₦airaland Forum

Luckily for you someone decided to put some of these sanctions in black and white.

Yeah. It's just unfortunate that it's not true, isn't it?

No country allowed to sell PMS(Petrol) to Zim.

That is not true.
The big petroleum companies still operate in Zimbabwe. The oil still flows through the Mozambique pipelines. There are no oil sanctions.

It should be noted that ordinary Zimbabweans have not had access to oil for years though. It is the preserve of the military and Mugabe's cronies. So you can burble on about oil sanctions and Afam (in his ignorance [but that's only to be expected]) can congratulate you, but the fact is that there are no such sanctions.

Refusing to print the ludicrous bank-notes that Mugabe requires to keep himself in power is harming ordinary people how? And why should a German company print those notes? Notice also that the government "requested" them to stop. Sanctions aren't "requests" they are "orders".

And yes. There may be "international calls for sanctions from the European Union and United Nations" but that's precisely what they are - calls. If sanctions were already in place, they would have no need to call for them would they? Logic.

WEST would have all Zimbabwe people die just because of Mugabe!

No. Mugabe would have all Zimbabwe people die just to stay in power.

Try again.

The problem with Robert Mugabe is that he is afraid to step down, he has criticised leaders in the western hemisphere and is afraid that once he leaves power "they" will do to him what they did to the likes of Saddam hussein, Charles Taylor and so on.

Highly doubtful. If he ever had any intention of stepping down, he would have already had discussions on immunity. The probability is that he would be given sanctuary in South Africa anyway and even if someone did try to bring him to justice, with the time-scale that the courts work on, he'd be dead from old-age anyway. It's disingenious to state that he has "criticised leaders in the West" and that is why he has fears stepping down. I would think the fact that he has committed genocide upon his African brothers is of much more concern to any legal process.

Mugabe's doctrine is "Hold onto power at all costs". That's how it was when he dealt with N'komo when he first came to prominence, that's how it has been during his presidency and that's how it will be until he either dies or is forced from power.

Kuns.

Does the concept of Ma'at fit into your belief system?
Do you think that it is the forerunner of Christian "judgement"? Do you think it has any other relevancies?
I'm talking more about the principle of Ma'at than the goddess herself.

Now theres a difference between the covenant of the Old and how God organised it and the covenant of the new and how God has also organised it.

And then:

God's word CANNOT contradict itself.

See how this guy uses a contradiction to explain a contradiction!!!!!

God says "Eat them apples". God says "Don't eat them apples". You say: "Hmmmm, what do I want to do? Eat them or not?". Then you just go with the idea that suits you best and use whichever of god's two statements you feel like to justify it.

There is a difference between picking a cleric and picking a "controversial" cleric.
Obama got elected on a ticket that promised to unite Americans. Like it or not, Warren is a divisive figure and if the Obama team goes with him they have made a very poor political choice. The comment regarding Jews not going to Heaven is divisive. The fact that he may be right or wrong in his assumption is irrelevant - by getting himself involved in such controversy, Warren has become a burden to Obama on the political front.
Warren is a great figure for a lot of Christians but for the rest of the electorate, he's now an uncomfortable reminder that there is a risk of blurring the line between Church and state. It matters not what Obama believes and wether those beliefs are on a par with Warren's. A less controversial figure would be a much safer political pick.

Answer: His Sir name was Pantera, I stand corrected. No, Yashu'a Bar Maryam mean Yashua son of Mary. Yashua Pantera or Esua Pantera is the name the Roman have on their tax records. We all know the rRomans coolected taxes, and we also know that Jesus would of paid his taxes because he said "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's" in a busy place so he would of paid taxes.

Thank-you for the clarification. From what you've written above, can I take it that from a historical persepective that Yashu'a Bar Maryam and Yashua Pantera are the same person? I read somewhere that Jesus Pantera was written of as being the illegitimate son of a Nazarene hairdresser named Miriam and this would seem to reinforce the point ( Yashu'a Bar Maryam was also known as Yashu'a Bar Miriam).
Also from what I know Yashu'a Bar Maryam was half Roman and therefore the "Give to Caesar" quote wouldn't have been out of the ordinary anyway. Nor would his documentation as an actual historical figure. So it's a good explanation and I agree with you there.

Can we then safely conclude that Adam was not the first man created or there wee other creations?

Here is the Enuma Elish myth that Genesis was lifted from:
http://www.cresourcei.org/enumaelish.html

And a quick overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enuma_Elish

As to where Cain's wife came from? It's a perplexing question if you take the Bible account literally. If God created only Adam and then from his rib Eve, but then created no other human beings, a third generation could only be the result of incest.

Correct, absolutely. There have been many creation events since existence began. The bible grabs this precept in genesis 1: 28 and I quote in parts " Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,"

There has been debate over the word "replenish". It is undoubtedly the correct translation from the Hebrew but the context you have used it in would seem to be incorrect. You've posted a modern dictionary definition, but the word has changed in subtle ways over the course of history (just as many others have). Replenish in this case probably means to "repeatedly fill".
1:28 reads "Be fruitful, multiply and repeatedly fill the Earth".

It is highly doubtful that it refers to any other creation other than the one that Genesis describes.

They were at odds yes but thats because the Jews wanted the entire new state to themselves.

That is just a complete and utter fabrication. A total and utter lie.

They were at odds because the British had a policy of refusing Jewish emigration to the area. They were at odds because the British had an arms embargo on the Jews and were supplying the Arabs with weapons and training.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_(ship)

"Due to the high profile of the Exodus 1947 emigration ship, it was decided by the British government that the emigrants were to be deported back to France. Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin suggested this, and the request was relayed to General Sir Alan Cunningham, High Commissioner for Palestine,[4] who agreed with the plan after consulting the Navy.[5] Before then, intercepted would be immigrants were placed in internment camps on Cyprus, which was at the time a British colony. This new policy was meant to be a signal to both the Jewish community and the European countries which assisted immigration that whatever they sent to Palestine would be sent back to them."

Will one of the Mugabe apologists please tell me exactly what these sanctions are.

Thank-you.

@Ogaga4luv

If you believe in Satan, you believe in Christianity.
Satan is a creation of Christianity. You cannot believe in the former without believing in the latter.
It is also illogical to believe that the Biblical Satan is a "higher power". Your only impression of him is formed by the Bible where it is abundantly clear that he is subordinate to the Biblical god.

What we need to overstand is that the Jesus character was based on the life of many real people including Yashua Pandara (the Jesus of the synoptic gospel), Simon Bar Jesus (his son) and Jesus Justus (Son of Kleopatrah and Mark Anthony).

I have read the theory of the 3 Christs before but never heard of Yashua Pandara. Don't you mean Yashu'a Bar Maryam?
Further to your post, I do believe that Egyptian religion had a major impact on the creation of Christianity just as it did with Judaism, but much of what you state is just sheer speculation with no foundation in historical fact.

These nutjobs never cease to amaze me. So Christianity is to blame for the atrocities of their ideological soulmates like Mao Zedong and Stalin.

Read the thread properly before making false comments.
I have not said that. I didn't bring them into the topic. David bought them up in the hope of getting some sympathy for Christianity and in a way of attacking secularism because (in his deranged opinion) all secularists are atheists. I have not stated that Christianity is to blame for their atrocities. I have stated that, in the case of Stalin, Christianity was an influence in his life, just as it is with all of us who live in a Christian society, be they Christians or atheists. Accusations such as "Bastage says Stalin's period of training as a priest is to blame" are just sheer fabrications when anyone can read back through my words here and see that is not what I said - that I am talking about something much deeper here. But then, Christians do like to play the blame game - after all, the whole religion is based on it and shallowness seems to be a common trait in the avid worshipper.
If I were a real critic of Christianity, believe me, I would be able to argue very well that Christianity was responsible for Stalinist terror. But that is not the issue here, even though David would like it to come to the fore so he can hide behind the smoke-screen that would create.

It is only a "nutjob" who would deny the impact of religion on the mind of the human-being. The first time I debated with you, I believed you intelligent. The second, I believed you to be a total idiot. You're on the brink of the third now and teetering on the edge of moronic. If you've got a point, read the thread properly and see if you can pull yourself back from the edge by bringing something more than just the same mindless drivel that David has so far.


Incidentally: Go to the Wiki page for Mao and you will see that the first thing it says about him (as it does in nearly every single biography I've read about him) is that he came from a very devout Buddhist family. I will again deny the false accusation that you have made above and repeat the fact that I do not blame Buddhism for the atrocities carried out during Mao's rule, but again, to deny that religion had no influence on Mao's mental state, to deny that his upbringing in a devout household didn't make him who he was is just further denial of reality.

Every christian believes in the creation . . . are we now all fundamentalists?

The majority of Christians in the UK do not believe in Creationism - less than a fifth of them are convinced by the argument. Creationism is a minority viewpoint that has only very recently gained any strength. In the US, on the other hand, there is a large proportion that do. They throw Darwin in the trash and believe in some crackpot myth handed down by the Babylonian Enuma Elish. The frightening fact is that Creationism is a growing trend in the UK. Incidentally, that pisses all over your statement that Christian fundamentalism is not growing.

You don't even know anything about your own fellow worshippers. How are you fit to judge secularists?

You also make the baseless claim that christianity influenced Stalin's life with the laughable idea that he became the terror he was because he once trained for the priesthood. Thousands of folks train for the priesthood yrly

Yeah. Thousands of them train yearly and quite a few of them move onto fucking kids up the ass. To claim that Christianity was no influence on Stalin when he trained to be a priest is laughable. Logic would tell anyone but the most short-sighted buffoon that he would have formed an opinion of something he was actively involved in. You're a joke, David. You're in denial of reality.

Based on this, every christian is a fundamentalist.

Utter crap. Most Christians do not believe that the Bible is infallible. Figures state that 25% of UK Christians don't even believe in the Nativity!!! Studies show that the majority of Christians in the UK recognise that the Bible contains instances of irreconcilable dogma. Only illogical idiots like you hold that ignorant view above and claim otherwise.

the post was in no way vitriolic, it was simply a potent reminder of the hypocrisy that the secularist movement embodies.

When the secularist movement rallies against the sort of blind ignorance you've shown in this thread, I know who's side I'm on. And it ain't yours.

I'm done with you. I can only talk to a retard for so long before my tolerance level is over-stretched.

Why is AC Grayling fighting christian fundamentalism? And where exactly are these "fundamentalists"?

Fundamentalists are the cancer of ignorance within Christianity. I'd say you're doing a pretty good impression of a fundamentalist yourself, David.

I never said they did, no christian has come up with ranting headlines on "christians vital war on secularism" . . . so how can i answer a question that has no meaning to me. I live a full life that is not affected by secularists.

I'd like to point you to the first post you made in this thread.

don't these secularists like AC Grayling make you want to laugh them to derision?  

when it comes to christianity . . . they are at war with religion.
When its islam they kow tow to the violent mullahs and tell us to "respect" their religion.

bunch of hypocrites.

I'd say they affect you enough for you to make a pretty vitriolic post. Surely that didn't come from nowhere. Otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to answer as you have.

No you didnt rebutt any points because i rebutted them right back as very few of them make logical sense.

Nope. For example you rebutt the fact that Christianity was an influence in Stalin's life with nothing but a denial. I've even told you how he trained for the priesthood yet you completely overlook the logic in my argument. In fact, most of what you've rebutted is just denial. Denial either not explained or peppered with irrelevancy.

See this example below for an illustration of the point above:

Palin as a christian fundamentalist? Abeg no let me split my ribs please.

Palin is a Creationist. For you to suggest that she's not a fundamentalist is laughable. I take it your ribs are splitting from laughing at your own stupidity?

fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅ism
   /ˌfʌndəˈmɛntlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

How does she not fit the dictionary definition of a fundamentalist?

So far I've answered every one of your questions and rebutted every one of your points. Like I said - it's getting boring. Especially when I have to keep repeating myself and especially when you keep bringing up redundant or irrelevant points as you have in your last post.

So I'll ask you a question.

How do secularists harm you?

This certainly exists only in their minds to be honest. How are you slaves to a christianity? In what way does a religion regulate the lives of people ina society where gay marriage is becoming the norm, it is now forbidden to say "merry christmas" and christianity is becoming an endangered specie?

They would say that gay marriage shouldn't even be an issue, let alone the norm. Personally, I don't agree with that.
As for not saying "Merry Christmas". Any rule like that is bought in precisely because of some idiot who doesn't want to offend other religious beliefs. It's just one religion playing off another and they see themselves as caught in the middle.

The Palin issue is a desperate grasping at straws. The Palin pick was roundly condemned both by the media and at the polls. Of course she only appeals to a fringe group of conservatives who would NEVER have voted for a black man anyway.

You don't find it an issue to this subject that a woman with her fundamentalist outlook was in a postion where she was up for the second most powerful position in the most powerful country in the world?

Secularists ALREADY have the freedom of choice.

They would argue that they don't. And as I've already pointed out - they have a very strong case.

What is Bush's approval rating? how many people voted for Palin? Sheesh!

Bush still got voted in twice. As for Palin, I would say that a few million voted for the Reps purely because of her religious beliefs. That's why she was put there.

9-11 is a mere 7 years away and America is embroiled in two bitter wars of religious ideology and christianity not islam is their major concern? What hypocrisy.

As you point out, we fight the Islamic fundamentalists with guns. Secularists like Grayling fight the Christian fundamentalists with words.

This is NOT true. So because muslims are blowing up the WTC christians would be motivated to go get bombs too?

Nobody is saying that Christians are going to run around bombing. But what it does create is more fundamentalism. It's a fact. When people attack your beliefs (as they believe Islamic fundamentalists do) they only tend to harden them. That cuts both ways too.

The violence over prop 8 is a very fresh reminder that the secular left is hell-bent on forcing its opinion down our throats.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with secularism. If it did, why would they worry about getting married?

Please enough with revisionist history and baseless allegations.

I've explained how people are influenced by religion from birth already. Most of Stalin's schoolmates were the sons of priests. He even trained to become a priest himself before becoming an atheist. How could that not affect him?

Lets respect the bible.

OK. Let's respect it.
Explain Deborah.

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

That is why i continue to ask the question . . . how does religion negatively influence the daily life of an American athiest for example?

Because they see themselves as slaves to it. Is that not a big enough negative?

If fundamentalism is a worry then why is AC Grayling complaining? Its not like the church of England is going to impose religion on the UK any time soon.

They see fundamentalism as growing. Look to the States and the Bible Belt and the proposed election of Palin. After years of liberalization, they see religion making more of an impact on politics and their lives. But also, like I said, they want the freedom to choose.

Infact if secularists shld be worried it shld be about Islam but funny enough they all seem to be silent on that issue. Why is the emphasis on christianity? Where are the christian fundamentalists?

They are worried about Islamic fundamentalism but because they live in a Christian society, it's not their major cause of concern. But there is a major worry that Islamic fundamentalism will cause a surge in Christian fundamentalism in opposition. As for where are the Christian fundamentalists? I only have to point to people like Palin and even Bush who let their religion guide their politics and dictate the lives of the people in their country. You may say that she's a Yank and therefore irrelevant but there's a long history of the US sneezing and the rest of the West catching a cold. But you can also look at Blair who openly stated that his belief in his god was a factor within his political decisions. It led to his Press Officer, Alistair Campbell, saying "We don't do god", when questioned.

Is AC Grayling going to address the growing secular fundamentalist movement as witnessed recently by the violence with which the gay rights movement greeted the passing of Prop 8?

As far as I know, there hasn't been an incident of violence by atheists. There have been incidents in the UK by people on the other side though. The  unrest over "Jerry Springer the Opera" comes immediately to mind.

If they have absolutely nothing to compare with . . . how do they know this for certain?

There is no knowing for certain. Just like our belief in a god is not "knowing for certain". But they tend to base their belief on what they see as realism and a more material sense, whereas you and I base it on a more spiritual sense. To some degree that gives them even more justification. It is much, much more difficult to debate a secularist or atheist than a believer in god. They start from a position that is logically sound whereas my starting point is based on belief. It's only after going a lot deeper into the subject that I can use logic against them.

was it the christian influence that produced Joseph Stalin or the likes of Pol Pot?

Christian influence would have produced Stalin. I believe it was Buddhism that created Pol Pot. It would have been their views of negativity about that influence that helped to shape their policies.

If indeed this were true as i can tell you it certainly isnt . . . how has this been a net negative?

They look at history. The wars, the persecutions. Wether or not it would have been any different, I personally don't believe so. But they believe that it would have been different. They believe that man would have been an entirely different kind of animal and a better one at that.

Pol Pot, Hitler, Joseph Stalin . . . certainly very peaceful people . . . it was all the fault of religion.

Hitler believed in god. He wasn't an atheist. But an atheist could throw back Iraq, Afghanistan and countless other regimes and wars in your face so it's not really safe ground. Then you're into another difficulty with the other two - they were so affected by religion, they tried to eradicate it and created misery in doing so. If their societies were secular before they took over, would they have felt the need to do so? It cuts both ways. I don't say that as a condemnation of religion - merely pointing out the fact that even though Stalin was an atheist and Pol Pot probably was, religious influence was still a factor. They rebelled. Don't get them confused with humanists though. Humanism and Communism are incompatible even though Communism likes to claim that it is a bedfellow.

Two contradictory statements here . . . if mankind has never known anything different how then do humanists automatically assume a world without religion would be better?

No. Not contradictory.
Some of them are what I would call fundamentalists and base their ideal on the fact that they were never given a choice. They see themselves as slaves to religion. They simply want a right to choose. In my opinion, that group haven't thought through the consequences of total secularisation and only see the positives that they want to and ignore the point that there could be negatives. Others look at the humanist code and see it as a more workable path for mankind to go down. Personally, I see the code as a pipe-dream - mankind is simply not advanced enough to follow it. They would argue that we should at least try.

Is communist Russia or Nazi Germany any better than the UK?

You can't make that comparison. As I've already pointed out, religion was still an influence. But if you insist, was Russia better than Spain during the Inquisition? See? Comparisons aren't relevant.

he truth is secularists compare athiesm with the fanatical fringe of religions and then assume they speak for all religionists.

Some do. There's no denying that. But I would suggest that the majority simply want to live their lives free from religious influence.

the world wont be an alice in wonderland fairy tale without religion.

Who knows? But I think for the vast majority of secularists, fundamentalism is the biggest worry. And a world ruled by fundamentalism would be a hell of a lot worse than what we've got now. We know that in the West just by looking at history.

then why do secularists tell us without religion the would would be a better place?

As I've stated above - some think that a secular society would be a freer one and change the outlook of humanity. Some think it would be a better place simply because they believe they would have the right to choose their own destiny.

Seems you have been hurt simply by being exposed as someone who goes around fabricating nonsense and expecting people to debate them.

I haven't twisted any facts.
I've stated that the West wasn't as complicit in the creation of the state of Israel as people like yourself would like others to believe. People who claim so are merely chirping age old ignorance. The fact is that the British were near enough in a state of war with the Jews over the creation. Tornadoz very kindly reinforced that fact when he pointed out the bombing campaign that the Jews were involved in. So I guess if you're accusing me of fabricating nonsense, you'd have to accuse Tornadoz too.

I've also pointed out that using the Balfour Declaration as an excuse is just ridiculous. It's lazy and ignorant. People have heard of it but never read it. They have no clue of either what it contains, when it was written, by whom, when or that it has only three paragraphs. Yet they're so gullible, they'll turn around and say that such a relatively insignificant piece of paper is responsible for the creation of Israel.

I would offer to debate you, but judging by what you've written here and elsewhere, it would just be a total waste of time - you just simply don't have the intelligence to debate.

Fair enough . . . but here comes my other question . . . in what way is religion FORCING itself down the throat of the secularist movement?

Religion has always been forced down our throats. As I've yet again already stated - we live it, we breathe it, we eat it, we sleep it. It has shaped the human race and therefore each individual wether he wanted it to or not.

If ethics and morals have been shaped by religion, how does the secularist hope to change this?

Read John Lennon's Imagine again. Personally, I am not a believer in humanism. I see it as unworkable due to the fact that religion has got under our skin so deep, we'll never be able to get it out again. I see humanists more as romantic dreamers. That said, I believe that they have a very important voice and are a counterbalance against fundamentalism.

What will be different in societal ethics if we take away religion?

Nobody knows. Mankind has never known anything different. Humanists obviously think it will be a better world. I don't necessarily think it will. They put way too much faith in their fellow man knowing when to do the right thing for my liking.

Have other areligious nations like communist Russia been better models of ethics and morals?

There has never been an areligious nation on this planet. Four decades of Communistic administrative atheism wouldn't make even the slightest dent in the thousands and thousands of years of religious influence that came before (part of the reason why I don't believe humanism can ever work). Sure, you can close the churches and imprison the bishops, but you can never stop the people from believing.
There hasn't been a place on Earth that hasn't been influenced. Therefore there's no better or worse. There's nothing to compare it with.

I've already told you why. Let me repeat myself yet again.
Because they have no other options. No other choices. Ethics and morals have been shaped by religion. They're saying that they would like a choice in the matter and be able to decide for themselves. They're saying that any moral or ethical decisions based on religion that affect them are an insult to their rights as human beings.

They're not saying they want to destroy religion. They're saying "Believe what you want. But keep those beliefs to yourself and don't force them down my throat or use them in a way that affects my life". They're saying "Why should your belief in a god affect the way that I live?".

Secular humanism is humanist philosophy coined in the 20th century . . . your own wikipedia page.

Secular humanism is just an updated version of humanism. The code is identical. The word secular was only added to distinguish it from regular humanism which although identical, has room for a belief in a god. Even though that belief should have no impact on the conduct of the humanist.
Humanism has been around for millenia. Longer than both Christianity and Islam.

It's hardly some new-age philosophy as you are insinuating. But then if you had bothered to read both links properly, you would have known that.

Since when did philosophy become a moral code?

That is just another utterly ridiculous question that isn't worth an answer. Are you really that stupid?


As for being in a rage, David? No. I guess you could say that your ignorance exasperates me. But no. Not in a rage.

This is all i have asked on the secularists here: how has christianity negatively affected society?

And you have been told time and time again that it is an irrelevant question. Would you like to explain to me why it is relevant?

What sanctions? The type that mumus like you will never understand.

LMAO. You're right. You don't understand them either.
If you did, you would be able to tell me what they are mugu.

In the commandments, God warns that his name not be taken in vain.

No. As I've pointed out before, the Commandment has nothing to do with blasphemy but the use of the name in magic.
It was believed back then that if you knew the name of the god and used it in a spell, you would have very powerful ju-ju. The Commandment is an admonishment not to use the god's name in a magic spell.

The story is better explained here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4107524.stm

She wasn't crucified. She was tied to the cross not nailed.

"I don't understand why journalists are making such a fuss about this. Exorcism is a common practice in the heart of the Romanian Orthodox church and my methods are not at all unknown to other priests," Father Daniel added.

"I don't understand why journalists are making such a fuss?". Has anyone not told the Romanian Orthodox Church that the taking of another human-being's life is worth making a fuss about? These people live in the Dark Ages.

Er, Arthur James Balfour was not just a govt official, he was foreign minister when the declaration was made in 1917.

Idiot. A foreign minister is a government official.

The above would have made sense if Arabs were not already living in Palestine. As at the 7th century (way before the 19th) Arabs were the majority population.

Yes. Because of continual pogroms against the Jewish population. Being the greater in number does not give you right of ownership.

You're not a doofus but am tempted to call you a  knob head because I never said:"the West was so ingratiating to the Jews"?
I however said that the Balfour declaration became the basis for the creation of Israel.

Actually, I'm not tempted to call you a knobhead. I will call you a knobhead.
I said it in reply to this exchange:

I almost vomited when I read
"The UK and the West tried to block it's creation and then supported the Arabs when they invaded. Only to see them get their asses kicked."
I finally vomited when you wrote
"Of course, we can live in a dream-world and pretend that Israel was created by the US, UK and the West which thought it was a great idea"

The fact is that you have stated that the West was supporting the creation of Israel when clearly it was not. Go look up the dictionary definition of the word "ingratiating". Knobhead.

Branding them terrorist could not be because the first terrorist bombing in the middle east was carried out by the Jews, could it? Other examples are:
(1)The King David Hotel Bombings directed by the terrorist Menachem (Polish citizen)Begin who later became Israel's prime minister,
(2)British military headquarters bombings
(3)The Jerusalem Railway Station bombings etc.

What an idiot you are. Why do you think I bought the subject up? All you've done is reinforce the point I've illustrated - that the Jews were at odds with the UK over the creation of the state of Israel.

Knobhead.

What sanctions!!! And how do they affect the general population of Zimbabwe?

Are they so "smart" that you can't even explain what they are?


All you've done is post the same thing again saying that sanctions hurt. But yet again you haven't explained what they are or how they hurt.

God doesn't change.

Mankind's interpretation of Him is what changes.

Hence the huge difference between the religions and even the contradictions between the Old and New Testaments used by Christianity.

If he existed, the historical evidence says he would probably have been studying under Jewish scholars.
Elsewhere, different traditions have him travelling as far afield as India, Japan and Egypt.


But there are also interesting parallels with Egyptian religion:
It is written that Horus stayed with his mother until the age of 12. Between the ages of twelve to thirty there is no record of the life of Horus. Ironically Jesus stayed with his mother until 12 years of age and between the ages of twelve to thirty there is no record of the life of Jesus in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and the book of Acts. At age thirty, Horus was baptized by Anup. At age thirty, Jesus was baptized by John.

That's without even taking into account the other similarities between the two.