Nobody can follow the law. You'd have to be perfect to live your life without breaking the law. Especially the part about coveting your neighbor's wife's ass. What we need is somebody to fulfill the law and free us from it. And that's about where the Old Testament ends. Now who is this Jesus guy? What's he do?
A religion of peace which worships the same God? not per ISIS and Burke
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
He kicks ass with croissants. If Jesus shows up in your neighbourhood, please let him know we have a senior position with full expat benefits waiting for him in our local bakery.
%%
Long story short, O Trader ; because the longer some ignore so stupid Hamen, so stupid Hitler, so stupid Osama Ben laden; they worse they get.
Some wonder,WHY did God put up with lions killing sheep, Jesus Christ is the ''good shepherd?? Well king David killed lions.........................................................Frankly i wonder why dim wits in CA outlaw lion killing?? Thanks
Jesus's whole bag, man, was he upended the Judaic law of Moses and said, "Dudes, there's an easier way". Do not eye-for-eye (do not be vengeful), but turn the other cheek (be tolerant). Do not turn away the stranger from the home of 3 peeps because you have only enough to feed 3 peeps. Invite the guy in, and you may find a way to feed double that amount, with that stranger's talents. Etc Etc on and on. Oi vey.
Long before Muhemad cut and pasted from mostly Jewish liturature, Marcion argued that the god of the old testament was definitely not the god of the new testament.
You can't put new wine in old wineskins, yet, despite these kinds of admonitions, sufficient numbers of Jews, including James, Jesus' own blood brother, and Saul, a Johnny come lately who had trained to be a Pharisee, brought enough of Judaism with them to Jesus philosophy to convince us that Jesus represented Judaism, as if it were important to heed it's list of 600+ "laws", but whom was sufficiently misunderstood by those in Judaism who knew thier literature the most as to be rejected by them as heretical.
I abandoned Judeo-Christianity, the mainstream version, 20 years ago without regret.
From my vantage point, it's easy to see that Mohammeds alleged philosophy is much closer to Hebrew story traditions, and it's god, than anything Marcion promoted.
While I see differences between the expected behavior of theses three "Abrahamic" religions "of the book", it's obvious that all claim to be responsible to the god that made the bees, trees, and the seas.
There are other Christians, so-called heretics, that say the god that made the bees, trees and seas is the proverbial "god of this world"...if you know what I mean.
As long as those types of Christians are considered heretics by the main stream of Judaized "Judeo Christians", I don't see how Mohammeeds sect can be anything other than the bastard child of a strange relationship between Hebrew tribal cults, and Judeo-Christian cults.
I would suggest that violence stills breeds violence. And so, to understand Mohammmud, and his marauding preachers with a book in one hand and a bloody knife in the other, one must look to his philosophical parents.
It would be better if the Abrahamic faith cults could keep their family fighting amongst themselves, punishing themselves only for the foolish faiths they idolize. Unfortunately, their feud has crossed all bounds, and now bystanders suffer the violent nature of any religion that idolizes the god who made the bees, trees, and the seas.
Thus, Burke is quibbling, trying to wash the hands of his religion. But those hands are still not clean.
You can't put new wine in old wineskins, yet, despite these kinds of admonitions, sufficient numbers of Jews, including James, Jesus' own blood brother, and Saul, a Johnny come lately who had trained to be a Pharisee, brought enough of Judaism with them to Jesus philosophy to convince us that Jesus represented Judaism, as if it were important to heed it's list of 600+ "laws", but whom was sufficiently misunderstood by those in Judaism who knew thier literature the most as to be rejected by them as heretical.
I abandoned Judeo-Christianity, the mainstream version, 20 years ago without regret.
From my vantage point, it's easy to see that Mohammeds alleged philosophy is much closer to Hebrew story traditions, and it's god, than anything Marcion promoted.
While I see differences between the expected behavior of theses three "Abrahamic" religions "of the book", it's obvious that all claim to be responsible to the god that made the bees, trees, and the seas.
There are other Christians, so-called heretics, that say the god that made the bees, trees and seas is the proverbial "god of this world"...if you know what I mean.
As long as those types of Christians are considered heretics by the main stream of Judaized "Judeo Christians", I don't see how Mohammeeds sect can be anything other than the bastard child of a strange relationship between Hebrew tribal cults, and Judeo-Christian cults.
I would suggest that violence stills breeds violence. And so, to understand Mohammmud, and his marauding preachers with a book in one hand and a bloody knife in the other, one must look to his philosophical parents.
It would be better if the Abrahamic faith cults could keep their family fighting amongst themselves, punishing themselves only for the foolish faiths they idolize. Unfortunately, their feud has crossed all bounds, and now bystanders suffer the violent nature of any religion that idolizes the god who made the bees, trees, and the seas.
Thus, Burke is quibbling, trying to wash the hands of his religion. But those hands are still not clean.
Last edited:
Crusades were in response to Muslims. Muslims were trying to take over Europe and they started the Crusades to defend their homeland and fight back the Muslims. You probably haven't heard that part.
Below is a video for you:
Last edited:
So as mentioned in prior post, all three "Abrahamic" faiths idolize a god having the SAME SCOPE of POWER.
For example, the god idolized by all three faith camps consider their god was able, willing and did make the bees, the trees and the seas.
Yet despite this much power, all three faiths suggest this power is challenged by at least one formidable arch enemy. The enemy is even named.
All three say the enemy is invisible, and yet infects the minds of visible dupes, otherwise known as man.
And all three are expecting a special envoy from heaven to come down and discard all men who have been infected by the invisible enemy.
Already, this says MUCH about the CHARACTER of their ido...er, i mean their god.
Already, we can make some assessments about the idol's "love" vs it's ability and willingness to be a "governer".
The quibbling over the difference between this love, and this ability, but apparently unwillingness to govern (for a long bloody period of time), is minor semantics, compared to the overwhelming postures, so far, of this idol. The semantics completely ignores the non-governing god's micro management of Jewish law, right down to the threads in their clothing.
Is this the same god who made the flesh eating dinosaurs, as well as all other flesh eating predators? The lions, the tigers, the grizzly bear, the shark, the coyote, the hyena, the vulture, the python, the alligator, the wolves, and every other natural predator? Many of these, besides parasites, would feed on man, if given half a chance. These, and many more, feed off other creatures supplied by the god of "love".
Admittedly, the stomach, or the need to feed, is built-in with any sentient creature made by the god of this world. All three faith cults would have to admit this. Yet none really question the "love" involved in this design. Yet look around and see the effects of the need to feed, in the animal kingdom, and in man's kingdom.
As such, all three would have to admit that the god has WITH-HELD some vital qualities from it's creatures, qualities it keeps to itself, such as:
Knowledge
Eternal life
Sovereignty (no dependencies such as food)
Witholding is a character issue. It is NOT a quality of love.
By witholding knowledge, and giving ignorance instead, this idol has insured that a great evil, perhaps the greatest evil, is BUILT-IN to it's machinations. Merely look at the animal kingdom and see how ignorance plays out, where every animal has a stomach, and a need to feed. All this is built in, before ever any alledged "sin" has entered the matrix.
It should be obvious that death was built in to the animal kingdom. Indeed, if death was not built into the mosquito kingdom, most other kingdoms would have not just a problem, but eternal suffering built in.
Seeing all this built-in death, these faith cults have the arrogance to suggest that at one time, man was meant to have eternal life, or perhaps even did have eternal life.
Given the size of the globe and a birth rate, this too could become a problem. It guarantees death to the members of many other kingdoms, if man's stomach is designed for flesh. Given ignorance, a stomach, and a birthrate, this also guarantees death to man, when the ignorance of man compel's him to compete for food resources, instead of making a magic powder appear on a plate, ala Star Trek.
All this, before the concept of "sin" has entered the matrix.
All this, built in.
NONE of these three faith cults will admit that what has been built in, must be, on it's own, some kind of sin.
All three faith cults BLAME man for what has apparently gone wrong, even though what has gone wrong has been built in to the matrix.
BLAME, we must admit, is a function of IGNORANCE, which, we must admit, was built in to the original matrix, which witheld knowledge.
All three faith cults continue to hold knoweldge to be a "sin".
Arguing whether there are appropriate levels of knowledge for one kingdom versus another is itself a function of ignorance.
For example, there may be an argument that knowledge is ok for man, but NOT THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD.
Again, this is an argument based on ignorance, and has been built in to man's nature by any god which has made man, and WITHELD ITS OWN KNOWLEDGE from the creature.
Christianity has even fewer excuses because it admits that at least one creature, which it calls a "Son", has been given everything the "Father" god posesses. This would include equal power, and equal knowledge.
And so, Christianity has to admit that the god idolized by all three Abrahamic faiths has the ability to not WITH-HOLD anything. However, when it came time to make man, this god DID WITH-HOLD, and DID NOT give everything possible.
I have not heard one good explanation as for why the same god would give everything to one kind of son, and with hold vital necessities from another kind of son. And then blame the second kind of son for it's responses.
I hope i am making it clear just how much thinkers like Burke are quibbling.
One thought-branch of Christianity suggests that despite making two different kinds of "sons", assuming "Adam" (the first man) is a son, the god is fair because it TESTED both sons equally. The first kind of son passed the test, and the second kind of son failed the test.
And thus, this thought-branch paints the character of it's idol, yet is too blind, given it's ignorance, to see the problem with a god who TESTS anything at all, let alone tests two DIFFERENT kinds of sons.
It get's worse when you consider that one test was a loyalty-to-death test. All branches of Christianity put forward a version of the loyalty-to-death test for at least one of the sons.
These are, in my opinion, extremely blasphemous characterizations of any god that is truly good. Give these crazy characterizations to a crazy desert nomad like Muhoomood, and the results could be explosive.
Muthumood's version of faith also includes a loyalty-to-death test.
Christians, who ignore the fact that any loyalty-to-death test is a kind of VIOLENCE, also ignore that they may be the psychologically violent parent of a violent bastard child.
To speak of love in regards to a loyalty-to-death test is, imo, a kind of psychological violence, enough to drive any desert nomad insane.
This is why i have said, and repeat, Christian hands are not clean enough to clean up the mess of it's offspring.
We could only wish it's offspring would confine it's attacks to it's brethren (Sunni vs Shiite), or it's parents (Christian vs Jew). Unfortunately, the ignorance inspired brawl spills out onto the street, down into the alleys, and into the homes of bystanders and children.
I hope i have made it clear that the original design of a with-holding god must include war, and that the worship of any such god will also bring war.
Telling us that such a god is loving, is itself a means of waging war. Such psychological warfare could be called "cold", while it's fruits could be called "hot".
Burke maintains the propaganda of a cold war.
Associating any good god with anything at all regarding this world, especially it's original design, is as blasphemous as it is possible to get. Do not be surprised if such blasphemy drives a few desert nomads insane.
For example, the god idolized by all three faith camps consider their god was able, willing and did make the bees, the trees and the seas.
Yet despite this much power, all three faiths suggest this power is challenged by at least one formidable arch enemy. The enemy is even named.
All three say the enemy is invisible, and yet infects the minds of visible dupes, otherwise known as man.
And all three are expecting a special envoy from heaven to come down and discard all men who have been infected by the invisible enemy.
Already, this says MUCH about the CHARACTER of their ido...er, i mean their god.
Already, we can make some assessments about the idol's "love" vs it's ability and willingness to be a "governer".
The quibbling over the difference between this love, and this ability, but apparently unwillingness to govern (for a long bloody period of time), is minor semantics, compared to the overwhelming postures, so far, of this idol. The semantics completely ignores the non-governing god's micro management of Jewish law, right down to the threads in their clothing.
Is this the same god who made the flesh eating dinosaurs, as well as all other flesh eating predators? The lions, the tigers, the grizzly bear, the shark, the coyote, the hyena, the vulture, the python, the alligator, the wolves, and every other natural predator? Many of these, besides parasites, would feed on man, if given half a chance. These, and many more, feed off other creatures supplied by the god of "love".
Admittedly, the stomach, or the need to feed, is built-in with any sentient creature made by the god of this world. All three faith cults would have to admit this. Yet none really question the "love" involved in this design. Yet look around and see the effects of the need to feed, in the animal kingdom, and in man's kingdom.
As such, all three would have to admit that the god has WITH-HELD some vital qualities from it's creatures, qualities it keeps to itself, such as:
Knowledge
Eternal life
Sovereignty (no dependencies such as food)
Witholding is a character issue. It is NOT a quality of love.
By witholding knowledge, and giving ignorance instead, this idol has insured that a great evil, perhaps the greatest evil, is BUILT-IN to it's machinations. Merely look at the animal kingdom and see how ignorance plays out, where every animal has a stomach, and a need to feed. All this is built in, before ever any alledged "sin" has entered the matrix.
It should be obvious that death was built in to the animal kingdom. Indeed, if death was not built into the mosquito kingdom, most other kingdoms would have not just a problem, but eternal suffering built in.
Seeing all this built-in death, these faith cults have the arrogance to suggest that at one time, man was meant to have eternal life, or perhaps even did have eternal life.
Given the size of the globe and a birth rate, this too could become a problem. It guarantees death to the members of many other kingdoms, if man's stomach is designed for flesh. Given ignorance, a stomach, and a birthrate, this also guarantees death to man, when the ignorance of man compel's him to compete for food resources, instead of making a magic powder appear on a plate, ala Star Trek.
All this, before the concept of "sin" has entered the matrix.
All this, built in.
NONE of these three faith cults will admit that what has been built in, must be, on it's own, some kind of sin.
All three faith cults BLAME man for what has apparently gone wrong, even though what has gone wrong has been built in to the matrix.
BLAME, we must admit, is a function of IGNORANCE, which, we must admit, was built in to the original matrix, which witheld knowledge.
All three faith cults continue to hold knoweldge to be a "sin".
Arguing whether there are appropriate levels of knowledge for one kingdom versus another is itself a function of ignorance.
For example, there may be an argument that knowledge is ok for man, but NOT THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD.
Again, this is an argument based on ignorance, and has been built in to man's nature by any god which has made man, and WITHELD ITS OWN KNOWLEDGE from the creature.
Christianity has even fewer excuses because it admits that at least one creature, which it calls a "Son", has been given everything the "Father" god posesses. This would include equal power, and equal knowledge.
And so, Christianity has to admit that the god idolized by all three Abrahamic faiths has the ability to not WITH-HOLD anything. However, when it came time to make man, this god DID WITH-HOLD, and DID NOT give everything possible.
I have not heard one good explanation as for why the same god would give everything to one kind of son, and with hold vital necessities from another kind of son. And then blame the second kind of son for it's responses.
I hope i am making it clear just how much thinkers like Burke are quibbling.
One thought-branch of Christianity suggests that despite making two different kinds of "sons", assuming "Adam" (the first man) is a son, the god is fair because it TESTED both sons equally. The first kind of son passed the test, and the second kind of son failed the test.
And thus, this thought-branch paints the character of it's idol, yet is too blind, given it's ignorance, to see the problem with a god who TESTS anything at all, let alone tests two DIFFERENT kinds of sons.
It get's worse when you consider that one test was a loyalty-to-death test. All branches of Christianity put forward a version of the loyalty-to-death test for at least one of the sons.
These are, in my opinion, extremely blasphemous characterizations of any god that is truly good. Give these crazy characterizations to a crazy desert nomad like Muhoomood, and the results could be explosive.
Muthumood's version of faith also includes a loyalty-to-death test.
Christians, who ignore the fact that any loyalty-to-death test is a kind of VIOLENCE, also ignore that they may be the psychologically violent parent of a violent bastard child.
To speak of love in regards to a loyalty-to-death test is, imo, a kind of psychological violence, enough to drive any desert nomad insane.
This is why i have said, and repeat, Christian hands are not clean enough to clean up the mess of it's offspring.
We could only wish it's offspring would confine it's attacks to it's brethren (Sunni vs Shiite), or it's parents (Christian vs Jew). Unfortunately, the ignorance inspired brawl spills out onto the street, down into the alleys, and into the homes of bystanders and children.
I hope i have made it clear that the original design of a with-holding god must include war, and that the worship of any such god will also bring war.
Telling us that such a god is loving, is itself a means of waging war. Such psychological warfare could be called "cold", while it's fruits could be called "hot".
Burke maintains the propaganda of a cold war.
Associating any good god with anything at all regarding this world, especially it's original design, is as blasphemous as it is possible to get. Do not be surprised if such blasphemy drives a few desert nomads insane.
Last edited:
Last edited: