Stephen

-->

@Tradesecret

I request that you refrain from talking of my personal life in the future.

Which part? The part where I referenced to you being a lawyer, or the part where I referenced you being a Christian? Both are true are they not?
Both if it makes you easier for you to remember.

I can never forget your previous glorifying of yourself. And will always raise the point/s when given cause to do so.

My point to Bones is that Christian doctrine is not defined by a dictionary but by the Bible.

Leaving you open and free to redefine just about any word you feel like redefining when it goes against the Christian grain and the Christian narrative.
Not at all. It just means that I am using the framework of free will within the biblical reference.

No you are not. You are attempting to close down debate of anything that falls outside your Christian narrative. And although you ask not to ask you anything "personal", this hasn't stopped you giving your personal, thoughts, guesses and opinions ( not to mention speaking for "we Christians" .

If you want to discuss this with me - then that is where I will reference it to. Not to some dictionary - of which there are literally hundreds in the world.

As there are bibles . One bible will use the subtle word " Knew/know /knowing to mean sexual intercourse while others are blatantly obvious

ex:

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.Matthew 1:25 King James Version.

But did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.Matthew 1:25 New English Translation

But kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.Matthew 1:25 New American Standard Bible

But they did not sleep together before her baby was born. Then Joseph named him Jesus.Matthew 1:25 Contemporary English Version

But they all mean "knew",/ sexual intercourse, don't they? Where as the dictionary will always define words uniformly.

Your contention then seems somewhat redundant doesn't it? Confessions are admissible in court. Yet it depends upon the circumstances and how it was obtained. What is admissible in court is a different to my point to Bones. Thanks for asking so that it can be clarified.
Well to be honest I didn't expect a different answer to the one you have given. Because you have intentionally ignored the point where I clearly wrote ;

I did not ignore any part of your question. I said confessions are admissible in court.

But added, saying it depends on how the confession was obtained although I had clearly said confessions given of one's own free will.

You however are not really asking about a confession obtained freely or not.

Oh stop it. My question is clear, concise," genuine and serious". Read it again and stop trying to create an argument where one doesn't exist. #21

I have no issue with others defining free will how they choose or desire. That is entirely a matter for them. Just don't THEN conflate what the individual's personal definition is with what the Christian defines it as. That is my point.
Ok, how does "the Christian bible" define the word - righteous? And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - blameless?
LOL! Go and read the bible and find out for yourself.

I fail to see the comical side to my genuine and serious questions concerning the subject that you tell us often that you are professionally trained and authorised to speak about..

But again, we have another outright refusal to answer a genuine and serious question/s that you demanded in your OP. You imply you want to keep all questions to the realms of the bible since it is your first source..

And haven't you made it clear that you only take your understandings and meanings of words" from the bible itself"?#20 and not "some dictionary"?

I am not asking you for the definitions of these words given in "some dictionary". I asked you questions that are well inside your own capacity and the dictates and the requirements that you set down in your original post yourself, namely:

[1] What I propose - to try and simplify things is that if people who have asked me a serious question and wish an answer I will reply here.
[2] These questions must be genuine and in response to what I have written .or others if they are serious. #1

So does "the Christian bible" define the word - righteous? And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - blameless?

And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - perfect?

And although mankind's fall means we will remain sinful does this mean we will not ever be perfect until we accept Jesus, the resurrection and die?

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Tradesecret

The dictionary does not define the Christian notion of freewill

A confession made of one's own free will would be inadmissible to you then, considering you tell us that you are a lawyer and a Christian that represents criminals?
Hello Stephen, I paused for a moment before answering you. I took for a moment your reference to my personal life as another insult from you. And to be perfectly honest, I still think you are attempting to be insulting here. I request that you refrain from talking of my personal life in the future.

Which part? The part where I referenced to you being a lawyer, or the part where I referenced you being a Christian? Both are true are they not?

My point to Bones is that Christian doctrine is not defined by a dictionary but by the Bible.

Leaving you open and free to redefine just about any word you feel like redefining when it goes against the Christian grain and the Christian narrative.

I have no issue with others defining free will how they choose or desire. That is entirely a matter for them. Just don't THEN conflate what the individual's personal definition is with what the Christian defines it as. That is my point.

Ok, how does "the Christian bible" define the word - righteous? And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - blameless?

Tradesecret wrote: The dictionary does not define the Christian notion of freewill

A confession made of one's own free will would be inadmissible to you then, considering you tell us that you are a lawyer and a Christian that represents criminals?

Your contention then seems somewhat redundant doesn't it? Confessions are admissible in court. Yet it depends upon the circumstances and how it was obtained. What is admissible in court is a different to my point to Bones. Thanks for asking so that it can be clarified.

Well to be honest I didn't expect a different answer to the one you have given. Because you have intentionally ignored the point where I clearly wrote ;

Stephen wrote: "A confession made of one's own free #21

Do you see that? It says - own free will - that means not coerced, not forced and not given under duress or torture, but freely, and in the exact manner that you often give freely details of your personal life to the members of this forum . So it is not as redundant as you want it to be.

So then- would a freely given confession be inadmissible to you?

Just don't THEN conflate what the individual's personal definition is with what the Christian defines it as. That is my point.

And my point is that you simply redefine the universally accepted definitions of words when they do not fit the Christian/ YOUR narrative. And this is why I started my first question to you by asking you;

Do you agree with the definition of the word Genuine?

And do you agree with the definition of the word "Serious"?#2 These are both words used by you and of your own free will in your own OP Here>>#1

So, how does the Christian bible define the words - Genuine and Serious?

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

Question for 2nd Amendment Advocates...

-->

@Double_R

@ the witch. BTW, since you blocked me why are you replying on my thread?

Because she wants her cake and eat it.

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Why didn't Mr Omni get it right in the first place.?

Why did Mr perfect Omni keep destroying only to rebuild using the same model. #1

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@BrotherD.Thomas

@ Tradsecret:
Therefore, ONCE AGAIN, the following non-personal questions that you require to you still need to be answered:

1. What do you think of assumed Christians that are despicably amoral in being sexual deviants that practice sickening sex acts with their family members?

2. Since this abhorred sexual situation described above goes directly against Jesus' inspired words within the scriptures, and like you have noted all the time, these sexual deviants should be punished because they knew they were going against Jesus’ inspired words, therefore they are Hell bound upon their demise!

I anticipate another wide swerve Brother D.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Tradesecret

The dictionary does not define the Christian notion of freewill

A confession made of one's own free will would be inadmissible to you then, considering you tell us that you are a lawyer and a Christian that represents criminals?

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

Imam dismissed as No 10's islamophobia adviser after backing calls to cancel 'blasphemous' film (msn.com)

It appears that at least a little common sense has come from this story.

It appears that the Muslim adviser to the UK Government on "Islamophobia" mentioned above here>

"One of the figures agitating for cinemas to cancel a film accused of “blasphemy” is the Government’s adviser on Islamophobia"#13 has been dismissed.

"Qari Asim was told on Saturday evening that he had been dismissed from his official roles as independent adviser on Islamophobia and deputy chairman of the Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group.
The move came after Mr Asim, the head imam at the Makkah mosque in Leeds, backed those protesting against The Lady of Heaven film and asked cinemas to drop the £12 million production, which has become the centre of a free speech row in the UK.
Amid widespread protests, Mr Asim issued a statement branding The Lady of Heaven a "disparaging movie" that has "caused much pain and hurt to Muslims".......

.......

In a letter to Mr Asim published on the Government website on Saturday, the Department of Levelling Up said: "We have no option but to withdraw the appointment and end your roles with Government with immediate effect.

"Your recent support for a campaign to limit free expression - a campaign which has itself encouraged communal tensions - means it is no longer appropriate for you to continue your work with Government in roles designed to promote community harmony," it said.

The letter went on: "You will have no doubt seen reports of the scenes outside different cinema venues. These included deeply disturbing videos of sectarian chanting and anti-Shia hatred... which must be challenged at every opportunity as part of a wider effort to combat anti-Muslim hatred.

"We were disappointed to see that you failed to condemn some of the protests complicit in these behaviours."

Mr Asim's statement clashed with the views of Dame Sara Khan, the Government’s independent adviser on social cohesion and resilience, who criticised the failure of the authorities to stand up to protests which led to Cineworld pulling UK screenings of the film "to ensure the safety of our staff and customers".

, Mr Asim, who was appointed as Islamophobia adviser a day before Boris Johnson entered Downing Street in 2019, said that he had been ignored by No 10 and Michael Gove, the Levelling Up Secretary, since taking up the role.

The film’s release on June 3 sparked days of demonstrations at cinemas in Bradford, Bolton, Birmingham, Sheffield, London and Leeds, as protestors branded the film "offensive" and sectarian in its depiction of Islam’s history and early leaders.

Malik Shlibak, executive producer of The Lady of Heaven, blamed a radical group "trying to cause sectarian division" for the protests and cinemas were "crumbling to the pressure".

Separately, Sajid Javid, the Health Secretary, said he was "very concerned about the growing cancel culture" in the UK.

"There's people out there who think they have a right not to be offended and of course, no one has that right," he said.

Mr Asim was contacted for comment.

I suspect there to be further protests and demonstrations claiming unfair dismissal of Imam Qari Asim and demands for his reinstatement " or there will be repercussions"

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

Voices: The film on the prophet Muhammad’s daughter offends me too, but the protesters are wrong (msn.com)

-->

@Dr.Franklin

Again, Christians used to be like that.

Trying to contextualise past deeds of ancient and medieval Christianity with 21st century Muslim intolerant barbarity doesn't fly..

Christianity reformed. And this isn't the thread to discuss it...

Tell me, should this cinema chain have caved in to threats ?

"In the UK, protests were held in Bolton, Blackburn, Bradford, Sheffield and Birmingham. Eventually, Cineworld succumbed to the mounting pressures and pulled the films from all their cinemas. Many claimed that these protests were peaceful, but in one such protest in Birmingham, an attendee warned that there would be consequences from showing the film and that Muslims were trained from birth to defend their prophet’s honour.

Some might align those against showing the film with the modern-day march of intolerant progressivism, but this has longer roots within south Asia. In India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, it is common for religious minorities, secularists, atheists and others to be killed if they were perceived to have insulted Hinduism or Islam. And it will be over anything. In Pakistan, last year, a Sri Lankan manager was killed by his employees because he was deemed to have insulted Islam. His actual crime? He took down a poster that was inscribed with Islamic verses. He was dragged, beaten to death and burnt by a several-hundred-strong mob.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

Christian preacher Hatun Tash reveals horror at being stabbed while in Hebdo shirt as counter-terror cops investigate | The Sun

-->

@Dr.Franklin

There was a time when Christians were as steadfast in defending their faith as Muslims. Now if you walk down the street in London publicly insulting Jesus, you will get more opposition from Muslims than from White Brits

I doubt that, but what I do know you will get if you walked down the street in Bradford or Rochdale yelling Jesus is the one and only true god, is you run the risk of of having your head removed.

Haven't you ever seen the reactions of Muslims towards Christian speakers in in Hyde Park?

YouTube

'DISTURBING' Christian preacher Hatun Tash reveals horror at being stabbed while in Hebdo shirt as counter-terror cops investigate.

Ms Tash, a former Muslim who converted to Christianity, said that she has been verbally and physically attacked in the past while preaching at Speakers' Corner at the park.

Speakers' Corner is known for being a place where people can freely express their opinions.

She collapsed with blood running down her face after being stabbed at the weekend.

Ms Tash said: "I am upset and disturbed by what has happened to me. I am asking myself if have done anything wrong?

"I am convinced I have not broken any law or incited hate. All I did was question Islam and I wanted to debate discuss and to tell people about Jesus Christ.

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@BrotherD.Thomas

@ Tradesecret.
Therefore, to once again try and follow your protocols for you to address questions to you regarding your faith, and without being personal, I present the following:

1. What do you think of assumed Christians that are despicably amoral in being sexual deviants that practice sickening sex acts with their family members?

2. Since this abhorred sexual situation described above goes directly against Jesus' inspired words within the scriptures, as shown below, and like you have noted all the time, these sexual deviants should be punished because knew they were going against Jesus’ inspired words, therefore they are Hell bound upon their demise! Do you agree?

“For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” “Ephesians 5:5)

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)

“Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galations 5:19-21)

Those damn facts, eh?

Those damn inconvenient facts, indeed Brother D.

S/he will more than likely tell you that Q1 above is a personnel question and goes against the caveat and ground rules that s/he laid down here>>#1

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

The director who dared to make a film about the Prophet Mohammed (msn.com)

The Message.

"In July 1976, director-producer Moustapha Akkad was forced to change the name of his $17 million Islamic epic – from “Muhammad, Messenger of God” to simply “The Message” – just 72 hours before the London premier.

As will be obvious to anyone who has been following the saga of Cineworld and the "blasphemous" Islamic epic The Lady of Heaven (or the last year's events at Batley Grammar School in Yorkshire where a head teacher and his family are still in hiding and still under Police protection) the change came after protests – including threatening phone calls to one cinema – from conservative Muslims who wrongly believed the film would depict the Prophet Mohammed.

Among their demands was that the film be banned. "We want the picture out of the country," the group's leader declared. "Because it's a fairy tale, it's a joke… I'm Muslim and I'll die for my faith. It's a joke. It's misrepresenting the Muslim faith." In a siege that lasted 39 hours, a young radio reporter was killed and dozens more were injured."

Islam has come a long way over the last 47 years hasn't it 😒

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

Mohammed film protest backer is government's Islamophobia adviser (msn.com)

-->

@3RU7AL

One of the figures agitating for cinemas to cancel a film accused of “blasphemy” is the Government’s adviser on Islamophobia, The Telegraph can reveal......

.....

One of the figures agitating for cinemas to cancel a film accused of “blasphemy” is the Government’s adviser on Islamophobia, The Telegraph can reveal.

© Provided by The Telegraph Imam Qari Asim says the movie has “caused much pain and hurt to Muslims”Cinema chain Cineworld was forced to cancel screenings of The Lady of Heaven, about the Prophet Mohammed’s daughter, after venues showing the historical epic were picketed by hundreds of Muslim demonstrators.

It has emerged that one of the figures lobbying for screenings to be cancelled is Imam Qari Asim, an independent government advisor on Islamophobia, who has branded the film “derogatory”.

The Head Imam of the Makkah mosque in Leeds has backed those protesting against the film and asked cinemas to drop the £12million production, which has become the centre of a free speech row in the UK.

Amid widespread protests, Mr Asim posted an online statement critical of the Lady of Heaven, branding it a “disparaging movie” that has “caused much pain and hurt to Muslims”.

Should anyone really be surprised?

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

Curious facts about witchcraft that.....

-->

@BrotherD.Thomas

SIDEBAR: What is comical and an irony is the FACT that Miss Tradesecret has so many excuses not to address topics like this one, that she couldn't address in the first place, other than to RUN AWAY from them, therefore her ungodly presence within this forum is all for naught and a waste of time! LOL!!!

Well I couldn't stop grinning at his caveat on his return from self imposed exile, Brother D.

Here>> I'm back. Did you miss me? (debateart.com)

Created:

3 years ago

3

Posted in:

-->

@BrotherD.Thomas

QUESTION: Therefore, have you gotten control upon this ungodly act of your SEXUAL DEVIANCY with family members that you Satanically indulged in as previously shown in the link above, where you have to answer this question since I am following your rules as shown below from your quote above:

1. The question above is genuine, to say the least
2. It is in response to what you have written
3. Most of all, the question is most certainly serious to say the least

"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7)

He's freely admitted to "sexually experimenting" on this forum, Brother D. But don't expect a reply.

Good post and worth the thumbs up.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

Curious facts about witchcraft that will keep you spellbound (msn.com)

@ the Witch.

Thanks for deciding to quit feeding the trolls.

I don't see a Genuine Serious question there Witch, as per OP's request. So who is doing the trolling, or as you politely put it, joining a thread " just to shit on it".

Those hypocritical comments and double standards just keep following you around, don't they.

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

Curious facts about witchcraft that.....

-->

@3RU7AL

It is the mindset of the time that always strikes me when reading the subject of Witches.

The bible as you know is no exception; "Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18

Also the mindset hadn't changed since exodus some 7000 years later.

Created:

3 years ago

3

Posted in:

Curious facts about witchcraft that.....

..... will keep you spellbound.

1 If you were accused of being a witch a few centuries ago you could expect to be persecuted, tortured, and burned at the stake. Heresy and black magic were simply not tolerated. But many of those who met a fiery end were totally innocent and died purely because of their religious beliefs.

2 According to science and history, there's no such thing as a witch. Those hapless souls accused of witchcraft and who ended up being burned at the stake had no ties whatsoever to Paganism, dark practices, or heresy. In fact, the only thing these witches, warlocks, and heretics were guilty of was that they weren't Protestant or Catholic.

3 Witch hysteria took off in the mid-1400s and continued until the beginning of the 18th century. Many innocent people were burned at the stake just for looking different or behaving oddly. The checklist for a suspected witch included innocuous things like having a wart, a hairy lip, a squint, or a birthmark. [and a big giant hooter that pokes in where it has no reason to].

4 Those unfortunate enough to possess the so-called characteristics of a witch were instantly condemned to a fiery and painful end, usually in full public view. It is estimated that 40,000 to 50,000 people were killed like this during this period in history.

5 However, some historians suggest this figure could be as high as 200,000 as many of the accused were torched away from the public arena.

There are 25 more reasons in the link for those that may be interested and can be bothered to turn the page... I can't.

Curious facts about witchcraft that will keep you spellbound (msn.com)

Created:

3 years ago

4

Posted in:

☆< IMPORTANT REMINDER > ☆ For those attending church today.

-->

@Deb-8-a-bull

It may very well be .
▪○●°•▪○●°•▪○●°•▪○●°•▪○●°•▪○●°•▪○●•▪○●°•▪○●°•▪○● THE ULTIMATE SIN ▪○●°•▪○●°•▪○●°•▪○●°•▪○●°•▪○● •▪○●•° . ( Stealing from Jesus...)

You did nothing less than Judas( a disciple of the lord no less) often did and no one seemed to bat an eyelid . It was only when Judas double-crossed Jesus that decided to throw it into scripture.

"This he [Judas] said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the[money] bag, and took what was put therein".

I replied to your last post here Deb.#123

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@Tradesecret

I love it. Nothing ever changes around here. Rather than ask either a genuine or serious question you MUST ask for what I actually mean.

Do you have a question or not?

If not, please go away and do what you do best.

So right of the bat, you have returned to true form and you are refusing to answer two genuine and serious questions . You must think everyone here is absolutely dumb.

What you have done with your opening post is lay down your own ground rules where only YOU will determine and define what is a " genuine" and "serious" question.

You need to go way for another month and come up with a better tactic, Reverend Munchausen.😂

Meanwhile I will answer your question:

I'm back. Did you miss me?

NO!

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Tradesecret

These questions must be genuine.

Do you agree with the definition of the word "Genuine"?

genuine

/ˈdʒɛnjʊɪn/

adjective

1.truly what something is said to be; authentic:

if they are serious.

And do you agree with the definition of the word "Serious"?

serious

/ˈsɪərɪəs/

adjective

1.demanding or characterized by careful consideration or application:

Created:

3 years ago

0

Posted in:

☆< IMPORTANT REMINDER > ☆ For those attending church today.

-->

@Deb-8-a-bull

Hang on a minute.
That can't be right. Let me run these numbers once again.
80 cent saving for breakfast
200 cents for jesus.
So Thats
Well ill be. It is.
-120 worse off

I think your parents were extremely savvy. They got a bargain , Deb. That has to be the cheapest baby-sitting rates I have ever heard of.. + potato

Sponge painting. And potatoes painting.

And did you get to take home the used potato? Yes? Then stop complaining, at least you walked away with something for dinner.

So um yeah .....
It wasn't for the money they saved on breakfast

Like is said; savvy parenting, Deb

And a big thank you to you Stephen for your suggestion.

fukin bastard.
HeHe.

Anytime, Deb.😊

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@RationalMadman

This is the abusive pattern of behaviour that led me to block you in the first place.

I am happy for you to keep me on permanent block.

How many times!? It is your sly, snide and cowardly practice of unblocking me to address me and my comments only to block me again immediately after you have had your say that gets me annoyed.

Just know that you are forcing me to have beef with you if you continue to type that way to me.

Nope. It wasn't me that unblocked me , was it, you clown. YOU came to me princess. On a thread that you say you" don't even care about". I forced you into nothing.

Now just let's leave it there, shall we?

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

not all muslims are outraged

Which is what I pointed out to RM #4 after he unblocked me to make a post on a thread that he says he doesn't even care about only to block me again immediately after.

It appears to be a Sunni V Shi'ite thing.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

ntal consent) for male and female voluntary service; no conscription (currently inactive, but males aged 18-25 must register with Selective Service in case conscription is re
you're conflating "IS" with "OUGHT"

I don't think so. I looked at the comment where it clearly states "must", among other things.

Still, my point was I quite liked the comeback from Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie when he asked Nadler if he would be willing to cosponsor a bill to raise the draft age to 21, to which Nadler replied, “No.”

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

Military service age and obligation - The World Factbook (cia.gov)

-->

@3RU7AL

there is a reason automobile insurance companies lower fees for people when they turn 25

we do NOT need 18 year old soldiers

The US government obviously disagrees with you,3RU7AL

Military service age and obligation.

United States
18 years of age (17 years of age with parental consent) for male and female voluntary service; no conscription (currently inactive, but males aged 18-25 must register with Selective Service in case conscription is reinstated in the future); maximum enlistment age 34 (Army), 39 (Air Force), 39 (Navy), 28 (Marines), 31 (Coast Guard); 8-year service obligation, including 2-5 years active duty (Army), 2 years active (Navy), 4 years active (Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard); all military occupations and positions open to women (2021)

note - in 2019, women comprised about 18% of the total US military

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

@ the Witch

He went by Willows. He figured out a way to finally insult without getting banned. Well without getting banned as often.

More baseless and unfounded bullshite.

Come to shit again have you , Witch? Aren't there any woods near you to dump in?

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

Rep. Nadler says 18-year-olds can't have guns because 'brains undeveloped' but are needed in military | American Military News

-->

@3RU7AL

@FLRW

I have just found the quote from Nadler;

Rep. Nadler says 18-year-olds can’t have guns because ‘brains undeveloped’ but are needed in military.

Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie then asked Nadler if he would be willing to cosponsor a bill to raise the draft age to 21, to which Nadler replied, “No.”
“But the chairman feels that their brains aren’t fully formed at 18, 19, and 20?” Massie pressed.

What is the maximum age to be drafted into the US military?
All men who are permanent residents in the US or are US citizens are required to register with the selective service when they are18 to 26 years old.

What is the maximum age for the US military draft? | The Sun

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

The Lady of Heaven pulled from Bolton cinema | Executive producer of the film discusses - YouTube

-->

@RationalMadman

I just think making any media about Islam that challenges or disrespects a sect's belief is asking for trouble.

It is by all accounts an "historical " movie made by Muslims. How factual it is , is another matter. Here in the UK we have a series airing called The Crown. It's historicity is certainly questionable, but you won't catch me agitating and rousing my countrymen to harass the drama's writers , producers or actors. Or the TV station and their staff that are airing it. . We live in a free society here in the UK.

"The executive producer of a film cancelled in British cities has said it is "very normal" to portray the Prophet Muhammad in film and media.
The Lady of Heaven, depicting Lady Fatima, daughter of Prophet Muhammad, was due to hit cinema screens in parts of Britain.
But Cineworld cancelled all showings after cinemas were picketed by Muslim protesters.
The manager of Sheffield Cineworld announcing the film's cancellation was met with cries of "Allahu Akhbar".

The Lady of Heaven pulled from Bolton cinema | Executive producer of the film

Muslim producer of film banned for 'blasphemy' says 'it's perfectly normal to portray the Prophet Muhammad' (gbnews.uk)

You can @ someone while blocking them, as long as they didn't block you but I will unblock you for now.

Listen you arrogant twat. I prefer for you to have me on block. What I do object to is your sly, snide and cowardly practice of unblocking me to address me and my comments only to block me again immediately after you have had your say.

I don't really care about the protests if I'm honest

Then why are you even addressing me and posting on a thread and topic that you "don't care about" AND while you have me on block!!!!!? Hypocrite. You are no better than that other VEXATIOUS LITIGANT polystyrene witch.

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

☆< IMPORTANT REMINDER > ☆ For those attending church today.

-->

@Deb-8-a-bull

I still do wonder why my parents sent me there.

It probably saved them having to give you breakfast, Deb.

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@BrotherD.Thomas

Nice to see you back Brother D. Have you been ill?

MISS TRADESECRET = A COWARD IN CONTRADICTING HER TITLE OF HER THREAD HEREIN! LOL!

Yep.

Relating to Miss Tradesecret being the #1 Bible stupid fool, the #1 runaway from biblical axioms, and the #1 member in coming up with a myriad of excuses not to discuss her faith, where the irony is the fact that the creator of this thread, Miss Tradesecret, in being a woman shown[.....]

Correct on all three, Brother D.

......herewith: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEB0WX8 is the pseudo-christian COWARD as specifically shown in the following examples: I challenged Miss Tradesecret and her faith to a debate upon the Trinity Doctrine that she says she knows everything about:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=17&post_number=405
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=18&post_number=440

there are more examples too.

But, she ran away and went into hiding once again with yet more EXCUSES not to debate me upon said topic as a COWARD!

The irony is breath - taking Brother D.

I challenged Miss Tradesecret to a debate upon the Virgin Mary birth of our serial killer Jesus in he following link, but what did she do? She RAN AWAY again in becoming the #1 COWARD within this forum.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=20&post_number=478

You are not on your own there, Brother.

Whats that old adage again, oh yeah, in her calling Atheists cowards, she is the “pot calling the kettle black!” As I have said countless of times, this is a religion “discussion forum,” and NOT a "runaway from discussion" forum like Miss Tradesecret does in using lame EXCUSES to run and hide from discussion as a COWARD!

I must admit, in the case of the Reverend Munchausen, there was never a Kettle to call black in the first place.

Miss Tradesecret doesn't have the wherewithal to understand that she is an embarrassment to TRUE Christianity and this esteemed forum every time she enters it, and True Christians like myself and the Atheists will continue to show her ungodly ways when she has the audacity to Satanically be within this Religion Forum.

S/he? is an embarrassment to himself. As are all lying narcissists once exposed. "What ya do the dark shall be brought to the light" leaps to mind, Brother

Praise Jesus for His revenge upon the pseudo-christian COWARD Miss Tradesecret herewith: "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)

For everything Jesus is alleged to have said, I won't deny him that, Brother D.

.

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

@Poly.

Conduct is demonstrably variable.

From reasonable all the way to " f****** s*** ".

Self restraint is perhaps preferable to a restraining order.

I personally think that moderators do a good job.

Over-moderating would be overbearing.
And feigning offence is a cowardly tactic.

I agree 100% The mods do perform a fantastic job & over-moderating would be overbearing.. They even step in when someone fakes offence every other post.

And have a guess who it was that started this argument and was allowed to get away with the COC offence of cross threading for 4 pages solid?

#85 "I mean there was at some point a policy being thrown out that people should be able to be shadowbanned by the site and nobody would be able to read any of their posts and they wouldn't know "

#89 "And I think if I put someone on ban they shouldn't be able to read my posts."

Interesting that the thread is titled "Atheists are cowards" and then have a perfect examples of theist being just that.

Created:

3 years ago

4

Posted in:

-->

@Athias

Are you thick!

I agreed toRO. And I have already explained my reasons. They won't count for much. Now simply don't address me anymore on this subject.

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

@ the Witch.

All I do now is come here drop my opinion like I'm taking a shit.

Have you ever done otherwise? You just hate being called out for your own hypocrisy and double standards don't you, Witch. Is it any wonder you don't want others to see your posts.😂

This place is a fucking joke.

You could always leave instead of just dropping in to take a shite. You are here after all, of your own free will!

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Athias

Not "mutually-agreed" restraining order; just "mutual restraining order," in that it affects both the parties it concerns.

FFS! I was asked by moderation if I would agree to a RO with the Witch. And I did.

I have made my point and given my opinion and explained my opinion more than once. I have nothing more to add to this conversation. There is no point in me going around in circles.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

"mutual restraining order"

That word again "mutual". I was approached not so long back and it was proposed that I agree "mutually" to an RO with the Witch. Are you saying that I didn't really have a choice?

#Mutual Agreement

To mutually agree to something is to jointly agree to something or when two or more people reach an agreement that is satisfactory to both.

This didn't stop the Witch posting comments in reply to my comments, no, she simply didn't tag me as the recipient of her reply. Sly doesn't cover it. She is doing the same on this thread only again she is not tagging me.

RM is another sly fkr. He has me on block but unblocks me to respond to me only to block me immediately after. Here is his most recent example of his sly cowardly practice just minutes ago.

>>>> More Tolerance From The Religion Of Peace (debateart.com)

He wouldn't be able to do that if he couldn't see my posts while HE has ME on block. He is the one that has taken offence and blocked me, so in my opinion he shouldn't be able to see my posts while I have ever right to see and read his considering I haven't take any offence and do not have him on block.

In my follow up post I ask him yet again to stop his cowardly practice, but he doesn't.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

@the Witch

And those that are popular wanted because they don't want to have to engage with anybody beneath them.

You have that the wrong way around as usual Witch.

It is the likes of you that does not want to be shown up for your own hypocrisy and double standards. In my case, it is YOU that has me on block.

I have have no reason to have you on block and am ready to engage with anyone, so tell me, who is it that "don't want to engage with anybody[they feel is] beneath them"? YOU!!!! fkn hypocrite!!!!

You have been caught out for your double standards and hypocrisy once again. And the exact reason you advocate blind posting so the person YOU have on block cannot call you out.

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

Sayed Ammar on The Lady of Heaven Film - YouTube

@RM

Islam is more than a religion to those protesters, it is their culture and way of life/being.

Indeed and all founded on , and controlled by said religion; Islam.

however they are still there and to imagine they'd accept such a production is fairly ridiculous.

Well you haven't really understood what this particular protest is about, have you. It appears that it is a movie that according to one faction of Muslims goes against the beliefs of another faction of Muslims. Sunni V Shi'ite . So it is not as ridiculous as you want it to be or wish it to be.

It is my guess that none of these protesters have even seen this film for themselves and it appear that it is the writer and the producer that these particular protesting Muslims have in the firing line. And it appears as per usual it is the local Imam stirring the community as it was in the case of Salman Rushdie back in 1988 and coincidently in the same English city of Bradford the same city as this film is/was being shown.

If you are as interested as you make out to be, when you have 10 minutes listen to Dr Sayed Ammar Nakshawani speaking about this film.

And I do wish you would stop your cowardly practice of unblocking me just to comment on my threads only to block me again immediately after.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

there is currently a very complicated process used by the mods that is some sort of "mutual restraining order"

Then why are you even suggesting blind posting if that in your opinion is enough?

i proposed a "mutual-mute" that could be initiated by EITHER PARTY

The operative word being "mutual". I have no reason or wish for instance to block the Witch, she feels different. She has CHOSEN to put me on block thereby by showing she want's no contact with me. If she is sincere in her choice then she has no complaints about not being able to see my posts. I on the other hand, don't have reason to block her.. You are acting as if you don't understand my point when I know you do.

YOU gave a perfect example of my points then in the next breath practically told us that is was "fine by you" that she could but into print "100%" falsehoods even if you couldn't see her lies and unable to respond without recourse.

I have said enough on the matter and you have proved my point perfectly for me.

I just hope for the sake of the forum that you never get your way, 3RU7AL.

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Athias

There's no need for the quotes. Polytheist-Witch's description/impression of 3RU7AL's Proposal is 100% FALSE.

My point is that 3RU7AL wouldn't have had the chance to refute the Witches "100% false" claim had not been able to see it.

But lets us just hope 3RU7AL never gets his way concerning his proposal.

If two members have mutually-muted each other, why would any of this matter?

It wouldn't . Because that would simply mean they BOTH parties chose not to see one another's posts' hence they wouldn't be able to respond to, or refute one another's comments, claim's or outright lies.

I have suggested if it ever comes to it and - if you have read the thread- that the person a member has chosen to block shouldn't be able to view the comments of the person they have chosen to ignore and block.

Like I have said- lets us just hope 3RU7AL never gets his way concerning his proposal .

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@3RU7AL

Witch wrote: I never found the original post but I did find where it was discussed. 3RU7AL suggested it would be easy to do a list of banned members, both me and RM were to definitely be on that list, where we would be basically blocked no one could see our post and that in order for people to see those posts they'd have to opt out. It was also discussed that this list would be secret and that we would just have to figure out that's what was going on. It was basically a list of members disliked or mods hate. As long as the mods are going to allow people to make disgusting comments then I'm going to use the block function especially so I don't get messages from those people. That said those functions only work when you're logged in anyway log out and you can see everything.#115
3RU7AL wrote: 100% FALSE#116

Now take a good look at that and tell me, would you have ever had a chance to dispute, deny and or correct what the Witch had to say had she had YOU on blind block where YOU were unable to see and read her " 100% false claims" ?

and that's fine by me

So on the one hand you speak about the offenders "right to be forgotten ".

Yet one the other you are happy and it is fine by you then that someone can spread and tell "100%" falsehood's about another member here without their knowledge and where they have no chance of recompense or response to defend themselves against such "100%" false hoods?

😂

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

5Pillars - Bradford Muslims protest against sectarian Lady of Heaven film | Facebook

Muslims Protest ‘Provocative’ Film Depicting Mohammed’s Daughter

From early reading about this story it appears that the Sunni's and Sh'ite are in disagreement.

The Lady of Heaven is a 2021 British epic historical drama film directed by Eli King in his directorial debut and written by the Twelver Shia Muslim Sheikh Yasser Al-Habib, the spiritual leader of The Mahdi Servants Union. Produced by Enlightened Kingdom, the film bills itself as the first movie on the life of the historical figure, Fatimah, during and after the era of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. In addition to 7th century Islamic history from the Twelver Shia perspective, the film links Islamic State in the 21st century and the origins of Islamic terrorism with historical figures revered in Sunni Islam.

The Lady of Heaven - Wikipedia

Did the theatres showing this movie cave in? If they haven't yet, it is my guess they most certainly will eventually.

'BAN THE FILM!' Sectarian movie The Lady Of Heaven sparks Muslim protests - YouTube

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

☆< IMPORTANT REMINDER > ☆ For those attending church today.

-->

@FLRW

“a woman of the city, who was a sinner”

Yes, I thought someone would mention this. But the accounts as usual vary.

Mark and Matthew both mention an unnamed woman. Luke tells us of an unnamed woman “who was a sinner” and John describes Mary of Bethany, aka Martha’s sister and brother to the rich Lazarus.

Some scholars have it that it was Mary aka Mary Magdalene.

The word prostitute isn't even mentioned. But lets go with that. If we accept that the woman is named Mary and she is a sinner/prostitute then Jesus appears to be living off immoral earnings. Mary is the same woman that turned up with the expensive spikenard that Judas - the thief had complained about it being a waste of money. And whichever Mary it was, Jesus is clearly shown to have been supported financially (of their substance) by these Mary's and other women.

I await a response from Incel-chud

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in:

☆< IMPORTANT REMINDER > ☆ For those attending church today.

-->

@zedvictor4

Let's be honest.........Your Christian GOD started it all by fucking a married virgin.

Luke 2:1-7 KJV

To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Luke 2:1-7 NKJV

to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child.

Luke 2:1-7 The New International Version omits the word wife altogether;

He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.

Debateable then, Vic lad. Either way, I am sure this young virgin wasn't happy about being plugged by the acting Gabriel. She seems to be against the idea and bewildered by it all. But which-ever way the theist wants to spin it, Jesus was conceived out of wedlock and dozy Joe was left...well.... holding the baby.

Created:

3 years ago

3

Posted in:

☆< IMPORTANT REMINDER > ☆ For those attending church today.

-->

@Incel-chud

he [Jesus] drank wine with tax collector's and whores.

Who were the whores?

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

The assault weapon ban didn’t reduce the masa shooting rate

-->

@TheUnderdog

Isn't Gerry Nadler that is advocating owning a gun to be raised to 21? And didn't he turn into a stammer wreck when someone asked, " does this mean we will be raising the age of conscription to the age of 21 too"?

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

Isn't Gerry Nadler that is advocating owning a gun to be raised to 21? And didn't he turn into a stammer wreck when someone asked, " does this mean we will be raising the age of conscription to the age of 21 too"?

Created:

3 years ago

1

Posted in:

☆< IMPORTANT REMINDER > ☆ For those attending church today.

-->

@FLRW

The Gospel of Thomas being left out of the Bible proves Gnosticism.
The reason the Gospel of Thomas was left out is because it advocated spiritual knowledge as they key to salvation rather than faith.
Many scholars consider the Gospel of Thomas to be a gnostic text, since it was found in a library among others, it contains Gnostic themes, and perhaps presupposes a Gnostic worldview.

And then there is the original gospel of Mark showing that the raising of a very much alive Lazarus and was nothing more than a ritual and Lazarus wasn't "dead" at all;

“And came they to Bethany, and a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And coming she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him “son of David, have mercy on me”. But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straight away a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the Tomb. And straight away, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, loved him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looked upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus, [A]Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan”. Mark. The Secret Gospel.

So we have then a slightly different take from Mark’s secret gospel on what happened in the garden at Bethany to the story given to us by the New Testament but it is plain to see, Lazarus was very much alive when Jesus got there as we read, “a great cry was heard from the tomb” and before Jesus himself removed the stone.

Notice too that this "youth" was yet another of Jesus' rich friends.

This appears to be the same youth (Lazarus) mentioned at [A] above that was seen fleeing a house on the night of Jesus' arrest in the NT version.

A Young Man Flees

And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

Mark 14:51–52

All good stuff eh, FLRW?

Created:

3 years ago

2

Posted in: