GOD CREATED HOMOSEXUALS!

I asked in a debate:

Question #2

when god said,he created man as male and female, is man there speaking in general terms or specific only of adam and eve?

My opponent response:

Answer to #2

Biblical god said male and female it directs to generalized of all human creation by males and females as to simply biblical god created two gender only Male and Female 💏
genesis 2:27

So God created mankind in his own image,

in the image of God [[[[[he created them male and female]]]]]]] he created them.

I answered back:

…WRONG TRANSLATION. ITS NOT MANKIND THAT HE SPEAKS OF BUT MAN IN PARTICULAR REFERRING TO ADAM AND EVE ONLY.

THE RIGHT TRANSLATION:

Genesis 1:27

[27]So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

WHEN IT SAY, GOD MADE MAN. HE MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. ITS NOT SPEAKING OF MANKIND BUT ONLY ADAM AND EVE AS BY THE USE OF THE WORD MAN. EXAMPLE:
ADAM IS THE HEBREW WORD FOR MAN

Hebrew: אדם

Transliteration: ‘âdâm

Pronunciation: aw-dawm’

Definition: From H119; {ruddy} that {is} a human being (an individual or the {species} {mankind } etc.): – X {another} + {hypocrite} + common {sort} X {low} man ({mean} of low {degree}) person.

SO WHEN IT SAY:

Genesis 5:2

[2]Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam (MAN) in the day when they were created.

THUS THE REFERENCE ADAM OR MAN IS REFERRED TO BOTH ADAM AND EVE SO THEY WERE BOTH MAN SO WHEN IT SAY

GOD MADE MAN. HE MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE

HE WAS NOT SPEAKING OF MANKIND BUT ONLY OF ADAM AND EVE HE REFERRED TO AS MAN!

SO IT DOESNT PROVE BY YOUR ASSERTION THAT MANKIND IS ONLY MALE AND FEMALE. GOD ALSO CREATED HOMOSEXUALS LATER ON AS BY THE BIOLOGISTS NOTION THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NATURAL.

CREATION CONTINUES IN THE WOMB:

Job 31:15

[15]Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?

POSSIBILITY IS, HOMOSEXUALITY BEGINS IN THE WOMB ATTESTED TO BY BIOLOGISTS:

This is yet another in a long series of observations showing there’s a biological reason for sexual orientation,” says Dean Hamer, a molecular biologist at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who was not involved in the study. 

“It’s not just a reflection of people’s behavior, nor is it a choice, nor is it something in their rearing environment. [The study] shows that it’s something that people are born with.” 

Robert Epstein, emeritus director of the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies in Concord, Mass., agrees that the study offers compelling evidence that sexual orientation is a biologically fixed characteristic.

FACT IS, GOD NEVER CONDEMNS HOMOSEXUALS. HE ONLY CONDEMNS CATAMITES AND SODOMITES AS IT SAY:

1 Corinthians 6:9
[9]Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor malakos (catamite) nor arsenokoites (sodomite)

Advertisements

​ALUPAPAN ROAD DISPUTE AND THE LAW OF EMINENT DOMAIN

To whom it may concern:
The rough road here in Alupapan, Lamut, Ifugao is our main thoroughfare. It iss presently our main transportation route. Yet today, it is under dispute as its not a public property but instead a private property. Now, the owners are planning to close it down as a pathway. 85 families are dependent on this road and if its closed down, we are literally cooped in wherein we are not given alternative road for access. Though this is under diplomatic talks through the baranggay office, I cannot help but ask if ever the talk would be unfavorable for us, 

YOU LET A COMMUNITY THRIVE HERE FOR MORE THAN 20YEARS HAVING CONSENTED THE USE OF THE ROAD AND NOW YOU HAVE THE GUTS AND NON HUMANITARIAN FEELING TO CLOSE IT DOWN, IS THAT LEGAL? 
What shall we do if they insist on closing the road?
Lawyers, if ever that the diplomatic talk is irresolute and much to our disadvantage, what is the next move? Bring to court? And is it legal to close it down seeing that they consented for a community to thrive here before announcing an imminent closure?
Addendum:
***COURT RESOLUTION REGARDING PUBLIC USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTIES***

However, there is no precise meaning of public use and the term is susceptible of myriad meanings depending on diverse situations. The limited meaning attached to public use is use by the public or public employment, that a duty must devolve on the person or corporation holding property appropriated by right of eminent domain to furnish the public with the use intended, and that there must be a right on the part of the public, or some portion of it, or some public or quasi-public agency on behalf of the public, to use the property after it is condemned.[12] The more generally accepted view sees public use as public advantage, convenience, or benefit, and that anything which tends to enlarge the resources, increase the industrial energies, and promote the productive power of any considerable number of the inhabitants of a section of the state, or which leads to the growth of towns and the creation of new resources for the employment of capital and labor, [which] contributes to the general welfare and the prosperity of the whole community.[13] In this jurisdiction, public use is defined as whatever is beneficially employed for the community.[14]

 

It is settled that the public nature of the prospective exercise of expropriation cannot depend on the numerical count of those to be served or the smallness or largeness of the community to be benefited.[15] The number of people is not determinative of whether or not it constitutes public use, provided the use is exercisable in common and is not limited to particular individuals.[16] Thus, the first essential requirement for a valid exercise of eminent domain is for the expropriator to prove that the expropriation is for a public use. In Municipality of Bian v. Garcia, this Court explicated that expropriation ends with an order of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be condemned, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation.[17]

***

The law of eminent domain gives right to government to take private properties for public use such as roads as it say:

In the classic case of eminent domain, the government determines that it needs certain privately owned land to create some public benefit, such as construction of a new highway. The government may offer the landowner a price to which he or she agrees, or it might initiate what is called a condemnation proceeding, when they cannot agree on value. The property owner has a right to notice of the government’s decision and an opportunity to respond, and to just compensation for the land taken. The government pays the landowner, the landowner leaves the property, and the government builds the road.

MOREOVER, Another say:

The law of eminent domain gives the government power to act in the public interest, but sometimes the government intrudes on property rights without offering compensation. In those cases, affected landowners may have the right to seek compensation and would benefit from working with a real estate attorney. 


LASTLY, There is an insinuation of compensation, but regarding our case, it was already consented for public use, having houses built already relative to the road, yet should it be closed, what shall we do if we cannot provide compensation, not diminishing the fact that this road have been a public road for more than 20years?

 And how about humanitarian reasons, should we beg for mercy? I won’t ask them if indeed they have good moral background or any sense of humanity as such would be understood upon their decision. If they love their neighbors, seeing that there is no alternative road, they should have voluntarily donated the parcel of land, but they are not bowing low yet to that level.

Nevertheless, we invoke our right of way but sadly though they rejected it. But I guess, the court is the better determinant for that factor. Firstly, we have no outlet for a nearby highway nor any outlet at all. Though, we have an undeveloped passage on the other side meant only for pedestrian, it is not the usual pathway. It don’t caters for transport vehicles as motor and tricycle. To this concern, I ask, do we have no right for cargo transport such as intended for our necessities as gasul, water jugs, and market commodities? And how shall we transport our agriculture products?

It suffice for us to claim right of way. Still, they reject our request, but then the intervention of the court is necessary an impending urge if they intended to blockade the said road unless, a preliminary injunction is set as it say:

IN RELATION, there is a wide excess lot adjacent to their lot and we intended that as replacement (compensation) for the disputed road, but even that, they intended to have it, too! through personal acquisition, so where do we stand? 
Most importantly, where do we pass for our daily routines?

In other countries such as Ireland, public right of way is guaranteed on these realities:

What a public right of way is

A public right of way:

  • is a highway which any member of the public may use as a right; not a privilege granted by the landowner
  • may be created specifically or through ‘deemed dedication’ (by the public openly using a path for a period of time, in some circumstances, for as little as a few years) with the knowledge of the landowner
  • may be limited to certain users, for example walkers only or walkers and horse riders
  • is a permanent legal entity and remains in existence unless and until the path is extinguished or diverted by due legal process
  • must be respected by the occupier and landowner who should do nothing to obstruct the right of way or prevent or intimidate anyone from exercising their rights of passage

The maxim is: once a highway, always a highway.

A public right of way does not include a road or any other way which is maintained by a government department.

I have a feeling a baranggay session is insufficient. The court must resolve this.
Watch out for developments. Names are withheld as courtesy and goodwill.

Thanks,

DENNIS Y BUTIC

ALUPAPAN, PUGOL, LAMUT, IFUGAO

Dated: Feb 26, 2018

IS ELI SORIANO GUILTY OF RAPE?

The Supreme Court issued a judgment that say: Bro Eli Soriano lost his standing in court. This is in reference to the Supreme Court case. That is due to the fact that Bro Eli has not appeared in court for the arraignment bec obviously he exiled in Brazil prior to the court case. There was sufficient reason why his absence in court was necessary thus any injunction to this effect: flight is an indication of guilt must necessarily be met with consideration such as by the principle exception from the rule. The court should have considered these excuses as indeed exception from the rule if indeed it was part of due process. Still, presumption of innocence should inevitably be in effect. Instead, the court imposed a ruling that he lost his standing in court as it say:

Source:http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/resolutions/2014/10/204839.pdf

What does it mean by the phrase “lost standing in court”?

Logically, it means the forfeiture of any right in law for any standing position in court. That as having no right to perform the following:

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes:

  1. The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the “something to lose” doctrine, in which the party has standing because they will be directly harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
  2. The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called “chilling effects” doctrine.
  3. The party is granted automatic standing by act of law.[1] Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive attorney’s fees if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.

    In short, standing or locus standi (in reference to the Soriano’s case) is the right and freedom of the defendant to defend himself in the court of law unless the charges are void or nullified or until a verdict is made. Soriano has standing due to the fact that the rape law harms him and must be contested for relief so as by the reality of his innocence, yet, that was forfeited as by his absence in the court hearing.

    Yet is lost standing in court tantamount to a guilty verdict?

    Lost standing is a conversion of defense into defeat. Meaning, the accused is defeated in the court case. But we have to note, that there is no evaluation of guilt that transpired. It is a defeat in terms of technicality rather than through evaluation of the merits of the case whereas, in terms of evaluation the rape case was formerly dismissed.

    Exposing the Members Church of God International

    Eli Soriano’s Homosexual Rape case

    In November 2005, Eliseo Soriano, presiding minister of the notorious pseudo-Christian cult Members: Church of God International, was put on the Bureau of Immigration watchlist. The orderwas made by Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales on the request of the Pampanga Prosecutor’s Office.

    In May 2006, Soriano was indicted on rape charges at the regional trial court of Macabebe, Pampanga, following a complaint filed by former MCGI assistant secretary general Daniel Veridiano that he was sexually assaulted in Apalit, Pampanga on two occasions. According tothe Philippine Daily Inquirer, in June 2008, Soriano allegedly abused his influence by directing Veridiano “to come into his room, massage him and have anal intercourse,” an act that was against the consent of Veridiano.

    Macabebe Regional Trial Court Judge Manuel Siyangco issued the warrant of arrest. Soriano was allowed to post a ₱400,000 bail bond (₱200,000 for each count). The charge was dismissed but was later refiled in a higher court by the country’s Department of Justice Secretary, Raul Gonzales.

    In November 2006, an arrest warrant was issued against Soriano by Judge Lucina Dayaon of Macabebe. After more than a year and a half of living as a fugitive, news came out that Soriano finally emerged from hiding and posted a ₱240,000 bail at a police Station in Pandacan, Manila on June 21, 2008.

    On August 29, 2008, the Philippine Daily Inquirer reported that Soriano and two others were sued for violation of Art. 171, Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (falsification of public documents) at the Manila City Prosecutor’s Office. It was discovered that the arresting officer, PO3 June Gumaru, and Soriano’s secretary, Belen Talentado, conspired in faking the certificate of detention to permit his release by posting bail for his rape case. PO3 Gumaru admitted in a sworn affidavit that he had never seen the church group leader, that Soriano did not really surrender to him, and that he is, in fact, still a fugitive

    By August 2008, a “Red Notice” was issued against him by the International Police Commission (Interpol) [sic]. A “Red Notice” allows the arrest warrant issued by the requesting country to be circulated worldwide with the request that the wanted person be arrested with a view to extradition. As of August 2010, the case has been archived but not dismissed. Eliseo Soriano is presently an international fugitive in self-exile in Brazil, a country that has no extradition treaty with the Philippine government.

    Did Bible or let say did Apostle Paul did that to his members?

    Obviously NO!!

    So the Secret of a False Prophet Revealed!!

    Mar 29, 2015 · Public · in Timeline Photos

    Likewise,

    ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT OF RAPE”The foregoing facts, together with the rift going on between the INC and the ADD, which we cannot deny, only show that the complainant was undisputabley ill-motivated from the inception, and these necessarily, without any scintilla of a doubt, substantially affect, if not lessen his credibility as an unperjured affiant.

    WHEREFORE premises having been considered, the undersigned recommends the DISMISSAL, as hereby DISMISSES, the complaint for rape filed by Daniel Verdiano against the respondent Eliseo Soriano docketed herein as IS No. 05-1-2459 & 2460.

    So what is my point?

    We cannot say, bro eli is guilty or not as there is no evaluation of guilt that transpired. Therefore, an appeal must be met provided, the defendant wills so.

    Wikipedia says:

    According to Pieter Cleppe of the think-tank Open Europe, in parts of Europe, in absentia trials essentially give defendants the ability to appeal twice—asking for a retrial at which they would be present and then potentially appealing the second verdict.

    There are some guarantees in the legal system that make sure that it’s fair, that the rights of the defense are not being violated, while still making sure that justice is being done. In absentia judgments are common[…] you can criticize that, but it’s quite common.

    In 1884, the Supreme Court of the United States held that

    the legislature has deemed it essential to the protection of one whose life or liberty is involved in a prosecution for felony, that he shall be personally present at the trial, that is, at every stage of the trial when his substantial rights may be affected by the proceedings against him. If he be deprived of his life or liberty without being so present, such deprivation would be without that due process of law required by the Constitution.

    Hopt v. Utah 110 US 574, 28 L Ed 262, 4 S Ct 202 (1884).

    I asked an online free legal team on the matter:

    Translation:

    Me: What is “lost standing in court”? Is it applicable in a fiscal level case?

    Free legal: No. Its only in the court.

    Me: Does it mean the accused is not entitled for defense? Can an accused who lost standing wins or its a testament of defeat?

    Free legal: Lost standing in court means its a defeat.

    The fact still remains, there is no evaluation of guilt that transpired, no weighing of evidences, no analytical due process therefore any decision the court imposed is not a conviction of guilt as per the merit of the case. Nothing is yet established to really impose a strong conviction therefore in matters of conviction, the rape case would always be inconclusive in terms of guilt unless, a full court procedure consummates.

    Therefore on moral ground, we cannot accuse bro eli guilty of rape.

    WAS JESUS CREATED?

    Proponents of the concept that Jesus was merely a man corelate to the idea that Jesus was created. Yet is there any truth to such inaccurate notion?

    Is there any possibility that Jesus was created?

    None. He was rather begotten as it say:

    Hebrews 1:5-6

    [5]For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

    [6]And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

    Begotten in the sense that he was literally born of god, from spirit giving birth to a spirit:

    John 17:8

    [8]For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. 

    Literally, from god’s bosom:

    John 1:18

    [18]No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which was in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

    In the same shape or nature as God:

    Philippians 2:6

    [6]Who, being in the MORPHE (SHAPE) of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

    The reason they say Jesus was created was bec he was termed as the firstborn of every creature as it say:

    Colossians 1:15

    [15]Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

    Consulting the Greek text though, there is no Greek word in the bible that corresponds to the word OF as it say: 

    PROTOTOKOS (FIRSTBORN) PASES (EVERY) KTISEOS (CREATURE)

    Thus in grammatical order it should have been:

    FIRSTBORN EVERY CREATURE

    The translators were the ones who supplied the preposition OF but then would it not be correct rather if it was OVER instead, to mean:

    FIRSTBORN OVER EVERY CREATURE

    As by the context of preeminence as it say:

    Colossians 1:18

    [18]And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

    It should have then the notion that Jesus was the firstborn over every creature in terms of being firstborn from the dead in the sense of having preeminence over all creature through his resurrection.

    What gives the thought?

    Bec he was rather begotten than created!

    IS JESUS THE ONLY WAY?

    Jesus said: noone comes to the father except through me. 

    Readily, some pastors concluded that to mean that Jesus is the only way to heaven. In that case, its a jump to conclusion concept as there’s no contextual basis as much so insensical bec how could the Ifugaos during Christ incarnation that never heard of Jesus fare with regards to Salvation? Incriminately, they were damned. They were good people, hard workers building the famous rice terraces and suddenly without any consideration, they were damned just bec they were uninformed regarding Christ? It seems inconsiderate and uncompassionate. They were good people for god’s sake. Its unimaginable how a merciful god damns good people just bec they lack information regarding Christ.

    But is it indeed true, that Jesus is the only way for all people to heaven?

    Nope. I don’t believe so. Here are my reasons:

    Salvation has branches. You can be saved through many other ways. Firstly, you can be saved by being a good person. This is applicable to those outside the church having not been called to this service. They could be people in other sects who has other belief than the church. Do you condemns them? Is it their fault that their belief is leaning to their religion other than the truth? This could be applicable too, to people who never heard about Christ. They could be the ifugaos building the rice terraces.

    How could they be saved?

    By having good conscience. By standing on a good heart. Innately, God imprinted things of the law in the heart such as do not kill, that’s why even when we were kids we knew killing is bad. There were others put in the heart. If we abide by these laws written in the heart and be doers of it, we are justified, meaning, saved and that as absent from the intervention of Jesus blood. In short, we could be saved even without Jesus blood. It says:

    Romans 2:13-16

    [13](For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

    [14]For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

    [15]Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

    [16]In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

    Secondly, we can be saved simply by direct submission to God Almighty. This can be done by a sincere penance. This is applicable to people outside the church who never been called to this service and has other faith, including the Jews who rejects Christ. Its not their fault that their understanding serves them to rejects Christ. They cannot force themselves to believe if their understanding is telling them otherwise. Its unacceptable that God condemns them just bec of misunderstanding, isn’t it? So by simply, atoning through asking of forgiveness, they could be saved just like the parable of the prodigal son who was saved without the intervention of Jesus. 

    It says:

    Luke 15:18-24

    [18]I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, 

    [19]And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. 

    [20]And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. 

    [21]And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. 

    [22]But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: 

    [23]And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: 

    [24]For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. 

    Lastly, Salvation is through Jesus blood. So as you can see, Jesus is not the only way to heaven bec matter of fact is, you can be saved through many other ways such as through a good conscience and through direct submission to God. 

    What does it mean therefore by the concept: Jesus is the only way. Contextually, it means Jesus is the only way for believers as emphasized in john 3:16. Who are these believers? These are the predestined to be children of god called to this faith as it say:

    Ephesians 1:4-5

    [4]According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

    [5]Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

    Romans 8:30

    [30]Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

    These called out ones has no other way but Jesus. It was to them the specifics: Jesus is the only way bec ignoring the calling would mean damnation as it say:

    Proverbs 1:24-31

    [24]Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;

    [25]But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:

    [26]I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;

    [27]When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.

    [28]Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:

    [29]For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:

    [30]They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.

    [31]Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.

    Others might say, believing not Jesus translates to damnation as it say:

    John 3:18

    [18]He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 

    That is not applicable in general terms as some who don’t believe are blind which makes them innocent as it say:

    John 9:41

    [41]Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. 

    It only means that those unbelievers condemned are people who have knowledge that Jesus is the way, the truth and life yet they prefer not to believe. These are condemned but for any ordinary person who rejects christ bec of blindness is innocent. They cannot be condemned. Does god condemns innocent people? Obviously not.

    So were are we?

    I have shown that, In the general terms, jesus is not the only way to heaven but simply on the specifics, that is for people who are called. These are to whom Jesus is the only way.

    Thank you.

    May God bless you!

    DESTROYING 1COR8:6 ONE GOD

    We, mcgi, believe that Jesus is God. So whenever we meet something that suggests one god, we tend to dismiss it as an absolute one but rather in the context of Christ’s deity, we consider the reality of Jesus inseparable unity with God as it say:

    I and my father are one

    So whenever there is the mention of one god the thought that with that one god is the inseparable unity that we must consider comes to life.  Christ is inseparable from god in terms of unity–that is, as God therefore when it say one god it doesnt discard the fact that in that oneness there is the inseparability of Jesus from God in the sense of being one God.

    Jesus is inseparable from that one god reality.

    But then there are certain verses which tend to speak of the father alone. But still, there are reasons to believe its messed up thought or at least as it hinted. For the sake of truth, i would show alternative translation, it say:

    1 Corinthians 8:6

    [6]But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

    One God–is it really speaking of an absolute one god or it means other else?

    One in Greek:

    Hebrew: εἷς

    Transliteration: heis

    Pronunciation: hice

    Definition: (Including the neuter [etc.] ἕν hen); a primary numeral; one : – a (-n -ny certain) + abundantly man one (another) only other some. See also G1527 G3367 G3391 G3762 .

    Utilizing strong’s numbers dictionary, we may produce various translations as:

    One God

    Other God

    Another God

    Any certain one god

    Any certain another god

    Any certain other god

    Any certain some god

    Those are the possible translations we can make. So as you can see, its not only one god as an available option, bec it could be: Another god. 

    Why is that not the right translation?

    It could sound like this:

    1 Corinthians 8:6

    [6]But to us there is but ANOTHER GOD, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

    So on this note, there is ambiguity as there are multiple options for its translation. Could it be one god or Another god?

    By this, nothing is resolved regarding 1Cor8:6. So is there only an absolute one god?

    I don’t think so!

    AND MY COVENANT I WILL ESTABLISH WITH ISAAC

    There were two covenant mentioned when God said:

    Genesis 17:21

    [21] And my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

    These are, firstly, the covenant that say: For god to be their god and all the land of Canaan will be their inheritance. Secondly, the covenant of circumcision. 

    I believe the covenant of circumcision was meant for Ishmael likewise as he was circumcised. So on the context of objectivity, which covenant was promised to Isaac? Was it the first or the second? 

    We can say, the covenant of circumcision was for ishmael likewise but the first covenant specified could only be for isaac. 

    It says:

    Genesis 17

    [7]And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

    [8]And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

    That covenant is specifically for Isaac as by saying:

    And my covenant will I establish with Isaac
    It could only be for Isaac as realized when his seed–the israelites–settled in all the land of Canaan as specified in Numbers 34. Below is the illustration of that promised settlements for the twelve tribes–all the land of canaan:

    So on the context of objectivity, we could say, that the promised covenant established with isaac was the one saying, FOR GOD TO BE YOUR GOD AND FOR ALL CANAAN TO BE YOUR INHERITANCE, as indeed all the land of Canaan was given to his seed. Meaning, isaac and his seed was promised a rather godly state wherein personally, they were chosen as a people having divine authority over them, that is, for god to be their god.

    Could such covenant be merited to for Ishmael and his arab descendants, for god to be their god, in their collective state?

    Biblically, No. As Ishmael’s progeny–Muslims–inherits his character, a wild man, so as specified in Gen 16:12.

     How are Muslims a wild man?

    The world being dominated by Islam, meaning, many countries would be Islamic, would war against God as it say:

    Zechariah 14:1-3

    [1]Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

    [2]For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

    [3]Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

    So on that note, being in war against God, these islamic countries represents islam as by the notion, islam would dominates the world, therefore islam wars against god making it impossible to think that Ishmael and his seed had ever a covenant for god to be their god. It could only be for Isaac. 

    Also, specifics in history–the compilation of biblical manuscripts–was supported by the notion that one collective writing of god would be gathered when it say:

    Isaiah 34:16

    [16]Seek ye out of the SEPHER (WRITING) of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her REUTH (ADDITIONAL ONE): for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

    It was never implied, that that is the Quran as it needs additional ones such as the hadith’s, gospel and Torah so as it specified.

    Sura 5:50:
    And let the People of the Gospel judge by what God has revealed in it. If any fail to judge by what God has revealed, they are licentious.”

    Sura 5:71:
    “Say, O People of the Book! You are not (founded) on anything UNTIL you PERFORM the TORAH and the GOSPEL, and what was revealed to you from your Lord.”

    Sura 3:93-94:
    “All food was lawful to the children of Israel except what Israel made unlawful for itself before the Torah was revealed. Say, `BRING the TORAH and READ it, if you are men of truth.’ If any, after this, invent a lie and attribute it to God, they are indeed transgressors.”

    Sura. 28:48-49:

    “But when the truth has come to them from Us, they say: `why is he not given the like of what was given to Moses?’ Did they not disbelieve in that which was given to Moses before? They say: `Two kinds of magic (the Torah and the Quran) each helping the other!‘ And they say: `Verily! In both we are disbelievers.’ Say (to them, O Muhammad): `Then bring a Book from Allah, which is a better guide than these TWO (the Torah and the Quran), that I may follow it, if you are truthful.'”

    Verse (4:136)

    Sahih International: O you who have believed, believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Book that He sent down upon His Messenger and the Scripture which He sent down before. And whoever disbelieves in Allah , His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day has certainly gone far astray.

    Therefore, only the biblical manuscripts fit this prophecy as the writing of the lord.
    Would this writing be corrupted or lost?

    Impossible. Bec it was promised: no one of these shall fail. So on that context, Quran cannot be the writing of god as this particular writing of god would exist and never fail. Meaning, this writing of god would coexist with quran as it won’t fail yet it dont need quran as by saying: none shall want additional one. 

    This writing of god was meant for all generation to come thus it cannot be corrupted:

    Psalms 102:12,18

    [12]But thou, O LORD, shalt endure for ever; and thy remembrance unto all generations.

    [18]This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD.

    Lastly, everything about life and godliness was already given, implying, everything about salvation was given therefore what need is there for Islam? It proves by this fact that Islam is falsehood.

    2 Peter 1:3

    [3]According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

    So without any incoherence, there could not have been any possibility of any covenant in this aspect: for god to be their god, that was established with ishmael seeing that firstly, ishmael’s progeny–muslims–would war against god. Secondly, Quran is not the writing of god therefore as a foundation, its basically falsehood. Lastly, everything about salvation was already complete before Islam thus making Islam false.
    It only corroborated one thing. The covenant established with isaac therefore was for god to be their god, meaning, religion of god would emerge from this lineage and not from Ishmael.

    WHO WAS THE CHILD SACRIFICE: ISHMAEL OR ISAAC?

    It has been a lingering contention between Muslims and christians who indeed was the supposed to be child sacrifice. Biblically, its Isaac as specified:

    “After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, ‘Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here am I.’ He said, ‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you’.” (Genesis 22:1-2, R.S.V.).

    But then Muslims treat the aforementioned verses as wrongly interpreted especially the statement which says Isaac as your only son. They argue, this rather referred to Ishmael as he was the firstborn and being stated as only  son implied that rationally, Ishmael was the one referred to. 

    Ishmael was too Abraham’s son so if Isaac was an only son, then how come Ishmael was a son too?

    Genesis 17:23

    [23]And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.

    Logically, when saying only son, it could only pertains to Ishmael as Isaac could have not been born yet.

    Yusuf Ali makes a note of this in his commentary:

    “This (i.e. the child promised to Abraham and later commanded to be sacrificed) was in the fertile land of Syria and Palestine. The boy thus born, was, according to Muslim tradition (which however is not unanimous on this point), the first-born son of Abraham, viz Ishmael …” (1: p. 1204, f. 4096).

    Yet, the truth is nothing in Quran has revealed the person of that supposed child sacrifice so how come, they concluded it to be Ishmael?

    An excerpt from answering-islam.com:

    Muhammad H. Haykal, in his classic biography The Life of Muhammad, wrote:

    Who Was the Sacrificial Son?
    Historians of this period disagree on the matter of Ibrahim’s sacrifice of Isma’il. Did the event take place before the birth of Ishaq or thereafter? Did it take place in Palestine or in the Hijaz? Jewish historians insist that the sacrificial son was Ishaq, not Isma’il. This is not the place to analyze this issue. In his book Qisas al Anbiyd’, Shaykh `Abd al Wahhab al Najjar concluded that the sacrificial son was Isma’il. His evidence was drawn from the Qur’an itself where the sacrificial son is described as being Ibrahim’s unique son, which could only be Isma’il, and only as long as Ishaq was not yet born … For with the birth of Ishaq, Ibrahim would have no “unique” son but two, Isma’il and Ishaq. But to accede to this evidence implies that the sacrifice should have taken place in Palestine … This would equally be true in case the sacrificial son was Ishaq, for the latter remained with his mother Sarah in Palestine and never left for the Hijaz. On the other hand, the report which makes the sacrifice take place on the mountain of Mina near Makkah identifies the sacrificial son as Isma’il. The Qur’an did not mention the name of the sacrificial son, and hence Muslim historians disagree in this regard. (trans. Isma’il Raji al-Faruqi [Islamic Book Trust Kuala Lumpur/American Trust Publishers, 1976], pp. 24-25; cf. online edition; underline emphasis ours)

    One modern North American Muslim scholar, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf of the Zaytuna Institute, candidly admits that:

    … This was the child that Abraham was given, and there is a difference of opinion about who that child was. The majority of the later scholars say it was Ismail, many of the early scholars said it was Ishaq. It should not be a point of contention for the believers, it’s not the point of the story. Both are valid opinions. (Shaykh Yusuf, There is No Calamity if there is Certaintyaudio source)

    Al Tabari on the otherhand confirmed it to be more likely Isaac as it say from answering-islam.com:

    Al-Tabari, considered to be one of the premiere Islamic historians, lists the divergent views held amongst the Muslim umma (community) in regard to this very issue:

    The earliest sages of our Prophet’s nation disagree about which of Abraham’s two sons it was that he was commanded to sacrifice. Some say it was Isaac, while others say it was Ishmael. Both views are supported by statements related on the authority of the Messenger of God. If both groups of statements were equally sound, then – since they both came from the Prophet – only the Quran could serve as proof that the account naming Isaac is clearly the more truthful of the two.” (2: p. 82).

    Having that, there is still a problem we have to resolve as it is not yet confirmatory to be Isaac by the insinuation of an only son which logically points to Ishmael. The thing is, the verses on question is a translation which if clarified, there is need to utilize the original word used and its definitions. 

    The Hebrew word used for only son was  yachid which has various definition as darling and only son among others. So why choose only son rather than darling? 

    Hebrew: יחיד

    Transliteration: yâchîyd

    Pronunciation: yaw-kheed’

    Definition: From H3161; properly {united} that {is} sole; by implication beloved; also lonely; (feminine) the life (as not to be replace): – {darling} {desolate} only ({child} {son}) solitary.

    Sorting out the provided definition, we can exclude the first which say: properly united that is sole by implication beloved. That is excluded bec it could only mean one beloved that is united or collective in nature which is inapplicable to the verse as the one to be offered is a single entity and not collective. So what is left as choices are: darling, desolate, solitary and only son.

    If we choose darling it should sound like this:

    Take your son, your DARLING Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you

    Why do I believe that to be the right translation?

    Firstly bec what was written was Isaac and not Ishmael and he cannot be an only son. Secondly, New Testament writers referred it to Isaac as it say:

    “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son …” (Hebrews 11:17, R.S.V.).

    “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up his son Isaac upon the altar?” (James 2:21, R.S.V.).

    As by the New Testament rendition, Isaac was the only begotten son but in the context as the promised father to that promised seed, meaning, the only son wherein the promised seed Jesus Christ would emerge from, as it say:

    Hebrews 11:17-18

    [17]By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

    [18]Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

    So, muslims, how come its Ishmael?

    ​HELL IS NOT EVERLASTING!

    Fact one: God hates mortal sinners.

    Fact two: mortal sinners will go to hell

    Fact three: Hell is a lake of fire

    Question: Do you know how suffering in fire is and how it feels to suffer?
    When one suffers, you forget to be evil, youre focused on your pain, and if suffering is everlasting, why cannot god pity them for good? I myself, imagining hell for any of my family is horrified how much so god with his majesty and he can hate forever? He would obviously feel mercy.
    This is my reason why im having second thought on the concept of EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT. I somehow come to think, could it be possible that punishment in hell is terminal?

    And translators simply mistranslated it to EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT? I looked it up on the greek definition and it kinds of supported me. One of the definition is perpetual. So it must have been PERPETUAL PUNISHMENT. Does that sounds everlasting?
    And lets say, its EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT as the verses supplied likewise, EVERLASTING DAMNATION. Does everlasting means eternal, or colloquially, something endless?

    Who knows?

    Bec by context, Jonah too was in the bottom of the sea for an everlasting time as by the Hebrew term OLAM, but was it endless?

    No. It was terminal. Thus saying, EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT seem to be lacking certainty of endlessness bec it could be as suggested, a terminal timeframe such as in the case of Jonah.

    Jonah 2:6,10
    [6]I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me OLAM (ETERNITY, FOREVER, EVERLASTING): yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.
    [10]And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.

    This reality gives me hope that perhaps punishment in hell could be terminal bec I believe God is a merciful god who pities anyone who suffer esp the ones in hell.

    I myself feels pity, how much so god?

    Lastly, a supporting verse:

    Matthew 5:25-26
    [25]Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
    [26]Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

    This parable of Jesus speaks about paying the last penny in hell as symbolized by prison, so indeed, by paying all our offenses through torments in hell then we may be free from hell–after paying the uttermost farthing!

    BLESSED ISHMAEL???

    Exalted as the father of the so-called great nation as progeny, Ishmael has doubtful character which through religious convention, we may wonder: Was Ishmael good or bad? Nevertheless, there is contention whether its progeny, the Muslims as a great nation promised by God has qualifications as a God-approved community. 

    We know that at some points of Ishmael’s life he has divine approval yet does it guarantee that he continued to be in that regards? 

    Genesis 21:20

    [20]And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.

    So God was with Ishmael at some points but does it includes his lifetime or was it temporary? It has not much relevance though. Still God promised him to be a great nation–and as claimed is generally Islamic in nature, the allegedly blessed nation. 

    Genesis 17:20

    [20]And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

    Yet for the sake of contention, does it guarantee a god-approved community? Are blessings only for god’s people or is there any chance that it is too for evil people? And is the promised progeny has guarantee of a god-approved community? 
    I would contend in defense of Christianity. I would show that even evil people are blessed so giving doubt to the integrity of Ishmael. 

    God blessed Esau and his seed:

    Deuteronomy 2:4-6

    [4]And command thou the people, saying, Ye are to pass through the coast of your brethren the children of Esau, which dwell in Seir; and they shall be afraid of you: take ye good heed unto yourselves therefore:

    [5]Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession.

    [6]Ye shall buy meat of them for money, that ye may eat; and ye shall also buy water of them for money, that ye may drink.

    God knowing that Esau’s seed would forever antagonize the Israelites, he gave them Mt Seir which implied, that even evil people are blessed. Below is the punishment declared for Esau’s descendants who did hated Israel perpetually–thus we can say Esau’s descendants were evil. Despite this, they were blessed.

    Amos 1:11

    [11]Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Edom (Esau) and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because he did pursue his brother with the sword, and did cast off all pity, and his anger did tear perpetually, and he kept his wrath for ever:

    Much so, when God hated Esau he still gave him heritage– implying further that God bless evil people. Was blessing Ishmael due to the fact that he was good or evil? 

    Malachi 1:2-4

    [2]I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,

    [3]And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

    [4]Whereas Edom (Esau) saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.

    Was Esau hated when he received the blessing–Mt Seir, or did he receive blessing afterwards, when he might have been forgiven? Nobody knows. The mere fact is, his descendants were evil yet promised with a blessing. When saying, I hated Esau, thus bec of it his heritage become waste, it was actually speaking about Esau and his descendants, regarded in the general term as simply, Esau likewise as israel’s seed is regarded as Israel. God hated them and punished them by making their heritage desolate. If you contend that God was simply making a narrative and was not actually saying that it was bec of his hatred to the patriarchal Esau that caused the punishment bec Esau might have been forgiven, then okay, its a rational notion but how about his descendants being evil yet blessed with a promised heritage? It only means one thing, evil people too are blessed.

    Moreover, it is supported by this that even rain as blessing is given likewise for evil people.

    Matthew 5:45

    [45]That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 

    On this point, I have given proofs that even evil people are recipients of blessings. It doesn’t prove that bec Ishmael was blessed then it implied he was a good person. But was the promised progeny–the great nation or Islam–a god approved community?

    No. As by the claim that Islam would dominate the world implying, a sharia governed world. Eventually, all these islamic nations would battle god and jerusalem. Meaning, islam would war against god. 

    Zechariah 14:1-3

    [1]Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

    [2]For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

    [3]Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

    In short, We are not sure if Ishmael was good or not when he received the blessing. If we are to believe the KJV rendition, Ishmael was a wild man, his hand against everyone. Likewise, his progeny–Muslims–is not a god-approved community but as the bible says is, an archrival of god as eventually they would battle against God.

    Lastly, what is your view?

    Was Ishmael really blessed relative to religion–Islam’s war against God???