrubs.

But of course this isn't the only time in the bible that these so called "gods" or lords have been referred to as men is it?

Genesis

18 The Lord appeared to Abraham near the large trees of Mamre. Abraham was sitting at the entrance to his tent. It was the hottest time of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. So he quickly left the entrance to his tent to greet them. He bowed low to the ground.

3 He said, “My lord, if you are pleased with me, don’t pass me by. 4 Let me get you some water. Then all of you can wash your feet and rest under this tree. 5 Let me get you something to eat to give you strength. Then you can go on your way. I want to do this for you now that you have come to me.”

8 Then he brought some butter and milk and the calf that had been prepared. He served them to the three men. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree.

16 The men got up to leave.

22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom.

I make that four times!!! that Abraham clearly describes these lords as MEN. Why are you insisting that he couldn't tell the difference between a man and what you call a "god"?

One can not avoid the fact that these MEN eat, drink, wash and sleep and do everything that a human does. This is because they are men. And he addressed these MEN by the title of "lord" just like in the days of Mesopotamia. Not a mention of a "god" at all. Surly, the great father of the hebrews would have known what these approaching beings were? And he did, as soon as he set eyes on them, they were "men".

So we have two accounts where two biblical patriarchs no less, have described these beings clearly as men.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@OoDart

Indeed , Jacob knew exactly what he was wrestling with: a human being just like himself. He told us this six times that it was " a man ".

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAip2O0-k10

So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak. But Jacob replied, I will not let you go unless you bless me.

The man asked him, what is your name? Jacob, he answered. Then the man said, your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.

Jacob said; please tell me your name. But he replied, why do you ask my name? Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, it is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”Genesis 32:24-30. NIV.

6 times!!! Jacob called this being a man. So unless we are going to contradict Jacob, call him a liar, say he was delusional, or accuse him of dreaming or simply making false claim or not understanding what he had been wrestling with, then we have to take his word that he wrestled with a human that he simply called a "god"

It is all very human behaviour for anyone reading these verses. It appears very clear that these "gods" or at least this particular god was human in every way. He even used a dirty tactic to overcome his human opponent Jacob/ Is Ra El in this wrestling match. But what is one to expect when it clearly explains to us in Genesis that we were created in the image of these very human "gods"- plural.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

Teresa

-->

@janesix

Teresa

Just so I am clear. Are you referring to Mary Teresa Bojaxhiu, commonly known as Mother Teresa ?

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

Islam is right about women

-->

@Greyparrot

Ok, that video was hilarious.NPC bots admitting they have not been told by the gaslighting media what to think about it yet.

Spot on Hahahahhahahhahah

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

The god of rape.

-->

@Dynasty

Can I have some context. You have directed a post at me above (#105 ) but have not shown what post of mine prompted you to do so.

Just by you posting:

"OR Numbers 31:18"No evidence of rape, that has to be read into the text."Deuteronomy 22:28-29"Deut 22:28-29 isn't talking about rape, but about seduction.

And following that up by asking

"any answer"

doesn't leave me much to go on as to anyway of responding.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

The god of rape.

-->

@Dynasty

answer to what?

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

Islam is right about women

This is all to do with a printed sign that people are getting angry about but can't explain why it makes them angry. It is typical libtard BS that only apologists for Islam seem to get angry about. They can't seem to make up their minds if it is about women, or about islam

Controversial Signs Posted In Downtown Winchester

Islam Is Right about Women.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

The Age of Pisces is coming to an end

-->

@Tradesecret

--> @janesix Will this be the end of the Christian era? And what will the New Age of Aquarius bring?

I don't think we are close to the end of the Christian era.

Christianity may never disappear from the earth but the end of its ERA is definitely nigh for it's time to rule. The age of the Fish / Pisces and "fishermen" is almost over, some believe it has gone already, such as myself. Jesus told his disciples " I will be with you until the end of the Age". This was either the age of the outgoing house of the Ram / Aries or the house of the Fish depending on which version of the gospels one chooses to believe.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

The Age of Pisces is coming to an end

-->

@janesix

Will this be the end of the Christian era?

Yes and some believe it came in sometime ago

And what will the New Age of Aquarius bring?

A lot of water. As it has always done by Sumerian accounts.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Tradesecret

hi Stephen,

you are right, I was not quoting from the NIV (84 ) version. I thought I was and I made an error. It is the bible I use in preparing sermons. When I looked it up because I knew I had not made it up - I was surprised at my mistake. for that I sincerely apologise. Yet, the bible I use for my own personal devotions is the ESV. and private is the word used in that translation.

since I knew I had read it - I used it that way. There was no sense in trying to hide or to be deceptive. I have no reason to do so. I have no axe to grind here anyway. I told you that I don't consider that this was a lie. I accept that others will disagree with me. I also said that some manuscripts actually add the word yet. I did not want to rely on that myself, even though it legitimately answers the question.

for the record I am not trying to backstep. Just because that is your experience does not mean it applies to all people. Or to all Christians.

Strange that of the 29 accepted versions of the bible and after your blinding schoolboy 'mistake' that you managed to find one of only two modern

bibles that actually use the word "private " and not "secret" to fit your narrative as do all the other 27 versions ... just as I predicted above that you would do.

It is the bible I use in preparing sermons.......Yet, the bible I use for my own personal devotions is the ESV. and private is the word used in that translation.

So let me understand this. You have a bible (the New International Version) that you use to prepare and preach sermons to your flock Which uses the word "secret" and not "private" but on the other hand you refer to another bible (the English Standard Version) for you own personal devotions?

Why would you do that?

Do you see my problem with your explanation? One the one hand you are teaching , in your sermons, the original wording and using the word "secret" yet you suggest above that you do not recognise this word as the correct text and prefer and accept the word " private" that isn't in any of the other accepted scriptures bar one other modern version?

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

https://biblehub.com/john/7-10.htm

-->

@Tradesecret

in John 7. The passage indicates Jesus says to the disciples - you go up to the feast. I am not going up to the feast. However, after his brothers had gone up, he went up also, privately.

I am just reading the NIV. I am not changing words - quoting them infact.

No you are not. But you will keep trying until you find a version that suits your narrative.... as all Christians do when on the backfoot.

New International Version John 7:10

However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.

Nope, no "private" mentioned in the New International Version there my friend.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Tradesecret

However, after his brothers had gone up, he went up also, privately.

10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret. KJV

Clearly he doesn't just saunter into town here, it clearly makes the point of saying " not openly" and inferes that he went up in secret and in disguise. So you trying imply that this wasn't any type of deceit and that it was jesus just wanting a little ' me time' by changing the wording from "secret" to private is simply you attempting to play down the fact that there certainly was something deceitful going on. And something his hand picked and trusted disciples were not privy to.

This is yet another enigmatic, ambiguous half story offered to us by these scriptures that I continuously point and that believers struggle to explain without altering the text of what is there to be seen and read.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in: