the opposition, who TARGETED christianity, as i will quote, used association to criticize christianity, because of the failure and inability to use truth , nor find ANY real flaw.
some monotheisms AUTHORIZED, directed, ordered using force and death to spread but not all. so the opposition "lumped them all together" quote: "unless otherwise stated i shall have christianity in mind... the differences matter less than similarities... ALL THREE abrahamic religions [were] INDISTINGUISHABLE etc." dawkins, delusion page 58 but capitals mine.
we can distinguish between the religious book and some ugly actions which were not OBEYING the book and never directed ordered by the book. the whole list of Emperor constantine and crusades and more were not obeying the book and not pure christianity not even real christianity.
who did he target here? he has christianity in mind while talking about spreading by sword, in that context, but KNOWING the religious book NEVER directed that, so he used association suggesting to the reader to follow his lead all three "indistinguishable" and ignored "differences". if that alone does not convince you christianity is flawless... then read the quote again, before continuing, he just admitted, EVEN the opposition, that christian BOOKS are SQUEEKY CLEAN.
which monotheism is MOST well known as spreading by sword? in our generation among the terrorist groups one used quran words "islamic jihad" for its name, but i will elaborate. [parenthetically, the other terrorist groups that target civilians, (including well known P.L.O. famous for hijacking terror, and whose leader organized bombing attacks and those same "bloody hands" held by bill clinton gasp, during one treaty with israel,) did not use that word for the group's name, they just use their book sources to recruit, but just parenthetically.]
the METHOD TECHNIQUE to target christians is to ASSOCIATE christians with the famous terrorists by "not distinguishing the differences" in books as above that was the revealed technique. but we CAN distinguish the books.
the oldest of the abrahamic religions, is any violence obeying the book? deuteronomy chapter seven SEEMS to say spread by the sword, as i will bring but first, exodus 32.27: "said yahweh, [by] sword kill brothers" for sinning. as you see i needed to add a word... to connect. he only said to wear a sword. this matched deuteronomy chapter 30.14: "to do it with your mouth and heart" THAT is the doing by reading but never ordered by hand. claiming "swing swords by hand" violated the text "by mouth". based on the text itself, they were commanded to read the words "kill brother" while wearing swords. or read the words "wear a sword and kill" and by mouth it was done. the sinners probably lived. the sacrifice was fulfilled by reading.
EVEN in deut. 7.2 "and hit them" past tense like "he hit them", with a grammar switch to future. not command and in CONTEXT defined by SAME book Deuteronomy as above 30.14 "by mouth to do" specifying to do by mouth not by hand. the "sword" is the TALK of the missionary, not relying on external bias to corrupt, but by the SAME same book and similarly in new testament wear "your sword of faith etc." indeed jesus "sent apostles to heal" and i specify "not lead threat squads"... but for the opposition the "differences matter less than the similarities" gasp.
all three were associated with the news reports of plane hijack and bombs and gruesome decapitations shown on tv. because all three truly are abrahamic but that is not the contents.
we can contrast: joshua 24.2: "so said yahweh , father of abraham served idols" it is the ONLY instance in that book joshua, with that prophecy phrase. the other details, as in the game simon said, simon never said so you are out. for example joshua 6.17 "only rahab will live and her family etc." [ i am certain that i am not the first to notice but i point out, their home was in the wall... that collapsed? the wall of jerico came tumblin' down. hmm, indicating by contents, something here is not literal anyway] seems to hint only she lived implying kill? but "simon never said" by contrast. even joshua never claimed as in 24.2 god said. nor could he base himself on deuteronomy which may not have been generated until hasmonean days in 150 b.c. as indicated in book jeremia 7.... but even if book did exist, in the order commonly published, still as above self-defined "by talking" so not the usual activity. in fact the same book joshua that undeniably HAS the ugly part in 6.21 "from man to woman by sword" also said AFTER the conquest in 24.12, "NOT BY YOUR SWORD" seems contradiction... so a denier can say this book has contradictions is not reliable. if so no source to accuse using chapter six... an accuser would ignore the context of the books themselves in joshua 24 and deuteronomy 30 as above. .
a god follower can say "we assume god does not contradict himself" therefore any book with contradiction is not from god... including book joshua. this book must not be from god. they can say, "church founders were wrong to trust rabbis to include it" .OR interpret by the book itself: truly not by sword as in chapter 24 but the added word by "the mouth of the sword" hebrew of 6.21 using a symbol for missionary talk to end the idol-sculpture-culture. still to prevent possible error, a literalist may say look at chapter 6... the book BOTHERED to specify NOT by your sword in 24.12.
whether people used sword or not "simon never said" because the phrase of prophecy was only once in book joshua not by the seeming deaths, and even bothered to add several indicators and added words CLARIFY not swinging swords in action, for me to point out.
even the "law of death" almost always used indirect grammar and only ONCE "the JUDGE will hit" never... not even once mentioned judge by kill, because by heaven as i will quote sources, [not by mob, without judge, that would be baseless mockery]. almost all the deaths are "will die" indirectly as i will explain, never "judge will kill nor you will burn" the grammar DID differ. for example telling the israelites "they will burn" SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED not you but they. apparently the meaning is passive they will get burned. but certainly not you will burn them.
even the word stoning SEEMS to be a mob throwing rocks... the story of jesus telling them not to throw stones... has both these angles, but truly was used, in book isaiah 62.10 to "excise from stone, clearing path" so by USAGE that word meant hard labor until death. in other words when jesus said do not throw rocks and HIMSELF did not throw rocks, he was not sinning, not violating, but the opposite teaching by example and showed by action the application and meaning is NOT to throw rocks... an obedient would "submit to god " and have an excuse to throw rocks.
this exhibited the rabbinic error and corruption because truly by the word usage, not a basis for the rabbinic claim "we can kill fifty sinners in court." the grammar is always "will die" and EVEN the talmud specified "die by heaven" is the traditional MEANING of that phrase the one example it matched the grammar.
furthermore, that talmudic interpretation DOES match the grammar, in contrast to other talmudic claims, hence destroying the other "so called sources that seem to say" the court kills for around fifty sins, that do not match the grammar in bible nor traditional interpretation preserved in talmud. [parenthetically i found another clue to reconcile the contradiction but it is too talmudic for here and the American public of this generation.]
anyway when the accusers say LOOK how ugly deuteronomy 7... my job is to remind the SAME book chapter 30 said do not interpret as usual HAND action. it specified "by reading do it" and that may apply not only to every detail in book deuteronomy, due to context, but a direction for the entire set of five books... and i specify not because an EXTERNAL bias said "i can't accept death" so change from the words, but the opposite, by the grammar WITHIN the book and the specification in chapter 30 as above.
after judaism came christianity. the only sword violence there is in book john gospel chapter 18.10-11. a student used a sword to defend jesus who said stop. the opposition used implication "christianity is less ruthless" as if still ruthless, he can say "zero is less" but used deception, so we caught the opposition lying. the whole ugly list on page 58, of the opposition is never OBEYING the directions in the book, no source in new testament and even the previous covenant law of death called old testament that SEEMS to say "you kill" that is not the correct grammar within the book just rabbinic corruption for self power, and false self authorization.
so the opposition said IGNORE the differences... never quoting the book new testament because it is squeaky clean so the ONLY option available was association of those gruesome decapitations to christianity by "ignoring" the fact that it was never directed by the book nor by god and by ignoring the differences between christianity and the book quran of islam. luckily he was honest enough to write "the differences are less important" exhibiting the technique so we can identify the false propaganda.
admittedly the recruiters do have quranic sources, or else they could not convince the terrorists, to join and do the ugly stuff, but the attempt to associate that, is false propaganda as we see in the books new testament and not even the law of death as above.
some monotheisms AUTHORIZED, directed, ordered using force and death to spread but not all. so the opposition "lumped them all together" quote: "unless otherwise stated i shall have christianity in mind... the differences matter less than similarities... ALL THREE abrahamic religions [were] INDISTINGUISHABLE etc." dawkins, delusion page 58 but capitals mine.
we can distinguish between the religious book and some ugly actions which were not OBEYING the book and never directed ordered by the book. the whole list of Emperor constantine and crusades and more were not obeying the book and not pure christianity not even real christianity.
who did he target here? he has christianity in mind while talking about spreading by sword, in that context, but KNOWING the religious book NEVER directed that, so he used association suggesting to the reader to follow his lead all three "indistinguishable" and ignored "differences". if that alone does not convince you christianity is flawless... then read the quote again, before continuing, he just admitted, EVEN the opposition, that christian BOOKS are SQUEEKY CLEAN.
which monotheism is MOST well known as spreading by sword? in our generation among the terrorist groups one used quran words "islamic jihad" for its name, but i will elaborate. [parenthetically, the other terrorist groups that target civilians, (including well known P.L.O. famous for hijacking terror, and whose leader organized bombing attacks and those same "bloody hands" held by bill clinton gasp, during one treaty with israel,) did not use that word for the group's name, they just use their book sources to recruit, but just parenthetically.]
the METHOD TECHNIQUE to target christians is to ASSOCIATE christians with the famous terrorists by "not distinguishing the differences" in books as above that was the revealed technique. but we CAN distinguish the books.
the oldest of the abrahamic religions, is any violence obeying the book? deuteronomy chapter seven SEEMS to say spread by the sword, as i will bring but first, exodus 32.27: "said yahweh, [by] sword kill brothers" for sinning. as you see i needed to add a word... to connect. he only said to wear a sword. this matched deuteronomy chapter 30.14: "to do it with your mouth and heart" THAT is the doing by reading but never ordered by hand. claiming "swing swords by hand" violated the text "by mouth". based on the text itself, they were commanded to read the words "kill brother" while wearing swords. or read the words "wear a sword and kill" and by mouth it was done. the sinners probably lived. the sacrifice was fulfilled by reading.
EVEN in deut. 7.2 "and hit them" past tense like "he hit them", with a grammar switch to future. not command and in CONTEXT defined by SAME book Deuteronomy as above 30.14 "by mouth to do" specifying to do by mouth not by hand. the "sword" is the TALK of the missionary, not relying on external bias to corrupt, but by the SAME same book and similarly in new testament wear "your sword of faith etc." indeed jesus "sent apostles to heal" and i specify "not lead threat squads"... but for the opposition the "differences matter less than the similarities" gasp.
all three were associated with the news reports of plane hijack and bombs and gruesome decapitations shown on tv. because all three truly are abrahamic but that is not the contents.
we can contrast: joshua 24.2: "so said yahweh , father of abraham served idols" it is the ONLY instance in that book joshua, with that prophecy phrase. the other details, as in the game simon said, simon never said so you are out. for example joshua 6.17 "only rahab will live and her family etc." [ i am certain that i am not the first to notice but i point out, their home was in the wall... that collapsed? the wall of jerico came tumblin' down. hmm, indicating by contents, something here is not literal anyway] seems to hint only she lived implying kill? but "simon never said" by contrast. even joshua never claimed as in 24.2 god said. nor could he base himself on deuteronomy which may not have been generated until hasmonean days in 150 b.c. as indicated in book jeremia 7.... but even if book did exist, in the order commonly published, still as above self-defined "by talking" so not the usual activity. in fact the same book joshua that undeniably HAS the ugly part in 6.21 "from man to woman by sword" also said AFTER the conquest in 24.12, "NOT BY YOUR SWORD" seems contradiction... so a denier can say this book has contradictions is not reliable. if so no source to accuse using chapter six... an accuser would ignore the context of the books themselves in joshua 24 and deuteronomy 30 as above. .
a god follower can say "we assume god does not contradict himself" therefore any book with contradiction is not from god... including book joshua. this book must not be from god. they can say, "church founders were wrong to trust rabbis to include it" .OR interpret by the book itself: truly not by sword as in chapter 24 but the added word by "the mouth of the sword" hebrew of 6.21 using a symbol for missionary talk to end the idol-sculpture-culture. still to prevent possible error, a literalist may say look at chapter 6... the book BOTHERED to specify NOT by your sword in 24.12.
whether people used sword or not "simon never said" because the phrase of prophecy was only once in book joshua not by the seeming deaths, and even bothered to add several indicators and added words CLARIFY not swinging swords in action, for me to point out.
even the "law of death" almost always used indirect grammar and only ONCE "the JUDGE will hit" never... not even once mentioned judge by kill, because by heaven as i will quote sources, [not by mob, without judge, that would be baseless mockery]. almost all the deaths are "will die" indirectly as i will explain, never "judge will kill nor you will burn" the grammar DID differ. for example telling the israelites "they will burn" SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED not you but they. apparently the meaning is passive they will get burned. but certainly not you will burn them.
even the word stoning SEEMS to be a mob throwing rocks... the story of jesus telling them not to throw stones... has both these angles, but truly was used, in book isaiah 62.10 to "excise from stone, clearing path" so by USAGE that word meant hard labor until death. in other words when jesus said do not throw rocks and HIMSELF did not throw rocks, he was not sinning, not violating, but the opposite teaching by example and showed by action the application and meaning is NOT to throw rocks... an obedient would "submit to god " and have an excuse to throw rocks.
this exhibited the rabbinic error and corruption because truly by the word usage, not a basis for the rabbinic claim "we can kill fifty sinners in court." the grammar is always "will die" and EVEN the talmud specified "die by heaven" is the traditional MEANING of that phrase the one example it matched the grammar.
furthermore, that talmudic interpretation DOES match the grammar, in contrast to other talmudic claims, hence destroying the other "so called sources that seem to say" the court kills for around fifty sins, that do not match the grammar in bible nor traditional interpretation preserved in talmud. [parenthetically i found another clue to reconcile the contradiction but it is too talmudic for here and the American public of this generation.]
anyway when the accusers say LOOK how ugly deuteronomy 7... my job is to remind the SAME book chapter 30 said do not interpret as usual HAND action. it specified "by reading do it" and that may apply not only to every detail in book deuteronomy, due to context, but a direction for the entire set of five books... and i specify not because an EXTERNAL bias said "i can't accept death" so change from the words, but the opposite, by the grammar WITHIN the book and the specification in chapter 30 as above.
after judaism came christianity. the only sword violence there is in book john gospel chapter 18.10-11. a student used a sword to defend jesus who said stop. the opposition used implication "christianity is less ruthless" as if still ruthless, he can say "zero is less" but used deception, so we caught the opposition lying. the whole ugly list on page 58, of the opposition is never OBEYING the directions in the book, no source in new testament and even the previous covenant law of death called old testament that SEEMS to say "you kill" that is not the correct grammar within the book just rabbinic corruption for self power, and false self authorization.
so the opposition said IGNORE the differences... never quoting the book new testament because it is squeaky clean so the ONLY option available was association of those gruesome decapitations to christianity by "ignoring" the fact that it was never directed by the book nor by god and by ignoring the differences between christianity and the book quran of islam. luckily he was honest enough to write "the differences are less important" exhibiting the technique so we can identify the false propaganda.
admittedly the recruiters do have quranic sources, or else they could not convince the terrorists, to join and do the ugly stuff, but the attempt to associate that, is false propaganda as we see in the books new testament and not even the law of death as above.
No comments:
Post a Comment