faith thrives in a modern world

In the previous episode we saw the comparison between the high religiosity in england, nearly 2/3 to the higher religiosity in u.s.
the irony is shocking that after the whole irish issue between catholics and anglicans... each side did not say "we have such an ugly past we should leave religion" instead 59% of england, for more than half nearing 2/3 is christian. england has "NOT wearied" of christianity.
anyway this generation is LONG AFTER the "appalling history of interfaith violence" so that does not affect people's decision to join a church or exit. instead the more PROXIMAL cause is churches teach as i heard in a preaching, not to kiss before wedding matching the famous phrase "you may NOW kiss the bride" at each wedding and also taught in church besides weddings but the APPALLING looseness and promiscuity is the real reason people announce their suppression of theit faith to "get some."
even those religious wars by the catholic pope were in the form of war, azaries battling like the first segment of the 30 year war religion was only part of the issue and time. it would be a lie to describe it as "house to house murder the heretic systematically". nor the cowardly bully lining up the weak unarmed and mass murdering but in the form of war which is different and each side was confident in their justice.
another irony is that the anglican church is failing to attract new comers. we would EXPECT marketing that sells personal computers whether mac or microsft, would also "sell" anglican christianity? but the problem with the comparison is that sales the buyer holds his purchase so that does not work for faith in either part of the sale.
i mean the buyer gave money and gets the p.c. as above but in religion the buyer gets no item nor is payng for any item so the comparison "what works for soap flakes" on page 62 is just a mindless mocking by the hate filled dawkins who was so filled with hate he could not distinguish. 
even tithes are not in exchange for anything because the salvation of the church does not depend on buying it. we can get salvation by grace but want to obey the tithes and offerings to the one who HELPED us earn our money.
my point is marketing would not attract people anyeeway so anglican does not put effort into convincing nor proseltyzing and DESPITE the history of ugly violence and lack of advertising still 59% of england chooses christian despite the absence of inquisition threat and of advertising and despite temptation of ludity and the very visible rows of various condoms in every pharmacy.
the fact is most american immigrants were FLEEING the european organized religion... not to escape to ludity but to get FREEDOM OF WORSHIP to do their own faith rather than the orgaznized religion.
obviously christianty has MORE BRANCHES from its root than the one official church in each country so more christians from each of various branches fled to america from england like the thanksgiving story and other similar stories amish puritan and more fleeing the organized religion but not to ludity but to their own interpretation of christianity.
that caused the larger population of christians in u.s. not any "soap flake" advertising by flaky dawkins.
they came to america as "groups" of puritans and amish etc and the hate filling dawkins caused another "blind spot" despite the same page of "catholic and protestants alternately gaining power and suppressing the othere" he did not notice the lack of "comfort and stability" in england whose "loss" led then to join the american church... literally alternate history because they lacked stability and did not lose it and brought their faith with them. i mean we dont have millions of atheists flooding to u.s. and joining a church due to loneliness. that alteranate history was impossible due to the unpopularity od the bizarre oddity called atheism.
instead christians poured to the land of opportunity and made churches to CONTINUE their faith not join the native american church.
despite the element of community that does not attract people to join a church if they don't agree with the faith.
they can do "the sunday drive" in the beatles song on sunday instead a boring lecture where you CANT TALK during service nor preaching anyway. that is not sociial interaction.
the u.s. constitution specified NOT TO LIMIT worship which PROTECTED religion that document is FAR from a "secular constitution" but a VERY PRO-pro-religion document ENSURING each of various faiths from "a is for amish to catholic to jew to protestant" and from simple amish no zipper to the cleverly named "electric church" associating high tec and "I.T." modernity. really? yes! it is a  real branch on the list.
the u.s. government HAS chaplains in the executive branch but separate from policy so the "non-anglican get bullied to pay a tax" to the state church or jizya tax to islam gets prevented.
the only ads i saw for christianity were the "dancing nuns" joyously skipping along a tree lined path WISHING me a merry christmas.
the churches are not "competing" for followers because in another blind spot... joining a church leads to GIVING offerings... not paying to GET anything. 
the only one using "aggressive hard sell technique" is dawkins using the association marketing trick, which could work if he had not ruined the claims as i showed in previous mytakes about association that is a marketing method.
not the calm submissive church goers are mania nor even the exciting televangelists but these repeated blind spots show that the agnostics are in a frenzied panic to suppress their faith pumpin out shallow comedy mocking... that is the mania.
the condescension calling christians "uneducated" page 62 is far from accurate as if zero college proffesors are christian. 
that claim of dawkins could be aimed at accuratley it muslim countries but in the west where education is guaranteed [besides my own spelling] almost everyone is well educated and heard abouyt evolution from a single cell bacteria to branches of animaks and concluded that is TOO HARD TO BELIEVE the MORE plasible explanation is some creator created verious animals.
we are aware, we write the atheist faith on school exams but we all know what is more plausible and THAT is the cause for 59% of england is christian and more than that percentage of a larger population in u.s. 

Marketing: by association American founders

 Despite the well-known fact that almost all the first presidents of u.s. were Episcopalians christians, well known because preserved in the Almanac, people try to play games by association. this is not any assumption nor "conventional to assume" but well-known fact.

the fact is: founders opposed organized Christianity of the Anglican and pope but were Christian. specifically Episcopalian including george washington.

dawkins did not lie when he called them, the broader term deist; i will explain his lack of accuracy. "deist" includes christian so dawkins, who could not bear to call them Episcopalian, but also not get caught lying, so he used a broader term deist that is true and includes presbyter christians, while hiding the painful truth that good freedom is credited ASSOCIATed to christians. ouch.

so dawkins played on the "precious personal American freedom" linked to the founders and claimed "the greatest of the founding fathers [no lady?] might have been atheists." did you notice the word might? it is just an association trick. many steps away from accuracy and all depending on the maybe. the ones who were not athiests were the minor ones? how about john adams? and Episcopalian washington? not the greatest?

those founders who might have been atheists, dawkins considers the greatest... serving the purpose of association technique, atheists will follow the chain: feel like they are "with" the "greatest" of founders who "provided precious personal" freedom. tadda. but...

even he did not want to get caught lying so safely added the word "might"... but the ones who might be greatest were the christian founders, including john adams, but were they against christianity? were they secular? both i mean they wanted personal freedom from the organized christianity, as above.

he also used the formula "WOULD" they would be athiests now. but would they? the word would itself indicated that they were NOT atheist so no justification to claim now they would be DIFFERENT only a trick, but since it was a "would" formula he plays the game to mislead his readers who are happy to be associated with those they respect. unquestionably.

he cherry picks one candidate who protested religious pressure and interpreted as secular despite the guy never mentioned secular. the opposite even that "secular" wrote "quoting god is a powerful ally" gasp! that is neither secular nor modern atheist who say bible is Cinderella with her fairy god mother.

that speech whined about "factions" each one claiming "our god guided a different direction" that was his complaint the word "factions" that he DID say, but not the word secular that he never said , but opposite of secular , as above he did say god is a powerful ally page 60. far from secular. but dawkins needed association so he added a word secular not even there but opposite as above.

such desperation indicated he was grasping for straws trying to stifle his natural faith in god even he believed but his mind struggled to the point of these blunders or deceptions.

he quoted a treaty with muslims to prove that the presidents were not presbyter christians which they were... but it was a treaty with muslims in that context they stretched the truth of separating church from state for the purpose of muslim treaty needed to protect shipping in the Mediterranean. so the truth is separate church stretched for the treaty but not "truly not founded on christian ideas."

maybe people protested? dawkins adds imaginary stuff for his bias: "would" again using the would technique to allow lying. they would protest but maybe not... considering separated church from state and for the sake of a critical treaty. no conflict then nor now, but his propaganda HINGED and relied on woulds and mights for what? just to imagine association. at the time noone complained as i explained, they needed the treaty, so no reason to claim now "would differ" but he needs these two pages of false propaganda so people will feel good and recommend buying his "brilliant" and munificent? book.. yes clever but due to use of imaginary would and might techniques not real quality nor content.

i remind the fact: john adams and more were presbytarian christians. almost all including george washington were either Episcopalians or Presbyterians the two most prevalent faiths of presidents. that refers to the two groups with the most total 19 of 43. that is meaning of most but more were presbytarian if we do not split hairs. george washington was a christian not among the 3 unaffiliated. so was jefferson despite unaffiliated still christian and among his fellows. the "poor lonely rejected atheist" rejected by hostile christians" in his fake dramatized history but truly among his fellow christians.

Almost all U.S. presidents= commander-in-chiefs have been Protestant Christians. Forty-three presidents (Grover Cleveland held two non-consecutive terms) were Protestant Christians. and one more catholic. even lincoln considered unaffiliated due to "doubted the divinity of Jesus Christ" still matched unitarian christian. like both john adams+s presidents in the later chart.

summary stupendous stargate sg1 s4 story

 season 4 disc 5 has 4 stories 4.19-22

19, carter went with a student to see robot fireflies. they became danger, how will they escape?

20, something was controlling the computers. it started to control carter too. how will they save her?

21, onil's squad joins their robot copies to battle a powerful system lord.

22, onil's team joined tokra symbiotes, to battle apophis. how will they escape capture?

summary book potter stone new try

intro': rowling wrote an AMAZING story, created a wonderful world with dangerous adventures. i cannot do better but i can write a summary and add a bit of fan fiction. this time chapter by chapter

ONE: The Dursely family had a lone young son, named dudley. mrs. dursley, a blond named petunia, pretended that she did not have a sister. on a usual morning, Mr. Dursely, named vernon, who kept a mustache, started driving to his job. that was when he could not believe his eyes. he saw a cat reading a map? impossible! 

At work's break, he heard people talking about the potters, his wife's sister's family. after work he bumped into a man dressed oddly in a violet cloak. the guy spoke in unintelligible words like some nut, "dont be sorry. nothing could upset me today. you-know who is gone!" but he did not know who. He went home, and asked petunia about her sister so she was very annoyed. vernon wondered if the cloak guy had anything to do with his sister in laws "kind". 

near midnight, on an empty corner, a man suddenly appeared. he was wearing long robes under a purple cloak. he flicked open a metal cigaret lighter and clicked. each click the light of a lamp vanished. in the darkness he sat by a cat that was now a lady, wearing an emerald green cloak. she also said "you know who has disappeared, after killing the potter family. only their son lived". the man, named albus dumbledor, replied that he arranged to bring that child harry to his relatives the dursleys.

they heard a roaring engine overhead. a motor bike fell from the sky. a giant rode it and sobbed about the potter's deaths. he laid harry on the doorstep. dum' clicked the darker once, so the balls of light flew back to the street lamps. in the morning petunia found harry on the doorstep. and ten years passed as harry's eleventh birthday neared.

ANALYSIS: the conversations here were mysterious and intended as a hook to cause curiosity to continue but it can be a turn off due to so much without a story so it can be a turnoff of uninteligible talk. even the cool magic which was wonderful was distracted by vague phrases that contained a story in broken bits.

finally a boy on a doorstep from midnight to morning can only be a true documentary because an imaginary story they would put the baby in the house. despite this one event that was real most of the chapter was fiction except the stuff both in the video and the book.

FAN FICTION: i could not write a better story but i can be a hindsight critic. do not introduce magic motorbikes so soon. it is great but not in the first chapter with so much stuff that is hard to understand and not even mentioning it was enchanted.

chapter one: "at midnight, the dursley parents heard a baby crying, so they went to check on their son dudley. in his room they found he and a second child were crying. in shock they read a note: "Harry is your relative. his parents died, tonight, so he is your responsibility now." ma said, "we should bring the orphan to an orphangae." pa said "he will do chores" so they raised harry for ten years. chapter two." 

analysis: this would tell the dursley perspective. harry indoors with a brief mention of his parent's death without introducing magic yet nor contrasting the usual world with mysterious rejoicing and avoiding the mysterious talk, replaced by common conversation.

TWO: summary: Harry liked his scar and recalled that he had asked how he got his thin-lightening-shape-scar so they said in a car crash. harry experienced mysterious unexplainable stuff. he would get a hair cut at a barber, and same as previous haircuts, as soon as he got home it was long again. aunt had cut his hair very short, but by morning it was long again.

they went too a zoo. there harry looked at a snake until cousin d punched him down. harry hurt from the punch and the hard concrete. d' was leaning on the glass when it stopped existing so he jumped back as the snake escaped and thanked harry "thanksssss."

later harry got mail but before he could read it uncle took it away. more letters came for him so uncle burnt them. he even chhanged harry room and  moved the family to different places to avoid the letters. on a distant isle, a giant man, named r.h. came. he told harry, "you are a wizard... your parents got murdered by an evil wizard."

h' led harry to the place to but magical items. it was in london [72]. the magicaly passed through a wall. in a bank harry rode the roller railway and got some money from his inheritance. hagrid got a small specially protected package. h' bought an owl for harry before harry bought his wand.wands were made using magical creatures. one of the wands responded by shooting red and gold sparks. harry learnt that the wand chooses the wizard and that his wand was from the same phoenix used in voldemorts wand.

FAN FICTION: when harry entered the wand shop a box jumped off a shelf and fell away freeing a wand which flew to harry.... chose him.

uncle drove harry to the train station where he met the weasly family. harry rode the train with ron. they shared treats while ron told harry about his brothers. harry rode magic-mover boats on lake between the train station and the school castle. a wizard cap explained the characteristics of students for the 4 houses. it assigned harry with his new friend ron and a girl named hermiy-oni. they ate a generous feast before going to the dorm to sleep.

later hagrid invited harry to visit. when he visited he heard about a break in at the wizard bank. the same day he had gone there with h. at school harry studied various magical subjects, including broom flying. nevil's broom went wild causing nevil to fall and get injured. his sphere fell. d. malfoy stole it and wanted to hide it like a jerk. harry chased draco who threw it. harry flew and caught it skillfully. malfoy challenged harry to a duel so harry went at night ignoring protests from hermione. he and his pals almost got caught. they fled until finding a giant dog with 3 heads and jaws.

on halloween, harry got a gift broom and learned about quiditch. a troll was found in the dungeon. harry and ron went to find hermione and saw the troll attacking her. harry jumped on the troll [188] and ron used a charm to save harry from the club that jumped up and then fall on the trolls head ending the threat. FAN FICTION: hermione who had succeeded at leviosa first, used it to disarm the troll. it jumped up... harry and ron entered and saw the troll look up when the huge club crashed down on its head. ron would save harry later not save hermione now she can save herself. ENDNOTE: half of 331 pages is 165 so at end of chapter 10 page 192 end part one of summary.

conclusion: the title stone refers to a red stone. people tried to get it but was safely in a mirror until harry took it out. then it was almost stolen, until harry mysteriously burnt quirrels face. preventing the theft of the stone. harry the hero.

prophets for christians new try

 jesus mentioned by name, Isaiah Jeremiah and Jona:  "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you [Mat 15:8] These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules." establishing he faith that isaiah was a prophet. so we can trust "even" when he said surprising messages such as "blood i did not want" even in past tense time since this is true we know the other books, we got, that can cause error that did want blood in past, are error and not from the true god. only in future he wanted blood as written in ephesians not past not ever.

also john the "student who saw jesus" mentioned isaiah by name in gospel john.

also  jesus mentioned by name, Jeremiah in gospel matthew by the student matthew who was the student of jesus "When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” [16:14] They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” did jesus say "i must correct you, jeremia was not a prophet? if that was true, then their teacher must save them from error. instead he agreed with them.

after jeremiah they print other books but jesus never mentioned them by name, except, "when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel" so daniel is in by matthew who was jesus student. and it was part of jesus answer.

a council said revelation is heresy. even mat. 21.44 is not a quote nor even in original.

another quote from "word" no name, "If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ mat. 12.7, preserved a bit of scripture helping clarify isaiah one and jeremiah seven with similar ideas. and there preserved "Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

john 12.14 +15, "Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, as it is written: “Do not be afraid, Daughter Zion; see, your king is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt" but no name just scripture. also "scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced." preserved scripture but before rabbis assigned to people. written: “ ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered". written: “ ‘I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’ no name because original scripture.

so this preserved the prophets for christians complete. no other books beside isaiaha jeremiah and jona the prophet to the gentiles.

bible books with events 13 books

 Josefus wrote that "we jews have thirteen books of stories". the following match his contents:

first of stories AND FIRST in bible as i explained, is:

joshua. see introduction at

https://thinkforyourselfn8.blogspot.com/2023/07/book-joshua-and-introduction.html

list 12 more: judges samuel kings Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jona [story and prophet], Ruth, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemia, chronicles.

except for jonah a story with events, still certainly not the dozen prophecies that rabbis wrongly claim as holy messages, not one book nor many books they are not events in contraast to isaiah.

these 13v must be purified as i explained in intro to joshua, link above.

a bit of joshua, can be accepted with: Ruth, the story in isaiah about hezekia with prophecies, jeremiah with story and prophecies, jona with story and prophecies for gentiles. with Esther, Daniel,

however despite josefus had ezra story in his history and did count it in 13 the rabbis lost the real book ezra replaced it with book cyrus which is not holy and similarly nehemia that he counted in 13 is not on the rabbi list so remove these two too. and chronicles since an error is not from god therefore this book with errors is also not from god. we know the years between mesa and nebucadnezer. 830-580 bc=250 years despite it is exageration not lie still it is not true so not holy. so must not scorn the holy books by including this human with holy.

book Hosea and other prophets

 Book of Hosea, see book dozen here below

Joel,  see book dozen
Amos, see book dozen
Obadiah, see book dozen

Jonah, see book dozen
Micah, see book dozen
Nahum, see book dozen
Habakkuk, see book dozen
Zephaniah, see book dozen
Haggai, see book dozen
Zechariah, see book dozen
Malachi, see book dozen here:

book dozen and introduction
introduction: in jewish bible, the book with twelve shorts is called dozen. however josephus number 22 books and his stories, indicated which are the  "13 books describe things that were done" not prophecies. source against apion 1.8. these indicate that this book dozen was not authentic. also it contains in book malaki part that can cause error that god wanted sacrifice but the same book contained he did not and same in jeremiah chapter 7. the names were people who lived between 830 b.c. and 500 b.c. darius. around 300 years. during this time assyria power 720 b.c. the rabbi order is not chronological for example jona was mentioned in book kings but obadia was at the time of a war with edom so before the others. either way it is not authentic as above.
Book dozen: chapter 1:  "i desire kindness not sacrifice". end book dozen.
Zacharia time darius 500 b.c. latest of this group not time order 

book ezekiel and introduction

 introduction: for christians who believe in jesus, we must start with the idea jesus taught:  in matthew "i desire kindness not sacrifice". with word "not". this introduces the book leviticus and ezekiel that can cause the error that did want sacrifice but that is considered error.  similarly in book jeremiah a message from god that he did not command sacrifice in the context: you eat the burnt offerings BECAUSE i did not command" in chapter 7,  not any other reason. therefore we know that this book is foreign religion and same for book numbers and book exodus and book deuteronomy that can cause this error which is an error as above.

 even jews who do not know about jesus still have that idea in book jeremiah chapter 7 as above and in their book hosea chapter 6 in past tense "i wanted kindness or mercy not sacrifice" even in past matching jeremiah and isaia chapter 1 also past tense like idea in jeremia. GOD BOTHERED TO SEND A MESSAGE TO STOP THEIR ERRORS. 

BOOK ezekiel chapter one: end.

book joshua and introduction

 introduction: the end of this book will say "You did not do it with your own sword" so the start that contains hints of sword use in jericho and when they lost a battle are fiction so to prevent error we must skip the parts that can cause error to the true part:

BOOK Joshua chapter ONE:  Joshua assembled all the tribes of Israel at Shechem. Joshua said to all the people, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: 24,6, "When I brought your nation out of Egypt, they came to the sea, and the Egyptians pursued them with chariots and horsemen, as far as the Red Sea. 7 But they cried to the Lord for help, and I put darkness between them and the Egyptians; I brought the sea over them and covered them. You saw with your own eyes what I did to the Egyptians. Then you lived in the wilderness for a long time. 8 “‘I brought you to the land of the Amorites who lived east of the Jordan. They fought against you, but "I destroyed them" from before you, and you took possession of their land. 9 When Balak son of Zippor, the king of Moab, prepared to fight against Israel, he sent for Balaam son of Beor to put a curse on you. 10 But I would not listen to Balaam, so he blessed you again and again, and I delivered you out of his hand. 11 “‘Then you crossed the Jordan and came to Jericho. The citizens of Jericho fought against you, as did also the Amorites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hittites, Girgashites, Hivites and Jebusites, but, 12 I sent the hornet ahead of you, which drove them out before you also the two Amorite kings. "You did not do it with your own sword and bow." 13 So I gave you a land on which you did not toil and cities you did not build; and you live in them and eat from vineyards and olive groves that you did not plant."
note: this is the story from the exodus without the foreign books and the error of war and conquest because not with your sword.
note: "13 books describe things that were done" not prophecies. source against apion 1.8.

book deuteronomy and introduction

 book deuteronomy  and introduction

introduction: for christians who believe in jesus, we must start with the idea jesus taught:  in matthew "i desire kindness not sacrifice". with word "not". this introduces the book that can cause the error that did want sacrifice but that is considered error.  similarly in book jeremiah a message from god that he did not command sacrifice in the context: you eat the burnt offerings BECAUSE i did not command" in chapter 7,  not any other reason. therefore we know that this book is foreign religion and same for book leviticus and book exodus and book numbers that can cause this error which is an error as above.
even jews who do not know about jesus still have that idea in book jeremiah chapter 7 as above and in their book hosea chapter 6 in past tense "i wanted kindness or mercy not sacrifice" even in past matching jeremiah and isaia chapter 1 also past tense like idea in jeremia.
BOOK Deuteronomy chapter one: end. go to joshua chapter 24,6. nothing can be between.  to replace the stories i copy from joshua "11 “‘Then you crossed the Jordan and came to Jericho. The citizens of Jericho fought against you, as did also the Amorites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hittites, Girgashites, Hivites and Jebusites, but, 12 I sent the hornet ahead of you, which drove them out before you also the two Amorite kings. "You did not do it with your own sword and bow." 13 So I gave you a land on which you did not toil and cities you did not build; and you live in them and eat from vineyards and olive groves that you did not plant."
note: this is the story from the exodus without the foreign books and the error of war and conquest because not with your sword.

BOOK Numbers and introduction

 introduction: for christians who believe in jesus, we must start with the idea jesus taught:  in matthew "i desire kindness not sacrifice". with word "not". this introduces the book that can cause the error that did want sacrifice but that is considered error.  similarly in book jeremiah a message from god that he did not command sacrifice in the context: you eat the burnt offerings BECAUSE i did not command" in chapter 7,  not any other reason. therefore we know that this book is foreign religion and same for book leviticus and book exodus and book deuteronomy that can cause this error which is an error as above.

even jews who do not know about jesus still have that idea in book jeremiah chapter 7 as above and in their book hosea chapter 6 in past tense "i wanted kindness or mercy not sacrifice" even in past matching jeremiah and isaia chapter 1 also past tense like idea in jeremia.
 BOOK Numbers chapter one: end. go to joshua chapter 24,6. nothing can be between. to replace the stories i copy from joshua: "You lived in the wilderness for a long time. 8 “‘I brought you to the land of the Amorites who lived east of the Jordan. They fought against you, but "I destroyed them" from before you, and you took possession of their land. 9 When Balak son of Zippor, the king of Moab, prepared to fight against Israel, he sent for Balaam son of Beor to put a curse on you. 10 But I would not listen to Balaam, so he blessed you again and again, and I delivered you out of his hand. 11 “‘Then you crossed the Jordan and came to Jericho. The citizens of Jericho fought against you, as did also the Amorites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hittites, Girgashites, Hivites and Jebusites, but, 12 I sent the hornet ahead of you, which drove them out before you also the two Amorite kings. "You did not do it with your own sword and bow." 13 So I gave you a land on which you did not toil and cities you did not build; and you live in them and eat from vineyards and olive groves that you did not plant."
 note: this is the story from the exodus without the foreign books and the error of war and conquest because not with your sword.

book leviticus and introduction

 introduction: for christians who believe in jesus, we must start with the idea jesus taught:  in matthew "i desire kindness not sacrifice". with word "not". this introduces the book leviticus that can cause the error that did want sacrifice but that is considered error.  similarly in book jeremiah a message from god that he did not command sacrifice in the context: you eat the burnt offerings BECAUSE i did not command" in chapter 7,  not any other reason. therefore we know that this book leviticus is foreign religion and same for book numbers and book exodus and book deuteronomy that can cause this error which is an error as above.

even jews who do not know about jesus still have that idea in book jeremiah chapter 7 as above and in their book hosea chapter 6 in past tense "i wanted kindness or mercy not sacrifice" even in past matching jeremiah and isaia chapter 1 also past tense like idea in jeremia. GOD BOTHERED TO SEND A MESSAGE TO STOP THEIR ERRORS. 
BOOK leviticus chapter one: end. go to joshua chapter 24,6. nothing can be between. "6, When I brought your nation out of Egypt, they came to the sea, and the Egyptians pursued them with chariots and horsemen, as far as the Red Sea. 7 But they cried to the Lord for help, and I put darkness between them and the Egyptians; I brought the sea over them and covered them. You saw with your own eyes what I did to the Egyptians. Then you lived in the wilderness for a long time. 8 “‘I brought you to the land of the Amorites who lived east of the Jordan. They fought against you, but "I destroyed them" from before you, and you took possession of their land. 9 When Balak son of Zippor, the king of Moab, prepared to fight against Israel, he sent for Balaam son of Beor to put a curse on you. 10 But I would not listen to Balaam, so he blessed you again and again, and I delivered you out of his hand. 11 “‘Then you crossed the Jordan and came to Jericho. The citizens of Jericho fought against you, as did also the Amorites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hittites, Girgashites, Hivites and Jebusites, but, 12 I sent the hornet ahead of you, which drove them out before you also the two Amorite kings. "You did not do it with your own sword and bow." 13 So I gave you a land on which you did not toil and cities you did not build; and you live in them and eat from vineyards and olive groves that you did not plant."
note: this is the story from the exodus without the foreign books and the error of war and conquest because not with your sword.

purifying the bible, not accept but remove 17+17 books

 the christian OLD testament has nearly twenty more books than the rabbi bible. the different TOTAL-s.

warning: according to "organized" christianity this is considered heresy and also not for under age 18. but if you follow jesus you will see i am correct.

christians taught me that o.t. has 39 books, but i know that jews have 5 of moses as josefus wrote and seventeen more. the difference between 22 and 39 is... again seventeen. the TOTALS differ.

how did christians ADD 17 books beyond the rabbis? and why did the church leaders accept the o.t. from... rabbis?

some say because jesus quoted books of moses... but i inspected.

if we inspect jesus quote "supposedly" from book genesis, the first similar quote from genesis did not match. jesus said "the creator made them male and female" in matthew 19.4, but that is not the quote nor order... despite difficult to notice "it is not there to be noticed" as  harry potter said, also here jesus never SAID BY NAME which book he is quoting: not "book of moses" nor the roman greek name, "book genesis" meaning creation like generating...so they add "quotation marks" the word creator is before the quote, still "made them male and female" is similar but not a quote from genesis "god created him [singular] male and female he created them." similar but not a quote, different verb and different order. a minor difference is still not a quote but the next inspection is EASIER TO NOTICE.

also the second quote similar to genesis, "a man will leave his parents and be united with his wife and the two will become one" that was the greek too no translation corruption. some claim he quoted book genesis which is similar but did jesus ever say... by name from genesis nope. he did not say which book nor that genesis was a good book. in fact the similar quote differed, different verbs and the rabbis left out the word "two". we can be certain he was not quoting from rabbi genesis.

since "nothing can be established except by jesus" nobody can DECIDE to include book genesis and jesus never indcluded it. a similar difference is in deuteronomy but we must return to the different TOTALS.

jesus only quoted: I desire mercy, not sacrifice. with word "not" and no name.

"Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish." not quoting any book just tradition. maybe 3 full days? maybe 3 days and nights total like 2 raisins and one orange total 3?

two:  scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.” again scripture not named which book.

3, written, “‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered."

4, written, “‘I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you." only four as i will explain now.

the jewish tradition has a book named "dozen". christians unbundled it into 12 short books so that would explain ELEVEN more despite same contents. instead of one book "dozen" they have the same contents 12 separate so 11 more.

still what about the other six?  was it correct to accept the dozen from rabbis... who christians know not to trust when rabbis reject christianity so how can the rabbis be trusted?

another artificial division is "first and second samuel, first and second kings , first and second chronicles". so christians have six books for the jews 3, so that is three more despite same contents. despite the totals are nearer , still the gap is still 3 more than josefus. 

furthermore the rabbi book dozen has a minor conflict.

book malachi said, "when you carry blind to sacrifice" 1.8, as a criticism seems to say sacrifice but not a blind one.

yet in same book dozen hosea 6.6 i want kindness not sacrifice" the rabbis who assume leviticus was true corrupted that , by adding words "not only sacrifice" but that is not the message from god and they are not "permitted to add" it is sin.

for christians the solution is easy, jesus said "i desire mercy not sacrifice" again no book name... not quoting book dozen nor hosea just the original scripture, so that is the correct faith "not sacrifice" so we must not include any book that seems to say he did want. whether book dozen or others such as leviticus then the remaining jew is 22-5=17 and no dozen 16. remaining cristian 39-17=22

worse is the logical process.

if we presume god would not contradict himself then some people when seeing a contradiction feel justiied to corrupt different than the words so they do not conflict because it cant be? but a simpler solution is to say "because a contradiction cant be from god therefore the contradiction NOT from god" this is both similar and avoids corrupting any message. simply remove both except the one jesus taught "not sacrifice" that is true, and not from book dozen nor hosea just the original scripture. not accept any book that can cause "error that commanded" which i san error because truly not as above. so no book dozen nor malachi nor the books attributed to moses this would be  obeying the same principles it is not from god because contradictions are not from god.

as a jew i struggled with such contradictions, and recognized the corruption which was forbidden sin and insulting the prophecy with scorn... but the teacher jesus taught the solution... selecting the one detail is true "not sacrifice" matching jeremia 7 and isaiah 1 etc. so the the messages that can cause error are not holy nor from god.

we cannot even include hosea because jesus never said in matthew which book he was quoting just an ancient scripture, no name what he was quoting.

without dozen the totals are nearer no 12 and no dozen so 21 rabbi and 27 christian instead of 39 in o.t. the previous covenant. since the books "attributed" to moses can cause error we must purify the ones that do not match this lesson from jesus and not include them with holy books.

after purifying christain 22 rabbis 16. three were split artificialy so if we split the rabbbis as they publish christian 22 and rabbis 19 still a gap of three.

even those 19 were transmitted by rabbis who we know not to trust so the church leaders must not have accepted those 22 nor 16 nor 19 from rabbis anyway. just the quotes alone "two become one" that differed from genesis so not even the similar part, and certainly not the whole book genesis. not even hosea and certainly not the whole book dozen. similarly for the similar phrases in mat. 10.35+36.

so instead of the dozen what similar ideas are preserved that are similar in dozen? i will list here.

jesus only quoted: I desire mercy, not sacrifice. with word "not" and no name.

"Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish." not quoting any book just tradition. maybe 3 full days? maybe 3 days and nights total like 2 raisins and one orange total 3?

two:  scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.” again scripture not named which book.

3, written, “‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered."

4, written, “‘I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you."

we see only FOUR bits, not 24 as some counted, and certainly not the book dozen nor 12 short books.

i conclude that we know the year numbers of cyrus 530 b.c. and nebucadnezer 580 b.c. and mesa 530 b.c. so the books kings and chronicles are neither holy nor worthy of trust. nor any book after the exile that said 70 because we know less. the prophecy decreed 70 but god had mercy and allowed less years sooner.

my summary blu dolphin

 when i was in 3rd grade my teacher assigned a book report. so my ma drove me to the new york city library. she asked a librarian to recommend a book for 3 grade. so she led us to a section and offered a few books. 

when i heard BLUE my fave, i  said "what is blue dolphin about?" ma replied, with a Wisecrack, "you'll see when you read it". i told librarian "tell me" but she was silent like ma.

i turned away and announced "how can i choose without knowing? i am going to the car."

librarian begged, "books are good don't be mad" i argued it must be a bad book if you wont tell me".

librarian rolled, "a girl survived alone on a dangerous island, that is an exciting adventure".

i commented, "she made friends with blu dolfins," so she corrected me, that was the name of the isle. but i was stubborn "kuz of the blue dolphins". she shook her head no.

anyway, i started eeading a bout kids playing on the coast she was not alone?? i skipped to the last chapter... ah she was alone.

i read the ending and summarised the last chapter thati read, and added, "a girl lost her family and survived alone. (skipping most and writing a bit from the last chapter)

it was my first book report in my life. teacher praised me, "he read all the way to the end" he is an example to you. i just struggled not to confess how much i skipped. i got an a+ and the teacher said "most of you are not ready for book reports no more in third grade." 

but now i will summarize from beginning.

STORY   Island of the Blue Dolphins

book summary
Karana and her brother, Ramo saw a ship by the coast. When the ship landed, Chowig, their father, as chief, met the visitors, escorted by warriors.
a Russian, led a tribe (Aleuts). he asked permission to hunt otter. c' complained that the Aleuts had caused problems. Finally, Chowig
gave permission for jewelry and iron spearheads.
the Aleuts hunted otter.
later, Aleuts loaded the ship, so Chowig and his warriors asked for the payment. russian gave some payment but they argued about amount so they battled. many died on both sides. only 12 warriors remained alive when the Aleuts escaped.
many lay dead, including Chowig.
end c4. 

critique chicken hare 2013

 the name chicken hare, in book 2013, was very clever i loved it. it reminded me, the chicken skin had chicken hair that looked gross... this sounds same.

but he made the feet chicken in a theme of ran? shoulda swapped hare leg to run and chik body and face. no need for ears since legs important for running.
a great danger adventure until the end.
the human hit animals, pages 7 and 8, but wrong to kill him. need other punishment.

computer art

 

only one covenant fulfilled the prophecy and the plan.

 only one covenant fulfilled the prophecy and the plan.

some may ask: if moses was a prophet how can anyone change the covenant brought from god?
indeed this is the error of literalist jews, writing in books baselessly and sometimes conflicting prophecy that the laws are forever.

for example moses said do not eat pork. is that forever? perhaps islam matched the true prophecy by also forbidden pig? nope.
even if assume moses brought a true message prophecy , still moses also described d
something different in the original plan.
"in your mouth and in your hearts to do" in book deuteronomy.
the grammar is to do, not "add thought to action" as some twist but that is not in the text.
in fact this can even be interpreted during moses time that reading fulfilled action because "the doing was in mouth" by reading. whether ceremony or law. any word "do" in the same book was defined here as do "by speaking". take a palm branch, seems action until defined, not outside but WITHIN that the doing is by reading say in your mouth. equally eat unleavened bread by mouth is not swallow but same mouth as the palm.
but even if do was action, temporarily,   still this not deleted the message do by mouth that is doing even without action.
similarly jeremiah 31 brought a message of a new covenant but he described it too. in heart. if we interpret moses read, this new different it is not even lip motion nor eye motion but thinking sufficed.
or it matched that idea from moses in heart. either way matched.
the source of prophecy planned a shift, a time for doing as sbove, read or act and also a new different covenant not like previous but in heart is sufficient not more than thought for fulfilling covenant. admittedly must add some action but that is not the covenant, just toward people as paul described.
which prophet matched?
not hindu kuz before jeremia, wjo said this will come, after hom.
the advantage of first excluded it from fulfilling the plan , announced by jeremiah in his future.
i claim hindu older is the weakness of primitives therefore polytheism which was replaced by mind maturing and progress.
maybe islam if muhamed was a prophet? but his message is a "covenant of actions"  thinking alone is not enough for covenant if eat during month of ramadan or show hair without veil, or more than one eye, is not submitting.
if ramadan month is same as usual day as if not commanded, that is not submission.
so that is not the new covenant.
the only one that matched is romans  chapter 7 and similar messages that is the plan of progress and was fulfilled.  see pictures.

did jeremia ever say that that was temporary? never so it cant be replaced by later prophets including muhamed and baha-ula etc. their laws do not match the covenant and no prophecy by jeremiah for additional changes.
in short the o.t. pointed to the grace in n.t. so any detail in n.t. that seems to be law is the law of jesus as specified in romans.

sources

romans 7,6 8,2 1cor9,20+21 2cor3,11 faded temporary

gal 3.23+24 gal.5,18+6,2. eph. 2,15

u.s. was a republic

recently a republican politician, lee-r, emphasized that the u.s. was a republic. why? because truth is important as i will explain.

the opposition to rnc, often dnc followers as well as those not supporting dnc either, responded with DEFIANCE vehemently criticising: how dare he even mention that u.s. was established as a constitutional republic; as defined in the constitution document, that set the goal undisturbed pursuit of happiness not a goal to acheive democracy... democracy was never the goal nor even worth mentioning.

there was never a need to "mention to voters" that the voters have power. the PROBLEM with calling the goverment "representative democracy" is... that it is not one and "we must not tell a lie" as harry potter told the centaurs referring to umbridge. it is a republic. period.

i interpret the phrase "rank democracy" as ranks in army, "rank democracy can thwart that" referring to the levels in society who is a protected minority and who is not... the divisive rhtoric of dnc. who has authority over businesses like a higher rank... which is too much power. rnc stands for "manage with small government". rank could also mean "abused democracy like misused"... because:

even majority rule must not make laws to trample the "political minority who lost" the election. if they would misuse majority like that, it would be tyrrany... as we see dnc is already going that way: getting too much involved in businesses and limiting fuel production that caused reliance on imports truly weakening the u.s... but also controlling like totalitarian tyrrany.

noone was saying the senate dnc "is the minority" they have half and a vice president but equally the House is now "dnc the few". when lee said "excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few' did he say minority? nobody lied that senate dnc is minority. he meant, few, a small group controlling businesses. 

some suspect lee was planning to block an elected majority, sounds scary but that is the unrelated part. calling the u.s. a republic has nothing to do with blocking the election results. we ALREADY SAW when the College said biden won... senator lee-r did not block anything... it already happened but the dnc used fear mongering even misleading fears, even when biden was ALREADY not blocked... whatever will make rnc look bad... and afraid of democracy, because... dnc does not have ANYONE GOOD for whom to say look how good he is.

child Neglect OR Abortion are not related

Until recently i would never connect those two issues abortion with child neglect, but at least child neglect the kid lives, as i will explain. only recently a saw someone here TRY to justify abortion, to prevent child neglect so: first briefly we can test the claim:

a toddler terrible twos is Screaming about everything. shouted no no no about everything wrestles as much as he can; throws food everywhere and breaks stuff. now we test: a parents said "MY HANDS are my body my choice so i will clean the windows and rooms instead of feeding toddler and changing and bathing and cleaning the wrestler... does the excuse "my body my choice" work? that is called child neglect, a crime, and not her choice despite her body. 

"i do not want to be a SLAVE to the baby" so abort him... at age 2? we know that cannot justify at age two years nor at two days... nor the day of birth but... a minute before? the SAME baby that came out was the same one inside.

my point has nothing to do with religion just logic which can seem cold-hearted but is actualy the only way to be fair. a 14 week fetus is far more complex than a clump of cells and even three layers with different patterns and purposes is more complex than a clump of cells.

we will test each abortion claim with logic to be fair:

1 is abortion harmful? yes it harms the fetus every time. but ma danger is not every time.

2 is abortion painful? a fetus can feel in brain pain, like a child, long before it was born. maybe 14 week? nervous system. also even earlier the "burn reflex" localized reaction, even before the nervous system grows completed.

3 the fetus is NOT the mother body as EVERY cell testified the D.N.A. differs from ma and often the blood type differs from ma too. so undoubtedly even if female fetus a different body and undoubtedly human from the momemnt the "zygots" or whatever they are called combine into the human d.n.a. pattern with 46 or whatever chromosomes. not before join but when join it is human cells so cannot kill a human etc. 

4 birth defects, if we can be rational? if a two year old has birth defects we cannot "end its suffering" with our action and same baby was the same one inside, a day before birth. nothing changed about the infant at birth it was the same one and as above different d.n.a. from ma even if girl... and more obvious if male fetus not her body. i read a "heart tearing" story of abortion where parents wanted an abortion, for birth defects, but could not hold the corpse. huh? if you wanna hold the child let it live, born when born hold it? they could choose not to abort.

but it will die soon? that is not YOUR action. abortion is direct causal action killing it. and anyway such instances are RARE statistically among births, we cant allow all unwanted baby for such rare instances. i doubt making a law for rare instances.

5 the fetus of rape? ALREADY conservatives compromised, in a law that passed see below, but that does not justify the many abortions that are not rape.

i also have moral obligation to compare: a two year old, i cannot bear that my daughter needs to give weekly custody of my grandson toddler to the guy who raped her... can i prevent that for a two year old? certainly not and not even two days nor two minutes after birth... and again the SAME one outside was the one inside that came out in birth... and the same even a month before it came out, even then more complex than a "clump of cells" but ALREADY conservatives passed a law in The House compromising for instances rape and danger to mother, showing in action they are not uncaring to real danger to mother and real health care... but still the many unwanted, when not danger to mother, is not "health care of mother". and my argument is futile about after birth when both sides agreed. it still is worth mention for logic and to show that the conservatives and rnc are not as the pro-choice deceptively described them "uncaring for the danger to mother."

6 the PLACENTA is my body my choice", seems true but still the fetus is not her body as above. but what if i am a lady and my palcenta etc. is serving the fetus. my body my choice not to be a slave to the fetus... only if it would not die, but abortion kills it, therefore logic is same as after birth that claim does not justify neglect "my hands are my body my choice" to do other chores but not justify neglect, because crime neglect so must not neglect, same and worse than neglect before birth because the fetus will die. at least neglect it will live and still a crime certainly if the fetus will not live. a theoretical compromise would be to take out and put on life support? but i doubt that is practical so no option to kill the fetus unless danger to mother as above.

each of the reasons to try and justify abortion can be tested on the two year  old... even if we completely ignore religion, and two day old we see these do not justify when protected but the one that came out, born, was the SAME one inside.

7 the newest attempt i only heard recently later than the previous complaints, but this was new to me. but the same method: if i do not want the baby and i am forbidden to abort him then when i raise him i will feel resentment and that is trauma... to ma and the child too. that is PART of the truth but what about the other part? does that justify killing the toddler? to prevent its trauma? no option to kill the child after birth to prevent that same trauma. therefore logicly the same child that was born was the same one inside before birth... month before month until it was just a clump of cells before the mother knew it was alive and growing. 

so in the end the issue is not pro-life, although religion does motivate many, in contrast to religion i have shown even without any religion by logical comparison, that the issue is WHEN is a fetus more complex than a clump of cells. so even if pro choice in the first 4 weeks when ma does not even know yet, still logicaly must be pro-life from fifth week logically and if that is the goal then the first step can be: now change the law like french 14 weeks just for a year as adjustment and then in december 2024 to obey logic. 

god's Beard and Justice

 god's Beard and Justice

Some people think that god, if exists sees our teeny planet with its human ants like a kid with an ant terrarium box. but just because the first part is true, like ants, does not equate the child with god... despite children have terrariums.

if God did not "care about our messy sins" he would not teach a way "out of the mess and away from hell fires." instead religions teach he gave "fair warning" and sent teachers for people to "change direction and accept" the gift of grace by a certain defined faith that was sent. he did not abandon humans without messengers for guidancce. some claim, that he cannot possibly "be concerned with the actions and affairs" of each of a billion ants.

however then justice would be fake. the idea of justice is either the humans catch him or god will. "a god of vengeance, is yahweh" both teaching the human not to chase revenge... similar to bond in "for your eyes only" and also faith in the concept of justice.

in fact DESPITE the first part of the ant farm can describe us, that does not mean the second part equated accurately, kids have glass ant farm therefore god is the "delinqiunt kid" who shakes the terrarium. that is not how earthquakes start.

uncoubtedly an "infinite god" can notice any billions of people and every move whether neutral or benefit or harm or sins.

recall in the fiction world harry potter, snape and harry read each others thoughts... but infinite gods would not need magic to do the same... he knows our thoughts and the debate is will he punish for them or not. some say his mercy is to WAIT and if person does not ACT will not punish but others claim god will punish for thoughts too. easier than knowing thoughts is hearing anything spoken.

some think of god as the "car assembler robot" creating cars equally creator of life, planets and plants... we know about robots but we do not know if that describes the creator. a wise creator is more likely to send messengers for guidance if wise than let people blunder "lost with no direction" i refer to its the climb lyrics but can describe the alternative to prophet messengers.

i admit the planet LACKS the precision of a product assembled by the robotic car assembler... but that is due to random genetic mixing causing varied products including "ugly assymetrical trees".

i know that the orbit of the earth is a slight oval... relativde to its diameter and that the summer now we are MUCH FURTHER from sun thean in winter... and that refurted the "too hot too cold goldilocks" idea. the earh=ths atmosphere does trap heat DESPITE much further away than in winter we are not the "just right PRECISE distance from sun" because it does change and can change.

now we talk about the beard and name calling, dawkins on page 59 said "poor tom paine" was called names... the victim we should pity and snarl at the viciously harsh name caller but if so equally the "poor victim god" called names by dawkins and others "deinquint psychotic" on same page and many more in his books and lectures, "morbidly obssessed, ruthless of which some i bothered to demonstrate werre false accusations. well what ABOUT the beard of god?

one of the lists of psychotic is thinking "i am god" they stop "grooming" themselves. if so yahweh SEEMS to be psychotic because yahweh let his BEARD grow and by claiming "i am your god" yahweh exhibited the psychotic symptom of "they think they are god". the difference is, a delusion is when they are wrong about something impossible. only if we assume god was wrong can we say he had the delusional psychosis of saying "i am god" wrongly... "even after proving" he is not... but that assumed he is not real but if POSSIBLE that yahweh is god, as even dawkins admitted on his chart, that is neither deluson nor psychosis... effectively self-destroying his own sensational title.

in conclusion: we do not know if god "saw hallucinations, believed impossible stuff, thoughts out of control and stopped grooming" as above so believing god was pychotic is baseless name calling.

and if we should feel pity for "poor paine" page 59, the victim of name calling therefore snarl at the mean christian name-callers, then equaly pity the "victim god" who is mocked by athe-agnostics who are so harsh and mean. seeing the harshness should be enough to drive any thinker away from agnosticism that relied on lazily insulting using mocking and name-calling.

compare animals to Americans

 animals protect young kids.

i once tried to push a bird away from its eggs... it did NOT flee, from me, somehow the "birdbrain" knew to stay and block me from its eggs.

even before birth and also after birth, when other animals come near , or we do, we know animals are AGGRESSIVE,  FIERCELY  AGGRESSIVE to protect their kids.

if i tell ma, i just wanna pet your kitten , CLAWS SWING.

but american parents have lost even basic animal love. they do not FEEL the loss and pain related to the circumcision for which they PAY someone to cut a good piece off their kids. ignored that European know intact is better, but society is so used to it they lost the most basic instincts !!

so we must learn from animals and europeans must not cut,  circumcision and do not retract the foreskin, it should stay natural until nature decided.

potter stone chapter analysis and fan fiction

 rowling wrote an AMAZING story, created a wonderful world with dangerous adventures. i cannot do better but i can write a summary and add a bit of fan fiction. this time chapter by chapter

one: The Dursely family had a lone young son, named dudley. mrs. dursley, a blond named petunia, pretended that she did not have a sister. on a usual morning, Mr. Dursely, named vernon, who kept a mustache, started driving to his job. that was when he could not believe his eyes. he saw a cat reading a map? impossible! 

At work's break, he heard people talking about the potters, his wife's sister's family. after work he bumped into a man dressed oddly in a violet cloak. the guy spoke in unintelligible words like some nut, "dont be sorry. nothing could upset me today. you-know who is gone!" but he did not know who. He went home, and asked petunia about her sister so she was very annoyed. vernon wondered if the cloak guy had anything to do with his sister in laws "kind".  j

near midnight, on an empty corner, a man suddenly appeared. he was wearing long robes under a purple cloak. he flicked open a metal cigaret lighter and clicked. each click the light of a lamp vanished. in the darkness he sat by a cat that was now a lady, wearing an emerald green cloak. she also said "you know who has disappeared, after killing the potter family. only their son lived". the man, named albus dumbledor, replied that he arranged to bring that child harry to his relatives the dursleys.

they heard a roaring engine overhead. a motor bike fell from the sky. a giant rode it and sobbed about the potter's deaths. he laid harry on the doorstep. dum' clicked the darker once, so the balls of light flew back to the street lamps. in the morning petunia found harry on the doorstep. and ten years passed as harry's eleventh birthday neared.

analysis: the conversations here were mysterious and intended as a hook to cause curiosity to continue but it can be a turn off due to so much without a story so it can be a turnoff of uninteligible talk. even the cool magic which was wonderful was distracted by vague phrases that contained a story in broken bits.

finally a boy on a doorstep from midnight to morning can only be a true documentary because an imaginary story they would put the baby in the house. despite this one event that was real most of the chapter was fiction except the stuff both in the video and the book.

F fan fiction: i could not write a better story but i can be a hindsight critic. do not introduce magic motorbikes so soon. it is great but not in the first chapter with so much stuff that is hard to understand and not even mentioning it was enchanted.

chapter one: "at midnight, the dursley parents heard a baby crying, so they went to check on their son dudley. in his room they found he and a second child were crying. in shock they read a note: "Harry is your relative. his parents died, tonight, so he is your responsibility now." ma said, "we should bring the orphan to an orphangae." pa said "he will do chores" so they raised harry for ten years. chapter two." 

analysis: this would tell the dursley perspective. harry indoors with a brief mention of his parent's death without introducing magic yet nor contrasting the usual world with mysterious rejoicing and avoiding the mysterious talk, replaced by common conversation.

spreading by sword

 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.

jesus birth year and abortions

 

Jesus was born 2027 years ago

i expect the few intellectuals to panic and mock "dont you know what ad means?

i do and more.

we have 3 clues to identify the year of jesus birth.

jesus was born "when herod was king" so that gives us the possible years of birth. 2, jesus died when pilate was governor so we know when.

the book bothered to write he was "around age 30" yes with the word around.

we know from history that herod was king until 4bc so jesus birth is known at latest 4 bc maybe 5 or 10 bc?

we know from history that pilate started governing in 26a.d. TAH-DAH 30 years. 26ad-30=4bc

before 26ad is not an option because pilate was governor that year and started governing in 26 a.d. . after 26 a.d. also not an option because he was born during herod's kingdom before herod died in 4bc.

the clues indicate december 25 of year 5 bc by end of year before herod died in 4bc jesus was born. but earlier in herod's kingdom is not an option because around age 30 when pilate was governor and the gap as above is 30 years until pilate started governing.

if we would count from jesus birth the year number would be 2027 so we are not counting from jesus birth. if so even non christians can rejoice that they are not submitting to jesus the count is not from his birth anyway.

around 30 years later pilate started governing and ordered the soldiers to kill jesus 

abortion

did you know? a fetus can feel pain before it is born? many weeks before. we must not ignore the CRUELTY inflicting pain on another human when considering an abortion. details...

two types of pain cells. the nervous system can feel "pain in the brain" like a child around 16 weeks. ALSO the burn reflex feels pain even before nervous system to brain the localized system i mean the one that tells your nearby muscle pull your hand away from the burn even before your brain knows why the hand is moving, that is even before the nervous sytem is complete.