81 replies

  1. Apparently you left Islam is this true?Or is it slander

    Like

  2. All Democrats hold that position.

    Like

  3. All the current Democrat party nominees hold same position as Bernie, along with full support of the LGBT agenda to destroy marriage, family & God’s plan for sexual relationships.

    Like

  4. but many Democrats are staunchly pro life and pro family, including Senators:

    U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (WV)
    U.S. Representative Dan Lipinski (IL)

    The Honorable John J. LaFalce (NY)
    The Honorable Bart Stupak (MI)
    The Honorable James Zogby (DC)

    Like

    • I have heard of Senator Joe Manchin,
      but none of the others,
      and it is such a small minority hardly anyone ever gets the word out that some Democrats are pro life.

      Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi (speaker of the House of Representatives) , Pete Buttigieg ( homosexual) and most of the big Democrat leaders are all pro abortion.

      Liked by 1 person

    • A few not very vocal, not well known.

      Not “many”

      Like

  5. May God support all at
    https://www.democratsforlife.org/
    transform the Democratic Party to reject abortion.

    However, I enthusiastically support Bernie Sanders because oppression is worse than slaughter.

    Abortion will not be eliminated with Republican power in Supreme Court because abortion will still continue in some states that will allow it.

    It is a great reduction of murder if abortion is reduced.

    However, Trump probably increases people resorting to abortion overall worldwide due to his pro-plutocrat and pro-tryant and pro-corporate policies adversely affecting people around the world.

    Overall, the world will be a much, much, much better place with Bernie as President.

    Like

  6. You can see their “Party Platform” by googling it and reading about it. Those Democrats for life and family are few and drowned out by the majority and leadership and secular mainstream media.

    The Democrat party Platform is promotion of Abortion on demand, and homosexuality (LGBT agenda vs. family and marriage and seeking for force the rest of us to agree with them) and Transgenderism. They promoted the destruction of family and the definition of marriage vs. what Jesus and Genesis said (Matthew 19:3-6; Genesis 1-2) by the 2015 push to say that marriage is also between 2 men and 2 women, with Obama and Hillary’s “evolution” on the matter, after getting elected, etc.

    Joe Biden recently tweeted: (on January 25)

    “Let’s be clear: Transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time. There is no room for compromise when it comes to basic human rights.”

    They claim they are for the poor, minorities, the oppressed, blue collar workers, immigrants, and refugees and orphans, etc. but they are just using them as pawns to get power to destroy normal society.

    Like

    • @ Ken

      I agree but the Republicans have their issues as well:

      1. Not very welcoming to minorities
      2. Wants to reduce social programs such as EBT
      3. Wants to turn the US into an Ayn Rand utopia.

      However, I do agree, the majority of Republicans are in line with the Muslim political spectrum. It’s just unlikely Muslims would be welcomed.

      Liked by 2 people

      • # 1 is a mis-perception based on feelings and half-truths and media spin – if a person obeys the laws of how to immigrate and behaves, then they are welcomed.

        But if they promote some kind of Sharia law agenda for the USA, then that will be met with disagreement and opposition, and maybe the Muslim will have “feelings of not being welcomed” come to front reality of what a Muslim may feel, but it is not based on truth and reality.

        Muslims must also learn to put facts and reality – reason and mind and truth, over their emotional responses to “feelings of oppression” and “speaking from their pain”.

        # 3 – some are like that, and they are a negative thing, but that is also a mis-perception of proper capitalism that should be balanced with Judeo-Christian morality, compassion, etc.

        # 2 – I don’t know what EBT is.

        Like

      • “some kind of Sharia law agenda for the USA” – such paranoia

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Ken

        1. Thank you for proving my point:

        First:
        ” if a person obeys the laws of how to immigrate and behaves, then they are welcomed.”

        Again not all Muslims are immigrants so in one fell swoop you have now shown the ignorance I was talking about

        https://www.pewforum.org/2017/07/26/demographic-portrait-of-muslim-americans/

        The majority of immigrant Muslims are not even thinking of getting involved in politics. They are simply here to make money. I know it’s hard to believe but there are black Muslims, White Muslims (see Paul), Mixed Muslims (see me) etc.

        “some kind of Sharia law agenda for the USA”
        Also, as noted by Paul, case in point you have made another sweeping generalization and then wonder why we’re not fans.

        2. Social programs

        EBT is things like food stamps, etc.

        3. Capitalism

        One the entire split of Democrats and Republicans was based on how much social programs the government should provide for its citizens:

        “Democrats: Democrats are usually to the “left” of Republicans on many issues. For starters, Democrats support domestic social services but majorly are not very aggressive on foreign policy. Being liberal, they root for a strong government to improve social structures and support equality and communal responsibility.

        Republican: Republicans advocate for limited government intervention on domestic issues but dominate on international relations. While on the right, Republicans are pro-military, pro-business, pro-religion, and campaigns for people have freedoms and to take personal responsibility for their actions. On approach, this party is socially and fiscally conservative advocating for a lean government and strong free market (Darwinian Capitalism).”

        https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-the-difference-between-republicans-and-democrats.html

        Everything else is just “fuff”. Republicans are simply huge on this at their core and this is not entirely Islamic in belief. Reality is we do hold some socialist views like giving to the poor etc. This is just another reason why two-party systems are dumb as thye don’t represent the wide range of political thoughts and beliefs.

        Next “proper capitalism” was seen during the heydeys of legends such as Rockefeller (HEAVY Christian btw), Carnegie, Vanderbilt, etc. While one should have a free market when private individuals have a nation by their manhood you got a problem.

        Liked by 3 people

      • That’s Ken put in his place.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Ken
        Thank you. I never understood why Non Muslims think we have sone sort of “hive mind” thing going on.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Kennywise the lying scumbag is exposed as the bigot and all-around piece of crap that he is.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Ken Temple: But if they promote some kind of Sharia law agenda for the USA…

        I didn’t know you prefer drag queens reading stories to kids over Shariah. Naughty boy!

        Liked by 2 people

      • That’s why Ken (our resident missionary) will never make any converts to Evangelicalism – he doesn’t understand Muslims and Islam.

        And he is too arrogant and full of his own righteousness to learn.

        Liked by 3 people

      • @ Paul

        I think it has more to do with his religion’s plotholes/ failed prophecies and contexts/ contradictions but yeah that’s a reason as well.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Speaking of Republican bigotry against immigrants and it’s hostility to legal immigration: https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEOgrcxM092m5OZ5qVBokb58qGQgEKhAIACoHCAowocv1CjCSptoCMPrTpgU?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

        This literally just happened. Even the news wants to expose Kennywise the scumbag.

        Like

  7. Trans rights activists advocate for the removal of healthy body parts when the problem comes from the mind! They normalize mutilation and gloss over dangerous health and surgical risks.

    Liked by 2 people

    • its a sickness that requires medical help not ‘rights’

      Liked by 1 person

    • 1If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

      i dont get this paid missionary. the bible thinks that if a woman grabs balls, then her hand becomes contagious. jesus said that using eyes to sin = adultery. eyes should be plucked out.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Again not all Muslims are immigrants . . .

    of course I knew all that, but the African American movement towards Islam is a modern phenomenon in the last 80-100 years or so, starting with Wallace D. Fard Muhammad in the 1930s, then Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X, etc. Malcolm X made it take off in the 50s and 60s more, since he realized that the Nation of Islam was wrong and heretical, and not true Islam, and became a Sunni Muslim. It seems they murdered him because of his exposure of Elijah Muhammad’s problems and contradictions to real Islam.

    As the Rev. Carl Ellis (an African American Presbyterian Minister), has analyzed the movement, many Black Americans started with the heretical “Nation of Islam” and then, like Malcolm X, went to Sunni Islam.

    I also realize that there are others like Paul Williams, that has only grown some more recent years.

    The party of Lincoln was always welcoming, based on principles of morality, family and opportunity and responsibility and work.

    It was the southern Democrat party that was responsible for the “Jim Crow laws” and evils of that era in the south.

    I can understand and sympathize why African Americans found Islam to be attractive and emotionally appealing, based on the sins of history in the USA. (slavery, KKK, Jim Crow laws, racism, deep south attitudes, etc.)

    Like

    • Muslims have been in the USA for centuries: they were brought over in vast numbers as slaves to work for Christian slave owners (the Bible permits this).

      Liked by 1 person

      • It was a wrong interpretation and wrong application of OT passages.

        The slave trade was evil. kidnapping people for forced slavery was evil.

        1 Timothy 1:8-11 (enslavers (ESV), slave traders (NIV, NRSV) men-stealers (KJV), kidnappers (NASB, Holman Christian Standard), etc.)

        8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (NIV)

        also,
        Revelation chapters 17-18 – shows slave trading was evil.

        the OT other passages that were for Theocratic Israel are more in the idea of indentured servitude when in cases of war, poverty, debts, etc.

        Like

      • 2 Peter ordered slaves to obey their masters evil if they are cruel.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ” We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”

        this is not against slavery or even treating your slaves harshly.

        Like

    • @ Ken

      Why do you do this to yourself:

      1. “…the African American movement towards Islam is a modern phenomenon in the last 80-100 years or so…”

      Yeah no it’s not. As noted by Paul it was a revival movement. Islam among African AMericans had 3 major phases acccording to historian Richard Turner:

      Phase 1:

      Islam came through slaves with the main goal being to inspire resistance to colonial slavery. At first armed insurrection happened but due to lack of numbers eventually “writing in Arabic, fasting, wearing Muslim clothing, and reciting and reflecting on the Quran were the keys to an inner struggle of liberation against Christian tyranny.” Michael Gomez estimates that between 400,000 and 523,000 Africans came to the Americas during the slave trade, and at least 200,000 came from areas influenced by Islam. (Note his number of saves though coming to the US is pretty high.)

      Phase 2:

      Islam had died out among African Americans by the time of the American Civil War.

      Phase 3:

      Ahmadiyah and Pan African movements like the Nation of Islam, Moor Science and Marcus Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association, brought a “New American Islam”, which then brought a revival to the religion among African Americans. This is the era you’re talking about. Malcom (rh) was however very influential in bringing most these people over later.

      2. “The party of Lincoln was always welcoming, based on principles of morality, family and opportunity and responsibility and work.”

      Abe Lincoln was a racist. He and his “welcoming” party did not include niggers. Richard Hofstadter (followed by Lerone Bennett) tore into Lincoln’s racism:

      “As an Illinois legislator, congressman and political leader before the Civil War, Lincoln opposed the abolitionists, supported enforcement of the fugitive slave law, favored removing all blacks from the United States and explicitly endorsed the state’s laws barring blacks from voting, serving on juries, holding office and intermarrying with whites. According to the reminiscences of his contemporaries, he enjoyed minstrel shows and used the word “nigger” in private conversation and sometimes in speeches.As president…Lincoln initially allowed the four slave states that remained within the Union during the Civil War–Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri–to dictate his policy toward slavery. Bennett says that Lincoln refused to free and arm the slaves because of his ingrained racism. Credit for emancipation should go not to Lincoln but to abolitionists such as Wendell Phillips and to Radical Republicans in Congress, who in 1862 pushed through the Second Confiscation Act, freeing slaves of owners who supported the Confederacy. The Emancipation Proclamation… did not free a single slave because it applied only to areas outside Union control. In fact, Lincoln designed it to “save as much of slavery as he could… the notorious Black Laws of pre-Civil War Illinois, which not only denied blacks basic civil and political rights but also required any black entering the state to post a bond of $1,000…Most important, perhaps, Bennett presents compelling evidence of how historians have consistently soft-pedaled Lincoln’s racial views. Previous scholars, he rightly points out, downplay or ignore Lincoln’s commitment to colonizing blacks outside the country, a position he inherited from his political hero, Henry Clay, and advocated publicly for almost his entire political career. This was no passing fancy: Lincoln mentioned the idea in numerous prewar speeches, two State of the Union addresses, several cabinet meetings and in a notorious meeting with black leaders at the White House, at which he urged them to encourage their people to emigrate.

      Lincoln was hardly the era’s only colonizationist–virtually every major political leader of the early republic, including Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson and John Marshall, supported the idea. THEIR IDEAL AMERICA WAS A WHITE REPUBLIC. But historians have found Lincoln’s embrace of colonization embarrassing and have emphasized–through what Bennett calls the “fallacy of the isolated quotation”–Lincoln’s condemnations of slavery while ignoring his support of colonization.

      https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-apr-09-bk-17473-story.html

      Since you believe the Republican Party was fighting the good fight let me help you out with the “Southern Strategy”:

      “the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]

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

      Note that I’m picking on them though. I believe both are a bunch of corrupt racists that black people should remain neutral about.

      Liked by 3 people

  9. @Kmak

    Basic Judeo-Christianity morality and ethics would make the whole “drag-queen” reading thing in libraries or public schools illegal and so shameful that it would not take place. Unfortunately, our western culture left good Christian morality in the last 50 years, slowly.

    We don’t need Sharia law, we just need a return to good application of Christian ethics and morals in society.

    Like

    • Christianity has no divine law for society. It abandoned it centuries ago. Christians could learn much about building a just society from sharia.

      Liked by 2 people

    • According to David Wood, dressing up like a woman is only prohibited only according to the Mosaic law. He can dress up all he wants. So yeah, you degenerates need Sharia, lol. 😂

      Liked by 2 people

    • Temple: Basic Judeo-Christianity morality and ethics would make the whole “drag-queen” reading thing in libraries or public schools illegal and so shameful that it would not take place.

      Yeah, keep turning the other cheek.

      Liked by 1 person

    • @ Ken

      Also, some contradiction here shows you stated:

      “Basic Judeo-Christianity morality and ethics would make the whole “drag-queen” reading thing in libraries or public schools illegal and so shameful that it would not take place.”

      So you attack us for instituting similar “external” law but then when it comes to LGBTQ you then have no issue. Okay…

      “Unfortunately, our western culture left good Christian morality in the last 50 years, slowly.”

      Oh, so you admit the heyday was when “Christian morality” was kicking in black people’s heads?

      Let’s get some people’s views of that ‘Christian morality”:

      Liked by 2 people

      • Ahh the good ole days of white Christian domination.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Those were the days when Ken Temple could command an audience. Happily, he and his fellow missionaries are history. Low hanging fruit for the Muslim. Finished. 😎

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ QB

        Yeah, Ken thinks we should just need to “a return to good application of Christian ethics and morals in society.” it was just soooooo much better than when minorities knew their place.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hey, the dogs need to know their place. That’s what Kennywise’s mangod said too.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        You know what you’re right we all are just b*tches for (white) Israel!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Obviously the slavery / racism / Jim Crow era stuff was wrong and not harmonious with Christian morality.
        Ephesians 2:11-22
        Colossians 3:9-12
        Revelation 5:9

        Like

      • Slavery is in perfect harmony with New Testament teaching:

        ‘You who are slaves must submit to your masters with all respect. Do what they tell you—not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are cruel.

        1 Peter 2:18

        Liked by 2 people

      • This article by Sam Storms is a good overview of slavery in the Bible. The context of OT slavery, indentured servitude, is different than Roman slavery in the first century NT context, and these are also totally different than 18-19th century racial slavery in the USA. (an evil that was based on kidnapping people from Africa. – clearly the bible condemned this – 1 Timothy 1:8-11; Revelation 17-18; Exodus 21:16 – death penalty for kidnapping and selling people) The word “slave” is a loaded term for us today and carries worse connotations for our modern minds that the context of the situations in both the OT and the NT. The word in I Peter 2:18 is oiketai, οικεται, servants or household servants, see root of oikos = house. the context is also in a larger context of 1 Peter 2:11-25 – the Christians of the first century were already in the context of pagan Roman culture and government, and so the general teaching was against fomenting social upheaval and rebellion. Beside the article here for a general over-view, Wayne Grudem has a good commentary on this passage (Commentary on 1 Peter); but it too much to try and retype, etc. I would just say that anyone who wishes to be fair to the historical background and context should study some good exegetical commentaries.
        https://www.samstorms.org/enjoying-god-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-slavery-in-the-bible

        Like

      • Why does Kennywise the scumbah keep ignoring 1 Peter 2:18, which is supposedly just as authoritative as the rest of Bible?

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Ken

        Their was never a time until recently where this was considered negative so either:

        1. We go back to the “heyday” as you claim of 50 years ago.

        2. This “heyday” of morality never existed.

        Like

      • “This article by Sam Storms is a good overview of slavery in the Bible. The context of OT slavery, indentured servitude, is different than Roman slavery in the first century NT context, and these are also totally different than 18-19th century racial slavery in the USA. (an evil that was based on kidnapping people from Africa. – clearly the bible condemned this – 1 Timothy 1:8-11; Revelation 17-18; Exodus 21:16 – death penalty for kidnapping and selling people) The word “slave” is a loaded term for us today and carries worse connotations for our modern minds that the context of the situations in both the OT and the NT. The word in I Peter 2:18 is oiketai, οικεται, servants or household servants, see root of oikos = house. the context is also in a larger context of 1 Peter 2:11-25 – the Christians of the first century were already in the context of pagan Roman culture and government, and so the general teaching was against fomenting social upheaval and rebellion. Beside the article here for a general over-view, Wayne Grudem has a good commentary on this passage (Commentary on 1 Peter); but it too much to try and retype, etc. I would just say that anyone who wishes to be fair to the historical background and context should study some good exegetical commentaries.
        https://www.samstorms.org/enjoying-god-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-slavery-in-the-bible

        Wow! Kennywise the scumbag is talking about being “fair to the historical background and context”. How convenient! But does he extend the same fairness to Islam? Of course not.

        So, according to other Christian liars like Sam Storms, it’s okay to be cruel to your slave, or “servant” or “household servant” or whatever you want to call it, since it was for teaching “against fomenting social upheaval and rebellion”. Oh okay, when you put it THAT way, cruelty to slaves is fine and the slave should put up with it (sarcasm intended).

        So I guess the abolitionists were “fomenting social upheaval and rebellion” when they were calling for the liberation of all slaves, then?

        Liked by 4 people

      • ‘Wow! Kennywise the scumbag is talking about being “fair to the historical background and context”. How convenient! But does he extend the same fairness to Islam? Of course not.’
        BOOM💥

        Liked by 3 people

      • @ Ken

        Yeah as noted by QB, since we don’t get the luxury of “being fair to the historical background and context and studying some good exegetical commentaries” and you are allowed to interpret our text however you want with no proof (like Mary being apart of the Trinity) that luxury isn’t going your way either. Since it was for teaching “against fomenting social upheaval and rebellion” abolitionist and negroes should have never rebelled against the social system as God placed those authorities in that post according to your prophet Paul:

        “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which is from God. The authorities that exist have been appointed by God. Consequently, the one who resists authority is opposing what God has set in place, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

        For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the one in authority? Then do what is right, and you will have his approval. For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not carry the sword in vain. He is God’s servant, an agent of retribution to the wrongdoer.

        Therefore, it is necessary to submit to authority, not only to avoid punishment, but also as a matter of conscience.” (Romans 13:1-5)

        https://biblehub.com/bsb/romans/13.htm

        So the entire Civil Rights movement was a sin according to your text and was a straight-up slap to the face of the “Christian morality” of 50 years ago.

        Liked by 3 people

  10. 1 Peter 2:18:

    Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust (or “harsh”).

    Commanding slaves to obey harsh masters with all respect.

    Colossians 3:22:

    Bondservants, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.

    Ephesians 6:5:

    Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

    38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

    43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

    Liked by 1 person

  11. hector avalo’s comments on biblical slavery :

    I address some of your arguments and others in my book. Your defenses are very well-known, and that is why I spend a lot of time addressing them.

    Your view of Wilberforce is outdated. Have you read, for example, this more recent biography: Stephen Tomkins, William Wilberforce: A Biography (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007)?

    Wilbeforce’s complicity in other forms of slavery is now admitted even by evangelical Christian publications, as fo example, Ted Olsen, “The Abolitionist Scandal: William Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect Founded Sierra Leone Then Tolerated a Form of Slavery There, a New Book Reveals,” Christianity Today 54 (October 2010), pp. 46-49.”

    I also used materials that remain unpublished in some archives. For example, there is a letter (dated June 17, 1806) by Wilberforce preserved in the archives of The Historical Society of Pennsylvania. The relevant portion states:

    “…there certainly cannot be a doubt as to the principle of the Holy Scriptures especially of the New Testament on the subject of the Slave Trade or even that of slavery; tho’ on the latter point Explanations would be required. But I believe it was better not to enter into any such discussion in the House of Commons for many reasons.”

    I show that Wilberforce tried to move away from using the Bible because pro-slavery owners could use it just as well in Parliamentary debates.

    ************Wilberforce’s arguments based on the Bible against slavery were not very good in any case. For example, the idea that human beings were made in the image of god did not stop biblical authors from accepting or endorsing slavery, and we can find similar sentiments about the unity of humanity in other cultures who also had slaves.***********************************************************************

    Similarly, your comments on Exodus do not reckon with the fact that the New Testament had no term limits for slaves, and so was even worse relative to the Old Testament. As Christianity spread, especially after 1492, so did slavery all over Africa and what became known as the New World.

    So, I think it is better to read the book first, and then comment on it with that knowledge.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. So, I think the take-home message here is that when it comes to voting Democrat or Republican, for the Muslim, it’s like saying “pick your poison”. They both suck in some ways.

    Liked by 3 people

    • ^ This guy gets it.

      Liked by 2 people

    • That is similar to true Christians living in the west, we have to vote for the one who is less evil. The lesser of two evils.

      But one must me informed of the issues and history, etc.

      Paul Williams’ point “Don’t vote for Bernie”, etc. – because abortion is murder of a helpless human and the Democrat party stands for the whole LGBT agenda to destroy marriage, sex, families, etc. and the whole gender binary of creation / God vs. gender fluidity, (you can choose your own gender if you want to and go back and forth, etc. and they are seeking to force the normal people to agree and celebrate their insanity and mutilations of body and cruelty to children (giving hormone blockers, mutilations, etc.)

      Like

      • Kennywise, the Democratic party has its evils, but so does the Republican party. Stew already mentioned those.

        While the Republican party hypocritically opposes abortion (the murder of a helpless human), it also also fanatic gun nuts like the NRA, even though gun violence kills thousands of people every year, including children. It also hypocritically supports an aggressive foreign policy which involves bombing third-world countries with weak militaries (they would never attack Russia or China that way) and killing thousands of innocent people, including children. In fact, a report just came out that a record 7,000+ bombs were dropped in Afghanistan.

        It is also a party of bigots. While pretending to support “legal” immigration, the current agenda is clearly to curb that as well. Just a few days ago, the Supreme Court upheld new immigration policies that would limit people with low incomes from coming to the US through legal processes. Historically, legal immigration was done by people from low-income areas of the world. That included Italians, Irish, Poles, Chinese, Africans, etc.

        It supports the wealthy, and cares very little for the poor. It supports policies that support giant corporations and opposes any practical measures to curb climate changes, claiming that the “science” doesn’t support the idea that earth’s climate is changing due to human activity or that the average global temperature is increasing.

        The Republican party is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It is full of white supremacist racists. It is just as bad as the Democratic party. Like I said, pick your poison. But what is definitely clear is that your one-sided BS is the typical garbage we have all come to expect from a scumbag like you.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ QB

        To add on to your excellent points though:

        Don’t take my guns. (Hey I’m still American at the end of the day)

        Liked by 1 person

  13. Andrew Yang may seem like a breath of fresh air. He doesn’t seem to fit into the mold of the ‘traditional’ politician. Not sure he has much of a chance anyways to grab the democratic nomination. I could see him being someone’s VP pick though.

    Like

  14. So, according to other Christian liars like Sam Storms, it’s okay to be cruel to your slave, or “servant” or “household servant” or whatever you want to call it, since it was for teaching “against fomenting social upheaval and rebellion”.

    If you were fair and read the entire article by Sam Storms, you have not right to call him a liar nor your assertion that it’s ok to be cruel – the NT text never says that. it is you who lie, Faizywise! You are a liar!

    The text never says that is ok for the owner / master to be cruel – it is merely telling the NT context household servants in 1 Peter 2:18 to have a general attitude of submission, etc.

    That is a different context than the abolitionists in the USA.

    Like

    • “the NT text never says that. it is you who lie, Faizywise! You are a liar!

      The text never says that is ok for the owner / master to be cruel – it is merely telling the NT context household servants in 1 Peter 2:18 to have a general attitude of submission, etc.”

      the text is answering a question on owners who are CRUEL. jesus told you to get slapped around and not complain. already their is an atmosphere of “training WILLING VICTIMS”

      plus, your argument ASSUMES that today’s way of LIFE will ALWAYS exist as it is. what happens when conditions change? you will have to ALLOW yourself to be a WILLING victim. mark 13:9-13.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “If you were fair and read the entire article by Sam Storms, you have not right to call him a liar nor your assertion that it’s ok to be cruel – the NT text never says that. it is you who lie, Faizywise! You are a liar!”

      LOL!! Kennywise the lying scumbag always tries to cover up the idiotic lies of his fellow pagans!

      Dummy, you’re the one who said:

      “The word in I Peter 2:18 is oiketai, οικεται, servants or household servants, see root of oikos = house. the context is also in a larger context of 1 Peter 2:11-25 – the Christians of the first century were already in the context of pagan Roman culture and government, and so the general teaching was against fomenting social upheaval and rebellion. ”

      1 Peter 2:18 says that slaves/servants should be patient even if their masters are cruel. You then added the moronic claim that the verse was meant to teach “against fomenting social upheaval and rebellion”. Ergo, this verse is giving masters a free hand to be cruel to their slaves and forbidding the slaves from rising up in rebellion. So yes, it is okay to be cruel because there is no consequence to the master. The slave is FORBIDDEN to rebel. Instead, he should patiently put up with the abuse. That’s quite a sick religion you follow, scumbag.

      And don;t speak about being “fair”, you clown. Crosstians always whine about “fairness” but they never show it to others.

      “The text never says that is ok for the owner / master to be cruel – it is merely telling the NT context household servants in 1 Peter 2:18 to have a general attitude of submission, etc.

      That is a different context than the abolitionists in the USA.”

      ROFTL!! How is it different moron? Based on 1 Peter 2, a white slave owner could be cruel to the slave but the slave would have to be patient and not strike back. You truly are a lying scumbag! LOL!!

      Liked by 1 person

  15. and you are allowed to interpret our text however you want with no proof (like Mary being apart of the Trinity) that luxury isn’t going your way either.

    It is clear and proof by the context of 5:116 with 5:72-78; 4:171; 6:101; 112; 19:88-92.

    “say not three”

    “third of three”
    with 5:116 proves that Qur’an thought Trinity was Allah, Jesus as son, and Mary, His mother.

    James White proved it in debate vs. Bassam Zawadi.

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2020/01/28/does-the-quran-misrepresent-the-trinity-yes/

    Like

  16. They have certainly disbelieved who say, ” Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allah – Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.

    They have certainly disbelieved who say, ” Allah is the third of three.” And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.

    Surah 5:72-73 – the phrase “third of three” with 4:171 (say not three”) along with 5:116 (did I say take me and my mother as two gods beside Allah? = three gods; – Estaqfr’allah !

    along with Surah 5:75

    The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.

    “they both used to eat food” (Jesus and Mary) shows the Qur’an things they are the other 2 gods in the Trinity, because of the context of verse 73 – “there is no God except one God” – shows the Qur’an thought Trinity was 3 gods; but it never was!

    Like

  17. Stewjo wrote:
    and you are allowed to interpret our text however you want with no proof (like Mary being apart of the Trinity) that luxury isn’t going your way either.

    see above also

    It is clear and proof by the context of 5:116 with 5:72-78; 4:171; 6:101; 112; 19:88-92.

    “say not three” – 4:171

    “third of three” – 5:73

    with 5:116 proves that Qur’an thought Trinity was Allah, Jesus as son, and Mary, His mother.

    with 5:75 – they both used to eat their daily food – with 5:73 – “there is only one God”

    James White proved it in debate vs. Bassam Zawadi.

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2020/01/28/does-the-quran-misrepresent-the-trinity-yes/

    Like

    • “say not three” – 4:171

      say not three persons. say not three gods. say not three in 1. say not three is one. say not 3??????

      Liked by 2 people

    • Kennywise the clown, the Quran refutes all heretical beliefs, whether its the trinity, trithiesm, polytheism, modalism, or any other idiotic Christian heresy. The verse about Mary does not say anything about the trinity. It is simply refuting the deification of Mary and Jesus as gods besides God. So there is no error and James White’s foolish argument is refuted.

      In contrast, the idiotic author of John misunderstood the significance of the Passover sacrifice and applied it to the crucifixion of Jesus.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Temple: Qur’an thought Trinity was Allah, Jesus as son, and Mary, His mother.

      How come the Christians of Najran did not accuse Muhammad of confusing the Trinity?

      Liked by 2 people

      • @ Kmak

        Oh, you didn’t know “Dr.” White (aka some jack@$$) coming over a 1,000 years later who has no scholarly position other than his butt knows better than the Christians of the time.

        Liked by 1 person

    • @ Kennywise

      Oh if only you could enjoy the irony that is your speech like the rest of us. In one fell breath you claim when talking about the Bible we “should study some good exegetical commentaries.”

      And that completely turn it around when discussing the Quran and feel you can just run with what you like. But what else can we expect? (Honk! Honk!)

      Using the same methodology you used the Civil RIghts movement against “Chrisitian morality” was a sin EXCEPT this time the text is clearly stating it (which is why slave masters used it)

      Liked by 1 person

  18. “third of three” – 5:73

    you filthy cursed slime ball. when u identify one person in the trinity and pray to it, you are not SIMULTANEOUSLY confusing all three distinct gods and making them one person. when u pray to one person, you are not identify one person as three persons. filth

    Liked by 1 person

  19. being a father to some one is not the same as being a son to someone. This means christians worship three different essences/three gods.

    since being a father in trinity = essential part of trinity, then we have three essential beings.

    crosstians address each of these beings

    With this in mind, how can the quran be wrong?

    Like

  20. “Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary”

    “i and my dad r one, ” jebus krist

    so kristians, based off of john said ALLAH is messiah.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: