Christ is born on Christmas Day and a Muslim sets his crotch on fire.
There IS meaning here . . .
The "prophet" of the Muslim religion went forth into the world
murdering tens of thousands, 570 years after the day that Christ was
born, and that man who set fire to his balls on Christmas Day shows
his conviction to the belief that Mohammad's religion is the more
evolved revelation than that of Christ who went forth murdering NO
ONE, who went into the world teaching that 'he who lives by the sword,
dies by the sword."
Muslims are taught to regard the cheek turning teaching of Christ as
weak, unmanly and contrary to the will of God. Yet Islam represents
itself as the greater expression of peace on earth. Therefore now do
you wonder, can you wonder how it should be that the civilized peoples
of the earth are going BANKRUPT trying to set up a security fence and
a whole-body scanner against a Muslim expression of peace on earth?
One religion has at its head a teacher who makes it crystal clear that
all violence and hatred and unforgiveness is sin, while the other
teaches that not to harbor hatred of the enemy is sin, and it is sin
all the more not to meet violence with violence, or even the height of
sin to bear the least tolerance for the unbeliever.
For Islam hatred is a virtue, and it is preached on page after page of
the Qur'an. Can this be said for the religion of the Jews and the
Hindus? Buddhists separated themselves from the Hindus over this
question, the very issue of non-violence, and so also did Christ set
himself apart from a literal interpretation of the Law and Prophets in
the Hebrew Scriptures over that same issue. This was the entire
subject of his Sermon on the Mount. "You have heard it taught of old
thou shalt not commit murder, but verily I say unto you, whosoever is
so much as angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of
hell-fire."
And he went right down the list of things that he had been given to
understand were being falsely understood from old time. But if it
would seem that the Jews have for the most part preserved their
allegiance to those understandings of old, have somehow managed not to
give credence or reverence to the non-violent reading of Torah that
the rabbi Jesus preached, then how do you account for the peculiar
fact that Jews are not setting their underpants on fire, on jets, on
Christmas Day? Why are Jews not constantly at war with Christians?
Why is it that Jews, when they fight a war, fight it only against
those who hate them and try to kill them--and then fight back with a
vengeance that seems downright biblical in proportion--or
"disproportion" if you will--and yet always stop short of the kind of
complete annihilation that Joshua seemed to think God was always
demanding from him?
This whole world must stop and ask the question, "Why do Buddhists
only set fire to themselves, and to no one else, in order to make
protest against war, while Muslims set fire to themselves in order to
make war and set fire to others?" Are you never given to ask, which of
the two seems to be truly the most "religious" or godly? But if you
decide for the one, then it is against reason to suppose the other
also to be "religious" or "godly"! It is one or the other--depending
on what seems religious, good, or godly to you.
I will tell you what I think. I think that Jews, in spite of
themselves, are followers of Jesus, knowing that Jesus was himself a
Jew, and that his teachings came to amplify the preaching of peace
from their own prophets and psalmists, even so loudly did he proclaim
it as to drown out the preaching of hatred, violence, war--and this to
such an extent, that these 2010 years later, since the day Christ
preached peace, have worked on the Jews, whether they will confess it
or not, so that they can have no doubt in their minds but that "Thou
shalt not kill" means business, no matter what this or that irate
prophet may, in his anguish howl about the destruction God should rain
upon the enemies of his people. Every Jew on earth knows by heart the
song of the prophet Zacharias, "Not by might, nor by power, but by my
spirit saith the Lord of Hosts." They know that so well as they know
what Jesus was talking when in essence came to say, "Listen to
Zacharias, first before you think to repeat the bloody acts of
Joshua!" Is there a Jew alive on the earth who does not know that for
the less sinful choice? There are such Jews who do not hold to it,
but they are so few that you never seen a one of them setting their
nuts on fire in a jet on Christmas.
UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS, or prepare to see your world destroyed,
even while you are yet alive to witness and suffer it.
--
JM http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
I think it would be only right for you to follow the Buddhists, and
set yourself on fire to protest these actions.
Keep fiddling, Nero.
I think Jews used to be a lot more like Muslims; it's just that they
are very different now due to millennia of persecution and pogroms.
The Bible refers to Jews "traveling over land and sea to win a
convert" in Jesus' time, evidence that Jews did not act like Jews do
today.
The same thing goes for Christians; I think Christians are what they
are today not because of the teachings of Jesus at all, but because of
the cumulative effect of the religious wars and persecutions in
Europe.
I think these religions exist because lack of education and honest
thought processes have failed. None of the 3 major religions are old
religions. There are many older religions that have come and gone.
The 3 major religions are made up of scraps of the older religions.
Superstitious fools have been controlled for about 4000 years by the
clowns that control these religions. The history of genocide abounds
within all of these murderous religions. The earth runs red with the
blood of the victims of these superstitous morons.
We hear that faulty argument a lot, and it just seems to get more
gummed up with prejudicial nonsense every time it's preached. Take
this part of it for example . . .
> None of the 3 major religions are old
> religions. There are many older religions that have come and gone.
Why only "three"? Why leave out the major, massively populated
religions of the Orient? It would be hard to find a more ancient, on-
going religion than Hinduism, and as Buddhism is a sect spun off from
Hinduism, teaching many of the same doctrines, Buddhism by virtue of
that is "old" also.
So it goes with the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and in
horribly corrupted form, it's super-heretical off-spring, Islam.
The religions that come and go are the many pagan polytheisms of
ancient Greece, Rome, Persia, China and Egypt. Oddly somehow, Hinduism
did not suffer the same fate of extinction, due to powerful elements
in the religion too involved to get into here.
>The history of genocide abounds
> within all of these murderous religions.
To say that is to dishonestly ignore the glaring fact that the history
of genocide--excluding Islam--is almost entirely one of non-religious,
often atheist, purely political forces such as Stalinism, Pol Pot
Marxism, and Hitlerism.
Of course there have been religious wars because people fight over
that same as they fight over everything else. When Christianity saw a
need to meet the rising tide of Islamic aggression and genocide
spreading forth from Arabia over the entire earth, reaching even into
Spain and southern France, OF COURSE they rose up to fight in defense
of their own lands, religion and culture. And of course, there were
men in the Crusader armies, illiterate knights and knaves who had
never read, let alone so much as heard a word (in their own language)
of Christ's teachings--so what would you expect of them other than
that they would carry their unknowing "agnostic" vengeance also
against the Jews, who they ignorantly blamed, for the death of Jesus.
It is ignorance and prejudice that brings genocide into the world, NOT
religion, unless it is the crazy cult of Mohammad's Islam, which is
NOT a religion in any true sense of the word, as I show in the
original post, but a political cult, a fascist heresy based in nothing
other than genocidal hatred of Jews and Christians--and NOTHING ELSE,
except that they push the extent of their brigandage to the maniacal
degree of thievery, that they rob from Jews and Christians their very
god, fill him full of hatred, greed and aggression, change his name,
and even go to the extreme of stealing the very cross from Jesus--as
they claim he was never crucified. All the prophets of the New
Testament knew Mohammad from old time, for "Antichrist" as also they
wrote many pages full of lamentation over the destruction, anarchy and
desolation he was sure to bring.
--
JM
http://whosenose.blogspot.com/2006/03/great-white-second-coming-of.html
>Jared wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 2:57 am, Just Me <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I will tell you what I think. I think that Jews, in spite of
>>> themselves, are followers of Jesus,
>>
>> I think Jews used to be a lot more like Muslims; it's just that they
>> are very different now due to millennia of persecution and pogroms.
>> The Bible refers to Jews "traveling over land and sea to win a
>> convert" in Jesus' time, evidence that Jews did not act like Jews do
>> today.
>>
>> The same thing goes for Christians; I think Christians are what they
>> are today not because of the teachings of Jesus at all, but because of
>> the cumulative effect of the religious wars and persecutions in
>> Europe.
>
>
>I think these religions exist because lack of education and honest
>thought processes have failed.
I wonder at the thought processes that constructed that sentence.
Consider the logic:
1. Lack of education has failed
2. Honest thought processes have failed
Therefore these religions exist.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/litmain.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
> >The history of genocide abounds
> > within all of these murderous religions.
>
> To say that is to dishonestly ignore the glaring fact that the history
> of genocide--excluding Islam--is almost entirely one of non-religious,
> often atheist, purely political forces such as Stalinism, Pol Pot
> Marxism, and Hitlerism.
A few years ago, in response to a breakfast club debate,
I took a day or two to actually tabulate the numbers of those
murdered for religious vs. secular reasons and broke it down
into categories of slaughter.
The non-religious genocide predominated ten to one.
---
Mark
What genocides have the Jews committed in the last 2000 years?
Um did you include the muslime genocide of Hindus? The
upper bound on the number of Hindus slaughtered in the
name of islam is one hundred million. The Hindu Kush
mountain range was named in honor of all the Hindus
slaughtered by muzzies.
> ---
> Mark
> the crazy cult of Mohammad's Islam,
Believers like me have thousands of untold acts of
charity and kindness which go unnoticed. But then you
waterboard a couple of people, and everyone notices.
--
Mark inventor/artist/pilot/guitarist/scientist/philosopher/
scratch golfer/cat wrangler and observer of the mundane.
And much much more including wealthy beyond anything you can imagine.
My website http://www.hosanna1.com/
Look here boyo...if you or anyone else puts a muslim
propaganda post here, I'm gonna put 10 posts against it.
If you put ten, I'll put a hundred. If you put a hundred,
I'll put a thousand. So tell your sandnigger friends
they're responsible for the ANTI campaign that follows.
I got your gas can right here.
The statement was:
"I think these religions exist because lack of education and honest
thought processes have failed."
You can fault him for constructing a bad run on sentance, but I don't
think that you should make things up about that he didn't say.
Clearly he should have written:
"I think these religions exist for two reasons: lack of education,
and, honest
thought processes have failed."
Or
"I think there are two reasons these religions exist: lack of
education, and, honest
thought processes have failed."
Gaza, 2009
On Jan 7, 8:47 am, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
Nonsense. If that were an instance of genocide, Gaza today would look
like the Warsaw Ghetto of May 16, 1943, with not a single victim left
alive among the smoking rubble. You can't even so much as compare it
to the Allied assault on Dresden. Compare it to what the Yanks and
Russians did to Nazi Berlin? Forget it, there would be sore Muslim
pussies suppurating everywhere among the tens of thousands of corpses
stinking from El Arish to North Gaza.
From http://wapedia.mobi/en/Bombing_of_Berlin_in_World_War_II . . .
Up to the end of March 1945 there had been a total of 314 air raids on
Berlin, with 85 of those coming in the last twelve months [28] Half of
all houses were damaged and around a third uninhabitable, as much as
16 km² of the city was simply rubble. Estimates of the total number of
dead in Berlin from air raids range from 20,000 to 50,000; current
German studies suggest the lower figure is more likely. [29] This
compares to death tolls of between 25,000 and 35,000 in the single
attack on Dresden on 14 February 1945, and the 40,000 killed at
Hamburg in a single raid in 1943. The relatively low casualty figure
in Berlin is partly the result of the city's distance from airfields
in Britain, which made big raids difficult before the liberation of
France in late 1944, but also a testament to its superior air defences
and shelters.
--
The estimated number of fatalities in Gaza 2009 comes to around 1,400.
That's out of a total population of 1,500,202. Kind of looks like the
Israelis should take some lessons from the Muslims on how to conduct a
proper genocide, just as Koolchik should take a course from Edward
Said et al on how to prepare a more effective arsenal of propagandist
poison gas.
--
Why don't you try a little kindness of honesty for a change, Koolchik?
Instead of constantly immolating yourself in the blazes of your own
flaming b.s. fart-gas afire?
Oh! And what did you use this time--a Zippo or a Bic?
Congrats JM, You've turned a corner.
Today is the first day that you compared the Gaza strip to the Warsaw
Ghetto. That means they have something in common.
There's hope for you yet.
Nu, but this is your comparison, isn't it, as I showed them for
diametrical opposites. What I would compare Gaza to is my three cats--
or not all three but the little black inbred one, Ms. Black Dolly, who
is so wild and foul tempered and nasty in her habits that she cannot
be permitted to come into the house along with the other two. For the
"other two" think "Israeli Arab" and "Druze".
In all good conscience, so short-haired as she is, I cannot put her
totally out in the cold, what with the weather being as it is right
now, so she is allowed into the attic, where she can curl up by the
stove-pipe to keep warm. That attic is not the Warsaw Ghetto--that
would be the garage in weather like this. If only she had the
temperament to behave nicely like the other two cats, Mr. Kitty and
Ms. Pussy, she would be allowed into the house with the rest of us
human beings.
If Gaza may be likened to a ghetto (never the Warsaw, not in a million
years) it is one of their own construction and choosing. They could be
living healthy, happy and prosperous lives like every Arab Israeli and
Druze. They choose otherwise, to putrify in resentment over lost wars,
opting to remain on UN welfare, festering in the ghetto they build
from the terrorist dollar. Much other than a ghetto, I would compare
Gaza to a robber's roost.
The difference between the two JM is that Hitler was impatient and
wanted his solution sooner than later. The Jews have been patiently
wandering around for 2000 years waitng to return, if they have to wait
another 100 years to get it all back, slowly starving out the
Palistinians or wait for some for of epidemic to take them, it is just
a drop in the bucket of Jewish time to them.
Genocide is a journey: it.has no set time frame or minimum speed limit.
> The difference between the two JM is that Hitler was impatient and
> wanted his solution sooner than later. The Jews have been patiently
> wandering around for 2000 years waitng to return, if they have to wait
> another 100 years to get it all back, slowly starving out the
> Palistinians or wait for some for of epidemic to take them, it is just
> a drop in the bucket of Jewish time to them.
These assumptions based on pure speculation derived of an anti-Zionist
bias are not borne out by facts or history. The original desire of
Israelis to live side by side in peace with the Arabs is contradicted
only by an Arab determination never to let it happen. For your view to
be true you have to tear half the pages from the autobiography of
Moshe Dayan, remove both Begin and Rabin from the pages of Israeli
history. You must deny that Begin ever shook the bloody hands of Sadat
and Arafat, and that Rabin's mad desire for a two-state solution was
all lies and that he was assassinated for a lie.
Now, after the rise of Hamas, the Israeli electorate has seen the
handwriting on the wall, and facing the hateful reality of a never
ceasing Arab opposition to a Jewish state, has seen fit to put Bibi in
power, to exactly that hard and difficult determination you falsely
describe as "genocide". From the Arab side it is just that, what
they've always had in mind for the Jews, and as Israelis fight to
prevent it, it's just Cowboys and Indians all over again.
> Genocide is a journey: it.has no set time frame or minimum speed limit.
No. It will not be genocide for those Jew scalp hunting Palestinians,
but it will be defeat, it will be exile by exclusion, it will be pain,
death and tears till the day should come that they gain the good
common sense of an American Cherokee, to lay down their tomahawks and
smoke the pipe of peace. Till then they will remain on the Trail of
Tears they have blazed for themselves.
Not genocide, but suicide is their journey, and if the death they seek
should come by starvation, it is only because they have provided
themselves with nothing to eat but that bitter mouthful of pride they
are somehow not capable to swallow. Sitting Bull could do it, but
Mahmoud Abbas can't. There is a deep and terrible reason for that, and
it's all written as law in the pages of the Qur'an, a curse on the
soul of any man who should read and believe it, one which thankfully,
the honor and freedom loving dignity of our own beloved American
Indian was never given to suffer.
--
JM
And Hitler's big pal in the Middle East was the Grand Mufti. You'd have
fit right in with them.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html
Then there were the French:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France
The Poles
http://www.fathom.com/course/72809602/session2.html
The Russians
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/5962/Anti-Semitism-in-Russia.html
The Italians
http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521841016&ss=exc
The Spanish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Spain
The British
http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/trials-of-the-diaspora-a-history-of-anti-semitism-in-england-anthony-julius-order-now/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-whos-who-of-british-nazis-728501.html
The Americans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-American_Bund
The Canadians
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=a1ARTA0000247
The Swiss
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/swiss.html
The Dutch
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/netherlands.html
Ukrainians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Ukraine
The Georgians
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Georgia.html
The Belgians
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Belgium.html
Most Christian nations:
http://medieval-wars.suite101.com/article.cfm/antisemitism_in_the_crusades
The list is very long.
And you should have a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazi_groups_of_the_United_States#United_States
Well, I should've figured you for a Nazi historian. Of course!
Oh. You have no idea, you poor thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGkn91ywbsU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC8G1xzkfwA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8ULHgemOE4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cye859v7HT4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1xlYIoekE8&NR=1&feature=fvwp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBkjIoW7vjA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6KyYKLIKyE&NR=1
> Why is "MU" the Beginning of both "Murder" and "Muslim"?
It is also the beginning of "Mucilax," which would help correct the
obvious lack of fiber in your diet.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 39
939.1 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
Warbama: An LBJ for the Twenty-First century. No hope. No change.