The Inherent Wrong Within Defending Against Savage Hate

Al Bush – [shared link] Good enough for Cliven? Good enough for everyone.

Malik Shabazz to Black Panthers: 2015 Time to Build Army, Go to Gun Range

Quentin Afrouk - No excuse for extremism of any kind Al. Two wrongs don't make a right.

D Lee Navin - With all the white supremacist "armies" militia that exist and their rights to form organizations, then it is just as right for the Blacks to form militias. I don't like any of them, but I can understand why the Black Panthers would like to build themselves up..... It is like we are living back in the 70s.......

Andrew Gamson - See? I agree with Quentin Afrouk...two wrongs dont make a right but two Wrights made an airplane.......but I digress. The issue is that the government and police need to keep an eye on both sides of the extremes of the political wings.....the danger there is palpable.

Robert Hunter - Traditionally the police are more tolerant of white right wingers with guns.

Chris Scruton - Armed black panthers in the 60s was what motivated Republicans of the day to favor gun control.

Amy Sheridan - Fair is fair

Debatenn Ufaith - I told you this isnt going to end well

Muhammad Rasheed - Assassinating black leaders in the 60s was what motivated the black youth of the day to favor gun control.

Chris Scruton - I think Louis Farrakhan has a point. (Unfortunately he tends to jab himself with it)

Muhammad Rasheed - I have no idea what Farrakhan's point is; I'm an orthodox Muslim. 

Top notch stereotyping you performed there. I score it a 9.2

Muhammad Rasheed - Quentin Afrouk wrote: "No excuse for extremism of any kind Al. Two wrongs don't make a right." 

Self defense is wrong? In what way? You don't believe in defending yourself if someone burns a cross on your lawn, drags you out of the house and hangs you from a tree (or burns you alive) because your existence threatens their dominant social status? Tell me how defending yourself against a traditional psychotic evil is wrong?

Chris Scruton - No, seriously.I think Farrakhan is basically saying black people have to do it on their own. His militancy might get over the top, but I think he's correct on the bigger issue.Because there's a lot of racism in this country.

Muhammad Rasheed - Andrew Gamson wrote: "...two wrongs dont make a right [...] The issue is that the government and police need to keep an eye on both sides of the extremes of the political wings.....the danger there is palpable."

The police have been the enforcement arm for the exact institutionalized mindset that the Panthers need to defend themselves against. It is highly unlikely having them "keep an eye on both sides" will turn out well for the disenfranchised side.

Muhammad Rasheed - Chris Scruton wrote: "No, seriously."

lol You should've led with that, and tacked the joke onto the end of it.

Muhammad Rasheed - I apologize for saying you stereotyped.

Andrew Gamson - And I rate Muhammad's apology an 9.0 (damn the Russian judge.....)

Ken Krueger - Wow...I'm amazed at how little improv is being done.Sticking to the script right down the line.All this "who's badder than whom" BS is just going to get a lot of people killed for nothing.And it won't end the way these guys think it will.

Chris Scruton - Well, the cops are already killing people for nothing.Maybe they'll get the message when people start shooting back.

Muhammad Rasheed - It'll be an excuse to bring the military into those communities and wipe those people out once and for all.

Muhammad Rasheed - I suspect these over-aggressive cops are deliberately being assigned to those areas for exactly that reason, to trigger exactly those chains of events. #turnerDiaries

Chris Scruton - Possible, I guess.

Ken Krueger - Muhammad is exactly right, and Chris, I don't know you, but I doubt you'll be standing to the right of Shabazz when the National Guard opens up.The Progressive movement has a habit of telling Black people one thing and doing something very different. But know this...ANYONE who says "Black lives matter" while talking up armed revolution is deeply confused.

Muhammad Rasheed - Government subsidized private prisons are Big Business. And the 1% have already proven they will do ANYTHING for more money.

Chris Scruton - Non-violent protest is always a good strategy.Getting the people out to VOTE is even better.

Chris Scruton - I'm not saying what people SHOULD do.But violence begets violence.And no, you won't see me there.I stay away from people with guns.

Muhammad Rasheed - I don't believe the non-violent strategy for repelling hate-filled aggression will work a second time in this country. There's a reason the media have ceased recording large groups of protesters. 

"The Revolution will not be televised."

Muhammad Rasheed - They're planning a slaughter, and they will blame it on the victims as usual.

Chris Scruton - Hope not.

Ken Krueger - Muhammad, I knew Gil-Scott Heron a little bit...worked with him.There's a lot of irony to your use of the phrase, but I think you and I are the only ones who get this.I've continually been telling people that publicly antagonizing the cops is bad tactics. And for my trouble, I get called a racist, simply because I can see the stage craft here.It's strange when people are not only ignorant of history, but when confronted by it, deny the lesson. But here we are.I sense we disagree as to the most effective solution, but we both know what's coming...

Muhammad Rasheed - Ken Krueger wrote: "I've continually been telling people that publicly antagonizing the cops is bad tactics."

That part doesn't matter. Harassing, and making the occasional lesson out of, the disenfranchised class is part of maintaining the dominant position in society. Obviously when the disenfranchised managed to get "the first black president" in the White House, they needed to be put back into their place in case they get some kind of uppity ideas like they were suddenly equal or something ridiculous like that.

Muhammad Rasheed - The Black Panthers are the natural response to that increased calculated hostility, as the first BP Party was birthed from the same situation in wake of the '60s assassinations.

Ken Krueger - Ummm...now we diverge. And we can talk about the deeper and darker if you want some day, but dont fall into the trap. I'm telling you, and everyone who will listen (nobody so far) that screaming at the cops is masturbation. It may feel good for a minute, but all you're doing is bullshitting yourself.Ultimately, it just provides footage for the "they had it comin'" B Roll.

Ken Krueger - The BP, like the modern Klan, is a minstrel show of scary images of racism.The strings are pulled in places we both know. Both are a distraction. If push ever comes to shove, their leaders' bodies will be used as props in the great passion play.

Muhammad Rasheed - But that's exactly what I'm saying. They will slaughter them -- off camera -- and blame the victims like they always do.

Muhammad Rasheed - They are deliberately antagonizing the people in those communities to set them off so they can Turner Diaries them.

Ken Krueger - Muhammad, I sent u a friend request. I'm nobody important, but so few people seem to see how we're ALL being used...pick up!

Ken Krueger - MRasheed, don't be naive...it's not all one-sided.Nothing in this long, sordid history ever was.There are the users and the used. They come in all colors. The REAL solution lies in the ability of some smart m-fers to see the big picture.You up to the challenge?

Ken Krueger - Chris Ray

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) Deliberately selecting cops with low IQs2.) Assigning cops with a demonstrated disdain for certain races/ethic groups into those same communities3.) Naturally the cops vs citizens conflicts sky-rocket4.) Community's citizens complain at the treatment and are literally made fun of ("I Can Breathe") by the cops in a deliberate antagonism5.) When the citizens eventually flare up to the point of No Return, the cops with military re-enforcement will gleefully slaughter them all.

Muhammad Rasheed - Ken Krueger wrote: "The REAL solution lies in the ability of some smart m-fers to see the big picture. You up to the challenge?"

Are you implying that you do see the big picture? Show me.

Rob Beckner - Mr Rasheed are you under the impression that YOU do? Show us

Muhammad Rasheed - ^Considering I'm not the one that challenged anyone to see the big picture (Ken did), by what justification are you using to direct that comment towards me and not him? What comment did I make that gave you that impression?

Al Bush - Only reason MR is that it's mostly white people who need convincing. My congressional district is represented by a Muslim Black man. Not a violence proponent. The demonization of the BP over the years is part of what drives this. White folks need a scapegoat and black folks need a strategy that takes the bait a little less. So we crank the pressure up. Anger the young and let them make the mistakes. A photo or quote out of context that is used to inflame and the hammer of what used to be hovers FBI but now will be Homeland Security. Forget the food served or children cared for, the education provided or the respectful relationships developed. But rest assured. Before there were BP there were police units well used to having their way with blacks and the poor. We have a history seldom told of of the standard things people don't want to discuss, racism and genocide not that far gone. 

Mark Thiel - The NBPP, from what I have gleaned from personal remembrance and paying attention to old school activists like Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin, is a bogus attempt to capitalize on the legacy of BPP and not to be taken seriously. I agreed completely with the BPP agenda and the rationale for the Deacons for Defense, but the NBPP...I dunno. 

Chris Scruton - Social change comes from a mixture of conscience and fear. 

Ken Krueger - It's a set-up 

Al Bush - It's a problem to be solved.  

We may pride ourselves on black friends, black neighbors, black history attendance and even drag out out best couple dozen when it suits. It's not the same as living a black experience. A black life.  

I like Chris Ray and Muhammad Rasheed and Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin as they all come close by me one time or another. Each contributes to my understanding but that's not the same as self empowerment.  

You cannot hardly have it both ways. Preach personal responsibility then criticize the organized attempts, especially when they are no more disruptive than the ones we've historically used ourselves.  

In fact, far milder.

Robert Perez - The black on white race war you guys seem so willing to be understanding of May just lead to the ugliest all out race war we've seen in some time. This rhetoric has already fostered a pattern of cop killing, so why don’t we try toning it down a few notches before he'll shows up at all our doors.

Muhammad Rasheed - Robert Perez wrote: "The black on white race war you guys seem so willing to be understanding of..."

I personally find the idea that my right to defend against racist hate means that I want a "black on white race war" to be narrow-minded and offensive. Defending myself against uncalled for aggression is wrong to you? 

Why?

Defending myself against aggressive actions based on how a person feels when they look at me, isn't an action of hate, it's an act of basic level self-preservation, from the bag of The Right to Bear Arms as the very reason that principle was established for Americans. Tell me: Are you saying that only your racial group has that right to self defend when your cops come into our neighborhoods with over-the-top aggression against petty crimes? Any and everything a black person does is worthy of Death by White Cop... that's the very clear message they are sending, and you say that it is unreasonable that we should exercise our Right to Bear Arms against this behavior.

BOOK REVIEW - The Wolfen

Muhammad Rasheed - This is one of my favorite stories of all time. The concept was absolutely brilliant, and like another reviewer mentioned, the movie completely missed the ball on this. Wolfen is the highest-evolved member of the dog family just as we are the highest-evolved primate. Feeding exclusively on humans, the Wolfen evolved parallel from us, and increased in mental capacity to match as their prey evolved, similar to the way the cheetah's speed evolved as his prey got faster. As our technology evolved to make us more than a match for any animal, our natural predator evolved his physical abilities to keep up. The Wolfen don't have an actual opposable thumb, but their paw evolved to mimic one (close enough). It can turn a door knob or throw a complicated latch that the cleverest family pet couldn't. They've demonstrated the ability to mimic the sounds of distressed humans or children to lure their prey into lonely areas and they have a complicated/sophisticated language. But most of all they have SPEED. They are fast enough to disappear from your sight as if they vanished into thin air.

With today's new CGI effects this would be the perfect time to redo that stupid movie and scare the heck out of people like they should have. And this time, no ecological speech snore-fests, please.

Muhammad Rasheed - Deadliest Fiction Wiki: Wolfen

Brian Lewis - I remember that movie... lol

Muhammad Rasheed - That movie was garbage. The book was awesome. They didn't have the tech or the subtlety to make this into a correct movie in those days. Today they do. The team that's making these new Planet of the Apes reboot movies could knock this story out of the park on the silver screen.

Muhammad Rasheed - It could be genuinely terrifying.

Derek Mason - Been meaning to read this. Saw the movie as a kid, was scary, but then again, I was 5. Heard the book was 100 times better.

Muhammad Rasheed - The movie turned the story into a bullsh*t PSA for ecological awareness.

Derek Mason - Did they actually look like the above pic in the book ? Paws that look like human hands ?

Muhammad Rasheed - Not quite. They didn't have opposable thumbs, but their paws were described as "clever."  They were flexible enough to manipulate our tech well enough to get to you.

The movie just used regular wolves (with the leader of the pack a purest, snowflake white, because that's the color of leadership and stuff, of course: "White Power!") and said they were spirits of the earth that came to punish us for littering or whatever. Then an American Indian showed up and shed a single tear.

Muhammad Rasheed - It was garbage. Don't watch that stuff.

Muhammad Rasheed - In the book the Wolfen talk about how they feel about wolves and the other lesser dog species.

Derek Mason - Oh yeah, I know they were regular wolves in the movie, I meant did they have human like hands in the book. I heard they could climb apartment buildings

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes. The Wolfen are to the dog family what we are to the primate family. They are our natural predators, and their physical gifts evolved to match our technology. So although they don't actually have a hand w/thumb, their paw works like a hand, and can open locks and pretty much whatever our hands can do...

Muhammad Rasheed - ...with razor-sharp deadly claws of death.

Derek Mason - Damn that's creepy. You're right, todays tech could really do justice to a new Wolfen movie.

Derek Mason - Maybe even show the Wolfen as the basis for werewolf legends.

Muhammad Rasheed - Their faces aren't static like a dog's face; they actually do have lips and can express emotions with their faces. It comes across as ugly/horrifying/alien. Outside of their comparable intellect, their deadliest weapon is their great speed; they are so fast that they appear to vanish while you are looking at them.  For purposes of their own survival, their most important tool is the ability to hide among us, and let their knowledge fall into mere legend.

Muhammad Rasheed - That's exactly how they are presented in the book.

Muhammad Rasheed - They're just as smart as us, with their own language, etc., and the ancients thought they were people who transformed into beasts.

Derek Mason - Well, looks like I gotta visit amazon. Got to get this book.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's great!

Muhammad Rasheed - Barlowe did a decent job on the illustration above, but the face is still too static.

Derek Mason - You got me wanting a Wolfen comic. Would love to see the history of them.

Muhammad Rasheed - Before the modern tech era, we had a very different relationship with them.

Muhammad Rasheed - You were literally out-of-your-mind and suicidal if you went outside after dark, or wandered off all by yourself.

Derek Mason - Shit, the imagery you just gave me got me thinking twice about walking down this hallway to the kitchen for a glass of water lol

Muhammad Rasheed - DON'T DO IT!!!!!!!

Derek Mason - LOL

Muhammad Rasheed - Early in the story, the two detectives went into this abandoned building, and the lady cop heard this faint noise like an infant crying. She went to go and investigate, but this instinctual terror made her hesitate. Something in her DNA was remembering something...

Derek Mason - Now that's creepy. I want to see this on the big screen.

Muhammad Rasheed - In the ancient days, a "vampire" was a treacherous, homeless human that the Wolfen would recruit to coax people out of their houses. As his reward they would let him live as long as he continued to be useful, and even allowed him to feed off of their scraps. They had no use for such a relationship in modern days, and consider themselves wealthy -- feeding off of the numerous outcasts of our society.

Derek Mason - I was just about to ask what would be the vampire equivalent to the Wolfen

Muhammad Rasheed - In the modern era, after we forgot that they were real, we hunted the poor wolf almost to extinction in a misdirection of that same instinctual terror. Meanwhile the real enemy was hiding along the path to the well, or using one of those clever paws to pull open the window to your basement...

Derek Mason - Are the Wolfen copyrighted creations of Strieber or general folklore ?

Muhammad Rasheed - Strieber's creation. His version of the werewolf myth.

Muhammad Rasheed - Turning it into science fiction.

Derek Mason - Damn, would've love to have used them in one of my projects.

Muhammad Rasheed - I used the basic concept of the ancient terror hiding among humanity as it feeds upon us in my Monsters 101 graphic novel series.  The Classic Horror general atmosphere of this book was a great inspiration for me.

BOOK REVIEW - Isaac Asimov's Wonderful Worlds of Science Fiction #3: SUPERMEN

I finally got my hands on this intriguing-sounding paperback anthology, that had been on my Wish List for many years, and I was pleased to find I did indeed enjoy it a great deal.

Compiled and edited by Isaac Asimov and some others, it has twelve short stories, each featuring a super human being of some description. The oldest story was written in 1948 while the most recent was written in 1969. I thought the book was very cool overall, with some stories I liked more than others of course. I was primarily interested in the supermen themselves and was anxious to see how each author would handle the concept.

1.) Angel, Dark Angel by Roger Zelazny - The supermen in this story were highly advanced cyborgs in the role of assassins. They were pretty much coldly invincible in the story (as well as frightening) and no human could possibly be a match for them.

2.) Worlds to Kill by Harlan Ellison - This story had but one superman and he was a Planet Killer for Hire. Literally. He owned a world-sized technological fortress complete with his own alien servants, soldiers, highly-advanced super-weapons and a super-computer (A.I.). Physically he was Captain America/Punisher-level but he also had a great, brilliant mind that got him along well for untold centuries before his computer was built.

3.) In the Bone by Gordon R. Dickson - The superman in this story was actually an astronaut in the far future. He was the sole pilot of a remarkable space craft that was more like Iron-Man's armor, but much bigger and far more powerful.

4.) What Rough Beast by Damon Knight - The superman in this story was a middle-aged polish immigrant in early 20th century New York. He had the unrestricted ability to traverse through the unlimited alternate dimensions of the Multiverse. He could either go into any of them at will, or he could take specific objects or beings from any of them at will. For example, he could put a one hundred dollar bill on the table and then take a million of that one hundred dollar bill's counterparts-counterparts from the corresponding one million alternate realities and place them all next to it on his table. Such a feat could take him roughly 4-5 hours.

5.) Death by Ecstasy by Larry Niven - The supermen in this story are people with various psionic abilities... none particularly powerful... with the protagonist possessing a weak third "arm" made out of invisible psychic energy.

6.) Un-man by Poul Anderson - This supermen from this story are a secret army of clones, each working as a special, highly-trained agent for a secret government organization. They function during their greater mission as a single man, legendary in the role of the unkillable Un-man that can't be stopped. When you think you killed him he will be back to hound you once more! (Kinda like the 5 Chinese Brothers set-up.)

7.) Muse by Dean R. Koontz - In the future when mankind starts exploring other worlds, eventually they bring back these slimy, leech-like symbiotes that attach themselves onto a host's spine. They are huge and actually deform the hosts' clothing. They require some kind of mental energy as food in order to thrive and in return... they provide something SUPER. I can't tell you without messing up the tale, but it is fun.

8.) Resurrection by A. E. van Vogt - In the very far future, mankind's technology has achieved a state that can only be described as Cosmic Power. Completely doing away with machinery in their technological expression, these supermen freely manipulate the full force of atomic energy, gravity, the electromagnetic spectrum, space/time, etc. with the power of their wills alone.

9.) Pseudopath by Philip E. High - The superman in this story is a highly-trained soldier with "profiling" abilities so acutely well-developed, that combined with his impressive, Jet Li-level physical abilities, seems as if he has unlimited access to the inner minds of men.

10.) After the Myths Went Home by Robert Silverberg - The supermen in this story are another super-advanced, far future version of mankind. But these are a few eons before the beings in Resurrection by A. E. van Vogt and have little offensive capabilities. Instead they use their otherwise unlimited super-tech to freely manipulate the weather as easily as you rearrange your curtains, and even bring to life entities from the distant past that may or may not have actually lived... and sometimes both versions of an ancient being in both his/her true and legendary forms.

11.) Before the Talent Dies by Henry Slesar - The superman in this story is a telepath on Emma Frost's level of skill.

12.) Brood World Barbarian by Perry A. Chapdelaine - The superman in this story is a savage barbarian (who apparently looks like Fabio) from a world with higher gravity and much harsher living conditions. The creature is forced to fight other alien beings including his own world's brothers in gladiator games. Some parts of the slave harness he wears functions as impervious armor and he also has use of a magnetic energy-type weapon.

White Lies Don't Count Though, Right?

Muhammad Rasheed – [shared link] That was awesome...

End Of The World Job Interview Prank

Harrison Wood - Hahahahahaha!

William H. Foster III - I'd be pissed the hell off!

Tony Villalba - yeah me too.. thinking I'm going there for a job and then ha! ha! we fooled you! better give me a little money for the time at least..

Jason McCammon - Some pranks go too far.....

Muhammad Rasheed - I would've just been happy that the world didn't end, and go home to kiss my wife & kids... lol

Muhammad Rasheed - That would've been a serious ass wake up call.

Muhammad Rasheed - I was feeling that shit just from watching it... putting myself in their shoes. "Let me pay off all my debts and get my life right before the Lord turns out the lights for real for real..."

Muhammad Rasheed - What if TODAY was your LAST day?

Muhammad Rasheed - It's not only a fun prank, but it has a serious life lesson built into it. It transcended "prank" and became "art."

Michael Daniels - I watched it earlier, but was unclear if it was actually a prank or a well acted commercial....And Who do you mean by Lord, Mo?

Muhammad Rasheed - ^lol This is why I wanted to hear your opinion of it, but you always, by default, take the opposite stance on any and everything I say. "Surely Deac will agree with me on THIS one. Let's test it..."

"Nope."

Muhammad Rasheed - hahahahahaha

Michael Daniels - Wait...Huh...What did I disagree with you about?

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "And Who do you mean by Lord, Mo?"

The One God of Abraham. The Supreme Creator of the universe. The Lord worshiped by Adam, Noah, Jacob & the Tribes, Moses, David, and Solomon. The same Lord that created the Christ Jesus, son of Mary from scratch in his mother's womb.

That Lord.

Was there supposed to be another? There is only One God.

Michael Daniels - In the Bible that LORD is addressed in all caps hence the confusion.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "Wait...Huh...What did I disagree with you about?"

I asked your opinion of the comments and you decided to side step that and pick a fight. You're very contentious. I've been noticing that about you.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "In the Bible that LORD is addressed in all caps hence the confusion."

All of them? All the bibles? Really?

Is this really your official stance? Curious.

Michael Daniels - I expressed confusion and asked a question foe clarification...Where's the contention there?

Michael Daniels - Nope it was a general statement not meant to be all inclusive.

Muhammad Rasheed - What was a general statement? That all bibles spell 'Lord' in all caps like 'LORD?'

Muhammad Rasheed - ???

Muhammad Rasheed - You really don't think that claiming 'confusion' as to what 'Lord' I meant because I didn't also capitalize the 'ORD' isn't inherently contentious?

Michael Daniels - That Bible Translators in general translate God's personal name this way. It's not exhaustive The New World Translation always renders the tetragrammaton as Jehovah.

Muhammad Rasheed - Are we suddenly no longer talking about the title 'Lord' and are now pretending the whole thing was about my failing to capitalize the Tetragrammaton? Is this a misdirection?

Michael Daniels - I was wondering if you might have finally converted to Christianity and might be referring to Lord Jesus Christ coming again. It wouldn't be the first time (or ten thousandth) time a prayer of mine was answered. 

Muhammad Rasheed - ^Hence the continuous contention.

Michael Daniels - My bad, Bruh....Btw the confusion I was actually alluding to was whether the posted video was a real reaction or well acted.

Muhammad Rasheed - For the record, I'm not interested in being a vile transgressor of faith, and condemning myself to hellfire for committing the unforgivable sin of giving the One God a partner/child.

You can wish that horror on someone else thanks. I don't want any.

Michael Daniels - Not a partner, but an aspect of Himself in human form....You always misstate the Christian position.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "My bad, Bruh....Btw the confusion I was actually alluding to was whether the posted video was a real reaction or well acted."

I know. But I specifically asked your opinion of the comments. So after you commented on the video, the second part was your contentious assessment of the comments, right? lol

Michael Daniels - The second part was a question...not an opinion.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "Not a partner, but an aspect of Himself in human form....You always misstate the Christian position."

Do you consider Moses, Noah, Abraham to be "aspects of Him in human form?" The answer to that will solve all of our ideological issues right here & now.

Michael Daniels - Nope they were imperfect sinful men....Jesus was someOne else entirely.

Muhammad Rasheed - So Jesus was without sin according to your doctrine? Do you consider a lie to be a sin?

Michael Daniels - Yes!

Michael Daniels - Are you calling Jesus a liar?

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Michael Daniels - Are you laughing at Jesus?

Muhammad Rasheed - Jesus Christ was not a liar. But your book says he was. I find it difficult to accept it on that basis.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jesus didn't write your book, remember? So why would I be calling the messenger a liar?

Michael Daniels - Where in the Bible does it say Jesus lied? I've read it numerous times and must have missed that scripture.

Muhammad Rasheed - John 7:8-10

8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.

9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.

10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

Michael Daniels - lol....Not even close, Bruh. But , I guess I can see how you could misconstrue it as such if you tried really really hard.

Michael Daniels - Jesus said...I'm not going there now, You guys go.

Jesus went there later secretly.

Muhammad Rasheed - Naturally I was looking forward to all the twisting, turning, backflips, and Neo/Matrix-like bullet dodging you were going to use to justify this.

Go ahead.

Michael Daniels - It's simple....Where is the lie?

Muhammad Rasheed - "But when his brethren were gone up..."

That means that he told them one thing, "BUT" did something different.

That would be a lie.

Try harder.

Muhammad Rasheed - At the moment it does not look like your 'divine god-son' figure was without sin.

You said a lie was indeed a sin with a resounding "Yes," remember?

Do a better job of explaining how that wasn't a lie, please.

Michael Daniels - No he did exactly as He told them. He said it wasn't time for Him to go Yet....He did go eventually though and kept His presence secret as there were people trying to kill Him.

Muhammad Rasheed - If that is supposed to be true, then what is the point of the "But when..." which means a lie was just uttered?

Muhammad Rasheed - In the English language in which it was translated.

Michael Daniels - There's no lie/sin there Muhammed. For you to call it that is ridiculous.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's CLEARLY a lie.

Muhammad Rasheed - Try harder, please.

Michael Daniels - When he had said these words unto them,HE ABODE STILL in Galilee.

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes, at the time he told them this, he was in Galilee. So?

Michael Daniels - "But when" means a lie...?...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm going to log off to cook me some breakfast, Deac.

"But when Deac looked away, Mo did not log off."

Muhammad Rasheed - I LIED.

Muhammad Rasheed - "But when..."

Michael Daniels - So he stayed in Galilee until his brothers arrived in Jerusalem..then the went. It's quite a ways away by foot there was a big time interval in between the two events.

Muhammad Rasheed - It didn't say, "Then later, when the appropriate time was upon him, he went..."

It said "BUT WHEN..." which heralds the lie.

Muhammad Rasheed - Try harder, please.

Michael Daniels - Except it doesn't say "But when" directly after his statement. It says "But when" directly after "HE ABODE STILL in Galilee." The contrast is to the latter statement, meaning he was no longer abiding in Galilee.

Michael Daniels - Very simple.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol How does that make sense? "But when" negates what was said, so...

Muhammad Rasheed - What?

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Michael Daniels - He didn't go when they went, he went some time later which is exactly what he said He would do.

Muhammad Rasheed - Explain this "very simple" back flip.

Muhammad Rasheed - The narrator said he told them one thing and did something different from what he said. The "But when" heralded the lie.

Muhammad Rasheed - He went secretly because he didn't want THEM to see him there because he just told them he wasn't going.

Michael Daniels - Deacon said "I will punch Mo in the nose!" Mo was kickin it in Saudi Arabia. But when Deacon arrived there Pow right in the nose.

Muhammad Rasheed - Your twists & flips aren't very impressive. Is it your back?

Michael Daniels - WRONG read verse 1 "After this, Jesus traveled in Galilee, since He did not want to travel in Judea because the Jews were trying to kill Him."

Muhammad Rasheed - So you admit he lied to his companions so they wouldn't give it away that he was going to show up?

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes?

Michael Daniels - LOL

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes?

Muhammad Rasheed - Helloooo...?

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes?

Michael Daniels - Read the whole chapter, Mo... Jesus is up front with His brothers...He couldn't travel with His family because He would be recognized too soon. When it was His time He revealed Himself in the Temple.

Michael Daniels - When someone says they arent going somewhere YET...It means thay are going.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "Read the whole chapter, Mo... Jesus is up front with His brothers...He couldn't travel with His family because He would be recognized too soon. When it was His time He revealed Himself in the Temple. "

Sure. 

And notice that he lied to his blabber-mouthed companions so they wouldn't give him away to his enemies.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels When someone says they arent going somewhere YET...It means thay are going."

Naturally. Yet here we find that because they wrote "But when..." it references a lie, so what you are describing isn't what was going on HERE.

Michael Daniels - No, it was His brothers and He told them why he wasn't travelling with Him.

Muhammad Rasheed - No. The "But when..." means he told them he wasn't going until waaayyy later.

Michael Daniels - But when does not always mean a lie it just mean a change in circumstance as illustrated by my very apt example which you chose to ignore.

Michael Daniels - Where did He EVER say he wasn't going? He had to go. It was required by Law and he always obeyed the Mosaic Law as it was intended to be obeyed.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "But when does not always mean a lie ..."

Sure. In this case it clearly does. You NEED it not to mean that to support your false doctrine.

Michael Daniels - You want it to in order to falsely accuse the Messiah, just as the Pharisees and the Romans that killed Him did!!!!

Muhammad Rasheed - No. I'm accusing the writers who ascribe onto the Christ that which is not true.

Muhammad Rasheed - Careful, you're going to run over your exclamation mark quota.

Michael Daniels - There's no need to lie about something as mundane as this. What motive could Jesus best friend, John, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit could possibly have had?

Muhammad Rasheed - Jesus knew his companions better than you do, right? He knew they were blabber-mouthed gossipers.

Muhammad Rasheed - You JUST pointed out his enemies were going to be up there in force.    I don't care whether that "But when..." line is in there or not; I don't believe Jesus was the divine son of God and shared in the God-head.  I just wanted to see you do your Gabby Douglas impression.

Muhammad Rasheed - That wasn't a mundane lie. It had purpose.

Muhammad Rasheed - (still a lie though) #oops!

Michael Daniels - It was His brothers....James and them (who you love)...And it wasn't that they would talk. They were His family. Everyone knew what family He was from.That's the first placed they'd look.

Muhammad Rasheed - Huh? What are you saying?

Michael Daniels - The other sons of Joseph and Mary...His literal human family.

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes? What about them?

Muhammad Rasheed - Are you implying that the lie didn't count 'cause it was said to them?

Michael Daniels - You seem to think He was talking to His disciples.

Michael Daniels - His disciples were with Him. They were probably the ones helping Him stay concealed. It was His unbelieving family that He chose not to travel with...They were more interested in exposing Him.

Michael Daniels - I'm not implying anything, just setting the facts straight. There was no lie. This was Jesus telling His family He wouldn't go with them to the festival. He didn't even leave Galilee until they had already arrived.

Muhammad Rasheed - You're saying he lied to his treacherous family who were plotting to expose him to his enemies. I see.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "He didn't even leave Galilee until they had already arrived."

You're interpreting "were gone up" as "already arrived?" Why?

Michael Daniels - Not a plot...They were just incredulous that He was Who He was telling them He was. They didn't know there was a price on His head. To them He was suffering from dillusions of grandeur. They made the same mistake you're making now. Not recognizing the true Jesus.

After this, Jesus traveled in Galilee, since He did not want to travel in Judea because the Jews were trying to kill Him. 2 The Jewish Festival of Tabernacles[a][b] was near, 3 so His brothers said to Him, “Leave here and go to Judea so Your disciples can see Your works that You are doing. 4 For no one does anything in secret while he’s seeking public recognition. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” 5 (For not even His brothers believed in Him.)

Michael Daniels - Jerusalem was/is at the top of a hill. That's what it means. It doesn't say "while they were going up".

Muhammad Rasheed - "10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast..."

Michael Daniels - Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast:

Michael Daniels - Modern English versions say it more succinctly "10 AFTER His brothers had gone up to the festival, THEN He also went up, not openly but secretly."

Don't try to equivocate on the basis of old English, Mo.

Michael Daniels - "But when" is absent as well.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "Modern English versions say it more succinctly..."

Modern English versions retcon history after their debates to tweak the doctrine in the direction they like. The way y'all usually do. lol

Muhammad Rasheed - It's been a looong tweaking process.

Muhammad Rasheed - "house of cards" technique.

Muhammad Rasheed - *nods*

Michael Daniels - No, some modern versions, certainly the one I use, have access to the most recently discovered of the original manuscripts. Plus it's in modern English so yahoos don't think every time someone says "But when" they're telling a lie.

Muhammad Rasheed - Right. "But when" meant something COMPLETELY different than it means now. Sure.

Michael Daniels - Just learn Aramaic and you'll know what was really meant.

Muhammad Rasheed - So, are we done? Was that the extent of your gymnastics floor routine?

Michael Daniels - I can't believe I spent this long on something so simple and trivial.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's not trivial. It's a sloppy hole in your "sinless divine son-god" doctrine.

Muhammad Rasheed - But modern versions of the text put some caulk in it, so no sweat, right?

Michael Daniels - No, it means the same thing, but when Accusers are looking for anything and everything they chose a clearer way to say it.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Michael Daniels - Well no...It's not ass asinine as say the Hadith system....But there are some translations that are more accurate than others especially considering how the English language evolves.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) Text shows that "sinless divine son-god" lied

2.) Pauline Christian alter text

3.) Doctrine saved!

lol

Muhammad Rasheed - hahahaha

Michael Daniels - Pauline Christians (which are basically Christians) translated the King James version as well.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "Well no...It's not ass asinine as say the Hadith system..."

It's actually exactly the same in every way, for the exact same reasons.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "Pauline Christians (which are basically Christians) translated the King James version as well."

Of course.

Michael Daniels - You're kidding, right?LOL

Muhammad Rasheed - ^About the hadith thing? Nope.

Muhammad Rasheed - Try me.

Michael Daniels - I have a book here which quotes various Hadith having to do with Jesus, many of which have absolutely no connection to what the Quran says about Him.

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes? 

You don't recognize the parallel in your own system?

Muhammad Rasheed - It's going to cause us to go over old Classic Mo vs Deac ground again...

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Michael Daniels - Different Bible translations are just that. People translating from the original languages into other languages. The source material is the same and the ideas are supernaturally preserved.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "...and the ideas are supernaturally preserved." 

Is that what retconning out "But when..." was? Supernatural preservation?

hahahahahahahaha!

Michael Daniels - They're not contributing brand new stories hundreds of years later. C'mon Mo, that's absurd.

Michael Daniels - No that's translating it more precisely from the original text. Are you saying you know Aramaic better than those who translated the Holman Standard Bible?

Michael Daniels - C'mon Mo...What's Aramaic for "But when"

Muhammad Rasheed - Your own (believing!) scholars recognize that the 4 gospels were not written by the men whose names they bear, but were written MUCH later by evangelicals influenced by Paul. This message is in conflict with what Jesus actually preached, in perfect imitation of the flaws in hadith.

Michael Daniels - Keep in mind I exposed your bias and false unstanding of basic English before I ever brought up what other translations say.

Michael Daniels - Not my scholars...Miraculously ALL of MY scholars agree with me completely!!!

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "No that's translating it more precisely from the original text. Are you saying you know Aramaic better than those who translated the Holman Standard Bible?"

Michael Daniels wrote: "C'mon Mo...What's Aramaic for 'But when'"

Are you trying to say the surviving original source writings for the Gospel of John are in Aramaic? Is this true?

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "Not my scholars...Miraculously ALL of MY scholars agree with me completely!!!"

You don't consider the scholars who actually compile & publish (and retcon text as needed) the bible itself to be "YOUR" scholars?

That's sounds like an uncomfortable position to be in...

Michael Daniels - Partial Aramaic/Koinia Greek

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "Keep in mind I exposed your bias and false unstanding of basic English before I ever brought up what other translations say." 

WHOA! When did THAT happen??? Copy/paste, please. I thought I had been following closely.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "Partial Aramaic/Koinia Greek"

What was the partial Aramaic part? Just the "But when..." line?

Michael Daniels - BAM!!!

"I'm not implying anything, just setting the facts straight. There was no 

lie. This was Jesus telling His family He wouldn't go with them to the 

festival. He didn't even leave Galilee until they had already arrived."

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "BAM!!! '"I'm not implying anything, just setting the facts straight. There was no lie. This was Jesus telling His family He wouldn't go with them to the festival. He didn't even leave Galilee until they had already arrived.'" 

lol Did I miss something? The text says that it wasn't his time yet and he wouldn't go up, but he went up anyway outside of a time frame he understood them to mean, which is why the narrator said "But when."

That meant he lied to them.

Later Christian scholars were disturbed by this, as it flew in the face of the false doctrine they were tasked to protect, as made uncomfortably clear by their debates with the Muslims, so they merely changed it to something more comfortable... 

...as they have willy-nilly been changing the message of God from the beginning. 

How you found a "BAM!!!" out of that is beyond me. Fix your sloppy false doctrine blasphemies better.

Michael Daniels - If He had said "I won't go up, Yet" and never gone up...Then He would have lied or misled His family...and broken the Law. He went up eventually which is what He said He would do. It's so simple to understand there are actually very few ways to explain it. He did exactly as He said He would do. You're intentionally reading way too much into the phrase "But when" for no good reason.

Muhammad Rasheed - What does "But when" mean when used outside of the pauline doctrine gymnastics tricks then?

Muhammad Rasheed - "I can't go up because my time has not yet full come."

But when they were gone up he sneaked up into the place. His time still had not yet "full come," thus the sneaking/lying.

Michael Daniels - I already gave you an example that took me, a modern writer, less than a second to conceive...I'm getting tired, Mo.

Muhammad Rasheed - Don't sweat it. Naturally I recognize your desperate need to force & shoe horn the text to mean what you need it to mean (since you lack the power to retcon it directly yourself).

I'm messing with you for your original contentious question.

Michael Daniels - His time referred to His death on the Cross. He didn't go with them because it was not yet His time to die for the sins of the world, but He did have to go, hence the sneaking and not lying about it.

Muhammad Rasheed - Wow.

I guess you did have more weird distortion gymnastics tricks up your sleeve.

Michael Daniels - I don't recognize your need to accuse an innocent man. That's just foul. He wouldn't do that to you.

Muhammad Rasheed - Again, I'm accusing the writers of saying things about the messenger that aren't true.

What kind of fallacy is that you're using every time you do that?

Michael Daniels - It's all explained in the chapter if you bother to actually read it instead of tearing it apart looking to accuse.

Muhammad Rasheed - How can I "tear it apart" without reading it?

Michael Daniels - The writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Either way you're accusing God of wrongdoing.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "The writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit." 

Then why are later writers changing it? [takes queen]

Michael Daniels - Do you mean why do people translate the Bible into other languages?

Muhammad Rasheed - Nooooo... why are English translators changing the text of previous English translators?

Michael Daniels - So that everyone can have God's Word in his or her own tongue. God has a history of making His word available in various languages.

Muhammad Rasheed - What's THIS fallacy called?

Muhammad Rasheed - Were not the previous English translators inspired by the holy spirit?

Michael Daniels - They didn't change anything. They translated the Bible based on the oldest and most reliable manuscripts into the English language currently spoken.

Muhammad Rasheed - So they DIDN'T take out "But when..." then?

So what was that you quoted?

Michael Daniels - The King James translators didn't have access to the Dead Sea Scrolls...Nor did they say things then like we say them now.

Michael Daniels - Nope "But when" were the words other people used to describe the incident....After and then were the words the more accurate modern writers used.

Michael Daniels - The King James version was not used to translate the Holman Standard Version. They are two separate entities

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "Nope 'But when' were the words other people used to describe the incident....After and then were the words the more accurate modern writers used."

So these "other people" who put it in the text weren't being spirit led?

Michael Daniels - You have the same thing btw with English translations of the Quran.

Michael Daniels - Only the original writings were Spirit led....

Muhammad Rasheed - How do you know which bible English translators are spirit led or not?

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels Only the original writings were Spirit led...."

Michael Daniels - None of them are...Only the source material.

Muhammad Rasheed - Ah. So the translations are flawed, and compiled by non-spirit led people.

Michael Daniels - If I write a version of the Quran am I spirit led?

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: "If I write a version of the Quran am I spirit led?"

I don't think any human being is in a position to proclaim whether another human has been led by the spirit or not. I suppose the fruits of that person's efforts would have to be the test.

Michael Daniels - Actually, I have no idea where any given translator stands with Christ. I do know that some of the scholars used to translate the Holman were Jewish Rabbis....so...probably not spirit led in te sense that the original Bible writers were.

Muhammad Rasheed - You don't think the original writers... based on your doctrinal understanding of who they were... were learned Jews?

Muhammad Rasheed - Curious.

Michael Daniels - My point is that every word used in every translation is not perfect. And some translations are out and out blasphemous.

Muhammad Rasheed - How do you determine which ones are bad and which are the good ones?

Michael Daniels - I don't think that modern Jews who deny Jesus as the Messiah can be inhabited by the Holy Spirit...However God can use anyone, even nonbelievers to accomplish His will......I'm tired.

Muhammad Rasheed - How could He use them to accomplish His will WITHOUT use of the Holy Spirit? I thought that WAS the way?

Michael Daniels - Spirit lead implies someone who is submitted to God and allows Him to guide them in what they do. If God is exerting external force to accomplish His will..That's something else...Spirit driven perhaps?

Muhammad Rasheed - Either way, the holy spirit is in use, right?

Michael Daniels - Two totally different concepts though. God might use an unbelieving doctor to help heal one of His people. But a person filled with the Holy Spirit may effect a supernatural healing though prayer.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael Daniels wrote: " His time referred to His death on the Cross. He didn't go with them because it was not yet His time to die for the sins of the world, but He did have to go, hence the sneaking and not lying about it."

Hmm. I think I am going to accept this. He told them he couldn't yet go up because to do so would mean it was time for his ultimate 'divine son-god' super-sacrifice thing. But he went up there ANYWAY even though it wasn't yet time for that event.

He lied to them.

This is exactly what I said, and supports the fact that your version of Jesus did lie. Based on what he deliberately told them, they were under the impression that the time he was going up was of a different time frame than what he actually intended. Thus the "But when" and the sneaking around.