BMZ
|
The Absurdities of Christianity & The New TestamentThe title of the topic here has been rightly described by the author as "Christianity
The peak of the Greek Tragedy is embodied in this somewhat confusing religion."
Christianity IS indeed a very confusing religion and since it was founded by a fairly large group of confused men, we shall look into the absurdities that created the confusion and have become part and parcel of this religion.
I will start with an absurdity for discussions and when it is over, I will enlighten the folks with another and continue talking about this very confusing and confounding religion.
Absurdities have to be discussed in details and replies, if any, should have substance, not questions such as "So?", "And why?", "Then?" and one-liners will neither be appreciated nor entertained.
I need a forum to discuss this and this will be the only place, where I would like to continue writing. I would appreciate full cooperation from all. 
For matters pertaining to Arabic language and other important points, which require clarifications and comments, I would request All_Brains to step in as a Moderator for this topic.
Thanks & Best Regards to all
BMZ
|
Pazuzu bin Hanbi
|
|
BMZ
|
| Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote: | |
lol!
There are so many. Do you think it would be better to start with the 2nd biggest absurdity, commonly known as Trinity?
I don't want to start with the biggest absurdity which is "Jesus is God". You can also quote some.
BMZ
|
Mutley
|
Shut up and say something 
|
Pazuzu bin Hanbi
|
Oof! The Trinity has had an extremely long and convoluted history, with many good books and articles dedicated to this topic. I shudder to think what might come out of this…
Thusly:
|
AhmedBahgat
|
Yeh bro BMZ, let's start with the second most absurdity
|
Mutley
|
ab·surd /æbˈsɜrd, -ˈzɜrd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ab-surd, -zurd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation.
–noun
2. the quality or condition of existing in a meaningless and irrational world.
Now that you understand the definition of absurd, tell me what is absurd about the Trinity. Don't tell me why you don't believe in it, tell me why it's absurd. The only thing you can say is that God wouldn't or couldn't be that way, to which I would reply "why not?". Who says?
|
AhmedBahgat
|
| Mutley wrote: | ab·surd /æbˈsɜrd, -ˈzɜrd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ab-surd, -zurd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation.
–noun
2. the quality or condition of existing in a meaningless and irrational world.
Now that you understand the definition of absurd, tell me what is absurd about the Trinity. Don't tell me why you don't believe in it, tell me why it's absurd. The only thing you can say is that God wouldn't or couldn't be that way, to which I would reply "why not?". Who says? |
can you come back in 30 minutes, I will go and buy ya some bones
|
Mutley
|
| AhmedBahgat wrote: | | Mutley wrote: | ab·surd /æbˈsɜrd, -ˈzɜrd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ab-surd, -zurd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation.
–noun
2. the quality or condition of existing in a meaningless and irrational world.
Now that you understand the definition of absurd, tell me what is absurd about the Trinity. Don't tell me why you don't believe in it, tell me why it's absurd. The only thing you can say is that God wouldn't or couldn't be that way, to which I would reply "why not?". Who says? |
can you come back in 30 minutes, I will go and buy ya some bones |
Why don't you just answer my question?
|
AhmedBahgat
|
| Mutley wrote: | | AhmedBahgat wrote: | | Mutley wrote: | ab·surd /æbˈsɜrd, -ˈzɜrd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ab-surd, -zurd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation.
–noun
2. the quality or condition of existing in a meaningless and irrational world.
Now that you understand the definition of absurd, tell me what is absurd about the Trinity. Don't tell me why you don't believe in it, tell me why it's absurd. The only thing you can say is that God wouldn't or couldn't be that way, to which I would reply "why not?". Who says? |
can you come back in 30 minutes, I will go and buy ya some bones |
Why don't you just answer my question? |
I thought you would like some bones first to behave, let me try and see if someone else can answer your barking without giving you any bones:
Upton Sinclair wrote in his book A Personal Jesus:
You perceive that those who tell the story cannot make up their mind whether Jesus is God or whether he is man. Truly it is a difficult problem, once you admit such thing as a possibility that God may take on form of a man and come down to earth. When he becomes man, is He man or is He still God? And how can He be betrayed, when He knows He is going to be betrayed? The legend never answers clearly for basically it is an absurdity and there can be no answer, nor even any rational thought on such subject.
If Jesus is God, He knows everything in advance. But in that case the procedure means nothing to Him, He is like an actor going through a role, and it must have been a rather tedious role to Omniscience. Is He doing it for the entertainment of children? If so, why not encourage the children to grow up mentally and face the truth? On the other hand, if he is a man and has the mind of a man, then he no longer knows the truth, he no longer posses the comfort of omniscience. The legend requires that we shall believe both these things at the same time; but manifestly, a man cannot know something and at the same time grop half-blindly as we human beings are doing all through our lives.
you can buy the book HERE but I'm not sure if they sell books to dogs though
|
Mutley
|
| AhmedBahgat wrote: |
I thought you would like some bones first to behave, let me try and see if someone else can answer your barking without giving you any bones:
Upton Sinclair wrote in his book A Personal Jesus:
You perceive that those who tell the story cannot make up their mind whether Jesus is God or whether he is man. Truly it is a difficult problem, once you admit such thing as a possibility that God may take on form of a man and come down to earth. When he becomes man, is He man or is He still God? |
He is the spirit of God and the body of man.
| Quote: |
And how can He be betrayed, when He knows He is going to be betrayed? |
This is a really stupid question. If you let someone betway you, have they still not betrayed you? This moron thinks that betrayal inherently invcolves not knowing one is being betrayed, which is utter nonsense. Where did he get this stupid idea from?
| Quote: |
The legend never answers clearly for basically it is an absurdity and there can be no answer, nor even any rational thought on such subject. |
Well gee, I just answered it. His stupidity is not my fault.
| Quote: |
If Jesus is God, He knows everything in advance. But in that case the procedure means nothing to Him, He is like an actor going through a role, and it must have been a rather tedious role to Omniscience. |
What if there was no such trhing as the future. What if the future is merely a mental conclusion or idea of the mind? If I could show you why the future doesn't actually exist, except as an expectation or mental construct of ours, then God wouldn't be required to know it because it never actually exists until it is the present moment. One can be omniscient while not knowing about something that actually doesn't exist.
| Quote: |
Is He doing it for the entertainment of children? If so, why not encourage the children to grow up mentally and face the truth? |
Who says God didn't do that as well?
| Quote: |
On the other hand, if he is a man and has the mind of a man, then he no longer knows the truth, he no longer posses the comfort of omniscience. |
Not necessarily true. Explained above.
| Quote: |
The legend requires that we shall believe both these things at the same time; but manifestly, a man cannot know something and at the same time grop half-blindly as we human beings are doing all through our lives. |
And he didn't do that.
| Quote: |
you can buy the book HERE but I'm not sure if they sell books to dogs though |
Why? This guy is an idiot. It took me two seconds to tear right through his faulty logic.
|
Mutley
|
Now, I'll explain what I believe that Jesus is God means, even though this will probably be too abstract for you. There is a concept in Eastern thought that says that things are done by us, and in rare instances, they are done through us. "By us" means us making the decision and doing it. Done "through us" means God making the decision and we do it. The latter occurs when someone drops there own personal interests and identity, allowing God to act through the person. If one is truly perfect, sinless and the product of a virgin birth, then God can truly act through this person as they know longer have any personal consideration of their own self interest and well being. And God can act through this person to such an extent, that this person and God are one. The person is the physical vehicle of God, and therefore becomes a part of God. This is what Jesus meant when hew said I am in the Father and the Father is in me.
|
AhmedBahgat
|
If you waited for the bones, your reply would have been something else, will do that next time
|
BMZ
|
| AhmedBahgat wrote: | | Yeh bro BMZ, let's start with the second most absurdity |
Sure, bro. I will start with this absurdity known as trinity.
The word Trinity does not exist at all in the entire New Testament. Anything that does not stand correct in the light of the Scripture is incorrect and wrong. Jesus never taught it and neither did his disciples. Even the man Paul, whom I dislike most for his taqaiyya, did not mention that word.
It is a post-Jesus word that was coined to try to explain the confusion about the man Jesus. This was done a few hundred years after Jesus was gone.
The word on its own is nothing new. Hindus, ancient Egyptians, followers of Mithraism and others had a triune god or trinities of their own. The idea of Christian trinity was borrowed from them to make it platable for the Roman and Greek Gentiles, who were used to many gods. They could not be convinced with one God.
BMZ
|
BMZ
|
| Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote: | Oof! The Trinity has had an extremely long and convoluted history, with many good books and articles dedicated to this topic. I shudder to think what might come out of this…
Thusly:
|
lol!
Even many Christians are now laughing at trinitarians. All it took them to understand was John 17:3 and John 17:3 kills the trinity, utterly demolishing the absurdity.
| Quote: | John 17:3
3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. |
|
BMZ
|
| Mutley wrote: | ab·surd /æbˈsɜrd, -ˈzɜrd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ab-surd, -zurd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation.
–noun
2. the quality or condition of existing in a meaningless and irrational world.
Now that you understand the definition of absurd, tell me what is absurd about the Trinity. Don't tell me why you don't believe in it, tell me why it's absurd. The only thing you can say is that God wouldn't or couldn't be that way, to which I would reply "why not?". Who says? |
There was no need to define the word absurd. Everyone knows that.
I just wrote about the absurdity in reponse to Ahmed and also quoted Jon 17:3 which demolishes Jesus being a god. Please read that.
Let us look at the absurdity this way, referring to the trinity shield:
Father is not the son. Father is not the holy ghost.
The son is not the father. The son is not the holy ghost.
Holy ghost is not the father. Holy ghost is not the son.
Father is God. Son is God,. Holy ghost is God.
And this is the One God of Israel?
|
Mutley
|
| AhmedBahgat wrote: | | If you waited for the bones, your reply would have been something else, will do that next time |
Who cares about you?
|
Mutley
|
[quote="BMZ"] | AhmedBahgat wrote: | | Yeh bro BMZ, let's start with the second most absurdity |
Sure, bro. I will start with this absurdity known as trinity.
The word Trinity does not exist at all in the entire New Testament. {quote]
The exact word doesn't have to exist. The word trinity was used as an explanation for how they interpreted the scriptures. Nobody denies that. However, there are indeed plenty of things in the NT that would give them reason to think that the trinity is true. So although the exact word "trinity" is not used, it could be said to be a correct extrapolation from the scriptures. Also, there are letters dating a couple of hundred years before the council of Nicea, that speak of this concept
| BMZ wrote: |
Anything that does not stand correct in the light of the Scripture is incorrect and wrong. Jesus never taught it and neither did his disciples. Even the man Paul, whom I dislike most for his taqaiyya, did not mention that word. |
Would you stop with the taqiayya thing? You try to take any negative about Islam and flip it over to Paul. Well....it doesn't work.
| BMZ wrote: |
It is a post-Jesus word that was coined to try to explain the confusion about the man Jesus. This was done a few hundred years after Jesus was gone. |
I agree, and it would appear that it was done before a few hundred years, and that the council of nicea was merely confirming a prevalent, existing view.
| BMZ wrote: |
The word on its own is nothing new. Hindus, ancient Egyptians, followers of Mithraism and others had a triune god or trinities of their own. The idea of Christian trinity was borrowed from them to make it platable for the Roman and Greek Gentiles, who were used to many gods. They could not be convinced with one God.
BMZ |
Completely theory. Anyway, you reference the Hindus and Egyptians and you say that made it palatable for the Greeks and Romans?
|
BMZ
|
| Mutley wrote: | | Would you stop with the taqiayya thing? You try to take any negative about Islam and flip it over to Paul. Well....it doesn't work. |
I mentioned Paul because he holds a 30+% share in the New Testament and Paul is the founder of Christianity, while Jesus had his Way. And even Paul did not talk or mention anything about any trinity or a triune god. At least Paul, the taqaiyya tactician or taqaiyya master, was honest in saying that the man Jesus was only a mediator between man and God. At the worst, Paul only calls him a son of God and no more than that. Hope this helps.
| BMZ wrote: |
It is a post-Jesus word that was coined to try to explain the confusion about the man Jesus. This was done a few hundred years after Jesus was gone. |
| Mutley wrote: | | I agree, and it would appear that it was done before a few hundred years, and that the council of nicea was merely confirming a prevalent, existing view. |
Thanks for agreeing but the term trinity was coined after the Council of Nicaea. Please read the statements from the Council and also the views of Arius and Athanasius.
| BMZ wrote: |
The word on its own is nothing new. Hindus, ancient Egyptians, followers of Mithraism and others had a triune god or trinities of their own. The idea of Christian trinity was borrowed from them to make it platable for the Roman and Greek Gentiles, who were used to many gods. They could not be convinced with one God.
BMZ[/i] |
| Mutley wrote: | | Completely theory. Anyway, you reference the Hindus and Egyptians and you say that made it palatable for the Greeks and Romans? |
After all the trinity is a theory, a dogma and a doctrine. Isn't it? Yes, the Romans and the Greeks had lots of god and it was easier to give them the trinity drink.
Cheers
BMZ
|
BMZ
|
| Mutley wrote: | | Now, I'll explain what I believe that Jesus is God means, even though this will probably be too abstract for you. There is a concept in Eastern thought that says that things are done by us, and in rare instances, they are done through us. "By us" means us making the decision and doing it. Done "through us" means God making the decision and we do it. The latter occurs when someone drops there own personal interests and identity, allowing God to act through the person. If one is truly perfect, sinless and the product of a virgin birth, then God can truly act through this person as they know longer have any personal consideration of their own self interest and well being. And God can act through this person to such an extent, that this person and God are one. The person is the physical vehicle of God, and therefore becomes a part of God. This is what Jesus meant when hew said I am in the Father and the Father is in me. |
It has nothing to do with a virgin product or a non-virgin product. Mary herself was a non-virgin product. Moses and others were non-virgin products and yet God acted through them. The problem with this virgin product theory is that the so-called Sin must have entered Jesus' blood stream, brain and body cells through Mary's DNA and genes.
I appreciate your last point and when Jesus said, "I am in the Father and the Father is in me", he exactly meant, keeping in mind the Oriental thoughts and style of the languages, that both were on the same side or belonged to each other.
I can also say that God is in me and I am in God. But that does not make me God. It simply means I belong to God and I believe in God.
|
Mutley
|
| BMZ wrote: | | Mutley wrote: | | Now, I'll explain what I believe that Jesus is God means, even though this will probably be too abstract for you. There is a concept in Eastern thought that says that things are done by us, and in rare instances, they are done through us. "By us" means us making the decision and doing it. Done "through us" means God making the decision and we do it. The latter occurs when someone drops there own personal interests and identity, allowing God to act through the person. If one is truly perfect, sinless and the product of a virgin birth, then God can truly act through this person as they know longer have any personal consideration of their own self interest and well being. And God can act through this person to such an extent, that this person and God are one. The person is the physical vehicle of God, and therefore becomes a part of God. This is what Jesus meant when hew said I am in the Father and the Father is in me. |
It has nothing to do with a virgin product or a non-virgin product. Mary herself was a non-virgin product. Moses and others were non-virgin products and yet God acted through them. The problem with this virgin product theory is that the so-called Sin must have entered Jesus' blood stream, brain and body cells through Mary's DNA and genes. |
OK, so here's a good question. Why did God make Jesus' birth a virgin birth? Why did he do that in the case of Jesus, but no other prophets, including the "supposed" prophet that followed him? Is it just a sign and that's it? And if so, what was the sign supposed to mean, and why didn't the others give the same sign?
| BMZ wrote: |
I appreciate your last point and when Jesus said, "I am in the Father and the Father is in me", he exactly meant, keeping in mind the Oriental thoughts and style of the languages, that both were on the same side or belonged to each other. |
Then you didn't appreciate my last point, because it meant far more than just being on the same side.
| BMZ wrote: | | I can also say that God is in me and I am in God. But that does not make me God. It simply means I belong to God and I believe in God. |
Well, as I thought, that whole explanation flew over your head. Islam is good for you.
|
Mutley
|
| BMZ wrote: |
It is a post-Jesus word that was coined to try to explain the confusion about the man Jesus. This was done a few hundred years after Jesus was gone. |
Oh really? I thought it was an appeasement to the Romans? I guess the story keeps changing based on what one needs.
| BMZ wrote: |
Thanks for agreeing but the term trinity was coined after the Council of Nicaea. Please read the statements from the Council and also the views of Arius and Athanasius. |
Sio what? So they "coined" a term that they believe can and should be extracted from a proper understanding of the Bible. The concept was already there for a couple of hundred years before Nicea. There are plenty of words and concepts extracrted from the Quran that aren;t mentioned by exact name in the Quran. So what?
| BMZ wrote: |
The word on its own is nothing new. Hindus, ancient Egyptians, followers of Mithraism and others had a triune god or trinities of their own. The idea of Christian trinity was borrowed from them to make it platable for the Roman and Greek Gentiles, who were used to many gods. They could not be convinced with one God. |
How do you know that? And, if the NT was referring to three Gods, then why do we never see the term "Gods"? that says it all right there. So you're just making up a whole bunch of theories that you would like to be true.
| BMZ wrote: |
After all the trinity is a theory, a dogma and a doctrine. Isn't it? Yes, the Romans and the Greeks had lots of god and it was easier to give them the trinity drink.
Cheers
BMZ |
Oh really? Well Paul was the one who spread Christianity to the Romans and the Greeks. But you said that Paul didn't give them trinity drink. So why did they accept Christianity if Paul didn't give them trinity drink?
|
BMZ
|
| Mutley wrote: | | Now, I'll explain what I believe that Jesus is God means, even though this will probably be too abstract for you. There is a concept in Eastern thought that says that things are done by us, and in rare instances, they are done through us. "By us" means us making the decision and doing it. Done "through us" means God making the decision and we do it. The latter occurs when someone drops there own personal interests and identity, allowing God to act through the person. If one is truly perfect, sinless and the product of a virgin birth, then God can truly act through this person as they know longer have any personal consideration of their own self interest and well being. And God can act through this person to such an extent, that this person and God are one. The person is the physical vehicle of God, and therefore becomes a part of God. This is what Jesus meant when hew said I am in the Father and the Father is in me. |
| BMZ wrote: | | It has nothing to do with a virgin product or a non-virgin product. Mary herself was a non-virgin product. Moses and others were non-virgin products and yet God acted through them. The problem with this virgin product theory is that the so-called Sin must have entered Jesus' blood stream, brain and body cells through Mary's DNA and genes. |
| Mutley wrote: | | OK, so here's a good question. Why did God make Jesus' birth a virgin birth? Why did he do that in the case of Jesus, but no other prophets, including the "supposed" prophet that followed him? Is it just a sign and that's it? And if so, what was the sign supposed to mean, and why didn't the others give the same sign? |
Now, this is another good question and I am glad you asked. You are the first Christian who has asked me this question and I will give you the answer, using the holy Bible.
To find the answer, we have to look at the the erratic behaviour of the seeds of Abraham. God tried the seeds of various biblical characters. In Issac's own seeds Essau and Jacob, there was a problem. Jacob usurped starving Essau's birth-right by giving him a bowl of soup. Laban played him out but Jacob managed to get Laban's second daughter and had two sisters as his wives within a short span. Judah laid his son's wife Tamar, producing a new brand of seed. David, himself got Uriah killed in order to grab his wife. David's own seed Solomon was producing seeds with almost nine hundred women and became the son-in-law of the entire neighbourhood.
Throughout the process of all this illicit begetting, God had been forgiving these key begetters, who were mostly full of carnal sin. The concept of seed had become a mockery. It was time to derail the corrupt seed and stop that wrong concept. It was time to rid Israel of the seed concept. This was done by sending a new prophet to Israel by making him free of the guilt of the seed of Abraham, through the free woman.
Thus Mary conceived Jesus without the seed of any man from the seed of Jacob, Judah and David. Jesus was no man's seed. The seeds of all coming through Sarah were thus cut-off.
| BMZ wrote: |
I appreciate your last point and when Jesus said, "I am in the Father and the Father is in me", he exactly meant, keeping in mind the Oriental thoughts and style of the languages, that both were on the same side or belonged to each other. |
| Mutley wrote: | | Then you didn't appreciate my last point, because it meant far more than just being on the same side. |
I could not. Because it does not mean anything like that in the Semitic and other Oriental languages. In modern English, it goes the style of "Either you are with us or with them." It is just figurative style. It is really not like a mini-me living inside the Me or Me living inside the mini-me.
| BMZ wrote: | | I can also say that God is in me and I am in God. But that does not make me God. It simply means I belong to God and I believe in God. |
| Mutley wrote: | | Well, as I thought, that whole explanation flew over your head. Islam is good for you. |
It wasn't on target.
Moral of the Story: Jesus was Mary's own seed. God discarded all other bad seeds. Jesus was a new seed, a seed which could never be propagated.
|
Mutley
|
| BMZ wrote: | | Mutley wrote: | | Now, I'll explain what I believe that Jesus is God means, even though this will probably be too abstract for you. There is a concept in Eastern thought that says that things are done by us, and in rare instances, they are done through us. "By us" means us making the decision and doing it. Done "through us" means God making the decision and we do it. The latter occurs when someone drops there own personal interests and identity, allowing God to act through the person. If one is truly perfect, sinless and the product of a virgin birth, then God can truly act through this person as they know longer have any personal consideration of their own self interest and well being. And God can act through this person to such an extent, that this person and God are one. The person is the physical vehicle of God, and therefore becomes a part of God. This is what Jesus meant when hew said I am in the Father and the Father is in me. |
| BMZ wrote: | | It has nothing to do with a virgin product or a non-virgin product. Mary herself was a non-virgin product. Moses and others were non-virgin products and yet God acted through them. The problem with this virgin product theory is that the so-called Sin must have entered Jesus' blood stream, brain and body cells through Mary's DNA and genes. |
| Mutley wrote: | | OK, so here's a good question. Why did God make Jesus' birth a virgin birth? Why did he do that in the case of Jesus, but no other prophets, including the "supposed" prophet that followed him? Is it just a sign and that's it? And if so, what was the sign supposed to mean, and why didn't the others give the same sign? |
Now, this is another good question and I am glad you asked. You are the first Christian who has asked me this question and I will give you the answer, using the holy Bible. |
What? You trash the Bible and then pull it back out of the trashcan if you think a part of it will meet your needs? Are you capable of understanding how horribly problematic and subjective this is or has nobody taught you the basics of objective logic? I thinks it's the latter. You don't even understand the problem with what you are doing.
| BMZ wrote: |
To find the answer, we have to look at the the erratic behaviour of the seeds of Abraham. God tried the seeds of various biblical characters. In Issac's own seeds Essau and Jacob, there was a problem. Jacob usurped starving Essau's birth-right by giving him a bowl of soup. Laban played him out but Jacob managed to get Laban's second daughter and had two sisters as his wives within a short span. Judah laid his son's wife Tamar, producing a new brand of seed. David, himself got Uriah killed in order to grab his wife. David's own seed Solomon was producing seeds with almost nine hundred women and became the son-in-law of the entire neighbourhood.
Throughout the process of all this illicit begetting, God had been forgiving these key begetters, who were mostly full of carnal sin. The concept of seed had become a mockery. It was time to derail the corrupt seed and stop that wrong concept. It was time to rid Israel of the seed concept. This was done by sending a new prophet to Israel by making him free of the guilt of the seed of Abraham, through the free woman. |
But Mary's lineage was linked to David. That's where Jesus actually gets his lineage from.
| BMZ wrote: |
Thus Mary conceived Jesus without the seed of any man from the seed of Jacob, Judah and David. Jesus was no man's seed. The seeds of all coming through Sarah were thus cut-off. |
But Mary's lineage was linked to David. That's where Jesus actually gets his lineage from.
| BMZ wrote: | | Mutley wrote: | | BMZ wrote: |
I appreciate your last point and when Jesus said, "I am in the Father and the Father is in me", he exactly meant, keeping in mind the Oriental thoughts and style of the languages, that both were on the same side or belonged to each other. |
Then you didn't appreciate my last point, because it meant far more than just being on the same side. |
I could not. Because it does not mean anything like that in the Semitic and other Oriental languages. In modern English, it goes the style of "Either you are with us or with them." It is just figurative style. It is really not like a mini-me living inside the Me or Me living inside the mini-me. |
You still don't get it. There's no need for me to continue to attempt to explain it. Islam is definitely the right religion for you.
| BMZ wrote: | | I can also say that God is in me and I am in God. But that does not make me God. It simply means I belong to God and I believe in God. |
| Mutley wrote: | | Well, as I thought, that whole explanation flew over your head. Islam is good for you. |
| BMZ wrote: |
It wasn't on target.
Moral of the Story: Jesus was Mary's own seed. God discarded all other bad seeds. Jesus was a new seed, a seed which could never be propagated. |
Boy, you really invented quite an embarrassing story. But that's what happens to people who lie and invent things, they always end up making a critical error somewhere along the line. Mary's lineage was tied to David.
|
BMZ
|
| Mutley wrote: | | But Mary's lineage was linked to David. That's where Jesus actually gets his lineage from. |
| Mutley wrote: | | Mary's lineage was tied to David. |
But that is totally wrong.
The two conflicting genealogies, given in the New Testament, tied Joseph to David and thereby, tied Jesus through Joseph to David. There is no genealogy of Mary available in the New Testament to be verified.
Although the two genealogies, detailed in the New Testament, do mention about who begat who or who was begotten by who, they only try to link Jesus to David through Joseph, not through his mother.
I have not seen any tying of Mary to David. This is another absurdity.
BMZ
|
Pazuzu bin Hanbi
|
Nope. Mutley has it correct.
|
All_Brains
|
| BMZ wrote: | | Mutley wrote: | | But Mary's lineage was linked to David. That's where Jesus actually gets his lineage from. |
| Mutley wrote: | | Mary's lineage was tied to David. |
But that is totally wrong.
The two conflicting genealogies, given in the New Testament, tied Joseph to David and thereby, tied Jesus through Joseph to David. There is no genealogy of Mary available in the New Testament to be verified.
Although the two genealogies, detailed in the New Testament, do mention about who begat who or who was begotten by who, they only try to link Jesus to David through Joseph, not through his mother.
I have not seen any tying of Mary to David. This is another absurdity.
BMZ |
Hello BMZ
Unlike Islam and Christianity, Judaism family links are referring to the mother.
|
BMZ
|
| Mutley wrote: | | But Mary's lineage was linked to David. That's where Jesus actually gets his lineage from. |
| Mutley wrote: | | Mary's lineage was tied to David. |
| BMZ wrote: | But that is totally wrong.
The two conflicting genealogies, given in the New Testament, tied Joseph to David and thereby, tied Jesus through Joseph to David. There is no genealogy of Mary available in the New Testament to be verified.
Although the two genealogies, detailed in the New Testament, do mention about who begat who or who was begotten by who, they only try to link Jesus to David through Joseph, not through his mother.
I have not seen any tying of Mary to David. This is another absurdity.
BMZ |
| All_Brains wrote: | Hello BMZ
Unlike Islam and Christianity, Judaism family links are referring to the mother. |
Yes, that is correct according to the Israeli Laws on Immigration and Naturalisation and I am aware of that, A_B.
This is a post 1948 thingy to determine who is a Jew for Israeli citizenship and has nothing to do with the linkage to David. Even Halaka is not going to help Christians in this argument.
We don't see all mothers being mentioned in the Tanakh to show the birth of all Jewish prophets.
Trying to link Mary through her grandmothers, using this false argument and excuse, would lead to other maternal grandmothers and somewhere else but would not lead her not to David.
If the link to mothers were so important, the alleged writers, who penned the gospels and the NT would have placed a genealogy of Mary and also would have named David's mother. There is nothing. Anyway, this is an issue outside the Bible. 
Do you see the pickle that Christians are in?
Cheers
BMZ
|
BMZ
|
How so?
Why do you think that Mutley is correct? Please give your reasons to show that Mutley is correct.
BMZ
|
Mutley
|
| Quote: |
Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38. Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:
“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).] |
|
BMZ
|
| Mutley wrote: | | Quote: |
Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38. Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:
“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).] |
|
Not this doctoral spin and no conjectures or guess works by Ph.Ds, please. There are plenty of them.
Please prove it through the New Testament. Both contradicting genealogies have been written to show men begotten by men. The gospels even do not tell us the name of Mary's mother.
Son-in-law is not the seed of a father-in-law.
The entire New Testament does not show the genealogy of Mary at all. Jesus is also wrongly connected to David by misquoting David.
There is nothing solid to show and prove that Mary came from the line of David at all. There is no genealogy of Mary in the New Testament at all.
BMZ
|
Mutley
|
| BMZ wrote: | | Mutley wrote: | | Quote: |
Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38. Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:
“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).] |
|
Not this doctoral spin and no conjectures or guess works by Ph.Ds, please. There are plenty of them. |
Oh, so you make up a whole bunch of mere guesses and theories that you like with very little basis, but if an historical scholar gives an explanation that you don't like, then he is just guessing, but you are not. You are absolutely ridiculous. You don't even have one single objective bone in your body. Nobody'sd told you how to think that way. I'll bet you don't even know what the word means.
| BMZ wrote: | | Please prove it through the New Testament. |
What do you think is in the passages he cited?
| BMZ wrote: |
Both contradicting genealogies have been written to show men begotten by men. The gospels even do not tell us the name of Mary's mother.
Son-in-law is not the seed of a father-in-law. |
He didn't say that you stupid clown.
| BMZ wrote: |
The entire New Testament does not show the genealogy of Mary at all. Jesus is also wrongly connected to David by misquoting David.
There is nothing solid to show and prove that Mary came from the line of David at all. There is no genealogy of Mary in the New Testament at all.
BMZ |
| Quote: | | If Eli is Joseph’s father, then why does Matt. 1:15 say that Jacob is Joseph’s father? A hint to the answer is found in a Jewish document called the Hieros Chagiagah 77.4. It states that Mary’s father was Heli. Since genealogies were very important to the Jews, this fact should not be ignored. If this is true, this means that the Holy Spirit is giving us Mary’s genealogy |
|
Pazuzu bin Hanbi
|
| BMZ wrote: |
How so?
Why do you think that Mutley is correct? Please give your reasons to show that Mutley is correct.
BMZ |
Durrrr… How about following the link I posted and reading the article therein? 
|
BMZ
|
| Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote: | | BMZ wrote: |
How so?
Why do you think that Mutley is correct? Please give your reasons to show that Mutley is correct.
BMZ |
Durrrr… How about following the link I posted and reading the article therein? |
lol! That is a Christian excuse, Pazuzu. The Christian Scripture is clear. Neither Mary nor Jesus has any link to King David. Whichever way the Christians put a spin, the genealogy gets worse. Trust me.
BMZ
|
Mutley
|
| BMZ wrote: | | Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote: | | BMZ wrote: |
How so?
Why do you think that Mutley is correct? Please give your reasons to show that Mutley is correct.
BMZ |
Durrrr… How about following the link I posted and reading the article therein? |
lol! That is a Christian excuse, Pazuzu. The Christian Scripture is clear. Neither Mary nor Jesus has any link to King David. Whichever way the Christians put a spin, the genealogy gets worse. Trust me.
BMZ |
Naturally. If it doesn't meet your needs, then it is a Christian excuse. But let's move on, because obviously you're not going to accept anything that doesn't promote your point. That much is obvious, so it's pointless to explain to you any further.
So now, let's move on and say your theory is correct. So let's use your very own logic. Jesus was born through a virgin birth because the descendants sinned and the seed had to be reperfected.
So why wasn't Muhammad then also born from a virgin birth? Weren't his descendants pagans for thousands of years? And obviously, paganism was apparently the biggest sin of all.
Ahhh, but we all know you'll change the logic and rules midstream when they don't work in Muhammad's case. We all know that this is what Muslims commonly do. And they never feel any shame doing it. That's probably the worst part of all.
And another good question is that if the seed needed to be re-cleansed, then how come Jesus didn't continue the new, re-cleansed line by giving birth to offspring to continue this new, perfected line?
|
BMZ
|
| Mutley wrote: | | BMZ wrote: | | Mutley wrote: | | Quote: |
Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38. Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:
“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).] |
|
Not this doctoral spin and no conjectures or guess works by Ph.Ds, please. There are plenty of them. |
Oh, so you make up a whole bunch of mere guesses and theories that you like with very little basis, but if an historical scholar gives an explanation that you don't like, then he is just guessing, but you are not. You are absolutely ridiculous. You don't even have one single objective bone in your body. Nobody'sd told you how to think that way. I'll bet you don't even know what the word means.
| BMZ wrote: | | Please prove it through the New Testament. |
What do you think is in the passages he cited?
| BMZ wrote: |
Both contradicting genealogies have been written to show men begotten by men. The gospels even do not tell us the name of Mary's mother.
Son-in-law is not the seed of a father-in-law. |
He didn't say that you stupid clown.
| BMZ wrote: |
The entire New Testament does not show the genealogy of Mary at all. Jesus is also wrongly connected to David by misquoting David.
There is nothing solid to show and prove that Mary came from the line of David at all. There is no genealogy of Mary in the New Testament at all.
BMZ |
| Quote: | | If Eli is Joseph’s father, then why does Matt. 1:15 say that Jacob is Joseph’s father? A hint to the answer is found in a Jewish document called the Hieros Chagiagah 77.4. It states that Mary’s father was Heli. Since genealogies were very important to the Jews, this fact should not be ignored. If this is true, this means that the Holy Spirit is giving us Mary’s genealogy |
|
Mutley, you are cracking me up. There is no Jesus in Jewish documents and you are talking of Mary? You just cannot justify this absurdity of genealogy. You have been fooled by Matthew, Luke and others.
|
BMZ
|
| Mutley wrote: | Naturally. If it doesn't meet your needs, then it is a Christian excuse. But let's move on, because obviously you're not going to accept anything that doesn't promote your point. That much is obvious, so it's pointless to explain to you any further.
So now, let's move on and say your theory is correct. So let's use your very own logic. Jesus was born through a virgin birth because the descendants sinned and the seed had to be reperfected.
So why wasn't Muhammad then also born from a virgin birth? Weren't his descendants pagans for thousands of years? And obviously, paganism was apparently the biggest sin of all.
Ahhh, but we all know you'll change the logic and rules midstream when they don't work in Muhammad's case. We all know that this is what Muslims commonly do. And they never feel any shame doing it. That's probably the worst part of all. |
I have never suggested that the seed had to be perfected. I meant that all the talk of the seed is utter balderdash. By letting Jesus be born of Mary, God considered it was time to shut up the nonsense of seed and it was put to an end. Jesus was only his mother's seed.
All others were born of a father and mother, Muhammad was no exception. Even Jesus was created in his mother's womb and thus was born of a woman, just like any other man.
By the way, Muhammad had no descendants, except a daughter.
| Mutley wrote: | | And another good question is that if the seed needed to be re-cleansed, then how come Jesus didn't continue the new, re-cleansed line by giving birth to offspring to continue this new, perfected line? |
This is really a good question. Jesus did not have any seed for he was his mother's own seed. In other words, Jesus was a clone. He could not pass on his seed as he had no seed. I hope you understand what I am suggesting.
|
Mutley
|
I already said there is no point in discussing that part any further. You're not going to believe anything that doesn't meet your argument. That's fine. So I said we'll just throw out the explanation that Mary has anything to do with it. Then I asked you about Muhammad and how his non virgin birth fits into your theory. And you saw that, but you chose to ignore it and focus back on to the discussion of Mary. We both know why you did that.
|
BMZ
|
| Mutley wrote: | | I already said there is no point in discussing that part any further. You're not going to believe anything that doesn't meet your argument. That's fine. So I said we'll just throw out the explanation that Mary has anything to do with it. Then I asked you about Muhammad and how his non virgin birth fits into your theory. And you saw that, but you chose to ignore it and focus back on to the discussion of Mary. We both know why you did that. |
There was only one virgin birth. The Jews do not even recognise that birth. At least Muslims do. The virgin birth was not a requirement for any other prophets. It was just an isolated case.
Muhammad was just a man, born of earthly parents. Jesus was also just a man, born of an earthly mother.
We have to keep focussed on Mary as there is no lineage of Mary provided in the Christian Bible. We have already discussed that there is no true genealogy of Jesus as he had no earthly father and that is confirmed by Matthew and Luke.
There is no conclusive proof that Heli was the father of Mary.
|
Mutley
|
| BMZ wrote: | | Mutley wrote: | | I already said there is no point in discussing that part any further. You're not going to believe anything that doesn't meet your argument. That's fine. So I said we'll just throw out the explanation that Mary has anything to do with it. Then I asked you about Muhammad and how his non virgin birth fits into your theory. And you saw that, but you chose to ignore it and focus back on to the discussion of Mary. We both know why you did that. |
[i]There was only one virgin birth. The Jews do not even recognise that birth. At least Muslims do. The virgin birth was not a requirement for any other prophets. It was just an isolated case. |
You said it was to clear the seed. So I asked why Muhammad's seed didn't need be cleared as well. Then, you changed your tune and said that it is no longer about clearing a seed, but about not needing a seed at all anymore. Fine, I expect this sort of dishonest shiftiness. So I'll ask the question again from your newly invented, changed angle. Why did God apparently need to get rid of the concept of the seed in the case of Jesus' lineage, but didn't need to do so in the case of Muhammad's lineage? I love watching you tap dance. Keep it up and invent anything you want, because there will ultimately be a hole in your invention that everybody will have a good time looking at. See what happens when you create little fibbish, imaginative inventions?
|
MrInquisitive
|
The three stooges...my favorite Jewish comedians...While riding in a rail car,
Moe said to Larry: (after heel kicking him in the chin) - "Hey... stupid, wake up and go back to sleep"
Larry said: (After being kicked in the chin) "Alright, I wake up and go back to sleep"...
|
MrInquisitive
|
Simply thinking that such a thing merits any attention is absurd.
It is no different than saying that the - so called - biggest prophet Mohammad is the "ONE".
What in the world do the weak minded "believe" about Jesus or Mohammad!!!
In the end, both share a commonality: They each are the "ONE".
What is the freaking difference???
Virgin birth...Such a thing is extremely highly improbable.
Such treatise accomplishes nothing. Why? Because it really is nothing. Everything in existence has a very definitve reason for its existence. I can assure you that that isn't divinity.
If man emanates from divinity, then man is "god"!
If that is the case, then being this divine "god" is "normal" for "man". It isn't anything unusual!
And it stands to reason that "god" is really a biproduct of the Universe, and the Universe is the definitive reason for existence, in any way, shape or form.
All that other crap was a "healing" process invented by the ancient - key word - intellectuals to attempt to "cure" - that ancient man's preocupation with existence - human "illnesses".
The process clearly so evolved that it took on explanations to questions ranging from: Hey, what is that out there? Why does it shine like that? Why can't I touch it?
To understanding that those "shiny, can't touch that" truly exist. They exist no different than you or I.
Why is it that this isn't something we CAN GET OVER, as opposed to saying: Ok, IT IS. Man DOES exist. Within the Universe. I don't suppose you're going to tell me that this is a made up explanation?
If, so, how is my "made up" story any different than the story of Jesus or Mohammad???
Well, I don't want to be arrogant, at all. Surely you wil agree in that my story appears to be closer to reality. Doesn't it???
Not to mention that "my" story does away with all of the "divinity" aspects that are so prevalent of the other "stories".
|
katlike
|
| Quote: | Well, I don't want to be arrogant, at all. Surely you wil agree in that my story appears to be closer to reality. Doesn't it???
Not to mention that "my" story does away with all of the "divinity" aspects that are so prevalent of the other "stories". |
I don't want to be arrogant but your story is no better than the others. Doing away with the divinity takes away from the reason. If Mohammed was just a pissed off old man who liked to take advantage of young, poor, misled guys, why would anyone find him divine? What makes him different from the other leaders of the poor?........
Other than an audience who is completely void of rational thought, what does make mohammed different? Interesting question, any comments?
|
Mutley
|
| MrInquisitive wrote: | | Everything in existence has a very definitve reason for its existence. I can assure you that that isn't divinity. |
How?
|
BMZ
|
| katlike wrote: | | Quote: | Well, I don't want to be arrogant, at all. Surely you wil agree in that my story appears to be closer to reality. Doesn't it???
Not to mention that "my" story does away with all of the "divinity" aspects that are so prevalent of the other "stories". |
I don't want to be arrogant but your story is no better than the others. Doing away with the divinity takes away from the reason. If Mohammed was just a pissed off old man who liked to take advantage of young, poor, misled guys, why would anyone find him divine? What makes him different from the other leaders of the poor?........
Other than an audience who is completely void of rational thought, what does make mohammed different? Interesting question, any comments? |
katlike,
This is not Ali_Sina's FFI. Do not ruin the atmosphere here. You are on a site which is well-read by international readers not just a few goons or assholes like you.
The guy is talking about something else and you come and start dripping shit from your mouth. What makes a biblical guy divine with a young beloved disciple lying on his chest and a naked young man running away?
Go back to the hole where you belong! 
|
Mutley
|
| BMZ wrote: |
[b][i]katlike,
This is not Ali_Sina's FFI. Do not ruin the atmosphere here. You are on a site which is well-read by international readers not just a few goons or assholes like you. |
Wa wa WHAT ???? It has a total of 78 registered users, and the most users ever online at once, including guests, is 9, and I don't think the creator of this forum is highly interested in the site being well read in terms of number of reads and registered users, and far more interested in the users themselves being well read. So what could you possibly be talking about? You appear to be able to become confused semi easily.
|
David
|
| BMZ wrote: | | katlike wrote: | | Quote: | Well, I don't want to be arrogant, at all. Surely you wil agree in that my story appears to be closer to reality. Doesn't it???
Not to mention that "my" story does away with all of the "divinity" aspects that are so prevalent of the other "stories". |
I don't want to be arrogant but your story is no better than the others. Doing away with the divinity takes away from the reason. If Mohammed was just a pissed off old man who liked to take advantage of young, poor, misled guys, why would anyone find him divine? What makes him different from the other leaders of the poor?........
Other than an audience who is completely void of rational thought, what does make mohammed different? Interesting question, any comments? |
katlike,
This is not Ali_Sina's FFI. Do not ruin the atmosphere here. You are on a site which is well-read by international readers not just a few goons or assholes like you.
The guy is talking about something else and[b] you come and start dripping shit from your mouth. What makes a biblical guy divine with a young beloved disciple lying on his chest and a naked young man running away?
Go back to the hole where you belong![/b] |
I don't get you. I just read this in one of your posts:
"Could you avoid personal attacks? I don't like people who behave like the self-loathing sinner Paul."
And the next post of yours I read you say this:
"katlike,
This is not Ali_Sina's FFI. Do not ruin the atmosphere here. You are on a site which is well-read by international readers not just a few goons or assholes like you.
The guy is talking about something else and you come and start dripping shit from your mouth. What makes a biblical guy divine with a young beloved disciple lying on his chest and a naked young man running away?
Go back to the hole where you belong."
???
|
All_Brains
|
| Mutley wrote: | | BMZ wrote: |
[b][i]katlike,
This is not Ali_Sina's FFI. Do not ruin the atmosphere here. You are on a site which is well-read by international readers not just a few goons or assholes like you. |
Wa wa WHAT ???? It has a total of 78 registered users, and the most users ever online at once, including guests, is 9, and I don't think the creator of this forum is highly interested in the site being well read in terms of number of reads and registered users, and far more interested in the users themselves being well read. So what could you possibly be talking about? You appear to be able to become confused semi easily. |
You're right Mutley! This forum was never designed to have a number one aim of being popular.
This forum is designed to unveil the truth and eliminate ignorance.
|
All_Brains
|
| BMZ wrote: | | katlike wrote: | | Quote: | Well, I don't want to be arrogant, at all. Surely you wil agree in that my story appears to be closer to reality. Doesn't it???
Not to mention that "my" story does away with all of the "divinity" aspects that are so prevalent of the other "stories". |
I don't want to be arrogant but your story is no better than the others. Doing away with the divinity takes away from the reason. If Mohammed was just a pissed off old man who liked to take advantage of young, poor, misled guys, why would anyone find him divine? What makes him different from the other leaders of the poor?........
Other than an audience who is completely void of rational thought, what does make mohammed different? Interesting question, any comments? |
katlike,
This is not Ali_Sina's FFI. Do not ruin the atmosphere here. You are on a site which is well-read by international readers not just a few goons or assholes like you.
The guy is talking about something else and you come and start dripping shit from your mouth. What makes a biblical guy divine with a young beloved disciple lying on his chest and a naked young man running away?
Go back to the hole where you belong! |
Wow BMZ....I am really shocked with your over the board reaction!
You must have some history with Katlike, as whatever she said surely doesn't deserve this harsh personal attack.
|
HomoErectus
|
Well, yeah, they have an FFI-board-history...
On the other hand, I think that BMZ also, is on the way to aopostacy !
Doing research all the time, looking up quotes and digging into islam, leads to greater knowledge about it, and the more you know, the more you will begin to doubt...
And you can see, even Ahmed and BMZ are having their differences about islam !
They don't know YET, that they are on the way OUT !
|
BMZ
|
| All_Brains wrote: | | BMZ wrote: | | katlike wrote: | | Quote: | Well, I don't want to be arrogant, at all. Surely you wil agree in that my story appears to be closer to reality. Doesn't it???
Not to mention that "my" story does away with all of the "divinity" aspects that are so prevalent of the other "stories". |
I don't want to be arrogant but your story is no better than the others. Doing away with the divinity takes away from the reason. If Mohammed was just a pissed off old man who liked to take advantage of young, poor, misled guys, why would anyone find him divine? What makes him different from the other leaders of the poor?........
Other than an audience who is completely void of rational thought, what does make mohammed different? Interesting question, any comments? |
katlike,
This is not Ali_Sina's FFI. Do not ruin the atmosphere here. You are on a site which is well-read by international readers not just a few goons or assholes like you.
The guy is talking about something else and you come and start dripping shit from your mouth. What makes a biblical guy divine with a young beloved disciple lying on his chest and a naked young man running away?
Go back to the hole where you belong! |
Wow BMZ....I am really shocked with your over the board reaction!
You must have some history with Katlike, as whatever she said surely doesn't deserve this harsh personal attack. |
My sincere apologies to you only, A_B for the post that I wrote on your site. I am glad you told me it is a she. I have not seen this poster ever contributing anything good on FFI or to a discussion here, except trying to burn bridges and writing a few irrelevant nonsense liners, only to provoke.
She knows what she wrote. I have nothing more to add on this deep sub-Sahara woman.
Let us leave at this and continue with discussions. Thanks
BMZ
|
|
|
|