"We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends."

[risky biz]

"A prominent Dutch cartoonist at Charlie Hebdo heaped scorn on the French satirical weekly's "new friends" since the massacre at its Paris offices on Wednesday.

France's far-right National Front leader "Marine Le Pen is delighted when the Islamists start shooting all over the place," said Willem, 73, a longtime Paris resident who also draws for the French leftist daily Liberation.

He added: "We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends."
http://news.yahoo.com/vomit-charlies-sudden-friends-staff-cartoonist-163403612.html

Is there anyone who seriously thinks that 'furkon' wasn't thrilled when he heard of the terrorist attack in France?

[Bea Foroni]

I don't pretend to be friends with Charlie. One waves a red flag in front of a bull and we're surprised when one dies? I don't think so.

I feel for the poor French cops who were gunned down (one was Muslim), and I feel for the innocent by-standers. But I do not shed tears for those who ridicule a religion and then reap the whirlwind.

[fffurken]

Well if there was ever was any doubt that you are a fully signed up member of that most unholy of alliances - The Leftist/Islamist alliance, it has been removed.

You probably blame victims of Muslim rape for how they dress too..

[Bea Foroni]

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 9:00:23 AM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:


>
> You probably blame victims of Muslim rape for how they dress too..

You know, if you go to a Irish vs. German soccer match and sit in the German section cheering on the Irish, would you be surprised if you got a beer poured on you?

"When New York artist Andres Serrano plunged a plastic crucifix into a glass of his own urine and photographed it in 1987 under the title Piss Christ, he said he was making a statement on the misuse of religion.

"Controversy has followed the work ever since, but reached an unprecedented peak on Palm Sunday when it was attacked with hammers and destroyed after an "anti-blasphemy" campaign by French Catholic fundamentalists in the southern city of Avignon.

"...He said: "Clearly we saw in Saturday's demonstration that a Catholic fringe wanted to take the president at his word, with extremely violent appeals." He said there was a climate of tension, with protesters insulting museum staff of north African origin. One guard said he heard: "I'm going to pour donkey piss on the Qur'an." An email to the museum talked about "plunging the diary of Anne Frank in urine"."

This is not how dialogue is conducted, this is how violence is fanned. One does not shout fire in a theater, one does not show Muhammad French-kissing a man, either.

[risky biz]

Include the "Piss-Christ" artist in the pantheon of the biggest assholes in human history. 'furkon' is on the very bottom rung of that totem poll of revolting living things who drag free speech through the gutter.

[risky biz]

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 9:00:23 AM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:

Send out a special announcement if you ever in your life develop a concept that meets the very minimum requirements of intellectual rigor.

[T. Bagger]

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 9:19:56 AM UTC-8, Bea Foroni wrote:

Exactly Bea. All the people Muslims are killing just bring it on themselves. They are just asking for it and some of these fools just can't understand that.

What about journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff and humanitarians David Haines and Alan Henning. These guys go over there believing in a different God. That's just like poking a stick in those poor Muslim's eyes. They were assholes and deserved beheading.

Some of these racists here on RGP apparently don't think Muslims are entitled to freedom of religion.

Quote from the Quran:
"When you encounter the unbelievers strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely, then bind the prisoners tightly."

I just hope Muslim terrorists everywhere who follow RGP can see that you, risky, and I support them 100%.

[fffurken]

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 5:19:56 PM UTC, Bea Foroni wrote:
> On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 9:00:23 AM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:
>
>
> >
> > You probably blame victims of Muslim rape for how they dress too..
>
> You know, if you go to a Irish vs. German soccer match and sit in the German section cheering on the Irish, would you be surprised if you got a beer poured on you?
>

Although under attack from leftists and Islamists, we still have free speech in the West. Women and girls are also allowed wear whatever they want without being raped.

Perhaps you would feel more comfortable living in an Islamic country.

[Bea Foroni]

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 12:24:17 PM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:

>
> Perhaps you would feel more comfortable living in an Islamic country.

In some ways I would. What I would not is to live in a country that had a dictator propped up by the West. I also would not like to live in a country that has a weak central government, with a vacuum made by the overthrow of a legitimate government.

These fundamental religious movements are created by a lack of faith in government. The overthrow of the Shah of Iran is a perfect example. The Shah was a cruel dictator, put into place by Western powers. Because politics or governmental change could not be initiated, it was left to religion to shake the country of the dictator.

The Middle East existed in relative peace (compared to Europe) until it was discovered the riches of oil under the sands of the region. It was the meddling of the West that allowed these superstitious zealots to ferment.

Bring in the ability of the people to self rule, allow the free exchange of information and culture, and stop all this hate speech on both sides, and soon Muslim will be just another choice like Baptist or Buddhist.

American culture triumphs over all! Any culture that is exposed to Americanism eventually is absorbed. The children of the most conservative religious soon embrace rock and roll, pepperoni pizza, and football on the Sabbath. The same happens here with Muslims- the children refuse to wear the burqa, they neglect bowing to Mecca five times a day, and soon they're marrying Jews and Gentiles like the rest of us. AND the rest of us start to like hummus and gyros. It is only when we have the them-against-us mentality that trouble erupts.

[fffurken]

That's a fairly standard liberal opinion piece alright.

More video therapy is obviously required:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGwtG8nVpUU

[Bea Foroni]

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 2:15:25 PM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:

> That's a fairly standard liberal opinion piece alright.
>
> More video therapy is obviously required:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGwtG8nVpUU

One time I clicked on your video link. Once! And I listened for about ten seconds. Why would I listen to a hater hating?

Come up with a solution (other than hating) and then maybe.

" Do not say, that if the people do good to us, we will do good to them; and if the people oppress us, we will oppress them; but determine that if people do you good, you will do good to them; and if they oppress you, you will not oppress them." (s.a.w.)

[fffurken]

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 10:26:49 PM UTC, Bea Foroni wrote:
> On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 2:15:25 PM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:
>
> > That's a fairly standard liberal opinion piece alright.
> >
> > More video therapy is obviously required:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGwtG8nVpUU
>
> One time I clicked on your video link. Once! And I listened for about ten seconds. Why would I listen to a hater hating?
>
> Come up with a solution (other than hating) and then maybe.

Eh, have you read my manifesto?

If not, go and find it. I'm pretty sure it was in the thread entitled "fffurken's Manifesto".

[risky biz]

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 12:11:11 PM UTC-8, T. Bagger wrote:
> On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 9:19:56 AM UTC-8, Bea Foroni wrote:
> > On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 9:00:23 AM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > You probably blame victims of Muslim rape for how they dress too..
> >
> > You know, if you go to a Irish vs. German soccer match and sit in the German section cheering on the Irish, would you be surprised if you got a beer poured on you?
> >
> > "When New York artist Andres Serrano plunged a plastic crucifix into a glass of his own urine and photographed it in 1987 under the title Piss Christ, he said he was making a statement on the misuse of religion.
> >
> > "Controversy has followed the work ever since, but reached an unprecedented peak on Palm Sunday when it was attacked with hammers and destroyed after an "anti-blasphemy" campaign by French Catholic fundamentalists in the southern city of Avignon.
> >
> > "...He said: "Clearly we saw in Saturday's demonstration that a Catholic fringe wanted to take the president at his word, with extremely violent appeals." He said there was a climate of tension, with protesters insulting museum staff of north African origin. One guard said he heard: "I'm going to pour donkey piss on the Qur'an." An email to the museum talked about "plunging the diary of Anne Frank in urine"."
> >
> > This is not how dialogue is conducted, this is how violence is fanned. One does not shout fire in a theater, one does not show Muhammad French-kissing a man, either.
>
>
> Exactly Bea. All the people Muslims are killing just bring it on themselves. They are just asking for it and some of these fools just can't understand that.
>

- What about journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff and humanitarians David Haines and Alan Henning. These guys go over there believing in a different God. That's just like poking a stick in those poor Muslim's eyes. They were assholes and deserved beheading.

In other words, you would have us believe that ISIS is not composed of a tiny minority of Muslims but is an organization which every Muslim loves and supports regardless of the fact that a multitude of prominent Muslims have unequivocably denounced them since long before this incident in Paris? Your reasoning smells quite funny.

> Some of these racists here on RGP apparently don't think Muslims are entitled to freedom of religion.
>

- Quote from the Quran:

> "When you encounter the unbelievers strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely, then bind the prisoners tightly."

If that is a quote from the Quran why haven't you indicated where? Every verse in the Quran is numbered but you decided to keep that information to yourself? Until you provide a cite there's no reason to attribute any accuracy whatsoever to what you are attempting to infer that it implies.

[risky biz]

Bea replied to you as if you had actually provided a response that was minimally intelligent. You didn't. Now you want us to watch another one of your braindead "Let's-All-Hate-Muslims-Together" videos. You're a basket case.

[risky biz]

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 2:33:51 PM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:
> On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 10:26:49 PM UTC, Bea Foroni wrote:
> > On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 2:15:25 PM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:
> >
> > > That's a fairly standard liberal opinion piece alright.
> > >
> > > More video therapy is obviously required:
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGwtG8nVpUU
> >
> > One time I clicked on your video link. Once! And I listened for about ten seconds. Why would I listen to a hater hating?
> >
> > Come up with a solution (other than hating) and then maybe.
>
> Eh, have you read my manifesto?
>

- If not, go and find it. I'm pretty sure it was in the thread entitled "fffurken's Manifesto".

Your "Manifesto"? You can't even read. Why are you trying to write?

[risky biz]

> On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 9:05:18 PM UTC-8, vi...@hush.ai wrote:
> risky biz wrote in
> news:7dd54101-b76d-4658...@googlegroups.com:

> Decapitation in Islamic Theology
>
> Groups such as Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi's Al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad (Unity
> and Jihad) and Abu 'Abd Allah al-Hasan bin Mahmud's Ansar al-Sunna
> (Defenders of [Prophetic] Tradition)[10] justify the decapitation
> of prisoners with Qur'anic scripture. Sura (chapter) 47 contains
> the ayah (verse): "When you encounter the unbelievers on the
> battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them
> completely; then bind the prisoners tightly."[11] The Qur'anic
> Arabic terms are generally straightforward: kafaru means "those who
> blaspheme/are irreligious," although Darb ar-riqab is less clear.
> Darb can mean "striking or hitting" while ar-riqab translates to
> "necks, slaves, persons." With little variation, scholars have
> translated the verse as, "When you meet the unbelievers, smite
> their necks."[12]
>
> For centuries, leading Islamic scholars have interpreted this verse
> literally. The famous Iranian historian and Qur'an commentator
> Muhammad b. Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923 C.E.) wrote that "striking at
> the necks" is simply God's sanction of ferocious opposition to non-
> Muslims.[13] Mahmud b. Umar az-Zamakhshari (d. 1143 C.E.), in a
> major commentary studied for centuries by Sunni religious scholars,
> suggested that any prescription to "strike at the necks" commands
> to avoid striking elsewhere so as to confirm death and not simply
> wound.[14]
>
> Many recent interpretations remain consistent with those of a
> millennium ago. In his Saudi-distributed translation of the Qur'an,
> 'Abdullah Yusuf 'Ali (d. 1953) wrote that the injunction to "smite
> at their necks," should be taken both literally and figuratively.
> "You cannot wage war with kid gloves," Yusuf 'Ali argued.[15]
> Muhammad Muhammad Khatib, in a modern Sunni commentary bearing the
> imprimatur of Al-Azhar university in Cairo, says that while
> traditionalist Muslims tend to see this passage as only applying to
> the Prophet's time, Shi'ites "think it is a universal precept."[16]
> Ironically, then in this view, Zarqawi has adopted the exegesis of
> his religious nemeses. Perhaps the most influential modern
> recapitulation of this passage was provided by the influential
> Pakistani scholar and leading Islamist thinker S. Abul A' la
> Mawdudi (d. 1979), who argued that the sura provided the first
> Qur'anic prescriptions on the laws of war. Mawdudi argued
>
> Under no circumstances should the Muslim lose sight of this aim and
> start taking the enemy soldiers as captives. Captives should be
> taken after the enemy has been completely crushed.[17]
>
> http://www.meforum.org/713/beheading-in-the-name-of-islam

LOL. Quite impressive. You supplied "proof" that disproved your intent:

"Muhammad Muhammad Khatib, in a modern Sunni commentary bearing the
imprimatur of Al-Azhar university in Cairo, says that while
traditionalist Muslims tend to see this passage as only applying to
the Prophet's time, Shi'ites "think it is a universal precept."[16]"

[Shiites do no such thing. The writer is expressing anti-Shiite prejudices.]

It was supposedly a directive from God to Muhammad for a particular historical battle personally led by Muhammad in which pagans from Mecca undertook an expedition with the ultimate intent of beheading all the early Muslims in Medina.

This is willful cherrypicking and misrepresentation that Islamophobes attempt to make hay with. The only Muslims in the world who accept the interpretation that this is a guide to conduct in any other time are of the ISIS type who more closely resemble something that ISN'T Muslinm. Even al-Qaeda demures from this interpretation.

Serious question: is your objective to convince others that almost all Muslims have a hidden desire to behead non-Muslims? Why would you want to do that? That is no more sensible than someone claiming that the story of Abraham in the Old Testament justifies murder of our own children.

You really should do a little reading yourself in primary sources and stop swallowing the bullshit dispensed by liars.

[risky biz]

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 9:05:18 PM UTC-8, vi...@hush.ai wrote:
> risky biz wrote in
> news:7dd54101-b76d-4658...@googlegroups.com:
>

- http://www.meforum.org/713/beheading-in-the-name-of-islam

"On the domestic front, MEF's attacks on "lawful Islamism" have led observers to associate the group with a burgeoning U.S. "Islamophobia network," a patchwork of prominent rightwing U.S. foundations, opinion makers, and media personalities who spread negative impressions about Islam and Muslims in the United States.[7]

In a widely noted 2011 report about the network, the Center for American Progress listed MEF as one of "five key think tanks led by scholars who are primarily responsible for orchestrating the majority of anti-Islam messages polluting our national discourse today." The report argued that Pipes, who has a doctorate in medieval Islamic history, "has parlayed his prestigious academic credentials to great effect," but has "become increasingly out of touch with the realities of the Muslim world at home and abroad, making more extreme and unfounded observations about Islam in the United States." The report noted that Anders Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist who in July 2011 murdered 77 people in a protest against "cultural Marxism," cited the work of Pipes and MEF 18 times in his xenophobic manifesto.[8]"
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Middle_East_Forum

[fffurken]

On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 10:01:12 AM UTC, risky biz wrote:

> This is willful cherrypicking and misrepresentation that Islamophobes attempt to make hay with. The only Muslims in the world who accept the interpretation that this is a guide to conduct in any other time are of the ISIS type who more closely resemble something that ISN'T Muslinm.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ISvsQuran.png

[T. Bagger]

LOL. I see someone else has already provided the cite for the quote that you didn't believe existed. So now what are you going to do? Claim it doesn't mean exactly what it says?

Yup, even though it says in the Quran that Muslims should behead non-believers and Muslims are beheading non-believers left and right good old stupid risky will still insist Muslims are just sweethearts.

Enjoy living your pathetic life with your head buried in a sandpile of denial and stupidity Ostrich.

------------------------------

"What we've said all along and have been called bigots for it, is when there's this many bad apples, there's something wrong with the orchard,"
BILL MAHER (a liberal)

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 11:16:59 AM UTC-8, vi...@hush.ai wrote:
> risky biz wrote in

> news:25e78330-83c5-4d76...@googlegroups.com:

>
> >> On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 9:05:18 PM UTC-8,
> >> vi...@hush.ai wrote: risky biz wrote in
>

> > Serious question: is your objective to convince others that
> > almost all Muslims have a hidden desire to behead non-Muslims?
>

> No. I'm just fucking with ya.

>
> > Why would you want to do that? That is no more sensible than
> > someone claiming that the story of Abraham in the Old
> > Testament justifies murder of our own children.
> >
> > You really should do a little reading yourself in primary
> > sources and stop swallowing the bullshit dispensed by liars.
>

> I'd rather watch you dance. ;-)

It's difficult for you to carry on a conversation that isn't based on pure ignorant prejudice, isn't it?

[risky biz]

Are you really so utterly fucking stupid that you believe all Muslims are Islamic State or ISIS? The hatemongers have hit paydirt when they find someone as low IQ as you.

[fffurken]

On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 7:35:01 PM UTC, risky biz wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 2:46:23 AM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 10:01:12 AM UTC, risky biz wrote:
> >
> > > This is willful cherrypicking and misrepresentation that Islamophobes attempt to make hay with. The only Muslims in the world who accept the interpretation that this is a guide to conduct in any other time are of the ISIS type who more closely resemble something that ISN'T Muslinm.
> >
> > http://www.jihadwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ISvsQuran.png
>
> Are you really so utterly fucking stupid that you believe all Muslims are Islamic State or ISIS?

Of course not, why would you ask such a stupid question? I was simply pointing out that the head choppers ARE Muslim and they're following the Koran to the letter.

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 12:17:17 PM UTC-8, vi...@hush.ai wrote:
> risky biz wrote in

> news:c20e0498-1c3f-4826...@googlegroups.com:

- It doesn't take much to bring out the name calling coward in you,
> does it?

If you act stupid, I call you stupid. Grasp the concept.

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 1:06:24 PM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 7:35:01 PM UTC, risky biz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 2:46:23 AM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 10:01:12 AM UTC, risky biz wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is willful cherrypicking and misrepresentation that Islamophobes attempt to make hay with. The only Muslims in the world who accept the interpretation that this is a guide to conduct in any other time are of the ISIS type who more closely resemble something that ISN'T Muslinm.
> > >
> > > http://www.jihadwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ISvsQuran.png
> >

- - Are you really so utterly fucking stupid that you believe all Muslims are Islamic State or ISIS?

- Of course not, why would you ask such a stupid question? I was simply pointing out that the head choppers ARE Muslim and they're following the Koran to the letter.

I wonder why you aren't continually asserting that Anders Breivik, someone you sympathize with enormously, IS Christian and following the Bible to the letter.

Actually, I think your response is a kneejerk reaction. You ARE that fucking stupid.

[risky biz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

Religion Christianity (Church of Norway)[3][4]

[fffurken]

I'm not aware that Anders Breivik's actions had anything to do with what's in the bible.

Do you have any evidence or are you just making that up?

[risky biz]

I provided the evidence in a post 1 minute before you asked the stupid question. To elaborate:

"On his Facebook profile, Breivik described himself as a Christian, though he is critical of the Catholic and Protestant churches, objecting to their "current suicidal path".[citation needed] Before the attacks, he stated an intention to attend Frogner Church in a final "Martyr's mass".[191]

The manifesto states its author is "100 percent Christian" . .

. . he stated that he planned to pray to God seeking for his help during his attacks.[193]"
http://tinyurl.com/p6dgesx

i.e., he IS Christian and following the Bible to the letter:
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
- Luke 19:27

You've made excuses for IRA terrorists, and Christian crusader Anders Breivik and yet you have the stupid effrontery to critcize OTHER terrorism. You're a worthless sack of shit.

"Do you have any evidence or are you just making that up?"

And why don't you copy my terminology from my exchange with 'truthtwister' as soon as you see it? Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. What a dope.

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 09:19:51 -0800 (PST), Bea Foroni
<wilm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 9:00:23 AM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:
>
>
>>
>> You probably blame victims of Muslim rape for how they dress too..
>
>You know, if you go to a Irish vs. German soccer match and sit in the German section cheering on the Irish, would you be surprised if you got a beer poured on you?
>
>"When New York artist Andres Serrano plunged a plastic crucifix into a glass of his own urine and photographed it in 1987 under the title Piss Christ, he said he was making a statement on the misuse of religion.
>
>"Controversy has followed the work ever since, but reached an unprecedented peak on Palm Sunday when it was attacked with hammers and destroyed after an "anti-blasphemy" campaign by French Catholic fundamentalists in the southern city of Avignon.
>
>"...He said: "Clearly we saw in Saturday's demonstration that a Catholic fringe wanted to take the president at his word, with extremely violent appeals." He said there was a climate of tension, with protesters insulting museum staff of north African origin. One guard said he heard: "I'm going to pour donkey piss on the Qur'an." An email to the museum talked about "plunging the diary of Anne Frank in urine"."
>
> This is not how dialogue is conducted, this is how violence is fanned. One does not shout fire in a theater, one does not show Muhammad French-kissing a man, either.

The difference, of course, is that the Catholic protesters destroyed
the artwork, whereas the Muslim protesters murdered the artist and his
associates.
--

Pepe Papon

[ramashiva]

On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 8:14:31 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:

> i.e., he IS Christian and following the Bible to the letter:
> "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
> - Luke 19:27

How many times are you going to quote this passage out of context to convey the impression that this is something Jesus taught???

In fact, these are the words of a cruel, hated nobleman in a parable by Jesus. Here is your quote, in context --

The Parable of the Minas

11 Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. 12 Therefore He said: "A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, 'Do business till I come.' 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We will not have this man to reign over us.'

15 "And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. 16 Then came the first, saying, 'Master, your mina has earned ten minas.' 17 And he said to him, 'Well done, good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities.' 18 And the second came, saying, 'Master, your mina has earned five minas.' 19 Likewise he said to him, 'You also be over five cities.'

20 "Then another came, saying, 'Master, here is your mina, which I have kept put away in a handkerchief. 21 For I feared you, because you are an austere man. You collect what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.' 22 And he said to him, 'Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant. You knew that I was an austere man, collecting what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow. 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?'

24 "And he said to those who stood by, 'Take the mina from him, and give it to him who has ten minas.' 25 (But they said to him, 'Master, he has ten minas.') 26 'For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.'"

Luke 19:11-27 (NKJV)


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[da pickle]

On 1/13/2015 2:17 PM, Vince wrote:
> risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:c20e0498-1c3f-4826...@googlegroups.com:

> It doesn't take much to bring out the name calling coward in you,
> does it?

Anonymous internet cowards are like that

[fffurken]

lol What a bunch of nonsense.

[Bea Foroni]

On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 10:04:16 PM UTC-8, Pepe Papon wrote:

>
> The difference, of course, is that the Catholic protesters destroyed
> the artwork, whereas the Muslim protesters murdered the artist and his
> associates.
> --

The difference is that the West controls the Middle East. If the shoe was on the other foot, there would be Christian soldiers marching as to war.

The West and Christians need not conduct acts of terrorism, they have the tools to do it high tech style, and control the press to not make a big deal out of it. We drone kill twice as many people in the Middle East and it won't make the news, but some mental case name al-Rotten goes amok and all of a sudden it is Sally shut the barn door it's jihad all over again!

[fffurken]

In comparison to Islam, there is a significant shortage of Christians who want to conduct terrorism in the name of their religion.

You can continue to believe that "terrorism" is conducted by "Western powers" in the name of religion and you can continue to be a fool.

[Bea Foroni]

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 10:02:41 AM UTC-8, fffurken wrote:

>
> In comparison to Islam, there is a significant shortage of Christians who want to conduct terrorism in the name of their religion.
>
> You can continue to believe that "terrorism" is conducted by "Western powers" in the name of religion and you can continue to be a fool.

One man's terrorism is another man's "shock and awe".

If those who do terrorism had access to drones and Hellfire missles, do you think they'd be doing suicide bombings.

As far as being a fool, I have Muslim friends. I have worked with and worked for Muslim people. A fool would be a person who said, "I don't know any and I don't like them." Fool.

[BillB]

On 14/01/2015 10:02 AM, fffurken wrote:

> In comparison to Islam, there is a significant shortage of Christians who want to conduct terrorism in the name of their religion.

If you express both numerically you will see that both numbers are so
small that they are for all intents and purposes equal in the real
world. Virtually no Muslims want to conduct terrorism in the name of
their religion, and the same can be said for Christians.

The idea that you'd deny a well-qualified applicant permanent residency
or citizenship simply because of his or her religious beliefs, or,
conversely, that you'd give preference to a lesser qualified applicant
because he was from "the right religion", is an affront to common
decency and common sense, not to mention flying in the face of Canadian
constitutional law and everything this country stands for.

[fffurken]

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 7:48:58 PM UTC, BillB wrote:
> On 14/01/2015 10:02 AM, fffurken wrote:
>
> > In comparison to Islam, there is a significant shortage of Christians who want to conduct terrorism in the name of their religion.
>
> If you express both numerically you will see that both numbers are so
> small that they are for all intents and purposes equal in the real
> world. Virtually no Muslims want to conduct terrorism in the name of
> their religion, and the same can be said for Christians.

You don't need a large number of terrorists to create havoc.

What is of even more concern is the number of people who believe in that ideology.

And to be honest with you, I've tried to steer largely clear of the terrorism aspect because I think as I said to Bill Vanek, it seems that for a lot of Americans understanding of Islam begins and ends with terrorism. There's a whole lot of shit in between.

> The idea that you'd deny a well-qualified applicant permanent residency
> or citizenship simply because of his or her religious beliefs, or,
> conversely, that you'd give preference to a lesser qualified applicant
> because he was from "the right religion", is an affront to common
> decency and common sense, not to mention flying in the face of Canadian
> constitutional law and everything this country stands for.

What I'm saying is that wherever a populace of Muslims has accumulated in Europe so too have the same problems. And I've also developed an understanding of why.

But you don't even believe that there are any problems in the first place. You shake your head in disbelief at PEGIDA protests thinking of them as Nazis. You're an impenetrable liberal.

[da pickle]

On 1/14/2015 1:54 PM, BillB wrote:
> On 14/01/2015 10:02 AM, fffurken wrote:
>
>> In comparison to Islam, there is a significant shortage of Christians
>> who want to conduct terrorism in the name of their religion.
>
> If you express both numerically you will see that both numbers are so
> small that they are for all intents and purposes equal in the real
> world.

The bigot barfs again

[BillB]

On 14/01/2015 12:16 PM, fffurken wrote:

> You don't need a large number of terrorists to create havoc.

Doesn't matter. You can't discriminate against an entire group of people
because of the misdeeds of a tiny percentage of people in that group.
Where would that logic leave men? We'd all be locked up and women would
rule the world.

If all you've got against someone is "he's Muslim!" I'm afraid to tell
you that gets you nowhere in Canada (or most civilized countries that
I'm aware of).

> What is of even more concern is the number of people who believe in that ideology.

Who are you? The thought police? I hate to repeat myself, but here in
Canada one of our FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, as spelled out in our
constitution (s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) is FREEDOM
OF THOUGHT.

As long as someone obeys the law, he or she is free to believe whatever
idiotic religion or ideology they want.

> What I'm saying is that wherever a populace of Muslims has accumulated in Europe so too have the same problems. And I've also developed an understanding of why.

I already told you why, and it is nothing specific to "Muslims," but
you're too blind to see that.

> But you don't even believe that there are any problems in the first place. You shake your head in disbelief at PEGIDA protests thinking of them as Nazis. You're an impenetrable liberal.

Ya, I'm sure I'm the only person who's had that comparison cross their mind.

http://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/germany-slams-anti-islam-group-as-it-draws-thousands-onto-streets

I'm not the extremist. You are. Sophisticated people see PEGIDA and
similar groups for what they are.

[BillB]

Yes, I'm a bigot because I don't want to see Muslims discriminated
against for the misdeeds of a miniscule percentage. Because as we all
know, in pickle's world up is down and black is white.

[fffurken]

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 8:46:50 PM UTC, BillB wrote:
> On 14/01/2015 12:16 PM, fffurken wrote:
>
> > You don't need a large number of terrorists to create havoc.
>
> Doesn't matter. You can't discriminate against an entire group of people
> because of the misdeeds of a tiny percentage of people in that group.
> Where would that logic leave men? We'd all be locked up and women would
> rule the world.
>
> If all you've got against someone is "he's Muslim!" I'm afraid to tell
> you that gets you nowhere in Canada (or most civilized countries that
> I'm aware of).

I'm not against Muslims. I'm against mass Islamic immigration into Europe.

> > What is of even more concern is the number of people who believe in that ideology.
>
> Who are you? The thought police?

No I'm not the thought police, I'm simply telling you that a widespread ideology should not be dismissed as just a few crazies.

> > What I'm saying is that wherever a populace of Muslims has accumulated in Europe so too have the same problems. And I've also developed an understanding of why.
>
> I already told you why

Eh, no you haven't. As I said, you don't believe there are any.

> > But you don't even believe that there are any problems in the first place. You shake your head in disbelief at PEGIDA protests thinking of them as Nazis. You're an impenetrable liberal.
>
> Ya, I'm sure I'm the only person who's had that comparison cross their mind.
>
> http://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/germany-slams-anti-islam-group-as-it-draws-thousands-onto-streets
>
> I'm not the extremist. You are. Sophisticated people see PEGIDA and
> similar groups for what they are.

There is nothing "sophisticated" about following left-loon mantra and that's all you're good for.

[BillB]

On 14/01/2015 1:06 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 8:46:50 PM UTC, BillB wrote:
>> On 14/01/2015 12:16 PM, fffurken wrote:
>>
>>> You don't need a large number of terrorists to create havoc.
>>
>> Doesn't matter. You can't discriminate against an entire group of people
>> because of the misdeeds of a tiny percentage of people in that group.
>> Where would that logic leave men? We'd all be locked up and women would
>> rule the world.
>>
>> If all you've got against someone is "he's Muslim!" I'm afraid to tell
>> you that gets you nowhere in Canada (or most civilized countries that
>> I'm aware of).
>
> I'm not against Muslims. I'm against mass Islamic immigration into Europe.

No, you're against any immigration -- your so-called "Manifesto" (lol),
remember?

"1) A halt to all Muslim immigration into European countries."

The real question is why you're lying now. Are you trying to sound less
extreme, now that I'm spanking you in public?

>>> What is of even more concern is the number of people who believe in that ideology.
>>
>> Who are you? The thought police?
>
> No I'm not the thought police, I'm simply telling you that a widespread ideology should not be dismissed as just a few crazies.

If you want to ban or discriminate against so-called "ideologies" then
you are appointing yourself the Thought Police. In a free country people
are free to subscribe to any idiotic ideology they want (even yours) so
long as they obey the law. Why can that simple fact not penetrate your
thick skull??

You want to punish people for their beliefs, not their deeds.

>>> What I'm saying is that wherever a populace of Muslims has accumulated in Europe so too have the same problems. And I've also developed an understanding of why.
>>
>> I already told you why
>
> Eh, no you haven't.

Eh, yes I have.

>As I said, you don't believe there are any.

As history has shown, what you say I believe has little or nothing to do
with what I actually believe.

>>> But you don't even believe that there are any problems in the first place. You shake your head in disbelief at PEGIDA protests thinking of them as Nazis. You're an impenetrable liberal.
>>
>> Ya, I'm sure I'm the only person who's had that comparison cross their mind.
>>
>> http://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/germany-slams-anti-islam-group-as-it-draws-thousands-onto-streets
>>
>> I'm not the extremist. You are. Sophisticated people see PEGIDA and
>> similar groups for what they are.
>
> There is nothing "sophisticated" about following left-loon mantra and that's all you're good for.

I'm not left-loon at all, as that article demonstrated. I am very much
in the mainstream. You are the extremist. The real question is why you
are in denial about that.

"But Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel clearly distanced herself from
the movement last week and it has become clear in recent days that the
political establishment has decided to shun it.

In her televised New Year address, Ms Merkel said the leaders of the
movement had “prejudice, coldness, even hatred in their hearts”.

Former chancellor Helmut Schmidt said on Tuesday the protests “appeal to
base prejudices, to xenophobia and intolerance. But that’s not Germany”.
He was among 50 politicians and celebrities quoted in a “No to Pegida”
appeal published by Germany’s best-selling tabloid, Bild.

The movement risks damaging Germany’s reputation at a time when it has
won praise for taking in more refugees from Syria than other major
European nations – about 60,000 so far.

"On Monday night in the western city of Cologne, home to a large Muslim
population, there were 10 times as many counter-demonstrators as Pegida
protesters. In Berlin, there were 5,000 counter-demonstrators and just
400 anti-Muslim protesters, police said."

[fred1...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 1:24:22 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On 14/01/2015 1:06 PM, fffurken wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 8:46:50 PM UTC, BillB wrote:
> >> On 14/01/2015 12:16 PM, fffurken wrote:
> >>
> >>> You don't need a large number of terrorists to create havoc.
> >>
> >> Doesn't matter. You can't discriminate against an entire group of people
> >> because of the misdeeds of a tiny percentage of people in that group.
> >> Where would that logic leave men? We'd all be locked up and women would
> >> rule the world.
> >>
> >> If all you've got against someone is "he's Muslim!" I'm afraid to tell
> >> you that gets you nowhere in Canada (or most civilized countries that
> >> I'm aware of).
> >
> > I'm not against Muslims. I'm against mass Islamic immigration into Europe.
>
> No, you're against any immigration -- your so-called "Manifesto" (lol),
> remember?
>
> "1) A halt to all Muslim immigration into European countries."
>
> The real question is why you're lying now. Are you trying to sound less
> extreme, now that I'm spanking you in public?

Please keep your fantasies about spanking other men to yourself, closet.

> European nations - about 60,000 so far.

[da pickle]

And more

[fffurken]

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 9:24:22 PM UTC, BillB wrote:
> On 14/01/2015 1:06 PM, fffurken wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 8:46:50 PM UTC, BillB wrote:
> >> On 14/01/2015 12:16 PM, fffurken wrote:
> >>
> >>> You don't need a large number of terrorists to create havoc.
> >>
> >> Doesn't matter. You can't discriminate against an entire group of people
> >> because of the misdeeds of a tiny percentage of people in that group.
> >> Where would that logic leave men? We'd all be locked up and women would
> >> rule the world.
> >>
> >> If all you've got against someone is "he's Muslim!" I'm afraid to tell
> >> you that gets you nowhere in Canada (or most civilized countries that
> >> I'm aware of).
> >
> > I'm not against Muslims. I'm against mass Islamic immigration into Europe.
>
> No, you're against any immigration -- your so-called "Manifesto" (lol),
> remember?
>
> "1) A halt to all Muslim immigration into European countries."
>
> The real question is why you're lying now. Are you trying to sound less
> extreme, now that I'm spanking you in public?

I'm against the current policy of mass Islamic immigration and as there is no way to screen the "good" Muslims from the "bad" ones and as the same problems inevitably arise everywhere with the rise of the Muslim population and understanding Islamic ideology I am against ALL Islamic immigration.

lol You think you're catching me out on something I wouldn't admit to in a heartbeat. I've also told you that I would accept Muslim immigration if it was kept to a trickle and no more than 2% of the overall population.

> >>> What is of even more concern is the number of people who believe in that ideology.
> >>
> >> Who are you? The thought police?
> >
> > No I'm not the thought police, I'm simply telling you that a widespread ideology should not be dismissed as just a few crazies.
>
> If you want to ban or discriminate against so-called "ideologies" then
> you are appointing yourself the Thought Police. In a free country people
> are free to subscribe to any idiotic ideology they want (even yours) so
> long as they obey the law. Why can that simple fact not penetrate your
> thick skull??
>
> You want to punish people for their beliefs, not their deeds.

This is from the same idiot who would be comfortable with Canada being 100% Muslim.

> >>> What I'm saying is that wherever a populace of Muslims has accumulated in Europe so too have the same problems. And I've also developed an understanding of why.
> >>
> >> I already told you why
> >
> > Eh, no you haven't.
>
> Eh, yes I have.

What are they then?

> >As I said, you don't believe there are any.
>
> As history has shown, what you say I believe has little or nothing to do
> with what I actually believe.
>
> >>> But you don't even believe that there are any problems in the first place. You shake your head in disbelief at PEGIDA protests thinking of them as Nazis. You're an impenetrable liberal.
> >>
> >> Ya, I'm sure I'm the only person who's had that comparison cross their mind.
> >>
> >> http://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/germany-slams-anti-islam-group-as-it-draws-thousands-onto-streets
> >>
> >> I'm not the extremist. You are. Sophisticated people see PEGIDA and
> >> similar groups for what they are.
> >
> > There is nothing "sophisticated" about following left-loon mantra and that's all you're good for.
>
> I'm not left-loon at all, as that article demonstrated. I am very much
> in the mainstream. You are the extremist. The real question is why you
> are in denial about that.
>
> "But Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel clearly distanced herself from
> the movement last week and it has become clear in recent days that the
> political establishment has decided to shun it.
>
> In her televised New Year address, Ms Merkel said the leaders of the
> movement had "prejudice, coldness, even hatred in their hearts".
>
> Former chancellor Helmut Schmidt said on Tuesday the protests "appeal to
> base prejudices, to xenophobia and intolerance. But that's not Germany".
> He was among 50 politicians and celebrities quoted in a "No to Pegida"
> appeal published by Germany's best-selling tabloid, Bild.
>
> The movement risks damaging Germany's reputation at a time when it has
> won praise for taking in more refugees from Syria than other major

> European nations - about 60,000 so far.

>
> "On Monday night in the western city of Cologne, home to a large Muslim
> population, there were 10 times as many counter-demonstrators as Pegida
> protesters. In Berlin, there were 5,000 counter-demonstrators and just
> 400 anti-Muslim protesters, police said."

Who cares what a politician says, the very same politicians who are enabling all of this madness and so what if there were counter demonstrations. And most of the violence I've seen has been from those very same left-wing, fascist thugs.

[da pickle]

On 1/14/2015 3:37 PM, fred1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 1:24:22 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:

>> ... now that I'm spanking you in public?

>
> Please keep your fantasies about spanking other men to yourself, closet.

His trolls have become weaker and weaker in the new year

[fffurken]

Normally speaking I would say that he more or less believes in what he writes but he's becoming so ridiculous now, and telling so many lies, that you would have to believe that he's just a troll. Or another Ramadan Risky.

[da pickle]

Occasionally, he speaks quite well ... but it has not surfaced in the
new year. He may be declining in health. That must be considered and
excuses a lot of his behavior.

[da pickle]

On 1/14/2015 5:30 PM, Vince wrote:
> da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:xcKdnfM1BIwT-yvJ...@giganews.com:

>
>> On 1/13/2015 2:17 PM, Vince wrote:
>>> risky biz <swing...@gmail.com> wrote in
>

>>>> It's difficult for you to carry on a conversation that isn't
>>>> based on pure ignorant prejudice, isn't it?
>>>
>>> It doesn't take much to bring out the name calling coward in
>>> you, does it?
>>
>> Anonymous internet cowards are like that
>

> No good comes from riskying, perhaps? ;-)

It is not too risky ... he disappears when sought

[TruthSeeker]

I've felt for some time that he's a very troubled man. Even if his
persona here is just a front, for his trolling and bigotry, the personas
people adopt say a lot about who they really are behind their masks in
real life. If he really is deteriorating I hope that he gets the help
he needs. He is a human being after all, and as far as I know he's
never actually hurt anyone.



--
Truthseeker

"Je suis Charlie."

[Pepe Papon]

That may be true, but it doesn't plug the hole in your analogy.
Destroying property just isn't comparable to committing mass murder,
IMO.
--

Pepe Papon

[Bea Foroni]

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 11:53:33 PM UTC-8, Pepe Papon wrote:

>
> That may be true, but it doesn't plug the hole in your analogy.
> Destroying property just isn't comparable to committing mass murder,
> IMO.
> --

You are absolutely correct, they are degrees apart. Many, many degrees apart.

But suppose the artist complained about the activists destroying his Piss Crucifix work of "art". Couldn't you easily say, what did you expect?

Right before the crocodile eats the bunny he says, What did you expect?

Islam has a long history of acting out regarding images of Mohamed (s.a.w). There is nothing to be gained by picturing him kissing another man. Nothing! It just inflames.

We can criticize modern Islam, at least we should be able to. Violence is senseless and Muslims have been involved with more than their share of late. But making a poorly drawn cartoon of someone people worship and are forbidden to represent, that is not criticism. That is an act designed to enflame an already volatile situation.

I'm sorry people died. I am especially sad that completely innocent people died. But for world leaders to get to together and pretend it is fine to insult a billion and a half people's sensibilities is not helping the situation. And I sure as hell wish Charlie would find something else to do.

[fffurken]

lol What a libtard.

[Bea Foroni]

On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 3:27:33 PM UTC-8, vi...@hush.ai wrote:

> Seems he was interested in fucking very young girls, not men.
> That's the picture they should draw, since it appears to be the
> truth.
>
>
And this helps... how?

[fffurken]

Good question.

Does it help prevent child marriage in the Muslim world? No.

Considering Muhammad (piss be upon him) was the most perfect human being to have ever lived, and a practicing paedophile, does it help Muslims have a healthy attitude towards sex with children? No.

By the way, what's "modern Islam"?

[Bea Foroni]

On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 6:56:25 PM UTC-8, vi...@hush.ai wrote:

>
> The truth will set you free.
>
> I just wonder how many Muslims, without coertion, would give their
> life for a pedo, and some fairytale promises, if they had a full
> picture of Islam's main man?

Puleese! If you were to distill all religions down, you'd find them all to pretty strange- from the God who smites people for worshipping the wrong God, to the zombie apocalypse, to the guy who reads the word of God from inside a hat.


> It's definitely a man's religion. They seem to have all the
> bennies.

How long have we had women's suffrage in the USA? Not so long.

People use religion all the time to gain control over their fellow humans. There is a rich history of women's rights in Islam. The Quran can be read to include women leaders. It is only because of the perverse situation in the Middle East that we have such barbarism.

Here is what your stupid hatred is doing: Remember the days of "Reefer Madness"? All kinds of hysterics about 'the devil's weed' led to fear. When people found out it was a lie, they embraced the drug. And they said, if we were lied to about marijuana, then what other drugs were we lied about? We nearly lost a generation to drugs.

Same as it is today with Islam. You say it is a religion for men. Children will read the Quran and see that it really isn't. They will think of you as a lying hater, reject your beliefs and we could lose a generation to Islam.

Pearls before swine, huh?

[fffurken]

You sure do talk about pot a lot. I noticed a mention of that in the urban dictionary entry for 'libtard' when I looked at it yesterday -

Libtard

As repetitive as it sounds, it stands for "liberal retard."

A libtard wants to live in a fantasy world (in which life is the way that they WISH IT WAS) as opposed to dealing with life the way it actually is.

(This explains the religious fervor that many of them demonstrate when it comes to smoking pot).

The most idealistic libtard envisions a time when science/technology and Socialism will eliminate all poverty, hunger, war, disease, injustice, unemployment and prejudice. (It is a nice pipe dream but human nature will forever stand in the way of that goal).

Most libtards subscribe to the notion that "people are basically good", and build their foundation for activism and "improving the human condition" on that faulty premise. Because they deny the facts about human nature, their "reasoning" is diametrically opposite to common sense.

<...>

Metaphorically speaking, a libtard is a sheep who thinks that their grasp of diplomatic nuance or metaphysical sensitivity will prevent their flock from being devoured by the world's Islamic/Communist wolves. When America, the sheep dog, responds to wolf attacks, the libtard judges these defensive actions as offensive and wolfish.

Since libtards are unable to recognize our enemies for what they are, they cannot be trusted to safeguard our future.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Libtard&defid=1454864

[risky biz]

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 4:19:46 AM UTC-8, ramashiva wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 8:14:31 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
>
> > i.e., he IS Christian and following the Bible to the letter:
> > "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
> > - Luke 19:27
>
> How many times are you going to quote this passage out of context to convey the impression that this is something Jesus taught???
>
> In fact, these are the words of a cruel, hated nobleman in a parable by Jesus. Here is your quote, in context --
>
> The Parable of the Minas
>
> 11 Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. 12 Therefore He said: "A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, 'Do business till I come.' 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We will not have this man to reign over us.'
>
> 15 "And so it was that when he returned, having received the kingdom, he then commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. 16 Then came the first, saying, 'Master, your mina has earned ten minas.' 17 And he said to him, 'Well done, good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities.' 18 And the second came, saying, 'Master, your mina has earned five minas.' 19 Likewise he said to him, 'You also be over five cities.'
>
> 20 "Then another came, saying, 'Master, here is your mina, which I have kept put away in a handkerchief. 21 For I feared you, because you are an austere man. You collect what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.' 22 And he said to him, 'Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant. You knew that I was an austere man, collecting what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow. 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?'
>
> 24 "And he said to those who stood by, 'Take the mina from him, and give it to him who has ten minas.' 25 (But they said to him, 'Master, he has ten minas.') 26 'For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.'"
>
> Luke 19:11-27 (NKJV)
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)

Sorry, but you are attempting to rewrite the bible. It's ridiculous, first of all, to claim that the nobleman is being quoted as instructing that his servant, who didn't increase the pound, or mina, that was entrusted to him, be slain. And it is quite clear that Jesus quotes the nobleman in the second person:

Jesus speaking of the nobleman:
13 And he called . . . and said unto them
15 . . . then he commanded these servants
17 And he said unto him . . .
19 And he said likewise to him . . .
22 And he saith unto him . . .
24 And he said unto them that stood by . . .

Jesus speaking in the first person:
26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Nice try, though.

"11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. 12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. 13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. 15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. 16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. 17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. 18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. 19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities. 20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: 21 for I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. 22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: 23 wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? 24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. 25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) 26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2019&version=AKJV

[risky biz]

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 4:51:45 PM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
> On 1/14/2015 5:30 PM, Vince wrote:
> > da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
> > news:xcKdnfM1BIwT-yvJ...@giganews.com:
> >
> >> On 1/13/2015 2:17 PM, Vince wrote:

> >>> risky biz wrote in

> >
> >>>> It's difficult for you to carry on a conversation that isn't
> >>>> based on pure ignorant prejudice, isn't it?
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't take much to bring out the name calling coward in
> >>> you, does it?
> >>
> >> Anonymous internet cowards are like that
> >
> > No good comes from riskying, perhaps? ;-)
>

- It is not too risky ... he disappears when sought

Didn't you mean to say that I didn't bother to appear in a place where you would be surrounded by armed guards and was the location that you bravely insisted upon?

[da pickle]

Still talking big and acting small ... anonymous internet coward ... the
foo shit

[ramashiva]

On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 11:47:26 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:

> Sorry, but you are attempting to rewrite the bible.

Nope, just quoting it.

> It's ridiculous, first of all, to claim that the nobleman is being quoted as instructing that his servant, who didn't increase the pound, or mina, that was entrusted to him, be slain.

I didn't make any such claim. You obviously cannot read for comprehension. In verse 27, "those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them" refers back to verse 14 --

"But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us."

> And it is quite clear that Jesus quotes the nobleman in the second person:

You mean third person???

> Jesus speaking of the nobleman:
> 13 And he called . . . and said unto them
> 15 . . . then he commanded these servants
> 17 And he said unto him . . .
> 19 And he said likewise to him . . .
> 22 And he saith unto him . . .
> 24 And he said unto them that stood by . . .

Yes, verse 24 introduces a quote from the nobleman. That quote includes verses 26 and 27.

> Jesus speaking in the first person:
> 26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

OMFG!!! You are such a liar. That is not Jesus speaking in the first person. That is Jesus quoting the nobleman. The AKJV, which you quoted, doesn't use double and single quotes to make it clear who is speaking. The NKJV does. If you reread the NKJV verses that I quoted, you will see that when Jesus is being quoted, the quote starts with a double quote ("), and when Jesus is quoting the nobleman, the quote starts with a single quote ('). Notice the single quotes at the beginning of verse 26 and the end of verse 27. There is no doubt that verses 26 and 27 are Jesus quoting the nobleman.

> Nice try, though.

Nice try??? I exposed your dishonesty, now you are lying to avoid admitting your dishonesty.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[risky biz]

On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 1:22:13 PM UTC-8, ramashiva wrote:
> On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 11:47:26 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but you are attempting to rewrite the bible.
>
> Nope, just quoting it.
>
> > It's ridiculous, first of all, to claim that the nobleman is being quoted as instructing that his servant, who didn't increase the pound, or mina, that was entrusted to him, be slain.
>
> I didn't make any such claim. You obviously cannot read for comprehension. In verse 27, "those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them" refers back to verse 14 --
>
> "But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us."
>
> > And it is quite clear that Jesus quotes the nobleman in the second person:
>
> You mean third person???

That's what I should have typed.

> > Jesus speaking of the nobleman:
> > 13 And he called . . . and said unto them
> > 15 . . . then he commanded these servants
> > 17 And he said unto him . . .
> > 19 And he said likewise to him . . .
> > 22 And he saith unto him . . .
> > 24 And he said unto them that stood by . . .
>
> Yes, verse 24 introduces a quote from the nobleman. That quote includes verses 26 and 27.
>
> > Jesus speaking in the first person:
> > 26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
>
> OMFG!!! You are such a liar. That is not Jesus speaking in the first person. That is Jesus quoting the nobleman. The AKJV, which you quoted, doesn't use double and single quotes to make it clear who is speaking. The NKJV does. If you reread the NKJV verses that I quoted, you will see that when Jesus is being quoted, the quote starts with a double quote ("), and when Jesus is quoting the nobleman, the quote starts with a single quote ('). Notice the single quotes at the beginning of verse 26 and the end of verse 27. There is no doubt that verses 26 and 27 are Jesus quoting the nobleman.
>
> > Nice try, though.
>
> Nice try??? I exposed your dishonesty, now you are lying to avoid admitting your dishonesty.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)

Sorry, pal. The passage makes exactly zero sense in the way that you are trying to make it accepted. The nobleman would have to have ordered his servant killed for not earning an acceptable return on the pound or mina entrusted to him. What is the guy- a servant or an investment manager who gets killed if his money management is subpar? LOL.

Additionally, which I didn't mention earlier, is that there would be no parable in the parable if all Jesus was doing is relating a story with no moral added. That makes your preferred version even more meaningless.

par·a·ble (părə-bəl) n. A simple story illustrating a moral or religious lesson.

Without the first person words of Jesus at 26 and 27 there is no parable.

And these are immediately followed by:

28 And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem.

Did the nobleman ascend up to Jerusalem? "He" refers to Jesus and the fact that he had thus spoken a parable with a religious lesson at 26 and 27. If there is no parable then the passage would be nothing more than a random newsclip, not a parable.

The New King Jame Version should have been called the New And Improved King James Version. They rewrote the bible by adding quotes in a manner that makes the passage senseless in the hope of papering over the words of Jesus. Why can't you accept Jesus as he was?

You should read 'Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth' by Reza Aslan. Know Jesus.

[ramashiva]

On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 7:15:16 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:

> Sorry, pal. The passage makes exactly zero sense in the way that you are trying to make it accepted. The nobleman would have to have ordered his servant killed for not earning an acceptable return on the pound or mina entrusted to him.

Why do you keep saying that???

I already explained this to you --

In verse 27, "those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them" refers back to verse 14 --

"But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us."

> What is the guy- a servant or an investment manager who gets killed if his money management is subpar? LOL.

> Additionally, which I didn't mention earlier, is that there would be no parable in the parable if all Jesus was doing is relating a story with no moral added. That makes your preferred version even more meaningless.

> par·a·ble (părə-bəl) n. A simple story illustrating a moral or religious lesson.

> Without the first person words of Jesus at 26 and 27 there is no parable.

> And these are immediately followed by:

> 28 And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem.

> Did the nobleman ascend up to Jerusalem?

No.

> "He" refers to Jesus

Yes.

> and the fact that he had thus spoken a parable

Yes.

> with a religious lesson at 26

Yes.

> and 27.

No.

> If there is no parable then the passage would be nothing more than a random newsclip, not a parable.

> The New King Jame Version should have been called the New And Improved King James Version. They rewrote the bible by adding quotes in a manner that makes the passage senseless in the hope of papering over the words of Jesus.

You do realize there is NO punctuation in the original Greek, don't you? The NKJV translators added double and single quotes to make it perfectly clear who was speaking.

By the way, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), which is generally considered the most scholarly translation, also uses single quotes to make it clear that it is the nobleman, not Jesus, who is speaking in verses 26 and 27 --

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+19&version=NRSV


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[risky biz]

There is no need for quotation marks. It is abundantly clear from the context when Jesus is speaking in the third person and when he is speaking in the first person. Quotation marks are only required if someone wants to eliminate (very clumsily) what Jesus said in the first person which makes the entire surrounding passages completely senseless. You choose to ignore the senselessness because you want to defensively deny that Jesus said: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

If the intention had been to quote the nobleman he would have been quoted just as he had in the previous passages, thus:

26 And he said unto them, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

. . rather than:

26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

The "I" is Jesus speaking. He raised the nobleman's game with 27.

[ramashiva]

On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 9:45:58 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:

> There is no need for quotation marks.

The hundreds of Biblical scholars who worked on the NKJV and NRSV translations disagree with you.

> It is abundantly clear from the context when Jesus is speaking in the third person and when he is speaking in the first person.

Yes. Let's review verses 24 through 27 --

24 "And he said to those who stood by, 'Take the mina from him, and give it to him who has ten minas.' 25 (But they said to him, 'Master, he has ten minas.') 26 'For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.'"

Verse 24 introduces the final quote of the nobleman, which runs from verses 24 to 27.

> Quotation marks are only required if someone wants to eliminate (very clumsily) what Jesus said in the first person which makes the entire surrounding passages completely senseless.

No, it does not. It makes perfect sense if it is the nobleman speaking in verses 26 and 27.

> You choose to ignore the senselessness because you want to defensively deny that Jesus said: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Yes I do want to deny that it is Jesus speaking in verse 27. If your interpretation is correct, then Jesus ordered his disciples to bring his enemies before him and slay them in his presence. That is the purest nonsense, and contradicts everything Jesus taught. We can start with Jesus's teaching that we should love our enemies.

It is your interpretation which is senseless and which contradicts everything Jesus taught.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[da pickle]

risky has adopted the dodge and misstate method he has observed but he
is quite clumsy in execution ... (no pun intended)

[risky biz]

On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 11:37:14 PM UTC-8, ramashiva wrote:

<more denial>

To reiterate:

Jesus speaking of the nobleman:
13 And he called . . . and said unto them
15 . . . then he commanded these servants
17 And he said unto him . . .
19 And he said likewise to him . . .
22 And he saith unto him . . .
24 And he said unto them that stood by . . .

Jesus speaking in the first person:

26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

If the intention had been to quote the nobleman he would have been quoted just as he had in the previous passages, thus:

26 And he said unto them, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

. . rather than:

26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Your resort to the stature of the translators of the NKJV as something that trumps everything doesn't trump anything. They wanted to eliminate words of Jesus which put him in a light other than their mythologizing, just like you do. There are numerous translations of the Gospels, and it isn't in the least unusual to see the translations follow the doctrinal biases of the translators.

In any case, you are arguing in pointless directions. Even if what you want the Gospel to say was correct (and it isn't, for numerous reasons) what was the lesson Jesus was imparting by telling this story of a nobleman who ordered that all who did not accept his reign be slaughtered (before him)? It would still be an obvious allegory of the nobleman as equivalent to Jesus.

Words of the nobleman:
22 Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow . .

It's also very discordant that even the closest followers of Jesus didn't pick up very well on the lessons you claim that he taught. One of his disciples struck off the ear of a soldier in the prescence of Jesus (before him). Jesus prevented him from going further because his objective was fulfillment of the biblical prophecy with him as the crucified Messiah who would lead the Jews to victory over the Romans. As much was implied in the passge directly previous to 11 - 27:

"9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost."

Let's peruse what else Jesus taught in the very same Luke 19:

28 And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem. 29 And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, 30 saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. 31 And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him.

Was theft in accord with what you say is "everything Jesus taught"? The Lord makes his own rules and changes them when it's convenient. That's what it is to be not an everyday, run of the mill man, but the Lord.

It must never have occurred to you that most of Jesus' teachings were for his followers and that there could be different rules for those "which would not that I should reign over them". That's the whole underlying concept of the religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The non-believers will be excluded and suffer a terrible fate, either in the present life or later.

Luke 19:37 . . the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen; 38 saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord . .

And again, the passage about the ten minas would be meaningless without the concluding assertion of Jesus at 26 & 27. Without that it would be simply a meaningless story. It became a parable because Jesus endorsed the actions of the nobleman in regard to the servant and prophesied even more dire consequences for those "which would not that I should reign over them".

[risky biz]

Criticisms from someone who can't muster more than an incomplete sentence containing a vague, "na, na, na, na, na, na" amount to very little.

[ramashiva]

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:48:50 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:

> On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 11:37:14 PM UTC-8, ramashiva wrote:

> <more denial>

I have refuted every argument that you have made. I'm not in denial. You are.

Here is one of many essays you can find with Google explaining why your interpretation is wrong --

http://theheraldofgrace.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-mis-interpretation-of-luke-1927.html

> To reiterate:

Intelligent people accept correction. You do not accept correction. The conclusion is obvious.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[risky biz]

The funny part is that a quick glance at your cite reveals several points that I discredited before I even saw the cite. He's just saying the same thing you are which is overcooked dogma.

Your "everyone except me is dumb and dishonest" creed doesn't get you much mileage. You have completely failed to address any of several sensible reasons I have elaborated about why the interpretation you prefer is non-sensical.

[ramashiva]

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 11:30:02 AM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:

> The funny part is that a quick glance at your cite reveals several points that I discredited before I even saw the cite.

You haven't discredited anything. You are delusional.

> He's just saying the same thing you are which is overcooked dogma.

Do you have any idea how amusing it is to hear a non-Christian claim he understands what the Bible REALLY says better than hundreds of Biblical scholars?

Your willful misinterpretation of verse 27 to portray Jesus as a man who wanted his followers to slay his enemies is shameful -- as egregious as any Islamophobic attack on Mohammed (Peace be upon Him).

> Your "everyone except me is dumb and dishonest" creed doesn't get you much mileage.

Why are you so dishonest? I don't believe any such thing. But you certainly qualify as both dumb and dishonest.

> You have completely failed to address any of several sensible reasons I have elaborated about why the interpretation you prefer is non-sensical.

Why are you lying??? I have addressed every argument you have made.

The proof that Jesus wasn't speaking in the first person in verse 27 is in the text. Jesus was addressing his disciples, so why didn't they follow his command to bring his enemies to him and slay them before him? Or why didn't they at least protest the command?

The answer is obvious. They KNEW Jesus wasn't speaking in the first person in verse 27.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[risky biz]

All nonsense. I rest my case.

[da pickle]

Foot stomped ... bat and ball taken ... pouting home

[ramashiva]

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 2:55:02 PM UTC-8, vi...@hush.ai wrote:

> This author was the guest on a radio talk show I heard (probably
> Larry King or Art Bell), in the sixties, so I got the book from
> the library, and he states that 300 years passed without any
> written documents re the time of Jesus. Plus the rewriting,
> translations, etc, so I have my doubts on any specific words said
> after 300 years had passed. That would require more faith than I
> ever had or will have.

Your author is totally misinformed. All the books of the New Testament were written before 100 A.D.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[da pickle]

On 1/20/2015 7:14 PM, Vince wrote:
> ramashiva <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:804805af-7d0a-44fb...@googlegroups.com:

>
>> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 2:55:02 PM UTC-8,
>> vi...@hush.ai wrote:
>>
>>> This author was the guest on a radio talk show I heard
>>> (probably Larry King or Art Bell), in the sixties,
>

>> Your author is totally misinformed. All the books of the New
>> Testament were written before 100 A.D.
>>
>>
>> William Coleman (ramashiva)
>>
>

> Even that is a long time to quote something someone said, exactly.
> Maybe some written words will turn up someday, that was current at
> the time.

Not likely, but possible ... the Nag Hammadi library was found only
recently in the 1940s. The Gnostic Gospels are really interesting. A
new translation is available for free. I have read several books on the
find.

http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/nhl.pdf

And here is an example of the chronological order of the bible by
earliest time written down ... I am not sure of the accuracy of the numbers.

http://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA176/when-were-the-bible-books-written

It is abundantly clear that Bill Coleman has studied the bible a whole
lot more than risky. Probably has studied the Koran more too.

[risky biz]

The only saving grace is that no one takes your juvenile slanders seriously. I suspect that you are considered a child even by people who like you for some curious reason.