MUHAMMAD ALI BEN MARCUS: The Dangerous World of a Brutal Fabricated Religion - State Protected Jehovah's Witnesses and their Crimes

Friday 1 July 2022

The Dangerous World of a Brutal Fabricated Religion - State Protected Jehovah's Witnesses and their Crimes

1 comment:

BAFS1 July 2022 at 08:25
LONDON, Thursday 30 June 2022.
I spoke for over 30 minutes to an incredibly charming White Czechoslovakian or Czecho-Slovakian "Jehovah Witness" Bible Thumping propagandist by the name of MARTIN who categorically refused to have me take a picture of both of us together or even of him alone. He was accompanied by a Black African (Nigerian type woman) who disagreed about my knowledge of the "Bible"! She even suggested I was a liar for saying I was a Mauritian African. She and Martin disagreed with all my Biblical quotes arguing they were all confusing and taken out of context! They denied Jesus Christ was a later fabrication by Rabbi Saul (canonised as Saint Paul) and his White anti-Jewish followers. The non Arab conquering military powers were anti-Semitic, and had all writings in any Semitic languages burnt, keeping only the fabricated Greek and later Latin texts.

My argument was that "Jehovah Witnesses", a recent 1930s creation, was SUSPECTED of having been a Freemasonic Sect started by Freemason Taze Russel, but Martin ignored this. Wikipedia clarified his position about both Freemasonry and Christian Zionism.
"In June 1913, during a transcontinental speaking tour, Russell lectured in a Masonic hall in San Francisco, saying:
Although I have never been a Mason ... Something I do seems to be the same as Masons do, I don't know what it is; but they often give me all kinds of grips and I give them back, then I tell them I don't know anything about it except just a few grips that have come to me naturally.[115]
Throughout his ministry he said that he believed Christian identity is incompatible with Freemasonry.[116] He described Freemasonry, Knights of Pythias, Theosophy, and other such groups as "grievous evils" and "unclean".[117][118]"
• "
• Christian Zionism. Expanding on an idea suggested by Nelson Barbour, Russell taught as early as 1879 that God's favor had been restored to Jews as the result of a prophetic "double" which had ended in 1878 (favor from Jacob to Jesus, then disfavor from Jesus until 1878). In 1910, he conducted a meeting at the New York Hippodrome Theatre, with thousands of Jews attending. His teaching that Jews should not convert to Christianity shocked Jews and Christians alike. Russell believed that the land of Palestine belonged exclusively to the Jewish race, that God was then calling Jews back to their land, and that they would be the center of earthly leadership under God's Kingdom. Early in Russell's ministry, he speculated that the Jews might flock to Palestine and form their own nation by the year 1910. Shortly before his death in 1916, he used the Jewish press to stress that 1914 prophetically marked the time when Gentile nations no longer had earthly authority; he said that all Jews were, from that time onward, permitted and guided by God to gather to Palestine and to reclaim the land boldly for themselves.[55]"
Anyway, both so-called Christians did not give a damn about historical truths like the many preachers who I encountered locally on a daily or weekly basis trying to convert others to Christianity while they condemn all other Christian denominational preachers as heretics and even hate them. They are shocked and even offended when I tell them Jesus was a Jew and not a Christian, which was White European heretics and anti-Semites. But, today, the term anti-semite is used exclusively as meaning anti-Jew and anti-Zionist while most Semites are the Arab-speaking people, and most Jews are over 80% Ashkenazi Talmudist Zionists. (Arthur Koestler "The Thirteenth Tribe"). Koestler and his wife were murdered by the Ashkenazim after he had published that book, but the Police concluded it was a "double suicide"!
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

Source	Trinity Brochure	Full Quote
Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethic, James Hastings, Trinity, p.461	"At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian . . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian writings."-Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics. (ti pp. 6-7)	"At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian in the strictly ontological reference."
The Triune God, Edward Fortman	"Jesuit Fortman states: "The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead."" (ti p.6)	"They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated. "
The Encyclopedia Americana	"The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be 'beyond the grasp of human reason." (ti p.4)	"It is held that although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is, like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended (though it may not be comprehended) by the human mind".
The Catholic Encyclopedia (newadvent.org /cathen/ 15047a.htm 21/12/2006)	"The Catholic Encyclopedia also comments: "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word ????? [tri´as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian."" (ti p.5)	"The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom" ("Ad. Autol.", 11, 15, P. G., VI, 1078). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian."
Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity	The Catholic work Trinitas-A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, for example, notes that some of Tertullian's words were later used by others to describe the Trinity. Then it cautions: "But hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology." (ti pp.5-6)	"The great African fashioned the Latin language of the Trinity, and many of his words and phrases remained permanently in use: the words Trinitas and persona, the formulas 'one substance in three persons,' 'God from God, light from Light.' He uses the word substantia 400 times, as he uses consubstantialis and consubstantivus, but hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology."
New Catholic Encyclopedia - p.306	"And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "And the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]."" (ti p.6)	"The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the OT. In many places of the OT however, expressions are used in which some of the Fathers of the Church saw references or foreshadowings of the Trinity ."
Origin and Evolution of Religion	"Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins affirmed: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it."-Origin and Evolution of Religion." (ti p.6)	"The beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity appears already in John (c.100 AD.") To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; at any rate they say nothing about it."

Creation Book	Original Quote and Comments
Page 15 "The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way: "Evolution ... is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.""	James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?", Discover, October 1980, p. 88: "Charles Darwin's brilliant theory of evolution, published in 1859, had a stunning impact on scientific and religious thought and forever changed man's perception of himself. Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.... Most of the debate will center on one key question: Does the three-billion-year-old process of evolution creep at a steady pace, or is it marked by long periods of inactivity punctuated by short bursts of rapid change? Darwin's widely accepted view -- that evolution proceeds steadily, at a crawl -- favors the tortoise. But two paleontologists, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, are putting their bets on the hare.""
Page 20: "In fact now, after more than a century of collecting fossils, "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time," explained the Bulletin." "	"Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29. This quote from David Raup is taken out of context, as the paper was not about the fossil record's evidence of common decent, but whether the mechanism of natural selection at the level of species is shown in the fossil record. On page 22, Raup had prefaced his comment with, "We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be." He goes on to state, "Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. … If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent." (p.26)
Page 18: Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: "To suppose that the eye ... could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."	Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859, p. 133: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
Page 39: "At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins' comment in the preface to his book: "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.""	Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 1976, p.ix: "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliché or not, "stranger than fiction" expresses exactly how I feel about the truth."
Page 42: "Richard Dickerson explains: "It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.""	The quote is from Scientific American, September 1978, p. 75. The purpose and content of the article goes on to address how polymerisation may have occurred.
Page 89: "Fossil hunter Donald Johanson acknowledged: "No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like.""	Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, Lucy -- the Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Warner Books, Inc, 1981, p. 286. "No one can be sure what any extinct hominid looked like with its skin and hair on. Sizes here are to scale, with afarensis about two feet shorter than the average human being."
Page 143: "Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms "appear to have been carefully and artfully designed." He views them as "the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer." It will be useful to consider some of this evidence." This quote is a shocking twist of the writers intent and vastly changes the meaning of what Lewontin said.	Richard C. Lewontin, "Adaptation", Scientific American, vol. 239, September 1978, p. 213: "The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution.... Life forms are more than simply multiple and diverse, however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the external world in which they live. They have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life. It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. Darwin realized that if a naturalistic theory of evolution was to be successful, it would have to explain the apparent perfection of organisms and not simply their variation."
Page 15: "Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble."" The Bible - God's Word or Man's? p.106 describes Hitching as a "scientist" and "authority". He is also quoted in the Watchtower 1994, 1990 and Awake 1994.	Hitching is a favourite for quotes by Creationists. The Creation book quotes his book Neck of the Giraffe 13 times. However, he has no scientific credentials, which he lies about in his book, as discussed at Hitching 12 Fe 2013). He is a paranormalist, and his book Earth Magic describes his belief in pyramid energy, astrology, ESP, dowsing and psychic research. The criticism of evolutionary theory in Neck of the Giraffe is used to advance his own theory regarding paranormal forces directing evolution. He is in no way a credible source, yet the Watchtower uses him as one of their primary sources of information in the Creation book.
Pages 36-37: "The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: [...] Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic."	This section of the Creation book is terrible at several levels. First, scientists do not agree with the order of creative days in Genesis. Scientists say the source of light, the sun, was before the earth. Also, science lists the order of animal evolution as fish, reptiles, birds; not fish, birds, reptiles/animals. At least two of the days are out of order. Second, there are two creation stories in Genesis, with the order in Genesis 2 differing from the the order of creation in Genesis 1. The Creation book does not clarify which story it claims Scientists agree with, and science agrees with neither. Third, it cannot be equated to the simple probability of drawing the numbers 1 to 10 from a box. Even the simplest person would assume that the sun and earth were first. The earth is a prerequisites for containing the water, plants and animals. Light and water must precede plants, which die without them. Plants must have been created before animals, birds and fish, whom depend on plants as food. Therefore simple logic will put most of the creative days in the correct order, significantly reducing the chances of an agreement with science to well below one in over 3 million.

Friday 1 July 2022

The Dangerous World of a Brutal Fabricated Religion - State Protected Jehovah's Witnesses and their Crimes

Anyone needing help or assistance in preparing for, or making a submission, to the State of Victoria over child abuse within the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, is encouraged to contact Steven Unthank for further information.

stevenunthank @email.com

“Unless one person stands up no one can join them.”

Related JW News Articles