We crushed the fascists in WWII and we will do so again God willing!
Categories: Debates, English, Extremism, Islam, Islamophobia, London, Speakers Corner
33 replies
Trackbacks
- As a patriotic Englishman I’ll be there to refute the fascists! Inshallah. | kokicat
- Christian Fanatic Cerbie Refuted on Numbers 31:18 – Part II – The Quran and Bible Blog
Blogging Theology 
It’s time for one of those rare occasions where we see eye to eye.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Paul, you are the fascist for trying silence opposition to Islam. It’s not a phobia to dislike an ideology that is fundamentally about domination and dhimmitude.
You should be ashamed of yourself and self loathing of your country
LikeLike
Cerbie, reasonable people would have a phobia to your Bible. How old were those girls whom your god divided up among his hordes? Still waiting. You can keep running, but I’ll be hot on your trail. 😉
LikeLike
youre like a lost little puppy looking for attention. I humiliated you on that thread. You back for more little muhammadan?
You can run but you can’t hide!!
LikeLike
LOL, is that why you keep running like a frightened little dog? How exactly did you embarrass me? Because one translation of your Bible used the word “women”? Bwahahaha, you are a lot stupider than I first assumed!
LikeLike
One translation? You mean the one you cited to begin with 😂😂. You mean like ignoring the fact that the Hebrew text says women. You mean like your insistence of emphasising the clarifying noun to indicate they were young and virgins and not already married. But that they were still women.
And all this to try and defend mo’s rape of a nine year old?
And even then Christians aren’t under the old covenant of national Israel.
Yeah, you were humiliated. You should be ashamed of your prophet. You’re just too brainwashed to admit it publically. Deep down it terrifies you.
LikeLike
Hahahaha, how dumb are you? The Hebrew in verse 18 uses the word for children, you dingbat! And every translation describes the girls as children! How embarrassing that the best you can do is run away from the evidence and pretend like you refuted anything! What a loyal brain dead zombie you are to your pagan god!
LikeLike
“The Hebrew in verse 18 uses the word for children, you dingbat“
That’s dumb, even for you. You would be correct if the qualifier “women” wasn’t also there. In this instance it means “young” or “virgin”, to distinguish them from the married women.
But hey, you love being humiliated so why would we expect any honesty from you?
LikeLike
Hahahaha, is that what you found out in your frantic Google searches in the last couple of days?
Every translation describes them as young girls. Stop lying fo Jesus for once in your pathetic life. Face it. Your perverted book upholds the enslavement of little girls by your god’s marauding hordes!
LikeLike
Run away? You’ve been refuted numerous times now. You just repeat the same nonsense. Not surprising really, your example is the Koran!!
LikeLike
Lol says the brain dead zombie who doesn’t provide any references and who has yet to explain why every translation refers to them as children. No wonder you’re a Christian! Lies come naturally to you.
LikeLike
Look, I understand your confusion. The qualifier “who has never slept with a man” is meaningless in Islam because your men like to marry and rape female children. So you naturally think of kids. But for the rest of us, those not conditioned to imitate a child molester, we read the text, the text that qualifies the condition as “women” to mean shockingly, women.
Our insistence on this topic only proves how depraved muhammadans really are
LikeLike
You lying again Faiz? Look, I’ll help you out if you like. Look at numbers 31:35. This verse is directly related to verse 8. What is the Hebrew? Spoiler alert, “women”. What is the qualifier, “who has not slept with a man”.
So your little rant and attempts to islamise verse 18 to defend your pal mo doesn’t work. The term is used to distinguish the virgin women from the married women. Get that? WOMEN. Same in both verses.
Just face it. You failed. You lose. You’re humiliated.
LikeLike
Still stuck on verse 35? Verse 18 clearly describes them as children. Here is Matthew Henry’s commentary:
“The sword of war should spare women and children; but the sword of justice should know no distinction, but that of guilty or not guilty. This war was the execution of a righteous sentence upon a guilty nation, in which the women were the worst criminals. The female children were spared, who, being brought up among the Israelites, would not tempt them to idolatry.”
Face it loser. Your god allowed the taking of little girls as slaves.
LikeLike
Verse 18 not 8
LikeLike
Since you’re horny cus of the pornverses I quoted to you earlier I would like to ask you again: where in the Islamic sources does it say that Aisha was raped?
I’m waiting. And while you’re at it, don’t fantasize about donkey chipolatas to much as your filthy pornbook likes to talk about them or you’ll make a mess.
And I would also loooove to have a SINGLE sources anywhere from before the 20th century criticizing Muhammad (saw) for marrying Aisha at a young age. I’ll be waiting for that one too.
But since it doesn’t exist (cus no one cared or thought it was wrong) that means all crosstians must have been pedos. And here I thought the holy potato would prevent something like that. I guess he was on a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG holiday.
The xtian god has got to rest obviously.
Genesis 2:2
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
LikeLike
Only a filthy muhammadan pagan would think raping a nine year old is consensual.
LikeLike
sounds like you had one or two XXXX too many
LikeLike
I am no lover of organised religion full stop – but there’s a difference between challenging dogma and racism. Robinson doesn’t understand that difference.
LikeLike
Paulus,
Which law of the Bible did Muhammad(saw) violated when marrying Aisha(ra) ?
LikeLike
any religion thats not organized?
LikeLike
Darttimon
Only if one accepts the absurd premise that Islam is a race. You don’t hear critics of capitalism or socialism being branded as racists.
Muslims love the victim card. It fuels their ideological motivation as evidenced in the Friday sermons to mobilise the deen. Pathetic really.
LikeLike
Paulus read up on racism. You love to play the stupid card.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Muslims love the victim card”
Except that Western countries have bombed Muslim countries to oblivion you fucking whore.
So we have every right to play that ‘card’. You can shove your love card up your ass cus no one is buying that. Religion of love my ass.
I think it’s time to ban this filth from the forum. He can only come up with insults lately. Put the trash where it belongs guys and ban this pornbook lover back to his dungeon a la Emmanuel.
LikeLike
As usual the trash can’t come up with any evidence that Aisha was ‘raped’. NOTHING. Nothing but insults.
Pathetic. According to this pagan all crosstians were pedos and rapists for at least 13 centuries cus no one ever criticized Muhammad (saw) for marrying Aisha at a young age. The only reason this pile of crap says what it says is because it’s living at this time, kissing secularist ass.
Talks about slavery while its pornbook has the worst treatment for slaves you can imagine. Talks about violence while its pornbook has the most horrific violence you can possibly imagine.
But it’s all okey. Cus allegedly some pagan mangod was humiliated and hung naked on a giant cross and that magically takes away your sins and the responsibility of ALL your crimes as long as you believe in that.
Thank God christianity is dead and buried and doesn’t exist anymore and what we have today is just a cult kissing secularist’s ass. That’s about the only good thing the secularist movement has done.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cerbie still can’t explain why his god allowed the rape of young virgin girls. He still can’t explain why Isaac married Rebekkah when she was a 10 year old girl.
Here is a run down of Cerbie’s pathetic attempts to whitewash Numbers 31:18:
1. He tried to distance himself from the taking of virgins as slaves, saying that he does not regard Moses as a role model to follow. He didn’t argue that these girls were actually women and therefore it was not the same thing. Thus, he obviously realized that it makes his Bible look bad when little girls are taken as slaves.
2. But then he was the shown that God actually put a stamp of approval on the whole thing.
3. This is where he switched gears and made the pathetic argument that the girls were actually women. And this is where he is stuck at the present moment. Despite seeing the evidence and multiple translations, he is still trying to peddle the lie that Numbers 31 is referring to young women and not little girls.
LikeLike
You still telling lies, little muhammadan.
Here’s a recap.
1. Little muhammadan can only appeal to one noun in isolation from the context. He ignores the fact that the word women is used in verse 18 and 35. He ignores the fact that the very verse distinguishes between married women and virgins. Basically, he ignores everything and relies on semantic fallacies.
2. Little muhammadan does all this to try and defend muhammad raping a nine year old girl.
3. Little muhammadan defends muhammad by appealing to what God commands. This is shirk. Just another demonstration of the fact that Muslims actually worship muhammad.
4. Little muhammadan is outraged that Christians livenunder the new covenant. This takes away any perceived “leverage” this muhammadan perceives he has.
All in all, it’s just another fail in this little muhammadans attempted apologetics career. Then when he looses, he will just repeat his mantra, “you ran away”. 🤣😂
LikeLike
Bwahahaha, the little pagan doggie is trying his best to avoid discussing his backtracking on this embarrassing issue. Why haven’t you provided any references for your claims, you lying trinitarian? Hmmm, I wonder why?
It seems little Cerbie thinks he knows better than his own scholars, who have all translated verse 18 as “children”. But even if that were not true, one would hope that whatever is left of Cerbie’s brain would be able to logically determine who these girls were. Let’s try shall we? Who was killed during the battle? The men, so we can cross them out. Who was left? The women and children. OK, but then the women who had slept with a man were killed as well. So were the little boys. So who is left then? Come on Cerbie, say it with me. I know you can do it. The…little…girls…Yay, you got it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cerbie’s humiliation continues…Here we go again!
The book “Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy” (p. 260), quotes the church father Augustine as stating that “…in the proper usage of the Hebrew language all females are habitually called women”.
So there goes Cerbie’s pathetic defense against his Bible’s depravity. The “women” described in verse 35 were in fact young children, but the Bible still refers to them as “women”. It doesn’t change the fact that they were young, virgin girls.
And here is an admission from another Christian source:
“Ancient women had one career path: being wives and mothers… and they began these careers early in life by our standards — often as young teens. But this was how the economy worked back then… and it worked that way for most of human history. So, we should not judge those ancient societies by today’s more egalitarian standards” (http://www.mainsailministries.org/index.php/q-a-a-god-bible-theology-culture/415-why-did-god-spare-the-young-girls-in-numbers-31.html).
Oops, so they were young girls after all. Poor Cerbie seems to be alone in his deliberate twisting of the Biblical text.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Record it please!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
once great country indeed Muuuahahhaaa
LikeLike