I asked them their reasons for leaving Islam. They all said that Islam conflicts with western liberal secular values which they now prefer. They chose man’s opinions over God’s revelation when it comes to gender roles, functions and natures (they reject Qur’anic patriarchy in favour of ‘equality’).
And the male is not like the female. Qur’an 3:36.
I pointed out that men and women are different and it would be unjust to treat them as if they were interchangeable. I gave recent examples of men identifying as women competing in women’s sports like weightlifting. Predictably the biological men who call themselves women won easily. This is unjust. Equality is a fiction.
The goal of the Shari‘ah is justice, not equality. See explanation here.
The ex-Muslims were good hearted enough to concede that was a good point. Each to his own..
Born-male Laurel Hubbard became a champion in women’s weightlifting after ‘identifying’ as a woman
Categories: Apostasy, Gender Identity and Reassignment, Islam, Liberalism, Life in the West, Secularism
Brilliant little article that Paul. Alhamdulilah.
Exploring life, the universe and censorship
post crap – its gets deleted
Lool.
Lool.
I asked them their reasons for leaving Islam. They all said that Islam conflicts with western liberal secular values which they now prefer.
I would bet they meant freedom of speech and freedom of religion, freedom for Muslims to leave Islam without fear of prison or being killed, etc. Freedom to have a beer or glass of wine with a meal, etc. Freedom from the more harsh parts of Sharia law, etc.
They chose man’s opinions over God’s revelation when it comes to gender roles, functions and natures (they reject Qur’anic patriarchy in favour of ‘equality’).
I could be wrong; but I would bet they did not agree with that part of the recent western LGBT and confusion of male and female – gender -trans- agenda.
Yes, they want the type of freedom that secularism offers, not the Quran or even the Bible. You crosstians are adorable. You try so hard to make the Bible appear as if it aligns with modernist, secular standards, when the reality is that historically, Christianity has never offered such standards.
@ QB
Yep pure lip service of belief (despite the fact that according to them Jesus(as) will rule by it lol)
Indeed! Bloody hypocrites, the whole lot of them!
The general ethics and morality and societal norms of 50 years ago was good, except for the racial discrimination and prejudice against blacks and minorities.
The other issues – sexual sins, drugs – the culture and society also had enough proper shame to not do those gross things in public. (nakedness, adultieries, smoking a joint in public, LGBTQ arrogance marches, etc.)
So point proven. You only pick and choose.
And by the way, racial discrimination was practiced by your savior.
no it was not. Jesus was testing the disciples because of their racial hatred / bias, etc. not because of His own.
He was teaching them about internal purity vs. external purity – see the context of Mark 7:14-23, which comes right before the event in v. 24-30.
Sure, sure. Jesus was “testing” the disciples by insulting a Gentile woman and making her beg. Right. Got it. 👌
I guess Luke didn’t get that message when he conveniently kept that story out of his gospel.
You are too dumb to read in context and see the surrounding verses, the reason why Jesus immediately left the area within Israel to go outside Israel to the area of Tyre and Sidon (modern Lebanon); the pagan background of the Canaanites / Syro-Phoenicians, etc. and the harmony with the teaching in Acts chapters 10-11.
“What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” Acts 10-11
God changed the food laws (Mark 7:19; Acts 10-11) and shows that He accepts all cultures and peoples and came against the wrong applications of the Jews in how they understood separation and ceremonial uncleanness. نجس
You are too dumb and embarrassed to admit your god was a racist. You refer to the book of Acts which was supposedly written by Luke, a Gentile. So you just proved my point dummy! Luke wanted to present a Gentile version of Christianity which was at odds with the Jewish version presented by other Christians, such as “Matthew”.
Even the extreme change in food law is only attested in Acts. Mark’s version doesn’t say all food is now allowed. If that was the case, then why were the disciples such as Peter still practicing the Jewish food laws when that supposed vision of a table in Acts happened? 🤔
Because love for one’s own food, culture, and the upbringing of the food laws was so deeply ingrained; that is was difficult to overcome. Just like many bondages and addictions that humans have – they know the right thing to do intellectually, but lack the power to actually do the right thing. That is why Islam is so powerless; it has no internal Holy Spirit power; only external dead rituals and fear based punishments.
How convenient! The savior apparently made all food legal and yet the “rock” of the church needed some time and a mystical vision to set him straight! What’s with that Peter guy?
both Mark 7:19 and Acts 10-11 are both true. You are too dumb to read and comprehend.
You are still too dumb to offer a substantive explanation. Acts is very specific. Mark is very vague. Get over it.
you liar for jesus, your god called the womans daughter a little dog, it was the desciplew who implored him to help her. It was what came out of jesus’ mouth which defiled him
“God changed the food laws (Mark 7:19; Acts 10-11) and shows that He accepts all cultures and peoples and came against the wrong applications of the Jews in how they understood separation and ceremonial uncleanness. ”
who said the desciples wanted to be separate from a desparate woman seeking help? The text says they wanted jesus to help her
“hey know the right thing to do intellectually, but lack the power to actually do the right thing. ”
it was only after a pagan schooled jesus did he do the right thing. Think if she did not have a clever come back?
@ QB
It really is. Even if they ignore Jesus(as) ruling by it:
1. It was still sent by God
2. According to them Moses(as) and the rest of the prophets ruled by it and the Torah’s laws are WAY more harsh than anything in the Sharia lol.
And according to Psalm 19, the law of God is “perfect”! 😂
Hmm, I wonder if Pennywise’s watered-down, toothless version of Christianity supports the freedom to smoke a joint in public without fear of arrest? 🤔
@ Qb
Nothing to say it’s not the blood of Jesus and all that.
And according to Psalm 19, the law of God is perfect.
agreed.
The law of God in the Bible is perfect, restoring the soul. But not the Sharia laws of the Allah of Islam – not perfect. Just a bunch of empty rituals and harsh punishments of external religion of fear.
Mark 7:1-23
😂🤣 If it’s “perfect”, then why do you morons go to such lengths to throw it under the bus?
So let me get this straight. It’s “perfect” yet you conveniently don’t have to follow it and can instead pick and choose secular laws when they suit your purpose?
And let’s see some of these “perfect” laws. Burn the daughter of the high priest for sexual immorality. Cut off the hand of a woman defending her husband in a fight. Stone a woman to death if her husband suspects she was not a virgin because she didn’t bleed with the first sexual intercourse. And many more…this is the “perfect” law of God? And you have a problem with Sharia? 😂
“So let me get this straight. It’s “perfect” yet you conveniently don’t have to follow it and can instead pick and choose secular laws when they suit your purpose?”
willingly choosing man made laws over their gods
Hypocrisy manifested. What did Isaiah say about them? Oh yeah…”they honor me with their lips…”
@ QB
Yep honor with the lips. Again the Ot’s laws have more rituals and harshness than Shariah. Usually when I show Muslims most crimes end in death its assummed to be a punishment on them.
Notice how Pennywise has stayed quiet about the “perfect” law of God…
‘I could be wrong; but I would bet they did not agree with that part of the recent western LGBT and confusion of male and female – gender -trans- agenda.’
Yes you are wrong. They did agree with that agenda.
ok, thanks for clarification.
Weird for former Muslims to go that far gone.
@ Ken
Yeah usually apostates become the worst of creation and induge in any sin they can.
https://twitter.com/prageru/status/1160918610853933058
Ah, the type of freedom that some liberals want, and that Islam nor Christianity do not offer…how ironic given Pennywise’s above comment about Islam and Sharia law!
@ QB
But, but, but the freedom to choose!!! Lol.
What’s REALLY ironic is we ACTUALLY have nuance to the above and have had fiqh discussions (for example concerning hermaphodites etc.)
Islam is a complete religion. Christianity is not.
@ QB
Oh the fact that a society can be run according to Islam while it can’t using the NT is proof of that. If they had absolute power they still couldn’t fix any world problems accept with basic philosophical principles like do unto others. Or resorting to OT law.
Seriously ask them how to do something as simple as banking. The fact that he couldn’t even see the evils of something basic like alcohol and that the US (whom he considers to be the pinnacle Christian nation) tried to abandon it is enough to prove the point.
Agreed. I think the problem started because Christians like Paul were convinced the world was ending, so they didn’t prepare a long-term plan. That is why Christianity offers no practical guidelines and has to cherry-pick man-made ideas.
@ QB
Good point. The only other alternative is they have to follow the OT law (as theirs nothing that abolishes it) which they HATE. Quite the dilemma.
Historically, they did follow those laws, didn’t they? It’s only in modern times, with the rise of secularism, that Christians have thrown the Mosaic law under the bus.
Alcohol in moderation in not a sin.( 1 or 2 drinks with a meal or in a celebration like a wedding feast – as Jesus turned the water into real wine in John 2; and many texts in the OT show that some drinking of alcohol is not a sin and is a symbol of joy, see psalm 4, for example)
But getting drunk is a sin.
Ephesians 5:18
people need to learn to have self-control. Just like gluttony of food.
Then smoking a joint in moderation shouldn’t be a problem either.
Some studies reveal that marijuana is linked to mental illness and also many times it is a “gateway drug” to higher drugs. It seems to add to an already problem with laziness and can cause lots of more laziness.
But modern days are claiming that there are some medical benefits from it against acute and chronic pain.
I prefer the days when it was looked down upon, but maybe there are some benefits to medically prescribed usages. But not the total legalization like the state of Colorado now that is half stoned all the time. Some have been linked to car accidents and deaths and machinery usage mistakes causing damage, etc.
😂🤣😂 Meanwhile, in other news, dozens of studies have shown that alcohol is actually more dangerous than marijuana!
Car accidents? Many are alcohol-related. Random acts of violence? Many are alcohol-related. Rapes? Many are alcohol-related.
And yet Pennywise is telling us of the dangers of marijuana. 🤦♂️
getting drunk and then driving is 2 wrongs and on steroids wrong also. It is selfish because it endangers others. Obviously those other sins are results of drunkenness and that is what Ephesians 5:18 is warning against. Agreed.
“Dissipation” is a Greek word that means getting into a state of a lack of being about to control oneself. related word in Luke 15:13 – loose living, reckless living, out of control partying, spending, drinking, eating, no self-control
But you tried to warn of the dangers of marijuana vis a vis car accidents. Alcohol causes far more accidents. So using your double standards, smoking marijuana should be okay if you use “moderation”.
Of course I agree that all drunkenness is wrong; and therefore all drunk driving is even 1000 times worse. Apples and oranges you make.
Then do you accept that marijuana is okay to use in moderation?
you have freedom from the law . u can get drunk on weekend and ur god wont judge u.
no you cannot. Ephesians 5:18 is clear. no drunkenness at all ever.
@ Ken
That’s right sing the drunkard’s anthem. If alcoholism runs in someone’s family one drink has the potential to trigger it (my wife has seen this actually happen to one of her friends)
of course if alcoholism is in one’s family, then it is better to follow full abstinence from alcohol. nothing I wrote contradicts that.
So where does your Bible warn against genetic risks of alcoholism?
@ Ken
That’s the point they didn’t know. So according to your golden Biblical advice you gave in this scenario they just became an alcoholic.
bible tells them to drain their sorrows by becoming drunk
getting drunk on weekend and not drinking on weekdays is self control.since u have freedom from the law, their is no judgement against u for becoming a drunkard specifically at the weekends
No, since getting drunk on the weekends is NOT self control.
Who defines self control? Since u are free from the law u can make up your own rules and define “self control”
choose pagan like u willingly choose secular laws
Mr.heathcliff wrote:
“who said the desciples wanted to be separate from a desparate woman seeking help? The text says they wanted jesus to help her”
Obviously, Mr.Heathcliff has trouble with reading and comprehension:
And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us.
Matthew 15:23
lets just say that this translation is correct, what does constant pestering have to do with the bs you argued above about culture ?
send her away because she is pestering us.
You don’t seem to be able to read the context and historical background of the pagan Canaanites and their history vs. pagans and the Canaanites in the OT. Nor the full context of Mark 7, Matthew 15; and Acts 10-11.
You are lazy.
“You don’t seem to be able to read the context and historical background of the pagan Canaanites and their history vs. pagans and the Canaanites in the OT. Nor the full context of Mark 7, Matthew 15; and Acts 10-11.
You are lazy.”
jezer came to fix broken culture by identifying sick girl as dog.
Obviously, Mr.Pennywise doesn’t know how to read because the context shows that they wanted him to help her.
Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
If they meant for him to send her away without helping her, then he wouldn’t have said “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel”. Hmm, if Pennywise is correct, then it means the savior misinterpreted the disciples!
oh yeah i FORGOT THAT, THANKS BRO.i remeber that point from 2 years ago
i asked ehrman, he said the greek is difficult to translate and it can mean HELP HER!
Nope. απολυσαν is in Aorist command / imperative form, from: apoluo / απολυω – to send away, get rid of, release, divorce. Given in the Aorist command form shows that the disciples wanted Jesus to get rid of her and command her to go.
The context of where racial prejudice and hatred comes from – the arrogance and pride in the heart – Mark 7:20-23 – shows that Jesus is getting to the root of sin -racial pride / arrogance in the heart and hatred of other races; and the connection of Mark 7:19 with Acts 10-11 shows the relation to culture and the Jews and the food laws and calling people “unclean” – نجش (Najes)
Ehrman is wrong; there is not one dictionary entry that means “help her”.
Oh my goodness! So Pennywise is admitting that his savior misinterpreted the disciples! Shocking!
The disciples: Would you get rid of this woman, please? She’s annoying us!
Jesus: I was only sent to the Jews.
The disciples: Okay, so get rid of her then.
Jesus: I was only sent to the Jews.
The disciples: 🤦♂️
Yep lets teach them not to be “racist” by having a woman call herself a dog (aka a b*tch) and say I was only sent to the Jews. Yeah thats definitely more effective than saying don’t be a racist.
Temple knows all of this. On blogging theology 1 i told him that the desciples would hear the women refer to her self as a dog.
“Send her away; for she crieth after us.—The disciples were clearly unable to enter into either of the two feelings which were thus contending for the mastery. Their words, as interpreted by our Lord’s answer, were, in some sense, a plea in favour of the woman. They wished Him to grant what she asked for, and so to dismiss her. And yet we feel that their words were far harsher than their Master’s silence. They wanted only to be rid of her presence, which had followed them from the streets into the house, to be freed from the loud eager cries which vexed them.” Elicott’s Commentary
“Send her away; for she crieth after us. How many of the papists think that this text patronizes their invocation of saints departed I cannot tell, for these disciples were alive, and we do not read that she spake to any of them to intercede for her. It is certain they did move Christ on her behalf.” Matthew Poole’s Commentary
“and besought him, saying, send her away; not in any shape, with any sort of answer, without curing her daughter, or without a promise of a cure; no, they desired she might be dismissed, with a grant of her request, to her entire satisfaction, as appears from Christ’s answer:” Gill’s Exposition
“ἀπόλυσον αὐτήν] send her away, that is, with her request granted. Bengel says well: “Sic solebat Jesus dimittere.”” Meyer’s NT Commentary
“ἀπόλυσον, get rid of her by granting her request.” Expositor’s Greek Testament
“Send her away] By granting what she asks, by yielding, like the unjust judge, to her importunity.” Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
“Send her away. There is some doubt concerning the feeling of the apostles in thus addressing Christ. Did they wish him to grant her virtual petition or not? On the one hand, it is urged that they were thoroughly annoyed at her importunity. They had sought for quiet’ and privacy, and now this woman was bringing a crowd around them, and occasioning the very notoriety which they wished to avoid. Their Jewish prejudices, too, were aroused by this appeal from a Canaanite; they could not endure the idea that favour should be extended to this Gentile of an abhorred race; hence they desire Christ to dismiss her at once, give her a decided rejection. On the other hand, the answer of Christ to their request leads to another explanation, as if he understood them to be asking him to grant her prayer. And this is undoubtedly what they did want, though they did not presume to prescribe the manner or to beg for a miracle. They range themselves on the woman’s side, not from any genuine compassion, but from mere selfishness.” Pulpit Commentary
“Send her away
With her request granted; for, as Bengel exquisitely remarks, “Thus Christ was accustomed to send away.”” Vincent’s Word Studies
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/15-23.htm
So it seems the commentaries disagree with our esteemed scholar Pennywise.
“The context of where racial prejudice and hatred comes from – the arrogance and pride in the heart – Mark 7:20-23
– shows that Jesus is getting to the root of sin -racial pride / arrogance in the heart and hatred of other races; and the connection of Mark 7:19 with Acts 10-11 shows the relation to culture and the Jews and the food laws and calling people “unclean” – نجش (Najes”
they didnt call her unclean, jesus did. note that he said “it is NOT RIGHT to take children bread and cast it to the dogs”
it was only after she refuted jesus did she get her crumbs. she wasnt asked to sit at the table , the lesson here for the desciples is that gentile women come to jesus as dogs
“Nope. απολυσαν is in Aorist command / imperative form, from: apoluo / απολυω – to send away, get rid of, release, divorce. ”
wring.”get rid of her” in the sense give her WHAT SHE wants so she goes away. thy were more MERCIFUL than jesus
“wring”
LOL
no; they were still stuck in racial pride/ arrogance in their heart, as Mark 7:20-23 says.
Faiz, along with mr.heathciff doesn’t seem to know how to read either.
But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” 26 And He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 But she said, “Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus said to her, “O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed at once.
Mark 7:25-28
She called Jesus “Lord” (kurios) twice and in the Matthew parallel, she called him both Lord and “Son of David” – she recognized Him as Lord and Messiah (Son of David). (Matthew 15:22)
She did not whine or complain (like you guys). She did not play the race card or victim mentality. She did not play intersectionality and “Jewish supremacy” games with words. she did not speak out of pain and oppression and bad background of the past of her pagan Canaanite culture.
She was indirectly acknowledging that her culture was pagan and unclean and that she is an unclean dog (pagan, unclean) – confessing she is a sinner and came from a sinful culture is the first step to freedom.
She called her attitude “great faith”. Matthew 15:28
True faith in Christ stops playing victim cards/ racist card and confesses their own sinfulness and does not defend the bad aspects of their own culture and religion.
“he did not whine or complain (like you guys). She did not play the race card or victim mentality.”
she was thinking about her daughter.
“She did not play intersectionality and “Jewish supremacy” games with words. she did not speak out of pain and oppression and bad background of the past of her pagan Canaanite culture.”
Their was danger of her being attacked by jesus.
“She was indirectly acknowledging that her culture was pagan and unclean and that she is an unclean dog (pagan, unclean) – confessing she is a sinner and came from a sinful culture is the first step to freedom.”
he calls her ill daughter a dog. how does a demon possessed kid aknowledge her “sinful culture”
So the disciples would see that she is a sinful dog, nice teaching lesson
”
She called her attitude “great faith”. Matthew 15:28″
for agreeing with her oppressor
“True faith in Christ stops playing victim cards/ racist card and confesses their own sinfulness and does not defend the bad aspects of their own culture and religion.”
jesus was a racist, he had no respect for love thy neighbor and no compassion for a sick girl until he was taught basic physics lesson
Lol, Pennywise is still struggling to explain his savior’s racism and incompetence.
There was no struggle at all. I refuted you and heathcliff completely.
Sure you did. 😂
Pennywise admits his racist savior insulted a desperate woman by first making her acknowledge that she is an “unclean dog”. Wow. 👏
@ QB
She acknowledged her culture was inferior to the Jews an by calling herself a b*tch that will teach the diciples (the foundation of the Church) not to be racists. Again seems a LOT easier to say don’t be a racist.
🤣😂🤣 Use a derogatory term for a member of a different ethnic group…that will teach those racists not to be racist!
jesus came to repair old and broken culture by calling little ill girl an animal
Correction…an unclean animal.
“o; they were still stuck in racial pride/ arrogance in their heart, as Mark 7:20-23 says”
nothing in mark 7:20-23 says that they were “stuck in arrogance ” or “racial pride”
Why are you making up lies?
Because that’s easier than admitting that his savior was a racist.
the pagan roman centurion should have receieved the treatment the canaanite woman got, because the roman was part of greatest imperial exploitative machine. this guy was robbing those jews.jesus made woman (dog) beg for healing , while he acts promptly upon the centurions request
Great point! This happened before the incident with the woman. So apparently Pennywise’s savior was inconsistent in his racism. Could it have something to do with gender bias? 🤔
@ QB
Maybe.
“This man really deserves your help. 5 He loves our people and he himself built a synagogue for us.”
Seems like a situation of
“you scratch my back i scratch yours”
The elders convinced jesus to help pagan because of what he did for them. So he could still be a racist and still help the pagan because of what he did, but internally robbing the jews lol
The great faith of both was rewarded equally in both cases.
In the case of the woman the obstacle was needed to bring it to light.
In the case of the centurion it was on display from the start.
More garbage from Iggy.
The woman showed faith from the start too. But she had to admit being a lowly dog before any help was given. In fact, the way each approached Jesus is almost identical. They were both humble and pleaded for Jesus to heal their companions. What makes it more egregious is that the centurion was asking for help for his servant whereas the woman was asking for help for her daughter! Jesus didn’t delay in helping the centurion but needlessly delayed helping the woman. Sounds like racism and gender bias to me.
“The great faith of both was rewarded equally in both cases.”
what u talking about? She got her crumbs, she never received any guidance. she went back home, she didnt even get a chance to be jesus’ errand girl.
jesus giventh not one shit the faith of gentile children
“he great faith of both was rewarded equally in both cases”
jesus thought gentiles pagans were plain dumb until he was made to realise that crumbs fall. When he saw that they were capable of clever answers, his faith about them changed. jesus changed.
.
“God changed the food laws (Mark 7:19; Acts 10-11) and shows that He accepts all cultures and peoples and came against the wrong applications of the Jews in how they understood separation and ceremonial uncleanness. ”
if u disobey gods laws you are a sinner , what has this got to do with superiority? What do you say about gentiles who obeyed yhwhs law? according to the torah if u ear swine u become unholy because yhwh tells the jews he is a holy god and he tells them to separate holy from unholy. what has this got to do with superiorty, arrogance and pride ? yhwhs holy laws cause this ?
“o it was not. Jesus was testing the disciples because of their racial hatred / bias, etc. not because of His own.
He was teaching them about internal purity vs. external purity – see the context of Mark 7:14-23, which comes right before the event in v. 24-3”
ken temple sounds like an anti-semite
”
That is why Islam is so powerless; it has no internal Holy Spirit power; only external dead rituals and fear based punishments.”
ken temple: look at me , i am free from yhwhs law and drink blood of human and eat his flesh, look how much “clean heart ” i have. U r one arrogant criminal
12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.
13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean.
14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
Hebrews 9:12-14
“The blood of Christ” = the bloody death of Christ offered as a sacrifice in th place of sinners. You must believe in His atonement / ransom.
Even the Quran hints at the substitutionary atonement- ransom- Surah 37:107
In Genesis 22 it is a prophesy Of Messiah and His atonement.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/so-why-did-allah-substitute-an-innocent-animal-in-the-place-of-abrahams-son/
So Yahweh had to sacrifice himself to placate himself. 🤦♂️
And even then, it’s not enough because we still have to believe it and accept it. It’s not even a free gift. 🤦♂️
Meanwhile, human sacrifice is forbidden in the Tanakh. 🤦♂️
Ezekiel says nothing about a sacrificial Messiah but rather a resumption of the temple sacrifices. 🤦♂️
Also, Pennywise repeats the same debunked claim about substitutionary atonement in the Quran. 🤦♂️
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/does-islam-teach-substitutionary-atonement-a-response-to-a-christian-apologist/
“The blood of Christ” = the bloody death of Christ offered as a sacrifice in th place of sinners. You must believe in His atonement / ransom.”
god needs to become a human sacrifice to forgive sinners? law of human sacrifice is your god and your god has a god called “human sacrifice”
you worship human sacrifice you pagan. god cant forgive sinners , he is a limited pagan god who is boxed in ritual
Lol, Pennywise complained about rituals in Islam but ironically his god’s sacrifice was in itself a ritual!
father is too “holy ” to come down so he sends his goat/lamb
lamb does the dying father does the pouring
can you tell me what message is being given here?
“The blood of Christ” = the bloody death of Christ offered as a sacrifice in th place of sinners. You must believe in His atonement / ransom.”
https://thejourneyofdoubt.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/was-jesus-the-perfect-sacrifice/
@ QB
Don’t forget not only was it a ritual but also performed incorrectly because:
1. The Passover lamb is not a sin offering so it doesn’t even “abolish sin”
https://biblehub.com/bsb/exodus/12.htm
2. Sin offerings are for accidental sins not intentional ones (Leviticus 4:1-2)
3. If a lamb is used the sacrifice had to be a female and burned. (Leviticus 4:32-35)
https://biblehub.com/bsb/leviticus/4.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_sacrifice#/media/File:%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%93_%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%9C%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%AA_%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%9F_%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%97.JPG
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
It just keeps getting worse.
Let me add another…
The offering had to be without blemish, so Jesus had to be sinless, which he wasn’t. 🤦♂️
@ QB
Allow me to add another even if sinless without blemish means without injury wasn’t he(as) alleged to have been beaten and lashed so whether physically or spiritually this fails. But hey those bones weren’t broke though.
when rats or mice invade your house do you think about innocent life you pagan? no, you kill ttem by setting up mouse traps and poison.
when the jews killer the egyptian lamb and goat gods, do you think the first thing wiich came to their minds was “innocent life”?
when abraham began to slaughter an aninal in the torah, he had no sin of his own and neither did his kid who was about to be slaughtered. Did he think about “innocent life” ? you are imposing this “innocent” nonsense into the text
“In place off” lol you pagan you are IMPOSING this into the text.
god could have asked for vegetables like he did in cain and able story. do you say “innocent vegetables” offered to yhwh ? yhwh says he likes quality regardless if it is vegetables or animals. Question of “in place” or “innocence ” doesnt come up. This is giving food to yhwh and sending up to his heavenly nostrils
Are blemished animals and vegetables “innocent” yes they are, but does yhwh care? No he doesnt care about innocence, he like quality offerings.
“The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean.”
yhwh in torah had no power to inwardly clean through goats blood ? see what i mean, u guys worship human sacrifice.
The faith of the woman focused on the willingness of Jesus to heal.
The faith of the centurion on the power of Jesus to heal.
This shows why Jesus put an obstacle in the way for the woman in order to show us to emulate this woman’s faith. Not because he was unwilling to heal her.
That was obviously why he went there in the first place.
Wow, the level of dishonesty is strong in Iggy!
It didn’t take much to persuade Jesus to go right into the centurion’s house. But a poor woman has to overcome “obstacles” so that she could be an example for others. How convenient!
Perhaps it has something to do with power indeed. The centurion represented the power of Rome. Maybe Jesus didn’t want to piss of the Roman authorities. That’s why he was so willing to help him. But a poor peasant with a suffering daughter? Meh. Let’s make an example of her first! 🤦♂️
“But a poor woman has to overcome “obstacles” so that she could be an example for others. How convenient!”
she was an UNINVITED dog who came for crumbs.No invitation card was given because she acknowledge jesus did not come for the dogs.
Jesus honored her faith by showing how great it was by making her exercise it against the obstruction he put against it. There is nothing wrong with that in my view. It shows the respect he had for the woman not his contempt for her as you wrongly assume.
A blind apologist such as yourself will try to put a positive spin on every embarrassing story.
If her faith was so great and more than the centurion’s, they why did your savior say of the centurion:
“Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.”
Like I said, the level of dishonesty is strong in you.
“Jesus honored her faith by showing how great it was by making her exercise it against the obstruction he put against it.”
so here is a suffering woman who is deeply concerned for her child and is like fish out of water begging for help. his disciples request he help her, he wants a bit of fun with her by putting “obstacle ” before her to “test her faith” ?
so she begs (exercise one)
Then she begs again (exercise two)
by this point “prince of peace” should have got the drift?
then she grovel like female dog and here the insult that her ill daughter is a dog too?
what kind of BULLSHIT “faith testing” is this that in the end she aknowledge is not INVITED at the table and all she wants is crumbs , children can keep the bread ?
“There is nothing wrong with that in my view”
So your full fine with a woman bending over and grovelling like a dog begging for cure and then acknowledging that her ill dog daughter comes for crumbs, uninvited?
“It shows the respect he had for the woman not his contempt for her as you wrongly assume.”
love thy neighbor jesus style
make it grovel
Make it beg
make it bend over
“faith tester”
“This shows why Jesus put an obstacle in the way for the woman in order to show us to emulate this woman’s faith.”
. she acknowledged she was an uninvited gentile dog who came for CRUMBS. when she says “crumbs fall” she isnt saying jesus is inviting her.
when children eat , crumbs fall and then come the dogs to take the crumbs, uninvited.
”
Not because he was unwilling to heal her.”
she acknowledged she was UNINVITED AT THE TABLE.
were there any special reason why jewish woman were exempt from “love thy neighbor faith tester jesus style”
they were human, right and gentiles were in habbit of grovelling and bending over?
The woman herself contradicts your analysis also.
She doesn’t agree with you being offended on her behalf thank you very much.
😂🤣😂 So if a white slave owner called a black man the N-word or “boy” and the black guy did not show offense (because it wouldn’t help him in his position of powerlessness), you would believe that there was no offense intended and that the black man was fine with being put down? Iggy, you must really be one of the biggest idiots around!
“you would believe that there was no offense intended and that the black man was fine with being put down?”
unless it was a white woman getting bent over and treated like a “bitch” i guess iggy would be fine
“She doesn’t agree with you being offended on her behalf thank you very much.”
maybe she was not hot-headed like jesus? maybe she had better manners than him? Maybe her culture taught her how to stay calm in face of abuse and insult?
“She doesn’t agree with you being offended on her behalf thank you very much.”
so if anyone else took jesus approach would you be offended?
So God is only allowed to test anyone’s faith when Heathcliff allows it. In this instance he doesn’t.
A tested faith is an honored faith is it not?
Only when Heathcliff gives his seal of approval.
i thought god sent his law in the torah called” love thy neighbor, “?
So did the jews allow the mistreatment of neighbor to “test his/her faith” jebus style?
Did they allow abuse , insult and indetifying human as animal all in name of “faith testing”?
“A tested faith is an honored faith is it not?”
the thing is that the jews dont need to do the begging and grovelling. Dont get that part. So does your wife acknowledge that the jews are her masters and through her masters she come to jesus?
i will not feel that faith is honoured if i tell woman to grovel in public for crumbs.
i understand love thy neighbor completely different than “rabbi” jesus.
According to u , u can abuse, insult and identify them as animal, i am unable to understand love thy neighbor like “rabbi” jesus
“Rabbi” jesus, let the children FIRST be fed it is not right to take humans bread and cast it to animals (ill young female dog specifically )
woman : ill take the crumbs children can keep the bread
“rabbi” jesus sitting on his high seat drop a miracle
and thanks her for agreeing with him and believing his words that he come for the jews and jews alone.
The point of the story is not the miracle itself but the faith of the woman.
Bodily healing is symbolical of spiritual healing which comes through faith.
In real life obstacles oppose faith in Christ and faith has to overcome them.
The womans encounter with Jesus is a parable of this struggle and she is an example for us.
This is the spiritual lesson that Jesus wanted to teach us.
It has nothing to do with racism.
Uh huh, sure. It has nothing to do with racism.
“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
“It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”
Uh huh, sure. Nothing to do with racism. Got it. 👌
read marks version fool.jesus considers making a point greater than simple compassion and mercy
” for that reason….”
”
The womans encounter with Jesus is a parable of this struggle and she is an example for us.”
the example here is how the oppressed used reason to change jesus’ racist mind, but she didnt win a seat at the table , her kid received a crumb FROM A FUKIN distancd
“The point of the story is not the miracle itself but the faith of the woman.”
that she was an animal and the jews her masters and that she gets a crumb from a distance and doesnt even get a chance to be jesus’ errand girl like the women who fail to report that jesus is risen?
‘To compare a woman and her daughters to dogs is insulting in the extreme’
Sharon ringe
its seems like she is feeling the sting.
wouldnt u, had u heard your mum called a little bi”tch ?
She didn’t talk as if she was feeling any stings. You are just imagining things as usual. Rein yourself in and stick to the text if you can instead of going on your fantasy trip.
It is obvious from the text that she agreed with the truth of what Jesus said.
😂🤣😂 Iggy the racism apologist thinks the woman liked being called a dog. I tell ya man, these crosstians just don’t live in the real world!
another thing is that she agree that the jewish people are human beings and in order for her to attain status of human being she has to adopt torah law and rituals, lol what was pagan temple saying again?
Matthew makes employment of some terminologies which causes some scholars to think that not only does she come to israel as a good slave but a converted jewish one lol what was temple saying again?
It was highly likely that the centurion was a proselyte because it was said of him that he loved the Jewish nation and built a synagogue for them. Also we do not know whether his servant was a jew or roman. It could have been either.
Therefore it is wrong to argue that Jesus must have refused the centurion on the same grounds as he refused the woman, as he did at first.
Either way Jesus only needed to challenge this faith on one occasion in order to establish the lesson that he wanted to teach.
More assumptions! Wow, that sola scriptura mantra gets thrown out the window so easily!
The centurion was a member of the Roman army. He also had soldiers under his command. It is highly unlikely that a “proselyte” would be in the army with soldiers under his command, especially given the tense relationship between the Roman authorities and the Jews.
By the way, as usual, there is a contradiction in this story as well. It just never ends! Luke has a different version than Matthew. In his version, the centurion never even meets Jesus, but sends his other servants to plead with him. Matthew has the centurion directly meet with Jesus.
I tell ya man. The Bible is one big mess! 🤦♂️
Both can be true. But that requires intelligence.
Still no evidence, huh? So your racist god showed preference to a man with power over a humble, poor woman. Got it. 👌
There is no evidence from the text that the woman is playing the “I am wounded and offended by your racial slur” role that you have assigned to her.
😂🤣😂 Imagine that! Iggy talking about “evidence”! That’s rich!
Well, we don’t really have her unbiased perspective, do we Iggy? We have the perspectives of biased anonymous heretics only.
Incidentally, the fact that Luke omitted the story is very telling. Since his audience was primarily Gentile, it makes sense that he omitted that story. It is indirect evidence of how insulting the story might have seemed to a Gentile like Luke.
@ Erasmus
Ohhh now you care about evidence from the text? Since we don’t get that luxury in your world neither do you. Would you mind if I called your mother a b*tch?
I’m still waiting for the evidence that Iggy is not a racist.
so what are you saying? She was feeling empowered after she was told that her ill daughter (young) was a little dog and so was she ? remember this is in public and jesus shows you guys how to treat people in public .
😂 Yeah, she felt empowered after being publically humiliated.
correction stew, would he mind if i call his ill daughter, a little bitch, he specifically said it is not good to cast holy stuff to her, in other words “rabbi” jesus thinks that gentiles eat their food by having it cast at them
@ Mr. Heathcliff
Oh, thanks, I’m sorry I’ll rephrase:
Would you like me to call your cancer-ridden daughter a b*tch and force you to humiliate yourself by calling yourself a b*tch of Israel as you beg or a cure to save her?
Maybe you forgot to eat your dates this morning.
Maybe you forgot to eat the crumbs your god left for you. 😂
lol, clever come back
The centurion sought the knowledge of the true God of Israel. The pagan woman apparently did not but chose to remain in her dog-like condition of paganism although she lived in close proximity to Israel. She is thus a dog partly of her own choosing even if election is the initial cause of that condition.
“The centurion sought the knowledge of the true God of Israel.”
where does it say that in the text? he seems to be a busy man :
“For I also am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.”
he was going to synagogue and “seeking knowledge” ?
it says nothing about him seeking knowledge about “true god of israel”
“The pagan woman apparently did not but chose to remain in her dog-like condition of paganism ”
jesus said that he came for the lost sheep not the pagans. he made that clear even when no gentiles were around. the pagan womans daughter was “a young girl,” what knowledge could she have sought while being possessed?
so jesus aknowledge he did not come to give dawah to the pagans (except those who BENEFITED israel by building temples and being in contact with jews by ruling over them)…so with this knowledge why would jesus even think that this woman is in her “dog-like condition” when he explicitly says, even when no gentile is around, that he did not come for pagans?
“although she lived in close proximity to Israel.
She is thus a dog partly of her own choosing even if election is the initial cause of that condition.”
its all her fault , what a joke. she is to blame for being insulted, mistreated and abused , because she didn’t go and seek . are you saying that their were jews who would have given her knowledge about judaism and would have treated her better than jesus, had she gone to israel and sought guidance?
“The pagan woman apparently did not but chose to remain in her dog-like condition of paganism although she lived in close proximity to Israel”
how do you define “dog condition”
How come she didnt return insult for insult and abuse for abuse ? was it because of her daughter ? then same can be said about her agreeing with jesus, the agreement was because of her daughter not that she believed what jesus said about her.
if this is not the case, then what was it about her upbringing which did not cause her to return abuse for abuse?
the poor woman status is blamed, her people are blamed, but none of this answer the question, why heap this on a young possessed gentile girl who had no idea what “dog like nature” is ? What happen to simple mercy and compassion?
Well there we have it folks! Iggy admits that the Bible refers to unbelievers as dogs. Thank you for admitting that Iggy.
But there is more to this that you forgot. The woman had faith. She was a believer. And yet STILL, your racist and misogynistic mangod called her a dog! Why? Because she was a Gentile. That was the only reason. Ergo, you mangod was a racist.
@ QB
Yeah. Singling out a certain race of people and forcing themselves to admit they are lesser than yours is pretty much the definition of racism.
“The pagan woman apparently did not but chose to remain in her dog-like condition of paganism although she lived in close proximity to Israel”
so how come jesus changed his mind at the great commission, did he realise that people born into “dog-like condition” will not take initiative ?
is it the pagans womans fault that the people with “gods torah” didnt like inviting pagans unless
1.they be slaves
2. they benefit them by stealing from their resources and building them synagogues?