Total posts: 8,861
Posted in:
do you actually think showing me a bombing done by one person is enough?If that is the case then you are irrational.
It is not the case of one attack by one person. Stop being silly. But it is only your opinion and you are welcome to it.
Christianity gives me no reason to fear it as does Islam.
List of Islamic attacks around the world commited by muslims
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Can you name me 1 rational reason?
yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If you have an irrational fear of Islam. You are an Islamaphobe.
Only that Islam causes many to fear it for extremely rational reasons. .
I don't really know why this needed a forum post.
No surprises there then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Harikrish
You have no friends here. What have you got to lose?
Yes, its very sad, isn't it? Do you not feel sorry for me? I did after all join this forum to make as many many life time friends as I possibly could.
Created:
Posted in:
The reason you don't hear about Christianophobia is because most people view Christians as victims of their beliefs. But people are afraid of Islam and the word Islamophobia is commonly used because Muslims make others victims of their beliefs. Subtle difference.
I agree in part. Though, it is the double standards of the apologists for Islam that I am getting at.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Since you do not respond to PMs,..........If you persist in making remarks like these, the penalties you face will escalate.
Where in the rules does it state that you can just simply jump on a thread to air your disciplinary rules? If he is not responding (if indeed a request to respond was issued) then you should just suspend him and not threaten members with penalties and suspension on someone else's thread. You have me put on a warning for politely telling someone that I would report them if they persisted in abuse. But here you are making threats to members for all the forum to witness..
So if you don't mind, take your petty squabble somewhere else. and refrain from using my thread to further your own ends/arguments.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
the UK will have to make a deal with Europe and realise they will get a worse one than before because the EU will make an example of them and all the UK can do is accept it or go to lesser developed countries to trade.
Yes I know. This is precisely the reason why I voted to leave in a referendum along with 17.5 million others you buffoon. Is the circus in town/
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
When did media start working for the government's interests over the truth?
Since the great Donald Trump won the American Presidency and the United Kingdom decided they didn't want to be dictated to any longer by a bunch of jumped up, self serving unelected strangers in Europe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Any ideas guys?
Ilhan Omar: The 9/11 row embroiling the US congresswoman
Created:
Posted in:
Devout Christians still to this day believe that the " angels of god" where a type of ethereal being created by god and who sometimes perform miraculous acts on behalf of their Lord. None of this is true of course and we know this because scripture itself makes it very plain that "angels" are no more ethereal than you or I, that is to say, that they were very flesh and blood. But this, like many other biblica thorny facts are hard to understand and or accept for many Christians.
Is it because of verses such as :
“Praise ye him [God], all his angels ... let them praise the name of Jehovah; for he commanded, and they were created” (Ps. 148:2, 5).?
“[God] made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their hosts ... and the host of heaven worships you” (Neh. 9:6).?
It seems that these angles were even a puzzle to those that witnessed them:
Hebrews 1:14
"Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation"?
The word - Angel - means nothing more than messenger. The Greek is - Angelos. Malakh, the Hebrew word for angel, also means messenger, and both words coincidently originate from the Persian word for angel, angaros, meaning a - courier. These are simple facts that the devout Christian will still deny although biblical scholars are in agreement with these translations.
Christians have no trouble whatsoever accepting that John the Baptist for instance was a flesh and blood man, but when they are informed that he was an "angel", they somehow recoil at the shock that such a thing can even be suggested, yet right there, in their own scriptures it clearly states from god himself:
Matthew 11:10
This is the one about whom it is written: “‘I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.
And as any reader of the bible will attest, it was John the Baptist who goes before and who was to "prepare the way" for the Christ.
The argument against this is usually put thus:
'All that was created by god came into being during the first week (Ex. 20:11), and since the angels “shouted for joy” when the “foundations of the earth” were laid (Job 38:4, 7), this proves that angels came into existence during the initial stages of God’s creative activity.'
So according to Christians angels were created in the heavens and therefore were here before any flesh and blood being and since the beginning of time and are spirits.
Lk. 24:39 tells us spirits do not have flesh, bone and one assumes any blood either "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have".
But whatever it was that Luke and Christians understood these beings to be, they were definitely not ethereal /spirit. And we know this because once again it is the biblical scripture itself that tells us as much and the one extremely good example has to be Genesis 19:1-11. And not wanting to be accused of "quoting out of context" here is the story with the salient points highlighted and interjected by me in italics:
Genesis 19:1-11
The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.
2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet (these would be flesh and blood feet) and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”
4 Before they had gone to bed, (they sleep too it seems) all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house.
5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? (men??) Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” (angels having physical sex???)
8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, <<< (men? not spirits not ethereal beings?) for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
The biblical evidence above as to the real nature and makeup of the "angels" will of course not be accepted the devout Christians. But the biblical facts speak for themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
You know what an ordinary Englishman like? Ordinary muslims are pretty similar.
Indeed, once again, you have well and truly painted yourself into a corner with that one, haven't you? You see, I am talking Islam - as you perfectly understand - but you are purposefully conflating it and talking people/muslims.
Would you like another go, it's only fair isn't it.
but it's not my experience that ordinary muslims crave for a world caliphate!
What is an "ordinary Muslim" Keith?
Created:
Posted in:
Never heard of the word, but you did write "I don't hate or fear Christianity in the slightest" so I don't think you are a 'christianophobe'.
I see. But you have heard of the word "islamophobia" and have used it quite a few times.
I'd be a little more sympathetic to you if you hadn't mistaken me trying to be objective for being a Islamic apologist.
You are an apologist and I have no yearning for you to be sympathetic towards me at all, and I wouldn't expect you to change a habit of a lifetime.
As I have explained to you, what makes you an apologist is the fact the you label anyone/me who speaks out against this barbaric ancient 7th century ideology as, racist & bigoted. You accuse me of spreading hate and fear and division and of being "islamophobic". You ignore facts from Islamic sources, you accuse me of showing ONLY the bad side and worst side of Islam while ignoring repeated requests for you to show Islam in its better and good side. You tell me that you are "no fan of Islam" but never explain why. All the above is you being an apologist.
I think you present things as an over-simple black/white affair.
Telling it as it is I belive you mean? That is because islam is either b/w There is nothing to oversimplify with the quran or Islam. It makes itself extremely clear, it is honest and to the point of its goals, reasons and purposes.
That's what demagogues and rabble-rousers do.
Another veiled insult.
POINT 1
The reality involves a complicated mish-mash of history, politics, economics, culture etc.. I will continue to point that out.
Good. I hope you do.
But if you find anything I have ever posted that is actually supportive of Islam I'd be jolly surprised!
Being supportive of Islam is you accuse me of spreading hate and fear and division and of being "islamophobic". You ignore facts from islamic sources, you accuse me of showing the bad side and worst side of Islam while ignoring repeated requests for you to show Islam in its better and good side. You tell me that you are "no fan of Islam" but never explain why. Just like you are avoiding the question of what an "ordinary muslim" is on another thread.
If i want over-simplified non-analysis I can buy the daily mail. I don't need to read it here.
More veiled insults. Your problem is that you try very hard and purposefully to conflate Arabian history with the history of one man; muhammad and his so called "revelations".(as shown above POINT 1). You may think that you have suckerd others with this deciet but I can assure you , you have not suckerd me. The truth is you have no defence for Islam otherwise you would have played that card a long time ago after you have painted yourself into a corner, which you have done on many occasions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I have never met them keith so could you explain what "a ordinary muslim" is for me please. Or is that also far too difficult for you?but it's not my experience that ordinary muslims crave for a world caliphate!My late wifes's family... just about every Musllim I've met.... that sort.
I notice you have ignored all the above keith,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
but it's not my experience that ordinary muslims crave for a world caliphate!
What is a "ordinary muslim"?
If I say 'it's not that simple' does that make me an Islamic apologist?
What makes you an apologist is the fact the you label anyone/me who speaks out against this barbaric ancient 7th century ideology as, racist & bigoted. You accuse me of spreading hate and fear and division and of being "islamophobic". You ignore facts from islamic sources, you accuse me of showing the bad side and worst side of Islam while ignoring repeated requests for you to show Islam in its better and good side. You tell me that you are "no fan of Islam" but never explain why. All the above is you being an apologist.
'It's not that simple'. Unfortunately it takes a lot longer to explain why it's not so simple than to over-simplify things! And as you certainly know that already and and no-one else really cares I can't be bothered.
That is a swerve if ever I witnessed one. Listen, if you cannot even be bothered to defend your own statements I wonder why you even bother challenging anything I say if " NO ONE ELSE REALLY CARES"!!!.
Why do you even bother, keith?
and no-one else really cares
And you trying to play down the fact that thousands of people with very genuine fears about where all this is leading and why, by pretending and saying that "no-one else really cares" ; is also being apologetic.
So don't kid yourself. I know many thousands of people who care about where all this is islamification of Britain is leading.
Created:
Posted in:
. I think I remember you having used this expression "in self defence"I doubt it was me, at least not in that sort of context.
It must have been one of the other apologists . I am sorry.
There isn't much in the koram about actively expanding -
well apart from 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. and over another 100 verses of similar vein.
the emphasis is on defense,
show me where?
does that mean Muslims today are secretly planing for world domination?
The struggle - Jihad - means absolutely nothing to you then, it doesn't exist and it is all a figment of my imagination and the imaginations of millions of muslims. OK. It is not "secret". Islam makes no secret of its goal. This is why I have alway maintained that the Quran is more truthful than the NT. Islam does not mince its words.
I would say that some certainly do think like that,
yes a percentage of the 1.5 billion do think in those terms
but it's not my experience that ordinary muslims crave for a world caliphate!
(1) what is a "ordinary muslim"? ( 2) The quran demands and indeed orders that muslims create a one world Islamic state : "until all religion is for Allah"..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes."
Yes, absolutely diabolical. And these ancient Hebrews did exactly as they were instructed by their god of war.. Just as many of the 1.5 billion muslims still do ... to this day, in the 21st century, follow the instruction of the god of the quran to the letter. You can throw as many of these ancient OT verses at me all day long, they are irrelevant.
It cannot be suposed that an empire that grew to extend from Spain to India did so without any violence!
Yes these would be the conquests apologist rarely wish recognize until forced to and when slapped with these facts of violent muslim conquest. Indeed many apologist will insist these were conquests "in self defence". I think I remember you having used this expression "in self defence" yourself until I asked you what were muslims "defending in Spain, or France,or Germany and the Caucuses, not to mention the Indian subcontinent" and the Holy Land
The rules of war were rather harsh in those days:
They were, in that there weren't any rules. It winner takes all .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Can you define for me "christianophobia" or what it actually means for one to be "Christianophobic"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Islam was born in very different circumstances - ie in a dynamic and expanding empire.
Nope. Islam was born because muhammad couldn't get his own way. long story short: He wasn't accepted as a prophet by the Jews of Mecca,( yes! the Jews of Mecca!!!) so went away in a serious and deadly sulk with vengeance in mind and returned when his band of men grew into a force just big enough to take his revenge on those that rebuked and rebuffed him, where he personally beheaded 600 male Jews from the age of puberty upwards.
Islam was born [...............] in a dynamic and expanding empire.
Nope. see above. There was "no dynamic expanding empire" at the time of Muhammad's big sulk. At the most he had taken over Medina ( which was his centre of operations anyway) and maybe a few surrounding villages who had caved in without resistance.
Try reading the work of the respected and trusted Arab Muslim historian and hagiographer Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Yasār ibn Khiyār. He was responsible for the important biography of Muhammad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Jesus teachings are good.
And many just do not make any sense at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
Get the holy Ghost and you will see for yourself whether its "fantasy" or not.
Where from?
Created:
Posted in:
Until then, the only way you will fear God is if you believe in him, or if he manifests himself.
I do admit above that: I don't hate or fear Christianity in the slightest and I haven't been given the slightest no reason to. And I have said on many occasions that I believe that these very much flesh and blood "gods " actually existed.
Can you define for me "christianophobia" or what it actually means for one to be "Christianophobic"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Harikrish
you are not going to get any help from our members because they are too polite to tell you.
Not sure that is totally true because it has been made clear to me many times by some " too polite members" here that they believe me to be an "islamophobe" when I criticize and question Islam. No, these few " too polite members" haven't held back at all on that score and made their feeling extremely clear.
Keeping in mind that I don't hate or fear Christianity in the slightest and I haven't been given the slightest no reason to; It would be nice if you,Harikrish, or anyone else could define for me "christianophobia" or what it actually means for one to be "Christianophobic"?
As I have often really gone to town on Christianity, by highlighting its contradictions, half stories, ambiguous verses, enigmatic statements and downright lies and have often called the OT god a megalomaniac schizophrenic war god and tyrant, but these so called " too polite members" have never labeled me a hate preaching, fear spreading"Christianophobe", where as it doesn't take much for same " too polite members" to get on their pompous, self righteous apologetic high horses at the first criticism of Islam . One member has gone so far as to call me his "enemy" and that I am not much different to "a jihadist".
Here to help you is the definition of the word - Phobia.
phobia
/ˈfəʊbɪə/
noun
- an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
I will add that the far left liberal apologist are working on changing the centuries old English definition by defining Islam as a race. Thereby making the criticism of a religion/ideology a racist hate crime.The proposed definition reads as:
“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
"expressions of Muslimness"?? Nope , me neither.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You've already proven it by your failure to answer the question.
I did answer it . You are just the wrong side of intelligent to understand the reply.
It was a lie, it was a lie.,It was a lie, it was a lie., [tell him mummy It was a lie, it was a lie}
Prove it was a lie then! Instead of throwing all that sand about and stamping your little feet.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The same people that are condemning Trump before his term is up are the same people that awarded Obama the nobel prize before he could wage 8 years of war.
Gotcha. It is as your link says. It is all down to an attitude of;
“If Trump’s for it, I’ve got to be against it.”
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
even the scholars who are considered republican, put trump in the bottom five.
What reasons are they giving?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
It was a lie, it was a lie.,It was a lie, it was a lie., [tell him mummy It was a lie, it was a lie}
Prove it was a lie then! Instead of throwing all that sand away and stamping your little feet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
was intended to forge unity aross a pan-arabian empire containing a wide variety of ethnicities and religionsActually, i think that's true.
And I don't believe I have said anything to the contrary. I needed to know if there was any written fact to support it. And how and what religions came to be unified under Islam.
It was suppose to work in small communities and bring them together.
OK. But I asked how did muhammad bring these "small communities" together.
It's the infidel part of the Koran that throws a wrench in it.
I take it you mean a wrench In muhammads glorious idea?
But, if you look at the Koran as a community... as in everyone in agreement with the Koran and in agreement with translation... that community is likely going to love each other and be very peaceful.
I agree. I have said all along that the fluffy verses in the Quran only apply to muslims and are a lesson in how muslims should respect and love one another. It certainly doesn't apply to anyone outside of that ideology. As the quran testifies: Quran 51- You, who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact]allies of one another........
It's once you add other humans to it that problems arise bc of course the Koran is flawed too.
The quran appears to be contradictory on the face of it without doubt. This is because of the Islamic law of abrogation,where an earlier verse is repealed or done away with. This is why it started off fluffy in the fluffy christian sense, but, as keithprosser well knows, It turns very violent and intolerant towards outsiders very quickly. Muhammad's excuse for this was that "satan had made him write those earlier verses" known as the "Satanic Verses"
So, i don't know if in the bigger sense... that's what they hoped it would do as Keith describes.
Yes, world conquest. See Quran 8:39. I think keithprosser knew exactly what he was doing and saying when he carefully chose words such as : "absorb and forge unity" as if these "small communities" on believing muhammad simply and willing just handed over all authority to Muhammad and made him their leader and became muslim. keithprosser was simply playing down the violence of conquest by muhammad. As you can read above, the actuality of what keith prosser was saying had to be coaxed and winkled out of him.
They probably just didn't anticipate humans aren't agreeable
Oh I can assure you muhammad knew damn well there would be resistance a lot of resistance.
and will translate things differently. Again... bc they're flawed humans.
The (good?) thing about the Quran is that it is truthful and its doesn't mince its words. Its intentions are very clear: Submit or die. Quran 8:39
And fight them until there is no fitnah and[until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You mean the story is a lie
God! you must be so lonely and in desperate need of attention. NO, I mean it was an allegory. I did say you wouldn't understand the meaning of the word. Go on now, off you trot back to your sand pit. It will be your bed time soon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
i said 'not much', not 'nothing'.
But still offered nothing of what bit there is or maybe is. OK
I'm just a random guy on the internet that you take more seriously than I do myself!
Interesting that. But it is not you that I take as interesting, No, it is your opinions and views on Islam and Christianity that I take seriously. And why, in particular, you are more than comfortable for me to criticize and question Christianity but not Islam. But I have started a thread all about that here> Am I A Christianophobe? https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1609 so there is no need to press on that now.
I know no more than you can read for yourself on wikipedia etc.
Opinion. And it is very rarely I look at wiki. I thought that was your source of information, you have quoted it enough in the past. No, libraries and books and documents ans scriptures have been my sources of information for over 40+ years. But wiki is a quick reference I would use if it backed up an opinion or a statement I have made or referenced elsewhere. It is just convenient, but I wouldn't say it is reliable. That is why I only usually question the actual scriptures themselves. There can be no argument as to what is written there. As with the quran.
certainly not much I can provide links to.
OK. Can you recommend a book or paper/ essay source from for instance, an Arab Islamic teacher or scholar, from where you got the information that states that Islam "was intended to forge unity aross a pan-arabian empire containing a wide variety of ethnicities and religions. ? Or shall I just take that as another no?
The policy of the mohamedan empire was certainly to impose islam on their conquests.
It was wasn't it. And the whole reason for these conquest was to force Islam onto those who believed different to Muhammad . These "other religions" were not just simply "absorbed" as if by gentle persuasion as you so lightly like to put it. They were conquered and forced to accept Islam by the sword of the "mohamedan" the very ideology that Winston Churchill and others warned about when he told us:
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabiesin a dog. The religion of bloodand war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace isusually the better armed. The Mahommedan religion increases, instead oflessening, the fury of intolerance. Propagated by the sword, and a form ofmadness". But I Suppose Churchill would be called an islamophobic, far right racist, bigot who is spreading hate who is causing division and promoting intolerance. The thing was , churchill wasn't on his own when he warned the world about the threat to come from islam. William Gladstone told us that the "Quran,an accursed book, so long as there is this book there will be no peace in theworld". There were others too. But we can leave that there.
The division between church and state is alien to islam!
Yes I know. Which should be very concerning to anyone with the slightest bit of common sense, especially Westernised so called "moderate muslims".
Force - including lethal force - was employed and non-muslims were subject to restrictions, and were required to pay extra taxes, which undoubtedly encouraged many conversions.
Yes I know. And not much seems to have changed in the Islamic world either has it? The Sultan of Brunei has just shown the world his commitment to Islamic sharia law, by ordering stoning for homosexuals. Lesbian sex carries a different penalty of 40 strokes of the cane and/or a maximum of 10 years in jail. And this tolerant dictate:
"Those who persuade, tell or encourage" Muslim children under the age of 18 "to accept the teachings of religions other than Islam" are liable to a fine or jail".
This comes under the quranic verse of "causing mischief in the land". I will admit though, that the actual punishment for those influencing others to anything other than Islam (cause mischief in the land) as written in the Quran seems a lot harsher than that imposed by the Sultan. her read it for yourself:
Quran 5:33 those who wage war against Allah and HisMessenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption/mischief is none but thatthey be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off fromopposite sides or that they be exiled from the land.
My point is that the arahamic religions are the product of human politics and sociology, not the will and whims of deities.
That is quite obvious to you and I , but it isn't you or I that people have to be concerned about, is it:? Contrary to what you believe about me.
Created:
Posted in:
I find it amazing that the ' all of a sudden' virtue signalers such a Streep and Winfrey haven't been taken to task for their silence ( they knew it was going on) and their hypocrisy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Looks like someones got the Jews of antiquity code book
No sunshine. I used the word "code" because I knew you would never be able to grasp the meaning of the word allegory.
It looks like no one gives two finger about your silly childish thread. Or have shown it two fingers, take your pick they both amount to the same thing.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
IT’S YOUR CIVIC DUTY TO FAT SHAME OBESE WOMEN
I think that there is a bit of truth in the above. And that it can actually be politely pointed out to the oversized great big greedy, porky, face filling, cake eating, chocolate chewing fat bastards, that they are eating far too much for their height, without any need for insult. 😃
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
what other religions are you talking about specifically?As I implied there isn't much concrete stuff to work with, but it is generally accepted that the Arabs - like everyone else - followed unsophisticated animistic, polytheistic religions.
Ok, again nothing "concrete" that would be no evidence, then.
Certainly Islam is very 'anti' when it comes to multiple gods;
That is putting it politely or in your case playing down just how "anti" and intolerant Islam is towards any other religion.
it appears that is not due to conflict with Christianity or hinduism in the first instance (although it came to have the effect of exaggerating the difference)
I noticed you left out Judaism.
but was aimed at the Arabian polytheists who were the first to be absorbed into the Mohammedan empire.
Your careful choice of words hasn't gone unnoticed. Again you are attempting to play down how exactly these "polytheists" were actually "absorbed" into the Islamic empire. Would you like to expand as you seem to have have totally ignored this part of my original question:
So tell me: Just how were these "other religions" brought under the one unifying umbrella of Islam?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
The Lord raised them from the Grave with his death.How do you know this? And how does one dying cause dead people to rise from their graves / shoel?
The same way i know everything else, I believe the truth when its presented to me. Now stop asking me that please.
Deary me. I don't believe you would notice the truth if it came up to you and banjo'd you between the eyebrows with a very large crucifix, to be honest.
Listen. I don't do this in an attempt to test your faith, I wouldn't bother trying. I do it to test your knowledge. And you have shown me that you have exactly zero knowledge of what it is you preach. No one was "raised" from a literal death, in the bible. Not even Lazerus the lords best friend. One being "raised" from the dead is nothing more than a ritualistic initiation to a higher degree & status, and if you have read and understood your bible for yourself, you would quickly understand this.
Your problem, as with all the faithful, is that you are told what to believe. You are told from an early age to 'turn to chapter X verse Y. This then is read out to you. It is then explained to you and you accept this explanation WITHOUT question and then go on to repeat and regurgitate what you have been told. This is why the faithful have massive problems answering simple questions concerning scripture. You have been steered away from the problematic, contradictory and extremely ambiguous verses simply because they cannot be answered rationally or even at all. Just like you on this thread.
Example: going by your beliefs, Why didn't the Christ "raise" John The Baptist from the dead? According to scripture, John was not only Jesus' cousin but "the greatest" and no one "was greater".
If that is too difficult for you ,how about this simple one: Where is the "kingdom of heaven"?
That would require you to read the bible. So, get to readin!
I have. And I have a much better understanding of these scriptures than you ever will.
It may interest you to know that I actually believe large percentage of what that is written in these scriptures, I take them as historical. I believe many of the events happened and I believe all these characters existed. Just not in the way that you do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
It's funny how you Christians believe that illiminating a bad ideology requires the illimination of the people who follow it.
It is also funny that when a bad ideology/religion is Illuminated and shown up for what it is, the faithful, instead of addressing the exposed problem, believe it is a requirement to illuminate and shine a accusung light on those that are exposing what is wrong with said ideology/religion.
Created:
Posted in:
If the world was full of intellectuals... nothing would get done.
I couldn't agree more. As with everyone cannot be a multi millionaire. But these facts, as unbalanced and unfair as they appear - are quite a pill to swallow for some people. I have always believed that when it comes down to religion - you will always have those that pray and your predator .
Created:
Posted in:
Advised doesn't mean he is actually going to listen and not do what he is doing.
I don't know and neither do you.
My guess he will withdraw from wars in order to start his own wars.
And your reasons and or evidence for that claim is what?
My guess would be that he will wage war against Venezuela.
And your reasons and or evidence for that claim is what?
Maybe not during this presidential cycle but I am sure he would in his more than likely 2nd term in office.
So that would be the "presidential cycle" that you say he won't do it in. And the one he hasn't even won yet but more than likely to win. OK, I see.
Dunning–Kruger
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What's your point?
I am glad he is being advised/warned this way aren't you? I think Trump has much better things on his mind at the moment. like the next election . I don't think he will do anything drastic unless the regime down there starts opening up on unarmed civilians.
Oh, and the subject is USA / Africa, the last time I looked.
Created:
Posted in:
Hard evidence is hard to come by!
So that is a definite no, then. So you have started a thread knowing you have absolutely no evidence for your claims. Well done.
So all this below that you have presented as fact is simply your own opinion supported without facts?
In my view, islam was invented as a political device - it was intended to forge unity aross a pan-arabian empire containing a wide variety of ethnicities and religions.
Such things are not documented in policy statements or the minutes of committee meetings.
So how did you come up with the idea that " Islam was intended to forge unity containing a wide variety of ethnicities and religions"?
Did you just make that up?
much of the early 'history' of Islam is tradition,
I agree Ok. from what traditional early history and where about among this " traditional early history" did you get the idea or notion that "islam was intended to forge unity aross a pan-arabian empire containing a wide variety of ethnicities and religions"?
often first recorded decades or centuries after the alleged events.
Ok, so where are the records that caused you to tell us that "Islam was intended to forge unity containing a wide variety of ethnicities and religions"?
unified under "a common religion". That would be islam? yes or no?No. Scientology.
So it is Islam we are talking about. Nice to have got that cleared up. So tell me: Just how were these "other religions" brought under the one unifying umbrella of Islam? and what other religions are you talking about specifically?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Christianity has been a threat to people for centuries. It causes conflict, ignorance and hatred.
It has caused all three.
When will mankind rid us of this plague?
The only way is to be able to discuss it openly showing it for what it is with all its flaws exposed but without fear of imprisonment and or death and accusations of racism bigotry which one can do when it comes to exposing and criticizing Christianity By allowing such debate and criticism the flaws can be exposed and people will be left to choose and make up their own minds as has been slowly happening in the western world.
But it appears that this can only happen with all religions except Islam.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Should the US invade Africa with the long term goal of making the continent many US states?
I don't think the Donald is an invasion kind of President, to be honest. I Like his idea of America/americans first. I think he is more for cleaning up his own backyard before interfering in others people's business unless something directly interfered with Americans and or American business interests abroad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Racism is relatively simple to rule out as unreasonable
You would have thought so, Snoopy. But it doesn't stop them trying at any and every opportunity, even when accusations of racism & bigotry comes veiled in lines such as:
"you come over as an old fashioned racist, just replacing coloured people with muslims [but] I don't mean you come over that way to me".
That above is an accusation of racism veiled in fake politeness and a distancing from the actual accusation, if ever I heard one.
And this:
just replacing coloured people with muslims
Do you see how a faith almost morphs and becomes a race . This is intentional. They do not understand the damage they do when they attempt this linguistic alchemy.
It is much easier for the apologist to default to accusations of "racism and bigotry" even in the realms of the religious debate when all else fails.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
the sort of person who formerly filled the ranks of the NF and BNP are now on the anti-islam wandwagon. Frankly, you frequently come over as an old fashioned racist, just replacing coloured people with muslims.Islam is not a race either,
It isn't and this is why there are leftist liberal apologists that are in the process of attempting to change the English language so it that will support (fit) their argument. See here>>https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1527 . They want to be able to say that Islam is a race and tell us that we are being racist because we fearing irrationally people of a race and not a religion itself... This is nothing more than a cynical attempt to gag and criminalise free speech in the name of hate speech and give Islam a free ride and immunity, where as it is open season on any other religion. Don't these apologist just make you sick.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
If you don't presently even have a reason to fear Christianity, nor do you fear it, I think we can rule out an irrational, uncontrollable fear in your case.
I don't. Which is exactly what I have said at post #6 above. That is a no then. Yet I have treated Islam with no more favours than I have Christianity. In fact I have criticized and questioned the New Testament (and the old) more vigorous and more often than Islam, only to be accused of racism, spreading fear and hatred, being bigoted and of causing division and being phobic towards it. The hypocrisy and double standards shown by some here are quite amazing at times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
For all intents and purposes, we do not need to know the mechanics of heaven from a Christian standpoint.
Is that because no one has a clue as to what the "mechanics are? I only want to know what goes on in paradise. Do people just hang around wandering aimlessly wishing they were back, alive on earth and "doing something!?
Or is it as Melcharaz says, just " being with" the Lord, and nothing else?
it is not possible to earn your way into heaven. I don't see why anyone would expect there to be a list of steps or something.
There isn't any list of conditions at all is there, if we are to believe Luke 23:39-43. And staying with Luke one doesn't even have to "earn" a passage either unless one includes rebuking someone in Jesus' defence and up you go. Sorry if this sounds flippant, but I am quoting scripture here.
I suppose theological concepts could be complicated within the church, but the religion seems to be intuitive even to a child.
I hate emojis but it is at times like this I wish we had a - head dropping dead weight onto a desk - smilie. I would even settle for head in hands.
Created:
Posted in:
All religions are invented - the only thing to think about is why they were invented.
I agree. But your evidence for Islam being invented to forge a unity of religions, was what I asked you for. Do you have any?
The historical fact is that Mohammed established a united Arabian empire, and a common religion played a large part in it being unified.
unified under "a common religion". That would be islam? yes or no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
most people are very malleable... you can feed them anything
I am not sure "malleable" is the right word it implies being forced into a belief. But indeed a great many people are susceptible to all kinds of lies and cons. I am not sure if it is a need or desperation for something else, it maybe both need and desperation to escape from what most of us call the norm / the rat race.
But even the most intelligent of people will and do fall for anything if it is convincing enough even when shown and proven to be false. Remember the case of evangelist /healer Peter Popoff. He was proven outright to be a evangelical conman, caught in the act, but still they flocked to him.
The Reverend Jimmy Jones had amongst his followers doctors, scientist and teachers and they all but a few, committed suicide after believing and following this messianic fraud.
Then Waco and Koresh. There was those who believed a spaceship was coming in the "rapture" to be taken up to heaven and were found stone cold dead although the word - rapture doesn't even appear in the bible: (and neither does the word - bible , or the word - trinity, come to that). But if these words are pushed with the right amount of conviction by a charismatic leader to a desperate congregation, it will be believed that these are the direct " words of the lord" himself, when they clearly are not. It is a shame that christians don't find this out for themselves instead of relying totally on the words of teachers and preachers who don't like facts getting in the way of a good story.
The interesting thing here for me is the fact that even Jesus himself has no idea what is going on or even when this "rapture" is going to happen.
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Mark 13:32.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
The Lord raised them from the Grave with his death
Sorry, i meant sheol.
How do you know this? And how does one dying cause dead people to rise from their graves / shoel?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
" Junker is not elected by the electorate i.e the citizens of any country. I didn't vote for the tawts. DID YOU?? I didn't vote for vote for the French drunken turd, DID YOU!? I didn't vote for a single member of the European Commision who have elected a president for themselves, DID YOU? If you cannot grasp this the get off the thread your wasting my time and your own."I did see that but you are saying unelected by itself. Junker was elected but not by the public instead by Prime-ministers.
So you cannot see written above and very clear, the words ;
" Junker is not elected by the electorate i.e the citizens of any country. "
or is it you do not understand those words; The electorate and citizens?
you believed the lies of the conservative party
You are right. I believed them, along with 17. 5 million other citizens of the UK, when they said it was a "one time referendum and there will be no other." I believe them when they said "article 50 would be triggered immediately". But this is exactly what the thread is all about: The Treasonous Treacherous BASTARDS!!!!!!
Now go way your becoming tediously nauseating.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
ancient whales walked on four legs
and then on two legs and then none at all.
Created: