INDISPUTABLE PROOF THAT OBAMA IS NOT A MUSLIM!

[irosie91]

For far too long the incredulous insinuation that Obama is a Muslim has circulated throughout the media. Accusers ranging from conservative congressmen to Joe the Plumber types have jumped on that band wagon with extreme prejudice in their minds and hearts. Limbaugh, Hannity and others have hinted at it with the purpose of inflaming their Obama hating audiences. Now that era has come to an end.

Faithful American Democrats and sympathetic Republicans rebutted that lie, but the myth still persisted...that is until NOW.

The evidence was right there for all to see. Obama did something NO Muslim would dare to do:

A MUSLIM WOULD NOT EAT PORK RIBS!
​

And you know they are not beef ribs how? Muslims are not supposed to kill other muslims but as you can see by the latest terrorist attacks that's not always the case.

Then there is Taqiyya
Taqiyya
In Islam, taqiyya تقية (alternative spellings taqiyeh, taqiya, taqiyah, tuqyah) is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.


So much for indisputable.

I know pork ribs when I see them since I was quite a connoisseur of them for years. Pork ribs are smaller and not nearly as wide as beef ribs. Musims killing Muslims? I am not so sure such a taboo exists at all. Christians killing Christians? There is a taboo against killing period but that doesn't stop them. Neither of those points have any valid connection to eating pork and I'm not so sure why you deflected.

Even more bizarre is the inclusion of Taqiyeh in this exchange . I did not see any coercion involving Obama voluntarily chomping on that rib. Nice try but the culinary proof that Obama is not a Muslim still stands!

On the contrary You said it was "indisputable proof" I disputed it with other possibilities thus proving your statement is invalid.

1. They could be beef ribs
2. He might be breaking Muslim protocol by eating pork. As I have pointed out others of different beliefs have been known to do things not allowed by their faith. I.E. Muslims killing Muslims or Jews eating pork.
3. I pointed out that he could be using Taqiyeh to prove to the American public that his is not Muslim. Should he actually be proven to be Muslim this would also prove him to be a liar and there would be backlash. He may have special dispensation to eat pork products under Taqiyeh.

Your comment that this proves he isn't Muslim is in error. For the reasons above he could be a Muslim and still eat pork. As far as being a rib connoisseur, I'll have to take your word on it as I have never eaten ribs beef or pork, I don't eat beef or pork of any kind and wouldn't have a clue what type of ribs they were from looking at them.

1. No, that rib in his hand is a pork rib. It looks nothing like a beef rib. But that point is really moot since I followed up with a link to his feast of pork-chops and beer at the Iowa State Fair.

2.Why would he attend a Christian church all those years if Islam is his favorite religion? The rest of your speculative nonsense isn't even worth responding to if his Christian upbringing and proven Christian association is considered.

3.Your initial position on Taqyeh seemingly has been abandoned. What happened to the requirement for invoking Taqyeh? You said that "Taqyeh is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution." Since you continue to assert and modify your definition on the spur of the moment:

again I ask: Does Obama seem coerced or in fear that his life is in danger while attacking that pork rib with zeal or enthusiasm? He does not have to eat pork for any other reason than he enjoys it. Your illusion falls flat....

Finally, at least you are honest in admitting you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to ribs. I do and again, the point is moot anyway considering the follow up post indicating he ate pork chops in Iowa.

1 I said I have NEVER eaten ribs so I admit I wouldn't know the difference by sight.

2. Because it's might be hard to make a presidential run as a confessed muslim.

3.That's wiki's definition not mine so if you don't like the definition take it up with them
.Taqiyya - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
What happened? After 911 and with a potential run for the presidency do you really think he could be president as a Muslim? Nope. I'm guessing that whoever dispenses dispensation of such things thought it a worthy enough reason to allow a muslim to lie to gain control of the "great satan". You have to admit that his handling of the ME is somewhat suspicious.

the "cast the first stone" story is from the book of
JOHN-----scholars believe that there was no actual
"JOHN" who wrote that book but that it is a collection of
writings. It is obviously a parable----not history

 

[JQPublic1]

For far too long the incredulous insinuation that Obama is a Muslim has circulated throughout the media. Accusers ranging from conservative congressmen to Joe the Plumber types have jumped on that band wagon with extreme prejudice in their minds and hearts. Limbaugh, Hannity and others have hinted at it with the purpose of inflaming their Obama hating audiences. Now that era has come to an end.

Faithful American Democrats and sympathetic Republicans rebutted that lie, but the myth still persisted...that is until NOW.

The evidence was right there for all to see. Obama did something NO Muslim would dare to do:

A MUSLIM WOULD NOT EAT PORK RIBS!
​

And you know they are not beef ribs how? Muslims are not supposed to kill other muslims but as you can see by the latest terrorist attacks that's not always the case.

Then there is Taqiyya
Taqiyya
In Islam, taqiyya تقية (alternative spellings taqiyeh, taqiya, taqiyah, tuqyah) is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.


So much for indisputable.

I know pork ribs when I see them since I was quite a connoisseur of them for years. Pork ribs are smaller and not nearly as wide as beef ribs. Musims killing Muslims? I am not so sure such a taboo exists at all. Christians killing Christians? There is a taboo against killing period but that doesn't stop them. Neither of those points have any valid connection to eating pork and I'm not so sure why you deflected.

Even more bizarre is the inclusion of Taqiyeh in this exchange . I did not see any coercion involving Obama voluntarily chomping on that rib. Nice try but the culinary proof that Obama is not a Muslim still stands!

On the contrary You said it was "indisputable proof" I disputed it with other possibilities thus proving your statement is invalid.

1. They could be beef ribs
2. He might be breaking Muslim protocol by eating pork. As I have pointed out others of different beliefs have been known to do things not allowed by their faith. I.E. Muslims killing Muslims or Jews eating pork.
3. I pointed out that he could be using Taqiyeh to prove to the American public that his is not Muslim. Should he actually be proven to be Muslim this would also prove him to be a liar and there would be backlash. He may have special dispensation to eat pork products under Taqiyeh.

Your comment that this proves he isn't Muslim is in error. For the reasons above he could be a Muslim and still eat pork. As far as being a rib connoisseur, I'll have to take your word on it as I have never eaten ribs beef or pork, I don't eat beef or pork of any kind and wouldn't have a clue what type of ribs they were from looking at them.

1. No, that rib in his hand is a pork rib. It looks nothing like a beef rib. But that point is really moot since I followed up with a link to his feast of pork-chops and beer at the Iowa State Fair.

2.Why would he attend a Christian church all those years if Islam is his favorite religion? The rest of your speculative nonsense isn't even worth responding to if his Christian upbringing and proven Christian association is considered.

3.Your initial position on Taqyeh seemingly has been abandoned. What happened to the requirement for invoking Taqyeh? You said that "Taqyeh is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution." Since you continue to assert and modify your definition on the spur of the moment:

again I ask: Does Obama seem coerced or in fear that his life is in danger while attacking that pork rib with zeal or enthusiasm? He does not have to eat pork for any other reason than he enjoys it. Your illusion falls flat....

Finally, at least you are honest in admitting you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to ribs. I do and again, the point is moot anyway considering the follow up post indicating he ate pork chops in Iowa.

1 I said I have NEVER eaten ribs so I admit I wouldn't know the difference by sight.

2. Because it's might be hard to make a presidential run as a confessed muslim.

3.That's wiki's definition not mine so if you don't like the definition take it up with them
.Taqiyya - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
What happened? After 911 and with a potential run for the presidency do you really think he could be president as a Muslim? Nope. I'm guessing that whoever dispenses dispensation of such things thought it a worthy enough reason to allow a muslim to lie to gain control of the "great satan". You have to admit that his handling of the ME is somewhat suspicious.

What is your response to the "pork chops and beer feast" in Iowa? Did you think I would let you ignore that?

1.Don't take my word for that rib in Obama's hand being pork... print the pic and take it to any barbeque joint....There you will find someone to validate my observation.

2. Obama attended Christian church way before he even thought of running for president. That was also way before anyone thought a Black man had any chance of running and winning. In light of the extensive background checks candidates have to undergo, I think it is an untenable proposal to suggest Obama is a Muslim.

3. It is not the definition of Taqyeh that I have a problem with it's your attempt to distort that definition to implicate Obama as a dissimulated Muslim.... forced to eat pork for fear for his life? Heh heh heh! Eating pig meat as a covert strategy to gain the confidence of Americans. Is that it?

 

[Marianne]

And you know they are not beef ribs how? Muslims are not supposed to kill other muslims but as you can see by the latest terrorist attacks that's not always the case.

Then there is Taqiyya
Taqiyya
In Islam, taqiyya تقية (alternative spellings taqiyeh, taqiya, taqiyah, tuqyah) is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.


So much for indisputable.

I know pork ribs when I see them since I was quite a connoisseur of them for years. Pork ribs are smaller and not nearly as wide as beef ribs. Musims killing Muslims? I am not so sure such a taboo exists at all. Christians killing Christians? There is a taboo against killing period but that doesn't stop them. Neither of those points have any valid connection to eating pork and I'm not so sure why you deflected.

Even more bizarre is the inclusion of Taqiyeh in this exchange . I did not see any coercion involving Obama voluntarily chomping on that rib. Nice try but the culinary proof that Obama is not a Muslim still stands!

On the contrary You said it was "indisputable proof" I disputed it with other possibilities thus proving your statement is invalid.

1. They could be beef ribs
2. He might be breaking Muslim protocol by eating pork. As I have pointed out others of different beliefs have been known to do things not allowed by their faith. I.E. Muslims killing Muslims or Jews eating pork.
3. I pointed out that he could be using Taqiyeh to prove to the American public that his is not Muslim. Should he actually be proven to be Muslim this would also prove him to be a liar and there would be backlash. He may have special dispensation to eat pork products under Taqiyeh.

Your comment that this proves he isn't Muslim is in error. For the reasons above he could be a Muslim and still eat pork. As far as being a rib connoisseur, I'll have to take your word on it as I have never eaten ribs beef or pork, I don't eat beef or pork of any kind and wouldn't have a clue what type of ribs they were from looking at them.

1. No, that rib in his hand is a pork rib. It looks nothing like a beef rib. But that point is really moot since I followed up with a link to his feast of pork-chops and beer at the Iowa State Fair.

2.Why would he attend a Christian church all those years if Islam is his favorite religion? The rest of your speculative nonsense isn't even worth responding to if his Christian upbringing and proven Christian association is considered.

3.Your initial position on Taqyeh seemingly has been abandoned. What happened to the requirement for invoking Taqyeh? You said that "Taqyeh is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution." Since you continue to assert and modify your definition on the spur of the moment:

again I ask: Does Obama seem coerced or in fear that his life is in danger while attacking that pork rib with zeal or enthusiasm? He does not have to eat pork for any other reason than he enjoys it. Your illusion falls flat....

Finally, at least you are honest in admitting you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to ribs. I do and again, the point is moot anyway considering the follow up post indicating he ate pork chops in Iowa.

1 I said I have NEVER eaten ribs so I admit I wouldn't know the difference by sight.

2. Because it's might be hard to make a presidential run as a confessed muslim.

3.That's wiki's definition not mine so if you don't like the definition take it up with them
.Taqiyya - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
What happened? After 911 and with a potential run for the presidency do you really think he could be president as a Muslim? Nope. I'm guessing that whoever dispenses dispensation of such things thought it a worthy enough reason to allow a muslim to lie to gain control of the "great satan". You have to admit that his handling of the ME is somewhat suspicious.

the "cast the first stone" story is from the book of
JOHN-----scholars believe that there was no actual
"JOHN" who wrote that book but that it is a collection of
writings. It is obviously a parable----not history

You may be confusing the book of John with Revelations of which there is some controversy as to who wrote it or which John wrote it. I.E. the Apostle John,John of Patmos, John the Elder. As far as I know there is no controversy as to the book of John which is a gospel and it's author as being John the Apostle of Jesus. It's not even close to a parable so I have no clue where you got that Idea.

 

[JQPublic1]

I know pork ribs when I see them since I was quite a connoisseur of them for years. Pork ribs are smaller and not nearly as wide as beef ribs. Musims killing Muslims? I am not so sure such a taboo exists at all. Christians killing Christians? There is a taboo against killing period but that doesn't stop them. Neither of those points have any valid connection to eating pork and I'm not so sure why you deflected.

Even more bizarre is the inclusion of Taqiyeh in this exchange . I did not see any coercion involving Obama voluntarily chomping on that rib. Nice try but the culinary proof that Obama is not a Muslim still stands!

On the contrary You said it was "indisputable proof" I disputed it with other possibilities thus proving your statement is invalid.

1. They could be beef ribs
2. He might be breaking Muslim protocol by eating pork. As I have pointed out others of different beliefs have been known to do things not allowed by their faith. I.E. Muslims killing Muslims or Jews eating pork.
3. I pointed out that he could be using Taqiyeh to prove to the American public that his is not Muslim. Should he actually be proven to be Muslim this would also prove him to be a liar and there would be backlash. He may have special dispensation to eat pork products under Taqiyeh.

Your comment that this proves he isn't Muslim is in error. For the reasons above he could be a Muslim and still eat pork. As far as being a rib connoisseur, I'll have to take your word on it as I have never eaten ribs beef or pork, I don't eat beef or pork of any kind and wouldn't have a clue what type of ribs they were from looking at them.

1. No, that rib in his hand is a pork rib. It looks nothing like a beef rib. But that point is really moot since I followed up with a link to his feast of pork-chops and beer at the Iowa State Fair.

2.Why would he attend a Christian church all those years if Islam is his favorite religion? The rest of your speculative nonsense isn't even worth responding to if his Christian upbringing and proven Christian association is considered.

3.Your initial position on Taqyeh seemingly has been abandoned. What happened to the requirement for invoking Taqyeh? You said that "Taqyeh is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution." Since you continue to assert and modify your definition on the spur of the moment:

again I ask: Does Obama seem coerced or in fear that his life is in danger while attacking that pork rib with zeal or enthusiasm? He does not have to eat pork for any other reason than he enjoys it. Your illusion falls flat....

Finally, at least you are honest in admitting you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to ribs. I do and again, the point is moot anyway considering the follow up post indicating he ate pork chops in Iowa.

1 I said I have NEVER eaten ribs so I admit I wouldn't know the difference by sight.

2. Because it's might be hard to make a presidential run as a confessed muslim.

3.That's wiki's definition not mine so if you don't like the definition take it up with them
.Taqiyya - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
What happened? After 911 and with a potential run for the presidency do you really think he could be president as a Muslim? Nope. I'm guessing that whoever dispenses dispensation of such things thought it a worthy enough reason to allow a muslim to lie to gain control of the "great satan". You have to admit that his handling of the ME is somewhat suspicious.

the "cast the first stone" story is from the book of
JOHN-----scholars believe that there was no actual
"JOHN" who wrote that book but that it is a collection of
writings. It is obviously a parable----not history

You may be confusing the book of John with Revelations of which there is some controversy as to who wrote it or which John wrote it. I.E. the Apostle John,John of Patmos, John the Elder. As far as I know there is no controversy as to the book of John which is a gospel and it's author as being John the Apostle of Jesus. It's not even close to a parable so I have no clue where you got that Idea.

What is this? a deflection conspiracy? Get back on topic or leave!

 

[Marianne]

And you know they are not beef ribs how? Muslims are not supposed to kill other muslims but as you can see by the latest terrorist attacks that's not always the case.

Then there is Taqiyya
Taqiyya
In Islam, taqiyya تقية (alternative spellings taqiyeh, taqiya, taqiyah, tuqyah) is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.


So much for indisputable.

I know pork ribs when I see them since I was quite a connoisseur of them for years. Pork ribs are smaller and not nearly as wide as beef ribs. Musims killing Muslims? I am not so sure such a taboo exists at all. Christians killing Christians? There is a taboo against killing period but that doesn't stop them. Neither of those points have any valid connection to eating pork and I'm not so sure why you deflected.

Even more bizarre is the inclusion of Taqiyeh in this exchange . I did not see any coercion involving Obama voluntarily chomping on that rib. Nice try but the culinary proof that Obama is not a Muslim still stands!

On the contrary You said it was "indisputable proof" I disputed it with other possibilities thus proving your statement is invalid.

1. They could be beef ribs
2. He might be breaking Muslim protocol by eating pork. As I have pointed out others of different beliefs have been known to do things not allowed by their faith. I.E. Muslims killing Muslims or Jews eating pork.
3. I pointed out that he could be using Taqiyeh to prove to the American public that his is not Muslim. Should he actually be proven to be Muslim this would also prove him to be a liar and there would be backlash. He may have special dispensation to eat pork products under Taqiyeh.

Your comment that this proves he isn't Muslim is in error. For the reasons above he could be a Muslim and still eat pork. As far as being a rib connoisseur, I'll have to take your word on it as I have never eaten ribs beef or pork, I don't eat beef or pork of any kind and wouldn't have a clue what type of ribs they were from looking at them.

1. No, that rib in his hand is a pork rib. It looks nothing like a beef rib. But that point is really moot since I followed up with a link to his feast of pork-chops and beer at the Iowa State Fair.

2.Why would he attend a Christian church all those years if Islam is his favorite religion? The rest of your speculative nonsense isn't even worth responding to if his Christian upbringing and proven Christian association is considered.

3.Your initial position on Taqyeh seemingly has been abandoned. What happened to the requirement for invoking Taqyeh? You said that "Taqyeh is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution." Since you continue to assert and modify your definition on the spur of the moment:

again I ask: Does Obama seem coerced or in fear that his life is in danger while attacking that pork rib with zeal or enthusiasm? He does not have to eat pork for any other reason than he enjoys it. Your illusion falls flat....

Finally, at least you are honest in admitting you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to ribs. I do and again, the point is moot anyway considering the follow up post indicating he ate pork chops in Iowa.

1 I said I have NEVER eaten ribs so I admit I wouldn't know the difference by sight.

2. Because it's might be hard to make a presidential run as a confessed muslim.

3.That's wiki's definition not mine so if you don't like the definition take it up with them
.Taqiyya - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
What happened? After 911 and with a potential run for the presidency do you really think he could be president as a Muslim? Nope. I'm guessing that whoever dispenses dispensation of such things thought it a worthy enough reason to allow a muslim to lie to gain control of the "great satan". You have to admit that his handling of the ME is somewhat suspicious.

What is your response to the "pork chops and beer feast" in Iowa? Did you think I would let you ignore that?

1.Don't take my word for that rib in Obama's hand being pork... print the pic and take it to any barbeque joint....There you will find someone to validate my observation.

2. Obama attended Christian church way before he even thought of running for president. That was also way before anyone thought a Black man had any chance of running and winning. In light of the extensive background checks candidates have to undergo, I think it is an untenable proposal to suggest Obama is a Muslim.

3. It is not the definition of Taqyeh that I have a problem with it's your attempt to distort that definition to implicate Obama as a dissimulated Muslim.... forced to eat pork for fear for his life? Heh heh heh! Eating pig meat as a covert strategy to gain the confidence of Americans. Is that it?

1. If he ate pork ribs do you really think eating a pork chop is a big deal?

2. You mean the race baiting rantings of Rev. Wright? Yeah he denounced him. Back ground checks of Obama? You mean like things his birth certificate and college records,how many SS numbers he has? Yeah that's going well.

3. It apparently is working well with you as you firmly believe he's not Muslim.

 

[irosie91]

I know pork ribs when I see them since I was quite a connoisseur of them for years. Pork ribs are smaller and not nearly as wide as beef ribs. Musims killing Muslims? I am not so sure such a taboo exists at all. Christians killing Christians? There is a taboo against killing period but that doesn't stop them. Neither of those points have any valid connection to eating pork and I'm not so sure why you deflected.

Even more bizarre is the inclusion of Taqiyeh in this exchange . I did not see any coercion involving Obama voluntarily chomping on that rib. Nice try but the culinary proof that Obama is not a Muslim still stands!

On the contrary You said it was "indisputable proof" I disputed it with other possibilities thus proving your statement is invalid.

1. They could be beef ribs
2. He might be breaking Muslim protocol by eating pork. As I have pointed out others of different beliefs have been known to do things not allowed by their faith. I.E. Muslims killing Muslims or Jews eating pork.
3. I pointed out that he could be using Taqiyeh to prove to the American public that his is not Muslim. Should he actually be proven to be Muslim this would also prove him to be a liar and there would be backlash. He may have special dispensation to eat pork products under Taqiyeh.

Your comment that this proves he isn't Muslim is in error. For the reasons above he could be a Muslim and still eat pork. As far as being a rib connoisseur, I'll have to take your word on it as I have never eaten ribs beef or pork, I don't eat beef or pork of any kind and wouldn't have a clue what type of ribs they were from looking at them.

1. No, that rib in his hand is a pork rib. It looks nothing like a beef rib. But that point is really moot since I followed up with a link to his feast of pork-chops and beer at the Iowa State Fair.

2.Why would he attend a Christian church all those years if Islam is his favorite religion? The rest of your speculative nonsense isn't even worth responding to if his Christian upbringing and proven Christian association is considered.

3.Your initial position on Taqyeh seemingly has been abandoned. What happened to the requirement for invoking Taqyeh? You said that "Taqyeh is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution." Since you continue to assert and modify your definition on the spur of the moment:

again I ask: Does Obama seem coerced or in fear that his life is in danger while attacking that pork rib with zeal or enthusiasm? He does not have to eat pork for any other reason than he enjoys it. Your illusion falls flat....

Finally, at least you are honest in admitting you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to ribs. I do and again, the point is moot anyway considering the follow up post indicating he ate pork chops in Iowa.

1 I said I have NEVER eaten ribs so I admit I wouldn't know the difference by sight.

2. Because it's might be hard to make a presidential run as a confessed muslim.

3.That's wiki's definition not mine so if you don't like the definition take it up with them
.Taqiyya - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
What happened? After 911 and with a potential run for the presidency do you really think he could be president as a Muslim? Nope. I'm guessing that whoever dispenses dispensation of such things thought it a worthy enough reason to allow a muslim to lie to gain control of the "great satan". You have to admit that his handling of the ME is somewhat suspicious.

the "cast the first stone" story is from the book of
JOHN-----scholars believe that there was no actual
"JOHN" who wrote that book but that it is a collection of
writings. It is obviously a parable----not history

You may be confusing the book of John with Revelations of which there is some controversy as to who wrote it or which John wrote it. I.E. the Apostle John,John of Patmos, John the Elder. As far as I know there is no controversy as to the book of John which is a gospel and it's author as being John the Apostle of Jesus. It's not even close to a parable so I have no clue where you got that Idea.

the whole story seem to be a parable from top to bottom---
Why would "the scribes" -------
bring an adulteress to Jesus and not to the Sanhedrin ---neither Jesus nor "the scribes" had any judicial function at
all.
FURTHERMORE----at that time the "scribes" were for all practical purposes unwilling to advise executing ANYONE----they were Hillel men. ---The story does not make sense as an 'event' ------it makes sense as a parable illustrating that
jesus was against stoning adulteresses -----which is consistent with the fact that HE was a Hillel man----the
Sanhedrin was NOT EXECUTING people for adultery
back then--------no one was-------except romans----but
certainly not jewish women in Israel/Judea. If I recall
correctly-----romans were very hard on any man who screwed one of their wives.

 

[Marianne]

On the contrary You said it was "indisputable proof" I disputed it with other possibilities thus proving your statement is invalid.

1. They could be beef ribs
2. He might be breaking Muslim protocol by eating pork. As I have pointed out others of different beliefs have been known to do things not allowed by their faith. I.E. Muslims killing Muslims or Jews eating pork.
3. I pointed out that he could be using Taqiyeh to prove to the American public that his is not Muslim. Should he actually be proven to be Muslim this would also prove him to be a liar and there would be backlash. He may have special dispensation to eat pork products under Taqiyeh.

Your comment that this proves he isn't Muslim is in error. For the reasons above he could be a Muslim and still eat pork. As far as being a rib connoisseur, I'll have to take your word on it as I have never eaten ribs beef or pork, I don't eat beef or pork of any kind and wouldn't have a clue what type of ribs they were from looking at them.

1. No, that rib in his hand is a pork rib. It looks nothing like a beef rib. But that point is really moot since I followed up with a link to his feast of pork-chops and beer at the Iowa State Fair.

2.Why would he attend a Christian church all those years if Islam is his favorite religion? The rest of your speculative nonsense isn't even worth responding to if his Christian upbringing and proven Christian association is considered.

3.Your initial position on Taqyeh seemingly has been abandoned. What happened to the requirement for invoking Taqyeh? You said that "Taqyeh is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution." Since you continue to assert and modify your definition on the spur of the moment:

again I ask: Does Obama seem coerced or in fear that his life is in danger while attacking that pork rib with zeal or enthusiasm? He does not have to eat pork for any other reason than he enjoys it. Your illusion falls flat....

Finally, at least you are honest in admitting you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to ribs. I do and again, the point is moot anyway considering the follow up post indicating he ate pork chops in Iowa.

1 I said I have NEVER eaten ribs so I admit I wouldn't know the difference by sight.

2. Because it's might be hard to make a presidential run as a confessed muslim.

3.That's wiki's definition not mine so if you don't like the definition take it up with them
.Taqiyya - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
What happened? After 911 and with a potential run for the presidency do you really think he could be president as a Muslim? Nope. I'm guessing that whoever dispenses dispensation of such things thought it a worthy enough reason to allow a muslim to lie to gain control of the "great satan". You have to admit that his handling of the ME is somewhat suspicious.

the "cast the first stone" story is from the book of
JOHN-----scholars believe that there was no actual
"JOHN" who wrote that book but that it is a collection of
writings. It is obviously a parable----not history

You may be confusing the book of John with Revelations of which there is some controversy as to who wrote it or which John wrote it. I.E. the Apostle John,John of Patmos, John the Elder. As far as I know there is no controversy as to the book of John which is a gospel and it's author as being John the Apostle of Jesus. It's not even close to a parable so I have no clue where you got that Idea.

What is this? a deflection conspiracy? Get back on topic or leave!

what are you going on about? There is no deflection conspiracy.n Irosie91 brought it up and I answered her. why is that hard to understand?

 

[irosie91]

1. No, that rib in his hand is a pork rib. It looks nothing like a beef rib. But that point is really moot since I followed up with a link to his feast of pork-chops and beer at the Iowa State Fair.

2.Why would he attend a Christian church all those years if Islam is his favorite religion? The rest of your speculative nonsense isn't even worth responding to if his Christian upbringing and proven Christian association is considered.

3.Your initial position on Taqyeh seemingly has been abandoned. What happened to the requirement for invoking Taqyeh? You said that "Taqyeh is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution." Since you continue to assert and modify your definition on the spur of the moment:

again I ask: Does Obama seem coerced or in fear that his life is in danger while attacking that pork rib with zeal or enthusiasm? He does not have to eat pork for any other reason than he enjoys it. Your illusion falls flat....

Finally, at least you are honest in admitting you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to ribs. I do and again, the point is moot anyway considering the follow up post indicating he ate pork chops in Iowa.

1 I said I have NEVER eaten ribs so I admit I wouldn't know the difference by sight.

2. Because it's might be hard to make a presidential run as a confessed muslim.

3.That's wiki's definition not mine so if you don't like the definition take it up with them
.Taqiyya - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
What happened? After 911 and with a potential run for the presidency do you really think he could be president as a Muslim? Nope. I'm guessing that whoever dispenses dispensation of such things thought it a worthy enough reason to allow a muslim to lie to gain control of the "great satan". You have to admit that his handling of the ME is somewhat suspicious.

the "cast the first stone" story is from the book of
JOHN-----scholars believe that there was no actual
"JOHN" who wrote that book but that it is a collection of
writings. It is obviously a parable----not history

You may be confusing the book of John with Revelations of which there is some controversy as to who wrote it or which John wrote it. I.E. the Apostle John,John of Patmos, John the Elder. As far as I know there is no controversy as to the book of John which is a gospel and it's author as being John the Apostle of Jesus. It's not even close to a parable so I have no clue where you got that Idea.

What is this? a deflection conspiracy? Get back on topic or leave!

what are you going on about? There is no deflection conspiracy.n Irosie91 brought it up and I answered her. why is that hard to understand?

I did not bring it up-----I answered the person who brought up
non kosher jews. ----btw----lets pretend that Obama THOUGHT the pork spareribs were-----camel ribs. ---camel
is Halal. How many men actually know one rib from the other?

 

[Marianne]

On the contrary You said it was "indisputable proof" I disputed it with other possibilities thus proving your statement is invalid.

1. They could be beef ribs
2. He might be breaking Muslim protocol by eating pork. As I have pointed out others of different beliefs have been known to do things not allowed by their faith. I.E. Muslims killing Muslims or Jews eating pork.
3. I pointed out that he could be using Taqiyeh to prove to the American public that his is not Muslim. Should he actually be proven to be Muslim this would also prove him to be a liar and there would be backlash. He may have special dispensation to eat pork products under Taqiyeh.

Your comment that this proves he isn't Muslim is in error. For the reasons above he could be a Muslim and still eat pork. As far as being a rib connoisseur, I'll have to take your word on it as I have never eaten ribs beef or pork, I don't eat beef or pork of any kind and wouldn't have a clue what type of ribs they were from looking at them.

1. No, that rib in his hand is a pork rib. It looks nothing like a beef rib. But that point is really moot since I followed up with a link to his feast of pork-chops and beer at the Iowa State Fair.

2.Why would he attend a Christian church all those years if Islam is his favorite religion? The rest of your speculative nonsense isn't even worth responding to if his Christian upbringing and proven Christian association is considered.

3.Your initial position on Taqyeh seemingly has been abandoned. What happened to the requirement for invoking Taqyeh? You said that "Taqyeh is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution." Since you continue to assert and modify your definition on the spur of the moment:

again I ask: Does Obama seem coerced or in fear that his life is in danger while attacking that pork rib with zeal or enthusiasm? He does not have to eat pork for any other reason than he enjoys it. Your illusion falls flat....

Finally, at least you are honest in admitting you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to ribs. I do and again, the point is moot anyway considering the follow up post indicating he ate pork chops in Iowa.

1 I said I have NEVER eaten ribs so I admit I wouldn't know the difference by sight.

2. Because it's might be hard to make a presidential run as a confessed muslim.

3.That's wiki's definition not mine so if you don't like the definition take it up with them
.Taqiyya - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
What happened? After 911 and with a potential run for the presidency do you really think he could be president as a Muslim? Nope. I'm guessing that whoever dispenses dispensation of such things thought it a worthy enough reason to allow a muslim to lie to gain control of the "great satan". You have to admit that his handling of the ME is somewhat suspicious.

the "cast the first stone" story is from the book of
JOHN-----scholars believe that there was no actual
"JOHN" who wrote that book but that it is a collection of
writings. It is obviously a parable----not history

You may be confusing the book of John with Revelations of which there is some controversy as to who wrote it or which John wrote it. I.E. the Apostle John,John of Patmos, John the Elder. As far as I know there is no controversy as to the book of John which is a gospel and it's author as being John the Apostle of Jesus. It's not even close to a parable so I have no clue where you got that Idea.

the whole story seem to be a parable from top to bottom---
Why would "the scribes" -------
bring an adulteress to Jesus and not to the Sanhedrin ---neither Jesus nor "the scribes" had any judicial function at
all.
FURTHERMORE----at that time the "scribes" were for all practical purposes unwilling to advise executing ANYONE----they were Hillel men. ---The story does not make sense as an 'event' ------it makes sense as a parable illustrating that
jesus was against stoning adulteresses -----which is consistent with the fact that HE was a Hillel man----the
Sanhedrin was NOT EXECUTING people for adultery
back then--------no one was-------except romans----but
certainly not jewish women in Israel/Judea. If I recall
correctly-----romans were very hard on any man who screwed one of their wives.

It's Scribes and Pharisees

here's the whole incident. The Scribes and Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus by seeing if he would violate the law of moses so they could accuse him. That's the reason they brought her to Jesus. I don't know where you get the Idea that this was the wife of a roman. Do you really think the Jews would care if a roman woman was committing adultery much less bring her before Jesus? Obviously she was a Jew.

John 8 King James Version (KJV)
8 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

 

[Marianne]

1 I said I have NEVER eaten ribs so I admit I wouldn't know the difference by sight.

2. Because it's might be hard to make a presidential run as a confessed muslim.

3.That's wiki's definition not mine so if you don't like the definition take it up with them
.Taqiyya - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
What happened? After 911 and with a potential run for the presidency do you really think he could be president as a Muslim? Nope. I'm guessing that whoever dispenses dispensation of such things thought it a worthy enough reason to allow a muslim to lie to gain control of the "great satan". You have to admit that his handling of the ME is somewhat suspicious.

the "cast the first stone" story is from the book of
JOHN-----scholars believe that there was no actual
"JOHN" who wrote that book but that it is a collection of
writings. It is obviously a parable----not history

You may be confusing the book of John with Revelations of which there is some controversy as to who wrote it or which John wrote it. I.E. the Apostle John,John of Patmos, John the Elder. As far as I know there is no controversy as to the book of John which is a gospel and it's author as being John the Apostle of Jesus. It's not even close to a parable so I have no clue where you got that Idea.

What is this? a deflection conspiracy? Get back on topic or leave!

what are you going on about? There is no deflection conspiracy.n Irosie91 brought it up and I answered her. why is that hard to understand?

I did not bring it up-----I answered the person who brought up
non kosher jews. ----btw----lets pretend that Obama THOUGHT the pork spareribs were-----camel ribs. ---camel
is Halal. How many men actually know one rib from the other?

IDK I wouldn't know one rib from another.

 

[Marianne]

1. No, that rib in his hand is a pork rib. It looks nothing like a beef rib. But that point is really moot since I followed up with a link to his feast of pork-chops and beer at the Iowa State Fair.

2.Why would he attend a Christian church all those years if Islam is his favorite religion? The rest of your speculative nonsense isn't even worth responding to if his Christian upbringing and proven Christian association is considered.

3.Your initial position on Taqyeh seemingly has been abandoned. What happened to the requirement for invoking Taqyeh? You said that "Taqyeh is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution." Since you continue to assert and modify your definition on the spur of the moment:

again I ask: Does Obama seem coerced or in fear that his life is in danger while attacking that pork rib with zeal or enthusiasm? He does not have to eat pork for any other reason than he enjoys it. Your illusion falls flat....

Finally, at least you are honest in admitting you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to ribs. I do and again, the point is moot anyway considering the follow up post indicating he ate pork chops in Iowa.

1 I said I have NEVER eaten ribs so I admit I wouldn't know the difference by sight.

2. Because it's might be hard to make a presidential run as a confessed muslim.

3.That's wiki's definition not mine so if you don't like the definition take it up with them
.Taqiyya - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
What happened? After 911 and with a potential run for the presidency do you really think he could be president as a Muslim? Nope. I'm guessing that whoever dispenses dispensation of such things thought it a worthy enough reason to allow a muslim to lie to gain control of the "great satan". You have to admit that his handling of the ME is somewhat suspicious.

the "cast the first stone" story is from the book of
JOHN-----scholars believe that there was no actual
"JOHN" who wrote that book but that it is a collection of
writings. It is obviously a parable----not history

You may be confusing the book of John with Revelations of which there is some controversy as to who wrote it or which John wrote it. I.E. the Apostle John,John of Patmos, John the Elder. As far as I know there is no controversy as to the book of John which is a gospel and it's author as being John the Apostle of Jesus. It's not even close to a parable so I have no clue where you got that Idea.

What is this? a deflection conspiracy? Get back on topic or leave!

what are you going on about? There is no deflection conspiracy.n Irosie91 brought it up and I answered her. why is that hard to understand?

I'll leave as this subject is worn out anyway. Clearly your original statement that Obama eating ribs is indisputable proof is wrong as it has been disputed with reasonable other options.

 

[ninja007]

you can clearly see Halal on the right side of the rib....

 

[irosie91]

1. No, that rib in his hand is a pork rib. It looks nothing like a beef rib. But that point is really moot since I followed up with a link to his feast of pork-chops and beer at the Iowa State Fair.

2.Why would he attend a Christian church all those years if Islam is his favorite religion? The rest of your speculative nonsense isn't even worth responding to if his Christian upbringing and proven Christian association is considered.

3.Your initial position on Taqyeh seemingly has been abandoned. What happened to the requirement for invoking Taqyeh? You said that "Taqyeh is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution." Since you continue to assert and modify your definition on the spur of the moment:

again I ask: Does Obama seem coerced or in fear that his life is in danger while attacking that pork rib with zeal or enthusiasm? He does not have to eat pork for any other reason than he enjoys it. Your illusion falls flat....

Finally, at least you are honest in admitting you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to ribs. I do and again, the point is moot anyway considering the follow up post indicating he ate pork chops in Iowa.

1 I said I have NEVER eaten ribs so I admit I wouldn't know the difference by sight.

2. Because it's might be hard to make a presidential run as a confessed muslim.

3.That's wiki's definition not mine so if you don't like the definition take it up with them
.Taqiyya - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
What happened? After 911 and with a potential run for the presidency do you really think he could be president as a Muslim? Nope. I'm guessing that whoever dispenses dispensation of such things thought it a worthy enough reason to allow a muslim to lie to gain control of the "great satan". You have to admit that his handling of the ME is somewhat suspicious.

the "cast the first stone" story is from the book of
JOHN-----scholars believe that there was no actual
"JOHN" who wrote that book but that it is a collection of
writings. It is obviously a parable----not history

You may be confusing the book of John with Revelations of which there is some controversy as to who wrote it or which John wrote it. I.E. the Apostle John,John of Patmos, John the Elder. As far as I know there is no controversy as to the book of John which is a gospel and it's author as being John the Apostle of Jesus. It's not even close to a parable so I have no clue where you got that Idea.

the whole story seem to be a parable from top to bottom---
Why would "the scribes" -------
bring an adulteress to Jesus and not to the Sanhedrin ---neither Jesus nor "the scribes" had any judicial function at
all.
FURTHERMORE----at that time the "scribes" were for all practical purposes unwilling to advise executing ANYONE----they were Hillel men. ---The story does not make sense as an 'event' ------it makes sense as a parable illustrating that
jesus was against stoning adulteresses -----which is consistent with the fact that HE was a Hillel man----the
Sanhedrin was NOT EXECUTING people for adultery
back then--------no one was-------except romans----but
certainly not jewish women in Israel/Judea. If I recall
correctly-----romans were very hard on any man who screwed one of their wives.

It's Scribes and Pharisees

here's the whole incident. The Scribes and Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus by seeing if he would violate the law of moses so they could accuse him. That's the reason they brought her to Jesus. I don't know where you get the Idea that this was the wife of a roman. Do you really think the Jews would care if a roman woman was committing adultery much less bring her before Jesus? Obviously she was a Jew.

John 8 King James Version (KJV)
8 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

I read the story---in the NT----I am explaining why it is untenable as an historic event------btw-the scribes IS Pharisees not all scribes are Pharisees but when someone is called a "scribe" or "teacher in the NT'---he is a 'Pharisee' ---Jesus was a Pharisee. Yes----it is a parable-
and----there was no "woman brought to jesus" ------it was a
theoretical case. Jesus provided the TYPICAL PHARISEE
ANSWER-------none of his Pharisee friends would have objected Here is a question for you------since you know
the NT well-------were the "money changers" Pharisees?----
was CAIPHAS the high priest of the temple a Pharisee?---a scribe? a moneychanger? a taxcollector?. If you know
the answers to these questions you will be getting close to
understanding the book a bit

 

[Penelope]

"Is it another Obama gaffe or a Freudian slip?"

Obama "My Muslim Faith"

My in laws are more moderate Jews and don't keep Kosher anyway. If a Jew doesn't keep kosher there is really no reason to avoid pork products as nothing they eat is applying to the law of Moses. Kosher doesn't just apply to the food it also applies to the dishes and form of preparation. Milk dishes can't be used with the meat dishes as milk and meat can't touch. Some Jews have two kitchens to keep Kosher,two sets of dishes,flat wear even dish washers to keep kosher. So if a Jew uses the same plate for meat and dairy he has already violated Kosher. Then again if you really want to get into it if a Jew doesn't stone gays,make animals sacrifices or stone adulterers then they also are not keeping the law of Moses. When was the last time you saw and Orthodox Jew doing one of those things? I've seen plenty in NYC and I've never seen them doing that, so even the most devout don't follow their religion to the letter. Been to Israel and didn't see them doing it there either.

no doubt you are a lovely girl Marianne-----but you know nothing about jewish law. In fact----jews were not stoning
adulterers even 2000 years ago or gays as a matter of policy---interestingly enough--Pharisee policy. Animal sacrifice
does not get done in the absence of "the temple"-----and for
all practical purposes was abandoned entirely ---almost 2000 years ago. If there still existed a law that a gay should be "stoned"----chances are SOMEONE would do it in Brooklyn

They stoned Steven in the Bible, and oh those Jewish men wanted in the worst way to stone Mary M, but Jesus put an end to that, I mean according to the Bible, and well the Muslim took from the Bible.

If steven was stoned------that killing was not because of a
criminal conviction.----
it was more like a lynching-----if you read the book you would know that he was attacked by a crowd that flung rocks at him.
There is nothing in the NT about stoning mary Magdalene---
you should not try to discuss books you never read

Whoever that woman Jesus saved from the Jewish men mob, some say it was MM. Yes Steven was stoned for blasphemy as Saul stood over watching. Read the NT sometime.

The story of the prostitute was clealy not history---it was a parable-----something like the stuff in the book of jasher.
In the time of jesus people could not just execute a person ---
the only judicial body that could do that was the Sanhedrin
in Jerusalem. If they did execute a person it would
be murder which would cause a whole big problem for
the whole village involved. Furthermore----Christian scholars insist that even the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was prevented by
rome to issue any order for execution at all. ---an idea I actually doubt but that is what they say. In any case----At that time no one was being executed for adultery or
prostitution because doing so was contrary to Pharisee
policy. ---and rome did not care. As for Stephen----at the
time during which the Stephen story took place-----36 AD
there was no actual Sanhedrin functioning that could issue
an order for execution. If the event took place---then Stephen was lynched

Well apparently they (the writers of the Bible knew the book of Jasher ), but the didn't want everyone to know Benjamin married at the age of 10. Since they mention it in the Bible its as relevant as the OT. (I wonder how old his wife was).

 

[irosie91]

"Is it another Obama gaffe or a Freudian slip?"

Obama "My Muslim Faith"

no doubt you are a lovely girl Marianne-----but you know nothing about jewish law. In fact----jews were not stoning
adulterers even 2000 years ago or gays as a matter of policy---interestingly enough--Pharisee policy. Animal sacrifice
does not get done in the absence of "the temple"-----and for
all practical purposes was abandoned entirely ---almost 2000 years ago. If there still existed a law that a gay should be "stoned"----chances are SOMEONE would do it in Brooklyn

They stoned Steven in the Bible, and oh those Jewish men wanted in the worst way to stone Mary M, but Jesus put an end to that, I mean according to the Bible, and well the Muslim took from the Bible.

If steven was stoned------that killing was not because of a
criminal conviction.----
it was more like a lynching-----if you read the book you would know that he was attacked by a crowd that flung rocks at him.
There is nothing in the NT about stoning mary Magdalene---
you should not try to discuss books you never read

Whoever that woman Jesus saved from the Jewish men mob, some say it was MM. Yes Steven was stoned for blasphemy as Saul stood over watching. Read the NT sometime.

The story of the prostitute was clealy not history---it was a parable-----something like the stuff in the book of jasher.
In the time of jesus people could not just execute a person ---
the only judicial body that could do that was the Sanhedrin
in Jerusalem. If they did execute a person it would
be murder which would cause a whole big problem for
the whole village involved. Furthermore----Christian scholars insist that even the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was prevented by
rome to issue any order for execution at all. ---an idea I actually doubt but that is what they say. In any case----At that time no one was being executed for adultery or
prostitution because doing so was contrary to Pharisee
policy. ---and rome did not care. As for Stephen----at the
time during which the Stephen story took place-----36 AD
there was no actual Sanhedrin functioning that could issue
an order for execution. If the event took place---then Stephen was lynched

Well apparently they (the writers of the Bible knew the book of Jasher ), but the didn't want everyone to know Benjamin married at the age of 10. Since they mention it in the Bible its as relevant as the OT. (I wonder how old his wife was).

The writers of the bible knew lots of stuff-----just as I do-----I know all about Robin Hood and Cinderella-----does that make
Cinderella the angel on top of the Christmas tree? -----gee you are dim.

 

[Penelope]

They stoned Steven in the Bible, and oh those Jewish men wanted in the worst way to stone Mary M, but Jesus put an end to that, I mean according to the Bible, and well the Muslim took from the Bible.

If steven was stoned------that killing was not because of a
criminal conviction.----
it was more like a lynching-----if you read the book you would know that he was attacked by a crowd that flung rocks at him.
There is nothing in the NT about stoning mary Magdalene---
you should not try to discuss books you never read

Whoever that woman Jesus saved from the Jewish men mob, some say it was MM. Yes Steven was stoned for blasphemy as Saul stood over watching. Read the NT sometime.

The story of the prostitute was clealy not history---it was a parable-----something like the stuff in the book of jasher.
In the time of jesus people could not just execute a person ---
the only judicial body that could do that was the Sanhedrin
in Jerusalem. If they did execute a person it would
be murder which would cause a whole big problem for
the whole village involved. Furthermore----Christian scholars insist that even the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was prevented by
rome to issue any order for execution at all. ---an idea I actually doubt but that is what they say. In any case----At that time no one was being executed for adultery or
prostitution because doing so was contrary to Pharisee
policy. ---and rome did not care. As for Stephen----at the
time during which the Stephen story took place-----36 AD
there was no actual Sanhedrin functioning that could issue
an order for execution. If the event took place---then Stephen was lynched

Well apparently they (the writers of the Bible knew the book of Jasher ), but the didn't want everyone to know Benjamin married at the age of 10. Since they mention it in the Bible its as relevant as the OT. (I wonder how old his wife was).

The writers of the bible knew lots of stuff-----just as I do-----I know all about Robin Hood and Cinderella-----does that make
Cinderella the angel on top of the Christmas tree? -----gee you are dim.

Oh if only they put in the Bible how Benji was 10 when he got married, had 5 boys then married a second wife at 18 and had 5 more boys, and at the age of 22 met Joseph, then the Islam haters couldn't say much about Muhammad hey.
The writers of the Bible, yes they created many stories.

 

[Stephanie]

LOL, did he really bring up Joe the Plumber?

What was Obama's name before he become Barrak Hussein Obama?

 

[irosie91]

If steven was stoned------that killing was not because of a
criminal conviction.----
it was more like a lynching-----if you read the book you would know that he was attacked by a crowd that flung rocks at him.
There is nothing in the NT about stoning mary Magdalene---
you should not try to discuss books you never read

Whoever that woman Jesus saved from the Jewish men mob, some say it was MM. Yes Steven was stoned for blasphemy as Saul stood over watching. Read the NT sometime.

The story of the prostitute was clealy not history---it was a parable-----something like the stuff in the book of jasher.
In the time of jesus people could not just execute a person ---
the only judicial body that could do that was the Sanhedrin
in Jerusalem. If they did execute a person it would
be murder which would cause a whole big problem for
the whole village involved. Furthermore----Christian scholars insist that even the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was prevented by
rome to issue any order for execution at all. ---an idea I actually doubt but that is what they say. In any case----At that time no one was being executed for adultery or
prostitution because doing so was contrary to Pharisee
policy. ---and rome did not care. As for Stephen----at the
time during which the Stephen story took place-----36 AD
there was no actual Sanhedrin functioning that could issue
an order for execution. If the event took place---then Stephen was lynched

Well apparently they (the writers of the Bible knew the book of Jasher ), but the didn't want everyone to know Benjamin married at the age of 10. Since they mention it in the Bible its as relevant as the OT. (I wonder how old his wife was).

The writers of the bible knew lots of stuff-----just as I do-----I know all about Robin Hood and Cinderella-----does that make
Cinderella the angel on top of the Christmas tree? -----gee you are dim.

Oh if only they put in the Bible how Benji was 10 when he got married, had 5 boys then married a second wife at 18 and had 5 more boys, and at the age of 22 met Joseph, then the Islam haters couldn't say much about Muhammad hey.
The writers of the Bible, yes they created many stories.

the "information" you cite is not in the tanach---which was written long before muhummad was born. It is very true that jews have been writing for several thousand years and have done so copiously. Many of the slobs among the illiterate and unwashed are suspicious of and dislike literate people. -----massive book burnings mark the history of the dungheap in which you were spawned. The hindus of India also have an extensive ancient literature. There are lots of disgusting dogs and sows who idiotically pick the sublime writings of
books like the RAMAYANA apart in order to satisfy their
primitive "needs". They also tend to be products of the
illiterate and unwashed dregs of the planet

 

[JQPublic1]

1. If he ate pork ribs do you really think eating a pork chop is a big deal?

2. You mean the race baiting rantings of Rev. Wright? Yeah he denounced him. Back ground checks of Obama? You mean like things his birth certificate and college records,how many SS numbers he has? Yeah that's going well.

3. It apparently is working well with you as you firmly believe he's not Muslim.

1. What a stupid discombobulated response. Your mind is wandering...time to say good bye.

2. What a leap! First you insinuate Obama is a Muslim and then you go off on a tangent about his Christian minister. Even if Jesus appeared on Fox News and said Obama is a Christian you would find some way to explain it away. My patience is growing thin...
3. The more empty headed nonsense you spew the more inclined I am to think you are nuts!

 

[JQPublic1]

1 I said I have NEVER eaten ribs so I admit I wouldn't know the difference by sight.

2. Because it's might be hard to make a presidential run as a confessed muslim.

3.That's wiki's definition not mine so if you don't like the definition take it up with them
.Taqiyya - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
What happened? After 911 and with a potential run for the presidency do you really think he could be president as a Muslim? Nope. I'm guessing that whoever dispenses dispensation of such things thought it a worthy enough reason to allow a muslim to lie to gain control of the "great satan". You have to admit that his handling of the ME is somewhat suspicious.

the "cast the first stone" story is from the book of
JOHN-----scholars believe that there was no actual
"JOHN" who wrote that book but that it is a collection of
writings. It is obviously a parable----not history

You may be confusing the book of John with Revelations of which there is some controversy as to who wrote it or which John wrote it. I.E. the Apostle John,John of Patmos, John the Elder. As far as I know there is no controversy as to the book of John which is a gospel and it's author as being John the Apostle of Jesus. It's not even close to a parable so I have no clue where you got that Idea.

What is this? a deflection conspiracy? Get back on topic or leave!

what are you going on about? There is no deflection conspiracy.n Irosie91 brought it up and I answered her. why is that hard to understand?

I did not bring it up-----I answered the person who brought up
non kosher jews. ----btw----lets pretend that Obama THOUGHT the pork spareribs were-----camel ribs. ---camel
is Halal. How many men actually know one rib from the other?

IRosie91, I have presented my case well. I have documented Obama's zeal for eating pork with a photograph and with collaboration from the media. Having only minimally scratched the surface of the preponderance of evidence out there to support me, I am prepared to go farther. But what is the incentive?
To appeal to closed minded people who will not accept a valid authentication is foolish. Let the evidence submitted thus far stand on its own merits and let the opposing view be seen for what it is: a weak pitiful
excursion meant to disrupt and destroy.