hebrews 7 verse 3 is exciting because it said jesus had no beginning yet also had a beginning... he was made passively.
more exciting is later in 7.16 like verse 3 meete sela zoe- no end of life...
likehebrews 7.16 jesus has an "indestructible life" so does that mean only the body of jesus died or the spiritual essence of jesus also died on the cross? if it is indestructible then jesus did not die... uh oh! i bet if i would quote this verse on a christian discusion page they would delete the post and ban me from the group so i would not publish such misleading sources... so i can only write evidence in my blog.
an "endless" life so if we belkieve this book jesus did not die? or after revival he has endless but before the revival he could die? that is "not like god" euither even zeus who was born could not die but jesus is like god and can die?
they do not believe only the body died... perhaps the author of hebrews was a muslim prototype.
Monday, October 30, 2017
was jesus alpha? or not?
we can find the new testament say jesus was "before" stuff and if so alpha just means previous but was jesus "infinitely past"?
according to christology a principle is to believe that jesus was "eternal past" the words the text-book of christology used is "eternal past" and this creates a prejudice to interpret the bible differently from what appears and claim ideas which the book never said.
when we compare the relevant verses prejudiced people will say they do not see a problem but can you? i only address people who are sincere about truth not those who believe in "biblical truth" which is different.
consider the following claim does it match the verse quoted?
"Christ "is before all things" (Col. 1:17) which necessarily imply He was "with the Father" (I John 1:1-2) throughout all eternity past." necesarily imply? wtf! do you think it means before god? if so god was not alpha. was he before some? no before all so even before father? ah all things... if so "before is a relative term" if something was created on sunday then before is unclear how long before one day before?
we can group the "sources of christology" into several clear categories and ignore anything that said "before" because being before abraham just means he is not only human and the topic is different not "was jesus human" bnut a different question was jesus "eternal past".
in addition to the prejudice mentioned that jesus was "eternal past" there is also christian doctrine "jesus was begotten" the word used for people born noah begat shem ham and hefeth.
luckily that is not in the bible because how can a sane be expected to believe BOTH he was born at a starting point and also "eternal past" wow a "church mystery".
the topic is not "eternal future" so those verses will not be listed here except a few contradictory ones.
eternal future has i in john. +i , +2 in hebrews "forever" consider 3 quotes from psalms using a hebrew word which does not mean "forever" but a whole lifetime scratch those 3 plus psalms from the list.
why would they list "until the end of the age" mat 28, the word until limits! and age also limits.
EXCITING hebrews 7.16 jesus has an "indestructible life" so does that mean only the body of jesus died or the spiritual essence of jesus also died on the cross? if it is indestructible then jesus did not die... uh oh! i bet if i would quote this verse on a christian discusion page they would delete the post and ban me from the group so i would not publish such misleading sources... so i can only write evidence in my blog. this deserves its own post later.
another future not this topic of eternal past.
exciting hebrew 7.3 without father, hmm, what did jesus cal god? not father? and in that verse jesus was "made" that is a starting point if we base and establish faith on the book then jesus was "made" and had a starting point that is not "eternal past".
if we assume the prejudice of "eternal past" then we must expel the heresy of hebrews from the group of books called canon. the book of hebrews and its author were heretics who denied the omnipresence of christ.
revelation 1.17 first just means before created stuff never said "was eternally"
another proble the word "from" wadya mean "from the beginning? not before the beginning of life?
having reviewed the "twenty" best evidence of eternal all are either the idea of "before" or future etrnal and not even one said eternal past which would conflict jesus "was made" in hebrews 7.3
similarly of proverbs 8.24 if that refers to christ then he was one of the "creations" not eternal past. quote "When there were no depths I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills, I was brought forth
חולל
the hebrew word is for "birth" if that refers to jesus he was born "before" mountains and also "born" with a starting point "not eternal past".
luckily verse 12 said the context is wisdom not christ and the websites who quote proverbs 8 for a source of eternity are revealed as double liars.
before abraham? how long before? one day? so was abrahams dfleshy father.
from the "beginning" of what of life?
fromall 8 verses the guy brings o support his claim "all the days of eternity past" not even one said that idea they speak of before... how long before? not long if he was BORN.
now we proceed to the idea of eternal future that has verses including the problematic one indestructiblelife if so jesus diod not die and if he did not die then did not "rise from DEAD".
how can anybody expect their child to believe both? easier to not to point out the texts hopefully they will not read and if they read they will read TOO FAST TO EVER/N NOTICE.
consider hebrews 7 "having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made" how can you expect somebody to believe both? luckily hebrews does not fit the pattern of apostolic pauline letters so we canreject it. but those christians who do not reject it how can they expect people to believe both? not the sane people at least sane people will flee from christianity's books.
according to christology a principle is to believe that jesus was "eternal past" the words the text-book of christology used is "eternal past" and this creates a prejudice to interpret the bible differently from what appears and claim ideas which the book never said.
when we compare the relevant verses prejudiced people will say they do not see a problem but can you? i only address people who are sincere about truth not those who believe in "biblical truth" which is different.
consider the following claim does it match the verse quoted?
"Christ "is before all things" (Col. 1:17) which necessarily imply He was "with the Father" (I John 1:1-2) throughout all eternity past." necesarily imply? wtf! do you think it means before god? if so god was not alpha. was he before some? no before all so even before father? ah all things... if so "before is a relative term" if something was created on sunday then before is unclear how long before one day before?
we can group the "sources of christology" into several clear categories and ignore anything that said "before" because being before abraham just means he is not only human and the topic is different not "was jesus human" bnut a different question was jesus "eternal past".
in addition to the prejudice mentioned that jesus was "eternal past" there is also christian doctrine "jesus was begotten" the word used for people born noah begat shem ham and hefeth.
luckily that is not in the bible because how can a sane be expected to believe BOTH he was born at a starting point and also "eternal past" wow a "church mystery".
the topic is not "eternal future" so those verses will not be listed here except a few contradictory ones.
eternal future has i in john. +i , +2 in hebrews "forever" consider 3 quotes from psalms using a hebrew word which does not mean "forever" but a whole lifetime scratch those 3 plus psalms from the list.
why would they list "until the end of the age" mat 28, the word until limits! and age also limits.
EXCITING hebrews 7.16 jesus has an "indestructible life" so does that mean only the body of jesus died or the spiritual essence of jesus also died on the cross? if it is indestructible then jesus did not die... uh oh! i bet if i would quote this verse on a christian discusion page they would delete the post and ban me from the group so i would not publish such misleading sources... so i can only write evidence in my blog. this deserves its own post later.
another future not this topic of eternal past.
exciting hebrew 7.3 without father, hmm, what did jesus cal god? not father? and in that verse jesus was "made" that is a starting point if we base and establish faith on the book then jesus was "made" and had a starting point that is not "eternal past".
if we assume the prejudice of "eternal past" then we must expel the heresy of hebrews from the group of books called canon. the book of hebrews and its author were heretics who denied the omnipresence of christ.
revelation 1.17 first just means before created stuff never said "was eternally"
another proble the word "from" wadya mean "from the beginning? not before the beginning of life?
having reviewed the "twenty" best evidence of eternal all are either the idea of "before" or future etrnal and not even one said eternal past which would conflict jesus "was made" in hebrews 7.3
similarly of proverbs 8.24 if that refers to christ then he was one of the "creations" not eternal past. quote "When there were no depths I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills, I was brought forth
חולל
the hebrew word is for "birth" if that refers to jesus he was born "before" mountains and also "born" with a starting point "not eternal past".
luckily verse 12 said the context is wisdom not christ and the websites who quote proverbs 8 for a source of eternity are revealed as double liars.
before abraham? how long before? one day? so was abrahams dfleshy father.
from the "beginning" of what of life?
fromall 8 verses the guy brings o support his claim "all the days of eternity past" not even one said that idea they speak of before... how long before? not long if he was BORN.
now we proceed to the idea of eternal future that has verses including the problematic one indestructiblelife if so jesus diod not die and if he did not die then did not "rise from DEAD".
how can anybody expect their child to believe both? easier to not to point out the texts hopefully they will not read and if they read they will read TOO FAST TO EVER/N NOTICE.
consider hebrews 7 "having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made" how can you expect somebody to believe both? luckily hebrews does not fit the pattern of apostolic pauline letters so we canreject it. but those christians who do not reject it how can they expect people to believe both? not the sane people at least sane people will flee from christianity's books.
Sunday, October 29, 2017
not politically correcct
people often criticize each other about wording=how to word stuff to be "politically correct' and although this "seems" to be politeness ANY and all limitations of freedom of speech are bad and we know from past experience limiting speech can be applied evilly.
what were the stated intentions in the october war of 1973?
"CIA Deputy Director Gen. Vernon Walters lectured, in 1975, to the U.S. Army Security Agency Training Center and School, revealing that USA and CIA knew about the planned attack of 1973.
he said that in May of 1973 the CIA knew about the plans to make war against israel "May 1973 that said, ‘Egypt and Syria will start war against Israel on the 6th of October,’”
read more: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.747188
what is unique about that date is that it is the "rest-of rests" as described in the bible, and choosing that day as the date for the war demonstrates the intentions of the arab neighbors. however more importantly, in negotiations with israel in 1970-1971, egypt refused to recognize israel as a state... "Meir demanded recognition of Israel" and without that refused concessions... do you know what that means? egypt refused to recognize israel indicating that for egypt/sadat, israel should not exist, revealing that egypt planned on erasing israel as a state so the war would not be "avoided" after concessions without recognition... because egypt refused to recognize that israel was "a state". only if egypt recognized israel then war would be avoided.
in other words, egypt refused to recognize israel as a state... egypt planned on destroying israel as a state so the war would not be "avoided" after concessions without recognition... because egypt refused to recognize that israel was "a state". only if egypt recognized israel then war would be avoided... but that was not the arab leaders intentions...
Ceratinly the decision from May was known to the army-leaders of egypyt- they were the planners! so it was not a surprise to the planners and only tricky words to say "also the egyptians were surprised' what kind of trick is that?? the egyptians planned the war and chose the date in may or earlier that is no surprise. the bad title at ha-aretz, as if the egyptians were equal victims as the israelis were surprised... certainly not equal victims.
so bad title in ha-aretz newspaper at link.
anyway that article said that although the cia knew/had evidence war would start on october 6 they convinced israel it was not the sixth... such good friends cia and israel...
the egyptian leader had been announcincing his intention to attack israel for several years like the story of the boy who cried wolf and nobody believed him... so the israelis were surprised at the timing.
when ramadan began in the end of september peacefully [another reason not to call the war a ramadan war] and cia saying not october 6 no wonder israel was surprised and decided not to mobilize.
as today enemies of israel refuse to "recognize" israel, also in negotiations with egypt israeli leaders demanded "recognition of Israel" when this was rejected in 1970-1971, the intentions of the arab leadership were revealed they were attacking at a time when the did not even "recognize" israel
so when websites say their goal was to "hoping to win back territory lost in 1967" that is a trick... do you think they will stop at the old border? considering the refused to recognize israel as a state... they would not stop at the previous border. why? because they refused in negotiations to recognize israel as a state revealing the intention to destroy israel. to bring to make real the idea that "israel does not exist as a state." as they showed by refusing to recognize the state fo israel.
also the 40 year memorial of1973 war at euronews in 2013 was removed perhaps for politically correct issues?
http://www.euronews.com/2013/10/06/a-short-history-of-october-6-1973
so we can summarize that as long as egypt refused to recognize israel as a state sadat demonstrated his intentions to destroy israel and make his idea reality.
what were the stated intentions in the october war of 1973?
"CIA Deputy Director Gen. Vernon Walters lectured, in 1975, to the U.S. Army Security Agency Training Center and School, revealing that USA and CIA knew about the planned attack of 1973.
he said that in May of 1973 the CIA knew about the plans to make war against israel "May 1973 that said, ‘Egypt and Syria will start war against Israel on the 6th of October,’”
read more: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.747188
what is unique about that date is that it is the "rest-of rests" as described in the bible, and choosing that day as the date for the war demonstrates the intentions of the arab neighbors. however more importantly, in negotiations with israel in 1970-1971, egypt refused to recognize israel as a state... "Meir demanded recognition of Israel" and without that refused concessions... do you know what that means? egypt refused to recognize israel indicating that for egypt/sadat, israel should not exist, revealing that egypt planned on erasing israel as a state so the war would not be "avoided" after concessions without recognition... because egypt refused to recognize that israel was "a state". only if egypt recognized israel then war would be avoided.
in other words, egypt refused to recognize israel as a state... egypt planned on destroying israel as a state so the war would not be "avoided" after concessions without recognition... because egypt refused to recognize that israel was "a state". only if egypt recognized israel then war would be avoided... but that was not the arab leaders intentions...
Ceratinly the decision from May was known to the army-leaders of egypyt- they were the planners! so it was not a surprise to the planners and only tricky words to say "also the egyptians were surprised' what kind of trick is that?? the egyptians planned the war and chose the date in may or earlier that is no surprise. the bad title at ha-aretz, as if the egyptians were equal victims as the israelis were surprised... certainly not equal victims.
so bad title in ha-aretz newspaper at link.
anyway that article said that although the cia knew/had evidence war would start on october 6 they convinced israel it was not the sixth... such good friends cia and israel...
the egyptian leader had been announcincing his intention to attack israel for several years like the story of the boy who cried wolf and nobody believed him... so the israelis were surprised at the timing.
when ramadan began in the end of september peacefully [another reason not to call the war a ramadan war] and cia saying not october 6 no wonder israel was surprised and decided not to mobilize.
as today enemies of israel refuse to "recognize" israel, also in negotiations with egypt israeli leaders demanded "recognition of Israel" when this was rejected in 1970-1971, the intentions of the arab leadership were revealed they were attacking at a time when the did not even "recognize" israel
so when websites say their goal was to "hoping to win back territory lost in 1967" that is a trick... do you think they will stop at the old border? considering the refused to recognize israel as a state... they would not stop at the previous border. why? because they refused in negotiations to recognize israel as a state revealing the intention to destroy israel. to bring to make real the idea that "israel does not exist as a state." as they showed by refusing to recognize the state fo israel.
also the 40 year memorial of1973 war at euronews in 2013 was removed perhaps for politically correct issues?
http://www.euronews.com/2013/10/06/a-short-history-of-october-6-1973
so we can summarize that as long as egypt refused to recognize israel as a state sadat demonstrated his intentions to destroy israel and make his idea reality.
halloween fun+celebrating peace
I apologize that my post on this matter is a few days late [i should have posted on 25 october].
so...
it is Halloween-season a few days before october 31 when the daylight-time of November 1, is a holy religious day for catholics for all the catholic "saints" hence the name "all hallow-day' it is a daytime holy day in november, while other christians reject catholic ideas of saints and do not celebrate halloween which is daylight time in Novemeber.
now what about the eve of halloween? we know there is a christmas eve, could that mean that the eve before all hallows day is holy? that would be a bad guess because if we knew catholic style we would know they begin at midnight of christmas, not the evening before. similarly the evening before halloween is not only not a catholic "holiday" but something catholics actively struggle against teaching that "the special day is in november" to distinguish not october to distinguish and divide and also publishing to dissuade people from=not to involve in the ghosts and devils of halloween. we can predict that non-catholics will celebrate halloween eve [but not catholics] and if so it is separate from "hallow" of the saints which is the catholic day and which the catholics distinguissh as above.
so anyway some have costume parties on halloween. i like the description of halloween in gravity-falls where dipper struggles with the idea of dressing up while the older kids do in fact have costumes too...
***however what if we could combine the fun costume party with something more meaningful?
it would not be catholic saints because that is seperate in date and idea. as above.
it could be the idea highly respected in western culture of "ending hostility".
after many wars between [in alphabetical order] arabic neighbors and Israel, the war of "yom kipur" so named because it began on the day of "yom kipur" a day of peacefulness and the "most restful" of holidays in the bible "rest of rests" and as we all know war shatters peacefulness, that year on the 9 day of ramadan, called october 6, 1973 the arab-neighbors of Israel jointly shattered the peacefulness of the most restful day of the religiou- Jewish calendar and tradition, and the soldiers=many who were secular and only go to the prayer house once a year were called from the prayer house to defend.
19 days later on october 25 "A cease-fire went into effect on October 25, 1973." so that is a "good" idea and since we emphasise such ideas in western culture with special respect we can include it in halloween and mention that this is the time of year when the HOSTILITIES ENDED in 1973.
similarly in 1994 after numerous wars between [alphabetical order again] Israel and Jordan and following a cease=-fire which did not include a peace agreeement, finally in 1994 on 26 october a peace treaty was agreed upon and signed between Israel and Jordan. so that is also worth mentioning in the halloween season becauseboth arabs and israelis showed with actions they can co-operate and have peace agreements. and this idea is already cherished and emphasized in western culture so it seems reasonable to mention these dates in halloween seasion and on october 31 too.
we will not discuss why the war started nor blame anybody we will focus on the ending of hostilities as mentioned on 25-26 october of the years mentioned 1973 and 1994.
and all in the halloween fun costume party season which is not catholic...
so...
it is Halloween-season a few days before october 31 when the daylight-time of November 1, is a holy religious day for catholics for all the catholic "saints" hence the name "all hallow-day' it is a daytime holy day in november, while other christians reject catholic ideas of saints and do not celebrate halloween which is daylight time in Novemeber.
now what about the eve of halloween? we know there is a christmas eve, could that mean that the eve before all hallows day is holy? that would be a bad guess because if we knew catholic style we would know they begin at midnight of christmas, not the evening before. similarly the evening before halloween is not only not a catholic "holiday" but something catholics actively struggle against teaching that "the special day is in november" to distinguish not october to distinguish and divide and also publishing to dissuade people from=not to involve in the ghosts and devils of halloween. we can predict that non-catholics will celebrate halloween eve [but not catholics] and if so it is separate from "hallow" of the saints which is the catholic day and which the catholics distinguissh as above.
so anyway some have costume parties on halloween. i like the description of halloween in gravity-falls where dipper struggles with the idea of dressing up while the older kids do in fact have costumes too...
***however what if we could combine the fun costume party with something more meaningful?
it would not be catholic saints because that is seperate in date and idea. as above.
it could be the idea highly respected in western culture of "ending hostility".
after many wars between [in alphabetical order] arabic neighbors and Israel, the war of "yom kipur" so named because it began on the day of "yom kipur" a day of peacefulness and the "most restful" of holidays in the bible "rest of rests" and as we all know war shatters peacefulness, that year on the 9 day of ramadan, called october 6, 1973 the arab-neighbors of Israel jointly shattered the peacefulness of the most restful day of the religiou- Jewish calendar and tradition, and the soldiers=many who were secular and only go to the prayer house once a year were called from the prayer house to defend.
19 days later on october 25 "A cease-fire went into effect on October 25, 1973." so that is a "good" idea and since we emphasise such ideas in western culture with special respect we can include it in halloween and mention that this is the time of year when the HOSTILITIES ENDED in 1973.
similarly in 1994 after numerous wars between [alphabetical order again] Israel and Jordan and following a cease=-fire which did not include a peace agreeement, finally in 1994 on 26 october a peace treaty was agreed upon and signed between Israel and Jordan. so that is also worth mentioning in the halloween season becauseboth arabs and israelis showed with actions they can co-operate and have peace agreements. and this idea is already cherished and emphasized in western culture so it seems reasonable to mention these dates in halloween seasion and on october 31 too.
we will not discuss why the war started nor blame anybody we will focus on the ending of hostilities as mentioned on 25-26 october of the years mentioned 1973 and 1994.
and all in the halloween fun costume party season which is not catholic...
Saturday, October 28, 2017
clocks
story when i was a kid i remember my response to the idea of moving clocks that is "stuppid who will tell the sun to rise an hour later".
of course the rotation of the planet does not change we are only changing what we call the times and we need to agree on the time to arrange interactions and meetings well USA is LESS STUPID than europe because europe ends the GOOD summer clock now called date october while the USA does not stop the good yety until one more week so less stupid and still in one week could also not change clock especially when we consider that darkness is EARLIER as explained below...
***I protest consider the factors and you will agree!
london europe moves the clock today as if sunrise is called an hour earlier AND SUNSET is an hour earlier so dark at 5 when people drive home from work. WHICH ENDS AT THE TIME CALLED 5. since "summer clock is good" then do not be like europe that ends something good in october, jesus christ ! be like US an extra week of good.
and better than US when the date nov 5 comes the governments could say "do not change at all because" the end of light is EARLIER=less time "between each sunset daily" less than 24 hours between sunsets in autumn" hence so it would be smart to INVERT THE BAD IDEA and instead move the clock the other way to balance the earlier darkness so being like europe is doubly stupid and dangerous to drive home in the dark when work ends at the time called 5 when they could leave "good summer clock" and even move the clock the other way!
then work ends at the time called 5 and still sunnny! so drive in light after tiring day of work.
The fools in europe preserve the bad ideas like the french defense in world war 2, so i protest.
**unless we organize we will continue copying bad europeans.
I can write a letter but one opinion might be ignored we must organize to end this mistake of dangerously aligning the end of work day with darkness will we WAIT UNTIL THE CAR CRASHES to change when it is dangerous now? we now the darkness comes earlier therefore the clock numbers could and xhould BALANCE IT.
ADMITTEDLY THE MORNING WILL BE DARK BUT THAT IS NOT AFTER A TIRING DAY AT THE OFFICE STARING AT COMPUTER SCREENS WHICH TIRE OUT THE EYES.
of course the rotation of the planet does not change we are only changing what we call the times and we need to agree on the time to arrange interactions and meetings well USA is LESS STUPID than europe because europe ends the GOOD summer clock now called date october while the USA does not stop the good yety until one more week so less stupid and still in one week could also not change clock especially when we consider that darkness is EARLIER as explained below...
***I protest consider the factors and you will agree!
london europe moves the clock today as if sunrise is called an hour earlier AND SUNSET is an hour earlier so dark at 5 when people drive home from work. WHICH ENDS AT THE TIME CALLED 5. since "summer clock is good" then do not be like europe that ends something good in october, jesus christ ! be like US an extra week of good.
and better than US when the date nov 5 comes the governments could say "do not change at all because" the end of light is EARLIER=less time "between each sunset daily" less than 24 hours between sunsets in autumn" hence so it would be smart to INVERT THE BAD IDEA and instead move the clock the other way to balance the earlier darkness so being like europe is doubly stupid and dangerous to drive home in the dark when work ends at the time called 5 when they could leave "good summer clock" and even move the clock the other way!
then work ends at the time called 5 and still sunnny! so drive in light after tiring day of work.
The fools in europe preserve the bad ideas like the french defense in world war 2, so i protest.
**unless we organize we will continue copying bad europeans.
I can write a letter but one opinion might be ignored we must organize to end this mistake of dangerously aligning the end of work day with darkness will we WAIT UNTIL THE CAR CRASHES to change when it is dangerous now? we now the darkness comes earlier therefore the clock numbers could and xhould BALANCE IT.
ADMITTEDLY THE MORNING WILL BE DARK BUT THAT IS NOT AFTER A TIRING DAY AT THE OFFICE STARING AT COMPUTER SCREENS WHICH TIRE OUT THE EYES.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
skepticism
a rabbi once told me "science and the creation story in genesis are [quote] compatible there is a book genesis and big bang that explains it" he did not say the same just compatible. whatever that means.
so I asked the rabbi to tell me the idea. the rabbi said 'i did not read the book"
me: then how do you know what is in it?
rabbi: based on the title. =lazy rabbi
well i read the book from library and it is "not compatible with genesis story" and does not defend the creation story.
one of the key claims of the book which it emphasizes at least twice is "stars fuse atoms creating heavy atoms" with many protons.
supposedly the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in our body are from star fusion so would astrophysicists claim and we would believe them because they are scientists yet ther is a problem, that science is what we "observe" and nobody has observed the fusion inside any star...
so that is not science.
just because somebody who usualy writes science writes something that is not science.
well today i finally found the astrophysicist who REFUTEs the book "genesis and big bang'.
this astrophysicist claims that almost all stars "only create helium" by fusing hydrogen one-proton intoi helium 2 proton.so there!
eat your words silly rabbi.
rabbis and religious christians believe that god created man from dirt and animals from dirt. while science said humans are molecules with hydrogen and nitrogen.
and guess what most stars do not make nytrigen.
in fact the fusion process is 'attaching helium" gasp that means 2 new protons per fusion
EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT NITROGEN IS AN ODD NUMBER of protons.
so the astrophysicists specify hydrogen is fused into helium and never heavier except for a small percentage of stars which fuse the helium TOGETHER and specify "helium becomes carbon which becomes oxygen
that means 3 helium join into one carbon [6 proton" and fuse again to become oxygen only in very feww stars and gueess what ?
from 6>8 skips nitrogen ta-dam.
we continue the article which traces the fusion pattern upto iron and beyond to my favorite isotope
MY FAVE is zinc 60 which is radioactive which means it "shoots out" energy called a positron and decays to zinc60>copper 60 with one less proton. 30-1=29/
now we observe that zinc 60 has a brief "half-life" of 2.40 minutes is that two and les sthan half or 40 seconds i do not know and that is not the evidence, scientists observe that radiation goes out and the decay has a half life and claim that carbon dating also has a half life exceot much longer... 5700 years almost the same number as the rabbi callendar year-number- an odd coincidience...
now the carbon hal-life is not observable if we believe it ismore than 200 years we do noty even know whether carbon isotopes hal\ve half lifes we only CLAIM based on those which are observable such as zinc 60, that other radia-carbons also have half-life too. jesus christ is that observed?
yet we can imagine a sample of zinc 60 produed in the star as ethan the astrophysicist claimed okay
in a minute percentage of sstars
now if a sample ahs ninety atoms of zinc 60
each one pops off a positron why? because we obnserve radiation and explain it is unstable so it decays to a smaller element 29 copper 60 same num,ber? yes the proton loses energy called positron and its tiotal energy is balanced so instead of 30 protons and 30 neutrons it radiates a positron and now has one less proton which is now a neutron
30-1+30+1= coper 60.
now when we consider that it is unstable each one radiates a positron a small amount of positive energy like an electrojn the apparent diiffference between a proton and nuetron...
so that makes me skeptical that zinc has a half-life at all... how can i believe that there is "half" between zinc and copper it lost one positron that is the step there is no half. skepticism.
in fact eahc one radiates one positron so bang all of them become copper cu 60...
wll if w calculate the time the outer atoms of the sample become copper then the inner already radiated their positron in the same time so the only change between the inner ones is their positron is inside well then it should leak out not half!
teh 90 should elease their positron and all in the same time become copper and if it is radioactive longer then that just meansthe positrons have not moved out yet, so something is in the way but all 90 decayed shall we defeend half life by lying it is stable? it is not stable that is why it shoots out a positron changing to copper!
no. all of these so-called science ideas are unbelievable. this "religion" is just as bad as thee silly bible.
and even if half the zinc decays in 3 minutes who said that is the same half life in carbon and who said that is reliable enough to use carbon dating? those are not oserved as in porevious article and differing "dating methods" have already refuted each other and worse the "initial" amount is unknown and when we double the half lifes the dinosaurs carbon would microwave itself to death in much less than a million years back...
no. we cannot accept the "story" scientists tell of the past because it is not observed and is just as bad as the bible which is also not observen nor believe-able.
so I asked the rabbi to tell me the idea. the rabbi said 'i did not read the book"
me: then how do you know what is in it?
rabbi: based on the title. =lazy rabbi
well i read the book from library and it is "not compatible with genesis story" and does not defend the creation story.
one of the key claims of the book which it emphasizes at least twice is "stars fuse atoms creating heavy atoms" with many protons.
supposedly the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in our body are from star fusion so would astrophysicists claim and we would believe them because they are scientists yet ther is a problem, that science is what we "observe" and nobody has observed the fusion inside any star...
so that is not science.
just because somebody who usualy writes science writes something that is not science.
well today i finally found the astrophysicist who REFUTEs the book "genesis and big bang'.
this astrophysicist claims that almost all stars "only create helium" by fusing hydrogen one-proton intoi helium 2 proton.so there!
eat your words silly rabbi.
rabbis and religious christians believe that god created man from dirt and animals from dirt. while science said humans are molecules with hydrogen and nitrogen.
and guess what most stars do not make nytrigen.
in fact the fusion process is 'attaching helium" gasp that means 2 new protons per fusion
EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT NITROGEN IS AN ODD NUMBER of protons.
so the astrophysicists specify hydrogen is fused into helium and never heavier except for a small percentage of stars which fuse the helium TOGETHER and specify "helium becomes carbon which becomes oxygen
that means 3 helium join into one carbon [6 proton" and fuse again to become oxygen only in very feww stars and gueess what ?
from 6>8 skips nitrogen ta-dam.
we continue the article which traces the fusion pattern upto iron and beyond to my favorite isotope
MY FAVE is zinc 60 which is radioactive which means it "shoots out" energy called a positron and decays to zinc60>copper 60 with one less proton. 30-1=29/
now we observe that zinc 60 has a brief "half-life" of 2.40 minutes is that two and les sthan half or 40 seconds i do not know and that is not the evidence, scientists observe that radiation goes out and the decay has a half life and claim that carbon dating also has a half life exceot much longer... 5700 years almost the same number as the rabbi callendar year-number- an odd coincidience...
now the carbon hal-life is not observable if we believe it ismore than 200 years we do noty even know whether carbon isotopes hal\ve half lifes we only CLAIM based on those which are observable such as zinc 60, that other radia-carbons also have half-life too. jesus christ is that observed?
yet we can imagine a sample of zinc 60 produed in the star as ethan the astrophysicist claimed okay
in a minute percentage of sstars
now if a sample ahs ninety atoms of zinc 60
each one pops off a positron why? because we obnserve radiation and explain it is unstable so it decays to a smaller element 29 copper 60 same num,ber? yes the proton loses energy called positron and its tiotal energy is balanced so instead of 30 protons and 30 neutrons it radiates a positron and now has one less proton which is now a neutron
30-1+30+1= coper 60.
now when we consider that it is unstable each one radiates a positron a small amount of positive energy like an electrojn the apparent diiffference between a proton and nuetron...
so that makes me skeptical that zinc has a half-life at all... how can i believe that there is "half" between zinc and copper it lost one positron that is the step there is no half. skepticism.
in fact eahc one radiates one positron so bang all of them become copper cu 60...
wll if w calculate the time the outer atoms of the sample become copper then the inner already radiated their positron in the same time so the only change between the inner ones is their positron is inside well then it should leak out not half!
teh 90 should elease their positron and all in the same time become copper and if it is radioactive longer then that just meansthe positrons have not moved out yet, so something is in the way but all 90 decayed shall we defeend half life by lying it is stable? it is not stable that is why it shoots out a positron changing to copper!
no. all of these so-called science ideas are unbelievable. this "religion" is just as bad as thee silly bible.
and even if half the zinc decays in 3 minutes who said that is the same half life in carbon and who said that is reliable enough to use carbon dating? those are not oserved as in porevious article and differing "dating methods" have already refuted each other and worse the "initial" amount is unknown and when we double the half lifes the dinosaurs carbon would microwave itself to death in much less than a million years back...
no. we cannot accept the "story" scientists tell of the past because it is not observed and is just as bad as the bible which is also not observen nor believe-able.
Sunday, October 22, 2017
understanding Islam
Islam has many ideas here we analyze 3
when we look at the following "hadith" with modern values it is shocking. from the many hadiths many are unreliable however "bakhari" is more reliable for Muslims. it reports " in Bukhari It is reported from Aisha that she said: The Prophet entered into marriage with me when I was a girl of six … and at the time [of joining his household] I was a girl of nine years of age.”
“Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed [alone] for two years or so. He married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.”
western countries say "even if that age says she agrees she is too young to understand and it is statatury rape" we can comprehend what happens in a country where the "official" policy is islam what can happen to young girls.
2 regarding the afterlife cute wording in hadith bukhari [a more reliable hadith than other hadiths]
"Whoever believes (has Imaan) in Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him), and establishes the prayer and fasts in the month of Ramadan, it is incumbent upon Allah that He enters him in Jannah. (Sahih al-Bukhari)" did you notice that cute wording!
jannah is a place of pleasure in the afterlife however, jannah does not include virgins. however a muslim explained to me that if a man is loyal to his wife with "no adultery" then he will be granted a gift of 72 virgins and if his wife is a good muslim she will be one of the 72 virgins with him.
these ideas fascinate me.
i also condemn the idea in quran 9.123 but here i analyze other stuff.
when we look at the following "hadith" with modern values it is shocking. from the many hadiths many are unreliable however "bakhari" is more reliable for Muslims. it reports " in Bukhari It is reported from Aisha that she said: The Prophet entered into marriage with me when I was a girl of six … and at the time [of joining his household] I was a girl of nine years of age.”
“Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed [alone] for two years or so. He married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.”
western countries say "even if that age says she agrees she is too young to understand and it is statatury rape" we can comprehend what happens in a country where the "official" policy is islam what can happen to young girls.
2 regarding the afterlife cute wording in hadith bukhari [a more reliable hadith than other hadiths]
"Whoever believes (has Imaan) in Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him), and establishes the prayer and fasts in the month of Ramadan, it is incumbent upon Allah that He enters him in Jannah. (Sahih al-Bukhari)" did you notice that cute wording!
jannah is a place of pleasure in the afterlife however, jannah does not include virgins. however a muslim explained to me that if a man is loyal to his wife with "no adultery" then he will be granted a gift of 72 virgins and if his wife is a good muslim she will be one of the 72 virgins with him.
these ideas fascinate me.
i also condemn the idea in quran 9.123 but here i analyze other stuff.
Saturday, October 21, 2017
when science books are not science
science is "supposedly" things we observe by seeing and testing yet somehow scientists think they have the right to talk about the past and the past was "not observed" so it is neither history nor science.
for example when science books claim the "time in the past" when there were dinosaurs and the age of the sun and geological eras that is "not observed" and not "written" so it is neither history nor science.
such "dates in the past" are just as bad as the stories in the bible which were "not observed either".
so why would anybody accept either idea?
humans tend to think that "if it is a magic book" like the bible that makes it "believable" and the same flaw is equaly blind faith if the scientist wrote about the past neither is observed and it is "not true science" just because a scientist wrote it.
well what about carbon dating?
we can observe some half lives for example "cu81" has 3.4 hours.or as other scientists measured and "observed" and Cu81(73.2±6.8 ms).the first source does not use the word half-life but that is the context as they group it woith zinc 72 ZINC "half-life 49 hours" called zn 72 [seaborg page 110 at 487] cf http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhRvL.113c2505X
the idea of half-life is the radiation does not stop after 98 hours just because it "radiated" half in 49 twice because the rate changes. like a dying flame less is emitted at differing rates less and less.
it is "not a steady rate" as i have heard some people claim. in my opinion it should beand run out after 98 but apparently it was observed. well the two observations refute each other for cu 81 copper . so much for "fact". carbon dating is just as bad as bible religions.
now people who challenge religion mention carbon dating and although as above religion is baseless, the same carbon dating is equaly a beaseless religion and when a human who usualy writes "true science" claim carbon dating "tells us the dates in the past" that is neither history nor science.
ken ham has a book in which he openly reveals his religious bias discussing god and this prejudice leads him to challenge the idea of half-life.
ken points out that "long term" half lifes [for example carbon claimed to decay over 5000 years" is called "a guess" because no single person OBSERVED it for 5000 years. did a scientist measure it 5 times each thousand years over the last 5000 years? even those who believe in the faith of carbon dating do not say that lie.
ken challenges "where did this guess come from" emphasis his.
ken brings the "formula" and challenges that observation of a short time is not observation of a long time and although his analogy of a poll is flawed it seems to me the idea is correct for a different reason because the idea of half-life itself is that the rate changes... so observing for any time refutes itself.
we can assume that half lifes happen the way thy occiur in zinc 72 but that is a guess who observed the rate of carbon. did anybody measure carbon each hundred years?
and how much was in the sample? nobody observed that the amount in the sample had a known amount. if scientists today claim "look there is so little" do we know how much more was in it when the dinosaur died? we say it had small amounts now and more then.
well lets do somne math doubling.
as wrote elsewhere if now there is one unit of radioactive and we double it each 5000 years how many times can we double something? try ten
1<2<4<8<16<32<64<128<256<512
in just 50000 years of ten "generations" of carbon dating claime dat around 5000 years per half life, it doubled ten times enough radiation to "microwave itself to death". over 70.000.000 as some dinosaur books say it would double even more times.
and we do not know how much was in it when the decay started.
in fact if a short time observation is "extrapolated" to long term the results can be vastly different from each other and as ken points out different radio-dating hjave differing results on page
using "various methods on the same sample" reveals different results refuting that "radiometric dating" refutes each other.on page 143 and of course the key question do we know the "product" called "initial amounts" whemn the ecay began by sending out radiation.
if the universe was as ancient as science books claim and that is as mentioned "not observed nor observable" and clearly not science just because someboduy who usualy writes science wrote or edited it...
how can any concentrations of radioactive material remain after solong? unless somebody used centrifuges or equipment to increase radiation...
***for me the key issue is the one ken ham writes on page 143 "initial amount" that was certainly not observed."inside the nye ham debate' that means a debate between mr ham and mr nye.
differing methods of the same sample refute each other because they are not the same results so which "methoid is the wrong calculation" which one/ mabe all.
so carbon dating is not only unreliable but worse discussing "the past" is neither history nor science.
so does that leave religion?
of course not! that was rejected at the beginning of this artice when moses claimed god told me stuff... was that observed?
when the bible said before man was created stuff happened no human observed it... before god "created man from the dirt and earth of the ground" self refutes any claim of observation. the bible never even claimed "god said to moses first i created light and then the sun and then animals over millions of years" none of those details are in the bible according to standards of "reading comprehension" what religious people do to corrupt the story is not only not the content of the bok but is non-comprehension. and they say you need to be an expert to know the different answers to "defend" what is baseless and non-observed did moses ever ccalim 'god told me this is what happened and when" not even claimed and if he would claim that claim itself is not observed so is he lying it is as baseless as if he was silen was moses telling the truth i do not know so it is the same as if he did not write anything.
the bible said everything in the bible is god inspiring the writers, that only gives the religious an excuse to burn the doubters at the stake... that does not show the contents are true the past is "not observed' so whether it is in a rleigious book or a science book it is neither true "history" nor science it simply is outside of science to speak about the past and as the character "sheldon" said about geology, "geology is not science' and that sentence is a very accurate criticism.
scientists observe it is "deep underground" that is known what that tells us is zero a "null set".
far from certainty and far from science. only certain things are science not the past who said? think for yourself.
for example when science books claim the "time in the past" when there were dinosaurs and the age of the sun and geological eras that is "not observed" and not "written" so it is neither history nor science.
such "dates in the past" are just as bad as the stories in the bible which were "not observed either".
so why would anybody accept either idea?
humans tend to think that "if it is a magic book" like the bible that makes it "believable" and the same flaw is equaly blind faith if the scientist wrote about the past neither is observed and it is "not true science" just because a scientist wrote it.
well what about carbon dating?
we can observe some half lives for example "cu81" has 3.4 hours.or as other scientists measured and "observed" and Cu81(73.2±6.8 ms).the first source does not use the word half-life but that is the context as they group it woith zinc 72 ZINC "half-life 49 hours" called zn 72 [seaborg page 110 at 487] cf http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhRvL.113c2505X
the idea of half-life is the radiation does not stop after 98 hours just because it "radiated" half in 49 twice because the rate changes. like a dying flame less is emitted at differing rates less and less.
it is "not a steady rate" as i have heard some people claim. in my opinion it should beand run out after 98 but apparently it was observed. well the two observations refute each other for cu 81 copper . so much for "fact". carbon dating is just as bad as bible religions.
now people who challenge religion mention carbon dating and although as above religion is baseless, the same carbon dating is equaly a beaseless religion and when a human who usualy writes "true science" claim carbon dating "tells us the dates in the past" that is neither history nor science.
ken ham has a book in which he openly reveals his religious bias discussing god and this prejudice leads him to challenge the idea of half-life.
ken points out that "long term" half lifes [for example carbon claimed to decay over 5000 years" is called "a guess" because no single person OBSERVED it for 5000 years. did a scientist measure it 5 times each thousand years over the last 5000 years? even those who believe in the faith of carbon dating do not say that lie.
ken challenges "where did this guess come from" emphasis his.
ken brings the "formula" and challenges that observation of a short time is not observation of a long time and although his analogy of a poll is flawed it seems to me the idea is correct for a different reason because the idea of half-life itself is that the rate changes... so observing for any time refutes itself.
we can assume that half lifes happen the way thy occiur in zinc 72 but that is a guess who observed the rate of carbon. did anybody measure carbon each hundred years?
and how much was in the sample? nobody observed that the amount in the sample had a known amount. if scientists today claim "look there is so little" do we know how much more was in it when the dinosaur died? we say it had small amounts now and more then.
well lets do somne math doubling.
as wrote elsewhere if now there is one unit of radioactive and we double it each 5000 years how many times can we double something? try ten
1<2<4<8<16<32<64<128<256<512
in just 50000 years of ten "generations" of carbon dating claime dat around 5000 years per half life, it doubled ten times enough radiation to "microwave itself to death". over 70.000.000 as some dinosaur books say it would double even more times.
and we do not know how much was in it when the decay started.
in fact if a short time observation is "extrapolated" to long term the results can be vastly different from each other and as ken points out different radio-dating hjave differing results on page
using "various methods on the same sample" reveals different results refuting that "radiometric dating" refutes each other.on page 143 and of course the key question do we know the "product" called "initial amounts" whemn the ecay began by sending out radiation.
if the universe was as ancient as science books claim and that is as mentioned "not observed nor observable" and clearly not science just because someboduy who usualy writes science wrote or edited it...
how can any concentrations of radioactive material remain after solong? unless somebody used centrifuges or equipment to increase radiation...
***for me the key issue is the one ken ham writes on page 143 "initial amount" that was certainly not observed."inside the nye ham debate' that means a debate between mr ham and mr nye.
differing methods of the same sample refute each other because they are not the same results so which "methoid is the wrong calculation" which one/ mabe all.
so carbon dating is not only unreliable but worse discussing "the past" is neither history nor science.
so does that leave religion?
of course not! that was rejected at the beginning of this artice when moses claimed god told me stuff... was that observed?
when the bible said before man was created stuff happened no human observed it... before god "created man from the dirt and earth of the ground" self refutes any claim of observation. the bible never even claimed "god said to moses first i created light and then the sun and then animals over millions of years" none of those details are in the bible according to standards of "reading comprehension" what religious people do to corrupt the story is not only not the content of the bok but is non-comprehension. and they say you need to be an expert to know the different answers to "defend" what is baseless and non-observed did moses ever ccalim 'god told me this is what happened and when" not even claimed and if he would claim that claim itself is not observed so is he lying it is as baseless as if he was silen was moses telling the truth i do not know so it is the same as if he did not write anything.
the bible said everything in the bible is god inspiring the writers, that only gives the religious an excuse to burn the doubters at the stake... that does not show the contents are true the past is "not observed' so whether it is in a rleigious book or a science book it is neither true "history" nor science it simply is outside of science to speak about the past and as the character "sheldon" said about geology, "geology is not science' and that sentence is a very accurate criticism.
scientists observe it is "deep underground" that is known what that tells us is zero a "null set".
far from certainty and far from science. only certain things are science not the past who said? think for yourself.
Saturday, October 14, 2017
added words in translation
we tend to trust translations of the new testament.
what if the translators ADDED words, sometimes it is helpul but what if it changes the meaning?
when we look at the list on the following page almost all translations agree about the words "do all things" like do anything.
4:13 πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με
panta=all iskyo=able
how to connect these words , "all able" by my strengthener?
omnipotent? only god is omnipotent. it did not say omnipotent.
if we believe the translation we must have faith and state yes omnipotent.
i can overly-borrow on all my credit cards and god will repay because "can do all things" that would be faith but what if words were ADDED?
no words "do" nor "things" so not really "do anything"
compare: can do all things= do anything
or "can all" what is missing?
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Philippians%204:13
almost all translations agree about the words "do everything"
so why in merlins name is CEB so different?
common english bible which is usualy reliable on other issues, as i checked, is again more accurate in this instance because of the added words.
it appears that ceb added words but it realy replaces words.
"CEB I can endure all these things" a very different idea than "i can do anything." paul was speaking about his past PAST and context of content. yet why is there a difference?
almost all translations say "do anything" yet people go bankrupt even if they are christains.
niv at that site has a change "can do all this" that is a different message!
which is the bad translation?
all matches "panta pas"="inclusive" idea but no greek word for "do" that was added greek is "all able through"
how to connect these words?
context is always what is nearby so "these" is the best connector in this context not adding do+things="do all+thing" instead able="prevailed all these" as described in verse before it. the text itself has a diffferent message and now we discover that there is no basis for the majority of translation which added words and in this instance changed the message this time ceb is most accurate and we discover no basis to gamble on your credit cards behold!
a similar difference is in the "anything verse" in john 14 askfor anything?
yet the greek word is a pronoun for the word some! SOME-!- that differs from ask for anything "tis' is some.
now we cannot test if the bible is a lie because it only said ask some and it will be given for the fathers glory and besides you was the listener in that audience before the crucifixion so no test. think for yourself do not commit to any book nor translation
what if the translators ADDED words, sometimes it is helpul but what if it changes the meaning?
when we look at the list on the following page almost all translations agree about the words "do all things" like do anything.
4:13 πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με
panta=all iskyo=able
how to connect these words , "all able" by my strengthener?
omnipotent? only god is omnipotent. it did not say omnipotent.
if we believe the translation we must have faith and state yes omnipotent.
i can overly-borrow on all my credit cards and god will repay because "can do all things" that would be faith but what if words were ADDED?
no words "do" nor "things" so not really "do anything"
compare: can do all things= do anything
or "can all" what is missing?
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Philippians%204:13
almost all translations agree about the words "do everything"
so why in merlins name is CEB so different?
common english bible which is usualy reliable on other issues, as i checked, is again more accurate in this instance because of the added words.
it appears that ceb added words but it realy replaces words.
"CEB I can endure all these things" a very different idea than "i can do anything." paul was speaking about his past PAST and context of content. yet why is there a difference?
almost all translations say "do anything" yet people go bankrupt even if they are christains.
niv at that site has a change "can do all this" that is a different message!
which is the bad translation?
all matches "panta pas"="inclusive" idea but no greek word for "do" that was added greek is "all able through"
how to connect these words?
context is always what is nearby so "these" is the best connector in this context not adding do+things="do all+thing" instead able="prevailed all these" as described in verse before it. the text itself has a diffferent message and now we discover that there is no basis for the majority of translation which added words and in this instance changed the message this time ceb is most accurate and we discover no basis to gamble on your credit cards behold!
a similar difference is in the "anything verse" in john 14 askfor anything?
yet the greek word is a pronoun for the word some! SOME-!- that differs from ask for anything "tis' is some.
now we cannot test if the bible is a lie because it only said ask some and it will be given for the fathers glory and besides you was the listener in that audience before the crucifixion so no test. think for yourself do not commit to any book nor translation
marriage, what is it good for?
so people want to get married people in america around age 20 get married. for what?
some people are told no sex before marriage then they think that AFTER in a marriage they can have sex which is pleassant.
but after they are married people say marriage is "not only about sex" meaning you will not egt sex inmarrriage.
so what marriage essentially is means "no sex with other women"+plus while most of the time the wife is nnot in the mood either MOSTLY because she already satisfied herself with orgasm using her own clitoris.
now we consider it a crime to remove clitoris but after the fatc we see aclear benefit in muslim culture because western women are often not in the mood after they satisfy themselves with their own clitors.
sadly only in comedy's we can joka about the horrific truth as peter griffin said you mean a commitment not to sleep with other women? why would i do that? that is not fun giving us the worfds to expreess a true problem which cannot be corrected because women do self satisfy and we cannot remove their clitoris yet.
how about when the wife says i am not in the mood. well men have desires and needs apparently "more frequently" look at WHO PAYS to whom in the culture of prostitute PROSTITUE WOMEN ARE NOT DESPERATE FOR IT BUT MEN ARE SO DESPERATE THEY WILL PAY FOR IT
and after we know this we see so many people getting married do they think that is beneficial?
to deny themselves other women exclusively in marriage while at the same time being told by a wife she is not in the mood- well that would be okay if men could go for 6 months without sex... but we look at the whole picture men do want frequent and have been desperate enuf to pay while womendo have clitporis and do self-saticfy and and do say no...
so only fools would get married tricked that after marriage they will get sex... that is not a reason to get married because you will not get from wife nor from another and men cannot wiat six months like women do.
so you are saying i am exclusive not have sex with others and also not have sex with wife?
what is marriage "GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING" like the song war...
Lyrics
War, huh, good god, What is it good for
Absolutely nothing…
Artist: Edwin Starr
Album: War & Peace
Released: 1970
Genre: Classic soul
Awards: Grammy Hall of Fame
marriage is a religious idea on young men who do not understand that women use their clitoris to self dsatisfy and push the man away... IT IS TRULY NOT INFORMED CONSENT.
unless they are in a muslim culture. for the last few years i only had relationships with "maimed" women not long term but at least "they put out".
some people are told no sex before marriage then they think that AFTER in a marriage they can have sex which is pleassant.
but after they are married people say marriage is "not only about sex" meaning you will not egt sex inmarrriage.
so what marriage essentially is means "no sex with other women"+plus while most of the time the wife is nnot in the mood either MOSTLY because she already satisfied herself with orgasm using her own clitoris.
now we consider it a crime to remove clitoris but after the fatc we see aclear benefit in muslim culture because western women are often not in the mood after they satisfy themselves with their own clitors.
sadly only in comedy's we can joka about the horrific truth as peter griffin said you mean a commitment not to sleep with other women? why would i do that? that is not fun giving us the worfds to expreess a true problem which cannot be corrected because women do self satisfy and we cannot remove their clitoris yet.
how about when the wife says i am not in the mood. well men have desires and needs apparently "more frequently" look at WHO PAYS to whom in the culture of prostitute PROSTITUE WOMEN ARE NOT DESPERATE FOR IT BUT MEN ARE SO DESPERATE THEY WILL PAY FOR IT
and after we know this we see so many people getting married do they think that is beneficial?
to deny themselves other women exclusively in marriage while at the same time being told by a wife she is not in the mood- well that would be okay if men could go for 6 months without sex... but we look at the whole picture men do want frequent and have been desperate enuf to pay while womendo have clitporis and do self-saticfy and and do say no...
so only fools would get married tricked that after marriage they will get sex... that is not a reason to get married because you will not get from wife nor from another and men cannot wiat six months like women do.
so you are saying i am exclusive not have sex with others and also not have sex with wife?
what is marriage "GOOD FOR? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING" like the song war...
Lyrics
War, huh, good god, What is it good for
Absolutely nothing…
Artist: Edwin Starr
Album: War & Peace
Released: 1970
Genre: Classic soul
Awards: Grammy Hall of Fame
marriage is a religious idea on young men who do not understand that women use their clitoris to self dsatisfy and push the man away... IT IS TRULY NOT INFORMED CONSENT.
unless they are in a muslim culture. for the last few years i only had relationships with "maimed" women not long term but at least "they put out".
Friday, October 13, 2017
voldemort horcrux summary from harry potter
I have seen several lists of horcrux each with missing details and have assembled several lists together with some criticism.
i quote one users good point that the fang was not used to kill voldemorts life inside harry, which indeed indicates that harry was not truly a "horcrux" because the wizerd "makes" one and Harry carried life but was not a horcrux therefore did not need basilisk venom. replace to complete list with the goblet in the bank which harry destroyed using gryffindors sword.
list
Tom Riddle's diary Harry used a basilisk fang/tooth to destroy in 1992 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
Gaunt's Ring Albus destroyed with Gryffindor's sword (between 1992-1995) destruction not shown.
Salazar Slytherin's Locket Ron destroyed with Gryffindor's sword in 1998 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I.
Helga Hufflepuff's Cup Hermione Granger destroyed it with a basilisk tooth/fang in 1998 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
+Another goblet in bank harry destroyed it with Gryffindor's sword in 1998
Rowena Ravenclaw's Diadem Harry destroyed with basilisk fang/tooth during magical fire [from Crabbe's incantation? or goyle's fire? ron said goyle is burning everything] in 1998 Fiendfyre in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Harry Potter carried life of Voldemort who destroyed it with avada kadabra in 1998 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 some count this as a horcrux but i disagree.
Nagini the Snake of voldemort, Neville Longbottom destroyed with Gryffindor's sword in 1998 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
also in the harry potter universe the number on the brom nimbus 2001 is probably a model number however it could be a year number if they celebrated christmas we know they did but from TEN BC in the reign of king herod because he certainly was not born after 4 bc.
the idea in the second answer "ten bc" is based only on the in-universe fact that the book tells the story about 1992 indicating a ten year gap if it would mean a year. i suggest the ten year gap is because they knew the true year when jesus was born but only based on the "gap" mentioned.
1992-2001=ten BC the starting point of the year count from christ- another hint is they celebrated christmas- but that is only a clue.
i quote one users good point that the fang was not used to kill voldemorts life inside harry, which indeed indicates that harry was not truly a "horcrux" because the wizerd "makes" one and Harry carried life but was not a horcrux therefore did not need basilisk venom. replace to complete list with the goblet in the bank which harry destroyed using gryffindors sword.
list
Tom Riddle's diary Harry used a basilisk fang/tooth to destroy in 1992 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
Gaunt's Ring Albus destroyed with Gryffindor's sword (between 1992-1995) destruction not shown.
Salazar Slytherin's Locket Ron destroyed with Gryffindor's sword in 1998 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I.
Helga Hufflepuff's Cup Hermione Granger destroyed it with a basilisk tooth/fang in 1998 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
+Another goblet in bank harry destroyed it with Gryffindor's sword in 1998
Rowena Ravenclaw's Diadem Harry destroyed with basilisk fang/tooth during magical fire [from Crabbe's incantation? or goyle's fire? ron said goyle is burning everything] in 1998 Fiendfyre in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Harry Potter carried life of Voldemort who destroyed it with avada kadabra in 1998 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 some count this as a horcrux but i disagree.
Nagini the Snake of voldemort, Neville Longbottom destroyed with Gryffindor's sword in 1998 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
also in the harry potter universe the number on the brom nimbus 2001 is probably a model number however it could be a year number if they celebrated christmas we know they did but from TEN BC in the reign of king herod because he certainly was not born after 4 bc.
the idea in the second answer "ten bc" is based only on the in-universe fact that the book tells the story about 1992 indicating a ten year gap if it would mean a year. i suggest the ten year gap is because they knew the true year when jesus was born but only based on the "gap" mentioned.
1992-2001=ten BC the starting point of the year count from christ- another hint is they celebrated christmas- but that is only a clue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)