Research on Belief in God

[ray j willings]

I don't. Insisting on that point just didn't sound like a very productive approach.

So far, I haven't seen any sources that make these claims about Horus from a neutral and strictly Egyptologist point of view. It's always Christ myth theorists. That's very telling.

That's crazy. I mean anyone who agrees with me know matter what their qualifications , legacy of work etc you are going to say the same thing.
Its pointless. I have filled your criteria time after time. I have given you some links to help you see there is more to this than a Hollywood movie but you choose to ignore any evidence. There have been many books written on this subject by qualified people for quite some time who specialise in this field but obviously none fit your impossible criteria.

I sort of enjoyed the debate but it's going nowhere. Time to move on,Cheers

 

[rhubroma]

Again, that's a cop-out. There *are* serious scholarly studies about Horus, Mithra, Sol Invictus and mythology in general, but Zeitgeist and the kind of books we're talking about here aren't The influence of the Isis and baby Horus iconography on Christian iconography is known and acknowledged, and I've mentioned Sumerian myths in passing in this very thread - but that's not the kind of thing that's being claimed.

My beef here, simply, is with the conspiracy theorist way of thinking. This is about thoroughly unsourced bogus claims that are then accepted without any critical thought merely because their target audience is predisposed to do so. Whether you're a Christian, an atheist or anything else, that's NOT the way to enlightenment.

I wasn't making a cop-out assuming these things, because I do not. Nor do I need that type of "enlightenment." Mine was an admonishment, though, from the inverse perspective. There are serious 'sourced' academic studies that have been just as misplaced. It isn't all one way or the other.

 

[RetroActive]

Anyone else besides myself believe in the Ancient Alien series?


More serious question - Does anyone on here believe that Dinosaurs did not once roam the planet?

How did dinosaurs roam the planet? Something must have been different for these massive creatures to walk/fly.

New Discovery: Dreadnoughtus, The Impossibly Huge Dinosaur
https://www.libertariannews.org/2014/09/04/new-discovery-dreadnoughtus-the-impossibly-huge-dinosaur/

If you search David Esker (physicist) it's pretty funny. Here are a couple examples:
http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/pterosaurs-couldn-t-fly-japanese-scientist-comes-out-swingi
(read the last comment, lol)

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...t-ancient-gravity-made-sauropods-super-sized/
(again, the comments where he's arguing with a paleontologist)

Hilarious. I love science.

 

[Ruby United]

Basically these are a few of many problems I found with Christianity. Im open to answers but please don't be offensive. If I made a mistake please point out and correct. Note that these are not my ideas I have collected them from others and developed them: Sorry, it is very long:

The first question I would like to ask is how Jesus can be considered the descendant of David if he has no biological father. The Torah clearly states that the Messiah has to be the ?son? of David. Yes, the New Testament lists two different ways Joseph has a direct lineage to David, but Joseph is only the adoptive father of Jesus, not the biological father. It is clear from the Torah that a person?s lineage is based on his biological father, and NOT on his mother or adoptive father. The Torah even says ?Lezarah Avos/According to the seed of the father.? In all cases of lineage in the Torah it is clear that an adoptive father is irrelevant in terms of lineage. For example, if your biological father is a Kohen, you are a Kohen. If your biological father is not a Kohen, you are not a Kohen. If your biological father is from the tribe Judah, you are from the tribe of Judah. If your biological father is not from Judah, you are not from Judah. These cases are true regardless of who your adoptive father is or who your biological father is. So, in summary, how can Jesus be the Messiah when it is c lear from the Torah that the Messiah will be descended from David and Jesus is the son of God (who is obviously not related to David)!?

A more famous argument against the New Testament that Christians have not sufficiently answered is their proof from the Tanach that the Messiah will be born from a virgin. Mathew (1:22/23) says, ?All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 ?The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel? (which means ?God with us?).? I.e. Jesus being supposedly born of a virgin fulfils the verse in Isiah (which both Christianity and Judaism agree is written with divine inspiration) which uses the word ?Almah.? As shown in Mathew (above) Christianity translates the word ?Almah? as virgin and claims the verse is talking about the times of the Messiah. This is their source for the Messiah being born of a virgin. The obvious yet fatal question is: Every Hebrew speaking person knows the word ?Almah? means young woman and not virgin. In fact in Proverbs/Mishlei (30:18-20), King Solomon uses the word ?Almah? to stress the complete opposite of Christian claim that it means virgin. King Solomon is mentioning three things which he does not understand. One of them is ?The way of a man with a young woman (Almah). This is an adulteress woman?? This verse uses the word ?Almah? to stress an adulteress woman, the opposite of a virgin. So how can the book of Mathew claim that the source for the Messiah being born of a virgin is the word ?Almah,? when it means young lady, and certainly not necessarily virgin as seen in Proverbs?

I have more but Ill save them for later

 

[RetroActive]

Basically these are a few of many problems I found with Christianity. Im open to answers but please don't be offensive. If I made a mistake please point out and correct. Note that these are not my ideas I have collected them from others and developed them: Sorry, it is very long:

The first question I would like to ask is how Jesus can be considered the descendant of David if he has no biological father. The Torah clearly states that the Messiah has to be the ?son? of David. Yes, the New Testament lists two different ways Joseph has a direct lineage to David, but Joseph is only the adoptive father of Jesus, not the biological father. It is clear from the Torah that a person?s lineage is based on his biological father, and NOT on his mother or adoptive father. The Torah even says ?Lezarah Avos/According to the seed of the father.? In all cases of lineage in the Torah it is clear that an adoptive father is irrelevant in terms of lineage. For example, if your biological father is a Kohen, you are a Kohen. If your biological father is not a Kohen, you are not a Kohen. If your biological father is from the tribe Judah, you are from the tribe of Judah. If your biological father is not from Judah, you are not from Judah. These cases are true regardless of who your adoptive father is or who your biological father is. So, in summary, how can Jesus be the Messiah when it is c lear from the Torah that the Messiah will be descended from David and Jesus is the son of God (who is obviously not related to David)!?

A more famous argument against the New Testament that Christians have not sufficiently answered is their proof from the Tanach that the Messiah will be born from a virgin. Mathew (1:22/23) says, ?All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 ?The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel? (which means ?God with us?).? I.e. Jesus being supposedly born of a virgin fulfils the verse in Isiah (which both Christianity and Judaism agree is written with divine inspiration) which uses the word ?Almah.? As shown in Mathew (above) Christianity translates the word ?Almah? as virgin and claims the verse is talking about the times of the Messiah. This is their source for the Messiah being born of a virgin. The obvious yet fatal question is: Every Hebrew speaking person knows the word ?Almah? means young woman and not virgin. In fact in Proverbs/Mishlei (30:18-20), King Solomon uses the word ?Almah? to stress the complete opposite of Christian claim that it means virgin. King Solomon is mentioning three things which he does not understand. One of them is ?The way of a man with a young woman (Almah). This is an adulteress woman?? This verse uses the word ?Almah? to stress an adulteress woman, the opposite of a virgin. So how can the book of Mathew claim that the source for the Messiah being born of a virgin is the word ?Almah,? when it means young lady, and certainly not necessarily virgin as seen in Proverbs?

I have more but Ill save them for later

Who was King David, or King Solomon? There's no archeological record for either in the Levant, in fact there's little in the way of archeology of anything in the Levant. Jerusalem was a village, at best, apparently. Were these Kings (Pharaohs) from the Hyksos time ruling in lower Egypt? Was the great pyramid Mt. Sinai? Were there two exoduses? One of the Hyksos, for which there records, and the other from Amarna after the demise of Akhenaten and monotheism in Egypt?

Modern Hebrew is a reconstructed language, you're assuming modern understandings are the same as ancient ones.

You're trying to interpret spiritual teaching literally. This is the antithesis of what these guys are/were up to. They're trying to identify with life/ the cosmos beyond their ego and biology. A more appropriate analogy might be to say that the sun is our father, the earth is our mother. Is the earth a virgin or a *****? Mary the Mother or Mary the Magdalene?

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Who was King David, or King Solomon? There's no archeological record for either in the Levant,

Archeological evidence for the Levant is very scarce indeed in general, but there are actually at least two finds that are quite relevant for the existence of David; the Tel Dan Stele and the Mesha Stele, both from the 9th century BC, mention 'the house of David'. I mean, I'll admit that these two stele aren't some kind of absolute 100% sure proof, but they're pretty decent. I mean, it would be pretty impressive if David got his dynasty mentioned twice a bit more than a century after he didn't exist.

The Mesha Stele is pretty interesting. It's more or less tells exactly the same story as 2 Kings 3:4-8. I mean, they're written from two different sides of a conflict, so it's a very different perspective, but it's very clear they're talking about the same thing.

 

[RetroActive]

I'm going to have a look for a used copy of D.H. Lawrence Apocalypse.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/419613.Apocalypse

I've read some passages recently and this review is intriguing (from the link):

This is a hard book to review, because it?s quite short and yet every single paragraph is bristling with ideas. He?s already reduced what he has to say to a sweet perfection. This is one of his trademarks. Technically so concise and yet so poetic.

Basically he is discussing the anomaly that is the Book of Revelations, and how poorly it fits into what purports to be a Christian gospel. He traces the pagan roots of all the symbolism and discusses the mind set of it?s authors and of it?s audience.

In doing so he presents a consummate critique of Christianity and of our modern democratic system. He nails (so to speak) the reason why Christianity has come so far from being a religion of love. In fact he considers Christ and his doctrines to be purely relevant for the actuated individual (who is a rare freak), and completely inappropriate for the collective as a whole, who he considers as a collection of fragments. As soon as Christianity became a collective entity it started to degenerate. And the writings of the Apocalypse predict and describe what it has become. Really it is all very much connected to our inability to live sustainably on the earth. Our mass suicidal tendencies, our half dead existences, it?s all explained so cleverly. It?s a relief to realize you were quite right to feel this all instinctively. That someone else has noticed.

I love his use of symbolism. The narrative of human history told through various coloured dragons especially. But so much inspiration. I don?t think any book has ever inspired me more.

 

[rhubroma]

Basically these are a few of many problems I found with Christianity. Im open to answers but please don't be offensive. If I made a mistake please point out and correct. Note that these are not my ideas I have collected them from others and developed them: Sorry, it is very long:

The first question I would like to ask is how Jesus can be considered the descendant of David if he has no biological father. The Torah clearly states that the Messiah has to be the ?son? of David. Yes, the New Testament lists two different ways Joseph has a direct lineage to David, but Joseph is only the adoptive father of Jesus, not the biological father. It is clear from the Torah that a person?s lineage is based on his biological father, and NOT on his mother or adoptive father. The Torah even says ?Lezarah Avos/According to the seed of the father.? In all cases of lineage in the Torah it is clear that an adoptive father is irrelevant in terms of lineage. For example, if your biological father is a Kohen, you are a Kohen. If your biological father is not a Kohen, you are not a Kohen. If your biological father is from the tribe Judah, you are from the tribe of Judah. If your biological father is not from Judah, you are not from Judah. These cases are true regardless of who your adoptive father is or who your biological father is. So, in summary, how can Jesus be the Messiah when it is c lear from the Torah that the Messiah will be descended from David and Jesus is the son of God (who is obviously not related to David)!?

A more famous argument against the New Testament that Christians have not sufficiently answered is their proof from the Tanach that the Messiah will be born from a virgin. Mathew (1:22/23) says, ?All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 ?The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel? (which means ?God with us?).? I.e. Jesus being supposedly born of a virgin fulfils the verse in Isiah (which both Christianity and Judaism agree is written with divine inspiration) which uses the word ?Almah.? As shown in Mathew (above) Christianity translates the word ?Almah? as virgin and claims the verse is talking about the times of the Messiah. This is their source for the Messiah being born of a virgin. The obvious yet fatal question is: Every Hebrew speaking person knows the word ?Almah? means young woman and not virgin. In fact in Proverbs/Mishlei (30:18-20), King Solomon uses the word ?Almah? to stress the complete opposite of Christian claim that it means virgin. King Solomon is mentioning three things which he does not understand. One of them is ?The way of a man with a young woman (Almah). This is an adulteress woman?? This verse uses the word ?Almah? to stress an adulteress woman, the opposite of a virgin. So how can the book of Mathew claim that the source for the Messiah being born of a virgin is the word ?Almah,? when it means young lady, and certainly not necessarily virgin as seen in Proverbs?

I have more but Ill save them for later

Oh, well, the non-biological father bit being God, elides the Torah's requirement for legitimacy in the patriarchal order. Pretty ironic, both ways, isn't it?

 

[RetroActive]

Archeological evidence for the Levant is very scarce indeed in general, but there are actually at least two finds that are quite relevant for the existence of David; the Tel Dan Stele and the Mesha Stele, both from the 9th century BC, mention 'the house of David'. I mean, I'll admit that these two stele aren't some kind of absolute 100% sure proof, but they're pretty decent. I mean, it would be pretty impressive if David got his dynasty mentioned twice a bit more than a century after he didn't exist.

The Mesha Stele is pretty interesting. It's more or less tells exactly the same story as 2 Kings 3:4-8. I mean, they're written from two different sides of a conflict, so it's a very different perspective, but it's very clear they're talking about the same thing.

...and of course as soon as I hear "house of" I immediately want to look up...the great clock in the sky and all that. Who knows.

ps, if the lion is Leo (one of the four faces of God, the other three being the three other fixed signs of the zodiac) and the bear is Polaris. You tell me who David was and what was going on in the night sky.

 

[RetroActive]

Oh, well, the non-biological father bit being God, elides the Torah's requirement for legitimacy in the patriarchal order. Pretty ironic, both ways, isn't it?

Also ironic that modern Jews are Matrilineal. The further we get away from the abstract unknowable All in the background with all the living aspects, or principals, in nature venerated, the crazier people get it seems. We may as well be reading about a different world from our perch in urban modernity and the cult of the materialist self. Angels and Demons become Aliens in flying machines in the machine age...meanwhile we are the real aliens and nature is simply to be exploited for resources on the way into the factory and as a garbage dump shortly after the shine on the shelf has worn off. What's on TV? I think I forgot to take my antidepressant. hahaha

 

[Jspear]

A more famous argument against the New Testament that Christians have not sufficiently answered is their proof from the Tanach that the Messiah will be born from a virgin. Mathew (1:22/23) says, ?All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 ?The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel? (which means ?God with us?).? I.e. Jesus being supposedly born of a virgin fulfils the verse in Isiah (which both Christianity and Judaism agree is written with divine inspiration) which uses the word ?Almah.? As shown in Mathew (above) Christianity translates the word ?Almah? as virgin and claims the verse is talking about the times of the Messiah. This is their source for the Messiah being born of a virgin. The obvious yet fatal question is: Every Hebrew speaking person knows the word ?Almah? means young woman and not virgin. In fact in Proverbs/Mishlei (30:18-20), King Solomon uses the word ?Almah? to stress the complete opposite of Christian claim that it means virgin. King Solomon is mentioning three things which he does not understand. One of them is ?The way of a man with a young woman (Almah). This is an adulteress woman?? This verse uses the word ?Almah? to stress an adulteress woman, the opposite of a virgin. So how can the book of Mathew claim that the source for the Messiah being born of a virgin is the word ?Almah,? when it means young lady, and certainly not necessarily virgin as seen in Proverbs?

I have more but Ill save them for later

Actually in biblical Hebrew (which is different from modern Hebrew) the word Almah can mean virgin. You can look it up in Strongs Concordance. The word Almah is also translated as virgin in Genesis 24 when Abraham's servant is looking for a wife for his son Isaac. Also in Isaiah 7, the LXX uses the word parthenos, which means virgin.

 

[Ruby United]

Actually in biblical Hebrew (which is different from modern Hebrew) the word Almah can mean virgin. You can look it up in Strongs Concordance. The word Almah is also translated as virgin in Genesis 24 when Abraham's servant is looking for a wife for his son Isaac. Also in Isaiah 7, the LXX uses the word parthenos, which means virgin.

Yes, Almah CAN include a virgin, but it's meaning is young woman irrelevant of her sexual status, as proven by proverbs, this applies in biblical hebrew too.

About your proof from Gensis 24, all the bible's (4) I have checked in my house use the word young woman in translation, one translates it as girl. Yes, the girl had to be a virgin as otherwise she would not be suitable for a wife for isaac, but that is irrelevant to the usage of the word 'Almah,' which never renders the translation of virgin from jewish sources to the best of my knowledge.

EDIT: By the way the Septuagint/LXX translation of almah as parthenos is the believed origin of the mistranslation, it seems that the mistake in Mathew was due to it being based on the LXX's mistranslation of almah as parthenos

 

[Jspear]

Yes, Almah CAN include a virgin, but it's meaning is young woman irrelevant of her sexual status, as proven by proverbs, this applies in biblical hebrew too.

About your proof from Gensis 24, all the bible's (4) I have checked in my house use the word young woman in translation, one translates it as girl. Yes, the girl had to be a virgin as otherwise she would not be suitable for a wife for isaac, but that is irrelevant to the usage of the word 'Almah,' which never renders the translation of virgin from jewish sources to the best of my knowledge.

EDIT: By the way the Septuagint/LXX translation of almah as parthenos is the believed origin of the mistranslation, it seems that the mistake in Mathew was due to it being based on the LXX's mistranslation of almah as parthenos

If you know that Almah can be translated as virgin, then I guess I don't know what your problem/question is.

 

[Ruby United]

Yes, Almah CAN include a virgin, but it's meaning is young woman irrelevant of her sexual status, as proven by proverbs, this applies in biblical hebrew too.

If you know that Almah can be translated as virgin, then I guess I don't know what your problem/question is.

I have not said it can be translated as virgin, I said it can include a virgin, I.e, it can means a young woman who is a virgin too, but thats irrelevant just as it could say "isha" which means woman irrelevant of whether she is a virgin or not. Yes an Isha/Woman can BE a virgin but that's irrelevant regarding the translation and usage of the word.

So, the fact that an almah (young woman) can be a virgin is an extra, irrelevant point.

I do not believe Almah can be translated as virgin.

 

[Jspear]

I have not said it can be translated as virgin, I said it can include a virgin, I.e, it can means a young woman who is a virgin too, but thats irrelevant just as it could say "isha" which means woman irrelevant of whether she is a virgin or not. Yes an Isha/Woman can BE a virgin but that's irrelevant regarding the translation and usage of the word.

So, the fact that an almah (young woman) can be a virgin is an extra, irrelevant point.

I do not believe Almah can be translated as virgin.

Well according to Strongs Concordance it can be translated as virgin. I'll take their word over yours.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

The peaceful "religion" enriching Great Britain (Sarcasm alert):

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

... go on Amster, Rechtschreibfehler (I would like it more you call yourself Denkfehler), Echoes, etc. ... defend the islamic lover boys, but insult the truly and authentic original peaceful Europeans like me.

 

[Ruby United]

Well according to Strongs Concordance it can be translated as virgin. I'll take their word over yours.

To end this discussion I will quote from the jewsforjesus website:

'One cannot assert that the prophet was speaking of a virgin technically on the basis of the word almah. Nor can a serious student lightly dismiss the word as having no possible reference to a miraculous conception.'

Either way there is an argument for both sides, either that it can't mean virgin or it can, so I will agree to disagree.

Though I would be interested to hear answers to my second question

 

[ray j willings]

You take some text from a religious book. It then gets translated by "whoever" for the sake of their own beliefs. Its all interpretation to fit with what ever you want it to believe.

I spotted this untrue text from the bible


?Look, I have two daughters, virgins both of them. Let me bring them out to you and you could do what you like with them. But do nothing to these men because they have come under the shelter of my roof.?

Oh SH%% its true "Genesis 19:8"




Best of all when any one of religious belief uses " what god meant to say"

Your all a bunch of lunatics

 

[Ruby United]

You take some text from a religious book. It then gets translated by "whoever" for the sake of their own beliefs. Its all interpretation to fit with what ever you want it to believe.

I spotted this untrue text from the bible


?Look, I have two daughters, virgins both of them. Let me bring them out to you and you could do what you like with them. But do nothing to these men because they have come under the shelter of my roof.?

Oh SH%% its true "Genesis 19:8"




Best of all when any one of religious belief uses " what god meant to say"

Your all a bunch of lunatics

If you are intending to say that Lot offering up his daughters to be raped in exchange for his guest's being left alone was wrong you are right. The Midrash (sorry, I don't believe it has an English translation) says that Lot was punished for this by God. In the end it did not happen, the daughters were not given to the angry mob. So, in conclusion, Lot was wrong for intending to let his daughters be raped, and was punished for it, so your argument has no valid point.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm a Branch Davidian.

Nah seriously I believe the Ancient Alien series. When in doubt - it must be aliens.

 

[RetroActive]

I'm a Branch Davidian.

Nah seriously I believe the Ancient Alien series. When in doubt - it must be aliens.

We are the alienated apes. Our spaceship is the third rock from the sun.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

The peaceful "religion" enriching Great Britain (Sarcasm alert):

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

... go on Amster, Rechtschreibfehler (I would like it more you call yourself Denkfehler), Echoes, etc. ... defend the islamic lover boys, but insult the truly and authentic original peaceful Europeans like me.

Well again you reveal yourself as a racist, since every muslim is guilty by association to you. I mean what's your point here?
Do you honestly believe that the ones critizising you believe there are no muslims who do bad stuff? It seems like it. And then again your logic always is bad guy of muslim faith does xyz --> all people of muslim faith are bad. That's simply isn't a logical conclusion.
But you usually, when it comes to arguments, just lash out and claim people are blind and stupid not to see what is to you "crystal clear".
So what's your argument here at all? "Ululululu you bind idiots all muslims are evil, look some did evil stuff" isn't any? Well of course you will claim it's "Ululululu you blind idiots all muslims are evil, look some did evil stuff. And that is because they are muslim, that's the only (or atleast necessary) reason for them to do this". But well, than you don't give any arguments for that. You only have blind hatefull emotions. And whenever someone points that out you just throw aroung wild claims. There is never a single argument in what you do.

But well, you do claim to know stuff about "the Islam". So how does "the Islam" work according to you? All you ever say about it is "there's bad stuff in the Quran". Or might it be that you simply don't know about the other aspects of it? You know that the Quran doesn't stand for it self in Islam?
You always claim we know nothing and you tolerant defender of truth and freedom know the essentials.
So what's the relations of the Quran to the Sunna, Hadith, Fiqh and finally Sharia to each other?

 

[ray j willings]

If you are intending to say that Lot offering up his daughters to be raped in exchange for his guest's being left alone was wrong you are right. The Midrash (sorry, I don't believe it has an English translation) says that Lot was punished for this by God. In the end it did not happen, the daughters were not given to the angry mob. So, in conclusion, Lot was wrong for intending to let his daughters be raped, and was punished for it, so your argument has no valid point.

I never said that. I'm just posting some of the lovely stories that are told.
I actually translated it in my own language...
" booooom ker-ching we "religion" shall control the mindless morons who cannot think for themselves and they shall believe in a evil deity with super powers who over thousands of years with his universal design and creative ability has brought horror and chaos to our human existence and they shall obey him out of fear and ignore the fact that there is no scientific proof of any supernatural being except Alberto Contador"

that's my translation

 

[Semper Fidelis]

We are the alienated apes. Our spaceship is the third rock from the sun.

You know it. You got that right.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Well again...

What a load of BS.... But still it would be ok for me, and others with common sense, if you would not plain out lie in an attempt to mislead readers who might still not be sure if they wanna stand up against evil islamic mass imigration into Europe.

Well again you reveal yourself as a racist, since every muslim is guilty by association to you. I mean what's your point here?

Lie. Personal insult ("racist"). Zero reading skills you have...
More than once I said not all muslims are bad (see Ayaan Hirsi Ali for example, who I truly admire).

But you usually, when it comes to arguments, just lash out and claim people are blind and stupid not to see what is to you "crystal clear".

Lie. Zero reading skills you have... And again you twist words to fit your POV.

Who TF has no arguments when lashing out insults and nothing else? Rhetorical.
OTOH, who gives links, numbers, logical conclusions? Rhetorical.

So what's your argument here at all? "Ululululu you bind idiots all muslims are evil, look some did evil stuff" isn't any?

Liar. Blinded liar you are... Again: I never said all muslims!

Well of course you will claim it's "Ululululu you blind idiots all muslims are evil, look some did evil stuff. And that is because they are muslim, that's the only (or atleast necessary) reason for them to do this".

Again you lie: I never said all...
But at least you got something right: Indeed muslims do the bad things they do because they obey the quran. And this book of evil tells them to enslave women and girls, fight "holy" wars against " disbelievers", and much more as you shall know by now.

But well, than you don't give any arguments for that.

That is your low point. Twisting everything in opposite direction to heave yourself on a morale podest. Soo lousy...
Again: You fake lefties have no arguments, that is why you call those speaking against you - racists, xenophobic, bigot, delusional, and else... I know for sure: If you would meet me face to face you would explode in anger and try to hit me (or worse). Like the anti-Pegida "demonstrants" did against the peace loving true German Pegida demonstrants. You guys are low lifers!

Us with common sense OTOH have all arguments on our side (numbers, links, studies, etc.). We do not need insults and violence like you stubborn fake lefties who spoil the original Europe inch by inch!

You only have blind hatefull emotions.

Liar! And you know it. It is the other way around. That is why you are agressive*. See just above.

(* Or how would you describe posters that use insults as all of their arguments as "defense" against those who speak out with facts and evidence against the most evil "religion" there is, the islam?)

And whenever someone points that out you just throw aroung wild claims. There is never a single argument in what you do.

What??? Who said that? All I get is personal insults. OTOH did any of you fake lefties debunk my arguments, the numbers, the facts I posted with quality links? Rheotorical.

Up to now, you (or Amster, and other insulters) never ever got into my arguments. If you could have disproved at least a single fact I posted, you would not have needed to insult me.

If we (true brave original Europeans) still had the power to rule our own progress, I would laugh about you guys. But since you fake lefties took over, it is just a big disgust that shivers trou my body whenever I hear or meet people like you. Or worse, when new "laws" are released by fake lefties in power to oppress us, while the islamic intruders get licked their asses. You guys spoil our freedom inch by inch. How did you get that low?

But well, you do claim to know stuff about "the Islam". So how does "the Islam" work according to you?

What BS question is that? I explained it more than once. If you actually would have reading skills, instead of blinded hate against us natives, you would you have long got it.

All you ever say about it is "there's bad stuff in the Quran". Or might it be that you simply don't know about the other aspects of it? You know that the Quran doesn't stand for it self in Islam?
You always claim we know nothing and you tolerant defender of truth and freedom know the essentials.
So what's the relations of the Quran to the Sunna, Hadith, Fiqh and finally Sharia to each other?

What??? I posted only some of the deadly suras. Word for word. And you call it (just some) "bad stuff"? Heck, the whole book is full of it (abnormal evil "stuff")! And the muslim preachers spill their hate on our ground day in day out. In mosques that do not belong here.
And I havnt even started about the hadiths, or got deeper into the stuff that a scharia "law" means, especially for women.

Oh my: I have a dream. One day all you guys shall get half of Europe and do your multi kulti experiments with yourself. Get the Femi-Nazis with you too. Mix it all up with pc, gender mainstream, men hating lesbos, and the heck else...
The other half is given to us: Brave, hard working Europeans. Family values. Freedom...
Who survives? Rhetorical...

Why cant you fake lefties just go, and take all your BS with you? The Sahara is wide. Enough space for you guys to play around...

Doomed like the desert itself you fake lefties are! It would be very fine with me (very very fine to be precise; wish you all the worst from my heart and soul, coz you earned it with your actions against us natives), if you guys would not take us & our children down too! That one fact will never be forgiven or forgot.