Did Catholicism Create Islam?
(youtu.be)
Comments (36)
sorted by:
Well, it does point to that. Islam is around 400 years after Catholicism and they fall for the trinity theory, and actually Muhammed is playing the role of the messiah.
Dr. David Wood makes great points dissecting Islam. I had some videos of rabbis that said "Islam is the broom that is used against Christianity", but for some reason I cannot find it. But I know for a fact it's here at the end - https://conspiracies.win/p/16c2MtYigt/europe-on-fire-documentary/c/
Some theorize that Muhammed is the false prophet mentioned in Revelations. I am not so sure, but Islam covers 1/3 of the religious people around the world. Even if he was just demented, the power structure created on Islam is currently the most active.
I just hope people don't fall for the false belief that Muslims know about Jesus, as I did initially. Turns out their Jesus is their own invention, not the actual one. Anyway, Dr. David Wood is exposing the lies in the Quran and I recommend him for further understanding on the Muslims' religious books.
Yeah, if I remember correctly they delegate Jesus to having been a lesser prophet. According to them, He didn’t even die on the cross, having substituted a look alike in secret to avoid such a humiliating death.
a) DAVID (king of israel and judah) from Hebrew Dawidh -"beloved friend"; hence beloved friend (david) erect penis (wood).
b) a docked oar (doctor) prevents a vessel (life) within motion (inception towards death) from steering.
c) a suggested point (end of sentence) tempts one to ignore ones ongoing life-sentence.
d) DISSECT (to divide) TION (action) implies action (inception towards death) dividing into reactions (life).
e) to dissect (divide) islam (submission) would imply ones consent to submit to the suggestion of another. This is being inverted by questioning how Islam divides others (broom used against Christianity), which represents a contradiction in itself, since one uses a broom to bring dirt together; not to set it apart.
Suggested dehumanization in the name of others.
a) mocking free will of choice implies ones ignorance of being free will of choice, hence ones lack of self discernment.
b) for many "free-will-of-choice" represents a suggested name; while few discern the implication of each one representing free will of choice. Putting in the effort represents a testament (test of mind) for ones self discernment.
c) why would you exchange "choice" for "joooo" instead of "will"? Doing so shapes a "jooo" into a chosen one.
Using suggested words over perceivable sound implies "one corresponding to the other" (double). Therefore; "double" represents the status quo for speaking, which tempts one to ignore that nature doesn't speak (articulation of sound), because sound represents natural; and words represent artificial.
Aka ones consent to suggested nihilism (0) and dualism (2), while ignoring perceivable units (1). Furthermore; the point "." (end of sentence) implies ones consent to suggested progressivism, while ignoring ones ongoing life-sentence.
a) Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is right now on it's eleventh edition, which implies that those who dictate expressions by words are editing definitions; hence continuously changing them.
b) the few suggest written dictionaries, while the many consent to RE (respond to) WRITE (written by) them.
tl; dr...how about adding an example for a re-written word to your accusatory comment?
I will never figure out how are bots like this still not blocked by the mods?
Anyway, I have a block feature for that.
Can you show me a "bot" that can adapt to perceivable inspiration on the fly?
a) Still implies "cessation of motion", hence only within everything moving can one suggest stillness....others suggest nihilism (not; nothing) as the inversion thereof.
b) If nothing can have cessation of motion, then that implies nothing can move. How could something moving be nothing?
Aka ones free will of choice to ignore...others suggest "block-features" to tempt one to consent to suggested (fiction); while ignoring perceivable (reality).
Others suggest the-ism to tempt one to submit to their authority; while ignoring to utilize ones free will of choice to moderate self.
Furthermore; choice can only exist within balance; which represents limit (moderation) for choice. Only within "dom"-inance of balance can there be "free" will of choice aka free-dom.
Edit: ones consent to suggested the-ism implies ones submission to others, hence ISLAM.
This topic has puzzled numerous expositors: how does Islam fit into the picture of global conflict? Is this a political or religious conflict, or both? What is Islam’s origin and what are its goals? How does it impact ecumenism and the doctrine of salvation in Christ? Can we find evidence that the Catholic Church created Islam or helped them grow? This lecture sheds some light on the picture.
No.
this is probably Walters best video. lot of good in this
No.
Next question.
Semitic Blood God Religion created Catholicism and Islam.
That is why those institutions capitalize on the end of free will as a form of happiness.
Submit yourself as the sacrifice and sheep of a "higher being".
All different names with the same premise.
If you actually watched the lectures I post here, you would understand that the God of the Bible has nothing to do with the “Semitic Blood God” you think you know. Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with the end of free will. In fact, it is the exercise of our free will that gives meaning to love and everything that is happening in the world. God’s not going to force you to love Him and change your ways. It’s entirely your choice. At the end of it all, there will be two groups of people. Those who look to God and say “Thy will be done”, and those whom God looks upon as He says “Thy will be done”.
The evangelical christians of the United States of America that you are thinking about have nothing to do with this. They are at most offshoot Gnostics. There's a reason why Stalin killed all of them and the Vatican killed all of them way back in Rome.
The actual Christianity back in Ancient Rome? Look at that and you'll see how did we exactly pass off condoning gender fluidity and LGBTQP+ as totally normal. It's exactly the same way they will make changing genders like changing clothes, really.
Catholicism re-introduced the feminine principle that had been sublimated in the Judaic religions. Astarte was removed. The resulting masculine deity is reflection of war. As war was the order of the day. As peace was sought, the feminine principle was reintroduced as Mary (Mer/the sea/mare horse (fem force) and the outskirts of the empire (Africa/Asia/etc) had their own version introduced.
Isis being a feminine goddess, and Lam being 'of the feminine', this became Islam.
The name Israel shows how both masculine and feminine principles are two sides of One who is EL. Is-Ra-El.
The world wafts back and forth, to and fro (like the devil)...between two extremes.
Where's the middle in all this? Who can see it, give me a show of hands.
(The open hand has five fingers (the letter E) and the forefinger and thumb create an 'L'.)
Wafting back and forth between two extremes is actually talked about in the Bible trough the story of the war between the north and the south. The king of the south represents liberalism and the north represents religious conservatism. On the surface, they seem bitterly opposed but are actually both agents of Satan. Scripture states that at the end, the king of the north wins and a call of apparent peace rings out over the earth before sudden destruction. The sudden destruction being the second coming of Christ. For this reason, you should be extremely suspicious of any big religious revivals or Christian religious movements that get big traction in popular culture or politics. It’s highly likely to be a lie.
Yes, thank you, as it's said that 'The devil goes to and fro.'
Being the ultimate duelist/dualist.
That’s actually a very interesting verse. I wonder if it’s referencing Job. In the old days, it was customary to walk up and down a new property of yours so when God asks Satan in Job “Where did you come from” and Satan responds “Walking back and forth”, he was arrogantly telling God that the Earth is his. So it’s interesting that the language in the verse you reference was used because it might be a reminder that mankind is in a foreign, hostile land who’s ruler wishes to kill them.
Who knows how to lay the four corners? Two are on a high place. One builds. One destroys under illusion of building.
Lineating and delineating..........the laying or leying of lines brings Time and Distance and dimension into being. Being of matter, they are 'ruled' by its laws under Lucifer, so to speak. Entering into dualism....two extreme 'points' and all in between.
The dichotomy it presents ......known variously as Zeno's Paradox or more modern take, Hegel's Dialectic.....it is used to control opposing forces.
Hence, always going 'to and fro'........back and forth in cycles that give the appearance of balance when it is not. The method of 'influence' and now influenza :)
These people are sick.
The middle way of the cross..........the fulcrum between 'two thieves'....the horizontal 'to and fro' of materialism......is the verticle androgynous christ of the chrism.
And we'll all go 'back and forth' until we 'settle' this. :)
You seem to be mixing alchemical principles with doctrine. For example, Satan uses Hegelian stratagems to create the change he wants to see. A lot of people make the mistake that the true path is somewhere in the middle when in actuality, biblical truth has nothing to do with either path presented by Lucifer. If you’re searching for a middle ground, you’re just walking around in the cage Satan has fashioned.
It’s part of the strategy to create two opposing factions, have them conflict, and then present what you really wanted as a compromise after the dust has settled. In reality, you’re just falling for the deception by accepting the compromise. It’s why we are instructed to have nothing to do with any of it. Instead, the only way to see what you really should be doing is to study the genuine word of God and follow its instructions. The more familiar you are with the genuine article, the better you get at spotting a forgery. That way, regardless of wether or not the devil presents the light or dark path, you will be able to recognize it and avoid it.
The notion of a balance between good and evil isn’t a biblical concept. Instead, we are told that God has nothing to do with the darkness and to have anything to do with it results in death because you are choosing to separate yourself from God. Any “light” that tries to have fellowship with darkness is a false light and only seeks to present a convenient lie to the unaware.
They aren't Hegel's stratagems exactly......Hegelian, yes. ..Hegel made observations, about the dialectic. Dividers use it to accomplish their goals. It wasn't invented, or 'created' except as a by-product of dualist nature coming into being.
This was known as Zeno's Paradox in western history.
The "Middle" of the cross, between it's arms, the two thieves at the opposites, who actually represent the dichotomy of nature. The 'middle arm' represents the quiet still fulcrum between the extremes. The base from which they deviate.
It represents the chrism and one who accepts as the christ.
The study of dualism in nature, in Asia produced Taoism aka 'The Middle Way'.
Darkness, being not a thing, but absent of a thing, it makes little sense to say God has 'nothing to do with it'. It's saying he has nothing to do with nothing.
You seem to misunderstand what is meant by 'middle' here. The fulcrum has equal parts to either side...........but isn't either.
The hub of a wheel is comparable in other traditions.
The problem is dualism and stressing the opposite sides as mere opposites, not paired concepts and this perpetuates the dichotomy that some know how to take to their advantage.
In Egypt, the heart is laid on a scale upon death to gauge both it's 'weight' and 'balance'. Reasons.
Everything in it's extreme becomes it's opposite. Explain.
You are incorporating a lot of non-scriptural teachings and trying to apply them to what is stated in the Bible. This is the wrong direction. Instead, you need to start with the Bible and work outward as it is the foundation of Truth. You need to let the Bible define itself and not apply foreign definitions to biblical symbols. Doing so is considered a form of idolatry.
When I say God has nothing to do with it, I am saying that God has nothing to do with death. This is stated clearly by scripture. He is the God of the living. He is a God of creation and light. He is perfect and there is no darkness or sin in Him. As a created being, you are made with the capacity to stay in creation or leave it because you have free will. To choose the teachings of man and the world, to choose sin, is to pursue a path that cannot lead to God. Instead, you are only lead to a path that results in death as you are willingly separating yourself from the very thing that sustains existence.
Again, you’re mixing pagan thought with Christian thought. The concepts of the middle way and the notion that Christ is a state of being are deceptions meant to fool people into thinking they have found truth when in reality they are still trapped in the lie.
Both paths presented in those systems, left and right/ dark and light, or even some mysterious middle path that’s in harmony with nature (nature worship is idolatry), are lies that lead to the same place. Scripture is clear on this. At the end, there aren’t three paths, or many different paths to the same place, there are only two. One path leads to Christ which is life, every other path leads to eternal death and separation from God. It’s up to you which side you are on.
When you talk of Christ as a state of being or “Christ Consciousness” you are buying into a variation of the same lie that the serpent told Adam and Eve in the garden, that you can become like God. This is just an extension of works based salvation which is completely antithetical to what the plan of salvation actually is. Fallen man is incapable of saving himself so God had to personally don flesh and be the sacrifice in our stead. If you accept Christ and obey God, His sacrifice is applied to you and you are effectively pardoned. You are then to go and walk the Christian path in life. There is no other way out that results in you living as any sin functionally results in the death penalty.
You call on concepts from Taoism and Egypt when their religions and teachings have nothing to do with the teachings of the Bible. Instead, ancient man got those teachings from fallen angels who were trying to confuse the story by taking elements of the truth and then perverting reality. The Hegelian dialectic of using opposites to create an outcome (synthesis) is a stratagem of Satan. When you say dividers use it to their benefit, it’s more correct to look at them as people who are spiritually manipulated to do the works of Lucifer in the world.
Even your symbolism isn’t biblical. The Bible defines its symbols and nowhere does it describe the cross as a fulcrum between two opposites. Such an explanation is manmade and therefore invalid according to scripture. Instead, the cross is meant to point back to the sanctuary which itself pointed to Christ. The symbolism you reference doesn’t point to Christ and instead points to some suggested secret truth for the enlightened, completely removing Christ as the savior, thereby shifting focus to the individual saving themself. The more you study the Bible, the more plain it is that other religions explanations for biblical concepts are just the Devils fan fiction as he tries to tell a version of the story that either inverts or combines the character of God with his character.
I think the problem here is that you are looking at Christianity as being on the same level as any other religion in that they all have some aspect of the truth or any one of them can lead to the ultimate truth. In reality, you have everything else, then you have Christianity.
I highly recommend you watch the entirety of the Total Onslaught series as it addresses every single thing you’re talking about and clearly shows where the errors are, which is why I like to link to it so much.
Thesis: Anti-thesis : Synthesis
It's a 'law of nature'.
But both law and nature are 'below God'.
(I didn't downdoot you btw)
Others suggest catholiscism; creationism; mohammedism and abrahamism, while ones consent to suggested RELIGION (Latin religo; to bind anew) implies ISLAM (submission).
a) ones consent (islam; submission) connects one to the suggested information (-ism) by others.
b) nature sets itself apart aka from whole (perceivable) into each partial (perception), while others tempt one back together with suggestions.
c) if one consents to suggested; then one establishes a connection in-between partials aka host inviting parasite.
"again" implies "a gain" by frequency of adaptation to perceivable inspiration...unless ignored for consent to suggested information.
What did you gain by suggesting "dagooo" again?
Free implies within dominance; while will (want) implies within need...both imply a division through motion from one another. Why write them together?