Total posts: 8,861
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Tradesecret wrote: whatever God sets his mind to do he can and will do.
But he's never practical and never uses common sense. Why a torturous bloody death to save us from our sins when is all he had to do was proclaim that all our sins are forgiven?
Why all the misery and murder and death and loss poured all over his righteous loyal servant Job when he could have just simply made Satan realise that Job wouldn't cave in?
Created:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
SethBrown wrote: "Somebody doesn’t understand how internal critiques work."Mr.BrotherD.Thomas wrote: : Tell the membership in how your perceived knowledge of "how internal critiques work"
He won't be able to do that Brother D. In relation to either the immaculate conception and how it in anyway relates to Genesis 2:24.
Lets see how far Seth Brown wants to hang himself upon this topic in front of the membership,
He hung himself the second he attempted to impress upon the members here how the bible shows that Jesus was of the bloodline and the seed of David, which is all contradictory to the Bible version. And even if his convoluted gobbledegook reasoning had the slightest scintilla of truth about it, he would still be wrong concerning Jesus' messiahship, simply because Jesus failed in all the requirements of the expected Messiah.
So I will sit back and watch "SethBrown" attempt to dig himself out of the crater he has dug for himself by showing us all "how internal critiques work" relative to the immaculate conception and how it in anyway relates to Genesis 2:24.
Created:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen,How many times have you head this phrase ffrom me, which is; "here we go again with Miss Tradesecret's outright Bible STUPIDITY?!"
BILLIONS! Brother D.
MISS TRADESECRETS BLATANT BIBLE STUPID QUOTE: "This I think is one of (not the only one) the best evidences that evil doesn't spring from God."WTF! Of course EVIL springs from Jesus as God since He created EVIL in the first place, H-E-L-L-O? JESUS AS GOD SAID: "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create EVIL; I am the Lord, who does all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)
Yes, as is the norm. Completely denying that which comes from the mouth of god himself. Are we to expect anything different from the Reverend Tradsecret ,
Brother D. ?
MISS TRADESECRETS BIBLE STUPID QUOTE AGAIN!: "The Christian says God created all things. Evil of course is not a thing. It is an action or lack of action."Miss Tradesecret falls flat upon her face AGAIN with her Bible Stupid inference above when Jesus' inspired words state; "For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him." (Colossians 1:16) Therefore, her statement of "Evil is not a thing," falls under my serial killer Jesus as God positing in the passage above, "visible and invisible" where this proposition cancels her notion that our God DID CREATE EVIL EVEN THOUGH IT IS AN "INVISIBLE THING!"
Again Brother. The Reverend Tradsecret in his desperation to show us all his amazing ability of being able to "memorise the bible backward and forward from a very early age and in many ancient languages" , s/he forgot that the creator of all things created that which cannot be seen.
Stephen, when will Miss Tradesecrets outright Bible Stupidisms®️ ever end in front of the membership?
Never.
Created:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Jesus DID NOT BECOME THE MESSIAH BECAUSE HE WAS NOT FROM THE “SEED” OF DAVID! 2+2=4!
Indeed, Brother D. I had noticed that the member now calling himself " SethBrown " had avoided the crucial ingredient to the making of a Messiah was the all important "seed".
"SethBrown" must have convinced himself that every single member here was as bible ignorant and theologically inept as himself and the Reverend Tradesecret and that we were incapable of remembering the immaculate conception celebrated every year in the Christian world that has been ingrained on the minds of Christians almost from Childhood.
The clown has also forgot that even after gods solemn promise to his mother Mary that Jesus didn't inherit the throne of David, either.
Stephen,Notice that Miss Tradesecret is staying out of this thread because awhile back I easily made her the pathetic Bible Fool upon this same topic! Therefore, she is being sheepishly SILENT to not even begin to come into this thread for the sake of Jesus and I making her the #1 continued Bible Stupid fool of this Religion Forum on said topic like I did before!
It hadn't gone un-noticed by me, Brother D.
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
. You present contradictions with unsupported premises to a false conclusion.
Example.
I have quoted the bible. It is you that has contradicted that which the bible explicitly states.
"Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people" (Ex. 22:10)
REVILE! That Is to say not to criticize in an abusive or angrily insulting manner.
AGAIN how could anyone "revile" these other gods if - according to you - they didn't even exist?
also ignoring the fact that Jesus was a Jew and had come only to the lost sheep of Israel ie JEWS, and the word Christian nor Christianity doesn't appear at all in any of the four gospels.No need to have the word there.
But it is there ,isn't it. Again. I have quoted the bible. Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of Israel "only". Matthew 15:24
Why should we not accept the eyewitness accounts of the patriarchsWhy should we accept your interpretations?
I haven't made any interpretations. The BIBLE is clear, and on many, many occasions it unequivocally states that their many other gods.
Where does it say God is jealous?
In the bible. Try reading it.
I will not reply anymore.
I'm not surprised. The bible and god contradict what it is you believe.
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
Which are we to believe?
With your limited knowledge of the scriptures, that is probably the best question that you will ever get to ask.
Why should we not accept the eyewitness accounts of the patriarchs have to say themselves rather than some interpretation delivered by a 21st century Christian?
But considering that Christians seem to want to deny the existence of other lords even though their own scriptures mentions them, alludes to them and speaks about them on many , many occasions, they will believe what they have been told and taught to believe,, while also ignoring the fact that Jesus was a Jew and had come only to the lost sheep of Israel ie JEWS, and the word Christian nor Christianity doesn't appear at all in any of the four gospels.
The passages does not attest to other gods existing.
But they do exactly that.
The god of the Hebrews Confessed that he was jealous of other gods. If there were no other gods what had he to be jealous of?
Moses was told strictly not to make images of other gods or to worship any other god, if there are no other gods how could anyone make an image of other gods?
"Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people" (Ex. 22:10)
REVILE! That Is to say not to criticize in an abusive or angrily insulting manner.
AGAIN how could anyone "revile" these other gods if - according to you - they didn't even exist?
Even the gods Jupiter and Mercury get a mention in the bible!
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
Lol. Deflection to the worst.
There is/was nothing to deflect from.
The scripture makes it perfectly clear that these gods are clearly described as men.
Other places they are simply referred to as lords and or gods. Angels too are often described as "men".. There is absolutely nothing supernatural about these beings other than they seem to be of some higher status than the average human being.
And as Abraham clearly attests, the MEN that came to his tent did eat, drink, wash and sleep and do everything that a human does.
As does the bible attest many, many times that there were many gods no matter how many times you attempt to rewrite and reinterpret scripture.
But you see the bible even tells us that those outside of the Hebrew/Israelite family recognised multiple gods.“ let US go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” Genesis 11:7
“You shall have no other gods before me”.Exodus.20:3
Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you; Deuteronomy 6:14-16
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods..... Psalm 82
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."The Lord is a great God, and a great King aboveall gods" . Ps.95:3.
For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods. Psalm 95:3
Psalm 135:5
For I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all gods.
The Jewish list of commandments simply says:
“You shall not recognize the gods of others in My presence".(Sh’mot 20:1-5).
"Woe Unto us! who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods? these are the Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness" (1 Sam. 4:8).
Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged to Daniel that "your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings,..."(Dan. 2:47).
He spoke of Daniel as one "in whom is the spirit of the holy gods" and told Daniel "I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee"(Dan. 4:8-9, 18)
His queen also spoke of Daniel as one" in whom is the spirit of the holy gods" and said that he had "wisdom like the wisdom of the gods"(Dan. 5:11).
"Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people" (Ex. 22:10)
Joshua exclaimed, "The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods, he knoweth, "(Josh. 22:22;see 22:5)
"The house which I build is great: for great is our God above all gods" (2 Chron. 2:5).
When Elyon divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam,he established the borders of the nations according to the number of the sons of the gods.Y ahweh’s portion was his people, [Israel]his allotted inheritance. (Deut. 32:8–9)
Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you (Deut. 6:14)
But you must not turn away from all the commandments I am giving you today, to either the right or left, nor pursue other gods and worship them (Deut. 28:14–15).
When Moses and the children of Israel sang praises to the LORD they sang, "Who is like unto thee, 0 LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness fearful in praises, doing wonders?" (Ex. 15:11).
Moses also spoke' of, "The LORD your God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great god, a mighty, . . ." (Deut. 10:17).
"Woe Unto us! who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods? these are the Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness" (1 Sam. 4:8).
Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged to Daniel that "your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings,..." (Dan. 2:47).
He spoke of Daniel as one "in whom is the spirit of the holy gods" and told Daniel "I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee" (Dan. 4:8-9, 18)
His queen also spoke of Daniel as one "in whom is the spirit of the holy gods" and said that he had "wisdom like the wisdom of the gods" (Dan. 5:11).
"Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people" (Ex. 22:10)
REVILE! That Is to say not to criticize in an abusive or angrily insulting manner.
AGAIN how could anyone "revile" these other gods if - according to you - they didn't even exist?
And this Hebrew god amongst gods also commanded,
"In all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it he heard out of thy mouth" (Ex.23:13).
Created:
Only, the trouble you have with issue 1& 2 is the fact that it is written in scripture and not a movie script.
And the problem you have with the burning bush, cloud thunder and lightning is that it wasn't Abraham, it was Moses.
Come back when you have actually read these BIBLICAL stories that you think you understand but haven't read.
Stephen is using a literal interpretation that Abraham and Jacob use the word man to describe God.
Are you saying the patriarchs didn't know the difference or that you that these eye witnesses didn't know what they were witnessing and were illiterate and stupid..
And yes, Jacob AND Abraham describe these "gods" of men, because they were men.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Haven't you heard of the ancient astronauts' theory?"Then God said, 'Let us make mankind in our image,..' " genesis 1, 26.Why God speaks in plural? Is there the possibility that Jehova is not a God but a group of aliens?
I wrote 4 years ago: Encounters with god-men.
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.
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.
Albeit highly advanced type of men.
Created:
-->
@SethBrown
Well you made the statement of doubt. Why don't you explain why, and on what grounds you have to doubt.Sure, ive looked at the major theories and none of them explained all the factors of the origin of christian belief.
What were the major theories that you have looked at? And what factors do you refer to?
Created:
-->
@SethBrown
I doubt a naturalistic origin for Christian resurrection belief.Then what was it?What was the origin of christian belief?
answering a question with a question of your own is not answering my question.
Well you made the statement of doubt. Why don't you explain why, and on what grounds you have to doubt.
Created:
-->
@SethBrown
I doubt a naturalistic origin for Christian resurrection belief.
Then what was it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SethBrown
But you did use the excuse of being prohibited from creating a thread of your own because of your low post count, which implied that you would once you had reached the required amount of posts that allowed you to do so. And the topic was the blood line of Jesus if I recall correctly.
Are you intending to create the aforementioned thread?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SethBrown
if you want to debate I will send a debate offer to you as well.
I have repeatedly explained many times on this forum and to you very recently that I am more than content to discuss, question and criticize the scriptures right here on the open forum. Where members can see , read, judge ,comment on or refute anything that I have written. You don't have to join my threads and neither does anyone else.
Sending me offers to debate is a waste of your time and my own. Especially offers of debate that you have simply lifted from other web pages.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
@SethBrown
When Seth Brown gets 25 posts, and then creates a thread regarding his misguided notion of Jesus is from the linage of David through His mother of Mary, he better not be running away when I Bible Slap him Silly®️ on this topic!!!Seth Brown wrote: I won't be creating a thread, I sent you a debate challenge, feel free to accept it whenever
Therefore, we will wait for your magic number of 25 posts to be able to find your "big boy pants" and make a thread of yours relative to your misguided notion of Jesus is from the line of David, and where comically your Bible STUPIDITY allows you to say that Mary is also from the line of David! ROFLOL!!!Stephen wrote: Brother D. Unless you have the lung capacity of a Polynesian pearl diver, do not hold your breath.
Brother D. Every single one of ' SethBrowns' responses have all the hall marks of the Reverend Tradesecret. He's made more comebacks than an Abos' boomerang using other personas, that many in fact I have lost count. What happened to "critical - tim", DavidAZ, tim mid, dim tim and all those other fake names he repeatedly returns under.
His problem is that he doesn't realise or understand human syntax. But I'll play all the same.
If you haven't worked it out Brother D. It the only way The Reverend Tradesecret can communicate with either you or myself after "permanently" blocking us both. We have both shown him to be a bible ignorant clown even with all his alleged theological training in everything from ancient languages to presiding over a congregation of 300 + worshipers and lets not forget his acclaimed miraculous capacity of being able to memorise the bible backward and forward from a very early age.
The reason he will only discuss in the debate forum is simply because there is less likely chance of the wider members of the forum getting to see what a complete and utter bible cretin he really is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yep, all very civilised.And for sure, you don't survive as a "Freelance Journalist" in that sort of environment unless your mates with someone.
As I have said many times now, Vic. the only thing that shocks me these days is that nothing shocks me..... shocking isn't it.
Reuters and CNN by all accounts. CNN have said they have suspended the journalist reported in this link pictured with an Hamas leader.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
This guy has picked up on it and has taken a closer look at one of those journalists. It appears that one of them was very close to a Hamas leader that I think was either captured or killed just to day?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What were they doing with Hamas?
You know as much as I do GP. I just watched the clip, my mate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
No. I was christened Cof E at birth and don't have a single memory of it. I am not a practicing Christian and never have been.
Don't tell me what religion you are, it makes no difference and I don't give two fucks what you are.
Did you watch the 2 minute clip?
Created:
Posted in:
Freelance journalists may have been embedded with Hamas on Oct. 7
it doesn't surprise nor shock me one little bit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SethBrown
The issue is that I had already shown you twice "the reasoning" from the bible and the mouth of god, if the BIBLE is to be believed. And you do believe the bible don't you?Yes, and I havent seen god say he has a sinful nature.
" whom I created,” then goes on to state "for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth". His way ie, gods way.
There is nothing wrong or "vague" about the title "son/s of god". And as for "vagueness" the BIBLE is "vague" about many things. It is certainly not a "crystal clear" as some here insist on it being. It is ambiguous and full of half stories and evasiveness .No, the son/s of god is rather vague, it could refer to alot of different things. Jesus, humans, angels, etc.
Ok so when god said let us make man, to whom was he talking?
Where did the ability for the sons of god to sin come from?God gave them free will, that also gave them the ability to do good.
Nice. Now let us see the biblical citation.
Oh please, stop with the apologetics. GOD! himself admits to being the creator evil. Read your bible.He created the possibility for good & the possibility for evil, that is far divorced from just creating evil, adam & eve created evil, god merely created the possibility for good & as a side effect, evil.
You love your circular arguments, don't you. God admits to creating everything including Evil. The bile says we are created in their image. So man's sinful nature had its origins with god.
Nice, " all things seen and unseen" and that includes Evil and not just the "Possibility" of evil as you have attempted to water down and relieve god of any blame.In the context the verse is referring to objects & creatures, etc.
Which verse?
Well of course they ALL do. Haven't you taken in what I have written above. Why would god create only some with a sinful nature and not all?Oh I disagree with that,
Of course you do. You simply want to dissolve god of any blame for the sinful nature of his sons and humans.
I think god created them with free will, and their pride is what caused them to sin & therefore a sinful nature.
Irrelevant. This does not get away from the fact that god created evil, weather or not one chooses to be or practice evil.
Your are simply once again attempting to relieve your god of any responsibility for the creation of evil. You have to accept it, the GOD of the BIBLE admits to creating EVIL. You really aught to read your bible a little closer if you seriously intend to discuss scripture.Show me the verse where god says he created evil, there is not one.
You have already admitted that god created everything visible and invisible/ seen and unseen when you quoted Colossians 1:16 and there is also gods own admission that he created evil in Isaiah.>> "I make peace, and create evil".
I quote the prophet native of Tekoa "shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it"?Taking it slightly out of context, in context the verse will evil happen in a city without having its sufficient cause in Jehovah’s purpose? That's how most scholars interpret it. Sorta plays back into job.
Stop it. The verse is in context and clearly refers to anything, including evil has gods fingerprints all over it.
And that old chestnut of "free will" is a very poor excuse for the fact that it was god and god alone had created evil. Mankind didn't inherit sin simply by virtue of having mothers , mankind inherited sin from his creator, god himself. Read your bible.
Created:
Posted in:
Continuing from post #11 where it is clearly shown that Jesus was indeed a part of the seditions temple rebellion and the Galilean zealot murderer Jesus Barabbas had also taken part in it with him and that resulted in the deaths of 18 Galileans by the fall of the Siloam tower, and where I asked:
What about the Tower of Siloam? What kind of tower was it? Again the bible is silent . But we can get an idea of what it was from none other than Jewish historian Flavius Josephus..
But we have to start here:
“Opposite the city on the Mount of Olives and he [the miracle worker Jesus] gathered around him150 assistants and masses of followers. When they seen his ability to do whatever he wished by word, they told him that they wanted him to enter the city, destroy the Roman troops, and make himself king; but he took no notice.”. (Josephus Jewish War).<<<< This verse from Josephus, it cannot be denied, is far too close to the New Testament verses to be coincidence.
John7:1-10. Jesus is asked:
8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.
9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.
10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
And we have to also remember this from Judas(not Iscariot):
John 14:22 Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”
The tower.
Josephus doesn’t put a name to the tower but does have this to say;
“NOW, on the next night, a surprising disturbance fell upon the Romans; for whereas Titus had given orders for the erection of three towers of fifty cubits high, that by setting men upon them at every bank, he might from thence drive those away who were upon the wall, it so happened that one of these towers fell down about midnight; and as its fall made a very great noise”. Jewish Wars.
It is an historical fact that that these Roman constructions were either siege towers or lookout towers. And, that the Galilean zealots were famous for undermining them causing them to collapse killing those on top of them and those below. "50 cubits high" approximately 75 feet.
And there is also one astonishing thing that Jesus says concerning non other than his alleged "cousin" John the Baptist.
But first let me take you back to an old thread of mine concerning war in heaven. It only amounted to 12 posts but I had a good reason for asking the question at the time as I always do. None of the usual suspects came anywhere in answering my question. In fact it was totally avoided by them and given a very wide berth.
It would be nice and I would be grateful if anyone particularly any of our new members that seemed to have suddenly joined the religion forum to have a read of it and give me an opinion or an answer.
....to be continued......
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SethBrown
. "lets look"? Even though I have shown you in the very next line of my comment.Yes, I was saying lets look at your reasoning? What's the issue with that?
The issue is that I had already shown you twice "the reasoning" from the bible and the mouth of god, if the BIBLE is to be believed. And you do believe the bible don't you?
Yes, also known as the sons of god. Or didn't you know that?Angel simply means messenger.Sons of god is kinda a vague name to call them, although not necessarily wrong. Could also refer to humans who are redeemed.
There is nothing wrong or "vague" about the title "son/s of god". And as for "vagueness" the BIBLE is "vague" about many things. It is certainly not a "crystal clear" as some here insist on it being. It is ambiguous and full of half stories and evasiveness .
Where did the ability for the sons of god to sin come from?
Why not? They were first to sin. If they didn't have a sinful nature then where did their ability to sin come from?Their ability to sin came from god, but we must specify, creating the possibility of evil is very different from creating evil,
Oh please, stop with the apologetics. GOD! himself admits to being the creator evil. Read your bible.
The Bible never refers to angels being made in the image of GodThe bible doesn't mention god created angels period!.I think Colossians 1:16 heavily alludes to god creating angels.
Nice, " all things seen and unseen" and that includes Evil and not just the "Possibility" of evil as you have attempted to water down and relieve god of any blame.
Well of course I am. The sons of god disobeyed and sinned against him in the first instance. There by they must have had a sinful nature to begin with as I have explained to you already.Im not disagreeing with you, the angels can have a sinful nature (not to say all of them do)
Well of course they ALL do. Haven't you taken in what I have written above. Why would god create only some with a sinful nature and not all?
So if every man "born of women" did "inherit sin" from Eve "the mother of all living" then it came from only one place; god. Who also admits to creating evil.I think this is actually really relevant to what I said earlier, he created the possibility for evil, as well as the possibility for good.
Your are simply once again attempting to relieve your god of any responsibility for the creation of evil. You have to accept it, the GOD of the BIBLE admits to creating EVIL. You really aught to read your bible a little closer if you seriously intend to discuss scripture.
I quote the prophet native of Tekoa "shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SethBrown
Doesn't God by his own admission have a sinful nature.I haven't seen a reason to believe that, but sure lets look.
. "lets look"? Even though I have shown you in the very next line of my comment.
I shall underline it for you.
Stephen wrote: Doesn't God by his own admission have a sinful nature.
It has to be taken into account what god himself has to say in the Genesis version: " whom I created,” then going on to state "for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth".
To corrupt something there had to be a state or condition where there was something unspoiled to begin with. And Genesis goes on and talks about what man has become because of his spoiling or corrupting nature with which he was created through Eve.
Were not the son's of god created first?are you referring to angels here?
Yes, also known as the sons of god. Or didn't you know that?
Angel simply means messenger.
It is the firm belief of Christians and the Christian Church that the son's of god "fell" i.e. sinned; the bible is riddled with verses telling us this, 2 Peter being just one. But the Pastors, Chaplains and Priests can never face up to - going by their own beliefs - that the son's of god too must have had been created /born with the same sinful nature.I dont think it would follow they are necessarily created with a sinful nature.
Why not? They were first to sin. If they didn't have a sinful nature then where did their ability to sin come from?
The Bible never refers to angels being made in the image of God
The bible doesn't mention god created angels period!.
I think your right in saying the Pastors, priests, chaplains are wrong for saying eve was the 1st sin,
Well of course I am. The sons of god disobeyed and sinned against him in the first instance. There by they must have had a sinful nature to begin with as I have explained to you already.
So if every man "born of women" did "inherit sin" from Eve "the mother of all living" then it came from only one place; god. Who also admits to creating evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SethBrown
Bible doesn’t make it clear.
The bible version of creation doesn't make it clear although we are told "every word of god is flawless". But of course the bible version of creation isn't the original is it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
@SethBrown
don't you think it'd be horrible if people had to live in their sins forever?
Doesn't God by his own admission have a sinful nature.
It has to be taken into account what god himself has to say in the Genesis version: " whom I created,” then going on to state "for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth".
To corrupt something there had to be a state or condition where there was something unspoiled to begin with. And Genesis goes on and talks about what man has become because of his spoiling or corrupting nature with which he was created through Eve.
Humans have never needed a sinful nature to make them sin.
Wasn't the first sin ever committed- committed by "the devil himself" ? He didn't have a sinful nature to make him sin, did he? Then there are the angels that " fell from heaven". So did not they too have a sinful nature to make them sin. It is only then that Eve is said to have sinned. She did not have a sinful nature to make her sin. Then, why should it be thought necessary for all men to be born with a sinful nature to account for their sins? Were not the son's of god created first?
It is the firm belief of Christians and the Christian Church that the son's of god "fell" i.e. sinned; the bible is riddled with verses telling us this, 2 Peter being just one. But the Pastors, Chaplains and Priests can never face up to - going by their own beliefs - that the son's of god too must have had been created /born with the same sinful nature. They -the Pastors, Chaplains and Priests - will ignore the clear biblical fact that it was only after the son's of god sinned, that Eve is said to have sinned and not before, while also ignoring the what we have and are, all comes from god according to their very own ideology!
If every man "born of women" did "inherit sin" from Eve "the mother of all living" then it came from only one place; god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SethBrown
I don’t think Adam was created literally from dust,
Neither do I. So what was he created from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Seth Brown, the Bible ignorant fool,YOUR QUOTE THAT IS GOING TO EXPIRE SOON SO AS I CAN MAKE YOU THE TOTAL BIBLE FOOL THAT YOU ARE!!!: [Seth Brown wrote: ] "Well I can’t make threads, given I haven’t made 25 posts, but I did dm you challenging you to an debate over it, dm me back and we will work out the details."
Sounds all very Public-Choice modus operandi. He too wanted me to hold a discussion via direct messaging only. Makes one wonder what they are afraid of?
First thing Bible dolt, I DO NOT do any type of direct messaging discussions, whereas I want to show the entire membership in how certain pseudo-christians like YOU are Bible stupid, understood? Huh?
Indeed Brother D. What else is a public forum for?
Therefore, we will wait for your magic number of 25 posts to be able to find your "big boy pants" and make a thread of yours relative to your misguided notion of Jesus is from the line of David, and where comically your Bible STUPIDITY allows you to say that Mary is also from the line of David! ROFLOL!!!
Brother D. Unless you have the lung capacity of a Polynesian pearl diver, do not hold your breath. 14 down 11 to go.
Don't you dare run away from your quest shown above like Miss Tradesecret would
But he will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Now, to not clog up Stephens thread with another topic of your comical assumption that Jesus is from the line of David, then you are to create a new thread about Jesus being the messiah in this respect,
I appreciate your consideration, Brother D.. And I too would be very interested to read how 'new member' Seth Brown squares these contradictory biblical lineages in a thread of his own considering that the BIBLE also states Mary conceived via the "holy spirit".
Created:
Posted in:
From above #6 I asked:
Is there more evidence of yet another episode where violence appears to have ensued that is also linked to Mark 15:7 (Barabbas rebellion) and Matthew 21:12(Jesus over turns the tables)?
And what kind of tower was the falling Siloam tower that had caused the deaths of 18 Galileans ?
From the passage in Luke 13 it at first appears that Jesus was notpresent at this "blood mingling" by Pilate andthe incident is only being relayed to him of what had occurred during therebellion at his hands(18dead Galileans) .
So how is it possible to place Jesus at the scene without his disciples knowing about it?
The answer to this may come from John7:1-10. Jesus is asked:
8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.
9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.
10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.
10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
So he was present "in secrete" and unbeknownst to many others of his disciples.
But someone recognised him when we read again at the table turning episode in Luke:
"And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.
And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out".
And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out".
"if these [disciples] should hold their peace"?
By all accounts they were simply waving palm leaves so what for what reason did his disciples need rebuking ? And we haven't even reached the part in the same chapter where it is said Jesus took a cord and whipped the the money lenders and over turned the tables? This was not a simple proclamation of a King of the Jews this was a full frontal assault on the authority of Rome and a military raid on the temple authorities , and Jesus' disciples were clearly not acting in a peaceful manner at all.
It may be of notable interest that this seditious and rebellious episode appears to be all down to no others but "Galileans". And anyone that has read my thread of Jesus' chosen 12 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8152-the-story-of-the-certain-witnesses?page=6&post_number=153 will known that all of Jesus's twelve were Galilean zealots. Of which Nathanael said " Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth"? Which was located the northern part of Galilee.
What about the Tower of Siloam? What kind of tower was it? Again the bible is silent . But we can get an idea of what it was from none other than Jewish historian Flavius Josephus..
....To be continued.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen, maybe Miss Tradesecret will put together a group of Christians from this Religion Forum to actually follow what she said in being like our God Jesus, to go out and murder like Jesus did within the scriptures shown above! Let us see if she take names for this glorious event in the name of Jesus, praise!
I am reminded of that old English idiom, Brother D. : Couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.
Or more fitting The Reverend Tradesecret. S/he couldn't organise mass in a monastery.
Created:
Posted in:
I asked above:
Are the gospel writers simply playing down the role that Jesus the Christ played in what was in reality, not a hissy fit thrown by that table turning Jesus: Matthew 21:12-13, but a full blown rebellious act of sedition against the state of Rome and its puppet representatives, for which there was only one penalty- death by crucifixion.?
Does this answer the question?
Luke 13 King James Version
There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things?
I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish......
Again this is another half story that the gospel authors seem keen to glide over if not totally bury. The verse above clearly tells us that this cost the lives of some 18 Galileans yet there is no mention that this happened at the table turning hissy fit thrown by Jesus in the episode as told at Matthew 21:12.
I asked above; What insurrection? concerning Mark 15:7 King James Version " And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection"./revolt, uprising, sedition or rebellion.
Was this the insurrection that Mark is referring to where this had cost the lives of some 18 Galileans as told at Matthew 21:12. ?
Indeed, when these two gospel episodes are taken together it appears that when Jesus overturned the tables of the money lenders it was far more worse than Jesus losing his temper, it was indeed a full blown riot where a tower was caused to collapse "killing eighteen Galileans".
Is there more evidence of yet another episode where violence appears to have ensued that is also linked to Mark 15:7 and Matthew 21:12? And what kind of tower was the falling Siloam tower that had caused the deaths of 18 Galileans ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Here we go again, where Miss Tradesecret is "trying" in vain to answer Best.Korea in his statements within this thread, where as explicitly shown, she took her Bible Stupid Pills®️ again! When will it ever stop?!
We are all aware by now of the Reverend Tradesecret's bible ignorance, Brother D.
It is simply a case of him/her spouting for the sake of spouting. I have said it many times, the Reverend ( that now denies being a Reverend) is a spent force since being knocked off that high and mighty perch that s/he had once placed himself on and has nothing to offer only these silly comments that you have quoted above and that don't mean anything at all while at the same time showing how deep his ignorance of scripture actually goes.
Created:
Posted in:
The rebel Jesus Barabbas had taken part in an insurrection and I posed some questions above #1
Keeping in mind that name Barabbas means son of the father:
What is it that could possibly be the link between the rebel "murderer of Romans" Jesus Barabbas, and "the turn the other cheek, love thy enemies", Jesus?
It may well be the case when we look at just one of Jesus the Christ's disciples in particular: Thaddaeus......
The Bible doesn't mention how Thaddaeus was recruited as it does some other disciples, he just appears on a list and that's all we get.
Thaddaeus; or Lebbaeus or Judas the Zealot in Matthew and Mark's gospel, known as Judas, son of James, not Iscariot in Luke and John's gospel and Acts.
He is also known as Jude and Judas Brother of James.
Thaddaeus - In the bible there is absolutely nothing recorded by this man under this name only as mentioned on the list of 12 disciples!?
Labbaeus - In the bible there is absolutely nothing recorded by this man under this name and is only mentioned on the list of 12 disciples!?!?
Judas the Zealot -In the bible there is absolutely nothing recorded by this man under this name!?
Judas, son of James.
It is only here and under this name that this man with four names is recorded as saying anything at all worth of note in John 14:22 NIV. This verse is interesting in that this Zealot is asking Jesus why he is keeping his identity secret from the "rest the world "? Why indeed? Maybe it was because it wasn't the right time and he wasn't ready and another "miracle" was needed?
The name Thaddaeus/Lebbaeus is believed to mean "man of courage" "sent from god" or "courageous". Why is he known for his courage? The bible on the surface mentions nothing concerning a single courageous action by this Zealot with many names.
So the disciple Thaddaeus - son of - James is also none other than the New Testament rebel and seditionist - Barabbas, and it is this that clearly links him to Jesus "the Christ".
Which brings us to another question posed above#1:
Are the gospel writers simply playing down the role that Jesus the Christ played in what was in reality, not a hissy fit thrown by that table turning Jesus: Matthew 21:12-13, but a full blown rebellious act of sedition against the state of Rome and its puppet representatives, for which there was only one penalty- death by crucifixion.?
Does this answer the question?
Luke 13 King James Version
There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish......
To be continued.....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Therefore, the above passage concludes that there were more than one god when said god said "us," and the fact that God had a penis and butt hole just like man Adam did in the beginning since we were created in God's LIKENESS.
Ah but, did Adam, Eve Or God, have one of these Brother D.?
Created:
Another example of the "evidence" leading to hypotheticals via speculations and assertions and plausible possibility, is the very good possibility that Jesus and John the Baptist may well have been serious (even deadly) rivals!
John had thousands of his own disciples.
John sent two of his own disciples to "follow" Jesus.
John refused to baptise Jesus.
John believed that Jesus was supposed to be baptising him.
John denied knowing Jesus.
John had serious doubts about Jesus and his claims.
Joh continued to have disciples after the baptism of Jesus and his arrest.
Jesus and John never once met again after John was supposed to have baptised him.
John denies being a prophet, Jesus appears to claim John was the prophet Elijah
The bible claims anyone "born of woman" is a sinner. Jesus specifically uses this in reference to John the Baptist. It was an insult.
And much more.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Thats not Quran.
I know it's not. But you aren't looking too well at it are you?
I'll try and spell it out for you.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
SAHIH AL-BUKHARI
Narrated Aisha:The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234)Narrated Hisham's father:Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236)Narrated 'Aisha:Allah's Apostle said to me, "You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, 'Uncover (her),' and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.' Then you were shown to me, the angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said (to him), 'Uncover (her), and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'" (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 140; see also Number 139)Narrated 'Aisha:that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64; see also Numbers 65 and 88)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
What religion/s do you think Farage is talking about?
The far-right activist Anne Marie Waters left UKIP and formed For Britain after she and her supporters were described as "Nazis and racists" by Henry Bolton and UKIP's former leader Nigel Farage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Farage has called people racist Islamophobes?
Yes,
As leader of the Brexit movement,
For that in particular he has had his share over the years of being called " far right" racist. Yes. But of course he isn't. But it hasn't stopped him calling anyone with genuine concerns and fears as to where the failed Blairite idea of "Multiculturalism" was all leading and has led.
I thought he was only on the receiving end of such labels…
No. It was anyone with genuine fears and concerns about the slow mission - creep takeover of our country by Islam.
Anne Marie Waters was a sure fire winner to become leader of UKIP when Farage stepped down because he "wanted his life back" but he stepped in to block Anne Marie Waters by encouraging many to threaten to "walk out" telling them the "party would be finished" if Anne Marie Waters was elected and branding her a " far right anti-Islam activist and racist bigot".
And now Farage himself is asking - Are We Heading For Religious War? What religion/s do you think he is talking about?
You couldn't make it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
The Sunni and Shia muslims have been fighting for the past few decades over a dead guy. Why are we surprised at this point.
Very true. But remember that old Arabic saying: 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend '.
And the argument is not so much about The Sunni and Shia muslims fighting over a dead guy, but about who should succeed the Prophet Muhammad as leader of the Islamic faith.
While most of Muhammad’s followers thought that the other elite members of the Islamic community should choose his successor, a smaller group believed only someone from Muhammad’s his cousin and son-in-law, Ali should succeed him. i.e. they believed it was hereditary through the Prophet's bloodline.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
he prophet first proclaims a revelation requiring the adoption of three of the old polytheistic deities, but later renounces this as an error induced by the Devil.The book sounds interesting.
The book was novel- a fictitious story for entertainment. Rushdie is a novelist.
Well it seems to me to be quite the opposite. It appears that the pastors and priest wanted us to remain not so much "innocent" but complete ignorant and a child is ignorant of the wider world problems. Thereby lacking any such "wisdom".I consider myself Christian but this is a major issue in the church and has led to a lot of problems. I am still working on some essays on this and researching this subject but essentially what you mention of the church preferring and promoting stupidity and ignorance is an issue. So we have two issues that need fixed that almost seem like opposite issues. I will point out both.
It appears for the best part that the "problems" have been sorted out by people themselves with the introduction of free education in the west in the late 19th century it was at that stage the church began to lose their grip on the minds of its followers ..it must have pissed the church off something terrible. and now they don't like being challenged on their own scriptures or beliefs.
As I mentioned, we are able to read for ourselves now. We can see what a complete mess of ambiguous half stories that the gospels actually are and do not make much sense in the state they have come down and been preached to us over the last two Millenia by Pastors and Priest that have for over 2000 years been reading it to us and interpreting for us and stamping their version on the minds of the ignorant, uneducated .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Best.Korea wrote: Do you have a moment for Jesus?@FLRW wrote: I became an Atheist at 12 years old when my very religious Aunt and Uncle's 7 year old son died rom leukemia.
FLRW, that is a back-hand that can't be opposed nor beat , my friend...... stand by for "mysterious ways" ... etc etc..
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
EDIT FROM POST ABOVE: SANTA AS OPPSED TO SATAN>#48
so we can one day destroy their innocence with wisdom and prepare them for how shitty the world is.
I haven't met a child that has had their innocence "destroyed" or illusions "destroyed" by simply having worked out for them selves that>>>> santa<<<< doesn't exist.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
I don't know anything but I figured the eating of wisdom was similar to how a child's innocence would be removed.
Well it seems to me to be quite the opposite. It appears that the pastors and priest wanted us to remain not so much "innocent" but complete ignorant and a child is ignorant of the wider world problems. Thereby lacking any such "wisdom".
Like when Buddha discovered that aging, death and disease existed.
Yes that is known as the real world when one grows up and has to face its realities. The church is about nothing more than control.
He then gained some wisdom, but that same wisdom took him out of his happy delusion of invincibility.
Indeed. With age comes wisdom.
I think we still teach children this by telling them santa is real and then letting hem believe it as long as possible,
No it is just something simple that we indulge them in for their pleasure as much as our own but with the full knowledge that our children will grow to work it out for themselves.
so we can one day destroy their innocence with wisdom and prepare them for how shitty the world is.
I haven't met a child that has had their innocence "destroyed" or illusions "destroyed" by simply having worked out for them selves that Satan doesn't exist.
"Religion" had a much sinister agenda. And still does in many part of the world where many ( millions) are forced to remain in ignorance.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
Now I have to Google this rushdie novel
You will read the basic plot of his novel The Satanic Verses here.
The Satanic Verses consists of a frame narrative, using elements of magical realism,[6] interlaced with a series of sub-plots that are narrated as dream visions experienced by one of the protagonists. The frame narrative, like many other stories by Rushdie, involves Indian expatriates in contemporary England. The two protagonists, Gibreel Farishta and Saladin Chamcha, are both actors of Indian Muslim background. Farishta is a Bollywood superstar who specialises in playing Hindu deities (the character is partly based on Indian film stars Amitabh Bachchan and N. T. Rama Rao).[7] Chamcha is an emigrant who has broken with his Indian identity and works as a voiceover artist in England.
At the beginning of the novel, both are trapped in a plane hijacked by Sikh separatists, flying from India to Britain.[8] The plane explodes over the English Channel, but the two are magically saved. In a miraculous transformation, Farishta takes on the personality of the archangel Gabriel and Chamcha that of a devil. Chamcha is arrested and passes through an ordeal of police abuse as a suspected illegal immigrant.
Both characters struggle to piece their lives back together. Farishta seeks and finds his lost love, the English mountaineer Allie Cone, but their relationship is overshadowed by his mental illness. Chamcha, having miraculously regained his human shape, wants to take revenge on Farishta for having forsaken him after their common fall from the hijacked plane. He does so by fostering Farishta's pathological jealousy and paranoid schizophrenia, thus destroying his relationship with Allie. In another moment of crisis, Farishta realises what Chamcha has done, initially going on a campaign of arson through London, before deciding to forgive Chamcha and rescuing him from a building he's set ablaze.
Both return to India. Farishta throws Allie off a high rise in another outbreak of jealousy and then dies by suicide. Chamcha, who has found not only forgiveness from Farishta but also reconciliation with his estranged father and his own Indian identity, decides to remain in India.
Dream sequences[edit]
Embedded in this story is a series of half-magic dream vision narratives, ascribed to the mind of Farishta.
One of the sequences is a fictionalised narration of the life of Muhammad (called "Mahound" or "the Messenger" in the novel) in Jahilia. At its centre is the episode of the so-called satanic verses, in which the prophet first proclaims a revelation requiring the adoption of three of the old polytheistic deities, but later renounces this as an error induced by the Devil. There are also two opponents of the "Messenger": a heathen priestess, Hind, and a skeptic and satirical poet, Baal. When the prophet returns to Mecca in triumph, Baal goes into hiding in an underground brothel, where the prostitutes assume the identities of the prophet's wives. Also, one of the prophet's companions claims that he, doubting the authenticity of the "Messenger", has subtly altered portions of the Quran as they were dictated to him.
The second sequence tells the story of Ayesha, an Indian peasant girl who claims to be receiving revelations from the Archangel Gabriel. She entices all her village community to embark on a foot pilgrimage to Mecca, claiming that they will be able to walk across the Arabian Sea. The pilgrimage ends in a catastrophic climax as the believers all walk into the water and disappear, amid disturbingly conflicting testimonies from observers about whether they simply drowned or were in fact miraculously able to cross the sea.
A third dream sequence presents the figure of a fanatic expatriate religious leader, the "Imam", in a late-20th-century setting (satirizing Khomeini himself).[9]
At the beginning of the novel, both are trapped in a plane hijacked by Sikh separatists, flying from India to Britain.[8] The plane explodes over the English Channel, but the two are magically saved. In a miraculous transformation, Farishta takes on the personality of the archangel Gabriel and Chamcha that of a devil. Chamcha is arrested and passes through an ordeal of police abuse as a suspected illegal immigrant.
Both characters struggle to piece their lives back together. Farishta seeks and finds his lost love, the English mountaineer Allie Cone, but their relationship is overshadowed by his mental illness. Chamcha, having miraculously regained his human shape, wants to take revenge on Farishta for having forsaken him after their common fall from the hijacked plane. He does so by fostering Farishta's pathological jealousy and paranoid schizophrenia, thus destroying his relationship with Allie. In another moment of crisis, Farishta realises what Chamcha has done, initially going on a campaign of arson through London, before deciding to forgive Chamcha and rescuing him from a building he's set ablaze.
Both return to India. Farishta throws Allie off a high rise in another outbreak of jealousy and then dies by suicide. Chamcha, who has found not only forgiveness from Farishta but also reconciliation with his estranged father and his own Indian identity, decides to remain in India.
Dream sequences[edit]
Embedded in this story is a series of half-magic dream vision narratives, ascribed to the mind of Farishta.
One of the sequences is a fictionalised narration of the life of Muhammad (called "Mahound" or "the Messenger" in the novel) in Jahilia. At its centre is the episode of the so-called satanic verses, in which the prophet first proclaims a revelation requiring the adoption of three of the old polytheistic deities, but later renounces this as an error induced by the Devil. There are also two opponents of the "Messenger": a heathen priestess, Hind, and a skeptic and satirical poet, Baal. When the prophet returns to Mecca in triumph, Baal goes into hiding in an underground brothel, where the prostitutes assume the identities of the prophet's wives. Also, one of the prophet's companions claims that he, doubting the authenticity of the "Messenger", has subtly altered portions of the Quran as they were dictated to him.
The second sequence tells the story of Ayesha, an Indian peasant girl who claims to be receiving revelations from the Archangel Gabriel. She entices all her village community to embark on a foot pilgrimage to Mecca, claiming that they will be able to walk across the Arabian Sea. The pilgrimage ends in a catastrophic climax as the believers all walk into the water and disappear, amid disturbingly conflicting testimonies from observers about whether they simply drowned or were in fact miraculously able to cross the sea.
A third dream sequence presents the figure of a fanatic expatriate religious leader, the "Imam", in a late-20th-century setting (satirizing Khomeini himself).[9]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
it's not necessary to be a seer to forecast what it's going to happen to Europe if europeans continue with this fucking woke migration policies.
I believe we are past the tipping point. This shite was caused by our own Western leaders that care not for the indigenous population.
As I wrote above; Nigel Farage. GB News is another wanker that spent years labelling the likes of me: a racist islamophobe.
And incidentally, There were a few here on this forum that did the same when ever I created a thread on the "religion of peace".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I hope all religious people eat each other. That way those of us who want to be left alone can be. Imagine a world with no self-righteous, virtue signaling, tyrannical assholes.
I agree. But wishful thinking, sadolite.
I don't know where you are from, sadolite but do not be of the naïve belief that you don't have a dog in the fight. Speaking for myself, just by virtue of being born in a Western Christian country has made me a target for the Islamic extremist hell bent on converting the world to Islam.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
my research has indicated that up yo 80% of Arabic speaking Muslims cannot read the Arabic in the Koran, so I have no hope. #42
This shouldn't surprise anyone. For instance why would 231,000,000 Indonesian or Pakistani 212,300,000 Muslims speak any language but their mother tongue? The majority of those countries cannot even read in their own language, never mind being able to read English.
This is why it was so simply for the Mullah's (priests) of these countries to whip up their adherents into a religious frenzy over a simple novel written by Salman Rushdie. Do you actually believe that those respective populations would have exploded in way they did if they could read Rushdie's novel for themselves? There is still a price on Rushdie head to this day.
I have also came across many Muslims who claim to never read the Koran.[................] most Muslims are getting what their preachers tell them. #42
Again, this should come as no surprise to anyone. The same can be said for the adherents of Christian church. But here in the West we, thankfully, have been educated and are able to read for ourselves and come to our own conclusions thereby releasing us from the grip and fear of the Pastors and Priests that they held the Western populations in for over 2000 years.. Which makes me wonder at times, did the "god " of Eden wish to keep us in ignorance? Hence the command not to "eat" from of the tree of knowledge?
Created:
Posted in:
Nigel Farage. GB News
This is another wanker that spent years labelling the likes of me: a racist islamophobe.
And like that other wanker Piers Morgan Talk TV, he too is playing catch-up. But maybe the penny has finally dropped.....for Farage at least.
Are we heading to some form of religious war?
Created: