₦airaland Forum

What is the point and purpose of this story, in one or both of its manifestations? why do most Christains pray, believe and still receive nothing? can you guys please explain why Jesus, the creator, God of the universe, didn't know it wasn't the season for figs?

LOL. This is a question for botanists.

Here's the answer:

"The facts connected with the fig tree are these. Toward the end of March the leaves begin to appear, and in about a week the foliage coating is complete. Coincident with this, and sometimes even before, there appears quite a crop of small knobs, not the real figs, but a kind of early forerunner. They grown to the size of green almonds, in which condition they are eaten by peasants and others when hungry. When they come to their own indefinite maturity they drop off. These precursors of the true fig are called taqsh in Palestinian Arabic. Their appearance is a harbinger of the fully formed appearance of the true fig some six weeks later. So, as Mark says, the time for figs had not yet come. But if the leaves appear without any taqsh, that is a sign that there will be no figs. Since Jesus found "nothing but leaves" - leaves without any taqsh- he knew that "it was an absolutely hopeless, fruitless fig tree" and said as much."

Can't knock it. It makes solid sense.
Jesus Christ. Messiah and expert on Fig Trees.

He'll define the god that was given to him by a pedophile.

Firstly, I couldn't give a shit about the white man and history. What's done is done. I bear my grudges but I don't let them rule my life. All I'm interested in is what happens now and what happens in the future. I get bleeped over, someone pays. It doesn't matter if they're white, black, yellow or green. Using photos of past shit to justify a cult headed by a pedophile is stupid. I don't forget history but those photos can stand on their own without the need to use them to justify some crazy motherfucker who thinks he's some sort of Egyptian alien who screws kids for a hobby.

To base a religious belief around the history of oppression is just bullshit. Even Christians have moved on. They remember their opression but at least they don't (in the main) play on it as the guiding force behind their religion.

Kuns is displaying the typical mindset of a cult follower. You got to remember, most cults are founded on personalities. They create the cult, they create it's doctrines, they create it's ideal of "truth". For Kuns to give up on Malachi York means that his whole house comes tumbling down. It means everything he believes in is either a lie or has to be examined again without York's influence. Guys been brainwashed and he doesn't know it. Refusing to recognise that fact means he just has to dig himself deeper into the lie that's been handed to him to protect himself. A shitty postion to be in but then, there are plenty who have fallen for crap like this one way or another.

@Chris.

The guy has lost it. Go Google about this Malachi York character that Kuns worships.

He claims to be an alien from the planet Rizq in the Illyusm galaxy. He then claims our human ancestors originally came from the planet Rizq. They later moved to a planet called Kesiyl in the Orion constellation, then to Mars (the canals on Mars was said to have been built them), then to Pluto and finally to Earth. York says Earth has been "Visited By Scientifically Advanced Beings From Outer Space Who Taught Us Their Technology." Pharaoh Ramses II was an extraterrestrial.

Nothing but a fucking madman. Anyone who follows him is even more insane.

Kuns.

You don't plea bargain if you're innocent - especially not to a charge of child molestation. To say that by doing so he protected his family is one of the biggest loads of shit I've read on this forum.
Any sane, innocent person would plead not guilty. I'd rather state my innocence and be jailed for life than own up to such a disgusting crime (whatever the bargain). I also know my family would 100% back me. To plead guilty would put them through a life of hell. They would forever be stigmatised as the family of a pedophile.

No. Your defense is bullshit. The guy pleaded guilty because he did it. When it looked like the dice weren't going to roll his way he tried other ways out like the crap that he was a Cherokee Indian and the court had no jurisdiction. Your messiah is as guilty as hell.

You're going by hear say, and you have never met him or know anything about this person, is fickle- mindedness.

Yeah? I never met Hitler or Pol Pot. Is it fickle minded to call them genocidal maniacs?

LOL.

You are one boring mofo.
Are you as anally retentive and retarded in real life or do you save it just for this forum?

Make up your mind, douche bag. Is genes muddying the debate or not?

Yes, you dumb cock-knocker. You bought it to the debate thinking you were being smart.
It's just a shame for you that I made you my bitch.

Is it now irrelevant? Or presumably the distinction is that genes is relevant only in so far as we are talking of humans, Stalin not being human but a cyborg in a human body.

It's always been irrelevant as in regards to Stalin. Like I said, show me one sentence where I advocate genes had an effect on Stalin's policies and you win. But you can't can you? I mean, come on. That's such a great offer, surely it must be simpler to prove that with all my posts in this thread.

But you can't can you?
You're just piss and wind.

Jacob York is not Malachi York, these offence were committed by Jacob York, Malachi York Son.

Why did Malachi York plead guilty?

To show how much Hamas cares about it's own people.

"Egypt has opened its border with Gaza at Rafah to let the injured seek treatment there.
But the Egyptian foreign minister has accused Hamas of not allowing injured Palestinians to leave Gaza to seek treatment, even though much-needed medical supplies are waiting at the nearby El-Arish airport.
US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad suggested Hamas held the key to restoring calm. He was implicitly backed up from Cairo by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas - whose Fatah faction is a bitter rival of Hamas. "We could have avoided what happened," Mr Abbas said, saying the Islamist group should have renewed the ceasefire before it lapsed."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7801662.stm


"Egypt says the Hamas militant group, which controls Gaza, is preventing hundreds of wounded Palestinians from leaving for treatment in Egypt.
Cairo says dozens of empty ambulances are at the Rafah crossing - the only one to Gaza which avoids Israel.
Egypt has helicopters and doctors on standby at the Rafah crossing.
There are also up to 40 ambulances waiting to go into Gaza to bring out the most seriously wounded. Tonnes of medical supplies have arrived at the nearby airport of El-Arish.
But the Egyptian authorities say that, at the moment, they have no-one to treat.
Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said the wounded were "barred from crossing" and he blamed "those in control of Gaza" for putting the lives of the injured at risk."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7801881.stm

You are not a Caucasian, however you do have the caucasian mentality or slave mentality.

Whatever guy. But the one thing I do know is that I don't have the "Suck the balls of a pedophile" mentality. You say there's no victims? Then why did he plead guilty?

And no victims?

http://www.wordonthestreetsmag.com/profiles/blogs/prodigy-is-misinformed-about-1

LOL. Didn't notice the "lunching".

The fact I was pointing out is that Hamas never even bothered abiding by the cease-fire rule when it was in place.

Hamas started lunching rockets into israel immediately after the truce

No. Actually Hamas has been launching rockets whilst the truce was meant to be in place. They never stopped. Even during the cease-fire.

That Snake-like chacracter is typical with Caucasians the devils in the flesh.

Compare me with a Caucasian all you like mumu. At least I'm not the grovelling follower of a guy who bleeps children. And don't kid yourself small boi, all you have is belief. That asshole Malaki told you the spacemen were coming in 2003, guess they didn't though. He was too busy fiddling with your kids to notice anyway.

Like I said, he pleaded guilty. The freak.

That's why you were answering me questions and you agree on Yashua Pantera.

You gave me a surname. Big deal. You believe the guy was the physical Christ. I don't. You think I owe you something because you told me something I didn't know? What's your price? My kid's ass?

Sorry. This seems to be a cult run around a personality.

As for being framed - the guy pleaded guilty at first!!! Nobody pleads guilty if they're innocent.

This has nothing to do with "White Supremacist" racism and everything to do with some sick fucker who likes to molest kids.

http://www.ungodlybook.com/

http://www.rickross.com/reference/nuwaubians/nuwaubians176.html


And you loves this guys, Kuns? You brainwashed freak. Every single thing you ever say on this forum from now on can be looked upon as nothing but pure and unadulterated bullshit based on the words fed to you by a pervert.

How dare you try to mention this filthy scumbag in the same breath as those other guys. People like Martin Luther King, Steve Biko and MalcolmX worked hard for the black nation. What they didn't do was spend their energy fucking our kids up the ass.

“As tawdry as the reality was,” Osinski writes, “many of the Nuwaubians sincerely believed that they were part of something noble, that they were building something good.”

Interviews with those who worked closely with York, some of the most revealing parts of the book, shed light on the psychological hold York had over some of his followers. One says, “York made evil seem fair.” Another Nuwaubian, though disillusioned, admits still having a fondness for York “even though I know it was all fake.”

WAKE UP!!!!

The question of genes was not brought up randomly out of the blue,it was brought up within the frame of the debate. Now you are embarking on idiotic distinction between ''Stalin'' and ''our''. Is Stalin not a human being? Doesn't he have a genetic make up?

LMAO. Genes were bought in to muddy the waters you sad sack of shit. Just like all the other crap you introduce to a topic which isn't going your way.

But anyway, it's irrelevant. The total and utter irrevocable fact is that I have never once, before, during or after you started really hitting the smoke-screen button, tied Stalin in with any genetic argument. As stated, I already mentioned that religion had a different way of gaining influence over Stalin. If you can prove otherwise, I'll gladly bow down and worship the great 4-Skin. Otherwise, stop boring the shit out of me with more of your fairy-tales and lies. Yet again you make a baseless claim that confounds logic - where in this thread have I mentioned Stalin and genes in the same sentence? Don't you think that if I was arguing for that cause I might just slip in a tiny little reference to them somewhere in my dozens of posts? Wouldn't it be logical for me to mention the subject of the topic now and again? Or to at least try and include Stalin in some proof? But nope. I've done none of that? Why? Well as any cretin (apart from you) can see, I have never advocated the idea that genes affected Stalin's policies. It was the baseless claim that you laid upon me with your usual smokecreening, illogical, blustering, bullshit posts that I have already quoted above.

At some point, you claim every thing is as a result of religion, later, this lying dingbat claims that ''every'' no longer includes Stalin and was a response made in a vacumn and unrelated to certain individual.

Oh it includes Stalin alright, my undereducated buffon of a friend. But as I stated many times, Stalin was influenced by religion in other ways. So the claim I made (or supposedly made as you haven't got it quite right) is totally valid. See, dickhead, what you have to do is follow things on a logical basis. You're not doing very well with that at the moment though. May I suggest you stick to the political forums? You're only getting a continual ass-kicking on the religious topics and I'm getting tired of laughing from bitchslapping you so repeatedly.

DavidDylan. You think that training to be a priest doesn't make a difference to your outlook on Christianity? Wait!!! I was going to say you're even dumber than I thought. But no - you seriously cannot be any dumber than I thought. It's simply not possible.

Guy, I could handle the claim of trumped up charges if it was just one or two, but over one hundred??!!!

You gotta be shitting me.

And I suppose they framed him when he was 19 too?

In 1964 York was sentenced to probation after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge of raping a 13-year-old girl.

"When he was finally indicted, state prosecutors literally had to cut back the number of counts listed — from well beyond a thousand to slightly more than 200 — because they feared a jury simply wouldn’t believe the magnitude of York's evil.… [It] is believed to be the nation’s largest child molestation prosecution ever directed at a single person, in terms of number of victims and number of alleged criminal acts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malachi_Z._York

You ask me what a cult is? It's believing that some sick mess like that guy is your best route to attaining your goal.

Israeli jets kill more than 200

Oh yeah? Says who?
Some people here are real dumb saps.

There are no independent verifiable figures for deaths coming out of Gaza. All figures are produced by Hamas.


Hamas says most of the dead are schoolchildren and you fools swallow it up. Totally avoiding the logic that all of the targets hit were Hamas military or police installations. Not one civilian target was hit. If any missile had misssed you can absolutely 100% guarantee, Hamas would be airing the pictures on TV and in the newspapers. But they aren't are they?

So ask yourself. If all these schoolchildren were killed, what were they doing in police-stations and Hamas HQs?

Hamas makes the figures up and the sheep go running after them. What gimps. If Hamas told you that the moon was made of cheese and the Israelis were going to shoot it down, you would believe them.

You responded to the question of genes because I brought it up but I brought it up in relation to Stalin et al. Yet, your response has nothing whatsoever to do with Stalin.

I had made it abundantly clear to DavidDylan what I thought the influence of religion had on Stalin and not once in the exchanges I made during the subject did I mention genes. Not once in the subsequent thread did I ever mention Stalin and genes. The only person who ever mentioned them was you.

You made these two laughable statements. I ignored the first and produced evidence of religious influence on income and education.

Only a cretin will claim that religion constitutes the ''vast majority'' of a human being's life influence. There is little room for any other cause; genes, income, education.

So like a whiny bitch you posted this:

The craven dolt has dodged his earlier claim; that everything is a product of religion, presumably, even our genetic make up.

Your words. No mention of Stalin and the word "presumably". You don't say "Stalin's genetic make-up" you say "ours" - to anyone with half a clue that's referring to the human race and not an individual. And it was the human race I referred to in my argument regarding genes having an influence on religion.


It's so easy to see that I never tried to tie Stalin in with genes.

1) I never mentioned genes and Stalin before you entered the thread.
2) I only mentioned genes when you started burbling about them.
3) I still never mentioned genes and Stalin.
4) David even stated that the reason I gave for Stalins actions (rightly or wrongly) was that he trained to be a priest.

Try again. First you lied that I was talking about a Muslim gene. Now you've lied by saying that I was talking about genes and Stalin.
You may as well give it up. You're not very good at this debating thing.

Explain how the above sheds light on the Stalin issue, in regards to which the issues of genes was introduced, idiot.

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Stalin. Not once have I suggested his actions were undertaken because of his genes. I stated that religion was an influence on him through society. You were the one that bought up the subject of genes.

And then got your ass kicked.

Israel is a colonist country? the same Israel that gave back the Sinai which is at least 2 times the size of the entire country of Israel after the 1967 war?
The same Israel that has been begging Egypt to take back Gaza? The same Israel trying to get the Syrians to take back the Golan if they will renounce Iran? The same Israel that unilaterally withdrew from Gaza only to recieve rockets and missiles in return?
The same Israel negotiating with those belligerent terrorists in the WB (that was originally part of Israel until Jordan forcefully annexed it in 1948) to give them 93.7% of the WB?

I never agree with this idiot.
But even I have to admit the truth of his words here.

So irrefutable that everyone - Huxley, David and I - looked at your posts and came to a different conclusion.

Bit by bit your house of sand is getting washed away by the sea. Or maybe I should say that your lies are getting washed away by the truth.
This is all I need from the rant above to prove you a liar yet again.

For the past couple of posts you've been burbling that Huxley, DavidDylan and yourself all stated that I was talking about a Muslim gene. Now you admit that it's only you that saw it as an argument for a religion gene.


Let me just reiterate what I've been saying all along.

Religion has had an influence on genes.
The invasions of the Moors and the Crusaders were both undertaken because of religious beliefs. In both instances, the invaders left behind chromosomes which left their marks on the indigenous populations.

End of story.

WTF!!!!!

The YouTube video is called "Tamare - this is why they attacked Dr. Malachi Z. York"

Personally, I reckon this would be the reason:

He was arrested in May 2002, charged with over 100 counts of child molestation and other charges, and was convicted in 2004 and sentenced to 135 years in prison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malachi_Z._York

This is way too bleeped up for my liking.
This shit can only be described as a cult.

I found this particularly amusing from 4-Skin once he decided to go on the "Bastage was always talking about a Muslim gene" crusade.

He came back in the middle of the night with a new spin. That what he actually means is a that a person's genes is influenced by religion in so far as that at some point, events inspired by religion affected the choice of partners in procreation.

Unfortunately for him? My very first post on the topic of religion and genes!!!

Our genetic make-up is influenced by religion. Tribes adopted religions. They grew stronger and usurped the less well organised. Their genes spread. Why do you think the stereo-type of the Jew with the hook nose exists. Don't Muslims marry other Muslims? Do Christians normally marry Muslims? Doesn't that have an influence on genetic make-up?

Irrefutable proof of my consistency and 4-Skin's lies.

It is all they have in their armoury, Chris.
Constructive argument is not their ally because they're always beaten by logic.
Take for example, 4-Skin's claim that he and DavidDylan thought this was all about a "muslim gene". David Dylan obviously didn't. He answered the question "has religion influenced genes?" by blaming it on migration pattern. As he said:

I answered and even used font size 28 to emphasize it in case you were also visually impaired.

Read through his posts and you will see that he isn't refuting a "muslim gene". He's refuting the idea that "religion influenced genes". Of course, now he's jumped on his fallen comrade's coat-tails but go back and look and it's plain to see. He stands condemned by his own words. The fact that he hid behind the pisspoor statement and that he tried to blind everyone with false science regarding genes whilst totally avoiding the subject of chromosomes shows what a jerk-off he really is. But not only does it show that he's a jerk-off, it shows that he knew exactly what the subject was about. Unlike 4-Skin, he even had the gall to argue with the National Geographic quote. Here's another example. He knows what the subject is and even uses Huxley's "watering down" quote for his argument. He even calls it "very important".

3. Here is an important comment Huxley (who is no friend of christians) made yesterday - The campaigns of Ghenghis khan left ist mark right across the Asian continent. His genes and those of his soldier are still traceable in people living today from China to the hills of Istanbul.  Does this also mean that warfare has a direct impact/influence on genetics.  I mean warfare and NOT the indirect consequences of warfare, which tends to "redistribute" populations.

So it's abundantly clear that we can discard any claim that DavidDylan makes about his thinking this was about a "muslim gene". We can also discard any attempt by 4-Skin to drag David Dylan and Huxley into his shoddy argument. It's laughable that 4-Skin keeps quoting his question about a Muslim gene and then my link as if it gives his argument some credibility. Here is what I quoted from the link immediately after I posted it.

"An international team of scientists has uncovered striking evidence that mass conversions to Catholicism by Sephardic Jews and Muslims took place in the 15th and 16th centuries in Spain and Portugal. The research was carried out by a team led by Professor Mark Jobling of Leicester University and Francesc Calafell of the Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona. They found that 20 per cent of men in Spain and Portugal today still have distinctive Sephardic Jewish ancestry while 11 per cent have DNA that reflects Moorish ancestors."

Religion had an influence on genetics here. One ethnic group was assimilated into another.

Note that I don't say there is a "muslim gene"? Why would I? The article is not stating anything about a unique Muslim gene. It is stating that religion had an "influence on genes". The very words I used in my first reply to 4-Skin and the very words I have used dozens and dozens and dozens of times in this thread.
In his dipshit reply to me he even quoted and emboldened the words "Religion had an influence on genetics here."

The plain truth is that 4-Skin knew he was getting screwed on the subject of "Religion influenced genes", so his only way out was to try to smokescreen with a Muslim gene. He then introduced it to the topic and even when I told him it wasn't what I was referring to, still pushed it forward. As I've said, you'll notice the only time I ever mention it is to refute it's presence in this thread. His eight refusals to answer the question "Has religion influenced genes" also shows that he knew exactly what the topic was about. Otherwise, why not simply answer it? If the subject is about a "Muslim gene" as he claims, an answer to that question would not be an admission that a "Muslim gene" exists. He had nothing to lose with an answer either way if I was arguing on a "Muslim gene", but as I was arguing about the "influence of religion" he was well aware that any answer he gave would screw him. Hence his blatant refusal to answer the question (which as I stated, DavidDylan did answer) eight times. His repeated refusal to answer the question proves he knew exactly what the topic was and proves him a liar yet again.

I will post those refutals again:

This was all about religion having an influence on genetic make-up and now you're burbling that it doesn't prove that there's a "gene for religion". Whoever suggested that there was a gene for religion!!!

Do I really have to go back and copy and paste my claims that religion has influenced genetics? Not once have I mentioned a "gene for religion".

My statement was "Religion influenced genes". Nothing else. If you want to argue about a "Muslim gene" go and argue somewhere else you slowpoke.

We're back to the "Muslim gene" game again aren't we? Tell me just what the feck that has to do with the topic? I've never suggested for one moment that there are unique genetic make-ups. How many times do you want me to refute it before you'll stop asking the question? I know for a fact that Palestinians share a gene with Jews. They had a common bond before the former's conversion to Islam. So why the feck would I suggest otherwise?

His argument that I "never saw" his two comments regarding "Muslim genes" is utterly irrelevant. As you can see, I had already told him that I was arguing about "influence" and as you can see from my last quote, I was finding it irksome that 4-Skin was continually trying to smokescreen with the "Muslim gene" argument.





Like I said, 4-Skin is only attempting the same piss-poor tactic that he's tried everywhere else once his ass is beaten into the ground - resorting to smokescreens, insults and lies. "Oh. The subject was about something else. You suck!!!". Illogical, irrational lies.
I guess that sums up not only the slowpoke himself but also his brand of Christianity.

You are a deceitful liar. Nothing but a dishonest swine.

So abundantly clear it was that nobody else but you, neither David nor Huxley nor I, thought you were advancing a view other than the existence of a religious gene.

I specifically pointed out many times I was not speaking about a religion gene.
Even with all of the shit that you have put above, there is nothing that proves otherwise. Now I don't know how your logic works, but if a certain topic is being discussed it would be easy to show that I was talking about it. If I was discussing a religion gene, in my dozens of posts rather than the influence of religion, it would be a piece of piss to prove it, wouldn't it? Yet, strangely, nowhere in my words do you see the words "religious gene", "Muslim gene" or "gene for religion", except when I say (early on) that it is not what the topic is about and that it is irrelevant.

Let me point it out to you again. It's there for all to see, very early on in my posts:

"My statement was "Religion influenced genes". Nothing else. If you want to argue about a "Muslim gene" go and argue somewhere else you slowpoke.""

Anyone can go back and look at it. It is irrefutable proof that you are a total and utter liar.


The only reason you kept bringing it up was so that you could sidetrack the topic yet again. To claim otherwise, to cherry pick my posts just proves you are nothing but the lying sack of shit you proclaim me to be. I wonder - if you act like this in real life, I'l bet you don't have many friends. Nobody likes a liar.

What about this lying sack of sh*t ending the moronic red herring he is deploying, which has no relevance whatsoever with the topic, and being honest for the first time?

The question "Have genes influenced religion" is a red herring? You pathetic creep. It is the statement and the question that I have been stating since you joined this thread with your idiocy. And now it's irrelevant?
I have not dodged a single one of your questions. Even the pathetic "Muslim gene" question was answered (strange that it was answered early yet you still claim it was the topic). But you? You refuse to answer the same question that has been put to you a dozen times.

Do you know why? Let me tell you.
Because if you answer "No", it proves you to be an illogical, worthless piece of shit.
If you answer "Yes" you know that far from being a "red herring" you will have shown that everything that you have posted in this thread is worthless crap.


You are nothing but a total and utter waste of time 4-Skin. You don't have the mental capacity to debate. You can only lie, cheat and twist. I welcome anyone to go back and read through this whole thread properly and make their own judgement. Although you can burble all you like about the total and utter lie that I was talking about a religion gene, only a cretin or verminous scumbag like you would make that claim as it is abundantly clear that it is not so.

I'm done with dealing with you. Talking to you in this thread has been like scraping a turd off my shoe. Distasteful. It's got to be done, but once the shoe is clean and the turd is gone, it's easy enough to move on.

I asked you that to overstand your mentality, where you are coming from?
Are you offended because I asked if you are Caucasian?

I am offended because you seem to assume that I am white merely because my views differ. If you must know, I am not Caucasion although I was raised and educated and live in the UK. My upbringing does not mean that I "think like a white man" though.
But here's the big issue I have with your question - I do not believe that we can judge people on race. That, my friend, leads us on the path to racism. Here in the UK, there are blacks who are closer in mental outlook to whites and there are whites who are closer to blacks than they are other whites. You cannot judge a book by it's cover.

So, I was right. The Fact is the Sun is real, not a myth. You can feel it on your skin. That makes it real, a fact.

Believe it or not, that is Western philosophy as well. It doesn't make you white though, does it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Putnam

"Putnam's "direct realism" aims to return the study of metaphysics to the way people actually experience the world, rejecting the idea of mental representations, sense data, and other intermediaries between mind and world."

It is known as "Direct Realism". I am a Relatavist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

I believe in Descarte's "I think therefore, I am". Everything else is relative.

Now you tried to tell me the sun is a myth or concept. I didn't get offended.

No I didn't. I explained that it is a concept to me. To you it is a precept and I entirely accept that for you that is the correct definition for you. This is the same problem that I have with the Christians and Muslims - they cannot accept that their view of Christianity or Islam is right for them but not for others. They state we all have to believe in the same thing. They leave no room for relativism.

Jesus (the son) went to sleep 2,000 years ago, has not gotten up yet, and you all are still doing fine. Yet you are still waiting for your son to rise.

Shit. Don't put me in that category. I don't believe in any of the second coming mumbo-jumbo and I don't believe in any physical Christ. You just made the worst assumption about me you possibly could.
That is until this:

Caucasian think the way you do, what they can see they say is a concept and belief, because they are not in tune with nature.
Are you a Caucasian?

You question my race? I haven't been rude to you have I? Because I read Western Philosophy I'm white? Preposterous. Any respect for you I had just flew out the window. I also read Eyptian Philosophy. What does that make me?
Most of the people posting in this section are Christians who believe in the second coming. Does that make them in tune with nature? No, I'd say it it doesn't. It sure as hell doesn't make them white either though.
You believe in an Egyptian "precept". Are you Egyptian? Utter foolishness.

Before Massey in 1828, no one new anything about Horus . . .

Horus is documented in Egyptian hieroglyphs. The Rosetta stone wasn't translated until 1822. Much Egyptian knowledge has been hidden for millenia. We knew nothing about Tutankamun until his tomb was discovered. Did this mean he didn't exist prior to the excavations?
Does that mean that Horus never existed before translation? Something doesn't cease to exist simply because you don't understand it.

Again -  you display nothing but twisted logic.

You say Nature is a belief. Well, the Sun is a part of Nature. Is the Sun a belief to you, think again, or is it a reality?

Yes. The Sun is a belief based on my perception of the concept of Nature. Although I feel it's heat, see it's light, there is no way that I can prove that it is actually real.
Let me use a movie as an example. Obviously it helps if you've seen it.

In "The Matrix", Neo lives a normal life. He sees the Sun he walks the Earth. But then he wakes up to find that none of what he has experienced is true. His whole life has been spent living in a casket, being fed thoughts through a computer. None of what he experienced was real. Even though there were times when he felt the sun and saw it's rays, they were merely projections. They weren't reality. There is nothing to stop us going one step forward and making the logical leap that if he was fed thoughts about supposedly real things, he could be fed thoughts about things that don't actually exist - concepts that existed only in the mind of the computers.

I'm not saying that we're all Neos sitting in caskets or that our thoughts are fed by computers, but that the same argument could be true of us in respect of reality. Like the prisoners in Plato's cave, there is nothing to prove that all we experience are merely shadows or even total fabrications.

The Sun is Nature, and the SUN of god is real. Not Son, but the SUN.

Is that Atunism? If not, where do you stand on it?

Ma'at work within you. So, You will judge yourself, because you cannot lie to yourself.

I like that. It's something I've wrestled with myself countless times. I'm not totally convinced but I'm more swayed to that argument than towards the belief that St Peter is sitting up there with a clipboard, letting people into Heaven or turning them away.

Yes. I know you will say that it is not an argument and that it is fact, but for me, it is an argument and for you fact. I don't believe that in this case, one person can define fact for another - he can only know his own Truth.

Bastage, Do you know the difference between and Concept and a Precept?

Yes. One is a belief and the other is a rule of action. I guess you're saying that in this case a precept is a basis of Truth?
I still have to say that I view Ma'at as a concept. To me, even nature is a concept. It only has a basis in Truth in this reality. At best I can only agree that it is a precept based upon a concept.

Not only were you contradicting yourself in regards to your new opposition to a religious gene but that response is a contradiction of your earlier claim that everything is as a result of religion. If everything is as a result of religion, every genetic make up is as a result of religion. Bloody idiot.

Stop pretending that you don't know what I was talking about. I made it abundantly clear. The claim that you thought this was about a Muslim gene just makes you look like even more of a cretin than you are.


I would say that you've been very clever manipulating my posts in the way that you have, but the quotations that were made a couple of days ago proving that I was not talking about a "Muslim gene", show that you are nothing but an out and out liar. The fact that I didn't address the question every single time was because it was irrelevant and when I did address it with denial (early on and at least three times) and the answer was ignored, shows you are just making another pathetic attempt to sidetrack this topic.

How can you claim there can be no mistaking what you were talking about when even Huxley, having seen your posts, claimed the point you were making was new to him?

I would suggest that Huxley saw your posts making the ridiculous claim regarding a Muslim gene and was replying to that. Funny how you will stoop to anything, even quoting your worst enemy (an atheist) in your rush to blur the lines. Go take a look on the timing on my posts. You will see that I refuted the idea of a Muslim gene a couple of days ago. Why ask questions if you ignore the answers, cretin?

Here is the post again.

This was all about religion having an influence on genetic make-up and now you're burbling that it doesn't prove that there's a "gene for religion". Whoever suggested that there was a gene for religion!!!

Even the biggest retard can see that I was not arguing the idea of a religous gene.

Your posting of my quote with the link is manipulative. The fact that I posted a refutal of a Muslim gene and then got back on topic by posting an article that shows the "influence" of religion means what exactly? Oh yeah. It means I was right. You are a cock.

There can be absolutely no mistake whatsoever that with the continued use of the word "influence", the links that I posted and my following arguments that I have not once advocated a gene for religion. I would expect nothing else but for you to now burble on about semantics in your next ten posts as you try to get further and further away from the topic.

There is absolutely nowhere in this thread where I use the words "religious gene", "gene for religion" or "Muslim gene" except to refute their existence or describe them as irrelevant to this topic. If, as you claim, I was arguing their corner, don't you think I would have at least argued in their favour using those words at least once!!!!?? According to you, the fact that as long ago as a couple of days ago I told you that a "religion gene" was not an issue here proves that I was arguing for the idea, beggars belief. Logic shows you to be a complete and utter liar.
Let's look at that logic.

Bastage - This car has a big engine.
4-Play - The car is blue.
Bastage - It doesn't matter if it's blue or red. I'm discussing the engine.
4-Play - By saying it doesn't matter you're saying that it is blue.

That is now your argument and it's pure, complete, unadulterated bollocks.

that response is a contradiction of your earlier claim that everything is as a result of religion

Again you have completely and utterly taken my words out of context. I stated that everything was a result of religion in reply to a list of actions given in a question. But again, if it suits your purposes to lie, cheat, swindle and twist, it's no matter as you only screw up later down the line for all to see. Saying that though, I would argue with you that everything in society is influenced by religion in some way. I have no problem arguing that corner although I'm sure you'll find a way to twist the subject.




So how about finally answering the million dollar question that I have asked you eight times and which you have deliberately avoided? Now that you claim to understand the context in which the question has been asked, any refusal just shows that you are continuing to run scared - whatever bulllshit and bluff you would like to use to claim otherwise.

Has religion had an influence on genes?

So your answer to David's question should be no instead of prattling on and suddenly realising you are answering the wrong question.

LOL. Bullshit. I've repeatedly refuted the question regarding the "Muslim gene". There can be no mistaking whatsoever that I have been talking about the "influence that religion had on genes". To suggest that I should have been trying to answer "Is there a religion gene" is pathetic. Stop backtracking. I haven't been answering the wrong question. Trying to hide behind that is probably the lamest thing you've done so far.

Let me remind you that I was originally (falsely) accused of:

Bastage says Stalin's period of training as a priest is to blame.

You then joined with this:

he craven dolt has dodged his earlier claim; that everything is a product of religion, presumably, even our genetic make up.

My immediate reply was:

Our genetic make-up [i]is[/i]influenced by religion. Tribes adopted religions. They grew stronger and usurped the less well organised. Their genes spread. Why do you think the stereo-type of the Jew with the hook nose exists. Don't Muslims marry other Muslims? Do Christians normally marry Muslims? Doesn't that have an influence on genetic make-up?

There can be no mistake over my use of the word "influence". I didn't say that genetic make up was "created" by religion. I didn't say that it was a "product" of religion. I stated quite clearly that religion was an "influence". I count dozens and dozens of times where I've specifically used the word "influenced" or "influence".

Let's take a look elsewhere at all the times I've refuted the claim that I was talking about a "religious gene". This was yesterday (hardly, as you claim, a change of tactic today then is it?):

This was all about religion having an influence on genetic make-up and now you're burbling that it doesn't prove that there's a "gene for religion". Whoever suggested that there was a gene for religion!!!

Then:

Do I really have to go back and copy and paste my claims that religion has influenced genetics? Not once have I mentioned a "gene for religion".

And then:

My statement was "Religion influenced genes". Nothing else. If you want to argue about a "Muslim gene" go and argue somewhere else you slowpoke.

And in reply to this question:

s a person born to religious parents genetically religious? Proof please.

I made this reply:

Utterly irrelevant. I have never suggested so.

There can be no mistake that this topic had turned into a debate about the "influence" of religion. There can be no mistake that it was not about a "religious gene".

Let me remind you of the question I asked over half a dozen times but which you still refuse to answer.

Has religion influenced genes?

See the word "influenced"? No. It didn't just appear today. There was no sudden U-turn. It's probably the most over-used word in this thread.

This is just ridiculous:

I asked you a question innumerable times as to whether genes have a unique religious element

And you can see from my quotes above that I answered repeatedly that  the question is totally irrelevant as I have not for one second suggested that there is a gene with a unique religious element. To try to squirm away by suggesting that all of this was ever about a "religious gene" just makes me laugh all the more harder in your stupid face.

Stop trying to wriggle out of the hole you've dug.

Spamhead . . . the "conversion" in that article (which you never read by the way) . . . did not imply that it had anything to do with why they find sephardic genetic markers in Spanish males but was used as a way to rationalise why despite a lack of a distinct jewish culture in Spain they could still find traces of Jewish lineage. i.e. it was an attempt to ask the broad question - where did the jewish ancestors come from? Did they leave Spain altogether or intermingled with the native population and thus lost their unique culture?

Idiot. Your twisted logic may explain the Jews away. Now try to explain away the Muslims. They are, after all, the group that I have concentrated on.

So your entire premise is built on shaky word play? What a tool.

"Since humans first populated the globe, they've created civilisations, spread religions, colonised distant lands, waged war and experienced pandemics. Through the past 7000 years this has left marks on genetic records."

That's "shaky wordplay"? Please don't make me laugh. An illiterate 3 year old would be able to understand what it says.

Based on the statement, we can thus conclude that creation of civilisation, colonization of distant lands, war and pandemics left marks on genetic records.

That's what it says, doesn't it? Idiot.

You have deceptively singled out religion alone.

Prick. Religion is the topic under discussion.

Now can you explain how creation of civilization leaves a mark on genetic recordsd? If you look at the big picture of that statement . . . population redistribution as a result of various factors is what is responsible for this genetic markers.

LMAO. Yet again a smoke-screen. You hide behind "population redistribution"? What was the Islamic invasion of Spain. What were the Crusades? They were population redistributions. Would the gene change have taken place if Christianity hadn't decided to invade? Would the gene change have taken place if Islam hadn't decided to have invade? No!!!!
Would the gene changes have taken place if those religions did not exist? No!!!

Is there a specific gene that regulates religion (which was exactly ur point last night)? No.

You have access to copy and paste. Show me where I suggested the above. Copy and paste it. Put up or shut up, gimp.

Now can you explain how creation of civilization leaves a mark on genetic recordsd?

Yes I can. But you must be out of your tiny little mind if you think I'm going to move onto another side issue just so that you can make more pathetic attempts to create more of your imbecilic smoke screens.
Google it yourself. You'll find dozens links to science sites like the one below explaining it. I refuse to be drawn further on the subject for the reason given above.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8483-civilisation-has-left-its-mark-on-our-genes.html