The proper interpretation of the book of Jude

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

A conversation with Will Kinney on the King James, Preservation, and the Received Text

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Shariamerica

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

A few verses from the Old Testament shatter the foundations of Islam, from Hosea chapter 1

6 And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. 7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.

The whole point of Islam is that the people of God are saved by jihadic struggle and Mohammed said that the highest form of jihad is violent war to strike terror in to the hearts of the unbelievers.

8 Now when she had weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son. 9 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.

Another cornerstone of Islam is that the Jews have been rejected and replaced by the monotheist Arabs beginning with Mohammed.

But not so fast all you Muslims out there, God confirms his covenant love for Israel. An Israel which will consist of all those who believe and are saved by faith, just like Abraham, and are thus the spiritual seed of Abraham:

10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

Another pillar of Islam is that Allah has no sons, only slaves. This is also shattered by these verses. Perhaps some of the most important verses in the OT with regard to the claims of Islam.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Daniel Greenfield Moment: Behind the Terror

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Daniel Greenfield Moment: Palestine is Colonialism

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Does Jesus deny that he was claiming equality with the Father by comparing himself to the gods of Psalm 82?

John 10 v 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

Psalm 82:

God Presides in the Great Assembly

1 {A Psalm of Asaph.} God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

If this means that Jesus is denying his equality with God why are the Jews not pacified? Why don’t they say something like, “oh it was all a misunderstanding then; why didn’t you say that straight away. We nearly sinned because of you.”. They didn’t do that. Instead they continued to try to take hold of him to stone him.

Jesus restates his claim and the Jews continue with their efforts to take hold of him and stone him to death.

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Jesus clearly states that the reason why he is not blaspheming is not because he is not claiming to be equal with the Father, as the unitarians claim, but precisely because he is equal with the Father he cannot be guilty of blasphemy.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Can the context of John 17 v 22 be imposed upon the context of John 10 v 30?

Prayer for all Believers

John 17 v 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. 24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Islamic apologists superimpose verse 22 as a context upon the words of Jesus in chapter 10 v 30:

John 10 v 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

However this is invalid because the word of God has not been revealed in such a way that we need to seek for the truth in a different context than that in which it has been given. God does not speak with holes in his logic. He does not have a speech impediment. This is not the Koran where you have bits and pieces of a logical argument left isolated that have to be pieced together to make any sense out of them. Neither does anyone have the authority to tamper with the words of God in this way. Islam sees itself as a corrector of all other religions but it is only deceiving itself.

The reaction of the Jews shows that they understood clearly the context of Jesus words claiming unity with the Father. They understood Jesus to be claiming a unity of greatness with the Father thus making himself equal to God:

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

If Jesus was claiming a unity of purpose or some other harmless and lawful unity with God the Jews would not have reacted as they did.

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

The battle between Erasmus, DefendChrist and Faiz goes into the second round. Tulip joins the fray. The discussion about the sons of God in Genesis chapter six continues. Are they angels or men?

  1. LOL DC! You appealed to Hosea 1:10 in response to my challenge but you just exposed your own ignorance and shabby research! I asked where in the Tanakh does it mention “sons of God”, which in the Hebrew is “bene ha-elohim”. You quoted Hosea 1:10 which states:

    “Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God (bene el-hay)“.

    And as a Christian source states:

    “The term translated “the Sons of God” is, in the Hebrew, B’nai HaElohim, “Sons of Elohim,” which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament” (http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/).

    Try again, DC! Where in the Tanakh is the phrase “bene ha-elohim” used in reference to human beings?
    You know the answer. Just admit it. You don’t want your cheerleader madman celebrating prematurely again!! LOL!!

    Here is some more proof for the sons of God being angels. In the other other thread, you appealed to the church fathers in a desperate attempt to legitimize the trinity idea. Well, let’s see what they said about Genesis 6, shall we? I have a feeling you will soon disown these very same church fathers!

    St. Justin Martyr (c. 100 – 165): God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and rotation of the seasons, and appointed this divine law – for these things also He evidently made for man – committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate needs, and all wickedness. . . . (Second Apology, “How the Angels Transgressed,” #5)

    Tatian the Assyrian (ca. 120 – 180 AD): “[God]… committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by the love of women, and begat children who are those who are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and the punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, and incense, and libations, of which things they stood in need after they were enslaved by lustful passions; and among men they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and all wickedness.” [2nd Apology, #5].

    St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202): And for a very long while wickedness extended and spread, and reached and laid hold upon the whole race of mankind, until a very small seed of righteousness remained among them and illicit unions took place upon the earth, since angels were united with the daughters of the race of mankind; and they bore to them sons who for their exceeding greatness were called giants. And the angels brought as presents to their wives teachings of wickedness,1 in that they brought them the virtues of roots and herbs, dyeing in colors and cosmetics, the discovery of rare substances, love-potions, aversions, amours, concupiscence, constraints of love, spells of bewitchment, and all sorcery and idolatry hateful to God; by the entry of which things into the world evil extended and spread, while righteousness was diminished and enfeebled. [Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, #18].

    Tertullian (ca. 160 – 225 AD): For they, withal, who instituted them are assigned, under condemnation, to the penalty of death, — those angels, to wit, who rushed from heaven on the daughters of men; so that this ignominy also attaches to woman…Was it that women, without material causes of splendour, and without ingenious contrivances of grace, could not please men, who, while still unadorned, and uncouth and — so to say — crude and rude, had moved (the mind of) angels? or was it that the lovers would appear sordid and — through gratuitous use — contumelious, if they had conferred no (compensating) gift on the women who had been enticed into connubial connection with them?… Women who possessed angels (as husbands) could desire nothing more; they had, forsooth, made a grand match! [On the Apparel of Women, Chapter 2, “The Origin of Female Ornamentation, Traced Back to the Angels who had Fallen”].

    So, there you go. The church fathers, at least the “earlier” ones, believed that the “sons of God” were angels. Sorry to disappoint you, but your Bible says that angels copulated with human women. You may be embarrassed by it, but it doesn’t change anything.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Both expressions show that men or angels are the sons of God in the OT.

    Do your homework next time.

    The church fathers are not inspired.

    Like

    • Lol, oh please. You obviously haven’t done your homework which is why you are struggling to provide any concrete answers. I’m not interested in your personal opinions and presuppositions. It’s obvious that you will do anything to avoid the traditional interpretation because it is so embarrassing.

      I ask again. Where in the Tanakh is the phrase “bene ha-elohim” used in a clear reference to humans?

      And why does Genesis 6 differentiate between the “sons of God” and human women if they were really just men?

      Why do the authors of Jude and 2 Peter refer to angela in the same context as Sodom and Gamorrha?

      Do your homework. No one cares about your personal opinions.

      Like

    • Hi Faiz
      Correct me if I’m wrong but you wanted a single verse that spoke of Sons of God as humans, the verse in Hosea 1:10’says Sons of the living God (EL)

      Is EL a God different from Elohim or are we talking about the same God?

      Like I said before Jude is using events to describe the characters of false teachers.

      In 2nd Peter he is telling us the these false teachers are not going to escape judgement.

      Just like the angels who revelled…The people of Noah’s day…the People of Sodom. All of them were judged.

      You said…
      So, there you go. The church fathers, at least the “earlier” ones, believed that the “sons of God” were angels. Sorry to disappoint you, but your Bible says that angels copulated with human women. You may be embarrassed by it, but it doesn’t change anything.

      These are the same people who you say are forging scriptures etc now you want to use them to prove your case.

      So these fallen angels got married right?

      Who is God holding responsible?

      Like

    • DC, you naivete is showing. Surely even you realize that we must look at the original text, and not necessarily the translation? Why is it that “bene ha-elohim” is used consistently for angels? Even Christian sources agree with me, but you think you know better. Really?

      Look at it this way. If you think the phrases “bene ha-elohim” and “bene el-hayy” are interchangeable and mean the same thing, then can you show me a verse from the Tanakh where angels are referred to as “bene el-hay”? You already failed one challenge, so here is another one for you.

      Regarding the church fathers, the point is that your double standards are exposed. You were the one who said that you don’t rely on scholars to learn the Bible, right? So, why do you appeal to them when it suits your purpose and ignore them when they don’t? Why is it that so many of the church fathers (in fact, the “earliest” ones) interpreted Genesis 6 so differently than you?

      Also, your appeal to the church fathers for proving the trinity cannot be compared to my appeal to them for proving that the sons of God were angels. Genesis is much older than your New Testament, and thus the interpretations are older as well (in contrast, the church fathers lived centuries after Jesus). Those verses were already well known even before Christianity. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars found the “Book of Giants”, which also mentions angels copulating with human women. In fact, the fragments of the “Book of Giants” add that the angels even copulated with animals (!):

      “1Q23 Frag. 1 + 6 [ . . . two hundred] 2donkeys, two hundred asses, two hundred . . . rams of the] 3flock, two hundred goats, two hundred [ . . . beast of the] 4field from every animal, from every [bird . . . ] 5[ . . . ] for miscegenation [ . . . ]”http://www.gnosis.org/library/dss/dss_book_of_giants.htm

      I know it’s embarrassing, but the evidence once against you. Your Bible says that angels had sex with human women. Get over it.

      The authors of Jude and 2 Peter referred to the angels in the same context as Sodom and Gamorrha. A bit too coincidental, don’t you think? Why did they both refer to them together? If it was simply about rebelling against God, then surely they could have mentioned other acts of rebellion, not simply sexual rebellion, right?

      In the end, it’s up to you whether you choose to remain bound by your presuppositions or whether you want to look at the available evidence. The truth will set you free, but if you feel more comfortable living in a fantasy world, no one can stop you. As the saying goes:

      “You can’t teach old dog new tricks.”

      I find this statement to be very true when it comes to Christian apologists.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hey Faiz
      I already told you that Jude was dealing with false teachers characters which were…

      Rebellion…unbelief…sexual immorality.

      In 2nd Peter he was dealing with the judgement of the false teachers.

      For example…The fallen angels…the people in Noah’s day…and sodom. Judgement came to all of them the false teachers will not escape judgement either.

      Where does the bible say fallen angels had sex with human women? Form what I can see in the text these men got married…sodom’s sin is homosexual fornication

      Why did God destroy man off the earth what do you think the reason?

      Like

  3. “Why did they both refer to them together? If it was simply about rebelling against God, then surely they could have mentioned other acts of rebellion, not simply sexual rebellion, right? ”

    They didn’t mention just sexual rebellion.

    Like

  4. ok, you asked for it.

    5And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

    5I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

    Where’s the sexual sin here?

    Like

    • Oh Lord, are you really that naive? Notice that the author mentioned Noah and Lot as being saved. Noah was saved during the flood, while Lot was saved during the destruction of Sodom. Noah is mentioned after the angels, and Lot is mentioned after Sodom and Gamorrha. Surely, you can put two and two together?

      Like

  5. Sorry, I can’t follow your train of thought. Perhaps you can explain in more detail how you construct your argument.

    Like

    • It’s simple. The angels and the wicked people before the flood are mentioned, then Noah. Then the author mentioned Sodom and Gamorrha, then Lot. Do you see the comparison?

      Like

  6. There is continuity back to the creation which would be broken if the angels had intermarried with man:

    ” 7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, ”

    In other words there is no change in the constitution of man’s being.

    He is still just the same as God created him on the sixth day.

    Like

    • Who said anything about a “change in the constitution of man’s being”? The “daughters of men” were still humans and not all human women married angels and then had hybrid children. In fact, Genesis 6 clearly states the the “Nephilim” (the Giants) were in the earth in those days and “ALSO AFTERWARD”. How did they continue to exist “afterward”? The text tells us the reason:

      “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterwardwhen the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”

      If the “sons of God” were simply other human beings, then how did they have “Nephilim” children with the “daughters of men”?

      Like

  7. DC< you keep ignoring the overwhelming evidence against you. Genesis 6 very clearly states that angels (sons of God) had sex with humans. The early Jews believed that, and so did your church fathers. I’m afraid you have no where to run.

    “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”

    These were the “angels” who rebelled against God, because they left their heavenly habitation and chose to settle on earth and have unnatural unions with humans (and according to the Dead Sea Scrolls, with animals as well). Their rebellion was settling on earth and mating with humans, in violation of the order God had set-up.

    Why don’t you answer me challenge? I know you already failed one, but there is another. Can you show me where the phrase “bene el-hay” is used to refer to angels? Just one example will suffice.

    Like

    • Hi Faiz
      You use early Jews and church fathers when it suits you…they also believed in the two powers in heaven as well!

      Genesis 6:1-4.

      One question I need to ask is where in the bible does God call fallen angels…his sons?

      Gen 6:1  And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
      Gen 6:2  That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they werefair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

      Where did you read that what is happening in this text is unnatural?

      They got married where is the sexual sin here?

      …there were Giants in the land in those days, and also afterwards….after what? Obviously the marriage unions…these unions have no bearing on the Giants.

      If you want to believe demons have sperm and humans bodies to be able marry women then that’s down to you.

      The bible does not give the indication of any immorality taking only that place, but it does say wickedness and evil thoughts continually.

      You are putting that meaning on the text by what certain scholars have said, and that’s what you want to believe.

      I think I will rather go by what the text says than put my own meaning on it. Just the natural flow of the text is fine for me.

      It’s not about shame for me if it happened or not, it is more sad for the human race who have been attacked and ruined by the enemy.

      You still have to get around this verse…

      Gen 6:7  And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

      …I WILL DESTROY MAN WHOM I HAVE CREATED.

      I don’t think these verses have anything to do with fallen angels and women. This is a man in sin issue and its Gods decision to destroy all.

      Can you explain how Noah and his family are not infected by this weird mixture of the demonic and human relationship.

      Remember Faiz you are defending this belief!

      If you think I’m running away from answering you then the answer that is no!

      You are really in the twilight zone here

      Like

  8. “It’s simple. The angels and the wicked people before the flood are mentioned, then Noah. Then the author mentioned Sodom and Gamorrha, then Lot. Do you see the comparison?”

    I see the similarity that a group of people were disobedient and that they were punished.

    What is the other comparison?

    Like

  9. “If the “sons of God” were simply other human beings, then how did they have “Nephilim” children with the “daughters of men”?”

    If the nephilim were created before and after then there was no invasion of angels.

    Like

  10. The other problem is that angels are spirits but you cannot copulate without a body.

    The only way they could get this body is if God created it for them.

    In that case how could they be condemned and judged by God if he made it possible in the first place?

    Another problem is that angels have no feelings or emotions so how could they participate in human life in this state?

    Of course if you are coming from a religion that has it’s roots in paganism where everything is transformable then this poses no problem.

    Like

  11. “Erasmus, you are again inserting your own presuppositions into the text. What you need to understand is that the author of Genesis did not have the same theology as Paul.”

    But the writer of Luke had the same anthropology of man as Paul:

    Luke 3 v 38: Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

    Adam is the first son of God so all humans after him are potentially sons of God depending on whether they are chosen by God to walk with him.

    So those human beings in Genesis 6 can also rightfully be called the sons of God, just as the angels are, depending on whether or not they are walking with God.

    Thus it is not correct to say that the term sons of God can only be applied to the angels in the OT.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Pakistan: Muslims rape and murder Christian boy, police register death as natural and not suspicious

“The brutal nature of the crimes inflicted on Christians in Pakistan is the product of their vulnerability and the warped minds that breed in the nation. The levels of rape, sodomy and murder in Pakistan are reaching unprecedented levels. Christians and other minorities are a natural target as they are disenfranchised by the country’s laws and statutes, which confer second-class citizenship upon them.”

Indeed. And why are Christians second-class in Pakistan? Because it’s commanded in the Qur’an (9:29).

zeeshan-masih

“Faisalabad: Christian teenager murdered after being sodomized!,” by Wilson Chowdhry, British Pakistani Christian Association, September 16, 2016 (thanks toThe Religion of Peace):

A 14-year-old Christian boy was murdered and his dead body was left hanging in a tree in a place called Gosh Nagar, Faisalabad.

Zeeshan Masih had been visiting his uncle’s cattle farm at Shreejan Wala Dhera and gone out to buy a soft drink on the 23rd of August 2016, but never returned home. He was later found hanging dead from the branch of tree only a short distance from where his uncle’s buffaloes would go out to graze.

Despite medical evidence that Zeeshan had been sexually molested and some witnesses implicating two unknown Muslim men, local Police initially registered Zeeshan’s death as natural and not suspicious.

The Deputy Superintendent of Sadar Police constabulary, Saleem Warraich has stated that Zeeshan died of a heart attack, which he claims was induced by drinking a soft drink after eating fruit. The crass statement was made during a press conference with national media groups including Duniya News and Express News.

BPCA obtained a copy of the post-mortem examination. The part highlighted in yellow describes a dilated anus and other tell tale signs of sodomy. There is a belief that local Government Ministers and Police are in cahoots with a paedophile ring. Our officer met with the family and the local community and uncovered this more sinister plot. We now know that other children are complaining about sexual abuse and it is believed that Zeeshan was killed for threatening to tell his parents.

Despite forensic evidence and a few witnesses local police has made little progress towards resolving the case. After pressure from the BPCA, local church Christ Assemblies International and Bishop Farhad Bhatti of Pakistan Christian Post, the local police authority agreed to register a First Incident Report (FIR)….

Kanwal Amar Lead reporter for the British Pakistani Christian Association, said:

“This family are deeply traumatised. They have lost a son to an extremely heinous crime and the chance for them to get justice is limited. The manner in which police officers have attempted to camouflage this crime has hurt and angered them. They are calling for an independent inquiry into the handling of their son’s death.”

Wilson Chowdhry, Chairman of the BPCA, said:

“The brutal nature of the crimes inflicted on Christians in Pakistan is the product of their vulnerability and the warped minds that breed in the nation. The levels of rape, sodomy and murder in Pakistan are reaching unprecedented levels. Christians and other minorities are a natural target as they are disenfranchised by the country’s laws and statutes, which confer second-class citizenship upon them. In the main Christians are poor, illiterate and hold a pariah status culminating in an ineffectual response from statutory authorities when help is needed, who deem them worthless. No amount of laws can ever change a deeply entrenched community mindset that believes Christians are anathema – so crimes like this will continue and justice will fail time after time.”

COMMENTS

  1. خَليفة says

    September 17, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    Stop all US aid to Pakistan ( and all Muslim countries )

    Pakistan is a country made by the British with land wrongfully taken from India, this happened just months before Israel was re-established.
    The British got many things wrong, like “Arabic numerals” they are really ancient Hindu numerals.

    This kind of story makes me sick, and to think that US supports Pakistan, and this type of evil, with my tax dollars.

    • Wellington says

      September 17, 2016 at 5:51 pm

      The British didn’t make Pakistan. The British counseled against a division of British India. That malicious and highly overrated fool, Mahatma Gandhi, and others, for instance the Muslim leader, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, were the “creators” of the worse than nothing country which is Pakistan.

      Don’t blame the British here. The British, quite understandably, were sick, tired and financially destitute of keeping British India alive. Moreover, it really is a stretch to accuse the British of referring to numerals we use to this day as “Arabic numerals,” Most everyone in Europe is “guilty” here.

      No need to single out the British for this maladroit appellation, which appellation is just one piece of evidence of how the accepted historical record gets things terribly wrong at times, other examples being that American Indians lived in peace and harmony with one another until Europeans arrived or that the Crusades were nothing more than an aggression against the enlightened medieval Islamic world.

  2. Wellington says

    September 17, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    Theresa May, Justin Trudeau, Barack Obama, et al. will take no cognizance of this particular evil since their chief priority is continuing exculpation of Mo’s creed.

  3. overman says

    September 17, 2016 at 5:48 pm

    yes, Pakistan is a cesspit which should never have been taken from lndia. This story about a christian boy is terrible, but pedophiles are raping thousands of kids there.
    This is an hour-long documentary on the hidden shame of Pakistan – an eye-opener to the depravity polluting this country mainly because of the lslamic suppression of women.

    Pakistan’s Hidden Shame:

  4. Christianblood says

    September 17, 2016 at 5:57 pm

    Christians are being persecuted, targetted and murdered around the globe by muslims and according to the Vatican 100.000 Christians are murdered each year for their faith and no one cares. We are living in really Evil times when the Anti-Christ spirit is running the world, raising its ugly head, taking different shapes and manifestations:

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/02/vatican-spokesman-claims-100000-christians-killed-annually-because-faith.html

    • Wellington says

      September 17, 2016 at 6:15 pm

      No one cares? Many care, Christianblood, for instance me and a lot of other regular commenters here at JW. Problem is that the powers that be in the West, and in Russia too, are ready to make deals with the devil. And such people have the power to do so though not the right.

  5. Paul says

    September 17, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    Absolutely sickening, but not in the least bit surprising. This
    cult loves to wrap itself in the cloak of supposed conservatism,
    (leftists : just because medieval barbarians love to shake their
    fists in contrived anger at everything doesn’t make it so). The truth is
    that it’s extremely liberal – ‘liberal’ towards the most perverted and degenerate
    behaviour you can think of. Anything sick goes in Mohammedanism – paedophilia,
    “temporary marriage licences”, bestiality etc., you name it.
    That’s why you see unwashed degenerate weirdos demonstrating
    with the most virulent islamists.
    RIP Zeeshan Masih, poor soul. God bless.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments