Mtume Muhammad: Jamii isipotoshwe; Jua huzama katika Chemchemu ya matope Meusi na Mazito

Status
Not open for further replies.


KUMBE MPATANISHI KATI YA MUNGU NA WANADAMU NI MWANADAMU SI MUNGU ?????

KUMBE SHOGA CESARE BORGIA KAWATOA AKILI , UNATULETEA AYA AMBAYO WEWE MWENYEWE HUIFAHAMU UMEJITOA FUSE KICHWANI??
 
Wapuuzi sana hawa, hawasomi/hawavijui vitabu vyao vimeandikwa nini, wanakimbilia kujifanya kuijua Bible ooh Ezekiel ooh Songs of Songs na blah blah kibao za C&P-hata hizo c&p nazo ziko wazi kabisa lakini mtu anakuja na povu linamtoka utadhani ngamia yupo kwenye heat!!
Ukisoma kwa makini hiyo mistari yao utaona kuwa hata KUNAWA/KUOSHA ni aliyetiwa tu, kwa mtiaji ruksa kusepa na vumba lako.
Halafu unona kumbe ruksa kumtafuna maiti iwe mbele au nyuma powa tu.
Anhaa, kumbe ndio maana Muhammad alikuwa analala wanawake na kuzuga eti aawaondolea adhabu ya kaburi, wapiii? wametawaliwa na tamaa ya ngono ngono tu, na mudy alilijua hilo ndio maana akawapa ahadi ukiifia dini unazawadiwa mahuries( eti ukimtia ukimaliza tu, ngoma inarudi kuwa bikra).
 

Sex-change vicar back in pulpit



Friends, family and colleagues support Rev Stone

The first Church of England vicar to undergo a sex-change operation returned to a warm welcome from parishioners on Sunday.

Around 100 people attended the service at St Philip's Church in Upper Stratton, Swindon, Wiltshire.

The only sour note for the Reverend Carol Stone, previously known to her congregation as Peter, came with a critical outburst from one woman who was escorted out.



Rev Peter Stone before his sex change operation


The other parishioners gave their minister a standing ovation.

During the service, Ms Stone, 46, told them she was delighted by the support she had received.

But she also dedicated prayers to those unable to accept her transformation.

She said: "This sermon hasn't been just three months in the making if the truth be told, I've been waiting to write it for the best part of 46 years - never dreaming one day I might.

"After almost 23 years of preaching I felt like a young curate again preparing for one's first sermon."

Ms Stone, who has been married twice and has a daughter, was dressed in purple robes and wore a pair of gold ear-rings

She compared her return to a scene from the classic children's tales of Pooh bear by A A Milne.


Inside me there is deep peace and a wholeness I never had before

Ms Stone

The vicar related how Pooh had gathered with his friends on a bridge to gaze at the river and told them that everyone was alright apart from him - only to be reassured by Christopher Robin.

Ms Stone said: "If Pooh were here today, I'd like to think he would say the same about me - that I too was alright, as indeed you are."

A single police officer attended the service as a precautionary measure but the elderly woman who expressed her opposition to Ms Stone was calmly escorted out by church members.

After the service, parishioners spoke of their feelings towards the vicar.

Michael Ennis, 71, who lives locally, said: "She has shown a great deal of courage. I remember how she was in the last few months before and you could see the strain on her face.



A parishioner shows the congregation's support for Rev Stone

"I don't think the people here will ever let her go. A person doesn't change - their abilities don't change. I thought the service went very well."

Greta Davies, 56, also from Upper Stratton, added: "It was a lovely service. Peter was an exceptional priest and Carol will be too."

Ms Stone spent time chatting to her congregation after the service.

She said: "I felt terrified. It (giving the sermon) was a very special moment.

"I never believed I would be able to return. I knew there would be people here today who held me in their prayers and hearts.

"The lady who spoke out wasn't part of the church fellowship. As a priest you have a concern for people of all views and standpoints.

"I believe God still has work for me to do. Inside me there is deep peace and a wholeness I never had before."

Broadcasting award

Rev Peter Stone was ordained in 1978 and served at Bradford-on-Avon in Wiltshire.

He was chaplain and head of religious studies at Dauntsey's School, West Lavington, before taking up the post at Upper Stratton in 1996.

A regular contributor to radio, he received a National Broadcasting Award from the Sandford St Martin Trust in 1979.

He announced he had decided to go ahead with the sex-change operation in June.

The Bishop of Bristol, the Right Reverend Barry Rogerson, said there was no ethical or ecclesiastical reason why he could not continue ministry afterwards.
 

wee kama unaejiita muisilamu afu unapinga kula au kuliwa mgongo WA ngisi ni kafir tu ona mujahidina huyu [emoji117] sijui kapiga brush au katumia ky au kohozi alahu yaalamu [emoji4]
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20181024_151045_635.jpg
    22.5 KB · Views: 20
Mimi nazitambua zote. na nina jua hazipingani kwenye kusudi la Mungu. Na zinaeleweka aya zake. ila kwasababu si wa KIROHO mnashindwa kuelewa mambo ya ROHONI maana hata Allah si ROHO!
 





The Gospel of Mark:


Note: This gospel is the oldest and supposedly the most original one in the New Testament!



"Although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading "According to Mark" in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother's house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1064)"


"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. (From the NIV Bible Commentary [1], page 1488)"


  • We certainly do not know whether Mark was the author or not! The quote clearly states "no direct internal evidence of authorship". Also, the so-called unanimous testimony of the early church:

    - Does not prove that the author was Mark.

    - Nor does it prove that other people did not alter and modify the book, especially when the book was written at least 40-50 years after Christ. We don't even know if Mark even wrote the book.


"Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1064)"


"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes [1], page 1528)"


"This verse, which reads, "But if you do not forgive, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your transgressions," is omitted in the best manuscripts. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1081)"


"This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1088)"


So, in reality, we don't really know whether Mark was the sole author of this Gospel or not, nor do we know when and where the "gospel" was even written. And since The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus, then how are we to know for sure that the current "Gospel of Mark" wasn't written by some pro of Mark?



A new captured image of this book's corruption:








(Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16:9-20 - New International Version)



The above text reads: "The most reliable early manuscript and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."


Now my concern to this corruption and 'answer-the-problem-away' statement is that what are those so-called "reliable early manuscript(s)" and who are the "ancient witnesses"?


According to the early Christians' manuscripts, Jesus never got crucified, and trinity is a lie. The so-called "gospel of Mark", along with all of the "gospels" of the NT, were written by third-party narration, as clearly demonstrated and shown in the sections below. People wrote on the tongue of Jesus' Disciples those books. They are neither original nor are the Pure Word of GOD Almighty.





If the "gospel of Mark" was indeed Divine and from GOD Almighty, then we wouldn't have this corruption, that they're admitting above, in it.​
 
Haya ni mambo ya kibinadam. onyesha wapi Biblia imeruhusu kufanya haya.
 
Kisoda2 said:
Haya ni mambo ya kibinadam. onyesha wapi Biblia imeruhusu kufanya haya.
Click to expand...


Na wapi huyo yesu wenu ameyakataza ???


I hope you see the real danger in making these assumptions when you are willing to DIE for the fact that such Gospel is the actual True Word of GOD Almighty!


Further regarding this Gospel, we read the following commentary about Mark 16:9-20:


"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes [1], page 1528)"


This quote raises a very serious issue here. First of all, as we've seen above in the first quote, we have no evidence that proves that John Mark was the sole author of this so called "Gospel". Second of all, we see that this Gospel has some serious problems/suspicions in it. The issue of Mark 16:9-20 is a scary one, because many Christian cults today use poisonous snakes in their worship and end up dying.


Removing Mark 16:9-20 is quite appreciated by me personally (to be quite honest with you), because it prevents people from dying from snake bites. But however, the serious issue of man's corruption of the Bible remains.


We can be absolutely certain now that the above quotes prove without a doubt that the Bible is doubtful. The quote "or its original ending has been lost" proves that what we call today "Gospels" were not written by their original authors such as Mark, John, Matthew, etc... It proves that the Gospel had been tampered with by man. Let alone considering it as the True Living Words of GOD Almighty.


If John Mark wasn't the one who wrote Mark 16:9-20, then who did? And how can you prove the ownership of the other person? Let alone proving that it was GOD Almighty's Revelation. And as we saw in the first quote above, we don't even know that John Mark was indeed the one who wrote the so called "Gospel of Mark".


To say the least in our case here, we now have enough evidence to discard the entire Gospel of Mark from the Bible, because you can't take bits and pieces of it and say some of it belongs to him and some of it doesn't! Let alone considering the entire corrupted Gospel as the True Living Word of GOD Almighty, which is a complete blasphemy.
 
What does the Verse means to you?Did it teach you to kill any human being?
did it teach you to F#& your daughter in law?
 
Kisoda2 said:
What does the Verse means to you?Did it teach you to kill any human being?
did it teach you to F#& your daughter in law?
Click to expand...


KAMUULIZE ROHO MTAKATIFU WAKO ALIYEWAONGOZA HUKO KWENYE CORRUPTION NA KUMWABUDU SHOGA CESARE BORGIA
 
weka andiko siyo nini mburula mwenzako kaandika.
Hivi ndivyo bibilia ilivyosema kuhusu hiyo. Cheki hapo halafu linganisha na ushoga wa muhammad alikufundisha.

Mambo ya Walawi20:1-27

20 Na Yehova akaendelea kusema na Musa, na kumwambia: 2 “Utawaambia wana wa Israeli, ‘Mtu yeyote wa wana wa Israeli, na mkaaji mgeni yeyote anayekaa akiwa mgeni katika Israeli, anayempa Moleki+ yeyote kati ya uzao wake, lazima auawe. Watu wa nchi watampiga kwa mawe mpaka afe. 3 Mimi nami, nitauweka uso wangu juu ya mtu huyo, nami nitamkatilia mbali kutoka katikati ya watu wake,+ kwa sababu amempa Moleki baadhi ya uzao wake kwa kusudi la kupatia unajisi mahali pangu patakatifu+ na kulitia unajisi jina langu takatifu.+ 4 Na ikiwa watu wa nchi hiyo hawatamuua kwa kuyaficha macho yao kimakusudi yasimwone mtu huyo anapompa Moleki yeyote kati ya uzao wake,+ 5 basi mimi nami nitaukaza uso wangu juu ya mtu huyo na familia yake,+ nami nitamkatilia mbali yeye na wote wanaofanya uasherati pamoja naye katika kufanya uasherati+ na Moleki watoke katikati ya watu wao.6 “‘Nayo nafsi inayowaendea wenye kuwasiliana na pepo+ na wajuzi wa kubashiri+ matukio ili kufanya uasherati nao, nitauweka uso wangu juu ya nafsi hiyo na kumkatilia mbali kutoka katikati ya watu wake.+7 “‘Nanyi mtajitakasa na kuwa watakatifu,+ kwa sababu mimi ni Yehova Mungu wenu. 8 Nanyi mtazishika sheria zangu na kuzitenda.+ Mimi ni Yehova, ninayewatakasa ninyi.+9 “‘Ikiwa kutakuwa na mtu yeyote anayemlaani baba yake na mama yake,+ lazima auawe.+ Ni baba yake na mama yake ambao amewalaani. Damu yake mwenyewe iko juu yake.+10 “‘Sasa mwanamume anayefanya uzinzi na mke wa mwanamume mwingine ni mwanamume anayefanya uzinzi na mke wa mwenzake.+ Lazima auawe, mwanamume huyo mzinzi na vilevile mwanamke huyo mzinzi.+ 11 Na mwanamume anayelala na mke wa baba yake ameufunua uchi wa baba yake.+ Lazima wote wawili wauawe. Damu yao wenyewe iko juu yao. 12 Na mwanamume akilala na binti-mkwe wake, lazima wote wawili wauawe.+Wamevunja jambo la asili. Damu yao wenyewe iko juu yao.+13 “‘Na mwanamume akilala na mwanamume sawa na vile mtu anavyolala na mwanamke, wote wawili wamefanya jambo lenye kuchukiza.+ Lazima wauawe. Damu yao wenyewe iko juu yao.14 “‘Na mwanamume akimchukua mwanamke pamoja na mama yake, ni mwenendo mpotovu.+ Watamteketeza yeye na wao katika moto,+ ili mwenendo mpotovu+usiendelee katikati yenu.15 “‘Na mwanamume akimpa mnyama shahawa yake imtokayo,+ lazima auawe, nanyi mtamuua mnyama huyo.16 Na mwanamke akimkaribia mnyama yeyote ili kuungana+ naye, mtamuua mwanamke huyo na mnyama huyo. Lazima wauawe. Damu yao wenyewe iko juu yao.17 “‘Na mwanamume akimchukua dada yake, binti ya baba yake au binti ya mama yake, naye auone uchi wake, naye dada yake auone uchi wake, ni aibu.+ Kwa hiyo watakatiliwa mbali kutoka machoni pa wana wa watu wao. Ni uchi wa dada yake ambao ameufunua. Atajibu kwa kosa lake.18 “‘Na mwanamume akilala na mwanamke mwenye hedhi na kuufunua uchi wake, ameifunua chemchemi yake, naye mwanamke huyo ameifichua chemchemi ya damu yake.+ Kwa hiyo wote wawili watakatiliwa mbali kutoka katikati ya watu wao.19 “‘Nao uchi wa dada ya mama yako+ na dada ya baba yako+ usiufunue, kwa sababu mtu atakuwa ameufunua uhusiano wake wa damu.+ Watajibu kwa kosa lao. 20 Na mwanamume anayelala na mke wa ndugu ya baba yake ameufunua uchi wa ndugu ya baba yake.+ Watajibu kwa dhambi yao. Watakufa bila kupata mtoto.+ 21 Na mtu akimchukua mke wa ndugu yake, ni chukizo.+ Ni uchi wa ndugu yake ambao ameufunua. Watakuwa bila mtoto.22 “‘Nanyi mtazishika sheria+ zangu zote na maamuzi yangu yote ya hukumu+ na kuzifanya, ili nchi nitakayowaingiza mkae ndani yake isije ikawatapika ninyi.+ 23 Nanyi msitembee katika sheria za mataifa ambayo nitayafukuza kutoka mbele yenu,+ kwa sababu wamefanya mambo hayo yote nami nayachukia.+ 24 Ndipo nikawaambia ninyi:+ “Ninyi mtaimiliki nchi yao, nami nitawapa ninyi ili mwimiliki, nchi inayotiririka maziwa na asali.+ Mimi ni Yehova Mungu wenu, ambaye nimewatenga kutoka kwa vikundi vya watu.”+ 25 Nanyi mtatofautisha mnyama aliye safi na asiye safi na kutofautisha ndege aliye safi na asiye safi;+ nanyi msizifanye nafsi zenu kuwa zenye kuchukiza+ kupitia mnyama na ndege na kitu chochote ambacho hutembea juu ya nchi ambacho nimekitenga kwa ajili yenu kwa kuvitangaza kuwa si safi. 26 Nanyi mtakuwa watakatifu kwangu,+ kwa sababu mimi Yehova ni mtakatifu;+ nami ninawatenga kutoka kwa vikundi vya watu ili muwe wangu.+27 “‘Naye mwanamume au mwanamke atakayekuwa na roho ya kuwasiliana na pepo au roho ya kubashiri,+ lazima wauawe.+ Watawapiga hao kwa mawe na kuwaua. Damu yao wenyewe iko juu yao.’”

Usione uvivu soma hiyo.
Kwenu mudi anaruhusu kupiga miti mpaka myama! Sasa angalia adhabu yake hapo. jiulize ungekuwepo??
Au ndio mnajipoza na Kupiga mawe mwanamke tu. stupid Abdul alikopi kisha akapindisha ili mabedui wamuunge mkono.
 
Hapa ndipo Yesu alipofundisha. Sasa hangaika nayo na kisha kamuulize mudi kwanini hakuyaona haya wakati akikopi ili kutengeneza Yellow Pages yake?

Uzinzi
Mungu ametuonya tusi zini. Katika Kutoka 20:14 imeandikwa, "usizini".

Kumwacha mke wako au mume wako na kuoa mtu mwingine yaweza kuwa halali kwetu lakini kwa Mungu ni dhambi. Luka 16:18 inasema "Kila amwachaye mkewe na kumwoa mke mwingine azini; naye amwoaye yeye aliyeachwa na mumewe azini."

Kutamani mtu asiye mume au mke wako nikuzini katika Mathayo 5:27 -28 "Mmesikia kwamba imenenwa, usizini; lakini mimi(Yesu anaongea) nawaambia, kila mtu atazamaye mwanamke kwa kumtamani, amekwisha kuzini moyoni mwake."

Yesu alimchukulia vipi mwanamke aliyeshikwa akizini? Yohana 8:10-11 Inasema, " Yesu akajiinua asimwone mtu ila yule mwanamke, akamwambia mwanamke, wako wapi wale washitaki wako? je! hakuna aliyekuhukumu kuwa na hatia? akamwambia, hakuna Bwana. Yesu akamwambia wala mimi sikuhukumu. Endazako; wala usitende dhambi tena." - Mud alifundisha the opposite yake tena kwa kumuonea mwanamke.

Nimapenzi ya Mungu tusizini. Imeandikwa katika Wathesalonike wa kwanza 4:3 "Maana haya ndiyo mapenzi ya Mungu, kutakaswa kwenu, muepukane na usherati."
 




Sometimes, i ponder on thoughts and think "What is the point of even refuting these people?

They believe that "Almighty God" was once a little baby that relied on his mother's breast milk and had to have his tushy also wiped by mummy." I think that alone can paint us a very vivid (out of the box) view of Christianity.

I also feel like they do not even know what they are teaching. One day Jesus is the son of god... or equal... or is all powerful.. or is a prophet... & then God himself for crying out loud.

If anything their priests and missionaries hide several verses from their people. Such as a rapist marrying his culprit forever without a divorce.

Cutting their eye out if they stare at a hot lady as it is better to lose their eye than their whole body in hell (Matthew 5:27-29)

Cut their hand off if they commit a sin. (Matthew 5:30) Nothing metaphorical as the greek word used for cut was ἔκκοψον.

Imagine how the world would be if people actually followed the teachings of Christianity (blind and hand-less) i wonder how poor christians like you refute these verses. "It's a metaphor!" looooooooooool
 
Kisoda2 said:
Hujui kitu siukubali, sijui ufundishwe?
Click to expand...



UNIFUNDISHE ALIYOKUFUNDISHA SHOGA CESARE BORGIA ??😳😳😳😳😛😛😛


ZAWADI YAKO HII

A Woman's Punishment For Defending Her Husband = Cut Off Her Hand

Photo: via Twitter
"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

Okay this one is insanely specific, which makes it that much more awesome. This probably NEVER happens... but if a faithful wife decided to defend her husband by grabbing a guy by his junk, anyone, would have God's blessing to cut her hand off.

How to Use:

Alright, so in the extremely rare case that you might witness something like this happening and you know everyone involved is a devout Christian, then politely recommend the woman's hand be cut off -- just to save her (and them) from an eternity of Hellfire.

And once again, here's another rule that illustrates the point that if people were better Christians, we'd have a lot more handless people walking around. If people were much better Christians, then pirate hook sales would go through the roof (and we'd probably have designer hooks as a driving force of our economy.)






Is this insane?
 
mgen said:
Hii nayo kama baba fatuma alipo logwa View attachment 909389 [emoji23] [emoji23]
Click to expand...


If You Disobey God, You Will Eat Your Babies

Photo: via Pinterest


If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, 28 then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. 29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters."(Leviticus 26:27-30)

If you break even a single one of these rules, you need to eat your children. Doesn't matter how old they are, doesn't matter what you do, but if you disobey God and his ways, he's going to wreak some serious havoc.

In this part of Leviticus, it's really God making a bunch of threats rules and maybe he just got a little out of hand, but yes, he says that if you disobey him, he's gonna make you eat your kids.

How to Use:

You might as well put on the Food Network, get some good recipes ready and hand them to someone next time a Christian fundamentalist tries to pull their piety card out. If they're not following this rule, then why follow rules that allow hate towards people different than they are?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…