Unf**king Believable, A mosque to be built at Ground Zero

To protect free speech, there must be conditions: there is no law without the law.
i wonder sometimes..
Just as shouting fire in a closed theatre is not free speech - the notion that one can villify via religious beliefs and get immunity must also be overturned and made illegal.
like the ones claiming marijuana should stay illegal?
or the 911 terrorists..?
this may need to be expanded..
 
Can you explain what you mean by "vilify" and making illegal?

Its not a credible question. Christinaity has the obligation to deal with its deeds which continue and effect others, and Christians must demand this be done. Now we have two religions doing hail hitler salutes at the UN terrorising a small 4000 year nation, and everyone is pretending everything is normal. No - its not.

I think christianity and Islam should make up their minds: are Jews born of the devil or the apes? Do Jews with beedy eyes and horns snigger when someone's lord is murdered or someones' prophet is murdered?

Of course, if one reduces this to an ordinary case in an ordinary court, the judge will demand proof - the Hebrew law says two independent and reliable witnesses are required on charges of murder, and if the proof is found deficient, then the penalty is reversed on the false accusers. But both these religions have escaped any jurisdiction, even as they have become the greatest murderers of innocent people bar none. Why - because they signed up in the dotted line which guarantees them 100% immunity from all crimes?

The next question will be, has anyone, anywhere, now or in past history - seen or heard of Jews perpetrating the acts they are acussed of by two religions - aside from the charges made by these accusers? The next question will be have the accusers perpetrated such deeds throughout their histories? Do these two religions really believe these questions will not be demanded of them - how so?

Knock-knock! I do not believe in a wink-wink lord who will not ask such questions, nor can I ever be one who will not demand these questions at the top of the preamble.



**this does not include actions to prohibit them from practicing or voicing their ideologies by force or by law, like restricting free speech to one group over another

The list of un-anticipated qestions boggles.

Which is the Jewish homeland. Why did Christianity bar the Jews from returning to their land when it begat power. Why was the Balfour corrupted and all Christian or Muslims remain silent. Can those who have stolen land and massacred the natives throughout their histories - accuse those who have never done so ever. Why is a 3-state called a 2-state. Why is Israel asked to negotiate with those who can never accept Israel's right to exist. Why has the Pope remained silent of blood libels and Protocols openly display in the Islamic world - when these heinous lies came from the Pope's backyard. Did over a million Jews sacrifice themselves to uphold the right to their belief - in the face of the Gospel writers, who forgot to mention this in their holy writ.
Christianity and Islam should come of age and cease having a belief based on SUBJECT TO JEWS BEING BAD. This is not a belief. And Christians and Muslims must stop pretending it is. All for thine own good. The two king kongs can start by restoring the Balfour and apologise to Jews for calling wanton mass murderers of Jews as Palestineans - your Lord is surely embarrassed about it.

WALK HUMBLY WITH THY GOD.
 
I don't think there are Devil Worshipers around much? I mean, now a days they probably play WOW or something instead... and it's more fun :)

If you say so...

What about Shinto who worship a River God? Are they Devil Worshipers?

"If there were other gods
in either [Heaven or Earth]
besides God [Alone],
they would both dissolve in chaos."

"Devil worshiper" is slightly different from an idol worshipper.


We live and we die. Sadly that's it.

That is your range of knowledge.
 
Yes, that's what I thought you meant. I'm familiar with ye olde accusation of triunalism against Christians, but what are you talking about WRT Judaism and polytheism there?

the common usage of the words involve the worshiping but the actual definition of the words are about the belief in the existence of gods. their are elements in both christianity and judaism that imply the belief in the existence of more than one god
 
their are elements in both christianity and judaism that imply the belief in the existence of more than one god

This is agenda based madarasa BS. Monotheism in its purest and most pristine form was introduced via Judaism, and none and nothing has ever measured near it. You are not one anyone can seriously debate with: you read the command not to follow other gods as being an admission of other gods - which is banana logic, and one which contradicts all the five Mosaic books.

Of course, Islam's eronous conclusion is wrong even grammatically: 'shall not' also means will not, will not prevail, it is wrong to believe so. It is also wrong historically: Jews were the only monotheists at one time, and alone faced existential wars to uphold this premise, while the pre-Islamic people, before they interacted with Jews - were consumed in polytheism.

Christianity chose the Hebrew bible because it saw this belief system as supreme, even tossing its kin beliefs of Hellenism and Romanism. The world's institutions chose the Hebrew laws for the same reason.

The fact is, in a sense there were other gods, at least this was humanity's perception, and it was very real to them - a parent would sacrifice their most cherished child for one of those false deities. So the 10 C's are speaking in consideration of man's nature and ways, but it is advocating a rejection, not a selection, of other gods.

Islam is not monotheistic - because it attaches a name of its messenger as a condition of its monotheism. In contrast, Moses - the greatest human, does not have his name attached to any of 613 laws in the Hebrew bible! But any simple person knows - Islam is a new kid on the block - and Monotheism prevailed 2,600 years previously. Islam cannot teach Jews a damn thing - nor the world it seems.
 
This is agenda based madarasa BS.
I can understand as a religious fanatic you would attack schools but no it isn't BS it is based in the displinces involved.
Monotheism in its purest and most pristine form was introduced via Judaism,
Monetheism predates Judiasm
and none and nothing has ever measured near it.
well except for the things that did.
You are not one anyone can seriously debate with:
your projecting
you read the command not to follow other gods as being an admission of other gods - which is banana logic,
no its common sense. if there were truly no other gods the command would not have been needed.
and one which contradicts all the five Mosaic books.
Not my problem if jews wanted it both ways

religious bullshit nonsense that I will not bother dealing with
 
the common usage of the words involve the worshiping but the actual definition of the words are about the belief in the existence of gods. their are elements in both christianity and judaism that imply the belief in the existence of more than one god

What elements?
 
Not my opinion but some historical facts:

The Islamic regime states created by Briton have no history or historical borders - Israel does. And dumping mosques on another peoples sacred sites, then denying it - is a historical tradition with Muslims wherever they have thread - from Jerusalem to India - and now attacking NY, NY. The Jews have never occupied another peoples' land in all their 4000 years history, despite being dispersed throughout the nations - the reverse applies with Muslims.
Yes, the Jews have historically been pushed around. They have a rich history of recorded data. Without recorded data, a "displaced" culture can be forgotten and "assimilated". Yes, the Christians and Muslims are pushy factions.
Recent events like the fall of communist rule in the region, followed by a strong Christian advance into that vacuum, coupled with the added influx of U.S. forces onto Muslim territories, would naturally make Muslims nervous.

Many Jewish bloodlines are dangerously inbred. Inbreeding causes health issues. Diversity is a way to prevent that.
 
I think we should have mosques IN the buildings. Maybe that would keep them safe from future fanatics.

Or would Christians just blow them up, then?
 
I think we should have mosques IN the buildings. Maybe that would keep them safe from future fanatics.

Or would Christians just blow them up, then?

It is my understanding that there was a substantial Islamic presence in the building(s) that perished along with the other victims.

(Because of this, the Quran would imply the hijacker terrorists did not get their heavenly harem. Quite the opposite).
 
It is my understanding that there was a substantial Islamic presence in the building(s) that perished along with the other victims.

(Because of this, the Quran would imply the hijacker terrorists did not get their heavenly harem. Quite the opposite).

There is nothing surprising about Muslims blowing up Muslims in Mosques, even during religious festivals and natural dsasters. There seems only one mode of response from Muslims to any grieviences historically, and it has nothing to do with non-muslims.
 
Many Jewish bloodlines are dangerously inbred. Inbreeding causes health issues. Diversity is a way to prevent that.

There is no in-bred here. The laws of incest, and what constitutes it, is nowhere more comprehensively described than in the Hebrew bible, detailing why marrying a nephew constitutes incest but not so with a niece! The resultant health issue you mention, is best affirmed by the longevity of the Jewish race, 4000 years and still going strong despite every attempt to erase them. Medicine was first separated from the ocult in the Hebrew bible. :)
 
the holy texts talk about people worshiping other gods and the whole thou shall not have any other gods before me

Omissions will get you wherever you want to go - except the truth.

Strangely, this law against not worshing other Gods was established 3,500 years ago, and since that time the people who did worship other Gods were not Jews but the Arabs, who were among the greatest polytheists in history!

Further, while the Jews never had this trait [after the golden calf episode], constitute the only people who do not worship other gods ever, and withstood numerous existential wars to uphold this law. They rejected Islam because they saw no monotheism here in the attachment of Mohammed [other gods] as the condition which determines monotheism [no god w/o Mohammed!]. In contrast, Moses and Abraham's names are not attached as conditions of monotheism.

How depraved that a Muslim will interpret NOT TO FOLLOW OTHER GODS as an admission of other gods being a reality? The reality is:

I AM THE LORD THY GOD - I AM ONE - THERE IS NO OTHER.

A lie-by-omission is - surprise, surprise! - a lie.

Guess why Moses, the greatest prophet and the only one who stood presence to presence with the creator - was asked to stand down with the people when the Sinai revelation happened. IOW, thou shalt not have any other gods, prophets, messengers, messiahs, names - before the Creator - because all percieved other gods is a folly. Thus no God w/o Mohammed is also a folly. :D
 
Giambattista said:
Can you explain what you mean by "vilify" and making illegal?
Its not a credible question. Christinaity has the obligation to deal with its deeds which continue and effect others, and Christians must demand this be done. Now we have two religions doing hail hitler salutes at the UN terrorising a small 4000 year nation, and everyone is pretending everything is normal. No - its not.

Hmmm. Either I misunderstood your original statement, or you understood mine. Or you don't feel it's... credible? :bugeye:

Look, I wasted a lot of time on that post and I thought it had both content and purpose. NO ONE including you, whom I addressed, gave any coherent reply.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2620397&postcount=575
Giambattista said:
Those who call for violence because their personal religious or philosophical ideals have been perceived as offended or violated** in some way have no excuse for their actions and should not be protected by restricting free speech. Doing so would essentially create a protected minority, above and beyond others.

Can you explain what you mean by "vilify" and making illegal?
:(

Did I fail somehow?

I think christianity and Islam should make up their minds: are Jews born of the devil or the apes? Do Jews with beedy eyes and horns snigger when someone's lord is murdered or someones' prophet is murdered?

Uh, I addressed you asking for clarification about religious free speech, and then you tell me that it is not a valid question. You go even further and ask about beady eyes and horns on Jews. Of course, you forgot hook nose.


The list of un-anticipated qestions boggles.

Uh, can you tell me how this is a reply to what I wrote? You previously responded to me with this..
This whole mosque thing is another staged, divisive contrivance, like the Quran burning or the Sherrod Charade.

I only hope we don't see laws being passed that limit free speech because Muslims might be offended.

To protect free seech, there must be conditions: there is no law without the law. Just as shouting fire in a closed theatre is not free speech - the notion that one can villify via religious beliefs and get immunity must also be overturned and made illegal.

This is inevitable for humanity's future. This will take a long time - because it impacts the two biggest religions the most - these beliefs seem cannot survive without villifications: they are 'SUBJECT TO JEWS' religions. Even when they know each contradicts the other of the same historical events their beliefs are hinged upon. Huston - we have a problem here!

And I responded to what I thought you were saying. Now you just want to talk about Jews having horns?

Huston? Invoking the Grand High Witch, are you?
angelica_huston_witch.jpg



Do you know what relevance your response had to what I wrote?
 
This is true, but not polytheistic in its essence. I consider it a point of tolerance.

well under common usage(which in all honesty is generally what defines a word) it is pretty much what your saying but under the techincal dictionary definition( which I normally go with, I am kind of a snob like that) it is.
 
Back
Top