#Judaism

While studying Islam I ran into his story. Apparently Muhhamed went to the 7th level of heaven and God gave him 50 prayers to give to the Muslims. He went down to the 5th Heaven and told Moses about the 50 prayers. 

Moses convinced him to jew down the number of prayers, so Moses goes back up to the 7 th heaven and jews them down to 40 then back to Moses who said "too many"

This went back and forth several times until Muhhamed with the help of Moses Jewett God down to 5 prayers and then Moses told Muhhamed "Good job" . 

And that is why Muslims pray 5 times a day now.

For those that don't know;

source https://matadornetwork.com/read/fishing-line-eruv-manhattan/

So we have exodus 16:29 that demands that on the sabbath Jews stay in their house and not leave it to rest on Saturdays. They are to stay in their residence as ordered by God. Jews believing they can trick God have created this line to symbolize that their house in fact extends out to the grocery store or a starbucks. This is an attempt to trick God into believing their actual home actually extends to the starbucks across the street, so when they meet God and he says

"Why did you not obey the sabbath like I commanded" The Jewish person will immediately start an argument with God.

"Oy Vey God, but this line makes my house extend down the street to starbucks and so i can leave the house to walk my dog or perhaps Go for a jog"

I have no ideal why they think God will be tricked into thinking the line actually extends their residence or even the inside of their dwellings to also include every house, place of business and street within the lines. Perhaps they convince themselves the Eruv line is their home, despite their property deed disagreeing, but even if they manage to fool themselves they will not fool God.

This is not a one off thing. Jews do other things like put a water bottle under their car seat to fool God into thinking their car is a boat. they typically also argue with God and he punishes them for it. Moses argued with God about the 10 commandments. God wrote the 10 commandments and moses essentially broke them in half and said to God "Your laws are stupid, try again idiot" Moses was fortunately punished for this but it was absurd.

the city of sodom was about to be destroyed and I shit you not Abraham calls God out and even insults him by doing so by attempting to gas light him "Would you actually murder innocent people if they are there God"?

It's none of your business Abraham. It's God if he wants to sweep up the righteous with the evil it is literally none of your business and it is really disrespectful to question a decision God made.

Let's mostly ignore history though and I would like to see some people try and claim the Eruv line is not an attempt to trick God and themselves by trying to reason that fishing line now extends the inside of their house.

XX

XY

stop. just stop and think, very very hard.

Which is the default you as a creator would generate in chromosomes?

XX same, nothing new needs to be invented, this being can reproduce automatically via its womb or equivalent and needs no additional being to handle its dualistic chromosomal nature.

XY... competes hardcore to get to reproduce with XX, serves to be disposable meatshield during war and at other times puts in the work hunting and gathering. Can't feel orgasm nearly as deep and well as XX can. Organ is blatantly designed for entry to XX's organ but the reverse is not at all the case, it was built around bearing a child and exit strategy.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmm

which was made for which?

try detectives, let's get it going!!!!!

Just curious how the double standard runs exactly, is it that since the parents mutilate the child via a surgeon, it's okay to remove the beautiful foreskin the way that God made it?

This applies to you oddball American Catholics and Protestants who circumcise despite it being a Jewish and Islamic tradition, same with some African Christians and even tribal Pagans that took on the tradition.

I will like you to discuss this.

Three corners, all-seeing eye in the middle.

This is how and why there were three iterations. It explains every plothole including the problem of evil since the god has three personalities.

When horrific acts are done by people who claimed, carried out traditions and see/saw themselves as members of a religion, often what is done by the politically correct media is to sympathise with the religious group and encourage peace by denouncing those people away from being considered genuine members of the religious group.

This goes for literally any incident or scandal you can think of, I am not just talking about the horrific acts that make the headlines.

The reason this strikes me as somewhat worrying is that while this is done, it then begins to highlight a hypocrisy when we see that people can define themselves, readily and happily, as members of religions we sometimes really resent those who do actually do it just to be part of the group. What I am saying is that let's say you're a person who wants to blend in with your very Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist etc family, if not friendship circle as well, you'd probably just say you're a member of that religion right? As long as you didn't do anything too scandalous or let's say you weren't caught, you'd be deemed a genuine member of that religion and anyone who would say 'wait no, that's just a poser' would instead get the backlash. What, then, actually qualifies someone as a genuine member of the religion?

To make it very clear what I am saying and the contradiction happening, I will explain it as an either/or statement.

The evil people who know their holy scriptures off by heart and understand their religion's history very well are incorrectly being denounced as 'fake Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus etc'

The not-so-evil posers who use religion to either blend in or get some kind of societal privilege are not actually posers, since the only real disqualifying factor appears to be how troublesome it would be to admit you're an adhering member of that religion.

The further thing to ask is whether it's morally correct and appropriate for people to 'raise their child into a religion' when we don't know which religion is the actual true one, right?

The very fact that entire families are commonly all of the same faith, if they're not atheist, isn't a coincidence and it is a reflection on religion being nothing more than a social construct. Even more disturbing is the fact that things like circumcision and animal abuse involved with many Islamic, Satanic and Wiccan sacrificial festivals are actually completely contradictory since we should be disqualifying them as they're justifying mutilation in the name of their religion. We actually did this with Muslims who endorsed (and a select minority still endorse) female circumcision, as well as many other examples such as what Christians used to do to suspected 'witches'. Similarly, Saudi Arabia has recently begun to cave into international pressure to move away from the strictly sexist elements of its Sharia Law, legalising women to drive and compete in the Olympics. Women are made to be pure subjects of men in the Qur'an, although it's true to say that in Islamic history there have been fierce female empresses and in Pakistan and Afghanistan in particular there have been female politicians who actively have been in charge of taming and handling negotiations with the Taliban.

The problem is that I am not exactly saying that it would be politically wise to be honest when a member of a religion does a very evil act. It's a very appropriate lie to suddenly say 'no they are nothing like what our religion stands for and are 100% fake' but that person probably knew more about the religion and lived more devout in terms of the traditions and lifestyle than most posers who call themselves 'casual followers' or 'modern, progressive' variants of their religion. The thing is, at what stage is religion nothing more than a fancy name to associate your 'group' or 'clique' with? What truly qualifies or disqualifies a genuine Muslim for example? It can't just be whether they're evil or not.