HISTORY NEVER STARTS WHERE THE ZIONISTS PLACE IT
Ahmed Zaki,
9/11 and 7/7 were more than what you say, although I take your point. The machinations of the worldly imperial spirit on all sides knows no bounds. That spirit has no problem using selective arguments rather than going at the root cause of all that ails humanity concerning which humanity has control – meaning could simply all agree to do otherwise, as in be peaceful and not self-centered. By the way, it is no mistake on my part to be mixing "worldly" with "spirit."
There are many people in the world in so-called high places who simply believe that everything is there for the taking and that the strong can have it for a while without consequences. They are sociopaths, all. They are wrong, but no amount of truth-telling sways them, as they believe such truth-tellers are fools.
I though, know there is righteousness for a reason that transcends. We are born clean slates and too ripe for temptation, but what we do matters far beyond the here and now. This is a test, a filter. There is no proving it to the sociopaths or others, as testing itself precludes proof. Stop testing, and things are different. It's analogous to wave particles. It is a quantum leap.
In addition, Arabic or other names do not prove whether or not one professes Islam. Pleading with me for an honest answer is rather insulting; although you don't know me, so I won't take offense. Also, professing Islam does not prove either way whether anyone would sympathize with terrorism. Let me be clear here, I sympathize but disagree. If that's a colorful position, perhaps anyone holding so ought to consider the semantics.
I supposedly run the risk in the U.S. of being designated some sort of potential violent extremists for saying that I sympathize. Well, I sympathize with the dupes who join the U.S. Marines too, so what are the powers that be to do with me but remain coy themselves and leave me to wage the war of truth against falsehood. They hate me, but they are stuck with me unless they want to risk God turning his back even further to them.
They are confused, and I have no problem saying it.
As for Muslim morality, that's a huge issue. We would have to define "Muslim." If you want to know whether or not I agree with Mohammed, I do not. I've read the Qur'an and find it severely lacking. Jesus preached and exemplified total pacifism. Mohammed claimed Jesus a true prophet but rejected Jesus's true message. That is no paradox. That is a pure error. All Muslims should look at it straight on in the absolute spirit of truth. Unfortunately, such statements on my part are intimidated away in much of the Ummah.
You want to know why I asked you if we agree on the particulars. If you disagreed, it would present a different course. There's nothing esoteric in it.
Let me say that every time I've ever attempted to engage a Muslim in a discussion that would lead to the root questions, I've never been taken up on it. I been told that delving into such would be harmful to simply getting along, but now I've presented something to you before such a position can be taken in a timely preclusive manner. In other words, it's too late to use it without proving my point by doing so. That's an afterthought on my part by the way. I didn't set you up aforethought.
Look, watch this whole video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid= 7057936494064976215
Then realize that I know all the ways that that video is starting history upon each point it attempts to make. The history always starts with the Muslims doing something that if it were true that the history starts there, those Muslims would look much worst than if the truth is told that the history never starts where the Zionists and their fellow Cretans place it – no offense to all Cretans. No doubt there are souls from Crete who are interested in the whole truth. I am using only one connotation here where I'm specifically referring to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" nonsense, and it is nonsense.
Some of the Arabs in that film have agendums that went unspoken. The Egyptian woman in particular presents a case study. One need simply study her mother's photo (deliberately included) to see much about which questions might be posed to derive the root motivations behind supporting the Zionists in their aim of destroying the religion of Islam.
Yes, in spite of the carefully chosen term "radical," they seek the destruction of the religion. I seek the peaceful conversion of Muslims. It's a totally different starting place. They see first the subversion of Islam to water down and sugarcoat Mohammed's zeal while also waging hot wars against Islam (as Mohammed had it in mind, which for me is the one and only Islam, just as what Jesus has in mind is the one and only Christianity). Then, continuing with the creeping ideological method, they will acculturate all "moderate" and "liberal" Muslims and finally see the death of Mohammed's spirit. It is an indirect, closed method. Mine is direct and open. It's a huge difference and all the difference in the whole of Creation really.
Lastly, on that video, it's only one wing of the Empire. There are others who will allow some sharia for instance with the same aim of then diluting it and twisting it into Western liberalism afterall.
Peace and truth and love are one.
Tom
P.S. I obviously answered questions posed that were deleted, but it's worth it.
- Technorati Tags: 7/7, 9/11, acculturate, Ahmed Zaki, Arabic, Arabs, Christianity, clean slate, connotation, Cretans, Crete, diluting, Egyptian, Empire, esoteric, ideology, Islam, Jesus, Mohammed, Muslim morality, paradox, peaceful conversion, quantum leap, Qur'an, radical, religion, semantics, sharia, sociopaths, subversion, sugarcoat, sympathize, terrorism, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, total pacifism, true prophet, twisting, U.S. Marines, Ummah, violent extremists, water down, wave particles, Western liberalism , Zionists
Tom Usher
Standing Comment, all posts and pages:
To all homosexuals and their supporters, condoners, promoters, accepters, confirmers, and the like:
Unless you have something completely new that hasn't already been refuted, don't bother. It won't show up.
Rehashing what has already been refuted is a waste of everyone's time.
I'm not interested in casting pearls before swine, giving the children's bread to the dogs, or rebuking a forever scorner.
Learn or go away: There is zero wisdom in homosexuality. Homosexuality is wrong. Nothing any homosexual or anyone else can say or do will alter it. No one needs the Bible to know it either. It's prima facie. There's no such thing as an unrepentant-homosexual Christian. There never has been and never will be. That's the way of it. If you don't like it, change.
Do site searches on the various topics concerning homosexuality to determine if your "point" has already been handled. Currently, I provide three different search methods. The "WordPress" search is still the most thorough.
The same can be done regarding militarism, capitalism, coercion, and many other main issues and themes.
TREATMENT, RUDENESS, POLITENESS, OFFENSE, TRUTH
Many times over the course of this website's existence, I've had commentators complain about how I've treated them and/or others. Much less frequently has anyone taken exception to those commentator's comments. I assume that's because for one, I appear to be holding my own.
Often, I have raised the fact that Jesus called certain people "serpents." I've often also mentioned how he cleaned the temple with whip in hand, not that he used it on anyone. It certainly doesn't say that he did, and neither was he charged with it in the kangaroo court of the serpents who ended up murdering him by proxy just for, among other wonderful things, speaking out and speaking truth.
If I say that those who are engaged in serpentine behavior are the New Testament "serpents," then why take offense at my saying it rather than standing with Jesus and me about it?
If others don't like it that I treat others or them the way I have in this regard, why don't they take it up with the serpents and/or their own consciences and God?
If I wanted to catch flies, I'd use honey. I don't want flies on this level. Human beings aren't to be on the level of flies. If the truth is bitter as vinegar, then ask yourself why and learn to taste it as sweet but not sickeningly so. Why attack the message and messenger, as the serpents did, and become a serpent by so doing?
The issue is not "name calling" on some bratty, childish level. When Jesus said "serpents," he was not being as a brat. His level was completely adult to adults and children. He dared say that the children understood the clear and plain truth before the adults who, afterall, had been abused and socialized by the serpents. He still calls adults back. Those who hear him and know his voice (truth) turn around and do the other required things together as well.
What is it for a human being to be more serpentine or reptilian than what God initially gave? What was and remains Jesus's point? What is the reptilian brain versus the vastly higher human brain with its cerebral cortex and frontal and temporal lobes and specific areas of altruistic sentiments and abilities? What are those higher areas before they are damaged, before the communication pathways to them and between them are diminished by evil that is always some form of abuse? How are those pathways reestablished or created where they never were in this fleshly life?
The snake lays its eggs. The eggs hatch. The snake parent doesn't nurture or raise the offspring. It's every snake for itself. Human parents and family are not designed to be that way. Humans hand down the learning of nurturing. Many people get better training than do others, and many people have a greater aptitude for learning and predisposition for the higher and highest virtues. Many are less abused. People can change for the better and best though, no matter where the starting point. They only can't if they don't — if they reject it.
Snakes, of course, also come in venomous varieties and in strangling varieties, etc., such that they have been attackers and even devourers of humans for eons, guilty and innocent alike.
Now, Jesus knew that most people could relate to what were, and still are, largely considered "good" parenting skills and "good" "family" relations. He regularly used those concepts to get people to consider the wider implications for the whole of humanity. He did know that many would refuse. He let them go. He didn't demand secular or false-religion legislation to rein them in with threats of violence and imprisonment. He was not and is not coercive. Even his Church is a voluntary place to be.
What he still teaches (through the written words in the New Testament and as those connect with the Old and also teaches through the Holy Spirit he definitely sent as he said he would) is, among many other things, that "good" is vastly better than has been commonly accepted and that real "family" is everyone left after all the rest have rejected the higher and highest good. He raised the standards far above the Old Testament and far above the "modern" standard.
The American Empire and the American people in general aren't even touching the hem of his garment, let alone even attempting to stand upright and side-by-side with him.
I point out that Jesus was, and is, a Real Liberal Christian. He is the one who brought back this censored truth that is the light. After he had spoken it and lived it and was murdered for doing so, the censors set about to re-censor it and did. They couldn't put it out though — couldn't completely extinguish the truth. I wouldn't be saying it now again with all credit to God, just as Jesus, if they had been able to completely block it.
I point out that each of those terms ("real," "liberal," and "Christian," along with "Church") are actually redundant terms — synonyms that are so close that they become one. The term "liberal" here is not the common usage, which common usage is a deliberate corruption of the term. There is no harm in real liberalism. There is no vileness in it. There is only beneficence. "Real" may be understood as the opposite of false-hearted, dark side, and dead of the Holy Spirit. Christian is both real and liberal in those senses. To arrive at living, doing, being those full senses requires what Jesus lives, does, and is in the highest. Finally, the Church is the whole.
Who are they who want to drag it down, censor it, work against it, lessen it, ignore it, etc.? Well, who sides with Jesus and who sides against him? Did the serpents side with him then? Do they now?
We call war-mongers "hawks." We call "peacemakers" blessed and "doves." Why do the hawks not take offense at "hawks" but do take offense at "serpents"? "Hawks" is not yet as telling to the general public, but I must tell you that all hawks are serpents. Why do some say, "Greed is good" but take offense at "serpents"? I tell you there is no difference between the selfish and the serpents. Why do people take offense at serpents when they do not take offense at homosexuality? I tell you the homosexual spirit also comes out from the dark side. It is a choice. It is harmful. Many are abused with it. Many never overcome it. Their very brain matter is transformed by it. Then they claim it is good when it remains confusion and definitely wrong and harmful.
Many arguments were put forth in support of tolerance. I understood that Jesus "tolerated," as in he did not execute wrath but rather told the truth and let the blind follow the blind (blind to the truth) into the ditch of their own making. I have watched while the movement has been corrupted into condoning what was once only to be tolerated. I have watched further while it has moved from condoning to promoting even to the youngest children to get to them before the truth does. I have seen evil at work, and I sound the alarm. I face censorship and other negative reactions for it.
As the American Empire claims to be a light to the world, it murders innocent babies by Hellfire missiles fired from predator drones controlled by armchair, video-gaming serpents in uniform. It tortures those who are not even suspects. It spies on its own without even probable cause or reasonable suspicion. It lies its way into wars for spoils and control. It neglects its poor, whom it treads down for the sakes of the superrich — for the sake of the massive flow of mammon from the bottom up (no trickledown — trickledown is a farce and always has been). All is claimed to be okay in America though — that America is headed in the right direction — because soon, even "don't tell, don't ask" will be a thing of the quaint past and homosexuals may be able to sleep together and have sex in the barracks with the "blessing" of the Empire while they practice murdering the innocent for the sake of homosexual, greedy plutocrats who own them and who, in turn, are owned by the dark-side spirit named by God and Jesus as Satan.
Whose side are you on? I speak truth to warn. I don't tell the secular government what to do other than occasionally to say what at least would be less hypocritical within their fallen, unenlightened system. I do so for spiritual reasons. What I want is the Christian Commons.
Now, if you submit a comment:
What you write here against the Real Liberal Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ will mark you in the Biblical sense unless you show that you have turned and are repenting in time to escape the damnation of your own choosing. That's the way of it. Don't be tempted by the devil to stand opposed to the call of righteousness. Overcome such evil temptation. Help others to help yet others to come to righteous behavior through-and-through.
Check out how even after reading this, people will still take it out of context and twist it to an evil end.