Total topics: 265
It would be interesting to have -as many forums do- a count of the amount of views a topic gets.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
the religion of peace strikes again.
Yes, our very - not so - intelligent intelligence agency though it would be a nice Christmas present to tell us all here in the UK that the threat of a terrorist attack was lesser now that it was 3rd November this year . Yes, they were pleased to announce on 4th November that we shouldn't be worried about going about our Christmas shopping as they had now lowered the terrorism threat level to "substantial". What they failed to tell the public is that "substantial" actually means that an attack is a strong possibility rather than the higher threat level of "severe" or highly likely, as if there is a big difference between the two.https://www.gov.uk/government/news/terrorism-threat-level-lowered-to-substantial
And in just a matter 20 + days after this big announcement, Islam strikes again when a KNOWN Muslim jihadi recently released from prison started screaming " alluah akbar at the top of his voice and began a butchering spree in the name of Allah and Islam killing two and injuring six innocent human beings going about their daily business.
Of course the media Sky News / BBC were quick to seek out interview the nearest ethnic brown coloured police officers with beards and the local bearded Imam, who incidentally couldn't wait to spout the usual bollocks to a Sky News and BBC reporters that :
"Islam is a religion of peace. it says Verse 5:32 clearly in the quran that - whoever kills a soul – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely".
Doesn't that sound sweet? Until one takes the time to read the immediate following verse, the one our politicians and Muslims alike choose not to quote which states;
Quran 5:33 – unless, those who wage waragainst Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause]corruption/mischief is none but that they be killed or crucified or that theirhands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land.That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is agreat punishment.
Our world leaders are very quick to spout this fluffy Qoranic verse 5:32. They have been spouting it ever since the Paris attacks and since 9/11. But fail miserably to quote what the follow up verse insists should happen to those who "cause mischief in the land".
Islam isn't going anywhere anytime soon; this is a fact. After this recent attack in London government agencies were forced to admit that over 25 ISLAMIC terrorist attacks were (thankfully) thwarted by MI5 in the last year alone.
The religion of peace my arse.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
... the religion of peace strikes again.
Yes, our very - not so - intelligent intelligence agency though it would be a nice Christmas present to tell us all here in the UK that the threat of a terrorist attack was lesser now that it was 3rd November this year . Yes, they were pleased to announce on 4th November that we shouldn't be worried about going about our Christmas shopping as they had now lowered the terrorism threat level to "substantial". What they failed to tell the public is that "substantial" actually means that an attack is a strong possibility rather than the higher threat level of "severe" or highly likely, as if there is a big difference between the two.https://www.gov.uk/government/news/terrorism-threat-level-lowered-to-substantial
And in just a matter 20 + days after this big announcement, Islam strikes again where a Muslim jihadi screaming " alluah akbar at the top of his voice began a butchering spree in the name of Allah and Islam killing two and injuring six innocent human beings going about their daily business.
Of course the media was quick to interview ethnic brown brown coloured police officers with beards and the local bearded Imam, who incidentally couldn't wait to spout the usual bollocks to a Sky News reporter that :
"Islam is a religion of peace. it says Verse 5:32 clearly in the quran that - whoever kills a soul – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely".
Doesn't that sound sweet? Until one takes the time to read the immediate following verse, the one our politicians and Muslims alike choose not to quote which states;
Quran 5:33 – unless, those who wage waragainst Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause]corruption/mischief is none but that they be killed or crucified or that theirhands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land.That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is agreat punishment.
Our world leaders are very quick to spout this fluffy Qoranic verse 5:32. They have been spouting it ever since the Paris attacks and since 9/11. But fail miserably to quote what the follow up verse insists should happen to those who "cause mischief in the land".
Islam isn't going anywhere anytime soon; this is a fact. After this recent attack in London government agencies were forced to admit that over 25 ISLAMIC terrorist attacks were (thankfully) thwarted by MI5 in the last year alone.
The religion of peace my arse.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?
36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
John 2:1-11 King James Version (KJV)
2-1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
Mark 1:10-13 King James Version (KJV)
10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
John 1:35 Again the next day after [the baptism]John stood, and two of his disciples;11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
So above then we read that our Lord and savior Jesus was in the wilderness for "40 DAYS" where the Devil is attempting some kind of a deal.
But WAIT!!!! What is this!???
36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
No that cannot be right surely? So Jesus wasn't driven to the wilderness by the spirit "immediately for 40 DAYS!!!!
This cannot be right , can it? lets read a bit more from John. WHAAAAAT!!!! On the second day after the baptism Jesus is to be found touring Galilee!!!!!!!
John 1:43 The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
This cannot be right either can it? he is supposed to be in the wilderness for forty days straight.
Lets us read a bit further from the same gospel:
WHAAAAAAAT!!!!!
2-1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Apart from Jesus who else ascended to heaven?
According to John 3:13 No one but Jesus went up to heaven. "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven".
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I did sometime ago, raise the question of the bias shown by the risen Christ when allowing the men to touch him but not the women. It went something along the lines brought about by these verses:
John 20:16- 17 16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
But at Luke 24:39 he encourages his followers to touch to feel that he is not a ghost/spirit.
Jesus then goes even further and implores "doubting Thomas" to:, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing John 20:27.
The query at the time was why did this risen so called "god" refuse the affection one person to touch him yet encouraged another to do the opposite?
But all the above aside for a second we simply have to consider this verse and why it must be taken into serious consideration . Notice the highlight bold & underlined.
Matthew 28:8-15 King James Version (KJV)
8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail >>>> And they came and held him by the feet,<<<< and worshipped him.
10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
11 Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.
12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
13 Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
14 And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail >>>> And they came and held him by the feet,<<<< and worshipped him.
10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
11 Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.
12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
13 Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
14 And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
There is not a single mention here about not touching him because he hasn't yet ascended to his father. Not, not a single hint of words of protest about the fact that they are holding him by the feet and he had not yet ascended.
I am of course expecting the usual "mistranslated" excuse for this very clear contradiction, where we will have the usual suspects telling me that what I am reading doesn't actually mean what it clearly does mean; but really it means something entirely different to what is actually written in the scripture. But it is plain to see that holding means touching. Touching means contact with someone or something else.
And notice. In John above there is absolutely no mention that Mary had even touched Jesus before his clear instruction for her not to touch him. .
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I have seen a few reports that the Trump/Ukraine whistleblower has been named. The most recent was from Bill Reilly who has said he hasn't a problem revealing the name and has named the whistleblower on his website No Spin News . O'Reilly says the whistleblower is "a 33 year old CIA annalist who worked with Joe Biden and worked in the Obama administration".
"O'Reilly joing John Bachman and reveals details of the whistleblower on the Ukraine call and links him to the Democratic party and the Obama administration making him a compromised witness".
Is it everyone who knows the identity of the whistleblower except me?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Matthew 28:8-9 King James Version8 And they [the women] departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
And Luke appears to be supporting Matthew version ;
Luke 24:9 King James Version (KJV)9 And [the women] returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.
So good so far, until ,that is, we read Marks version of events.
Mark 16:8 King James Version (KJV)88 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.
It is also interesting to note here the massive contradiction from Matthew (28:9) above where he tells of the women holding Jesus' feet.
These Gospel writers just cannot seem to get it together , can they?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Appreciate that there is already a thread concerning biblical contradictions but I feel this particular contradiction deserves a thread of its own because it concerns god directly.
Did anyone at all see god?
1 John 4:12 King James Version (KJV) No man hath seen God at any time.
Well that for me is a definite statement. I am sure there will be those who will attempt to re-write this verse thereby putting new and alternate words into the mouth of the author ; John,
But of course they would have to do the same with Timothy who states ;
1 Timothy 6:16 King James Version (KJV) Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see[God]: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
Both of these statements deny the fact that the bible is extremely clear when it comes to who has seen (not to mention spoke to) god face to face.
The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day (Genesis 18:1).
The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend (Exodus 33:11).
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.(Genesis 32:30) King James Version (KJV)
This isn't to mention that Adam and Eve are also said to have seen god.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I am attempting to post a short new topic I keep getting this >>Invalid value format.
Why am I seeing this message and what can I do to post my new topic?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Activist Calls For Importation Of Slave Girls from the Caucuses. Muslim "religious scholars" say it is perfectly legal and allowed by Allah. Just like the good ole' days then when Islam had conquered and ruled swathes of the globe from the Indian subcontinent, and as far West into France, Germany and Spain and North West Europe.
They said " for the average good religious Muslim man that the only way to avoid forbidden relations with women, is to purchase slave girls". It stops the muslim husband straying you see and is not classed as adultery. Clever eh? Clever man that muhammad was.
"We should buy them [slave girls] from Chechnya who are at war (2011). It is better they become slaves [and be raped by our husbands] than to die prisoners".
I wonder how the feminists around the western world are taking this. The silence is deafening.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak. But Jacob replied, I will not let you go unless you bless me.
The man asked him, what is your name? Jacob, he answered. Then the man said, your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.
Jacob said; please tell me your name. But he replied, why do you ask my name? Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, it is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”Genesis 32:24-30. NIV.
6 times!!! Jacob called this being a man. So unless we are going to contradict Jacob, call him a liar, say he was delusional, or accuse him of dreaming or simply making false claim or not understanding what he had been wrestling with, then we have to take his word that he wrestled with a human that he simply called a "god"
It is all very human behaviour for anyone reading these verses. It appears very clear that these "gods" or at least this particular god was human in every way. He even used a dirty tactic to overcome his human opponent Jacob/ Is Ra El in this wrestling match. But what is one to expect when it clearly explains to us in Genesis that we were created in the image of these very human "gods"- plural.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Can anyone see the difference and the
Alec Signed up on October 22, 2018
My post count hasn't moved since 08.15.18 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/112/can-we-really-be-expected-to-take-any-more-welcome-to-spain
It is about time the moderators sorted out this problem. I have mentioned it many times now and no one seems to give a fk!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
I listened to your link. i hope you have the courtesy to listen to mine
This first thing I notice here is that Muslims and - people like me - just do not understand what “moderate Islam” is “or what a moderate Muslim is”? This is why I have asked you repeatedly to explain both these terms and you have simply swerved on the matter but it didn’t stop you and politicians and apologists using the term and the reason for that is explained in part 2 below. It didn’t even stop you attempting to contradict Muslim President Erdogan, did it? Need I go on?
(2)
No evidence“mixing”.
This clearly indicates intolerance and no intention of integrating, just as I have been saying to you. Need I go on?
(3)
This Question to Sadiq Khan was interesting;
“do you accept that broad swath of Muslim OPINION is liberal, tolerant and progressive”?
Khan’s Response was to simply lie and say:
“That’s’ my experience and they [Muslims] do not have those views”.
(1) It contradicts the opening statements at the beginning of this video. (2) Listen To what this so called “moderate” Muslim Mayor has to say about “moderate Muslims”.
Sadiq Khan Calls Moderate Muslims "Uncle Toms".https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPqHMcNUuP0 Need I go on?
Khan then goes on to tell more lies about not seeing the hijab niqab and burqa at all in Pakistan. Making out that British born Muslim women are ‘choosing’ to wear this oppressive garment. And there is no evidence to date that a fatwa was ever put out on Khan either. Why no arrests for inciting murder, or violence? We only have his word for this and it is pretty well documented that he has links to extremists. So anything Kahn has to say on the subject of “moderate Islam or moderate Muslims” is absolutely worthless. IMO.
The video then gets more real opinions from some truthful and honest Muslims about homosexuals& friends that are not Muslim who wouldn't be allowed into a muslim household etc etc and everything they say supports MY fkn argument that Muslims for the most part are intolerant and I am only 4.5 minutes into this video. Do I need to go one?
(4)
BBC survey of “ a 1000 British Muslims” concerning free speech and the attack of Charlie Hebdo.
Showed that 27% had sympathy for the“motivations” for the attack, while a 45% saying that “clerics preaching violence against the west as being in touch with mainstream Muslim opinion”. I agree with Nazoor “That’s pretty scary”. But he is being irrational isn’t he Keith?
Anyway, no fkn surprises there then. Need I go on?
(5)
We then hear more from Khan who goes into deep denial, a bit like you do Keith when facts and figures are presented. Khan doesn’t accept that they are less integrated which by now you are fully aware that this is complete bullshit.
Interesting That Manzoor comes from Luton. In 1982 Luton had only one mosque, it now has over 30 (that is 1 new mosque a year)and is known as “the jihadi capital of England” or as Manzoor puts it “a breeding ground for terrorism”. Is it any wonder that there was push back from the indigenous population?
Cont...
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Repeatedly quoted and requoted, the phrase is often used by apologists when radical Islam bubbles to the surface.
In this 6 minute video that myth is finally put to rest. Interesting is the fact that this person quotes the well respected Pew Research Centre as his source.
The Myth of the Tiny Radical Muslim Minority https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg&t=114s
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
The devout believer of the gospels proclaim to understand them perfectly yet fail to understand that calling anyone - including the Christ - "son/s of god" is only a title and doesn't mean that the christ was a literal offspring of an omnipotent sky dwelling being.
As usual, the gospels themselves prove this to be the case.
Jhn 1:12 - But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Rom 8:14 - For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Rom 8:19 - For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Phl 2:15 - That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world
1Jo 3:1 - Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
1Jo 3:2 - Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
I don't doubt that to explain away these verses the theist will have to say that it is I who is at fault and that I am interpreting them wrong and they will go about changing and altering words or the whole of these verses to make them appear to mean something else entirely.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Leaving aside baskets, bulrushes & bullshit, the story of Moses doesn't make sense in many parts and for many reasons. Here are some of those reasons
God tells Moses to go free his people but then has to get permission from his father-in law to do so. Why?
God knows that Pharaoh will not let them go because God admit to purposely hardening the heart of Pharaoh. Why?
God wants Moses dead all over a foreskin. Why ?
I will here preempt all and any responses that I don't need to hear.
(1) From the literalist: who am I/we to question God. Translation; 'I don't know'.
(2) From the Christian non literalist: It says that but it actaully means this. Translation; I don't know, but am going to invent an answer so I do not look to be ignorant of my own scriptures'.
(3) from the Christian dogmatist: We don't just have faith but dogma - Translation; the faithful have an unwarranted stubborness of opinion and are very poor at hiding it.
(4) from the Jew & Christian: It is a mistake and we have to make the obvious assumption. Translation; 'we don't know, but I won't admit to not knowing'.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
The interesting part of this is the celebration of the end of Ramadan itself. You see while our pandering and appeasing Members of Parliament here in the UK were " sending our very best wishes and peace and happiness to muslim constituants here in the United Kingdom & around the world" who were celebrating the end of fast, muslim
"Houthis kill imam & 9 worshippers for following Saudi Eid al-Fitr moon sighting".
For those too ignorant to research Eid or Eid al-Fitr, it also called the "Festival of Breaking the Fast", a religious holiday celebrated by Muslims worldwide that marks the end of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting.
Deary me, how can it be so wrong to speak to your god at a time of one's own choosing..
An afterthought;
Yet not a mention or best wishes, love or even peace to all our 151,816 Buddhist constituents here in the UK and around the world.
The important days of the month for Buddhists are days when there is a full moon or a new moon. The main Buddhist festival of the year is Buddha Day / Wesak / Vaisakha, the celebration of the Buddha's birth, enlightenment and death.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
If God and Jesus are the same, as many Christians will have us believe, having the same mind, knowledge and power, then why would Jesus (god) beg himself (god) in the garden of Gethsemane, to spare himself ( god) from having to be crucified?
Matthew 26:39
And further, why would Jesus (god) ask himself why he (god) has forsaken himself (god) by allowing himself (god) to be crucified?
Matthew 27:46
This is truly a awkward subject for many Christians to discuss considering that it gives the impression that if God & Jesus are one and the same as they believe, then it shows real signs of schizophrenia at worse and a delusional disorder at least.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
It never ceases to baffle me as to why it is Christians spout the phrase " free will" when ever they find themselves on the back foot of many religious arguments.
Ask a Christian why it was the biblical Adam chose to defy his god and his maker no less, and they simply throw at that one single phrase - free will - but never hang around long enough to explain what "free will" actually is in the biblical sense or when it was granted.
We get to Genesis 9 and god seems happy with his handy work, and his happiness is expressed again at Genesis 12 & again at 21,25 and up until god has one more look over his creation and it says at 31 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."
So we have humans created in the image of a god and god was very pleased and though all was "good" yet they both defy what god says. And no explanation as to why this happened. We hear that this pair of humans were somehow "beguiled" by a being known as the serpent. But if we backtrack just a few verses we can re-read that these humans were created in the image of god himself. and no mention whatsoever of them being granted anything resembling free will.. Or even a mention to them to beware of any being calling himself a reptile.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Now let us wait for the Prime Minister of New Zealand to condemn this atrocity whilst wearing a Crucifix and the rest of our world leaders to show there outrage and outpouring of grief whilst they are remembering the dead and injured stuck down while at prayer on one of the holiest days in the Christian calendar. And of course the candlelit vigiles of the worlds mourners coming together in grief at the senselessness of this deliberate targeting of innocent Christians at prayer.
"COLOMBO, Sri Lanka — Multiple explosions at churches and hotels around Sri Lanka on Sunday killed more than 140 people and injured many more, according to local news reports.
The sites included three churches convened for Easter Mass and three high-end hotels in Colombo, the capital.
According to Dr. Kumara Wickramasinghe, deputy director general of the National Hospital of Sri Lanka, as of early Sunday afternoon there were 62 dead and more than 100 injured in Negombo, 52 dead and almost 300 injured in Colombo, and 27 dead and almost 70 injured in Batticaloa".
The sites included three churches convened for Easter Mass and three high-end hotels in Colombo, the capital.
According to Dr. Kumara Wickramasinghe, deputy director general of the National Hospital of Sri Lanka, as of early Sunday afternoon there were 62 dead and more than 100 injured in Negombo, 52 dead and almost 300 injured in Colombo, and 27 dead and almost 70 injured in Batticaloa".
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
It appears our Middle Eastern friends (of which the West has saved and given refuge to MILLIONS!) are not at all sympathetic to the destruction of Notre Dame's Cathedral.
They just know how to integrated and appreciate the western country that has over 4 million muslims; don't they?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Devout Christians still to this day believe that the " angels of god" where a type of ethereal being created by god and who sometimes perform miraculous acts on behalf of their Lord. None of this is true of course and we know this because scripture itself makes it very plain that "angels" are no more ethereal than you or I, that is to say, that they were very flesh and blood. But this, like many other biblica thorny facts are hard to understand and or accept for many Christians.
Is it because of verses such as :
“Praise ye him [God], all his angels ... let them praise the name of Jehovah; for he commanded, and they were created” (Ps. 148:2, 5).?
“[God] made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their hosts ... and the host of heaven worships you” (Neh. 9:6).?
It seems that these angles were even a puzzle to those that witnessed them:
Hebrews 1:14
"Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation"?
The word - Angel - means nothing more than messenger. The Greek is - Angelos. Malakh, the Hebrew word for angel, also means messenger, and both words coincidently originate from the Persian word for angel, angaros, meaning a - courier. These are simple facts that the devout Christian will still deny although biblical scholars are in agreement with these translations.
Christians have no trouble whatsoever accepting that John the Baptist for instance was a flesh and blood man, but when they are informed that he was an "angel", they somehow recoil at the shock that such a thing can even be suggested, yet right there, in their own scriptures it clearly states from god himself:
Matthew 11:10
This is the one about whom it is written: “‘I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.
And as any reader of the bible will attest, it was John the Baptist who goes before and who was to "prepare the way" for the Christ.
The argument against this is usually put thus:
'All that was created by god came into being during the first week (Ex. 20:11), and since the angels “shouted for joy” when the “foundations of the earth” were laid (Job 38:4, 7), this proves that angels came into existence during the initial stages of God’s creative activity.'
So according to Christians angels were created in the heavens and therefore were here before any flesh and blood being and since the beginning of time and are spirits.
Lk. 24:39 tells us spirits do not have flesh, bone and one assumes any blood either "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have".
But whatever it was that Luke and Christians understood these beings to be, they were definitely not ethereal /spirit. And we know this because once again it is the biblical scripture itself that tells us as much and the one extremely good example has to be Genesis 19:1-11. And not wanting to be accused of "quoting out of context" here is the story with the salient points highlighted and interjected by me in italics:
Genesis 19:1-11
The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.
2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet (these would be flesh and blood feet) and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”
4 Before they had gone to bed, (they sleep too it seems) all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house.
5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? (men??) Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” (angels having physical sex???)
8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, <<< (men? not spirits not ethereal beings?) for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
The biblical evidence above as to the real nature and makeup of the "angels" will of course not be accepted the devout Christians. But the biblical facts speak for themselves.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
There are many here who are quick to label anyone criticizing Islam, the quran and muslims as islamophobic and racists bigots. But I have yet to be labeled an Christianophobic racist bigot with an irrational and uncontrollable fear or dread (which is the correct definition of a phobic person) when I criticise Christianity / Christians for believing much of the superstitious nonsense that they have been taught. And no mention of me spreading fear and \hatred.
Or when I have criticised The New Testament for its half truths, false stories, its enigmatic and ambiguous verses and for calling it extremely flawed.
I haven't been called a Christianophobia racist bigot when I have criticised the Old Testament when calling it a war book where mankind is controlled by a warmongering psychotic and schizophrenic jealous god and his human cohorts and also for its superstitious nonsense. Or have I been accused of spreading hatred and fear although I have been accused of some kind of being on some kind of "radicalisation" mission.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I commented on another thread:
"I think surrendering our sovereignty to a foreign power was a crime in the first place" And this is why:
In England we have a very good and ancient Constitution, built on trial and tribulations of our forefathers, who experienced, on a number of occasions, despotic rule, which here desire to live as freeman gave them the strength to overcome. >>>>On each occasion they set in place protections to prevent despotic rule.<<<<<
Today we have despotic rule by the House of Commons, who claim authority even over Her Majesty the Queen. They have withdrawn their homage to Her Majesty and, under the Common Law of England, are no Parliament, but foul and base traitors. They are destroying a legal system and Constitution built around the teaching of the Bible.
In the House of Commons sometime ago , according to the secretary of Andrew Dismore (MP), Dr Egan: “there has been an interesting discussion on whether by passing a law, they (Parliament), can do away with the rule of law”. Why would anyone in their right mind even contemplate such a thing, let alone discuss it”. What are we left with if they remove the rule of law? We are left with satanic law.”
He also states that ex Prime Ministers and MP’s have committed treason and sedition, by deceiving Queen Elizabeth into breaking the Act of Supremacy of 1559. This act contained an oath, part of which states:-
“No foreign Prince, Person, State Potentate. Hath or ought to have any power, Jurisdiction, Superiority, supremacy, or authority Ecclesiastic or spiritual in the Realm heretofore claimed, used, or usurped within this realm or any dominion or country being within or under the power, dominion, or obeisance of your highness, or shall advisedly, maliciously, or directly put in ure or execute anything for the extolling, advancement, setting forth, maintenance, or defence of any such pretended or usurped jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, or authority, or any part thereof, that then every such person and persons so doing and offending, their abettors, aiders, procurers, and counsellors, being thereof lawfully convicted and attainted according to the due order and course of the common laws of this realm shall suffer specified penalties, culminating in punishment for high treason ”.
The first Prime Minister [to commit treason] was Edward Heath who served as British Prime Minister from June 1970 – February 1974. The object was twofold to get the kudos of being the man who took us [the British] into Europe and 2nd to betray this Kingdom to our traditional enemies the French and Germans, every other Prime Minister since who has signed any EEC/EU Treaties and as government ministers work to collective responsibility they have all taken part in the lying to Her Majesty, Parliament and the people”, i.e. they have committed High Treason.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Yes this is what mosque leader Ahmed Bhamji a preacher claimed in a hate filled rant.
At what was by all accounts supposed to have been a "Love Aotearoa [NZ], Hate Racism" rally this muslim preacher said;
"I won't mince my words, I stand here and say I have a very , very string suspicion that there is some group behind him [ Brenton Tarrant ] and I am not afraid to say, Mossad is behind this".
Ahmed Bhamji had shared a platform just the day before with NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who for some strange reason wore hijab, the oppressive compulsory head covering that Iranian women are casting off at the cost of imprisonment and torture. She started her speech by thanking Ahmed Bhamji and .... Muhammad.
Indeed it seems then, according to Ahmed Bhamji , that muslims praying at mosque at the other end of the world posed a threat to Israel, so they sent in this violent Mossad trained individual to assassinate the congregation.
Ahmed Bhamji then ramped up his hate speech by informing everyone that he knew that local "zionist business houses" were also behind him [ Brenton Tarrant the shooter ]
The apologist will be pleased to know that Ahmed Bhamji wasn't arrested, warned about his language or even told to move along during this hate filled speech at this "Hate Racism" rally. And I won't ask for any evidence of Ahmed Bhamji's claims as the apologist will tell me I have taken him and everything he clearly said ( he didn't mince his words see), out of context and I am being "islamophobic" while ignoring the hate and antisemitism spoken by Ahmed Bhamji .
see Ahmed Bhamji deliver his hate filled rant here in this 5min video >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVasVStyRMY&t=168s
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
" PM Theresa May refuses to commit to adopting recommended Islamophobia definition".
5 minute video >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LcibP2wYqY
Is this a threat from the Muslim Council Of Great britain towards the British Prime Minister and her party?
"The Muslim Council of Britain warns the Conservative Party is at risk of 'placing themselves on the wrong side of the argument'" .
Sounds very much like one to me.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
"I was a hard working man who became religious"
Just like that? !
"Then I just wanted to do what I thought was right".
So you joined Islamic State a terrorist organisation in Syria ,which is a muslim Empire under a Caliphate, a chief muslim leader. Though you admit this now was "a mistake" and ONLY AFTER this Muslim Caliphate has been beaten. And you got captured by the Kurds? I see. Carry on.
"Australia if my home"....
Hold on, let me stop you there. Australia is not your home. The defeated Islamic Caliphate is your home, where ever that may now be.
"I was born there and my mother is of Australian descent".
And you gave it up along with your passport to go live and fight for your newly adopted State. You belong to the state of Islam, not Australia.
Watch the video in this report it is astounding"
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Matthew 27:52-53 King James Version (KJV)
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
In every other account with the exception of Jesus, we have the name of the person - who happens to be very much alive himself - performing this so called miracle of raising from the "dead".
Who raised all of these saints? And why just the saints and not the sinners who had been exonerated by the blood of the Christs sacrifice?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
As I predicted sometime ago, the loony LIBERAL left wing tossers have finally come up with a definition for the made up silly word -
ISLAMOPHOBIA..
This of course, is just another exorcise in ‘shut your mouth and do not criticise an ideology; Islam, because it is now a CRIMINAL offence’/hate crime.
They are now pressing this to be the official definition.
I said this was coming years ago.
I have pointed out many times on this forum the fact that Islam is not a race and that a phobic person is a person having or involving an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
I don’t consider my own fears of Islam to be irrational, in fact the actions of Muslims (that is more than one) and the words of the Quran give me many very RATIONAL reasons to fear this ideology.
The definition reads:“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
Nope, me neither.
This “definition” was apparently decided upon after a six-month consultation with academics,(un-named), lawyers, (un-named), elected officials, ( un-named), activists,(un-named),campaigners, (un-named) and [muslim] communities (un-named) and Muslim organisations << speaks for itself.
Naz Shah, the Muslim Labour MP for Bradford West and a shadow minister for women and equalities, said all political parties should adopt the definition. Yes, Naz Shah, she it is who told the victims of Muslim rapegangs in Rotherham to “ shut their mouths for the sake of diversity”. I think she meant for the sake of Muslim rapist.
Naz Shah goes on:
“This could not be more urgent, while Islamophobia has been rising in our society and across the world,and support for the far right and their extremist white supremacist views is growing,” she said.
She doesn’t actually say why she believes “islamophobia has been rising” or what has caused its rise, only to say:
"many politicians have actively fuelled it, from the Conservatives’ overtly Islamophobic campaign against Sadiq Khan becoming [muslim] mayor in 2016 to Boris Johnson’s vile comments about Muslim women. << Rude maybe but IT- a single comment- wasn't "vile" and nowhere near as "vile" as her elling rape victims to shut up about their rapes at the hands of muslims.No, what Johnson spoke of, was muslim women looking like "letter boxes".
There are of course more honest and factual reasons for the rise in supposed “islamophobia”.
One only has to research – Islamic terrors over the last 10 years and hey presto!, you have the perfect, factual and honest answer.
Start here>>
Naz Shah goes further:
“We must work together to rid your country of this evil, starting by urging widespread adoption of this definitionso we can create deeper understanding and awareness at every level of our society.”
If I didn't know any better,I would say she was referring to Islam.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Just days before the vile, horrific and senseless attack of New Zealand muslim worshipers, this happened:
Radical Muslims Murder 32 Nigerian Christians, Torch Church in Brutal Attack (the body count is now over 120)
Not a single word about this butchery from the Western mainstream media. Where is the media Coverage!? NO ONE CARES!
In only days, a dozen villages in Nigeria’s Plateau state were wiped out. The affected communities surround the city of Jos—known as the epicenter of Christianity in northern Nigeria’s Middle Belt."
27 Jan On the Philippine Island of Jolo two Muslims exploded two bombs in the Christian Cathedral killing over 20 Christian and injuring over 100. No one cares
Where is the Western media Coverage!? Where is the Western mourning? Where is the outrage and condemnation of Islam. No one cares!
Christians world wide are the most persecuted, killed and ethnically cleansed religious group on the planet. So far in 2019 there have been 453 terror attacks BY MUSLIMS in which 1,956 people have been murdered.
4,305 Christians were murdered by muslims BECAUSE OF THEIR FAITH in 2018 alone!
WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? WHERE IS THE OUTCRY FROM THE WESTERN MEDIA.
NO ONE CARES! And the reason no one cares is because these poor victims were Christians and not muslims.
Lets keep this outpouring of sadness of these poor innocent victims in Christchurch New Zealand in perspective and proportion and most of all, balanced.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The Word - Paradise appears in the New Testament surprisingly only three times. Nothing in the New Testament explains what it is and the only thing we can say about " Paradise" is that it is somewhere one can exist after death so it is synonymous with that other unexplainable 'place' called heaven and yet again,not a single Christian on this forum has been able to explain what "heaven" is, yet this word appears in the the King James version of the Bible 327 times in the Old Testament and 255 times in the New Testament.
So , the question then is then: for those that manage to get to Paradise, then what? What happens then? What's the point of paradise?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
This is a clip from a documentary made by a British muslim and televised 2 nights ago.
The Author still has a price on his head. Fatwa : an irrevocable sentence -in this case a death sentence - and eternal after his death.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Theresa May is under pressure to ban eating dogs in Britain, after it emerged that the practice is increasing.
The Prime Minister has been warned by an international canine group that rising immigration has caused a spike in the consumption of dog meat in the UK.
Under current laws it is legal to kill and eat dogs in Britain, but the World Dog Alliance is calling for a full ban on any interaction with dog meat and will launch a nationwide campaign in the autumn.
“With three million immigrants from East Asia in the UK, we cannot deny this situation exists here too”.
“We also believe legislation against dog meat in UK would provide us with strength to continue our work in Asia, as the UK could influence other countries to stop dog meat consumption.
“With three million immigrants from East Asia in the UK, we cannot deny this situation exists here too”.
“We also believe legislation against dog meat in UK would provide us with strength to continue our work in Asia, as the UK could influence other countries to stop dog meat consumption.
It's a "religion" thing
All very one sided when many councils allow the slaughter of live animals by a slit to the throat and are then left to bleed to death. The practice is known as Halal. Halal is Arabic for permissible. Halal food is that which adheres to Islamic law, as defined in the Koran. The Islamic form of slaughtering animals or poultry, dhabiha, involves killing through a cut to the jugular vein, carotid artery and windpipe.
This type of slaughter is outlawed in the U.K .
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Moses & A Reed Basket, I Heard It All Before, Twice Before.
Well as per usual we come upon yet another story in the Old Testament that was lifted clean out of the Mesopotamian legends.
Yes, again we have yet another incomplete half story from our biblical scribes. It beginswith Exodus 2.1-10. A baby supposedly called Moses is hidden at the river’s edge among rushes and within a few verses he is a grown man and married to Zipporah.2:21. Is all that we are told that he slew an Egyptian between for smiting a Hebrew 2:11-12.
And the Mesopotamian Original:
My changeling mother conceived me: In secret she bare me. She set me in a basket of rushes and with pitch she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river, which rose not over me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of the water.
Any who has studied ancient Mesopotamian tales will immediately recognise this story to be The Legend of Sharru - kin, who became Sargon the Great 2371- 2316BC.
There is also a similar legend that goes back further than this and also from the Mesopotamian Records.
The story goes that a Mesopotamian lord Ea/Enki, happened across two earthling females. Both these women were offspring of those that had been expelled hundreds of years before. The text tells us;
“And into her [their] womb she [they] took the holy semen by the semen of the lord Enki she was impregnated”.
But there seems to have been a taboo broken soEa/ Enki and his servant Isimud come up with a pr-arranged cover story for if or when these (now pregnant) girls produce offspring, which they did. Isimud the servant tells Enki’s Wife Ninki and his brother Enlil; He“found them”!
“among the bulrushes, in reed baskets have I them found. Ninki to the foundlings a likening took, as her own children he raised them. Adapa she called the foundling boy, the girl she called Titi”.
This earlier legend, one shouldn’t fail to notice, is also reminiscent of the awkward passage theist try to avoid when the can.
That the sons of God/s saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose..... There Were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.Genesis 6:2-4(KJV).
This also seems to have been a taboo as for some odd reason; the god of the bible punishes man for the sins of the sons, his sons. This story then leads us up to the story of Noah also a Mesopotamian rip off.
There seem to be many things wrong with this biblical story of Moses; such as , Why didn't anyone even query where on earth did this Princess obtain a child? No one questioned its parentage?
Moses' father - in - law we are told Exodus 2:18-21 is called Reuel and only five verses later his name changed to Jethro. This to anyone studying these scriptures will not have failed to notice that this is how the Old Testament compilers managed to skip some 400 years of history by leaping not too cleverly, from Reuel, the son of Esau Genesis 36:4 to his descendant Jethro, lord of midian, many generations later.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Christmas& Why Bullshit has Become Christian Dogma.
Over century’s speculation, guesswork and downright lies about biblical content have now become church dogma. Certain doctrines have been integrated into western society as if they are positive facts.
Children,and dare I say it, some adults are rarely told or know that Matthew says Mary was a virgin but Mark does not; or that Luke mentions the manger in which Jesus is placed whereas none of the other gospels do not; or that not one gospel makes even the vaguest reference to the stable which has become such an integral part of popular tradition.
Mark, as mentioned, makes not a single reference to a “virgin birth”. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke mention it in varying degrees and John thinks it is so insignificant and unimportant that he ignores it altogether.
Selective Teaching of this kind is and had been the problem. This applies not only to the nativity in Bethlehem but also to any number of incidents in Jesus’ recorded life.
Christian Children have been taught a story that has been smoothed over, a tale that extracts the most entertaining features from each gospel and merges them into a single embellished tale that was never written by anyone..
Children and students alike are told to turn to such and such a chapter and read such and such a verse, they are directed to what “the bible says” and, by doing this whole pseudo gospel has been concocted. Indeed, while this sleight of hand is being performed right in front the eyes of the student he/she will never realise that this is a purposeful misdirection from the more awkward verses that are far more uncomfortable and complicated to explain than those of the fairy tail they have been led to believe since childhood.
This “miracle” is mentioned in only two of the four gospels and nowhere else in the New Testament And the student not knowing this because of the way he /she has been instructed to “read” the bible would never know, and therefore never have the chance to question why such a marvellous and "miraculous" event was not mentioned by these other men of god, Mark & John, it is after all, at the very heart of Christian tradition.
Merry Christmas.
Stephen
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
“Israel mypeople”.
Jews As God's Own Chosen People.
There are over 20 verses in the Old Testament where god speaks of “his chosen” people.
Including
"For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth”.Deuteronomy 7:6-8
And
"For you are a holy people to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples”.Deuteronomy 14:2
So, there is no getting away from the fact that here god has made it quite clear that the people of Israel – Jews: have been especially chosen and singled out to be his favourites out of “ALL THE PEOPLES” of the known world.
Christians will no doubt try to argue - ‘but there was a new covenant” when Jesus was born and this now includes Christians: while ignoring the stone cold fact, that (1) Jesus was a Jew. (2) There were no Christians in his lifetime. (3) Jesus the Jew only cared about his own Jew kind. These are facts.Jesus and god were what we call today – racist and christianophobes.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Who reallyis the fool, Jesus or those who repeat and regurgitate Jesus’ contradictions?
Matthew 5:22threatens anyone calling someone a fool is “indanger of hell fire”.
So what? Onemay ask. It must be terrible that theists cannot call atheists “fools”. Buthold on just a second:
What do wehave here? Luke 24:25
Jesus “sonof god” calling people “fools”!!!!
Surely,this is a mistranslation? Surely, it isI who is at fault? Surely, I have misquoted the verses? Surely, I havemistranslated?
Surely, I have taken these verses out ofcontext? Surely, I have misunderstood?
Surely, itis me who cannot read. Surely, it is I who is the fool?
SURLEY, THIS IS A CLEAR CONTRADICTION BYJESUS, THE SON OF GOD HIMSELF!
Matthew 5:22threatens anyone calling someone a fool is “indanger of hell fire”.
So what? Onemay ask. It must be terrible that theists cannot call atheists “fools”. Buthold on just a second:
What do wehave here? Luke 24:25
Jesus “sonof god” calling people “fools”!!!!
Surely,this is a mistranslation? Surely, it isI who is at fault? Surely, I have misquoted the verses? Surely, I havemistranslated?
Surely, I have taken these verses out ofcontext? Surely, I have misunderstood?
Surely, itis me who cannot read. Surely, it is I who is the fool?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
70,000 illegalsand 1 Christian Abibi
Just yesterday a Christian member here was talking about being my “brother through Christ” and“We believers are all brothers in Christ”
#14
This is absolute garbage.
We have had in the headlines for some months now story of the desperate plight of a Christian Pakistani woman who had spent over 8 years on death row for Islamic blasphemy.
Not a single western country has offered to give her asylum from persecution. This is not to mention that not a single “brother in Christ” on this forum has even mentioned the plight of their own “Christian sister”. They make me sick!
She has had the original verdict overturned but she, and all of her known relatives are in hiding because the baying Muslim mob of thousands who had spent nearly a week protesting still want her and anyone hiding her put to death. Asia Bibi’s story in brief amounts to this>:
Her difficulties began as she picked berries with other farmworkers in a Punjab field in June 2009. A quarrel with two Muslim women erupted after she was asked to fetch water and they said they would not drink from a vessel touched by a Christian.
The women later alleged to a village mullah that Mrs Bibi had insulted the Prophet. She has always denied blasphemy and said she had been falsely accused to settle a score.
“Britain has not offered asylum to a Pakistani Christian woman freed after eight years on death row for blasphemy because of fear it would prompt “unrest” in the UK and attacks on embassies, her supporters claim”.
And Canada are said to be “in talks” about whether to grant her asylumthere.
I made a passing comment about Asia Bibi on another thread started by the great fence sitter himself Keithprosser who had another Christian story running asking- was a Christian missionary a “Martyr or a Mug” https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/795
He was still on the fence himself and had not given his verdict either way until he was recently ( a few minutes ago) prompted to do so, it was his thread after all.
And while all of this is going on Britain has accepted 70,000 illegals so far this year, and over £150, 00 has been raised to re-house a 15 year old “bullied refugee” bullied by another 15 year old and something that must happen every day in our schools up and down the country..
It only goes to say that the silence of Asia Bibi’s persecution is deafening and not a single Christian here has had the balls to even mention it never mind protest about it here.
“We believers are all brothers in Christ”. My arse!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
keithprosser wrote: Jesus was - allegedly - the son of an ordinary carpenter, not of a priest or prince.
I believe this to be incorrect and simply a case of prosser being contrary for the sake it..... again.
The gospel of Matthew States explicitly that Jesus was of royal blood – a genuine king, the lineal descendant of Solomon and David. If this is the case, then Jesus would have enjoyed a legitimate claim to the throne of a united Palestine and perhaps the legitimate claim. And the inscription affixed to the cross would have been much more than mere derision, for Jesus would indeed have been ‘King of The Jews.
He had influential rich friends in very high places and most, if not all of his disciples were rich. Jesus is repeatedly called “king of the Jews” many times when being interrogated by Pilate.
Mark 15:12-15 states clearly Pilate asking those assembled dignitaries:
“What shall I do, then,with the one you call the king of the Jews?” thus indicating at least some Jews do actually refer to Jesus as their king. In All four gospels, Pilate also accords Jesus that title. In the fourth gospel he insists on it quite adamantly and seriously- despite the protests from the elders.
In three of the synoptic, Jesus Himself acknowledge his claim to the title telling Pilate he had spoken correctly when asked “art thou king of the Jews”.
Jesus is referred to many times a teacher and rabbi indicating he was of the priesthood.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
What does it mean and why shouldn't anyone save for a rainy day and or retirement.
“Do not lay up foryourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thievesbreak in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, whereneither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. Forwhere your treasure is, there your heart will be also. Matthew 6:19-21.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I personally find absolutely nothing inspiring about the bible.
There are, without question, some lovely fluffy things written in these scriptures but to go so far as to say they are inspiring" as many people I know profess they are, they come unstuck when trying to explain what and why they find the scriptures "inspiring".
Seriously, who can get inspired by someone saying " take up thy bed and walk"?
Or
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
God made a promise to Abraham that he would make of him a "great nation".
And I Will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: Genesis 12: 2
A promise, nice. All well and good.
It was prophesied to the patriarch Abraham that he would have a son and that his name should be Isaac. When Abraham became one hundred years old, this son was born to him by his first wife Sarah. Though this was Abraham's second son it was Sarah's first and only child.
So Sarah is the Matriarch 1st and official wife.
Then this happens.
Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain will show you.” Genesis 22
Can anyone see the problem with this stupid story and how stupid and backward Abraham must have been?
The Question here is glaringly obvious and, as is usual with these biblical stories,it is also problematic for the devout theist.
Besides the barbarity of the request Abraham in all his lacking of any type of wisdom, didn’t stop to think never mind ask;
Lord, how are you going to make me a great nation when you have demanded that I kill my son, my only son?
And although the lord himself says that Isaac is Abraham's ONLY son, he isn't, and this is absolute claptrap to the casual reader unless one understands the bibles strict order of ascendency.
We know this god to be a cruel god from the story of Job where this god for a bet, decided to kill Jobs family and livestock and servants and tore down his house, to prove Job's loyalty.
But seriously, Would you sacrifice your only child if god asked you to?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Yes even Pilate was amazed at how quick Jesus had “died”. Mark 15:44
And it was awfully convenient that he is said to have “died” just before he was about to have his legs broken.
The Apostle John said that the two crucified alongside Jesus were still alive six hours after they were crucified so “the soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other” to make sure they would die before the Sabbath. John 19:31-34.
Could the disciples simply have been wrong or mores the case duped into believing Jesus Was dead? They had got it wrong on another occasion when they were convinced Paul was dead but wasn’t. Acts 14
And there's not a mention of any of them being present at the crucifixion so how would they know either way.
Why then,did Jesus die so quickly on the cross?
Why did they spear his side if he was dead?
Did Jesus even predict that he would be dead for three days?
Christens like to latch onto what is written in Matthew 12:40 as some kind of “sign” or clue not to mention “proof” given to the Elders as to what lay ahead for him. But they should read that closely, because it mentions nothing about death at all.
Jesus – so say the gospels- was offered a drink of vinegar/wine on a sponge when he seemed to complain of thirst.Why he should then suddenly die after sucking on, or even sniffing this sponge and after saying few words, words which are also in contention? The thing about the vinegar soaked sponge is that if anything, it would have had completely the opposite effect on the human body. It was used on slave galleys as a temporary stimulant to revive flagging rowers, it had the same effect as smelling salts.
So again it appears just like all of these others gospels, it leaves gaping big holes in the commentary and we are left with yet another half story.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
According to the King James Version, Genesis 37:3 reads, "Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colours."
But who was Joseph's God?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
When did it happen? Who won? Or hasn't it happened yet?
Did a god "cast out satan", If so when and what for?
Who started the war? What was the war over?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Not unusual for these scriptures we come across yet another half story told by the gospellers. It concerns a character that the gospellers seem reluctant and forced to mention and is only mentioned once in each of the four gospels.
It is Barabbas which means: (/bəˈræbəs/; Aramaic: ישוע בר אבא BarʾAbbaʾ, literally "son of the father". And most interesting is the fact that Matthew tells us full name: itis Jesus Barabbas!
Now at the festival the governor was accustomed to release a prisoner for the crowd, anyone whom they wanted. 16 At that time they had a notorious prisoner,called Jesus Barabbas. 17 So after they had gathered, Pilate said to them,“Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”Matthew 27:15-17
Somebibles do omit the name Jesus.
The gospel story goes like this: Jesus is arrested and put on trial, sentencedand then offered a reprieve, and it is here that a gospel untruth is written.
The gospels claim that Pilate offered this reprieve “because it was customary for the Governor to release a prisoner at the Feast of Passover.” WHAT WHAT ABSOLUTE COBBLERS! This is simply not true, there never was such a custom and not a single biblical researcher of the Gospels has been able to find one scrap of evidence for this.. And even if this was true, It would hardly be the case that Pilate would release anyone accused of murder as Jesus Barabbas was.
Let’s read the passages from the gospellers:
Mathew 27:16.
Barabbas is a “notable prisoner”.
Mark 15:7.
And There was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had madeinsurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.
Luke 23:18-19.
And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas:
(Who For a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)
And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas:
(Who For a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)
John: 18-40.
Then cried they all again,saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.
Then cried they all again,saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.
So we simply have to challenge this and ask ourselves;
Would Pilate release a notorious robbing, murdering insurrectionist who had committed sedition against Rome or would he have released a peaceful sandal wearing Jew who tells all his followers to render unto Caesar?
We have to remember Pilate could find absolutely nothing at all that warranted execution by crucifixion.
So we are left yet again asking more questions about these unreliable gospels that tell us only half stories.
Who was Barabbas?
What was is role?
who was he to Jesus?
And that verse from Mark above should really get anyone who is interested, thinking.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
And his payers and plea’s went unheard and ignored and unanswered by his “father”. He lost his faith and wanted no part of what can only be seen a pre-planned moronic plot.
Luke 22:41-42 New King James Version (NKJV)
41 And He was withdrawn from them about a stone’s throw, and He knelt down and prayed, 42 saying, “Father, if it is Your Will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.”
Matthew tells us of Jesus making his request of the Father twice: "Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, 'My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken away from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will'"(Matthew 26:39) and "He went away a second time and prayed, 'My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done'" (Matt. 26:42).
This man was obviously absolutely terrified of what he was about to face we have to ask, did he bargained for this, did he not understand the scripture or the script. Did he not know that all of this mission was leading up to a sacrifice, his own sacrifice?
We can only conclude that he didn’t have a clue that this was how it was all supposed to end.
Mark attempts to put positive spin his prayer "'Abba, Father,' he said, 'everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will"(Mark 14:36).
But the non response and total silence from his “father” are the same: a complete and utter refusal to even recognise the absolute peril his “only son” was in.
It seems only his so called “father” could excuse him of this savage and brutal commitment. Had this Jewish mission been intended to go this far; for this young man to be “scourged& nailed to beams of wood, & speared in the ribs.
If this was the “will of the father” then who would want such a savage indifferent being for a father? And it shouldn’t go unnoticed that not only did god, the “father” ignore and refused to answer the pleadings and prayers of this poor young man but was so indifferent to his ONLY SON’s pleading and begging to be released from this contract that he couldn’t be bothered to show up himself to comfort his only son who had “sweated blood” out of sheer fear, but sent a messenger to say ‘there there, have faith, everything will be alright in three days time.
Like all of these gospels, this story simply does not make a single piece of sense.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
The Christians dogma still,to this day, insist that there was and is, only ever has been, only one god. This is a lie and the odd thing about their insistence is that their own scriptures state to the contrary.
Why is it that they have settled on the preferred idea of an omnipotent and everlasting single, male god?
When we actually look at the biblical text we see that even the Judeo/Christian bible says that god was not alone I his environment. I am sure many now are familiar with this verse that blows the Christian dogma of “only one god” clean out of the water.
And God said, Let US make man in our image, after OUR likeness: Genesis 1:26
And there is the famous and no getting away from, Psalm 82 that clearly states;
Psalm 82
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.....
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
And there is the commandment where god refers again to other gods:
Exodus.20:3
“You shall have no other gods before me”.
Genesis 11:7
“ let US go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
Psalm 95:3
For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods.
Psalm 135:5
For I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all gods.
This is not to mention that these gods had families; sons of gods when descended to earth and took the daughters of men as wives..
And there are many occasions in the bible where one god is ordering the death of those who have or are supporters of other gods.
Deuteronomy 6:14-16
Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;
15 (For The Lord thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.
16 Ye Shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.
So it's plain to see that there are other gods who were without doubt recognised and acknowledged by the Hebrew/ Judeo/Christian god. And this Hebrew./Judeo/Christian god is a self confessed “jealous god” and would kill and make to suffer for generations anyone who preferred one of these other gods to him.
Who will deny this pluralism?Well Christians of course.
The usual Christian Reasoning is either to say that the “us”is the Trinity or that it is a heavenly assembly of angels.
But can we really believe that the original audience for Genesis would understand the strictly Christian conception of an idea that had its roots in Rome thousands of years after? And the scripture doesn’t mention an “assembly of angels” but an assembly of “gods” plural
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
After the first 5 days of the creation we come to day six and the creation of humans.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion etc etc.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
It doesn’t say how they made them or from what but create them male & female, he did.
So here as early as Genesis 1, we have a male and a female created in the “image” of the gods plural. Gen 1 ends at Gen31 day six with god saying “it was very good”.
Then something extra peculiar happens. At Genesis 2:5
"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:for the Lord God Has not caused it to rain upon the earth, andthere was not a man to till the ground".?????
What are we to make of this? Had he forgot that he had already made a male and female? And wasn’t the first male and female at Genesis 1:27 created for this very purpose?
Well we can’t say with absolute certainty because it only speaks of “dominion over” every living thing and “over all the earth”, which implies ruler ship i.e. a monarchy.
So putting aside this question for now, it then continues with a verse informing us that god needed labourers “to till the land” . So a God sets about a second creation of man but giving the reader more details of how he went about creating this second human male.
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord god Formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. It goes on to say he then put this man into the garden, implying that the man was actually created outside of the garden somewhere else.
7 verses further on at Verse 15 it reiterates again where he placed the man and why :
“and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.”
All was good we can take it? No, of course we can’t,because 16 verses after the creation of this second man Genesis informs us that A God then decides that because the man shouldn’t be alone without a mate/helper so he goes to a third creation of a human, this time a female. But this creation is like no other.
Genesis 2:21 And the Lord God Caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And therib, which the Lord God Had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Any Geneticist reading this today would no doubt recognize this as nothing less of cloning/genetic engineering.
So what do these three individual stories of the creation of humans all mean?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion