Originally posted by MagnumOpus
I do believe you are a really messed up person,
You may believe what you like. I think I've already made it clear that your beliefs
are of a very high degree of disinterest to me.
Everyone can believe as they will - you included - and it makes no difference to me at all unless and until that belief starts to infringe on ME.
as you have expressed your hate of the Christians. Hate the Islamics. Hate just about everything, except your perverted views of fantasy
Typical Socialist debate tactic - if you can't assail the logic of an argument, try tarring the messenger instead, accuse them of some heinous social
"crime" in an effort to shame them into submission - nowhere have I expressed any hate of anyone - not Christians, not Muslims, not you, not anyone.
Arguing against a misguided belief that is continually assailing you is not "hate", nor is it "bigotry" to refuse to succumb to someone else's belief
simply because they say you have to.
I don't hate Muslims - some are among my dearest friends. I don't hate Christians - I would identify myself AS one if they weren't so fractious in
their infighting over their various interpretations of the Bible.
Standing against a philosophical argument is NOT the same thing as "hating" anyone.
I don't think you'd like even the issue of the One God concept,
The One God concept is not what is being pushed here, nor is that as a basic concept anything I would find offensive. It happens that I firmly
believe in One God, and argue ceaselessly in favor of that concept when it is assailed... in the proper venue. Arguing in favor of a Sumerian
Pantheon, a plurality of long dead gods, in a thread whose topic is neither religion nor ancient events, nor Mesopotamia is not a proper venue for
as yours is a pagan god that seeks riches, self aggrandization, and hate of all but yourself. You are an obnoxious Bigot of most religion issues.
I may be guilty as charged (i.e "obnoxious" or "bigoted") - or I may not. The fact is, I don't care at all about the charge itself as leveled against
me. On the other hand, you know nothing of my God, and are supremely unqualified to make the above assessment as to my religious beliefs.
So, I don't think I value your opinion except for a place in the landfill as fertilizer, and even there it is unwelcome.
Good. the feeling is mutual, and I don't expect you to care about my opinion any more than I care about yours - especially as expressed just above.
whether or not you "value my opinion" is also entirely irrelevant to a thread on Iran. I will give my opinion, whether you value it or not, and you
are not required to care. Nor am I required to care about yours - but I do expect it to somehow mesh with the topic at hand, rather than go off on an
I do value Thomas Jefferson's ideas for Jesus, and he agreed well with Islam's view of Jesus. Jefferson's ideas on Constitution and Religion were
spot on, as he recognized the need of not getting involved in the endless foreign wars and the need for the nation to keep control of money and
banking to protect the freedom of the people.
Jefferson's opinions on religion are his own, and none of my business. Do you happen to have a copy of his version of the New Testament? I do. Do you
know what the Christian objection to his views on Jesus is? I do - the basis for that objection is found in that Jeffersonian New Testament.
BTW, I'm sure you are aware of, but will not point out, that Jefferson was the first American president to lead a war against Muslims. It was the same
war in which the marine Corps Hymn gained it's famous line running "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli
". An honest appraisal
of his views on "foreign adventurism" would necessarily include that episode.
You do realize that Jefferson was neither a Christian nor a Muslim - he was a Deist - and so his views on Jesus are no more nor less valid than anyone
JFK also recognized these higher realm issues that would ban the lower realm issues of Fed Reserve, ban protecting Israel's bomb, then apply
non-proliferation to Israel and nuclear disarm Israel.
I'm going to need a solid reference for the assertion that JFK had intentions if interfering with the sovereign affairs of a foreign nation against
international law. Unless Israel signed the Treaty - which did not exist in the days of JFK - he had no legal basis for action there.
Islam's issues with Christians is the Cross that stems from Tammuz, it connects with the issues for Satan, as do the Trinity issue applied to Christ.
Islam likes the real Jesus theme, but not the perversions adopted by Constantine and the continuation of the false image from the wants of
No. Those are not the Islamic issues with Christianity. learn about Islam, learn about the history
of Islam and it's relations with
Christianity, learn something - anything! - about Christianity, then try to make that argument again, with a straight face. The Qur'an itself sets
forth the Islamic objection to Christianity, and that particular passage is engraved in the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, on the Temple mount
(al-Haram to Muslims, who refuse to acknowledge the prior claim of the Jewish Temple). it does not mention Tammuz, nor a cross, nor even Satan.
An assault against "capitalism" is nothing more than a Socialist smoke screen. It in no way supports Islam - some of my Islamic friends are among the
most truly capitalistic people I have EVER met - and as a matter of fact, Muslims do not get along with Socialists at all well since Socialists reject
any god in favor of men. that's what the whole war in Afghanistan was about against the Soviets - from the Islamic perspective of the mujahideen.
If you are a Socialist - and I believe there is a good chance that is the case, based upon clues you have dropped in your posts here and there
throughout the thread - you should be made aware that you are courting disaster by attempting to Woo Muslims. Russia learned that lesson too late, and
China is in the process of learning it as we speak.
In Egypt, the Christians are the garbage collectors and they live apart from the city on a mesa high area where they can raise their pigs. But the
Islamics there occasionally raid the Christian areas and kill all their pigs.
So much for the religious tolerance everyone claims Islam espouses. Thank you for pointing that out.
Islam likes the real Jesus theme, but they really don't like the perversion of Christ that too many Chistians unwittingly follow.
that is a matter of opinion (i.e. the "REAL Jesus theme") and is a matter to be taken up between you and whichever god, gods, or God gets ahold of you
in due time, just as it is for Muslims and the myriad Christian factions. We will all answer for what we believe at some point, but not to any other
The Christians do have a serious problem that stems from the Trinity and Son of god concepts. They use the "Son of god" in the attempt to make Jesus
as god, which can't really happen. While Jesus came along as a Son of god, and he was to remove the Babylon Talmud concepts of god linked with
Tammuz, and that in some way made him god in a loose way as the old god concept was made dead and the Son survived as god. The reality is the real
God is immortal, never dies, and Jesus can't then replace the real God.
That is the shoddiest concept of what Christians believe that I have ever seen - other than the Islamic concept of what Christians believe as
explained in the Qur'an. Neither your notion of what Christians believe nor the Islamic notion of what Christians believe can ever trump what the
Christians THEMSELVES explain as their belief. It stands to reason that a Christian would know what they believe better than any outsider ever could.
That is no different than a Christian who has never been a Muslim trying to explain the basic concepts of Islam - it will never happen in any accurate
manner, because Christians in general have never known the inside of Islam - only what they see on the outside.
Sort of like your concept of Christianity.
The Book of Barnabis speaks to this, and Jesus didn't really see himself as the immortal God. Yet, Jesus saw himself as being devinely inspired to
do the work for God. Jesus can't really become God, yet some attempt these wrong interpretations of many of the issues. Even Thomas Jefferson cut
out a bible that removed these bad concepts assigned to Jesus.
The Book of Barnabas is a spurious creation written to assault Christianity - probably by Muslims but at least one version of it's origin has it
having been written by a Jew who converted to Islam. The oldest confirmed copies of it date no further back than the 16th century, and not even
fragments of an earlier version have ever been discovered. I'm aware that there is a recently "discovered" copy that is as yet undated, but is
presumed to be no older than the 7th century - the birth of Islam - and is quite likely much younger than that. we'll have to wait on the dating
results to see.
The Book of Barnabas can in no way, neither internally nor externally, be traced to the actual Barnabas. Internal evidence points to a 16th century
origin in Italy, at a time when Italy was under assault by Islamic raiders.
I see you as a bigoted fanatic with a fantasy religion of which you are the sole member. imho
I should care about YOUR proclamations against MY religion... why? I should care about YOUR assessment of MY "bigotry"... why? I'm not a Socialist,
and uninformed and malicious attempts at social pressure leave no marks upon me at all.
Have fun trying, though!
edit on 2012/3/13 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)