..

[Gary Childress]

..

[phyllo]

I don't see the logic in that.

Why shouldn't people have differences?

[Gary Childress]

..

[phyllo]

If you look around, there is more peace than war. There is more reconciliation than conflict.

[Gary Childress]

..

[Age]

If you look around, there is more peace than war. There is more reconciliation than conflict.

Possibly, however, there are a lot of wars going on nonetheless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_o ... _conflicts

I mean, I understand that sometimes we have to fight. However, as an American who is not at war with anyone at this moment, I would prefer peace as much as possible and war as an absolute last option. But I can understand that as a Ukrainian (or else perhaps ally of Ukraine) that you are fighting against a Russian invasion.

If you, really, want to so-call 'resolve differences', then instead of, instantly or automatically, claiming that there is a "russian invasion", I suggest that you seek out why what is being done, is being done, or at least consider why what is happening, is happening. Then, and only then, you could and would actually 'resolve' 'the difference' that you are making and creating here.

[godelian]

Allah's children

Allah has no children:

“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a wife?” (Qur’an 6:101)

Allah is not a biological being.

He does not have a mother. He does not have a wife. He does not have a father. He does not have an uncle. He does not have a son. He does not have a daughter.

Ultimately, divine status will be claimed for all these family members. Instead of one God, we would end up with a complete tribe of gods.

In a next step, the emperor will also claim divine status by insisting that he is also a family member of God. That will give him the right to invent new laws and to overrule the laws of God.

While the purpose of God's law is to bring justice, the purpose of man-made law is to justify injustices. It always creates hell on earth.

Therefore, the staunch belief that God has no family members, is a necessity. We must reject the impostors and their fake laws. That is not optional.

Never burn incense for the emperor, i.e. the divi filius, i.e. the fake son of God Don't even say that it is the man hanging from that wooden cross who is the true son of God, and that the emperor is just an impostor, because they are both impostors.

[Gary Childress]

..

[godelian]

Then what is "Sharia" law if not "man-made" law? Every society has man-made laws.

Divine law is a synonym for immutable law. Laws promulgated by the emperor are not divine law, even if the emperor is considered to be a god, because the next emperor can still change them.

Monotheism is the belief that the emperor cannot invent new laws because Allah has invented all the laws already. Therefore, the emperor is an impostor and his laws are fake. I blindly believe this. I cannot be convinced of the opposite.

If the emperor wants to enforce his fake laws, fine, but then let him prove that he is willing to risk his life and die for what he believes in.

We believe in Allah while the emperor believes in his own fake inventions. We will keep engaging the emperor in battle, defeat him, and force him on his knees, while he implores our beloved Lord for mercy. Either the emperor kneels before the Lord, or else we will break his knees, and then he will still kneel before the Lord. The choice is his

[Age]

Allah's children

Allah has no children:

“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a wife?” (Qur’an 6:101)

Allah is not a biological being.

He does not have a mother. He does not have a wife. He does not have a father. He does not have an uncle. He does not have a son. He does not have a daughter.

But why is 'It' a "he", to you?

Ultimately, divine status will be claimed for all these family members. Instead of one God, we would end up with a complete tribe of gods.

In a next step, the emperor will also claim divine status by insisting that he is also a family member of God. That will give him the right to invent new laws and to overrule the laws of God.

While the purpose of God's law is to bring justice, the purpose of man-made law is to justify injustices. It always creates hell on earth.

Therefore, the staunch belief that God has no family members, is a necessity. We must reject the impostors and their fake laws. That is not optional.

Never burn incense for the emperor, i.e. the divi filius, i.e. the fake son of God Don't even say that it is the man hanging from that wooden cross who is the true son of God, and that the emperor is just an impostor, because they are both impostors.

Okay.

[godelian]

But why is 'It' a "he", to you?

Technically, in English, it should be an "it". But then again, it would sound weird because nobody refers to God as "it". Sex and gender only apply to biological beings, which God is not.

[Age]

But why is 'It' a "he", to you?

Technically, in English, it should be an "it".

Why 'technically'?

'It' is obviously not a "he", never could be, and never will be.

So, why 'It' is, still, being called a "he" only those that do it would really know.

But then again, it would sound weird because nobody refers to God as "it".

What do you mean by 'nobody'?

'I' have never referred to 'God' as any thing but 'God' or 'It' here. 'I' have also certainly never referred to 'It' as a "he". As can be clearly seen and proved True throughout this forum.

Sex and gender only apply to biological beings, which God is not.

So, again, why are you calling 'It' a male gendered "he" for?

[godelian]

Why 'technically'?

Traditionally, God is referred to as "he" in English. It is a linguistic convention that does not imply anything more than convention. If you want to go on a crusade to try to change this convention, feel free to waste your time. I am not interested, though.

[Age]

Why 'technically'?

Traditionally, God is referred to as "he" in English. It is a linguistic convention that does not imply anything more than convention. If you want to go on a crusade to try to change this convention, feel free to waste your time. I am not interested, though.

So, why you keep expressing a very obvious Falsehood you do not even know why you do it, correct.

And these people, back then, wondered why they could not find the actual Truth of things. The answer why is blatantly obvious. Well for some of us anyway.

[attofishpi]

...Christians have the same standards as Muslims..

Here ya go Peter, check out the what a Muslim on our forum thinks about your freedoms..especially note the bit in red

Divine law is a synonym for immutable law. Laws promulgated by the emperor are not divine law, even if the emperor is considered to be a god, because the next emperor can still change them.

As if Islam via its false prohet (a pedophile Arab warlord) has any Divine word of God. Islam was created out Mohammads desire for a following and an army (of Arab cunts).

Monotheism is the belief that the emperor cannot invent new laws because Allah has invented all the laws already. Therefore, the emperor is an impostor and his laws are fake. I blindly believe this. I cannot be convinced of the opposite.

If the emperor wants to enforce his fake laws, fine, but then let him prove that he is willing to risk his life and die for what he believes in.

We believe in Allah while the emperor believes in his own fake inventions. We will keep engaging the emperor in battle, defeat him, and force him on his knees, while he implores our beloved Lord for mercy. Either the emperor kneels before the Lord, or else we will break his knees, and then he will still kneel before the Lord. The choice is his

Why are you using the term 'emperor' when you truly mean all non believers of evil Islam?