Who Is Allah?

Aug 24, 2007 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Brussels Journal

“Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? [...] What does God care what we call him?”

From the desk of Soeren Kern on Fri, 2007-08-24 11:56 Europeans love to mock the salience of religion in American society. via The Brussels Journal

Comments (Page 8,562)

Showing posts 171,221 - 171,240 of193,562
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181822
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally off-topic like the writers of the New Testament. I wrote this in response to Matthew 19:9 and the other stuff which you quoted:
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied,“that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said,‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked,“did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied,“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Now read Matthew 19:9 again:
You fools quote us what you cannot understand yourself.
If you know how to read and comprehend, then you should know that Jesus also permitted divorcing a wife for sexual immorality. He qualified it soooooo well.
So, after the two become one flesh and one goes after another flesh and those two become one flesh unlawfully, then Jesus strongly recommends divorce.
Read V9 again, clueless fool!
The point is that Jesus was pro-divorce in case a man's wife had committed sexual immorality.
So, if a man divorced his wife on the basis of sexual immorality on her part, Jesus would have gladly issued a certificate of divorce by putting his thumb print.
Jesus gave no advice or solution for such a case. Qur'aan tells us how to deal in such cases and tells us to admonish such women and lecture them to behave well and improve their conduct. No straight divorce recommended by Jesus. Divorce only as a last resort.
In Matthew 19:9, the biblical Jesus supports the male chauvinists.
No, No, No.
You are a demon hell.
Muhammad is a demon from hell.
The religion of the Muslims is a religion from hell.

The Quran proved Muslims are to follow Jesus and not Muhammad.
uhuh

Jumilla, Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181823
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

The prophets who submitted (aslamu) judged the Jews by the Torah, and so too did the rabbis and the learned.
And let the people of Injil judge by what God has revealed in it.
For each of you We have made a Law and a Way of life.(Quran 5:44-48)

interesting

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181824
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

2

uhuh wrote:
Paul the false prophet
covered his very rotten core teaching of: Christ is God over all (Rom 9:5) who took the form of a man (Phil 2:7)
with his whitewash plaster (Ezek 13:10) such as the 10 articles of love, "I wrote to you through many tears that you might know the deep love that I have for you" etc.
the crocodile tears of The Dark Prophet..
You are ignorant of the scripture in the Quran.
Muhammad is a demon from hell.
Muhammad's religion is from Satan.
That is what the Quran says UhUh.
Read it.
Muslims are to follow Jesus not Muhammad.
"Behold! the angels said,'Oh Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter, and in (the company of) those nearest to God. He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. He shall be (in the company) of the righteous... And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel'" (3:45-48).
Seeker

Billerica, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181825
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

3

bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Seeker, your explanation and your take means nothing. Jesus was NO manifestation of God on earth. Period.
That is not an answer and it does not point out any flaw in my interpretation, and I can use scriptures to back my interpretation up. The problem you have with it is that it DOES explain how Jesus could be seen as a physical manifestation of God on earth in that everything he did was not his will, but the will of God and therefore it was actually God acting THROUGH the physical form of Jesus to manifest himself in a tangible way, and yet he could also be considered Son of God (Jesus had no earthly, biological Father), and yet it can also be said that God is greater. I think it explains how all three things can be simultaneously said to be true. It's not my fault that nobody ever explained this angle to you and that it doesn't fit in the anti Christian playbook that you probably read.
Seeker

Billerica, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181826
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

bmz wrote:
<quoted text>What ever absurd claims Christianity makes, Jesus HAS to be on record for saying that. And there is nothing from Jesus himself to substantiate those claims.
All you do is to try and wipe out and discredit any book or verse that DOES say these things. All of the discredit of John are admitted to merely be guesses by the historians themselves that make this claim. Not one single legitimate historian claims that they have actually proven anything against John and they admit that it's just their guess. And there are also many who defend the legitimacy of John, and you merely ignore that because they don't say what you want to hear.

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181827
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>No, No, No.
You are a demon hell.
Muhammad is a demon from hell.
The religion of the Muslims is a religion from hell.
The Quran proved Muslims are to follow Jesus and not Muhammad.
Off-topic again.

I did not say this. It is your Jesus, who said, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Here Jesus confirms that one can divorce his wife for sexual immorality. If she has not shwon any sexual immorality, then one cannot divorce the woman.

I did not write that. That demon Matthew wrote it when he was high on something..

Now read Matthew 19:9 again:
You fools quote us what you cannot understand yourself.
If you know how to read and comprehend, then you should know that Jesus also permitted divorcing a wife for sexual immorality. He qualified it soooooo well.
So, after the two become one flesh and one goes after another flesh and those two become one flesh unlawfully, then Jesus strongly recommends divorce.
Read V9 again, clueless fool!
The point is that Jesus was pro-divorce in case a man's wife had committed sexual immorality.
So, if a man divorced his wife on the basis of sexual immorality on her part, Jesus would have gladly issued a certificate of divorce by putting his thumb print.
Jesus gave no advice or solution for such a case. Qur'aan tells us how to deal in such cases and tells us to admonish such women and lecture them to behave well and improve their conduct. No straight divorce recommended by Jesus. Divorce only as a last resort.
In Matthew 19:9, the biblical Jesus supports the male chauvinists.

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181828
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Shamma wrote:
"Behold! the angels said,'Oh Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter, and in (the company of) those nearest to God. He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. He shall be (in the company) of the righteous... And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel'" (3:45-48).
So, God taught him Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Is it?

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181829
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
All you do is to try and wipe out and discredit any book or verse that DOES say these things. All of the discredit of John are admitted to merely be guesses by the historians themselves that make this claim. Not one single legitimate historian claims that they have actually proven anything against John and they admit that it's just their guess. And there are also many who defend the legitimacy of John, and you merely ignore that because they don't say what you want to hear.
It is a well-known fact that the Gospel, According to John, was written by many Johns. This is a fact which no one can deny.

Historians have nothing on John and others. What we hear is from historians of the Church.

This is from John 20:

" The Purpose of John’s Gospel

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.

31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

So, the main purpose of that gospel is to tell you that Jesus is the Messiah. John did not say that you may believe that Jesus was God or the Father.

Son of God is another fraud.

If you read the first ever translation of the Bible in English by Wycliffe, he wrote:

"In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word."

Which means in the beginning, God was the only word.

How do you expect us to accept the 15th Century deliberate mistranslation and a forgery, "In the beginning was The Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God"?

Any sensible person reading John will find ZERO divinity of Jesus. Do you see any divinity of Jesus in Mark's gospel, which was copied wholesale by Matthew and Luke?

bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181830
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Normal Man wrote:
I'm still watching!!
Shamma will provide popcorn, bro, before he hits the keyboard with his toes.
Seeker

Billerica, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181831
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

3

bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Off-topic again.
I did not say this. It is your Jesus, who said, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Here Jesus confirms that one can divorce his wife for sexual immorality. If she has not shwon any sexual immorality, then one cannot divorce the woman.
I did not write that. That demon Matthew wrote it when he was high on something..
Now read Matthew 19:9 again:
You fools quote us what you cannot understand yourself.
If you know how to read and comprehend, then you should know that Jesus also permitted divorcing a wife for sexual immorality. He qualified it soooooo well.
So, after the two become one flesh and one goes after another flesh and those two become one flesh unlawfully, then Jesus strongly recommends divorce.
Read V9 again, clueless fool!
The point is that Jesus was pro-divorce in case a man's wife had committed sexual immorality.
So, if a man divorced his wife on the basis of sexual immorality on her part, Jesus would have gladly issued a certificate of divorce by putting his thumb print.
Jesus gave no advice or solution for such a case. Qur'aan tells us how to deal in such cases and tells us to admonish such women and lecture them to behave well and improve their conduct. No straight divorce recommended by Jesus. Divorce only as a last resort.
In Matthew 19:9, the biblical Jesus supports the male chauvinists.
Do you know the background scenario of these verses and why the Quran said them?

1. O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you; you seek to please your wives; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. 2. Allah indeed has sanctioned for you the expiation of your oaths and Allah is your Protector, and He is the Knowing the Wise. 3. And when the prophet secretly communicated a piece of information to one of his wives-- but when she informed (others) of it, and Allah made him to know it, he made known part of it and avoided part; so when he informed her of it, she said: Who informed you of this? He said: The Knowing, the one Aware, informed me. 4. If you both turn to Allah, then indeed your hearts are already inclined (to this); and if you back up each other against him, then surely Allah it is Who is his Guardian, and Jibreel and -the believers that do good, and the angels after that are the aiders.5. Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins.

Muhammad's WIVES (plural) were angry with him because he was cheating on them with a slave girl. 18 wives apparently weren't good enough for him. Muhammad cheats on them, and then creates a Sura to say that it is lawful for him and make it look like he didn't want to sleep with the beautiful slave girl, but Allah told him to do that. Are you kidding me?

I have no idea in the world why you would ever want to discuss an issue like this given Muhammad's behavior.

Since: Nov 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181832
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

bmz wrote:
<quoted text>Here, we see a grand Taqaiyyah and a great lie. Christians do not go direct to God.

They approach Jesus and his mother. You, a Catholic, is the living proof.

When you have a problem, you call Mary only, the Mother of your God. So, please stop lying. Pope Francis did not even call God or Jesus on day one. He asked for Mary's help!!!!!!!!!!

Christians do not have direct dialing facility to God. All the calls have to go through the operators Jesus and Mary. The largest number of calls are made through Mary's telephone exchange.
You are so ignorant you think all Christians are Catholics!!!

Good grief!!!

Since: Nov 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181833
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

bmz wrote:
<quoted text>No.
I will pray Allah for you or a loved one of yours die or get hurt by a terrorist attack in the name of Islam!!!

Then you come back and tell me THA Islam is not Satan's cloak!!!

http://whenthepiecesfit.org/
Seeker

Billerica, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181834
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

3

bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a well-known fact that the Gospel, According to John, was written by many Johns. This is a fact which no one can deny.
It is NOT a well known fact, it is merely guesses by SOME historians, and when pressed they admit that it is just their guess.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Historians have nothing on John and others. What we hear is from historians of the Church.
This is from John 20:
" The Purpose of John’s Gospel
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
It says that it only speaks of SOME things that Jesus did, not all. And it says that what was recorded was so that you may believe, but that it can't record everything. What is the matter with your ability to read properly?
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
So, the main purpose of that gospel is to tell you that Jesus is the Messiah.
And it also says Son of God, which is something that you deny, and you blatantly left that part out. Very dishonest.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
John did not say that you may believe that Jesus was God or the Father.
Son of God is another fraud.
That's just your opinion, but you say that the Church itself says it's a fraud and then you quote an explanation from them that clearly says Son of God. What is the matter with your reasoning abilities oh veritable scholar? Didn't you say earlier that anybody who says you are smart is right? Sorry, but I just don't see that at all. You have a difficult time with even the most basic forms of logic and reasoning.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
If you read the first ever translation of the Bible in English by Wycliffe, he wrote:
"In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word."
Which means in the beginning, God was the only word.
How do you expect us to accept the 15th Century deliberate mistranslation and a forgery, "In the beginning was The Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God"?
Then Yusuf Ali forged the Quran as well in his translations. It's just a translation.

KJV
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NIV
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Sometimes I just can't understand how your cross eyed mind thinks.
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Any sensible person reading John will find ZERO divinity of Jesus. Do you see any divinity of Jesus in Mark's gospel, which was copied wholesale by Matthew and Luke?
Who says they were copied? Look, if you want to ask a real question, ask why some Gospels were considered canonical and others weren't. That's perhaps the REAL question. I don't know why you fancy yourself to be smart. I think that they just took toe ones that told about the story of Jesus, but there are other Gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas that does nothing but quote sayings of Jesus and has no story to it.
Seeker

Billerica, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181835
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>
I will pray Allah for you or a loved one of yours die or get hurt by a terrorist attack in the name of Islam!!!
If he lived in present day Iraq, that could happen to him.
Rabbeen Al Jihad

Salt Lake City, UT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181836
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
So are you saying that we should throw all of the hadiths out, or should we keep the ones you like, and throw out the ones you don't like?
SalaamZ GeeKR LOL! Are you implying that there are only TWO choices!? LMAO! How simple! Let me answer you with this; A'isha-Ra(pbuh) states" You and your transmitters may not intend to lie,however sometimes one can easily misunderstand." A great collection of false & fabricated haadith & sunnah traditions are those of Abdul-Faraj-Ibn-Al-Jawzi and are declared to be 'Al-Mawdu-At-Al-Kubra' containing over 1,847 false narrations. Sunan-Al-Tirmidi books were said to be more benificial than Bukhari or Muslim because of better organizations,least amount of repititions,and showing differing views and clarifications with endorseing remarks regarding narrators. What you seekR would regard as an either,Or answer is easily stinted by Holy-Islaams Criteria for judgeing Haadith & Sunnah thusly..it is as follows.Sahih;authentic and sound.Thiqah;most reliable.Muta wa'tir;reported by reliable isnad & transmitters.maqbul;acceptable .Hasan;good.Salih;Satisfactory .Da'If; weak and unreliable.maw'Du;fabricated.M unkar;denounced. A good muhaadith should be aware of at least 400,000 Haadith & Sunnah. CheerZ
Rabbeen Al Jihad

Salt Lake City, UT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181837
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Salaams, Rabbeen
Dost-e-mun (My friend)
That was a great question and indeed a thought-provoking question , when you asked, "was it only ONE prophet promised to the ancient hebrews at the mount? and which Lord?"
Answer to your second question first:
There is only one LORD. We cannot say there is only one Lord.
In short, there is only one LORD. And then the LORD's obedient servants or slaves known as Abdullahs, were called lords or Lords by their people.
For example, Lord Abraham (Abdullah), Lord Moses (Abdullah), Lord Jesus (Abdullah) and Lord Muhammad (Abdullah). None of these men can be called LORD.
For the followers of these men, they were theri lord or Lords. A Lord of theirs was never the LORD. Confusion arises among sufahaa (fools), if one writes "The Lord said to my Lord..."
in this case, a slave or a servant of one Lord is talking to a slave or servant of another Lord, about what his Lord said to his Lord.
Now if the real LORD said something, then it must be reported by the slave or the servant as "The LORD said to my Lord".
Answer to first question:
No, it would not be right to say that the LORD promised only one prophet. Sufahaa can take ti to mean only one prophet but that is wrong.
The LORD sent many prophets to the House or Children of Israel. Some taught, some wrote and some did both.
But the one promised to the Hebrews and all others present at the Mount, was supposed to talk only what he was told or what had been revealed to him. So, he had only to recite out. And this could not be anybody else but our dearest prophet Muhammad.
It is a great pleasure to respond to your posts and the questions, you raise. You are my friend I am well pleased with you. Please ask and you will be receive.
I mean answers.
Thanks
BMZ
Wa Alaikum As Salaam & Hale'Shoma cheest? Baeradaer. You could have not been more precise BMZ-Al-Abdullah. Sometimes my line of questioning can appear infantile and with good reason! ex would be the mass confusion over jesus and his conversation with the almighty in Gethsemne.Some say He was shizophrenic and talking to himself,others say he was in prayer to the LORD-Almighty.Im inclined to go with the latter version. Also,I think I have a handle on the genetic predisposition of hebrews(jewz) to answering questions with other questions,that being the reason why the Almighty repeatedly sent messenger after prophet,after seer,etc,etc.because they just didnt want to get it the first time.I believe a genetic carryover has also spill'd over into present day crosstian dogma.Thus the constant repeat of facts at them without much success of it takeing root! LOL! I am in partial agreement with your assessment of the messenger Muhammad(pbuh) however if you could succinctly present further scripture ill give it my attention asap. Cheerz & Maxa-S-Salaama Oh ventilated one!
Seeker

Billerica, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181839
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

2

Rabbeen Al Jihad wrote:
<quoted text>SalaamZ GeeKR LOL! Are you implying that there are only TWO choices!? LMAO!
Well then laugh at this bright boy.

Sahih Al-Bukhari

Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421:
Narrated Abu Dharr:
The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah:‘And the sun Runs its fixed course for a term (decreed). That is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing.’" (36.38)

Volume 9, Book 93, Number 520:
Narrated Abu Dharr:
I entered the mosque while Allah's Apostle was sitting there. When the sun had set, the Prophet said, "O Abu Dharr! Do you know where this (sun) goes?" I said, "Allah and His Apostle know best." He said, "It goes and asks permission to prostrate, and it is allowed, and (one day) it, as if being ordered to return whence it came, then it will rise from the west." Then the Prophet recited, "That:‘And the sun runs on its fixed course (for a term decreed)," (36.38) as it is recited by ‘Abdullah.

Sahih Muslim

Book 001, Number 0297:
It is narrated on the authority of Abu Dharr that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) one day said: Do you know where the sun goes? They replied: Allah and His Apostle know best. He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Verily it (the sun) glides till it reaches its resting place under the Throne. Then it falls prostrate and remains there until it is asked: Rise up and go to the place whence you came, and it goes back and continues emerging out from its rising place and then glides till it reaches its place of rest under the Throne and falls prostrate and remains in that state until it is asked: Rise up and return to the place whence you came, and it returns and emerges out from it rising place and the it glides (in such a normal way) that the people do not discern anything (unusual in it) till it reaches its resting place under the Throne. Then it would be said to it: Rise up and emerge out from the place of your setting, and it will rise from the place of its setting. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said. Do you know when it would happen? It would happen at the time when faith will not benefit one who has not previously believed or has derived no good from the faith.

Is it at all possible that you have studied modern science to realize that the earth spins in front of the sun rather than the sun doing a daily orbit around the earth like 7th century Arabs used to think? The only proper answer as to where the sun goes at night is "NOWHERE". The earth spins away from it, depending on where you are at on the earth. Do the math and draw the proper conclusions. How is a reversal in the sun's course supposed to make it rise in the west? Why doesn't it say that the earth's spin will reverse? And that isn't even supposed to be Muhammad's own perception, he represents it as a prophecy. Now let's see the "deer in the headlights" look while you pretend you never even saw this. This is clearly a 7th century man with 7th century knowledge clearly talking nothing but sh!t.

So go ahead and ignore it like you always do.
Seeker

Billerica, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181840
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

7

6

3

It's so funny that whenever someone brings up potential errors in the Bile, suddenly Muslims can all of the sudden practice logic and try to be all logical, but whenever ever anybody brings up clear errors with Islam, their minds just shut off and they go into some sort of bizarre, hypnotic trance that allows them to not see the error. That's a classic sign of what is called "brainwashing".

And then, when they don't have an answer, they don't try to defend Islam itself, they instead try to attack Christianity as if that is going to help the problems in Islam. I've said this many times, it's always the logical flaw that says if you have a hole in your own boat, you think that you can fix it by trying to poke a hole in another boat, while in the meantime your boat itself will keep sinking. It's crazy, but it's actually true, and it's absolutely illogical and amazing.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181841
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

5

3

3

Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then laugh at this bright boy.
rabbee: why don't you quit making a complete azzhole of yourself?
Seeker

Billerica, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181842
Jul 3, 2013
 
yehoshooah adam wrote:
<quoted text>
rabbee: why don't you quit making a complete azzhole of yourself?
You first, Mister God. Gee, I've never heard a wise prophet react that way. Amazing!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 171,221 - 171,240 of193,562
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Pagan/Wiccan Discussions

Search the Pagan/Wiccan Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Wiccan Atheists and Agnostics (Aug '13) Thu PINCH111 284
Paganism still suffering from wounds inflicted ... Thu PINCH111 5
Ex-Disney Star Renounced Christianity and Becam... Thu PINCH111 54
Wiccan Threefold Law Is Overrated Thu PINCH111 8
What is Ritual Sex? (Nov '11) Thu PINCH111 72
Create A Potted Plant Altar Wed Drake_Burrwood 1
Woman Injured in Wiccan Ceremony (Jul '08) Wed Ken Ra 5
•••
•••
•••
•••