Unf**king Believable, A mosque to be built at Ground Zero

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by pavlosmarcos, Jun 8, 2010.

  1. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    that's off topic and makes even less sense in the context than your usual usage of it.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. kathaksung Banned Banned

    With the fake issue "Mosque on Ground Zero", they successfully skipped another 911 aniversary which people usually demand the truth. Do you find how they make "Mosque in Ground Zero" a noisy market of discussion and the "Burning the Kulan" a hot issue as well? The media rarely touch the topic of 911 truth even though it is a much more important issue.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Aren't you the guy who supposedly has a cousin who's being framed by South Korean authorities?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    The 9/11 mosque issue is made a charade when this issue is examined in India currently: a verdict will be issued tomorrow if the Babri Mosque should be rebuilt or the Indian Temple be rebuilt there. The court earlier asked for scientific archeological evidence a Hindu temple once stood under the Mosque - this has now been scientifically verified there was indeed a temple here, which Muslims destroyed and erected a Mosque here - obviously with intentional 20/20 vision.

    But there is no question a Mosque was dumped in Jerusalem on the site of the Jewish temple - there is immense archeological proof of this, and cross-nation [Rome] and cross-religion [Christianity] evidences. So why does the world keep silent of declaring the Mosque in Jerusalem as a crime against humanity?

    I suspect the Indian verdict will duck the issue and instead issue an escapist verdict to calm the situation. This makes its request for archeological evidence as a charade. But if the verdict protects truth, and declares the Mosque was a clear attrocity and a genocidal aspiration on the Hindus - it by default says the Mosque in Jerusalem should be removed to a more sacred Islamic site, and the current charade of a Mosque in the 9/11 site be deemed a bad idea of a similar resoning. The bottom line tragedy is how Christians remained silent of what was perpetrated in India and Palestine: belief does not transcend truth.
  8. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    You may fantasize that doctrinally feeding the population others are born of the devil as free speech - I call it Nazi porn pretending to be a belief, and fully responsible for the greatest crimes this side of the milky way. Only those who commit devilish deeds should merit such labels. How long was JC's nose - or was he a blonde Norwegian who knew no Hebrew with a latin name?

    Islam is emulating Christianity, al beit using different names - in case you forgot.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I happen to believe 'ALL' Christians are guilty for their post-W.W.II crimes:





    Where do Christians think they're going with such baggage?


    Both Hustons would have to give me the point.
  9. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    You are right, it is a point of tolerance, affirmed by the law to respect the stranger [one with another belief]. It is in polar contrast of the islamic law which says its a blessing to kill infidels [anyone who does not accept a new religion called Islam].

    Also, this law was not given to all nations, so they are not guilty of any wrong doings; it is prefixed unto you and pointedly at one people - perhaps to make one group as a reminder to others that ultimately the graven images are only facades for the real thing.
  10. IamJoseph Banned Banned


    There is no devil - there is only devilish deeds.
  11. Ja'far at-Tahir Grand Ayatollah of SciForums Registered Senior Member

    This thread is still going on? This is absurd, I propose a mosque should be built right on ground zero itself, literally. I also think it should be called the Osama bin Laden Institute of Islamic Studies. There, now you have something to actually bitch about it. Continue.
  12. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Although, were I to say "I AM PHIL GELBSTEIN THY DENTIST - I AM ONE - THERE IS NO OTHER!" that does not suggest that there is only one dentist in the world. It does suggest that there are no other dentists named Phil Gelbstein who look after your teeth.

    Similarly, were my wife to say "I AM THY WIFE, THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER WOMEN BEFORE ME!" The statement only makes sense because there *are* other women out there and I might two-time my wife with one or more of those other women. If my wife were the only woman on Earth, then her command would be met with an "uh, duh!" from me.

    I always took the statement to be in reference to a proscription against worshipping false gods, with, of course, some degree of overstatement on God's part.

    That said "Elohim" is, by the rules of Hebrew, a plural noun that the Torah otherwise uses as if it were singular. The obvious implication is that the singular "God" has some plural nature (which, as we all know, is because God is one and singular—but comprises the Holy Trinity).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    In Canaanite (Ugaritic) mythology, meanwhile, "Yahweh" was one of the seventy sons of the god "El". El divided the world into regions, one for El himself and one for each of his seventy sons. Then in the "Table of Nations" in Genesis 10-11, the world is mentioned as being divided into 70 nations (with Israel left unmentioned, so 71 total). That story is also very similar to Deuteronomy 32:8-9, which many scholars say uses the Table of Nations as a backdrop, and reads:

    When God Most High (El-Elyon) gave nations their land,
    when he divided the descendants of Adam,
    he set up borders for the tribes
    corresponding to the number of the sons of God (bene elohim)./1
    But the Lord’s (Yahweh's) people were his property.
    Jacob was his own possession.

    Deuteronomy 32:8-9 actually makes a lot of sense if you see it as version of the old Ugaritic story refering to the nations identified in the Table of Nations. That said, the Ugaritic legend was expressly polytheistic, with each of the divine entities having control over a region.

    /1 There is a debate over whether the text should read "sons of God" or "sons of Israel" (bene yisrael). The latter is based on the Masoretic text of the book, and the former is seen in texts from Qumran and in the Dead Sea Scrolls amongst others, but there is no clear authority that sets one text over the other as more authoritative, save for custom.

    To be fair, some treatments (which so agree that the correct version of the text is indeed "sons of God"), reject the notion that one must see the passage as some acknowledgment of Israelite polytheism (although I think those still mostly if not all acknowledge that there is a Ugaritic influence in play). See, for example, Michael Heiser's "Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God"
  13. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    I suggest there is a misconception of the text's import here. The focus in the verse is on 'CHANGES'. The question of who God is was posed by Moses, as would anyone having such a position. The answer of no changes refers to infinity. Also, there are many dentists - yet no other Gods. Further, where do dentists also claim to have created the universe? When we consider that both finite and infinite are terms introduced here for the first time, the texts cannot be reduced to ridicule.

    Not when one considers the laws allow no discrimination of those who are not monotheistic.

    It means PLENTITUDE [unlimited]; the verb in the same verse is in the singular. A plural violates Monotheism and other adjacent laws.

    These are bogus things from some sources. 'EL' = high one; sir; lord; big boss; the reason it is employed in the Hebrew as an authetnic, contemporary word of this region. Canaan, like Egypt, was never monotheistic, had no written books, while the Hebrew texts says the Israelites re-entered Canaan with the five Mosaic books in hand - after intriducing liberty and inalieanable human rights before a super power Egypt. Unless you can show the writings you present is pre-Hebrew. My bet is you cannot.

    I have never heard the term sons of Israel, only sons of Jacob when this was still a tribal people. It was changed to nation of Israel after the cencus in the desert.

    In the early days I am certain some Jews practiced some forms of polytheism, having picked this up from Egypt, and because all of humanity was once polytheistic and pagan. But the Hebrew laws are the most pristine form of monotheism there is, even introducing this premise. Christianity and Islam are far less monotheistic, attaching localised names as a condition. Monotheism is scientific and mathematic and will outpast all other belief systems.
  14. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    I think Muslims should remove their mosque from Jerusalem and up it to a more Islamic place. Not in India or NY either. No such thing as sacred Islaic soil based on robbery.
  15. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Not that I expect you to agree, given your obviously deep faith in Judaism, but okay...

    Initially, the Hebrew language is clearly a Canaanite language, as is Ugaritic, so it may not be correct to think of them as completely separate. In fact it is probably wrong to think that the Ugarit was a direct influence on ancient Hebrews. Rather Ugarit is representative of what Canaanites believed from the 15th to 12th centuries BC, and the ancient Hebrews were in fact Canaanites, so began in a similar place and evolved over time.

    There is no conclusive date in which the Torah was written that we know of, though some suggest it may have been written between 1400 and 1200 BC. That, however is speculation that assumes the Torah is true and its dates accurate. The earliest extant "paleo-Hebrew" that I know of is the Gezer calendar from the 10 century BC, and Hebrew writing developed further after that stage, as it was not then in its modern form.

    Ugaritic has existed in written form from the 15th century BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugaritic_language) and Ugarit fell some time before the Gezer calendar was created (likely at the end of the 13th century BC or thereabout). Plus, and perhaps more importantly there is ample scholarship suggesting that the Israelites are largely descended from Canaanites and most are not (as the Torah suggests) immigrants into the region that came out of Egypt (granted some may have, although there is no strong evidence for it).

    There is no reason to think that Canaanite religion and culture are separate from the paleo-Hebrew religion and culture, rather, it may have been a drifting apart of two traditions over time that nonetheless still manages to hold onto certain common religious memes.

    It is not my area of expertise, but one very good treatment was Mark S. Smith's The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, from Oxford University Press, 2001. It describes in the birth of Yahweh cults in the context of Canaanite religion predating Israel and Judah, but in the same region and argues that the Jewish monotheism evolved among local Canaanites (particularly those who were initially gathered in the southern Levant highlands) worship of a local patron deity which local rulership was later parlayed into Yahweh's being thought of as the sole true deity. The process was a slow evolution that essentially led from "my patron god is more powerful than your god" to "my patron god is the only god of any real power" to "my patron god is the only real god."

    Artifacts in the Torah, like the two separate stories of creation in Genesis, the pluralization of Elohim, and the conflation of Elohim and Yahweh. Then represent an effort by biblical authors to synthesize related but slightly different religious traditions that were still in practice around the time the Torah was written.
  16. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    The only correct thing you said is that the Hebrews were a Canaanite group. Re. Canaanite/uragith writings, I am astonishingly amazed how christian and muslims 'NEVER' ask correct counter questions of what they are presented with. These are the issues I asked myself:

    1. The Hebrew were a more recent group in this region than the Canaanites and Ugarites - so where is their writings?

    2. We have five alphabetical Hebrew books, which appeared suddenly and in an already advanced form of literary levels - where are the books you say predates the Hebrew? All that is clung to are some stray marks which they say resemble the Hebrew - that's it!

    3. The Hebrew texts says, stated incidently and not in a focused mode, the five books were completed before returning to Canaan: do you think those Israeltes were trying to lie here - for what purpose?

    4. Canaan was a vasal state of Egypt - the reason they rejected Israel's return. But Egypt too never spoke Hebrew - nor did any other nations.

    5. The text appears 100% correct the Hebrew bible was written in the deserts as stated, in between Egypt and Canaan: this is affirmed by the vacuum of Hebrew in both these states; none of them could have given writings to the Hebrew.

    6. The notion the Canaanites knew Hebrew before the Israelites is totally disproven by the vacuum of any such evidence.

    7. The notion the Canaanites were destroyed in battle as a reason for this vacuum is also false: two of the non-Hebrew canaanite groups sided with Israel in that war, and remained active for 800 years after Joshua - no Canaanite books before or after.

    8. The Hebrew introduced the letter 'V' - which the Canaanite, Ugarit, Sumerian and Phoenecian do not possess. I never even studied rocket science.

    Sir - its got nothing to do with religion or faith, only empirical logical thinking.

    I could give loads of proof and evidence. But your statement does not counter with any proof otherwise. That we do not see proof of a 3,400 year scroll is because these do not last that long, and there were no other alphabetical books around for some 800 years later. There is no writings with more historical alignment than the Hebrew bible anywhere on the planet. No such creature exists.

    Actually, it does not matter to me which came first - the Hebrew appeared late in the ancient scene. But the evidence says the datings of the Ugarit has no back-up proof outside of Europe's datings of it - no historical factors like names, kings, dates, etc in that writings, as we see in the Hebrew. No follow-up books every 100 years as with the Hebrew. Recently, the premise of Hamurabi being older than the Hebrew has been totally overturned - so much for Europe's proof for the world. I say, come back when the land spits out real proof.

    This is again an absurd conclusion. Monotheism and canaanite beliefs are universes apart.

    Those views are insane. There is no such word as Yahweh. This is a spelling by Christians of an anagram, like FBI pronounced as febi; or usa for U.S.A. The 4 letters are abbreviated by Jews to avoid mentioning a whole paragraph - it has nothing to do with Canaanites! You wont find any Hebrews or Jews mentioning that word ever.

    Suckers! There's no two stories. After the first chapter, the term CREATE never appears again - and the second chapter fastediously follows this rule. Examined correctly, the first chapter did not occur on earth; the second chapter appears after Adam was cast down to Earth. Or go and add up all the millions of dates and numbers of the five books and find a minute mathematical error. Or how do you explain the contemporary descriptions of two Egyptian cities and the first mention of the Philistines - exactly in alignment when they arrived in this region? No two stories - these are only desperations.
  17. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    America and Europe beware:

    The Indian court found that there was indeed a Hindhu temple in ruins but not standing [the same as what occured in Jerusalem!] under the destroyed Mosque, which Muslims have been denying 60 years.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    There are no datable copies of the Torah--the book (actually scrolls)--the 2nd century BC, and only in fragments. The oldest non-fragmentary one is from around the 3-4th century AD. That said, it is generally beleived that the bulk of the Tanach was compiled and wriotten down originally before 590 BC...but those copies did not survive.

    So did the Torah appear "suddenly"? Not according to the historical record, in which fragments found start in the 2nd century BC and keep accumulating over time.

    Where are the "books" that predate the Hebrew? Well, the clay tablets that spell out the Ba'al Cycle--in an advanced form of Ugaritic of literary levels--date to about the 12th century BC, hundreds of years before the Torah (again, unless you assume the Torah is correct in its own dating of itself, which could put it as early as 1450 BC or thereabouts, but I don't see any reason to assume the religious interpretation of its dates are superior to the archeological estimates that put it between the 8th and 6th century BC).

  19. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Dead Sea Scroll has 100's of copies of all 54 Hebrew scrolls; fragments are 3000 years old. No other writings can match such stats. Considering that the Jewish homeland was three times destroyed and the people dispersed, makes this a feat to be reckoned with. Yes/no?

    OK. But this does not say it was not written in the time of its narration, namely some 3,400 years ago.

    Fragments do not negate that this writings appeared in its given time; rather, it says there were numerous transit destructions of the Jewish homeland, because there is no proof it was written in stages. All of the fragments say, this is the world's first alphabetical book - which is a thread of verification.

    Those are not books, namely a multi-page continueing narrative. Also, these are not alphabetical, and better resemble the Babylonian cunieform:

    The other problem you have not attended is the canaanites were 100% pagan and worshipped divine man - this marks the antithesis of the Hebrew.

    There is no good archeological evidence that suggests there was ever an exodus as described in the Bible, and so really no objective reason to believe there was a "return" to Canaan. There is "faith" and I respect that you have that, and there is "tradition", but neither should be expected to convince non-believers in Judaism. [/quote]

    There is factual, indisputable evidence the Israelites were in Egypt and a war was conducted [The Egytpian stelle circa 3,3oo years old; the Hebrew writings' contemporary descriptions]. There is equally no doubt the Israelites returned to Canaan around this time and it was their sovereign state till 70 CE. I ask, which other nation can come up with such ancient proof to back their scriptures? - please name them or any? Consider that we have not an iota of proof of anything in the Gospels, as an example, and this relates to a relatively modern period when archives, scrolls and writings were commonplace - so what are you comaring the Hebrew proof with?

    While there is no archeological proof of chariots drowned in the sea [wood does not last such periods] and no relics found on the grounds - one cannot ignore that these lands were later controlled by Arab Muslims, known for their desecration of other peoples' imprints. This is highlighted by the destruction of Joseph's tomb, the robbery of Hebron, calling Moses a Muslim and Jews as aliens in this region; and the erasing of Hindu temples, etc, etc.

    There were no monotheist religions aside from the Hebrew. There is a marked absence in the Hebrew of head bashing dieties battling for supremecy. Your aligning of the Hebrew with different religious stories is unaceptable and baseless.

    These are enforced assumptions with no back up, thus you cannot submit this nonesense.

    This is a widespread misrepresentation of the text and its meaning. The Noah story by its text [not anyone's opinion], says it refers to Noah's possessions and household only [thus only domestic animals are listed]. This was a regional flood, and the notion of being a global flood is acceptable: at this time people never ventured outside their towns throughout their lives, and this was their world. Tasmania and Norway did not exist at this time. This marks the astonishing autheticity of the Hebrew writings - seen from the POV of the poeples it describes. Why not focus on the historically vindicated stats seen in this story instead - like the first mention of Mount Ararat in its exact location; or the 'NAMES' listed in the generation of Noah - all authenticated as belonging to the correctly nominated dating?

    It does not matter if Hebrew came from Canaanite - a logical premise, and one which still validates the anciency of the Hebrew. But I can list an array of facts which negate such a view - otherwise why would I dispute it? How do you explain the vacuum of any other alphabetical books - based on your premise those writings predated the Hebrew? How do you account for only the Hebrew possessing the 'V' letter? A host of similar issues arise when the correct questions are asked.

    But there is evidence. See above. More:

    The Tel Dan find established King David as a true historical figure. David is a mere 250 years from Moses, and his Psalms mention Moses numerously and his poems align with the Mosaic text narratives totally. David established Jerusalem as the Capital - a city mentioned as sacred and poignant some 700 times in the Hebrew bible. Connect the dots!

    False! In a proper sense you have to come up with archelogical proof, not assumed, way out theories which are baseless. Your usage of 'proper sense'; 'asuming' 'we can conclude' are totally unacceptable here.

    I will be more impressed with a Ugarit relic older than the Hebrew books than your term of 'very likely'.

    This factor proves my case, not yours. It says that Hebrew came from a language predating the ones you mention, and that those langages also came from a predating source. Conclusion: Hebrew was not a deritive of Canaanite or Uragit.

    As I said before, it is logical to say Hebrew came via an osmosis of different predating languages, especially if the Hebrew emerged late in the ancient world. But the facts we have do not support this normative premise. The facts says, yes, the Hebrew does appear suddenly and in an already advanced mode of writings, compared to the nations which are much older. In fact, we have no similar advanced, alphabetical books 800 years after the Hebrew emerged. The total vacuum is a great mystery, and can be changed only when real relics emerge, not by assumptions with no back up at all.

    No, there is no such lierature. We are talking about alphabetical, historical books - not stray tomb stone epitaphs with no dates on it, and commercial bits of writings, nor picture writings on pyramids. This marks the difference if the Hebrew with all other nations's writings.

    Those do not qualify. There is no dispute that picture writings predate Hebrew. You have to come up with a similar alphabetical historic book - you cannot. Why is that?

    But the Hebrew at no time aligns with sun worship - yet you posit an alliance here?!

    Not so. The world pronounces Abraham/Ibrahim with a B; the original is with a V: AVraham. The B is latin/Phoenecian/Arabic. Also, most European encyclopedia attributes the Greek as a derivitive of Phoenecian, which is false: the Josephus documents says the Greeks got their alpha beta from the Hebrew alef bet when they became the first to translate the Hebrew bible in 300 BCE. I accept the Josephus premise because it is written earlier than European writings; is indigenous to the region; and because we have no Greek alphabetical writings before 300 BCE.

    But the facts contradct your premise, which you keeo ignoring.

    Understand that if I agreed with you, it would only prove the authenticity of the Hebrew being ancient and allied to its ancient times. But the facts contradict this view. Unless you can come up with advanced, historically based, alphabetical books older than the Hebrew - you lose. With no rational excuses applying.

    Last edited: Oct 1, 2010
  20. Ja'far at-Tahir Grand Ayatollah of SciForums Registered Senior Member

    Keep bitching and we'll tear that wall down too. Masjids on every corner, we're taking over, what're you gonna do about it? Nothing, that's right.
  21. keith1 Guest

    "...(National) is Iraq's first Baptist congregation and one of at least seven new Christian evangelical churches established in Baghdad in the past two years..."

    "...Abu Ghaith has now left Iran for Afghanistan. “He won’t stay there for long,” one US intelligence official surmised, “because he knows he will be hunted...”

    Saddam's Iraq is gone. The Mujaheddin's Afghanistan is gone. A mosque in NY isn't going to bring them back.
  22. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Keep trying - get some more nations to back your war of genocide, your past efforts have been an embarrassment. However, I give you 3 out of 10, instead of zero: you never denied a mosque was dumped in the Jewish Capital and in India. I say to the Hindus - Israel is a light unto the nations.
  23. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Israel has correctly warned America, for which she is obligated to: after all America is a Zionist Plot [discovered by a Jew] and a Jew penned the hymn, GOD BLESS AMERICA.

    Bush errer greatly by going to the Afghan hills instead of directly to the terror factories in Arabia. 3000 9/11 victims are crying out from their graves. I say, erect a church in Mecca Square instead. Saudi Arabia is a ficticious state created 100 years ago on oil borders. Unlike Israel.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page