Discussion:
Palestine: Is It the Jews' Promised Land?
(too old to reply)
d***@yahoo.com
2005-04-10 08:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Palestine: Is It the Jews' Promised Land?
Allah says in this regard: "And when your Lord announced that He
would
certainly send against them to the day of resurrection those who
would
subject them to severe torment; most surely your Lord is quick to
requite
(evil) and most surely He is Forgiving, Merciful." (Al-A`raf: 167)
This part of the verse says it all:

"He would certainly keep on sending against them [Jews], till the Day
of Resurrection, those who would afflict them with a severe torment..."
(7:167)

Now am I mistaken if I say that Hitler was commanded by God to kill
Jews? Babylonians, Romans, Egyptians, Europeans, Russians, and anyone
has persecuted, oppressed, or killed Jews was actually send by God for
this mission. Doesn't the verse say so?

When I opened the chapter of the Koran that contains the above verse, I
was stunned to see another proven fact in the next verse:

7:168 And We [Allah] have broken them [Jews] up into various separate
groups on the earth...

Just look at the Jews in the world. They have been living in separate
groups throughout history! Is it a coincidence to see two consecutive
verses written in the 7th century, speak about two facts that no one
can ignore?

What else can we say? Who can help the Jews if that is their fate? Yes,
there is one large Jewish group in Palestine now. But for how long?
Based on the above verse, certainly that group will not last forever!
Half-Baked
2005-04-10 08:47:35 UTC
Permalink
Psalm 105 would lead us to believe that the Promised Land will be restored to its true
rightful owners. Maybe that is why Isreal is finally returning portions of the
Promised Land to the Palastinians.

A BOLD move by the Isrealis, but Abraham's wish to restore rightful ownership of the
Promised Land to his First Born (of the Musslim following) that has never been
forgotten by all religions - including the Roman Catholic Church - as the rightful
owner of Judiah - as it was written in the Old Testament of The Holy(Whole) Bible.
zev
2005-04-10 10:59:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Half-Baked
Psalm 105 would lead us to believe that the Promised Land will be restored to its true
rightful owners. Maybe that is why Isreal is finally returning portions of the
Promised Land to the Palastinians.
A BOLD move by the Isrealis, but Abraham's wish to restore rightful ownership of the
Promised Land to his First Born (of the Musslim following) that has never been
forgotten by all religions - including the Roman Catholic Church - as the rightful
owner of Judiah - as it was written in the Old Testament of The Holy(Whole) Bible.
Truly half-baked.
James
2005-04-10 12:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Palestine: Is It the Jews' Promised Land?
Allah says in this regard: "And when your Lord announced that He
would
certainly send against them to the day of resurrection those who
would
subject them to severe torment; most surely your Lord is quick to
requite
(evil) and most surely He is Forgiving, Merciful." (Al-A`raf: 167)
"He would certainly keep on sending against them [Jews], till the Day
of Resurrection, those who would afflict them with a severe torment..."
(7:167)
Now am I mistaken if I say that Hitler was commanded by God to kill
Jews? Babylonians, Romans, Egyptians, Europeans, Russians, and anyone
has persecuted, oppressed, or killed Jews was actually send by God for
this mission. Doesn't the verse say so?
When I opened the chapter of the Koran that contains the above verse, I
7:168 And We [Allah] have broken them [Jews] up into various separate
groups on the earth...
Just look at the Jews in the world. They have been living in separate
groups throughout history! Is it a coincidence to see two consecutive
verses written in the 7th century, speak about two facts that no one
can ignore?
What else can we say? Who can help the Jews if that is their fate? Yes,
there is one large Jewish group in Palestine now. But for how long?
Based on the above verse, certainly that group will not last forever!
OK, what are you going to do with Sura 5:20 -21 and Sura 17:104? Maybe you
should take a pair of scissors and cut that part out of your Koran. The
problem is your Koran is full off errors and contradictions. That is proof
that the Koran is not from God but was written by men who founded a religion
all based on lies.
--
We must never forget that on Sept.12, 2001, Israel's flags were flying at
half-staff and the Palestinians were dancing in the streets.
d***@yahoo.com
2005-04-10 18:26:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Palestine: Is It the Jews' Promised Land?
OK, what are you going to do with Sura 5:20 -21 and Sura 17:104?
Maybe you
Post by James
should take a pair of scissors and cut that part out of your Koran.
The
Post by James
problem is your Koran is full off errors and contradictions.
There are no contradictions. Just read the verses carefully. 5:20-21 is
a conditioned case. It says: "...and turn not back for then you will be
returned as losers." (5:20). The Jews violated the law of God, killed
prophets and lost everything.

Chapter 17:104 has bad news for the Jews. It talks about two completely
separate events.

17:104 And We said to the Children of Israel after him [Moses] dwell in
the land. When the second and the last promise comes We [Allah] shall
bring you altogether as mixed crowd (gathered out of various nations
7:168).

The first part is finished. They dwelled in the land of Palestine after
Moses for a period of time. Then Allah divided them into separate
groups in various parts of the earth; that is mentioned in 7:168. And
when the second promise comes, Allah will bring the Jews as mixed crowd
from different nations; this is what the second part of 17:104 talking
about.

But do you think they are brought for their own good. Certainly no. The
first and second promises are mentioned in 17:4. The first promise was
completely fulfilled in 17:5 at the hands of the Babylonians. And the
second promise in 17:7.

17:7...when the second promise comes, to disfigure your faces and to
enter the mosque [temple] as they had entered it before [who entered
the temple before? The Babylonians (17:5)], and to destroy with utter
destruction all that fell in their hands.

Basically the Babylonians, Iraqis, will do it again. But unlike the
first time, in the second time they will destroy with utter destruction
all that fell in their hands; this is a hint for the use of mass
destruction weapons!

Summary: The Jews were given permission to settle in Palestine IF they
follow God's orders. They failed. Allah punished them and divided them
into various groups all over the world. Allah kept sending against them
those who afflict them with a severe torment. And when the second
promise came to pass, Allah started bringing them together from all
nations; just to face the second and worst destruction they have ever
had. It will be on the hands of those who entered their temple before,
the Babylonians, Iraqis!
Perseid
2005-04-10 18:53:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by James
Palestine: Is It the Jews' Promised Land?
OK, what are you going to do with Sura 5:20 -21 and Sura 17:104?
Maybe you
Post by James
should take a pair of scissors and cut that part out of your Koran.
The
Post by James
problem is your Koran is full off errors and contradictions.
There are no contradictions. Just read the verses carefully. 5:20-21 is
a conditioned case. It says: "...and turn not back for then you will be
returned as losers." (5:20).
Jean, is that you ?
James
2005-04-10 22:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by James
Palestine: Is It the Jews' Promised Land?
OK, what are you going to do with Sura 5:20 -21 and Sura 17:104?
Maybe you
Post by James
should take a pair of scissors and cut that part out of your Koran.
The
Post by James
problem is your Koran is full off errors and contradictions.
There are no contradictions. Just read the verses carefully. 5:20-21 is
a conditioned case. It says: "...and turn not back for then you will be
returned as losers." (5:20). The Jews violated the law of God, killed
prophets and lost everything.
Chapter 17:104 has bad news for the Jews. It talks about two completely
separate events.
17:104 And We said to the Children of Israel after him [Moses] dwell in
the land. When the second and the last promise comes We [Allah] shall
bring you altogether as mixed crowd (gathered out of various nations
7:168).
The first part is finished. They dwelled in the land of Palestine after
Moses for a period of time. Then Allah divided them into separate
groups in various parts of the earth; that is mentioned in 7:168. And
when the second promise comes, Allah will bring the Jews as mixed crowd
from different nations; this is what the second part of 17:104 talking
about.
But do you think they are brought for their own good. Certainly no. The
first and second promises are mentioned in 17:4. The first promise was
completely fulfilled in 17:5 at the hands of the Babylonians. And the
second promise in 17:7.
17:7...when the second promise comes, to disfigure your faces and to
enter the mosque [temple] as they had entered it before [who entered
the temple before? The Babylonians (17:5)], and to destroy with utter
destruction all that fell in their hands.
Basically the Babylonians, Iraqis, will do it again. But unlike the
first time, in the second time they will destroy with utter destruction
all that fell in their hands; this is a hint for the use of mass
destruction weapons!
Summary: The Jews were given permission to settle in Palestine IF they
follow God's orders. They failed. Allah punished them and divided them
into various groups all over the world. Allah kept sending against them
those who afflict them with a severe torment. And when the second
promise came to pass, Allah started bringing them together from all
nations; just to face the second and worst destruction they have ever
had. It will be on the hands of those who entered their temple before,
the Babylonians, Iraqis!
BULLSHIT!!!!!!

Where was this Allah in the 1967 war? Where was this Allah in the 1973 war?
Please tell me if Allah hates the Jews so much, what war has Allah helped
the Arabs win against Israel?

Allah is like unto a stone idol that can not see nor can it hear and if it
goes anywhere you have to carry it. Do not you Muslim pray to this Allah
five times a day? When is he going to start answering some of those
prayers? Why has Allah made the West and the rest of the free world the
leaders of the world and left the Islamic states behind? All the Islamic
states have is their oil and they could not even get that out of the ground
without western technology. Sure looks to me like Allah has made your
enemies the head and has made you the tail. Maybe you Muslims should start
praying ten times a day and scream real loud when you pray so that Allah may
hear you.

The Taliban is all Muslims, right? So where was Allah when the great Satan
(USA) was kicking Muslim ass in Afghanistan? Where was Allah at when the US
started it's march from the gulf to Baghdad?

Is young teenage suicide bombers the best Allah can do against Israel? Why
is it that all of the suicide bombers are teens or men in their early
twenties. None of the old men who have already lived their lives ever strap
on bombs, why is that? Does Allah only reward the young murders with sex in
heaven? Is that the best plan that Allah can come up with to destroy
Israel? If Allah really does hate the Jews as much as you Muslims claim he
should be able to destroy them without your help. If he can't, then maybe
he really is like that stone idol.
--
We must never forget that on Sept.12, 2001, Israel's flags were flying at
half-staff and the Palestinians were dancing in the streets.
Troll Hunter
2005-04-10 22:50:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Palestine: Is It the Jews' Promised Land?
Summary: The Jews were given permission to settle in Palestine IF they
follow God's orders. They failed. Allah punished them and divided them
into various groups all over the world. Allah kept sending against them
those who afflict them with a severe torment. And when the second
promise came to pass, Allah started bringing them together from all
nations; just to face the second and worst destruction they have ever
had. It will be on the hands of those who entered their temple before,
the Babylonians, Iraqis!
We must never forget that on Sept.12, 2001, Israel's flags were flying at
half-staff and the Palestinians were dancing in the streets.
We must never forget that 4000 Jews got sick-leave just before the
bombing - strange!!!

We must never forget that no Jew workers at all died at the WTC.
James
2005-04-11 03:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troll Hunter
Post by James
We must never forget that on Sept.12, 2001, Israel's flags were
flying at half-staff and the Palestinians were dancing in the streets.
We must never forget that 4000 Jews got sick-leave just before the
bombing - strange!!!
Not strange at all, because that is just another Muslim lie.
Post by Troll Hunter
We must never forget that no Jew workers at all died at the WTC.
How many Muslim were there in that 3,000? How many Arabs? Can you provide
any proof there were no Jews among the 3,000?

If there were any Muslims that died in the towers, does that mean that the
19 highjackers still got to go to heaven were they will spent eternity
fucking all of these women in the presence of a supposable Holy god? What
kind of a god is that?

If I were a Muslim, the most embarrassing thing to me, would be their
teaching of being rewarded in heaven with sex from 70 virgins for murdering
innocent people. That would be one part of my religion that I would not
want to talk about.
--
We must never forget that on Sept.12, 2001, Israel's flags were flying at
half-staff and the Palestinians were dancing in the streets.
Troll Hunter
2005-04-11 03:50:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by Troll Hunter
Post by James
We must never forget that on Sept.12, 2001, Israel's flags were
flying at half-staff and the Palestinians were dancing in the streets.
We must never forget that 4000 Jews got sick-leave just before the
bombing - strange!!!
Not strange at all, because that is just another Muslim lie.
Post by Troll Hunter
We must never forget that no Jew workers at all died at the WTC.
How many Muslim were there in that 3,000? How many Arabs? Can you provide
any proof there were no Jews among the 3,000?
On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli
relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good.......Well, it's not
good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"

What about "The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9/11"?
Dancing Israelis Spies at Site of 9/11

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1550658.php

The five celebrating Israeli "movers", (Mossad agents), who were
arrested and placed in solitary confinement for weeks after they were
spotted in a white van suspected of attempting to blow up the George
Washington Bridge. We also reviewed how the Israeli owner of Urban
Moving Systems - Dominick Suter - then suddenly abandoned his "moving
company" and fled for Israel on 9-14. But there were still more
Israeli "movers" and other Israelis whose actions raise serious
suspicions. Even more suspicious is how they are always quietly
released and deported.
Steven Douglas
2005-04-11 04:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troll Hunter
On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin
Post by Troll Hunter
Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli
relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good.......Well, it's not
good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"
Hmm, he's usually smoother than that. You'd think he'd have been better
prepared to give a better answer since he obviously planned and
implemented the WTC attacks ... right? Of course those tapes of Bin
Laden laughing and giggling about the buildings falling were probabaly
faked ... right?
Post by Troll Hunter
What about "The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9/11"?
Dancing Israelis Spies at Site of 9/11
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1550658.php
The five celebrating Israeli "movers", (Mossad agents), who were
arrested and placed in solitary confinement for weeks after they were
spotted in a white van suspected of attempting to blow up the George
Washington Bridge. We also reviewed how the Israeli owner of Urban
Moving Systems - Dominick Suter - then suddenly abandoned his "moving
company" and fled for Israel on 9-14. But there were still more
Israeli "movers" and other Israelis whose actions raise serious
suspicions. Even more suspicious is how they are always quietly
released and deported.
[quoting] The FBI told ABCNEWS, "To date, this investigation has not
identified anybody who in this country had pre-knowledge of the events
of 9/11."

Sources also said that even if the men were spies, there is no evidence
to conclude they had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks on
Sept. 11. The investigation, at the end of the day, after all the
polygraphs, all of the field work, all the cross-checking, the
intelligence work, concluded that they probably did not have advance
knowledge of 9/11," Cannistraro noted. [end quote]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections /2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_
020621.html

It's an old link, but that was the story as reported by ABC news.
Probably not as accurate as some of your sources though ... right?
Never anonymous Bud
2005-04-11 04:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Troll Hunter
Post by Troll Hunter
On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin
Post by Troll Hunter
Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli
relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good.......Well, it's not
good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"
Hmm, he's usually smoother than that.
And probably was then.

DON'T trust anything you see in newsgroups, ESPECIALLY this group,
unless there is a link, and better yet, multiple links, to reputable
sites, showing what the poster says is correct.

ALSO, take the posting users name into account.
--
The truth is out there,

but it's not interesting enough for most people.
Daylight
2005-04-11 04:57:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Palestine: Is It the Jews' Promised Land?
BULLSHIT!!!!!!
Where was this Allah in the 1967 war? Where was this Allah in the 1973 war?
Please tell me if Allah hates the Jews so much, what war has Allah helped
the Arabs win against Israel?
Please relax and take a deep breath. Unlike the jews, Muslims do not
believe that they are chosen people. Just like anyone else, they get
what they work for. Allah however does hate the jews and their history
proves it. Their existence in Palestine will come to an end in one day;
it is the Koran. Everything in time. don't you know that!
zev
2005-04-11 07:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daylight
Please relax and take a deep breath. Unlike the jews, Muslims do not
believe that they are chosen people. Just like anyone else, they get
what they work for. Allah however does hate the jews and their history
proves it. Their existence in Palestine will come to an end in one day;
it is the Koran. Everything in time. don't you know that!
While you're waiting,
you might consider planning
what to do with the 'al-Aqsa mosque',
when God has decided the time has come
to restore the Jewish Temple,
'just in case'.
d***@yahoo.com
2005-04-11 21:24:06 UTC
Permalink
.
Post by zev
While you're waiting,
you might consider planning
what to do with the 'al-Aqsa mosque',
when God has decided the time has come
to restore the Jewish Temple,
'just in case'.
Question, do you Jews know the exact location of the Jewish temple? Is
it in the same place where al-Aqsa mosque currently located?
Never anonymous Bud
2005-04-11 21:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Question, do you Jews know the exact location of the Jewish temple?
Pretty much, yes.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Is it in the same place where al-Aqsa mosque currently located?
Well, the Hebrew Temple opened to the east, the mosque entrance is to the west.
--
The truth is out there,

but it's not interesting enough for most people.
Deborah Sharavi
2005-04-11 22:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by zev
While you're waiting,
you might consider planning
what to do with the 'al-Aqsa mosque',
when God has decided the time has come
to restore the Jewish Temple,
'just in case'.
Question, do you Jews know the exact location of the Jewish temple?
Yes.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Is it in the same place where al-Aqsa mosque currently located?
No. The Al Aqsa mosque squats on only a portion of Har HaBayit.

Deborah
Deborah Sharavi
2005-04-11 22:45:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by zev
While you're waiting,
you might consider planning
what to do with the 'al-Aqsa mosque',
when God has decided the time has come
to restore the Jewish Temple,
'just in case'.
Question, do you Jews know the exact location of the Jewish temple?
Yes.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Is it in the same place where al-Aqsa mosque currently located?
No. The Al Aqsa mosque squats on only a portion of Har HaBayit,
probably the Antonia Fortress.

Deborah
JokingYou
2005-04-11 14:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by James
Palestine: Is It the Jews' Promised Land?
BULLSHIT!!!!!!
Where was this Allah in the 1967 war? Where was this Allah in the
1973 war?
Post by James
Please tell me if Allah hates the Jews so much, what war has Allah
helped
Post by James
the Arabs win against Israel?
Please relax and take a deep breath. Unlike the jews, Muslims do not
believe that they are chosen people. Just like anyonae else, they get
what they work for. Allah however does hate the jews and their history
proves it. Their existence in Palestine will come to an end in one day;
it is the Koran. Everything in time. don't you know that!
God certainly does not hate the Jew. You confuse chastisement for hate.
The Jews were chosen by God as His special people. However, God placed a
heavy burden upon these collective peoples as He also has demanded much -
demanded the Jews be a light unto the world. God has on numerous occasions
blessed the Jews and they became hard hearted and self glorifying. Of
course, this is the way of mankind, just look at how Americans presently
behave after so much was given. Also, the Arab is receiving the promise
given by God to Hagar in regards to Ishmael. The decedents of Ishmael
further sealed their fate when they accepted a new God (Allah); a God who
has sworn destruction of God's chosen people.
d***@yahoo.com
2005-04-11 21:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by JokingYou
Palestine: Is It the Jews' Promised Land?
God certainly does not hate the Jew. You confuse chastisement for hate.
The Jews were chosen by God as His special people. However, God placed a
heavy burden upon these collective peoples as He also has demanded much -
demanded the Jews be a light unto the world. God has on numerous occasions
blessed the Jews and they became hard hearted and self glorifying.
Of
Post by JokingYou
course, this is the way of mankind, just look at how Americans
presently
Post by JokingYou
behave after so much was given. Also, the Arab is receiving the promise
given by God to Hagar in regards to Ishmael.
The decedents of Ishmael
Post by JokingYou
further sealed their fate when they accepted a new God (Allah); a God who
has sworn destruction of God's chosen people.
First of all God is not racist. So there is no reason for me to believe
that God has chosen one nation over others. If God created all of them,
why would he choose one certain group of people over others? The
concept of "chosen people" exists only in the sick mentality of the
Jews.

Allah, on the other hand, had sworn to destroy any evil people,
including Muslims. If the evil people happened to be Jews, Allah will
not hesitate to destroy them!
JokingYou
2005-04-11 22:00:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by JokingYou
Post by JokingYou
Palestine: Is It the Jews' Promised Land?
God certainly does not hate the Jew. You confuse chastisement for
hate.
Post by JokingYou
The Jews were chosen by God as His special people. However, God
placed a
Post by JokingYou
heavy burden upon these collective peoples as He also has demanded
much -
Post by JokingYou
demanded the Jews be a light unto the world. God has on numerous
occasions
Post by JokingYou
blessed the Jews and they became hard hearted and self glorifying.
Of
Post by JokingYou
course, this is the way of mankind, just look at how Americans
presently
Post by JokingYou
behave after so much was given. Also, the Arab is receiving the
promise
Post by JokingYou
given by God to Hagar in regards to Ishmael.
The decedents of Ishmael
Post by JokingYou
further sealed their fate when they accepted a new God (Allah); a God
who
Post by JokingYou
has sworn destruction of God's chosen people.
First of all God is not racist. So there is no reason for me to believe
that God has chosen one nation over others. If God created all of them,
why would he choose one certain group of people over others? The
concept of "chosen people" exists only in the sick mentality of the
Jews.
No one said God is a racist and why He choose one group of people over
others is His business.
Post by JokingYou
Allah, on the other hand, had sworn to destroy any evil people,
including Muslims. If the evil people happened to be Jews, Allah will
not hesitate to destroy them!
Allah has sworn to destroy all of Gods creation and both good and evil
people. The rage of Allah knows no bounds since he was cast out and his
rage will continue until he is finally cast into the bottomless pit.
Deborah Sharavi
2005-04-11 22:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
First of all God is not racist. So there is no reason for me to
believe
Post by d***@yahoo.com
that God has chosen one nation over others. If God created all of them,
why would he choose one certain group of people over others?
"But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, descendant of
Abraham, My friend, I brought you from the ends of the earth and called
you from its farthest corners. I said to you: You are My servant; I
have chosen you and not rejected you." Isaiah 41.8-9

"And now listen, Jacob My servant, Israel whom I have chosen. This is
the word of the Lord your Maker who shaped you from birth; He will help
you:
Do not fear; Jacob is My servant; I have chosen Jeshurun. For I will
pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will
pour out My Spirit on your descendants and My blessing on your
offspring." Isaiah 44.1-3
Post by d***@yahoo.com
The
concept of "chosen people" exists only in the sick mentality of the
Jews.
Actually, the concept exists only in the sick mentality of antisemites.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Allah, on the other hand, had sworn to destroy any evil people,
including Muslims. If the evil people happened to be Jews, Allah will
not hesitate to destroy them!
Allah did a pretty good job in 1948, 1967, 1973, and 1991.

Deborah
James
2005-04-12 00:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Half-Baked
Post by d***@yahoo.com
First of all God is not racist. So there is no reason for me to
believe
Post by d***@yahoo.com
that God has chosen one nation over others. If God created all of
them,
Post by d***@yahoo.com
why would he choose one certain group of people over others?
"But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, descendant of
Abraham, My friend, I brought you from the ends of the earth and called
you from its farthest corners. I said to you: You are My servant; I
have chosen you and not rejected you." Isaiah 41.8-9
"And now listen, Jacob My servant, Israel whom I have chosen. This is
the word of the Lord your Maker who shaped you from birth; He will help
Do not fear; Jacob is My servant; I have chosen Jeshurun. For I will
pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will
pour out My Spirit on your descendants and My blessing on your
offspring." Isaiah 44.1-3
I promise you God is very real. There is only one God and his name is not
Allah. God placed no time limit on his promises. God called Abraham his
friend. That is incredible! Think about that for a minute. The God that
created the universe and all that is in it would say to a man "you are my
friend". If that would not blow you away I don't know what would.

God is not a man that he would change his mind or break his promises. God
will not allow anyone to destroy his people. Many have tried and they all
have been destroyed themselves. The enemies of God had their best shot with
the Holocaust. Just as God promised Noah the flood would never happen
again, I believe that God will never allow his people to suffer another
Holocaust. If the Muslims were smart they would just continue to worship
their false god Allah and leave the Jews alone. However, the Muslims are
not going to do that. They will never give up their struggle to destroy the
Jews and that will lead to the death of Islam.

A world without Islam. There would be no more need for security checks at
airports. There would be no more fear of suicide bombers. One could travel
by ship and not be afraid of being thrown in the sea. We would not have to
be concerned for the safety of our athletes at the Olympics. If we could
get rid of the so call "Religion of Peace" the world really could be at
peace.
--
We must never forget that on Sept.12, 2001, Israel's flags were flying at
half-staff and the Palestinians were dancing in the streets.
JokingYou
2005-04-12 01:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by Half-Baked
Post by d***@yahoo.com
First of all God is not racist. So there is no reason for me to
believe
Post by d***@yahoo.com
that God has chosen one nation over others. If God created all of
them,
Post by d***@yahoo.com
why would he choose one certain group of people over others?
"But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, descendant of
Abraham, My friend, I brought you from the ends of the earth and called
you from its farthest corners. I said to you: You are My servant; I
have chosen you and not rejected you." Isaiah 41.8-9
"And now listen, Jacob My servant, Israel whom I have chosen. This is
the word of the Lord your Maker who shaped you from birth; He will help
Do not fear; Jacob is My servant; I have chosen Jeshurun. For I will
pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will
pour out My Spirit on your descendants and My blessing on your
offspring." Isaiah 44.1-3
I promise you God is very real. There is only one God and his name is not
Allah. God placed no time limit on his promises. God called Abraham his
friend. That is incredible! Think about that for a minute. The God that
created the universe and all that is in it would say to a man "you are my
friend". If that would not blow you away I don't know what would.
God is not a man that he would change his mind or break his promises. God
will not allow anyone to destroy his people. Many have tried and they all
have been destroyed themselves. The enemies of God had their best shot
with the Holocaust. Just as God promised Noah the flood would never
happen again, I believe that God will never allow his people to suffer
another Holocaust. If the Muslims were smart they would just continue to
worship their false god Allah and leave the Jews alone. However, the
Muslims are not going to do that. They will never give up their struggle
to destroy the Jews and that will lead to the death of Islam.
A world without Islam. There would be no more need for security checks at
airports. There would be no more fear of suicide bombers. One could
travel by ship and not be afraid of being thrown in the sea. We would not
have to be concerned for the safety of our athletes at the Olympics. If
we could get rid of the so call "Religion of Peace" the world really could
be at peace.
No such luck. Ever since man listened to the temptation of Allah and God
cast Allah out, he has been given earth as his dominion. Hence, the need to
have faith in Yahweh.
Post by James
--
We must never forget that on Sept.12, 2001, Israel's flags were flying at
half-staff and the Palestinians were dancing in the streets.
d***@yahoo.com
2005-04-12 13:28:42 UTC
Permalink
"But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, descendant of
Abraham, My friend, I brought you from the ends of the earth and called
you from its farthest corners. I said to you: You are My servant; I
Post by Deborah Sharavi
have chosen you and not rejected you." Isaiah 41.8-9
You Jews are deluded. You keep quoting from your CORRUPTED bible
thinking that these are the words of God. Wrong! Your ancestors have
written these songs and attributed them to God. "Hell to those [Jews]
who write the book with their own hands and say this is from God!"
(Koran 2:79).
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Allah did a pretty good job in 1948, 1967, 1973, and 1991.
50 years is certainly nothing. The Jordanian king spent 50 years or
maybe more ruling his country. If the life of a country can be compared
to the life of one person, it is doubtful to be included in history
books! And do not ever think that your temporary state will last
forever.

As long as you believe that you are "chosen" people, you will be
suffering God's punishment all the time. Allah will keep on sending
against you those who would afflict you with a severe torment till the
end of the world (7:167).

Now I suggest that you go through your bible and remove all the verses
that say that the Jews are God's chosen people. After removing these
verses, you should correct your bible according to the Koran. If you
don't do so, you will just remain a hopeless case!

And do you really think that Allah is different from the God you
believe in? He is the same. The exact translation for Allah is "The
God". He is the same God who sent Jewish prophets!
JokingYou
2005-04-12 15:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deborah Sharavi
"But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, descendant of
Abraham, My friend, I brought you from the ends of the earth and called
you from its farthest corners. I said to you: You are My servant; I
Post by Deborah Sharavi
have chosen you and not rejected you." Isaiah 41.8-9
You Jews are deluded. You keep quoting from your CORRUPTED bible
thinking that these are the words of God. Wrong! Your ancestors have
written these songs and attributed them to God. "Hell to those [Jews]
who write the book with their own hands and say this is from God!"
(Koran 2:79).
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Allah did a pretty good job in 1948, 1967, 1973, and 1991.
50 years is certainly nothing. The Jordanian king spent 50 years or
maybe more ruling his country. If the life of a country can be compared
to the life of one person, it is doubtful to be included in history
books! And do not ever think that your temporary state will last
forever.
As long as you believe that you are "chosen" people, you will be
suffering God's punishment all the time. Allah will keep on sending
against you those who would afflict you with a severe torment till the
end of the world (7:167).
Now I suggest that you go through your bible and remove all the verses
that say that the Jews are God's chosen people. After removing these
verses, you should correct your bible according to the Koran. If you
don't do so, you will just remain a hopeless case!
And do you really think that Allah is different from the God you believe
in?
He is the same. The exact translation for Allah is "The
Post by Deborah Sharavi
God". He is the same God who sent Jewish prophets!
Allah is the one cast out after tempting Eve. Creating and instituting of
the religion of Islam was the last deception of Allah to counter the ever
growing spread of the Word as defined by Christianity. The spirit of Allah
is evident in the miserable existence of virutally all countries who bow to
and worship the beast.
Alan Cossey
2005-04-12 17:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deborah Sharavi
"But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, descendant of
Abraham, My friend, I brought you from the ends of the earth and called
you from its farthest corners. I said to you: You are My servant; I
Post by Deborah Sharavi
have chosen you and not rejected you." Isaiah 41.8-9
You Jews are deluded. You keep quoting from your CORRUPTED bible
thinking that these are the words of God. Wrong! Your ancestors have
written these songs and attributed them to God. "Hell to those [Jews]
who write the book with their own hands and say this is from God!"
(Koran 2:79).
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Allah did a pretty good job in 1948, 1967, 1973, and 1991.
50 years is certainly nothing. The Jordanian king spent 50 years or
maybe more ruling his country. If the life of a country can be compared
to the life of one person, it is doubtful to be included in history
books! And do not ever think that your temporary state will last
forever.
As long as you believe that you are "chosen" people, you will be
suffering God's punishment all the time. Allah will keep on sending
against you those who would afflict you with a severe torment till the
end of the world (7:167).
Now I suggest that you go through your bible and remove all the verses
that say that the Jews are God's chosen people. After removing these
verses, you should correct your bible according to the Koran. If you
don't do so, you will just remain a hopeless case!
And do you really think that Allah is different from the God you
believe in? He is the same. The exact translation for Allah is "The
God". He is the same God who sent Jewish prophets!
Or you could actually read what the bible says. The Jews were ejected from
the Northern Kingdom of Israel in 722 BC because of their unfaithfulness to
God and other wrongs. Others were brought in to replace them. These Jews
were assimilated into the Assyrian empire. The Southern Kingdom of Judah
suffered a similar fate in 605, 587 and 586 BC for similar wrongs. However,
this time the Jews did not let themselves get assimilated and were let back
starting around 535BC. It is against this background that Isaiah was
writing.
The Jewish people were ejected from Israel as a result of a rebellion
against Rome in 67-70 AD and a further rebellion in 135 AD. This time there
were no biblical promises of a return that I know of.

The promise of the Promised Land was always conditional on the Jewish people
following God's laws.

Alan
Deborah Sharavi
2005-04-12 18:45:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by d***@yahoo.com
You Jews are deluded. You keep quoting from your CORRUPTED bible
thinking that these are the words of God. Wrong! Your ancestors have
written these songs and attributed them to God. "Hell to those [Jews]
who write the book with their own hands and say this is from God!"
(Koran 2:79).
Sura 2.79
"So woe to those who write the Book with their hands, and then say,
'This is from Allah,' that they may sell it for a little price. So
woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for
their earnings."

The foregoing IN CONTEXT:
Sura 2.75:
"Can you (O men of faith) still earnestly desire that they (the Jews)
will believe in you? And verily a party (fariq) among them hear the
Word of Allah, then they pervert it knowingly after they have
understood it. A
Sura 2.76:
And when they meet the believers they say, 'We believe,' but when
they meet each other in private they say, 'Why do you tell them what
Allah has revealed to you (in the Torah), that they may engage you in
argument about it before their Allah? What do you not understand?'
Sura 2.77:
Do they not know that Allah knows what they conceal and what they make
public?
Sura 2.78:
Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture not except from
hearsay. THEY BUT GUESS."

Sura 5.48:
"To you (Muhammad) We revealed the book in truth, attesting to (the
truth of) that which IS between his (its) hands from the scripture (the
Torah and Gospel), and guarding it (wa muhaiminan `alaihi)."
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Allah did a pretty good job in 1948, 1967, 1973, and 1991.
50 years is certainly nothing. The Jordanian king spent 50 years or
maybe more ruling his country. If the life of a country can be
compared
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by d***@yahoo.com
to the life of one person, it is doubtful to be included in history
books! And do not ever think that your temporary state will last
forever.
Do look closely at the dates, pointed out in response to the silly
comment: "Allah, on the other hand, had sworn to destroy any evil
people, including Muslims. If the evil people happened to be Jews,
Allah will not hesitate to destroy them!" Ergo, it looks like Allah
did a pretty good job on Muslims in 1948, 1967, 1973, and 1991.
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by d***@yahoo.com
As long as you believe that you are "chosen" people, you will be
suffering God's punishment all the time. Allah will keep on sending
against you those who would afflict you with a severe torment till the
end of the world (7:167).
<yawn> The concept of Jews as the "chosen people" is strictly an
anti-Semitic concern. G-d "chose" Jews to receive and obey 613
commandments. G-d "chose" everybody else to receive and obey only
seven commandments. Like being "chosen" by your mother to do the
dishes while everybody else has been "chosen" to watch movies and
eat popcorn.
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Now I suggest that you go through your bible and remove all the verses
that say that the Jews are God's chosen people.
Show me where the bible says Jews are "chosen" for anything other
than receipt of, and obedience to, 613 commandments.
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by d***@yahoo.com
After removing these
verses, you should correct your bible according to the Koran.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! And where, pray tell, does one "correct the bible
according to the Quran" by inserting Muhammad's famous Night
Journey, wherein Allah "did take His Servant for a Journey by night
from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did
bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is
the One Who heareth and seeth (all things)" (Sura 17.1)? Where does
one "correct the bible" by inserting Muhammad's midnight ride on
his magical mare al-Buraq, who had the body of a lion, the tail of a
peacock, and the face of a woman, and who, in three leaps, took him
from Mecca to "The Farthest Mosque"? Forget the rest of the tale.
Where, pray tell, where there any mosques during Muhammad's lifetime?
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by d***@yahoo.com
If you don't do so, you will just remain a hopeless case!
Meaning, we'll never know Muhammadan Paradise after we fly jetliners
full of innocent civilians into buildings?
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by d***@yahoo.com
And do you really think that Allah is different from the God you
believe in? He is the same.
Baloney.
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by d***@yahoo.com
The exact translation for Allah is "The God".
Big deal. Allat (Al-Ilahat = the Goddess) was the pre-Islamic Arabian
mother goddess.
Post by Alan Cossey
Post by d***@yahoo.com
He is the same God who sent Jewish prophets!
Rubbish.
Post by Alan Cossey
Or you could actually read what the bible says. The Jews were ejected from
the Northern Kingdom of Israel in 722 BC because of their
unfaithfulness to
Post by Alan Cossey
God and other wrongs.
The Northern Kingdom was destroyed in 722/721, in the course of the
expansion of the Assyrian Empire under Shalmaneser, and most of the
survivors deported under Sargon II (although Sargon claimed credit for
Shalmaneser's conquests). Compare the following:

[The Israelites] overthrew their king Pekah and I placed Hoshea as
king over them.
- Tiglath-Pileser III, Nimrud, c732 BCE

In the days of King Pekah of Israel, King Tiglath-Pileser of Assyria
came and captured Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Yanoah, Kedesh, Hatzor,
Gilead, and Galilee; all the land of Naphtali; and he carried the
people captive to Assyria. Then Hoshea son of Elah made a conspiracy
against Pekah son of Remaliah, attacked him, and killed him; he
reigned in his place, in the twentieth year of Jothan son of Uzziah.
- 2 Kings 15.29-30

I besieged and conquered Samaria and led away as booty 29,290
Israelites.
- Sargon II*, Khorsabad, c722 BCE
*[Actually Sargon's predecessor, Shalmaneser, conquered Samaria]

In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria captured Samaria; he
carried the Israelites away to Assyria. He placed them in Halah, on
the harbour, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.
- 2 Kings 17.6

[The cities] I set up again and made more populous than before. People
from lands which I had conquered I settled there.
- Sargon II, Khorsabad, c722 BCE

The king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath
and Sepharvaim and set them in the cities of Samaria in place of the
people of Israel...But every nation still made gods of its own and put
them in the high places that the people of Samaria had made...the
Sepharavaim burned their children in the fire to Adrammelech and
Anammelech, the gods of the Sepharavaim.
- 2 Kings 17.24, 29, 31

Azuri king of Ashdod had schemed not to deliver tribute (any more). On
account of the misdeeds which he committed, I abolished his rule...I
besieged and conquered the cities of Ashdod, Gath (and) Asdudimmu.
- Sargon II, Khorsabad, c712

In the year that the commander in chief of Sargon who was sent by
Sargon the King of Assyria came to Ashdod and fought against it and
took it...
- Isaiah 20.1
Post by Alan Cossey
Others were brought in to replace them. These Jews
were assimilated into the Assyrian empire.
See above.
Post by Alan Cossey
The Southern Kingdom of Judah
suffered a similar fate in 605, 587 and 586 BC for similar wrongs.
It suffered a similar fate because of a similar expansion, this time of
the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

The Neo-Babylonian period (c1000-539)
[...]
During the latter years of Nabopolassar's reign his son,
Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BC), led the Babylonian army
on campaign and it was he who actually achieved the victory
at Carchemish in 605 BC where he received word that his
father had died. He rushed back to Babylon and was crowned
king, inaugurating one of the most brilliant periods in
Babylonian history. Nebuchadnezzar continued the vigorous
campaigns to which he had become accustomed, concentrating
on the west which he effectively brought under his control.
The kingdom of Judah, relying upon Egyptian assistance,
resisted the Babylonian advance and on two occasions
Nebuchadnezzar II captured Jerusalem. The second conquest,
587 BC, brought to an end the dynasty at Jerusalem and
was accompanied by the massive transportation of the
Judeans to Babylonia, remembered ever after in Jewish
history as "the Exile." With Jerusalem destroyed,
Nebuchadnezzar pressed on to invade Egypt in 568 BC.
There is no detailed account of this invasion but it
was, at best, an ephemeral success...After Nebuchadnezzar's
death there was a short period of rather obscure sovereigns
and then Nabonidus (555-536 BC), the last of the dynasty,
acended the throne.
- A.K. Grayson, Babylonia, A. Cotterell, Ancient Civilizations, pp
89-101

Last Days of Judah
[...]
In this period, Assyria fell to the Neo-Babylonian empire
(612 BC). Josiah himself died at Megiddo in a fruitless
attempt to counter an Egyptian expedition into Mesopotamia
(609 BC). Judah became an Egyptian vassal state, but
Babylon soon made its influence felt in Palestine also,
and in 597 BC Judah became tributary to Babylon. In the
struggle between Babylon and Egypt, Zedekiah (597-587 BC)
too sided with the latter. The result was a Babylonian
expedition which ended in the capture and destruction of
Jerusalem in 587 BC. The leaders and upper classes were
deported to Babylon ("the Exile") and Judah became a
Babylonian province.

The Babylonian captivity was of the utmost importance for
the development of the religion of Israel...Deutero-Isaiah
is an unknown prophet whose work has been added to the book
of Isaiah (40-55). He appeared toward the end of the exile
and predicted the fall of Babylon to Kores (or Cyrus) and
the return of the exiles to their country.
[...]
The predictions of Deutero-Isaiah came true. Cyrus conquered
Babylon in 539 BC, and in the next year he gave the Israelite
exiles permission to return to their land.
- H. Ringgren, Israel, ibid pp 134-141

Jehoiakim transferred his allegiance to Nebuchadrezzar after
the defeat of the Egyptians at Carchemish (605) but rebelled
about 601, presumably after Necho's defeat of Nebuchadrezzar
on the Egyptian border (601).

In 598 Nebuchadrezzar led his forces against Judah/Jehoikim
died (perhaps by violence) leaving his son to pay for his
folly. Johoichin reigned three months (598-597) before
Jerusalem fell. He and large numbers of his people were
carried captive to Babylon. Nebuchadrezzar replaced
Jehoichin with Zedekiah (597-587). Despite the eloquent
protests of Jeremiah, Zedekiah was tempted into revolt
in league with Egypt. Nebuchadrezzar laid siege to
Jerusalem in January 588. The city fell and its temple
was razed in July 586 [Tishri new year reckoning, August
587 Nisan calendar]. A second group of captives was taken to
Babylon.

586-549 The Jews Under Babylonian Rule.
Judah was left a desolate land stripped of its leadership.
Nevertheless, after the murder of Gedaliah, the governor of
the province, the Babylonians carried out another deportation
(582). In Babylon, the captivity was an extremely creative
period in Israel's religious life and literature. The oracles
of Ezekiel and Second Isaiah were composed in this period. The
Deuteronomic history was edited and brought up to date. The
so-called Priestly edition of the Pentateuch was also prepared
during the Exile.
539-332 Israel Under Persian Rule.
Bablyon fell to Cyrus in 539 [30 October]. The Persian king
released the Jews, those who wished, to return to Zion. In the
years 520-515 the temple was rebuilt at the urging of Haggai
the prophet.
- Encyclopaedia of World History, ed. W.L. Langer, p 46
Post by Alan Cossey
However,
this time the Jews did not let themselves get assimilated and were let back
starting around 535BC. It is against this background that Isaiah was
writing.
It was Deutero-Isaiah who wrote towards the end of the Babylonian
Exile. Isaiah was almost two centuries earlier.
Post by Alan Cossey
The Jewish people were ejected from Israel as a result of a rebellion
against Rome in 67-70 AD and a further rebellion in 135 AD.
Jews were not ejected from Israel after the First Revolt (66-73 CE),
nor were they ejected after the Bar Kokhva Revolt (131-135 CE). The
2nd Temple was destroyed in the course of the 1st Revolt (August 70),
over half a million Jews were killed, and so many of the survivors sold
into slavery that the bottom dropped out of the slave market. After the
Bar Kokhva Revolt, Jerusalem was destroyed, and Jews were forbidden on
pain of death to enter its precincts. After a time, the proscription
was lifted so that Jews could pray at the site of the Temple; they had
to pay for the privilege of praying at the Wall, though, as they had to
pay for the same privilege under the Ottomans.
Post by Alan Cossey
This time there
were no biblical promises of a return that I know of.
The promise of return to Israel is eternal, because Israel is the
eternal homeland of the Jewish nation, as Jerusalem is the eternal
capital of all Israel.
Post by Alan Cossey
The promise of the Promised Land was always conditional on the Jewish people
following God's laws.
Alan
Until the Temple has been rebuilt in Jerusalem, several hundred
commandments are inoperative.

Deborah
zev
2005-04-12 22:01:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deborah Sharavi
"But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, descendant of
Abraham, My friend, I brought you from the ends of the earth and called
you from its farthest corners. I said to you: You are My servant; I
Post by Deborah Sharavi
have chosen you and not rejected you." Isaiah 41.8-9
You Jews are deluded. You keep quoting from your CORRUPTED bible
thinking that these are the words of God. Wrong! Your ancestors have
written these songs and attributed them to God. "Hell to those [Jews]
who write the book with their own hands and say this is from God!"
(Koran 2:79).
This is actually true about the Qur'an.
Are the laws of Passover (and other holidays)
and Sabbath a corruption?
If not, then a Jew who becomes a Moslem is a sinner,
but the Qur'an says that Islam is for everyone, including the Jews!
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Allah did a pretty good job in 1948, 1967, 1973, and 1991.
50 years is certainly nothing. The Jordanian king spent 50 years or
maybe more ruling his country. If the life of a country can be compared
to the life of one person, it is doubtful to be included in history
books! And do not ever think that your temporary state will last
forever.
Has it ever happened that a people living in exile for centuries,
spread over many countries, speaking tens of languages,
gathers itself together and returns to its ancient homeland,
speaking its ancient language, keeping its ancient religion?

If you insist on dreaming,
maybe you should call yourself "starlight".
Post by Deborah Sharavi
As long as you believe that you are "chosen" people, you will be
suffering God's punishment all the time. Allah will keep on sending
against you those who would afflict you with a severe torment till the
end of the world (7:167).
"As a man chastens his son, the Lord your God chastens you".

It is because the Jews are special
that God takes a special interest in them.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Now I suggest that you go through your bible and remove all the verses
that say that the Jews are God's chosen people. After removing these
verses, you should correct your bible according to the Koran. If you
don't do so, you will just remain a hopeless case!
Why shouldn't I do the exact opposite?

Ever notice how monotheism seems to come,
ultimately, only from the children of Israel?
Jesus and his disciples were, of course, Jews,
and Muhammad learned much from Jews and Christians.
Unfortunately, his understanding was frequently superficial.
He didn't understand what 'God's chosen people' meant,
and proceded to create another 'Judaism for non-Jews'
showing, unwittingly, just what was special about the Jews.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
And do you really think that Allah is different from the God you
believe in? He is the same. The exact translation for Allah is "The
God". He is the same God who sent Jewish prophets!
This would have been good for a start.
Too bad you put it at the end.
James
2005-04-12 22:10:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
And do you really think that Allah is different from the God you
believe in? He is the same. The exact translation for Allah is "The
God". He is the same God who sent Jewish prophets!
The entire Islamic religion is based on lies. The biggest of those lies is
that the TRUE LIVING GOD OF ISRAEL and Allah are the same.

At the time of Mohammed the Arab tribes were worshiping 365 different gods.
Mohammed saw that it would be of great benefit to him to narrow the field
down to one. He selected the moon god Allah for two reasons. Each god held
a different rank in the hierarchy and the moon god Allah was number one.
The second reason was that there was an idol to represent each god and the
idol representing Allah was the only one that had human features. Mohammed
rightly concluded that if he narrowed the field down to one, Allah would be
the one most likely to be accepted by his countrymen.

Allah was created by man's imagination. The TRUE GOD OF ISRAEL created all
things. The two can not possibly be the same. The claim that they are the
same is just another Muslim lie.
--
We must never forget that on Sept.12, 2001, Israel's flags were flying at
half-staff and the Palestinians were dancing in the streets.
Col. Mortimer
2005-04-14 17:06:46 UTC
Permalink
There is no god named Allah and Mohammed was a false prophet!
Never anonymous Bud
2005-04-14 19:28:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Col. Mortimer
There is no god named Allah and Mohammed was a false prophet!
There is no god named God, and Jesus was a man.
--
The truth is out there,

but it's not interesting enough for most people.
ren##n.org (The +Revd)
2005-04-14 20:30:38 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:28:29 GMT, Never anonymous Bud
Post by Never anonymous Bud
Post by Col. Mortimer
There is no god named Allah and Mohammed was a false prophet!
There is no god named God, and Jesus was a man.
There is no G-d named hashem and there ain't gonna be no moisiach.
Norma
2005-04-14 22:59:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by ren##n.org (The +Revd)
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:28:29 GMT, Never anonymous Bud
Using a finger dipped in purple ink, "Col. Mortimer"
Post by Col. Mortimer
There is no god named Allah and Mohammed was a false prophet!
There is no god named God, and Jesus was a man.
There is no G-d named hashem and there ain't gonna be no moisiach.
With the very, very little you know about human nature, how do you have the
guts to speak of the divine??? You know nothing!!

Norma
ren##n.org (The +Revd)
2005-04-15 05:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norma
Post by ren##n.org (The +Revd)
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:28:29 GMT, Never anonymous Bud
Using a finger dipped in purple ink, "Col. Mortimer"
Post by Col. Mortimer
There is no god named Allah and Mohammed was a false prophet!
There is no god named God, and Jesus was a man.
There is no G-d named hashem and there ain't gonna be no moisiach.
With the very, very little you know about human nature, how do you have the
guts to speak of the divine??? You know nothing!!
Do you believe the crap they taught you in jew conversion school?
It's a scam.
Norma
2005-04-15 09:46:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by ren##n.org (The +Revd)
Post by Norma
Post by ren##n.org (The +Revd)
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:28:29 GMT, Never anonymous Bud
Using a finger dipped in purple ink, "Col. Mortimer"
Post by Col. Mortimer
There is no god named Allah and Mohammed was a false prophet!
There is no god named God, and Jesus was a man.
There is no G-d named hashem and there ain't gonna be no moisiach.
With the very, very little you know about human nature, how do you have the
guts to speak of the divine??? You know nothing!!
Do you believe the crap they taught you in jew conversion school?
It's a scam.
I see. But you seem to be very familiar with scams...and ought to know that
isn't the case with issues of the divine at all.

Norma
ren##n.org (The +Revd)
2005-04-15 09:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norma
Post by ren##n.org (The +Revd)
Post by Norma
Post by ren##n.org (The +Revd)
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:28:29 GMT, Never anonymous Bud
Using a finger dipped in purple ink, "Col. Mortimer"
Post by Col. Mortimer
There is no god named Allah and Mohammed was a false prophet!
There is no god named God, and Jesus was a man.
There is no G-d named hashem and there ain't gonna be no moisiach.
With the very, very little you know about human nature, how do you have the
guts to speak of the divine??? You know nothing!!
Do you believe the crap they taught you in jew conversion school?
It's a scam.
I see. But you seem to be very familiar with scams...and ought to know that
isn't the case with issues of the divine at all.
There's nothing "divine" about jew 'conversion'. It's a jew scam for
the gullible. The Irish seem particularly susceptible.
Col. Mortimer
2005-04-19 03:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Less than nothing. I believe him to be a "rent boy" for the jihadists.
Alan Cossey
2005-04-14 20:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Using a finger dipped in purple ink, "Col. Mortimer"
Post by Col. Mortimer
There is no god named Allah and Mohammed was a false prophet!
There is no god named God, and Jesus was a man.
Well you are part of the way there.

Alan
Col. Mortimer
2005-04-15 04:00:27 UTC
Permalink
You forgot to mention that the Kaaba(a Borg Cube by any other name) is
from Uranus!
d***@hotmail.com
2005-04-11 20:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daylight
Please relax and take a deep breath. Unlike the jews, Muslims do not
believe that they are chosen people.
Neither do Jews.
Post by Daylight
Just like anyone else, they get what they work for.
And if they can't get it by work, they steal it.
Post by Daylight
Allah however does hate the jews and their history
proves it.
If the history of 1948, 1967, and 1973 proves Allah hates Jews, then
let Allah go on hating Jews.
Post by Daylight
Their existence in Palestine will come to an end in one day;
it is the Koran. Everything in time. don't you know that!
Yadda yadda yadda. Others long before Muhammad the pedophile proclaimed
the imminent end of Jews. They're no longer around. Jews are.

Your Quran is a waterered down version of the Jewish bible, made simple
for illiterate idiots.

Deborah
d***@yahoo.com
2005-04-11 21:32:51 UTC
Permalink
.
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Your Quran is a waterered down version of the Jewish bible, made simple
for illiterate idiots.
If the Koran is just a copy of the Jewish bible, then we must conclude
that the Jewish bible also says that the Jews would be suffering till
the end of the world. The Jewish bible must have also said that the
Jews would be brought to Palestine from various parts of the world,
just to be destroyed again on the hands of the people who destroyed
their temple in the first time, the Babylonians! So we agree on the end
of the Jewish state and the suffering of the Jews till the end of the
world.

Now please tell me where in your bible does it say so?!
Deborah Sharavi
2005-04-11 22:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
If the Koran is just a copy of the Jewish bible, then we must conclude
that the Jewish bible also says that the Jews would be suffering till
the end of the world.
Note what the post you snipped actually stated: the Quran is a WATERED
DOWN VERSION of the Jewish bible. Which it is.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
The Jewish bible must have also said that the
Jews would be brought to Palestine from various parts of the world,
Palestine is not mentioned in the bible. Neither Palestine nor
Jerusalem are mentioned in the Quran.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
just to be destroyed again on the hands of the people who destroyed
their temple in the first time, the Babylonians! So we agree on the end
of the Jewish state and the suffering of the Jews till the end of the
world.
Now please tell me where in your bible does it say so?!
Please tell me why dropped out of school when you were in the third
grade.

Deborah
Deborah Sharavi
2005-04-11 22:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
If the Koran is just a copy of the Jewish bible, then we must conclude
that the Jewish bible also says that the Jews would be suffering till
the end of the world.
Note what the post you snipped actually stated: the Quran is a WATERED
DOWN VERSION of the Jewish bible. Which it is.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
The Jewish bible must have also said that the
Jews would be brought to Palestine from various parts of the world,
Palestine is not mentioned in the bible. Neither Palestine nor
Jerusalem are mentioned in the Quran.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
just to be destroyed again on the hands of the people who destroyed
their temple in the first time, the Babylonians! So we agree on the end
of the Jewish state and the suffering of the Jews till the end of the
world.
Now please tell me where in your bible does it say so?!
Please tell me why you dropped out of school when you were in the third
grade.

Deborah
ren##n.org (The +Revd)
2005-04-12 05:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by Daylight
Please relax and take a deep breath. Unlike the jews, Muslims do not
believe that they are chosen people.
Neither do Jews.
Post by Daylight
Just like anyone else, they get what they work for.
And if they can't get it by work, they steal it.
Post by Daylight
Allah however does hate the jews and their history
proves it.
If the history of 1948, 1967, and 1973 proves Allah hates Jews, then
let Allah go on hating Jews.
Post by Daylight
Their existence in Palestine will come to an end in one day;
it is the Koran. Everything in time. don't you know that!
Yadda yadda yadda. Others long before Muhammad the pedophile proclaimed
the imminent end of Jews. They're no longer around. Jews are.
Your Quran is a waterered down version of the Jewish bible, made simple
for illiterate idiots.
And you wonder where 'anti-semitism'® comes from, whore Nyob.
tw
2005-04-12 12:32:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Yadda yadda yadda. Others long before Muhammad the pedophile
Seeing as the christian god, if they are to be believed, raped an unwitting
virgin (Mary) who was well under the age of consent in any civilised
country, do you REALLY want to go down that line of insult?
Post by d***@hotmail.com
proclaimed the imminent end of Jews. They're no longer around. Jews are.
Which I for one am glad about - I'd hate to see any race wiped out due to
what imaginary sky-pixie they choose to warble to. Ignorance and
superstition are far too amusing to be punished by death.
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Your Quran is a waterered down version of the Jewish bible, made simple
for illiterate idiots.
..so is the jewish bible a watered down version of the christian one because
it doesn't have a new testament? Koran, talmud, bible - same shit, different
buckets. It's as simple as that. Oh, and illiterate people aren't
necessarily idiots, bigot.
Jane
2005-04-12 14:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by tw
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Yadda yadda yadda. Others long before Muhammad the pedophile
Seeing as the christian god, if they are to be believed, raped an unwitting
virgin (Mary) who was well under the age of consent in any civilised
country, do you REALLY want to go down that line of insult?
Mary was about 13, a marriagable age in those days. Aisha (sp) was 9 (6
when Mohammed married her). Khomeini stated that a girl of 9 was old enough
to marry, even today.

Jane
Post by tw
Post by d***@hotmail.com
proclaimed the imminent end of Jews. They're no longer around. Jews are.
Which I for one am glad about - I'd hate to see any race wiped out due to
what imaginary sky-pixie they choose to warble to. Ignorance and
superstition are far too amusing to be punished by death.
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Your Quran is a waterered down version of the Jewish bible, made simple
for illiterate idiots.
..so is the jewish bible a watered down version of the christian one because
it doesn't have a new testament? Koran, talmud, bible - same shit, different
buckets. It's as simple as that. Oh, and illiterate people aren't
necessarily idiots, bigot.
tw
2005-04-12 14:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane
Post by tw
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Yadda yadda yadda. Others long before Muhammad the pedophile
Seeing as the christian god, if they are to be believed, raped an unwitting
virgin (Mary) who was well under the age of consent in any civilised
country, do you REALLY want to go down that line of insult?
Mary was about 13, a marriagable age in those days.
..WELL under the age of consent in any civilised country, as I said.
Post by Jane
Aisha (sp) was 9 (6
when Mohammed married her). Khomeini stated that a girl of 9 was old enough
to marry, even today.
..and?
Post by Jane
Jane
Post by tw
Post by d***@hotmail.com
proclaimed the imminent end of Jews. They're no longer around. Jews are.
Which I for one am glad about - I'd hate to see any race wiped out due to
what imaginary sky-pixie they choose to warble to. Ignorance and
superstition are far too amusing to be punished by death.
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Your Quran is a waterered down version of the Jewish bible, made simple
for illiterate idiots.
..so is the jewish bible a watered down version of the christian one because
it doesn't have a new testament? Koran, talmud, bible - same shit, different
buckets. It's as simple as that. Oh, and illiterate people aren't
necessarily idiots, bigot.
Deborah Sharavi
2005-04-12 17:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by tw
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Yadda yadda yadda. Others long before Muhammad the pedophile
Seeing as the christian god, if they are to be believed, raped an unwitting
virgin (Mary) who was well under the age of consent in any civilised
country, do you REALLY want to go down that line of insult?
Why not?

One, the "Xian god", whatever that may be, did not "rape" any
virgin, unwitting or otherwise. According to Xian dogma, the
"unwitting virgin (Mary)" conceived not by any corporeal deity, but
by spirit, and, prior to conception, assented to it, as follows:

Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his
mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together,
she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. Her husband
Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public
disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. But just when he had resolved
to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said,
"Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for
the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."
- Matthew 1.18-20

The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found
favor with God. And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son,
and you will name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the
Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of
his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and
of his kingdom there will be no end." Mary said to the angel, "How can
this be, since I am a virgin?" The angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit
will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;
therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of
God. And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived
a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren.
For nothing will be impossible with God." Then Mary said, "Here am I,
the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word."
Then the angel departed from her.
- Luke 1.30-38

Two, the statement that Mary "was well under the age of consent in
any civilized country" is anachronistic, has no basis in fact, unless
you can establish: a) her age at the time of her spiritual conception,
and b) the "age of consent" in that time and place; and c) what is
meant by "civilized country.

Quite different from a man marrying a girl of six, then consummating
the marriage when she is nine and he is 54.
Post by tw
Post by d***@hotmail.com
proclaimed the imminent end of Jews. They're no longer around. Jews are.
Which I for one am glad about - I'd hate to see any race wiped out due to
what imaginary sky-pixie they choose to warble to. Ignorance and
superstition are far too amusing to be punished by death.
Ignorance and superstition often lead to death, irregardless of any
"punishment".
Post by tw
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Your Quran is a waterered down version of the Jewish bible, made simple
for illiterate idiots.
...so is the jewish bible a watered down version of the christian one
because
Post by tw
it doesn't have a new testament?
You have it bassackward.
Post by tw
Koran, talmud, bible - same shit, different buckets.
Actually not, as you would realize had you bothered to open a bible, a
quran, and the Talmud, and compare.
Post by tw
It's as simple as that.
Only to the simple-minded, like yourself.
Post by tw
Oh, and illiterate people aren't
necessarily idiots, bigot.
They aren't exactly giant brains from CalTech either.

Deborah
tw
2005-04-13 08:13:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by tw
Post by tw
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Yadda yadda yadda. Others long before Muhammad the pedophile
Seeing as the christian god, if they are to be believed, raped an
unwitting
Post by tw
virgin (Mary) who was well under the age of consent in any civilised
country, do you REALLY want to go down that line of insult?
Why not?
One, the "Xian god", whatever that may be, did not "rape" any
virgin, unwitting or otherwise.
She was impregnated, without her knowledge or consent. Any court of law
would regard taht as rape (or more liely, they'd rgard her as a nutcase, but
that's another point)
Post by tw
According to Xian dogma, the
"unwitting virgin (Mary)" conceived not by any corporeal deity, but
There is no indication of which order things happened in those versus -
Jospeh finds his missus is with child, THEN an angel appears to Mary (yeah,
right) and tells her it's OK, it was god's jizz.

(snipped Matthew 1.18-20 and Luke1.30-38)
Post by tw
Two, the statement that Mary "was well under the age of consent in
any civilized country" is anachronistic
Nope, it is a stone cold fact, I'm afraid.
Post by tw
, has no basis in fact, unless
you can establish: a) her age at the time of her spiritual conception,
Well, marriable age in those parts at those times was around 12 or so. Much
is made of Mary's "ordinarness" so there is no compelling reason t obeliev
she woudl be much older.
Post by tw
and b) the "age of consent" in that time and place;
Uttely irrelevant - unless you want to drop your "mohmammed the paedophile"
idiocy. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
Post by tw
and c) what is meant by "civilized country.
Industrialised, secular democracies.
Post by tw
Quite different from a man marrying a girl of six, then consummating
the marriage when she is nine and he is 54.
No, exactly the same according to you - you claim that if the "age of
consent" in taht time and place is higher than the girl's age it's all
hunky-dory. If the age of consent in Mohammed's time and place allowed him
to do what he did (whcih it obviuosly did) then by your own argument, it's
hunky dory.
Post by tw
Post by tw
Post by d***@hotmail.com
proclaimed the imminent end of Jews. They're no longer around. Jews
are.
Post by tw
Which I for one am glad about - I'd hate to see any race wiped out due
to
Post by tw
what imaginary sky-pixie they choose to warble to. Ignorance and
superstition are far too amusing to be punished by death.
Ignorance and superstition often lead to death, irregardless of any
"punishment".
You're saying all relgious people shoudl be killed? Bit harsh of you..
Post by tw
Post by tw
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Your Quran is a waterered down version of the Jewish bible, made
simple
Post by tw
Post by d***@hotmail.com
for illiterate idiots.
...so is the jewish bible a watered down version of the christian one
because
Post by tw
it doesn't have a new testament?
You have it bassackward.
How so?
Post by tw
Post by tw
Koran, talmud, bible - same shit, different buckets.
Actually not, as you would realize had you bothered to open a bible, a
quran, and the Talmud, and compare.
Obviously you've never looked at it through unbiased eyes, or you'd say it
is merely three falvours of the same basic nonsense (with some useful stuff
thrown in)
Post by tw
Post by tw
It's as simple as that.
Only to the simple-minded, like yourself.
Because I find your (and indeed , all) religion faintly ridiculous, you
claim I'm simple minded? Hmm... did you god tell you to say that?
Post by tw
Post by tw
Oh, and illiterate people aren't
necessarily idiots, bigot.
They aren't exactly giant brains from CalTech either.
How on earth woudl you know? It is completely possible that someone without
reading or writing skills could have the same or higher level of objective
intelligence as someone at CalTech.
Post by tw
Deborah
d***@hotmail.com
2005-04-15 16:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by tw
Post by tw
Post by tw
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Yadda yadda yadda. Others long before Muhammad the pedophile
Seeing as the christian god, if they are to be believed, raped an
unwitting
Post by tw
virgin (Mary) who was well under the age of consent in any
civilised
Post by tw
Post by tw
Post by tw
country, do you REALLY want to go down that line of insult?
Why not?
One, the "Xian god", whatever that may be, did not "rape" any
virgin, unwitting or otherwise.
She was impregnated, without her knowledge or consent.
Wrong. According to the Xian bible, it was with her knowledge and her
consent.
Post by tw
Any court of law
would regard taht as rape (or more liely, they'd rgard her as a
nutcase, but
Post by tw
that's another point)
And the courts of law around at that time were....?
Post by tw
Post by tw
According to Xian dogma, the
"unwitting virgin (Mary)" conceived not by any corporeal deity, but
There is no indication of which order things happened in those versus -
Jospeh finds his missus is with child, THEN an angel appears to Mary (yeah,
right) and tells her it's OK, it was god's jizz.
(snipped Matthew 1.18-20 and Luke1.30-38)
Snipped, because they refute your ignorant assumptions.
Post by tw
Post by tw
Two, the statement that Mary "was well under the age of consent in
any civilized country" is anachronistic
Nope, it is a stone cold fact, I'm afraid.
Wrong again. "Age of consent" wrt that period IS anachronistic and
therefore irrelevant.

"She hath not seen the change of fourteen years,
Let two more summers wither in their pride,
Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride."
"Younger than she are happy mothers made."
Post by tw
Post by tw
, has no basis in fact, unless
you can establish: a) her age at the time of her spiritual
conception,
Post by tw
Well, marriable age in those parts at those times was around 12 or
so.

Wrong again. In any case, that was not the issue. At issue is her age
that the time of conception. What was her age?
Post by tw
Much
is made of Mary's "ordinarness" so there is no compelling reason t obeliev
she woudl be much older.
What was her age at time of conception?
Post by tw
Post by tw
and b) the "age of consent" in that time and place;
Uttely irrelevant - unless you want to drop your "mohmammed the paedophile"
idiocy. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
Wrong again. But at least now we see where you're coming from.
Post by tw
Post by tw
and c) what is meant by "civilized country.
Industrialised, secular democracies.
What were the "industrialized, secular democracies" in the 1stC CE?
Post by tw
Post by tw
Quite different from a man marrying a girl of six, then
consummating
Post by tw
Post by tw
the marriage when she is nine and he is 54.
No, exactly the same according to you - you claim that if the "age of
consent" in taht time and place is higher than the girl's age it's all
hunky-dory. If the age of consent in Mohammed's time and place allowed him
to do what he did (whcih it obviuosly did) then by your own argument, it's
hunky dory.
"Age of consent" was YOUR claim, sonny. In the time in question,
severely anachronistic.
Post by tw
Post by tw
Post by tw
Post by d***@hotmail.com
proclaimed the imminent end of Jews. They're no longer around. Jews
are.
Post by tw
Which I for one am glad about - I'd hate to see any race wiped out due
to
Post by tw
what imaginary sky-pixie they choose to warble to. Ignorance and
superstition are far too amusing to be punished by death.
Ignorance and superstition often lead to death, irregardless of any
"punishment".
You're saying all relgious people shoudl be killed? Bit harsh of you..
Wrong again.

[snip twaddle]

A pity you are too stupid to see the fallacy of your argument. One,
there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed, and cerainly none
that his mother was a virgin when he was born. Two, Muhammad's
existence is historical fact, and so is his fucking a nine-year-old
girl.

Deborah
jgarbuz
2005-04-15 17:05:47 UTC
Permalink
People, people, this is the 21st century! Why are we all warming over
this old drivel? It's ALL anachronistic! We live in an age of science,
DNA analysis, machines on Mars, etc. The Bible, Koran and all of that
stuff was good in its day, and gave the best insights into history and
best of man's thinking
available in those days.
But that was then, and this is now. There is no need for supernatural
answers when we are closer to the real ones. The real problem is, that
as a species divided into many breeds, we have not sufficiently evolved
to keep up with the real and rapid ongoing changes. WE are animals
trying to transcend our animal-ness into something called "human" but
that is easier said than done.
Religion played a strong part in getting us half way there, but the
rest of the journey is going to have to be more genuine science-based
rather than based on obsolescent, adolescent magical and mystical
ideas. Rehashing ancient mumbo jumbo is real getting old. What we need
is some kind of spiritual evolution to keep apace.
Marvin The Paranoid Android`
2005-04-15 17:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by jgarbuz
People, people, this is the 21st century!
Wow! Dude! Thanks!

I gotta reset my watch.
Tom
2005-04-18 07:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by tw
Post by tw
Post by tw
Post by tw
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Yadda yadda yadda. Others long before Muhammad the pedophile
Seeing as the christian god, if they are to be believed, raped an
unwitting
Post by tw
virgin (Mary) who was well under the age of consent in any
civilised
Post by tw
Post by tw
Post by tw
country, do you REALLY want to go down that line of insult?
Why not?
One, the "Xian god", whatever that may be, did not "rape" any
virgin, unwitting or otherwise.
She was impregnated, without her knowledge or consent.
Wrong. According to the Xian bible, it was with her knowledge and her
consent.
<patient sigh> no, we don't KNOW that for sure. We don't know if the
funny angel dream happened before or after your god impregnated an
underage girl with his holy jizz.
Post by tw
Post by tw
Any court of law
would regard taht as rape (or more liely, they'd rgard her as a
nutcase, but
Post by tw
that's another point)
And the courts of law around at that time were....?
Irrelavant to my statement "below the age of consent in any civilised
country".
Post by tw
Post by tw
Post by tw
According to Xian dogma, the
"unwitting virgin (Mary)" conceived not by any corporeal deity, but
There is no indication of which order things happened in those versus
-
Post by tw
Jospeh finds his missus is with child, THEN an angel appears to Mary
(yeah,
Post by tw
right) and tells her it's OK, it was god's jizz.
(snipped Matthew 1.18-20 and Luke1.30-38)
Snipped, because they refute your ignorant assumptions.
No, you have to do that. Please give your interpretation of those
verses which "refutes my ignoramt assumptions".
Post by tw
Post by tw
Post by tw
Two, the statement that Mary "was well under the age of consent in
any civilized country" is anachronistic
Nope, it is a stone cold fact, I'm afraid.
Wrong again. "Age of consent" wrt that period IS anachronistic and
therefore irrelevant.
No, you call Muhammed a "paedophile" from a modern perspective, thus
I'm afraid your kiddie-fiddling god has to be judged by the same
criteria (or neither are - you're trying to have your cake and eat it)
Post by tw
"She hath not seen the change of fourteen years,
So she's 13 at most. Disgusting.
Post by tw
Let two more summers wither in their pride,
Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride."
"Younger than she are happy mothers made."
Filthy paedophile apologist.
Post by tw
Post by tw
Post by tw
, has no basis in fact, unless
you can establish: a) her age at the time of her spiritual
conception,
Post by tw
Well, marriable age in those parts at those times was around 12 or
so.
Wrong again. In any case, that was not the issue. At issue is her age
that the time of conception. What was her age?
13 at most.
Post by tw
Post by tw
Much
is made of Mary's "ordinarness" so there is no compelling reason t
obeliev
Post by tw
she woudl be much older.
What was her age at time of conception?
13 at most, you sick paedophile apologist.
Post by tw
Post by tw
Post by tw
and b) the "age of consent" in that time and place;
Uttely irrelevant - unless you want to drop your "mohmammed the
paedophile"
Post by tw
idiocy. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
Wrong again. But at least now we see where you're coming from.
No, that's where YOU'RE coming from. Your god is as much a paedohpile
as Mohmammed, by your own argument. Both were acceptable at the time,
both look pretty grubby viewed through moden eyes. You condemc one but
not the other - why could that be, I wonder? Bigotry? Racism?
Post by tw
Post by tw
Post by tw
and c) what is meant by "civilized country.
Industrialised, secular democracies.
What were the "industrialized, secular democracies" in the 1stC CE?
Post by tw
Post by tw
Quite different from a man marrying a girl of six, then
consummating
Post by tw
Post by tw
the marriage when she is nine and he is 54.
No, exactly the same according to you - you claim that if the "age of
consent" in taht time and place is higher than the girl's age it's
all
Post by tw
hunky-dory. If the age of consent in Mohammed's time and place
allowed him
Post by tw
to do what he did (whcih it obviuosly did) then by your own argument,
it's
Post by tw
hunky dory.
"Age of consent" was YOUR claim, sonny.
Not at all, YOU brought it up with your "mohammed is a paedophile"
statement. A paedohpile being one who has sex with children, child
being defined by teh age of consent. I'm sorry you're too dumb to
realise this. I di ask you "Are you SURE you want to go down this
route" a couple of posts back..
Post by tw
In the time in question,
severely anachronistic.
So you agree calling Mohammed a "paedophile" is anachronistic.
Splendid!
Post by tw
Post by tw
Post by tw
Post by tw
Post by d***@hotmail.com
proclaimed the imminent end of Jews. They're no longer around.
Jews
Post by tw
Post by tw
are.
Post by tw
Which I for one am glad about - I'd hate to see any race wiped out
due
Post by tw
Post by tw
to
Post by tw
what imaginary sky-pixie they choose to warble to. Ignorance and
superstition are far too amusing to be punished by death.
Ignorance and superstition often lead to death, irregardless of any
"punishment".
You're saying all relgious people shoudl be killed? Bit harsh of
you..
Wrong again.
[snip twaddle]
A pity you are too stupid to see the fallacy of your argument. One,
there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed, and cerainly none
that his mother was a virgin when he was born.
There is a wealth of anecdotal evidence for both.
Post by tw
Two, Muhammad's existence is historical fact, and so is his fucking a nine-> year-old girl.
Really? Please indicate the source which unequivocally shows that he
was "fucking a nine year old girl"?
Post by tw
Deborah
Tom
2005-04-18 16:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Clarification...
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Yadda yadda yadda. Others long before Muhammad the pedophile
A pity you are too stupid to see the fallacy of your argument. One,
there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed, and cerainly none
that his mother was a virgin when he was born.
There is a wealth of anecdotal evidence for both.
..though I don't take the anecdotal evidence for the latter very seriously.
Deborah Sharavi
2005-04-19 19:38:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong. According to the Xian bible, it was with her knowledge and her
consent.
<patient sigh> no, we don't KNOW that for sure.
We KNOW that for sure because that is how the story goes in the Xian
bible, the ONLY source of the story.
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
Any court of law
would regard taht as rape (or more liely, they'd rgard her as a
nutcase, but
Post by tw
that's another point)
And the courts of law around at that time were....?
Irrelavant to my statement "below the age of consent in any civilised
country".
Not irrelevant, in that your statement regarding "age of consent" is
completely anachronistic and totally irrelevant when applied to a time
period in which women were given in married, or sold off, by their
chief male relative, with or without their consent.
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
(snipped Matthew 1.18-20 and Luke1.30-38)
Snipped, because they refute your ignorant assumptions.
No, you have to do that. Please give your interpretation of those
verses which "refutes my ignoramt assumptions".
Read them yourself.
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Two, the statement that Mary "was well under the age of consent in
any civilized country" is anachronistic
Nope, it is a stone cold fact, I'm afraid.
Wrong again. "Age of consent" wrt that period IS anachronistic and
therefore irrelevant.
No, you call Muhammed a "paedophile" from a modern perspective, thus
I'm afraid your kiddie-fiddling god has to be judged by the same
criteria (or neither are - you're trying to have your cake and eat it)
Sonny, Mary wasn't impregnated by any god via intercourse. Is the
phrase "immaculate conception" unfamiliar to you? Look it up.

Fucking a nine year old girl, as Muhammad did, was against the general
mores of the time period and the region.
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
"She hath not seen the change of fourteen years,
So she's 13 at most. Disgusting.
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Let two more summers wither in their pride,
Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride."
"Younger than she are happy mothers made."
Filthy paedophile apologist.
Romeo & Juliet is a filthy pedophilic apology? This is news.

Note, also, that the grandfather of Shakespeare's monarch was born when
his mother was all of fourteen.
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong again. In any case, that was not the issue. At issue is her age
that the time of conception. What was her age?
13 at most.
You have no basis in fact that the age of Mary was "13 at most" -- if
she existed.
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
Much
is made of Mary's "ordinarness" so there is no compelling reason t
obeliev
Post by tw
she woudl be much older.
What was her age at time of conception?
13 at most, you sick paedophile apologist.
Again, you have no basis in fact for assuming Mary's age was "13 at
most". And I beg to differ with your comment about "sick paedophile
apologist". You should direct that to Shakespeare, from whom the lines
above were quoted. Sorry that, too, went over your head.

PARIS
But now, my lord, what say you to my suit?

CAPULET
But saying o'er what I have said before:
My child is yet a stranger in the world;
She hath not seen the change of fourteen years,
Let two more summers wither in their pride,
Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride.

PARIS
Younger than she are happy mothers made.

CAPULET
And too soon marr'd are those so early made.
The earth hath swallow'd all my hopes but she,
She is the hopeful lady of my earth:
But woo her, gentle Paris, get her heart,
My will to her consent is but a part;
An she agree, within her scope of choice
Lies my consent and fair according voice.
- Romeo & Juliet. I.ii.6-19
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
Uttely irrelevant - unless you want to drop your "mohmammed the
paedophile"
Post by tw
idiocy. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
Wrong again. But at least now we see where you're coming from.
No, that's where YOU'RE coming from. Your god is as much a paedohpile
as Mohmammed, by your own argument.
The Xian god didn't fuck anybody. Muhammad fucked a nine year old girl.
Post by Tom
Both were acceptable at the time,
The age of nine was not considered, to use your anachronistic term, the
"age of consent", except by pimps.
Post by Tom
both look pretty grubby viewed through moden eyes. You condemc one but
not the other - why could that be, I wonder? Bigotry? Racism?
The difference is, sonny, one's a fairy tale, the other happened.
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
and c) what is meant by "civilized country.
Industrialised, secular democracies.
What were the "industrialized, secular democracies" in the 1stC CE?
No comment?
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
"Age of consent" was YOUR claim, sonny.
Not at all, YOU brought it up with your "mohammed is a paedophile"
statement. A paedohpile being one who has sex with children, child
being defined by teh age of consent. I'm sorry you're too dumb to
realise this. I di ask you "Are you SURE you want to go down this
route" a couple of posts back..
It's obvious you're too fewken stupid to understand that in the time
period under question, there was NO such thing as any "age of consent".
There were, however, proprieties. Even the boy-loving ancient Greeks
condemned as unnatural men whose sexual interests ran to prepubescent
children.
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
In the time in question,
severely anachronistic.
So you agree calling Mohammed a "paedophile" is anachronistic.
Splendid!
Not at all. Your Muhammad - peach blossoms on him - was a pedophile.
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
A pity you are too stupid to see the fallacy of your argument. One,
there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed, and cerainly none
that his mother was a virgin when he was born.
There is a wealth of anecdotal evidence for both.
There is a wealth of more than "anecdotal evidence" for the immaculate
conception. Look up the term.
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Two, Muhammad's existence is historical fact, and so is his fucking a nine-> year-old girl.
Really? Please indicate the source which unequivocally shows that he
was "fucking a nine year old girl"?
His favorite wife, Ayesha, was six when he married her, nine when he
fucked her. Unlike the Virgin Mary, Ayesha didn't remain a virgin.

End discussion.

Deborah
Alan Cossey
2005-04-19 20:00:09 UTC
Permalink
"Deborah Sharavi" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|> > Wrong. According to the Xian bible, it was with her knowledge and
| her
| > > consent.
|
| Tom wrote:
| > <patient sigh> no, we don't KNOW that for sure.
|
| We KNOW that for sure because that is how the story goes in the Xian
| bible, the ONLY source of the story.
|
| > > >Any court of law
| > > >would regard taht as rape (or more liely, they'd rgard her as a
| > > nutcase, but
| > > >that's another point)
| > >
| > > And the courts of law around at that time were....?
|
| > Irrelavant to my statement "below the age of consent in any civilised
| > country".
|
| Not irrelevant, in that your statement regarding "age of consent" is
| completely anachronistic and totally irrelevant when applied to a time
| period in which women were given in married, or sold off, by their
| chief male relative, with or without their consent.
|
| > > > (snipped Matthew 1.18-20 and Luke1.30-38)
| > > Snipped, because they refute your ignorant assumptions.
| > No, you have to do that. Please give your interpretation of those
| > verses which "refutes my ignoramt assumptions".
|
| Read them yourself.
|
| > > > > Two, the statement that Mary "was well under the age of consent
| in
| > > > > any civilized country" is anachronistic
|
| > > > Nope, it is a stone cold fact, I'm afraid.
|
| > > Wrong again. "Age of consent" wrt that period IS anachronistic and
| > > therefore irrelevant.
|
| > No, you call Muhammed a "paedophile" from a modern perspective, thus
| > I'm afraid your kiddie-fiddling god has to be judged by the same
| > criteria (or neither are - you're trying to have your cake and eat
| it)
|
| Sonny, Mary wasn't impregnated by any god via intercourse. Is the
| phrase "immaculate conception" unfamiliar to you? Look it up.
|
| Fucking a nine year old girl, as Muhammad did, was against the general
| mores of the time period and the region.
|
| > > "She hath not seen the change of fourteen years,
|
| > So she's 13 at most. Disgusting.
|
| > > Let two more summers wither in their pride,
| > > Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride."
| > > "Younger than she are happy mothers made."
|
| > Filthy paedophile apologist.
|
| Romeo & Juliet is a filthy pedophilic apology? This is news.
|
| Note, also, that the grandfather of Shakespeare's monarch was born when
| his mother was all of fourteen.
|
| > > Wrong again. In any case, that was not the issue. At issue is her
| age
| > > that the time of conception. What was her age?
|
| > 13 at most.
|
| You have no basis in fact that the age of Mary was "13 at most" -- if
| she existed.
|
| > > >Much
| > > >is made of Mary's "ordinarness" so there is no compelling reason t
| > > obeliev
| > > >she woudl be much older.
|
| > > What was her age at time of conception?
|
| > 13 at most, you sick paedophile apologist.
|
| Again, you have no basis in fact for assuming Mary's age was "13 at
| most". And I beg to differ with your comment about "sick paedophile
| apologist". You should direct that to Shakespeare, from whom the lines
| above were quoted. Sorry that, too, went over your head.
|
| PARIS
| But now, my lord, what say you to my suit?
|
| CAPULET
| But saying o'er what I have said before:
| My child is yet a stranger in the world;
| She hath not seen the change of fourteen years,
| Let two more summers wither in their pride,
| Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride.
|
| PARIS
| Younger than she are happy mothers made.
|
| CAPULET
| And too soon marr'd are those so early made.
| The earth hath swallow'd all my hopes but she,
| She is the hopeful lady of my earth:
| But woo her, gentle Paris, get her heart,
| My will to her consent is but a part;
| An she agree, within her scope of choice
| Lies my consent and fair according voice.
| - Romeo & Juliet. I.ii.6-19
|
| > > > Uttely irrelevant - unless you want to drop your "mohmammed the
| > > paedophile"
| > > > idiocy. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
|
| > > Wrong again. But at least now we see where you're coming from.
|
| > No, that's where YOU'RE coming from. Your god is as much a paedohpile
| > as Mohmammed, by your own argument.
|
| The Xian god didn't fuck anybody. Muhammad fucked a nine year old girl.
|
| >Both were acceptable at the time,
|
| The age of nine was not considered, to use your anachronistic term, the
| "age of consent", except by pimps.
|
| > both look pretty grubby viewed through moden eyes. You condemc one
| but
| > not the other - why could that be, I wonder? Bigotry? Racism?
|
| The difference is, sonny, one's a fairy tale, the other happened.
|
| > > > > and c) what is meant by "civilized country.
|
| > > > Industrialised, secular democracies.
|
| > > What were the "industrialized, secular democracies" in the 1stC CE?
|
| No comment?
|
| > > "Age of consent" was YOUR claim, sonny.
|
| > Not at all, YOU brought it up with your "mohammed is a paedophile"
| > statement. A paedohpile being one who has sex with children, child
| > being defined by teh age of consent. I'm sorry you're too dumb to
| > realise this. I di ask you "Are you SURE you want to go down this
| > route" a couple of posts back..
|
| It's obvious you're too fewken stupid to understand that in the time
| period under question, there was NO such thing as any "age of consent".
| There were, however, proprieties. Even the boy-loving ancient Greeks
| condemned as unnatural men whose sexual interests ran to prepubescent
| children.
|
| > > In the time in question,
| > > severely anachronistic.
|
| > So you agree calling Mohammed a "paedophile" is anachronistic.
| > Splendid!
|
| Not at all. Your Muhammad - peach blossoms on him - was a pedophile.
|
| > > A pity you are too stupid to see the fallacy of your argument. One,
| > > there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed, and cerainly
| none
| > > that his mother was a virgin when he was born.
|
| > There is a wealth of anecdotal evidence for both.
|
| There is a wealth of more than "anecdotal evidence" for the immaculate
| conception. Look up the term.
|
| > > Two, Muhammad's existence is historical fact, and so is his fucking
| a nine-> year-old girl.
|
| > Really? Please indicate the source which unequivocally shows that he
| > was "fucking a nine year old girl"?
|
| His favorite wife, Ayesha, was six when he married her, nine when he
| fucked her. Unlike the Virgin Mary, Ayesha didn't remain a virgin.
|
| End discussion.
|
| Deborah
|
A couple of points more for general interest than substantially altering the
arguments put forward.

1) The Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic belief the Mary was totally
sinless throughout her life. I would point you to a page on the Catholic
Encyclopedia site but m brother and sisters in the Catholic church seem to
be out in force tonight now Pope Ben has been elected. You'll have to stick
to "Virgin birth" for a phrase to cover the whole process.

2) Mary must have existed coz Jesus had a mum of some sort.

3) The idea that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life is again a Roman
Catholic idea, though some other high church chaps also agree. It is implied
in Matthew 1.25 that she did not actually do so.

4) What's this Xian lark? You should be able to get your spell-checker to
stop converting "Christian" to "Xian" :-)

Alan Cossey
tw
2005-04-20 08:53:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong. According to the Xian bible, it was with her knowledge and
her
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
consent.
<patient sigh> no, we don't KNOW that for sure.
We KNOW that for sure because that is how the story goes in the Xian
bible, the ONLY source of the story.
<patient sigh> It doesn't tell us whether Gabriel appeared before or after
conception.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
Any court of law
would regard taht as rape (or more liely, they'd rgard her as a
nutcase, but
Post by tw
that's another point)
And the courts of law around at that time were....?
Irrelavant to my statement "below the age of consent in any civilised
country".
Not irrelevant, in that your statement regarding "age of consent" is
completely anachronistic and totally irrelevant when applied to a time
period in which women were given in married, or sold off, by their
chief male relative, with or without their consent.
..so once again you admit that your condemnation of Mohammed as a
"paedophile" was anachronistic and totally irrelevant. YOu can't have it
both ways, dearie.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
(snipped Matthew 1.18-20 and Luke1.30-38)
Snipped, because they refute your ignorant assumptions.
No, you have to do that. Please give your interpretation of those
verses which "refutes my ignoramt assumptions".
Read them yourself.
I did, Please give your interpretation of those verses which "refutes my
ignoramt assumptions".
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong again. "Age of consent" wrt that period IS anachronistic and
therefore irrelevant.
No, you call Muhammed a "paedophile" from a modern perspective, thus
I'm afraid your kiddie-fiddling god has to be judged by the same
criteria (or neither are - you're trying to have your cake and eat
it)
Sonny, Mary wasn't impregnated by any god via intercourse. Is the
phrase "immaculate conception" unfamiliar to you? Look it up.
She had a baby, therefore she MUST have had intercourse to conceive. Any
other explanation is physically and biologically impossible.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Fucking a nine year old girl, as Muhammad did,
Where is your source that Mohammed "fucked a nine year old girl"`? All we
know for sure is that he married one at "a time
period in which women were given in married, or sold off, by their chief
male relative, with or without their consent."
Post by Deborah Sharavi
was against the general
mores of the time period and the region.
..and your evidence for this is..?
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
"She hath not seen the change of fourteen years,
So she's 13 at most. Disgusting.
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Let two more summers wither in their pride,
Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride."
"Younger than she are happy mothers made."
Filthy paedophile apologist.
Romeo & Juliet is a filthy pedophilic apology? This is news.
Romeo and Juliet were the same age, silly.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Note, also, that the grandfather of Shakespeare's monarch was born when
his mother was all of fourteen.
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong again. In any case, that was not the issue. At issue is her
age
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
that the time of conception. What was her age?
13 at most.
You have no basis in fact that the age of Mary was "13 at most" -- if
she existed.
Other than the marriable age of girls at that time..
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
Much
is made of Mary's "ordinarness" so there is no compelling reason t
obeliev
Post by tw
she woudl be much older.
What was her age at time of conception?
13 at most, you sick paedophile apologist.
Again, you have no basis in fact for assuming Mary's age was "13 at
most". And I beg to differ with your comment about "sick paedophile
apologist". You should direct that to Shakespeare, from whom the lines
above were quoted. Sorry that, too, went over your head.
My mistake, I assuemd they were more babblings from the bible. But still.
it's amusing how you are making my argument for me. Simply use the same
criteria you use to defend the Paedophile Rapist Judeo Christian god to
defend Mohammed and voila!


<snip>
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
Uttely irrelevant - unless you want to drop your "mohmammed the
paedophile"
Post by tw
idiocy. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
Wrong again. But at least now we see where you're coming from.
No, that's where YOU'RE coming from. Your god is as much a paedohpile
as Mohmammed, by your own argument.
The Xian god didn't fuck anybody.
So how did Mary get pregnant?
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Muhammad fucked a nine year old girl.
What's your factual source for this?
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Both were acceptable at the time,
The age of nine was not considered, to use your anachronistic term, the
"age of consent", except by pimps.
Post by Tom
both look pretty grubby viewed through moden eyes. You condemc one
but
Post by Tom
not the other - why could that be, I wonder? Bigotry? Racism?
The difference is, sonny, one's a fairy tale, the other happened.
Where is your evidence that Mohammed had intercourse with a nine year old?
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
Post by tw
and c) what is meant by "civilized country.
Industrialised, secular democracies.
What were the "industrialized, secular democracies" in the 1stC CE?
No comment?
Is one needed?
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
"Age of consent" was YOUR claim, sonny.
Not at all, YOU brought it up with your "mohammed is a paedophile"
statement. A paedohpile being one who has sex with children, child
being defined by teh age of consent. I'm sorry you're too dumb to
realise this. I di ask you "Are you SURE you want to go down this
route" a couple of posts back..
It's obvious you're too fewken stupid to understand that in the time
period under question, there was NO such thing as any "age of consent".
Nice strawman! Where have I claimed there was?
Post by Deborah Sharavi
There were, however, proprieties. Even the boy-loving ancient Greeks
condemned as unnatural men whose sexual interests ran to prepubescent
children.
How did they feel about betrothals at the age of nine?
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
In the time in question,
severely anachronistic.
So you agree calling Mohammed a "paedophile" is anachronistic.
Splendid!
Not at all. Your Muhammad - peach blossoms on him - was a pedophile.
Where is the evidence he was having intercourse with a nine year old?
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
A pity you are too stupid to see the fallacy of your argument. One,
there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed, and cerainly
none
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
that his mother was a virgin when he was born.
There is a wealth of anecdotal evidence for both.
There is a wealth of more than "anecdotal evidence" for the immaculate
conception. Look up the term.
There is rather more biological and physical evidence that it is impossible
though.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Two, Muhammad's existence is historical fact, and so is his fucking
a nine-> year-old girl.
Post by Tom
Really? Please indicate the source which unequivocally shows that he
was "fucking a nine year old girl"?
His favorite wife, Ayesha, was six when he married her, nine when he
fucked her.
Source?
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Unlike the Virgin Mary, Ayesha didn't remain a virgin.
End discussion.
Deborah
Deborah Sharavi
2005-04-20 20:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong. According to the Xian bible, it was with her knowledge and
her consent.
<patient sigh>no, we don't KNOW that for sure.
We KNOW that for sure because that is how the story goes in the Xian
bible, the ONLY source of the story.
<patient sigh>It doesn't tell us whether Gabriel appeared before or
after
conception.
Luke 1:26-38
In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in
Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was
Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. And he came
to her and said, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you." But
she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting
this might be. The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you
have found favor with God. And now, you WILL CONCEIVE in your womb and
bear a son, and you WILL name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be
called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the
throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob
forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." Mary said to the
angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" The angel said to her,
"The Holy Spirit WILL COME upon you, and the power of the Most High
WILL overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he
will be called Son of God. And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old
age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who
was said to be barren. For nothing will be impossible with God." Then
Mary said, "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me
according to your word." Then the angel departed from her.

Matthew 1:18-25
Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his
mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together,
she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. Her husband
Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public
disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. But just when he had resolved
to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said,
"Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for
the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a
son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from
their sins." All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the
Lord through the prophet: "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a
son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us."
When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded
him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her
until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.
<less than patient sigh for the presumptuousness of the ignorant>
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
Any court of law
would regard taht as rape (or more liely, they'd rgard her as a
nutcase, but
Post by tw
that's another point)
And the courts of law around at that time were....?
Irrelavant to my statement "below the age of consent in any
civilised
Post by Deborah Sharavi
country".
Not irrelevant, in that your statement regarding "age of consent" is
completely anachronistic and totally irrelevant when applied to a time
period in which women were given in married, or sold off, by their
chief male relative, with or without their consent.
..so once again you admit that your condemnation of Mohammed as a
"paedophile" was anachronistic and totally irrelevant.
Typical, stupid sidedodge to avoid the point that, at the time in
question, there was no "age of consent".
YOu can't have it both ways, dearie.
Were you born this stupid, or did you take lessons? In the one,
conception was of an incorporeal "Holy Spirit" and "power of the
Most High", and the virgin remained a virgin; in any case, it never
happened. In the second instance, a 54 year old man fucked a
nine-year-old girl.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
(snipped Matthew 1.18-20 and Luke1.30-38)
Snipped, because they refute your ignorant assumptions.
No, you have to do that. Please give your interpretation of those
verses which "refutes my ignoramt assumptions".
Read them yourself.
I did, Please give your interpretation of those verses which "refutes my
ignoramt assumptions".
See the verses above.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong again. "Age of consent" wrt that period IS anachronistic and
therefore irrelevant.
No, you call Muhammed a "paedophile" from a modern perspective, thus
I'm afraid your kiddie-fiddling god has to be judged by the same
criteria (or neither are - you're trying to have your cake and eat
it)
Sonny, Mary wasn't impregnated by any god via intercourse. Is the
phrase "immaculate conception" unfamiliar to you? Look it up.
She had a baby, therefore she MUST have had intercourse to conceive. Any
other explanation is physically and biologically impossible.
Not according to the Xian version.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Fucking a nine year old girl, as Muhammad did,
Where is your source that Mohammed "fucked a nine year old girl"`?
Hadiths.
All we
know for sure is that he married one at "a time
period in which women were given in married, or sold off, by their chief
male relative, with or without their consent."
According to the hadiths, he married a six year old girl, and
consummated the marriage when she was nine.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
was against the general
mores of the time period and the region.
..and your evidence for this is..?
Take a course in ancient Greek and Roman studies.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
"She hath not seen the change of fourteen years,
So she's 13 at most. Disgusting.
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Let two more summers wither in their pride,
Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride."
"Younger than she are happy mothers made."
Filthy paedophile apologist.
Romeo & Juliet is a filthy pedophilic apology? This is news.
Romeo and Juliet were the same age, silly.
Wrong. Romeo's age is never referred to, but from the line "Verona
brags of him to be a virtuous and well-govern'd youth", he would have
to be older than 13 or 14.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Note, also, that the grandfather of Shakespeare's monarch was born when
his mother was all of fourteen.
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong again. In any case, that was not the issue. At issue is her
age that the time of conception. What was her age?
13 at most.
You have no basis in fact that the age of Mary was "13 at most" -- if
she existed.
Other than the marriable age of girls at that time..
You have no basis in fact that the "marriageable age" of Jewish
girls in that time was 13. In fact, the acceptable age of marriage was
considered 18. Afterwards, the tendency became to marry off one's
children at an earlier and earlier age, for a number of reasons.

"A man is forbidden to marry off his daughter if she is a minor.
[That is the law]...Nevertheless, it is our custom to betroth our
daughters, even if they are minors, because day after day the
[oppression of] Galut [the Exile] increases - and if a man has
the possibility of giving his daughter a dowry now, [he betrothes
her,] lest he not have it later on and she will remain an
[unmarried woman] forever."
- Tosafot, Kiddushin 41a
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
Much
is made of Mary's "ordinarness" so there is no compelling reason t
obeliev
Post by tw
she woudl be much older.
What was her age at time of conception?
13 at most, you sick paedophile apologist.
Again, you have no basis in fact for assuming Mary's age was "13 at
most". And I beg to differ with your comment about "sick paedophile
apologist". You should direct that to Shakespeare, from whom the lines
above were quoted. Sorry that, too, went over your head.
My mistake, I assuemd they were more babblings from the bible.
I'm sure you had trouble distinguishing one of Shakespeare's more
famous quotes.
But still.
it's amusing how you are making my argument for me. Simply use the same
criteria you use to defend the Paedophile Rapist Judeo Christian god to
defend Mohammed and voila!
<snip>
Read the passage from the Xian bible again, twit. No "rape" was
involved. In fact, no penetration was involved.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
Uttely irrelevant - unless you want to drop your "mohmammed the
paedophile"
Post by tw
idiocy. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
Wrong again. But at least now we see where you're coming from.
No, that's where YOU'RE coming from. Your god is as much a
paedohpile
Post by Deborah Sharavi
as Mohmammed, by your own argument.
The Xian god didn't fuck anybody.
So how did Mary get pregnant?
Immaculate conception, you stupid fuckard.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Muhammad fucked a nine year old girl.
What's your factual source for this?
Hadiths, as follows:

Shahih Bukhari, Vol 5, Book 58, No 236: "Narrated Hisham's father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He
stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she
was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she
was nine years old."

Shahih Bukhari, Vol 7, Book 62, No 64: "Narrated 'Aisha: that the
Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his
marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him
for nine years (i.e., till his death)."

Shahih Muslim, Book 8, No 3311: "'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her)
reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when
she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when
she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy
Prophet) died she was eighteen years old."

Sira, Ibn Ishak: "He married 'Aisha in Mecca when she was a child of
seven lived with her in Medina when she was nine or ten. She was the
only virgin that he married. Her father, Abu Bakr, married her to him
and the apostle gave her four hundred dirhams."
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Both were acceptable at the time,
The age of nine was not considered, to use your anachronistic term, the
"age of consent", except by pimps.
both look pretty grubby viewed through moden eyes. You condemc one
but
not the other - why could that be, I wonder? Bigotry? Racism?
The difference is, sonny, one's a fairy tale, the other happened.
Where is your evidence that Mohammed had intercourse with a nine year old?
See the Hadiths above.

Of course, Ayesha wasn't the only young girl he fucked around with,
though none were as young. (It was different - or the same - with Umar,
who married a four or five year old). After the death of Khadija, the
old man had quite a harem going for him. Of course, he could hardly
have had a harem going for him while Khadija lived, if she disapproved,
since she was a very rich twice-widowed lady, and he was her indigent
boy toy.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
Post by tw
and c) what is meant by "civilized country.
Industrialised, secular democracies.
What were the "industrialized, secular democracies" in the 1stC CE?
No comment?
Is one needed?
You referred to "age of consent" in a "civilized country" and
referenced "industrial, secular democracies" wrt the periods under
question, that is, the 1stC CE and the 7thC CE.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
"Age of consent" was YOUR claim, sonny.
Not at all, YOU brought it up with your "mohammed is a paedophile"
statement. A paedohpile being one who has sex with children, child
being defined by teh age of consent. I'm sorry you're too dumb to
realise this. I di ask you "Are you SURE you want to go down this
route" a couple of posts back..
It's obvious you're too fewken stupid to understand that in the time
period under question, there was NO such thing as any "age of
consent".
Nice strawman! Where have I claimed there was?
Throughout your posts, fool.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
There were, however, proprieties. Even the boy-loving ancient Greeks
condemned as unnatural men whose sexual interests ran to prepubescent
children.
How did they feel about betrothals at the age of nine?
Betrothals differed from marriage, O pillock of ignorance. And
consummation of a marriage could, and occasionally was, postponed.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
In the time in question,
severely anachronistic.
So you agree calling Mohammed a "paedophile" is anachronistic.
Splendid!
Not at all. Your Muhammad - peach blossoms on him - was a pedophile.
Where is the evidence he was having intercourse with a nine year old?
See the Hadiths above.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
A pity you are too stupid to see the fallacy of your argument. One,
there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed, and cerainly
none that his mother was a virgin when he was born.
There is a wealth of anecdotal evidence for both.
There is a wealth of more than "anecdotal evidence" for the
immaculate
Post by Deborah Sharavi
conception. Look up the term.
There is rather more biological and physical evidence that it is impossible
though.
No shit, Sherlock. But it happens to be a matter of Xian doctrine.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Two, Muhammad's existence is historical fact, and so is his fucking
a nine->year-old girl.
Really? Please indicate the source which unequivocally shows that he
was "fucking a nine year old girl"?
His favorite wife, Ayesha, was six when he married her, nine when he
fucked her.
Source?
See the Hadiths above.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Unlike the Virgin Mary, Ayesha didn't remain a virgin.
End discussion.
More on Muhammad's harem:

While the prophet - peach blossoms on him - remained faithful to
Khadija while she lived, after her death he took anywhere from 13 to 22
(or 28) wives, and any number of concubines. He had at least two
concubines, Mariya, given him by the head of the Coptic church in
Egypt, and Rayhana, a survivor of Muhammad's genocide of the Jewish
Banu Qurayza ofYathrib. They were supposed to have been very young when
Muhammad took them

Ibn Hisham: "Ibrahim's mother was Mariya the Copt. Abdullah b. Wahb
from I Lahia told me that Mariya was the prophet's concubine. The
Muuqauqis presented her to him from Hafn in the province of Ansina."

Other wives:

Maimunah (or Barra) Bint. According to Al Harith, Muhammad married her
in 629 CE, when she was 36 and he was 60. She was the half sister of
Zainab Bint Khuzaima, another of the prophet's women. She was the
last woman he married, because of the proscription imposed on him by
Allah. She outlived him by 40 years.

Rayhana was another Jewish war captive. Muhammad proposed to marry her,
because of her great beauty, but Rayhana refused to covert to Islam.
Therefore, she became his concubine. She was probably a teenager at the
time of her capture.

Safiyah Bint Huyay was another Jewish war captive, taken after the
slaughter in Khybar, where her father, her husband, and her close male
relatives were killed. She was first given to a soldier named Dahia,
but when Muhammad saw her, he took her from Dahia. Her cousin or
half-sister was brought along with her, but, not being as pretty, the
prophet was not interested. She was 17 when Muhammad married her, and
21 when he died. She survived him by 39 years, and died in 673 CE age
60.

Ibn Ishak, quoting Sira: 'Abdullah b Abu Bakr b Muhammad b 'Amr b
Hazm told me that he was told that Safiya d Huyayy b Akhtab said 'I
was the favourite child of my father and my uncle Abu Yasir. When I was
present they took no notice of their other children. When the apostle
was staying in Quba with the B 'Amr b Auf, the two went to see him
before daybreak and did not return until after nightfall, weary worn
out, drooping and feeble. I went up to them on childish pleasure as I
always did, and they were so sunk in gloom that they took no notice of
me. I heard my uncle say to my father, "Is he, he? Do you recognize
him, and can you be sure?" "Yes!" "And what do you feel about him?" "By
God I shall be his enemy as long as I live."
Shari'a rule on marriage:

Hedaya Vol I Book III p 71: "Case of one of two wives suckling the
other - If a man marry an infant and an adult and the latter should
give milk to the former, both wives become prohibited with respect to
that man [their husband], because if they were to continue united in
marriage to him, it would imply the propriety of joint cohabitation
with the foster-mother and her foster-daughter, which is prohibited, in
the same manner as joint cohabitation with a natural mother and
daughter-It is to be observed on this occasion, that if the husband
should not have had carnal connexion with the adult wife, she is not
entitled to any dower whatever, because the separation has proceeded
from her, before consummation :-but the infant has a claim to her half
dower."

Umar was around 56 when he married Umme Kulthum, his favourite wife,
who was 4 or 5 years old. Some Islamists claim Umme Kulthum was a
daughter of Ali and Fatima, others, that she was the posthumous
daughter of Abu Bakar and Habiba. She was a half sister of Ayesha. Umar
asked Ayesha for Umme Kulthum when the latter was 4 or 5 years old.
Ayesha agreed, and the marriage took place in 639 CE.

Deborah
tw
2005-04-21 08:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong. According to the Xian bible, it was with her knowledge and
her consent.
<patient sigh>no, we don't KNOW that for sure.
We KNOW that for sure because that is how the story goes in the Xian
bible, the ONLY source of the story.
<patient sigh>It doesn't tell us whether Gabriel appeared before or
after
conception.
Luke 1:26-38
In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in
Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was
Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. And he came
to her and said, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you." But
she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting
this might be. The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you
have found favor with God. And now, you WILL CONCEIVE in your womb and
bear a son, and you WILL name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be
called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the
throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob
forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." Mary said to the
angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" The angel said to her,
"The Holy Spirit WILL COME upon you, and the power of the Most High
WILL overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he
will be called Son of God. And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old
age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who
was said to be barren. For nothing will be impossible with God." Then
Mary said, "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me
according to your word." Then the angel departed from her.
..so how long after the angel appeared did Mary give birth?
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Matthew 1:18-25
Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his
mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together,
she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. Her husband
Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public
disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. But just when he had resolved
to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said,
"Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for
the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a
son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from
their sins." All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the
Lord through the prophet: "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a
son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us."
When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded
him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her
until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.
<less than patient sigh for the presumptuousness of the ignorant>
Still no evidence that the angel appeared >9 months before she calfed out..
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
Any court of law
would regard taht as rape (or more liely, they'd rgard her as a
nutcase, but
Post by tw
that's another point)
And the courts of law around at that time were....?
Irrelavant to my statement "below the age of consent in any
civilised
Post by Deborah Sharavi
country".
Not irrelevant, in that your statement regarding "age of consent" is
completely anachronistic and totally irrelevant when applied to a
time
Post by Deborah Sharavi
period in which women were given in married, or sold off, by their
chief male relative, with or without their consent.
..so once again you admit that your condemnation of Mohammed as a
"paedophile" was anachronistic and totally irrelevant.
Typical, stupid sidedodge to avoid the point that, at the time in
question, there was no "age of consent".
..so calling Mohammed a paedophile in anachronistic..
Post by Deborah Sharavi
YOu can't have it both ways, dearie.
Were you born this stupid, or did you take lessons? In the one,
conception was of an incorporeal "Holy Spirit" and "power of the
Most High", and the virgin remained a virgin;
A baby was born, therefore intercourse must have taken place.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
in any case, it never
happened.
I quite agree. However, basing a cult on a paedophile rapipst god doesn't
seem morally superior to basing it on a paedophile man.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
In the second instance, a 54 year old man fucked a
nine-year-old girl.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
(snipped Matthew 1.18-20 and Luke1.30-38)
Snipped, because they refute your ignorant assumptions.
No, you have to do that. Please give your interpretation of those
verses which "refutes my ignoramt assumptions".
Read them yourself.
I did, Please give your interpretation of those verses which "refutes
my
ignoramt assumptions".
See the verses above.
They don't give any sort of timeline. If the angel appeared less than 9
months before she calfed out, we can logically assume she was not aware of
the conception when it happened.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong again. "Age of consent" wrt that period IS anachronistic and
therefore irrelevant.
No, you call Muhammed a "paedophile" from a modern perspective, thus
I'm afraid your kiddie-fiddling god has to be judged by the same
criteria (or neither are - you're trying to have your cake and eat
it)
Sonny, Mary wasn't impregnated by any god via intercourse. Is the
phrase "immaculate conception" unfamiliar to you? Look it up.
She had a baby, therefore she MUST have had intercourse to conceive.
Any
other explanation is physically and biologically impossible.
Not according to the Xian version.
I was unaware the Chinese were involved.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Fucking a nine year old girl, as Muhammad did,
Where is your source that Mohammed "fucked a nine year old girl"`?
Hadiths.
Can you be more specific? How about the actual text? "And lo, he fucked a
nine year old". That sort of thing?
Post by Deborah Sharavi
All we
know for sure is that he married one at "a time
period in which women were given in married, or sold off, by their
chief
male relative, with or without their consent."
According to the hadiths, he married a six year old girl, and
consummated the marriage when she was nine.
Could you point me to the text, please?
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Deborah Sharavi
was against the general
mores of the time period and the region.
..and your evidence for this is..?
Take a course in ancient Greek and Roman studies.
I have read a fair bit about the ancient mediterranean as well as Homer,
Aeschylus (sp?) and Virgil - can't say I recall seeing any opinion expresed
one way or the other about who was too young to be diddled with, but I
suppose it wasn't all that relevant to what I was reading about.


<snip>
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Romeo and Juliet were the same age, silly.
Wrong. Romeo's age is never referred to, but from the line "Verona
brags of him to be a virtuous and well-govern'd youth", he would have
to be older than 13 or 14.
Why?
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Note, also, that the grandfather of Shakespeare's monarch was born
when
Post by Deborah Sharavi
his mother was all of fourteen.
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong again. In any case, that was not the issue. At issue is her
age that the time of conception. What was her age?
13 at most.
You have no basis in fact that the age of Mary was "13 at most" -- if
she existed.
Other than the marriable age of girls at that time..
You have no basis in fact that the "marriageable age" of Jewish
girls in that time was 13. In fact, the acceptable age of marriage was
considered 18.
Cite, please?
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Afterwards, the tendency became to marry off one's
children at an earlier and earlier age, for a number of reasons.
"A man is forbidden to marry off his daughter if she is a minor.
Where is "minor" defined?
Post by Deborah Sharavi
[That is the law]...Nevertheless, it is our custom to betroth our
daughters, even if they are minors, because day after day the
[oppression of] Galut [the Exile] increases - and if a man has
the possibility of giving his daughter a dowry now, [he betrothes
her,] lest he not have it later on and she will remain an
[unmarried woman] forever."
- Tosafot, Kiddushin 41a
Uurgh...
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
Much
is made of Mary's "ordinarness" so there is no compelling reason t
obeliev
Post by tw
she woudl be much older.
What was her age at time of conception?
13 at most, you sick paedophile apologist.
Again, you have no basis in fact for assuming Mary's age was "13 at
most". And I beg to differ with your comment about "sick paedophile
apologist". You should direct that to Shakespeare, from whom the
lines
Post by Deborah Sharavi
above were quoted. Sorry that, too, went over your head.
My mistake, I assuemd they were more babblings from the bible.
I'm sure you had trouble distinguishing one of Shakespeare's more
famous quotes.
Eh?Obscuer lines about Juliet's age are his "more famous quotes"?! On what
planet?
I can think of at least three quotes from R& J that are rather more
famous...
Post by Deborah Sharavi
But still.
it's amusing how you are making my argument for me. Simply use the
same
criteria you use to defend the Paedophile Rapist Judeo Christian god
to
defend Mohammed and voila!
<snip>
Read the passage from the Xian bible
Again, what do teh Chinese have to do with it?
Post by Deborah Sharavi
again, twit. No "rape" was
involved. In fact, no penetration was involved.
So how was conception possible? Or did he merely shoot his Holy bolt over
her underage parts whiel she was asleep?
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
Uttely irrelevant - unless you want to drop your "mohmammed the
paedophile"
Post by tw
idiocy. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
Wrong again. But at least now we see where you're coming from.
No, that's where YOU'RE coming from. Your god is as much a
paedohpile
Post by Deborah Sharavi
as Mohmammed, by your own argument.
The Xian god didn't fuck anybody.
So how did Mary get pregnant?
Immaculate conception, you stupid fuckard.
Impossible.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Muhammad fucked a nine year old girl.
What's your factual source for this?
Ah! At last.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He
stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she
was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she
was nine years old."
Consumed?
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Shahih Bukhari, Vol 7, Book 62, No 64: "Narrated 'Aisha: that the
Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his
marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him
for nine years (i.e., till his death)."
Shahih Muslim, Book 8, No 3311: "'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her)
reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when
she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when
she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy
Prophet) died she was eighteen years old."
Sira, Ibn Ishak: "He married 'Aisha in Mecca when she was a child of
seven lived with her in Medina when she was nine or ten. She was the
only virgin that he married. Her father, Abu Bakr, married her to him
and the apostle gave her four hundred dirhams."
How revolting. From a modern point of view. Still, at least it wasn't
rape...
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Both were acceptable at the time,
The age of nine was not considered, to use your anachronistic term,
the
Post by Deborah Sharavi
"age of consent", except by pimps.
both look pretty grubby viewed through moden eyes. You condemc one
but
not the other - why could that be, I wonder? Bigotry? Racism?
The difference is, sonny, one's a fairy tale, the other happened.
Where is your evidence that Mohammed had intercourse with a nine year
old?
See the Hadiths above.
Thanks.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Of course, Ayesha wasn't the only young girl he fucked around with,
though none were as young. (It was different - or the same - with Umar,
who married a four or five year old). After the death of Khadija, the
old man had quite a harem going for him. Of course, he could hardly
have had a harem going for him while Khadija lived, if she disapproved,
since she was a very rich twice-widowed lady, and he was her indigent
boy toy.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Post by tw
Post by tw
and c) what is meant by "civilized country.
Industrialised, secular democracies.
What were the "industrialized, secular democracies" in the 1stC CE?
No comment?
Is one needed?
You referred to "age of consent" in a "civilized country" and
referenced "industrial, secular democracies" wrt the periods under
question, that is, the 1stC CE and the 7thC CE.
And...?
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
"Age of consent" was YOUR claim, sonny.
Not at all, YOU brought it up with your "mohammed is a paedophile"
statement. A paedohpile being one who has sex with children, child
being defined by teh age of consent. I'm sorry you're too dumb to
realise this. I di ask you "Are you SURE you want to go down this
route" a couple of posts back..
It's obvious you're too fewken stupid to understand that in the time
period under question, there was NO such thing as any "age of
consent".
Nice strawman! Where have I claimed there was?
Throughout your posts, fool.
No I haven't, you gibbering harpy. Otherwise you couldl provide a cite where
I claim there was an age of consent at that time, and what it was. Run along
now...
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Deborah Sharavi
There were, however, proprieties. Even the boy-loving ancient Greeks
condemned as unnatural men whose sexual interests ran to prepubescent
children.
How did they feel about betrothals at the age of nine?
Betrothals differed from marriage, O pillock of ignorance. And
consummation of a marriage could, and occasionally was, postponed.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
In the time in question,
severely anachronistic.
So you agree calling Mohammed a "paedophile" is anachronistic.
Splendid!
Not at all. Your Muhammad - peach blossoms on him - was a pedophile.
Where is the evidence he was having intercourse with a nine year old?
See the Hadiths above.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
A pity you are too stupid to see the fallacy of your argument. One,
there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed, and cerainly
none that his mother was a virgin when he was born.
There is a wealth of anecdotal evidence for both.
There is a wealth of more than "anecdotal evidence" for the
immaculate
Post by Deborah Sharavi
conception. Look up the term.
There is rather more biological and physical evidence that it is
impossible
though.
No shit, Sherlock. But it happens to be a matter of Xian doctrine.
What do the Chinese have to do with it?
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Two, Muhammad's existence is historical fact, and so is his fucking
a nine->year-old girl.
Really? Please indicate the source which unequivocally shows that he
was "fucking a nine year old girl"?
His favorite wife, Ayesha, was six when he married her, nine when he
fucked her.
Source?
See the Hadiths above.
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Unlike the Virgin Mary, Ayesha didn't remain a virgin.
End discussion.
While the prophet - peach blossoms on him - remained faithful to
Khadija while she lived, after her death he took anywhere from 13 to 22
(or 28) wives, and any number of concubines. He had at least two
concubines, Mariya, given him by the head of the Coptic church in
Egypt, and Rayhana, a survivor of Muhammad's genocide of the Jewish
Banu Qurayza ofYathrib. They were supposed to have been very young when
Muhammad took them
Ibn Hisham: "Ibrahim's mother was Mariya the Copt. Abdullah b. Wahb
from I Lahia told me that Mariya was the prophet's concubine. The
Muuqauqis presented her to him from Hafn in the province of Ansina."
Maimunah (or Barra) Bint. According to Al Harith, Muhammad married her
in 629 CE, when she was 36 and he was 60. She was the half sister of
Zainab Bint Khuzaima, another of the prophet's women. She was the
last woman he married, because of the proscription imposed on him by
Allah. She outlived him by 40 years.
Rayhana was another Jewish war captive. Muhammad proposed to marry her,
because of her great beauty, but Rayhana refused to covert to Islam.
Therefore, she became his concubine. She was probably a teenager at the
time of her capture.
Safiyah Bint Huyay was another Jewish war captive, taken after the
slaughter in Khybar, where her father, her husband, and her close male
relatives were killed. She was first given to a soldier named Dahia,
but when Muhammad saw her, he took her from Dahia. Her cousin or
half-sister was brought along with her, but, not being as pretty, the
prophet was not interested. She was 17 when Muhammad married her, and
21 when he died. She survived him by 39 years, and died in 673 CE age
60.
Ibn Ishak, quoting Sira: 'Abdullah b Abu Bakr b Muhammad b 'Amr b
Hazm told me that he was told that Safiya d Huyayy b Akhtab said 'I
was the favourite child of my father and my uncle Abu Yasir. When I was
present they took no notice of their other children. When the apostle
was staying in Quba with the B 'Amr b Auf, the two went to see him
before daybreak and did not return until after nightfall, weary worn
out, drooping and feeble. I went up to them on childish pleasure as I
always did, and they were so sunk in gloom that they took no notice of
me. I heard my uncle say to my father, "Is he, he? Do you recognize
him, and can you be sure?" "Yes!" "And what do you feel about him?" "By
God I shall be his enemy as long as I live."
Hedaya Vol I Book III p 71: "Case of one of two wives suckling the
other - If a man marry an infant and an adult and the latter should
give milk to the former, both wives become prohibited with respect to
that man [their husband], because if they were to continue united in
marriage to him, it would imply the propriety of joint cohabitation
with the foster-mother and her foster-daughter, which is prohibited, in
the same manner as joint cohabitation with a natural mother and
daughter-It is to be observed on this occasion, that if the husband
should not have had carnal connexion with the adult wife, she is not
entitled to any dower whatever, because the separation has proceeded
from her, before consummation :-but the infant has a claim to her half
dower."
Umar was around 56 when he married Umme Kulthum, his favourite wife,
who was 4 or 5 years old. Some Islamists claim Umme Kulthum was a
daughter of Ali and Fatima, others, that she was the posthumous
daughter of Abu Bakar and Habiba. She was a half sister of Ayesha. Umar
asked Ayesha for Umme Kulthum when the latter was 4 or 5 years old.
Ayesha agreed, and the marriage took place in 639 CE.
Deborah
Steven Douglas
2005-04-21 04:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong. According to the Xian bible, it was with her knowledge and
her consent.
<patient sigh> no, we don't KNOW that for sure.
We KNOW that for sure because that is how the story goes in the Xian
bible, the ONLY source of the story.
<patient sigh> It doesn't tell us whether Gabriel appeared before or after
conception.
What's with this <patient sigh> stuff? I've been reading your posts in
this thread with a patient sigh; but I was about to run out of patience
when I saw that Deborah had set you straight. Deborah also provided you
with verses from Hadith about the nine year old girl, who was only six
years old when she first became betrothed to Muhammad. And before you
go questioning the Hadith, it is the secondary source of Islamic law
behind the primary source, the Quran. Traditionally, Muslims are
expected to believe and follow both sources as Islamic law.

And I'd like to add one more thing about the virgin Mary and her
immaculate conception: she gave her consent (Luke 1:38), which puts to
rest your ridiculous assertion of "rape." And in Luke 1:42, Mary's
kinswoman Elizabeth exlaims upon greeting Mary, "Blessed are you among
all women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." Did you notice that
Mary is referred to by Elizabeth as a woman? That should put to rest
your assertion that Mary was a child.

I know you don't believe any of it, Tom, but if you're going to get
into this type of discussion, at least get the stories straight.

And thanks again to Deborah for posting all the relevant information
for Tom's benefit.
tw
2005-04-21 08:27:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong. According to the Xian bible, it was with her knowledge
and
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
her consent.
<patient sigh> no, we don't KNOW that for sure.
We KNOW that for sure because that is how the story goes in the
Xian
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
bible, the ONLY source of the story.
<patient sigh> It doesn't tell us whether Gabriel appeared before or
after
Post by tw
conception.
What's with this <patient sigh> stuff?
Well, I get tired of explaining the same thing, sometimes.
Post by Steven Douglas
I've been reading your posts in
this thread with a patient sigh;
Jolly good.
Post by Steven Douglas
but I was about to run out of patience
when I saw that Deborah had set you straight.
Where? Where is the proof that the Angel appeared to Mary before God's jizz
had been magicked into her underage womb?
Post by Steven Douglas
Deborah also provided you
with verses from Hadith about the nine year old girl, who was only six
years old when she first became betrothed to Muhammad.
In her last post on the matter, yes. If she'd showed them earlier it woudl
have saved a bit of time.
Post by Steven Douglas
And before you
go questioning the Hadith, it is the secondary source of Islamic law
behind the primary source, the Quran. Traditionally, Muslims are
expected to believe and follow both sources as Islamic law.
They shodul have stick some stuff in about angels appearing in dreams to get
him off the hook, liek the christians did.
Post by Steven Douglas
And I'd like to add one more thing about the virgin Mary and her
immaculate conception: she gave her consent (Luke 1:38),
How long before Jesus was born was taht?
Post by Steven Douglas
which puts to
rest your ridiculous assertion of "rape."
Not if she gave her consent after the fact it don't. And immortal beings
going around shagging underage girls still sounds rather grubby.
Post by Steven Douglas
And in Luke 1:42, Mary's
kinswoman Elizabeth exlaims upon greeting Mary, "Blessed are you among
all women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." Did you notice that
Mary is referred to by Elizabeth as a woman?
Is she? I thought it meant she woudl be regarded as blessed among women. i.e
women would regard here as blessed.
Post by Steven Douglas
That should put to rest
your assertion that Mary was a child.
I know you don't believe any of it, Tom, but if you're going to get
into this type of discussion, at least get the stories straight.
And thanks again to Deborah for posting all the relevant information
for Tom's benefit.
JokingYou
2005-04-21 15:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by tw
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong. According to the Xian bible, it was with her knowledge
and
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
her consent.
<patient sigh> no, we don't KNOW that for sure.
We KNOW that for sure because that is how the story goes in the
Xian
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
bible, the ONLY source of the story.
<patient sigh> It doesn't tell us whether Gabriel appeared before or
after
Post by tw
conception.
What's with this <patient sigh> stuff?
Well, I get tired of explaining the same thing, sometimes.
Post by Steven Douglas
I've been reading your posts in
this thread with a patient sigh;
Jolly good.
Post by Steven Douglas
but I was about to run out of patience
when I saw that Deborah had set you straight.
Where? Where is the proof that the Angel appeared to Mary before God's jizz
had been magicked into her underage womb?
Why don't you read the source of the story rather than make things up as you
go along. You may not believe in God or the bible, and that is fine as that
is your choice, but at least get your arguement in tune with the source.
Suggesting "God's jizz" and "magicked" (whatever the hell that is) have to
do with God makes you appear as nothimg more than an opinionated jerk who
has nothing more than an axe to grind. God (according to the source which
even you are using) is omnipotent and has no need to deposit "jizz" or
"magic" anything in order to accomplish His will. If God can will
everything into existence then how difficult or how much involvment would
it take for God to alter a single girls condition? If I followed your line
of reasoning then I would have to assume God personally handled every star
upon creation. Just as saying "let there be light" accomplished creation
of light, "let there be a pregnant girl" accomplished pregnancy. Of course,
you would probably argue that God had a hugh orgasm and each star is nothing
more than the result of sperm drops in space.
Post by tw
Post by Steven Douglas
Deborah also provided you
with verses from Hadith about the nine year old girl, who was only six
years old when she first became betrothed to Muhammad.
In her last post on the matter, yes. If she'd showed them earlier it woudl
have saved a bit of time.
Post by Steven Douglas
And before you
go questioning the Hadith, it is the secondary source of Islamic law
behind the primary source, the Quran. Traditionally, Muslims are
expected to believe and follow both sources as Islamic law.
They shodul have stick some stuff in about angels appearing in dreams to get
him off the hook, liek the christians did.
Post by Steven Douglas
And I'd like to add one more thing about the virgin Mary and her
immaculate conception: she gave her consent (Luke 1:38),
How long before Jesus was born was taht?
Post by Steven Douglas
which puts to
rest your ridiculous assertion of "rape."
Not if she gave her consent after the fact it don't. And immortal beings
going around shagging underage girls still sounds rather grubby.
Post by Steven Douglas
And in Luke 1:42, Mary's
kinswoman Elizabeth exlaims upon greeting Mary, "Blessed are you among
all women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." Did you notice that
Mary is referred to by Elizabeth as a woman?
Is she? I thought it meant she woudl be regarded as blessed among women. i.e
women would regard here as blessed.
Post by Steven Douglas
That should put to rest
your assertion that Mary was a child.
I know you don't believe any of it, Tom, but if you're going to get
into this type of discussion, at least get the stories straight.
And thanks again to Deborah for posting all the relevant information
for Tom's benefit.
Steven Douglas
2005-04-22 04:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by tw
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong. According to the Xian bible, it was with her
knowledge
Post by tw
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
and her consent.
<patient sigh> no, we don't KNOW that for sure.
We KNOW that for sure because that is how the story goes in the
Xian bible, the ONLY source of the story.
<patient sigh> It doesn't tell us whether Gabriel appeared before or
after conception.
What's with this <patient sigh> stuff?
Well, I get tired of explaining the same thing, sometimes.
What "same thing" are you explaining? Your *false* version of the story
of immaculate conception?
Post by tw
Post by Steven Douglas
I've been reading your posts in
this thread with a patient sigh;
Jolly good.
Post by Steven Douglas
but I was about to run out of patience
when I saw that Deborah had set you straight.
Where? Where is the proof that the Angel appeared to Mary before God's jizz
had been magicked into her underage womb?
If you would read the text Deborah provided, you'd see that the angel
Gabriel was there to tell Mary of what WILL happen (Deborah even
highlighted for you what Gabriel tells Mary "WILL" happen):

Luke 1:26-38
In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in
Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was
Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. And he came
to her and said, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you." But
she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting
this might be. The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you
have found favor with God. And now, you WILL CONCEIVE in your womb and
bear a son, and you WILL name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be
called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the
throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob
forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." Mary said to the
angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" The angel said to her,
"The Holy Spirit WILL COME upon you, and the power of the Most High
WILL overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he
will be called Son of God. And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old
age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who
was said to be barren. For nothing will be impossible with God." Then
Mary said, "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me
according to your word." Then the angel departed from her.
Post by tw
Post by Steven Douglas
Deborah also provided you
with verses from Hadith about the nine year old girl, who was only six
years old when she first became betrothed to Muhammad.
In her last post on the matter, yes. If she'd showed them earlier it woudl
have saved a bit of time.
Maybe she assumed anyone who feels qualified to post arguments on
alt.religion.islam should KNOW what IS common knowledge to anyone who
possesses even an elementary knowledge of the origin of Islam.
Post by tw
Post by Steven Douglas
And before you
go questioning the Hadith, it is the secondary source of Islamic law
behind the primary source, the Quran. Traditionally, Muslims are
expected to believe and follow both sources as Islamic law.
They shodul have stick some stuff in about angels appearing in dreams to get
him off the hook, liek the christians did.
This whole attempt by you, to equate God with a human being named
Muhammad, is ridiculous. One is GOD! The other is just a human being
who married a nine year old girl! There is NO comparison.
Post by tw
Post by Steven Douglas
And I'd like to add one more thing about the virgin Mary and her
immaculate conception: she gave her consent (Luke 1:38),
How long before Jesus was born was taht?
What is the point of that? According to the text, months had passed,
though the New Testament doesn't give the exact timeline. But while
looking through Luke again, I noticed this part of the story from after
Jesus was born:

Luke 2:21 -- And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he
was called Jesus, the name given by the angel BEFORE he was conceived
in the womb.

Please stop arguing the point that Mary was "raped" before she gave her
consent. It's one thing to say you don't believe any of this, but it's
quite another to intentionally continue to twist and distort the story.
Post by tw
Post by Steven Douglas
which puts to
rest your ridiculous assertion of "rape."
Not if she gave her consent after the fact it don't. And immortal beings
going around shagging underage girls still sounds rather grubby.
Have you now learned what the story actually says? I wonder why you
felt compelled to invent such twisted and FALSE arguments? (no need to
respond, this is a rhetorical question; the answer became long ago
apparent from your sometimes stated view of religious people as
"superstitious savages").
Post by tw
Post by Steven Douglas
And in Luke 1:42, Mary's
kinswoman Elizabeth exlaims upon greeting Mary, "Blessed are you among
all women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." Did you notice that
Mary is referred to by Elizabeth as a woman?
Is she? I thought it meant she woudl be regarded as blessed among women. i.e
women would regard here as blessed.
Is that what "among all women" means? Doesn't "among all women" mean
she is included "among" them? I know you're more intelligent than this.
When you've dug yourself into a hole, the best thing to do is to stop
digging. Stop now.
Post by tw
Post by Steven Douglas
That should put to rest
your assertion that Mary was a child.
I know you don't believe any of it, Tom, but if you're going to get
into this type of discussion, at least get the stories straight.
And thanks again to Deborah for posting all the relevant
information
Post by tw
Post by Steven Douglas
for Tom's benefit.
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-04-22 05:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
What "same thing" are you explaining? Your *false* version of the story
of immaculate conception?
Please, stop calling "immaculate conception" to the dogma of Mary's
virginity.
It is erroneous, as someone else has already pointed out on on this
thread, as immaculate conception means taht Mary was born without the
origibal sin. It's about her conception, not Jesus'.

Furthermore, such mistake contains on itself the utterly preposterous
notion that in Catholicism conception is viewed as a sinful, maculate act.
--
"Humanity has many enemies. The worst of them are ignorance, arrogance,
extremism, and violence" - Abbas Kadhim
Steven Douglas
2005-04-22 06:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by Steven Douglas
What "same thing" are you explaining? Your *false* version of the story
of immaculate conception?
Please, stop calling "immaculate conception" to the dogma of Mary's
virginity.
How about you interpret your dogma the way you want, and I'll interpret
my dogma the way I want?
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
It is erroneous, as someone else has already pointed out on on this
thread,
And someone else pointed out that God merely has to WILL something to
happen, and it happens.
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
as immaculate conception means taht Mary was born without the
origibal sin. It's about her conception, not Jesus'.
Okay, how about "miraculous conception" then? Do you like that better?
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Furthermore, such mistake contains on itself the utterly preposterous
notion that in Catholicism conception is viewed as a sinful, maculate act.
That's your opinion. I disagree. It merely means that Mary's conception
was miraculous because it was by the Holy Spirit of God (see Luke
1:35).
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-04-23 01:14:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by Steven Douglas
What "same thing" are you explaining? Your *false* version of the
story
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by Steven Douglas
of immaculate conception?
Please, stop calling "immaculate conception" to the dogma of Mary's
virginity.
How about you interpret your dogma the way you want, and I'll interpret
my dogma the way I want?
This is ridiculous.
The dogma of Imaculate Conception has a very definite meaning on
Catholicism.
You can call a cow an horse, but it will still be a cow.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
It is erroneous, as someone else has already pointed out on on this
thread,
And someone else pointed out that God merely has to WILL something to
happen, and it happens.
Irrelevant to the question of the meaning of "Immaculate Conception" in
Catholicism.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
as immaculate conception means taht Mary was born without the
origibal sin. It's about her conception, not Jesus'.
Okay, how about "miraculous conception" then? Do you like that better?
That's up to you, just don't call it "immaculate" as that clearly means
another thing.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Furthermore, such mistake contains on itself the utterly preposterous
notion that in Catholicism conception is viewed as a sinful, maculate
act.
That's your opinion. I disagree. It merely means that Mary's conception
was miraculous because it was by the Holy Spirit of God (see Luke
1:35).
As already pointed out, Immaculate Conception doesn't mean such a thing.
You may have the opinion that the conception of Christ is more
"immaculate" than others, but it will be just that, your opinion, not any
official doctrine of the Catholic church that I'm aware of.
--
"Humanity has many enemies. The worst of them are ignorance, arrogance,
extremism, and violence" - Abbas Kadhim
Steven Douglas
2005-04-23 07:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
You may have the opinion that the conception of Christ is more
"immaculate" than others, but it will be just that, your opinion, not any
official doctrine of the Catholic church that I'm aware of.
I'm not Catholic. I only believe in Bible based dogma. In my view, the
conception of Christ was miraculous.
pepys
2005-04-23 11:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
You may have the opinion that the conception of Christ is more
"immaculate" than others, but it will be just that, your opinion, not
any
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
official doctrine of the Catholic church that I'm aware of.
I'm not Catholic. I only believe in Bible based dogma. In my view, the
conception of Christ was miraculous.
The story of the conception of christ is bullshit.
MB
2005-04-23 00:23:32 UTC
Permalink
That's what the Catholics say, but I've never heard that interpretation
in all of protestantism.
Which is why they worship Mary. But it's biblically unfounded, as far as
I know.

mikeebee
-------------
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by Steven Douglas
What "same thing" are you explaining? Your *false* version of the story
of immaculate conception?
Please, stop calling "immaculate conception" to the dogma of Mary's
virginity.
It is erroneous, as someone else has already pointed out on on this
thread, as immaculate conception means taht Mary was born without the
origibal sin. It's about her conception, not Jesus'.
Furthermore, such mistake contains on itself the utterly preposterous
notion that in Catholicism conception is viewed as a sinful, maculate act.
--
"Humanity has many enemies. The worst of them are ignorance, arrogance,
extremism, and violence" - Abbas Kadhim
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-04-23 16:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by MB
That's what the Catholics say, but I've never heard that interpretation
in all of protestantism.
Which is why they worship Mary. But it's biblically unfounded, as far as
I know.
You are right, and it's a very recent dogma on Catholicism (19th century).
Until then it was a matter of passionate and interminable theological
discussions.
I also don't believe there's anything on the Bible that supports that, at
least on a clearly way. :)
--
"Humanity has many enemies. The worst of them are ignorance, arrogance,
extremism, and violence" - Abbas Kadhim
WH
2005-04-21 10:05:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong. According to the Xian bible, it was with her knowledge
and
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
her consent.
<patient sigh> no, we don't KNOW that for sure.
We KNOW that for sure because that is how the story goes in the
Xian
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
bible, the ONLY source of the story.
<patient sigh> It doesn't tell us whether Gabriel appeared before
or
Post by Steven Douglas
after
Post by tw
conception.
What's with this <patient sigh> stuff? I've been reading your posts in
this thread with a patient sigh; but I was about to run out of
patience
Post by Steven Douglas
when I saw that Deborah had set you straight. Deborah also provided you
with verses from Hadith about the nine year old girl, who was only six
years old when she first became betrothed to Muhammad. And before you
go questioning the Hadith, it is the secondary source of Islamic law
behind the primary source, the Quran. Traditionally, Muslims are
expected to believe and follow both sources as Islamic law.
Right then, don't question the Christian holy book, (notice I didn't
spell it xtian which I think is an insult to Christians), but you can
certainly question the Quran? Christians too, are expected to believe,
without question, the bible...which is, in case you don't know,
Christian law!
Post by Steven Douglas
And I'd like to add one more thing about the virgin Mary and her
immaculate conception: she gave her consent (Luke 1:38), which puts to
rest your ridiculous assertion of "rape." And in Luke 1:42, Mary's
kinswoman Elizabeth exlaims upon greeting Mary, "Blessed are you among
all women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." Did you notice that
Mary is referred to by Elizabeth as a woman? That should put to rest
your assertion that Mary was a child.
So she gave her consent did she? Try telling that to any modern day
court and see if you get away with it.
Post by Steven Douglas
I know you don't believe any of it, Tom, but if you're going to get
into this type of discussion, at least get the stories straight.
"Straight" eh? What you mean is get it straight like a Christian/Jew
with a spike up his/her arse would get it. Believe the freaky
Christian/Jew way of it or nothing.
Post by Steven Douglas
And thanks again to Deborah for posting all the relevant information
for Tom's benefit.
"Benefit". This Deborah is obviously a yankie jew, the ones with spikes
up their arses, and hatred in their hearts. Her hatred has shone
through in every post she made. Surprise douglas, you missed that
didn't you? Pure hatred! And she or you can quote all the biblical
bollocks you like, but the hatred shines right through it all. The
Christian/jew equivalents to the Quran do not teach hatred, that you
two picked up by yourselves. Like the Quran, they teach understanding
and tolerance.

WH
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-04-22 04:15:10 UTC
Permalink
On 21 Apr 2005 03:05:17 -0700, WH <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

[..]
Post by WH
The
Christian/jew equivalents to the Quran do not teach hatred, that you
two picked up by yourselves.
30. But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD
thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might
deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.
31. And the LORD said to me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his
land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land.
32. Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at
Jahaz.
33. And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and
his sons, and all his people.
34. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the
men, and the women, and the little ones of every city, we left none to
remain.
35. Only the cattle we took for a prey to ourselves, and the spoil of the
cities which we took.
(Deuteronomy 2)
Post by WH
Like the Quran, they teach understanding
and tolerance.
Well, at least most of the time. :)
--
"Humanity has many enemies. The worst of them are ignorance, arrogance,
extremism, and violence" - Abbas Kadhim
Steven Douglas
2005-04-22 04:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong. According to the Xian bible, it was with her
knowledge
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
and her consent.
<patient sigh> no, we don't KNOW that for sure.
We KNOW that for sure because that is how the story goes in the
Xian bible, the ONLY source of the story.
<patient sigh> It doesn't tell us whether Gabriel appeared before
or after conception.
What's with this <patient sigh> stuff? I've been reading your posts
in this thread with a patient sigh; but I was about to run out of
patience when I saw that Deborah had set you straight. Deborah also
provided you with verses from Hadith about the nine year old girl,
who was only six years old when she first became betrothed to
Muhammad. And before you go questioning the Hadith, it is the
secondary source of Islamic law behind the primary source, the
Quran. Traditionally, Muslims are expected to believe and follow
both sources as Islamic law.
Right then, don't question the Christian holy book,
Feel free to question the Christian Holy Book all you want. Just don't
do what tw did by inventing some twisted and insulting version of the
story of the immcaculate conception.
Post by WH
(notice I didn't spell it xtian which I think is an insult to
Christians),
That's an insult? No, the insult to Christians is what tw did to the
story of the immaculate conception.
Post by WH
but you can certainly question the Quran?
If you ever see me doing to the Quran what tw just did to the New
Testament, be sure to let me know.
Post by WH
Christians too, are expected to believe, without question, the
bible...which is, in case you don't know, Christian law!
No kidding. So what's your beef? That Hadith (which is Islamic law)
says Muhammad married a girl, and consummated the marriage, when she
was nine years old?
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
And I'd like to add one more thing about the virgin Mary and her
immaculate conception: she gave her consent (Luke 1:38), which puts
to rest your ridiculous assertion of "rape." And in Luke 1:42,
Mary's kinswoman Elizabeth exlaims upon greeting Mary, "Blessed are
you among all women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." Did
you notice that Mary is referred to by Elizabeth as a woman? That
should put to rest your assertion that Mary was a child.
So she gave her consent did she? Try telling that to any modern day
court and see if you get away with it.
What are you talking about? It's in the text -- she gave her consent.
And she was HAPPY about it!
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
I know you don't believe any of it, Tom, but if you're going to get
into this type of discussion, at least get the stories straight.
"Straight" eh? What you mean is get it straight like a Christian/Jew
with a spike up his/her arse would get it. Believe the freaky
Christian/Jew way of it or nothing.
No, you're free to believe or disbelieve the story as you wish. But if
you ever decide to invent some twisted version of a biblical story, and
try to argue it as true on several newsgroups, don't be surpsied if I
point you out for the ignorant fool you will have made of yourself.
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
And thanks again to Deborah for posting all the relevant
information
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
for Tom's benefit.
"Benefit". This Deborah is obviously a yankie jew, the ones with spikes
up their arses, and hatred in their hearts. Her hatred has shone
through in every post she made. Surprise douglas, you missed that
didn't you? Pure hatred!
Why, for pointing out the way the actual stories read in their
respective testaments? Why is that hatred?
Post by WH
And she or you can quote all the biblical bollocks you like,
What are you talking about? It is tw who was spewing the bollocks here.
If anyone was spewing hatred, it was tw. Surprise, WH, you missed that
didn't you?
Post by WH
but the hatred shines right through it all.
Come to think of it, I have noticed what seems to be hatred shining
through some of your posts. There is a bitter tone to many of your
posts. So you'll criticize Deborah and me for pointing out the actual
stories, the way they actually read ... but for tw, you'll cut him some
slack for having TWISTED those stories into something that they are
not. Yeah, your tolerance is astounding.
WH
2005-04-22 22:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong. According to the Xian bible, it was with her
knowledge
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
and her consent.
<patient sigh> no, we don't KNOW that for sure.
We KNOW that for sure because that is how the story goes in the
Xian bible, the ONLY source of the story.
<patient sigh> It doesn't tell us whether Gabriel appeared before
or after conception.
What's with this <patient sigh> stuff? I've been reading your posts
in this thread with a patient sigh; but I was about to run out of
patience when I saw that Deborah had set you straight. Deborah also
provided you with verses from Hadith about the nine year old girl,
who was only six years old when she first became betrothed to
Muhammad. And before you go questioning the Hadith, it is the
secondary source of Islamic law behind the primary source, the
Quran. Traditionally, Muslims are expected to believe and follow
both sources as Islamic law.
Right then, don't question the Christian holy book,
Feel free to question the Christian Holy Book all you want. Just don't
do what tw did by inventing some twisted and insulting version of the
story of the immcaculate conception.
Well you tell me then douglas, God created Adam nd Eve...they had two
sons Cain and Abel...Cain through jealousy killed Abel, (if I remember
my Catechism right), and then the human race began. Explain it will
you. Then there was a rainy season for forty days and nights, not at
the same time of course but a bit later, but Noah took two of every
life form on the earth onto his ark and life survived. Do you think
they are real, (true), stories? Then Jesus...at a later date, fed 5000
people I think it was on five loafs, (loaves?) and two fish....do you
think that is real?
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
(notice I didn't spell it xtian which I think is an insult to
Christians),
That's an insult? No, the insult to Christians is what tw did to the
story of the immaculate conception.
No it's not. you have your priorities wrong douglas. Your job, being
the 'Christian' you claim to be is to defend it...Christianity that is.
Or are you Jew? Anyway...if TW is ignorant, which I don't believe for a
minute he is 'cos I've met the guy and actually I know he's not, your
job is to convince him that he's wrong...if you are a real
Christian...that goes for the silly Deborah if she's a Christian too.
Your job is not to jump on other religions and compare them to yours.
Obviously religious people believe that they are right and their God is
the only one. But Christianity teaches tolerance and love. AND...the
most important thing is that the world is full of different beliefs.
You and this Deborah seem to me to be getting a kick out of saying that
Mohammad was a paedofile...there are 1.2 billion people in this world
who don't see him like that. You've used your own understanding of what
it says in the Quran based on your own biased ideas. I could find lots
of bullshit in the Bible...but I won't. I won't hassle you and your
beliefs with my own ideas of the Bible. Isin't that what religion is
all about eh? Tolerance, brotherhood, don't take the piss out of
someone elses religion just because you think your religion is
better...or you yourself are closer to God...hasn't that idea caused
too pain, misery and death during the history of the world?
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
but you can certainly question the Quran?
If you ever see me doing to the Quran what tw just did to the New
Testament, be sure to let me know.
If I'm not mistaken you agreed that Muhammod was a paedofile! What do
you call that?
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
Christians too, are expected to believe, without question, the
bible...which is, in case you don't know, Christian law!
No kidding. So what's your beef? That Hadith (which is Islamic law)
says Muhammad married a girl, and consummated the marriage, when she
was nine years old?
But you're not Muslim so why do you believe that when real Muslims
don't. It's all pie in the sky...just like Jesus feeding 5000 people
with 5 LOAFS,(LOAVES)and two fishes!
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
And I'd like to add one more thing about the virgin Mary and her
immaculate conception: she gave her consent (Luke 1:38), which puts
to rest your ridiculous assertion of "rape." And in Luke 1:42,
Mary's kinswoman Elizabeth exlaims upon greeting Mary, "Blessed are
you among all women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." Did
you notice that Mary is referred to by Elizabeth as a woman? That
should put to rest your assertion that Mary was a child.
So she gave her consent did she? Try telling that to any modern day
court and see if you get away with it.
What are you talking about? It's in the text -- she gave her consent.
And she was HAPPY about it!
Hmmm...so what was it with the Muslim girl that Muhammod according to
you 'raped'. Did she complain or what?
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
I know you don't believe any of it, Tom, but if you're going to get
into this type of discussion, at least get the stories straight.
"Straight" eh? What you mean is get it straight like a
Christian/Jew
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
with a spike up his/her arse would get it. Believe the freaky
Christian/Jew way of it or nothing.
No, you're free to believe or disbelieve the story as you wish. But if
you ever decide to invent some twisted version of a biblical story, and
try to argue it as true on several newsgroups, don't be surpsied if I
point you out for the ignorant fool you will have made of yourself.
You're twisting the fuckin' Quran you prick! (Sick and tired of hearing
things from uptight shortsighted narrow-minded hypocrites)
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
And thanks again to Deborah for posting all the relevant
information
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
for Tom's benefit.
"Benefit". This Deborah is obviously a yankie jew, the ones with
spikes
Post by WH
up their arses, and hatred in their hearts. Her hatred has shone
through in every post she made. Surprise douglas, you missed that
didn't you? Pure hatred!
Why, for pointing out the way the actual stories read in their
respective testaments? Why is that hatred?
You're a stupid cunt now douglas.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
And she or you can quote all the biblical bollocks you like,
What are you talking about? It is tw who was spewing the bollocks here.
If anyone was spewing hatred, it was tw. Surprise, WH, you missed that
didn't you?
No not at all. I find that pricks never understand when the piss is
being taken out of them. I see it as TW has just taken this up for the
same reason as I do against your mate pantyboy on APN. I also find that
you idiots never understand that. You're trying to bullshit Islam and
claim that your own 'God' is the 'right' one. Well let me tell you
something douglas. All religions teach tolerance as far as I know.
Let's see, if there is a hell and a Heaven, where you end up!

Now I have to go...


WH
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-04-23 01:33:15 UTC
Permalink
On 22 Apr 2005 15:45:31 -0700, WH <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

[..]
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
No kidding. So what's your beef? That Hadith (which is Islamic law)
says Muhammad married a girl, and consummated the marriage, when she
was nine years old?
But you're not Muslim so why do you believe that when real Muslims
don't.
To be fair, Muslims believe in mass that Muhammad married a 9 year old
girl, this is rarely disputed on Islam.
This claim is not consistent with others on the hadiths that would put her
as old as 19 years old when she married the Prophet.
What is clear enough is that, one way or another, that marriage has not
been viewed as something wrong at the time, either by Muslims and non
Muslims.
Post by WH
It's all pie in the sky...just like Jesus feeding 5000 people
with 5 LOAFS,(LOAVES)and two fishes!
You are quite correct indeed.
The same source that claims Aysha was 9 years old when she married
Muhammad also claims he had split the moon in two. But non Muslim people
usually choose to believe the first (as it fits their agenda), while
dismissing the last as an outright irracionality.
--
"Humanity has many enemies. The worst of them are ignorance, arrogance,
extremism, and violence" - Abbas Kadhim
Steven Douglas
2005-04-23 07:31:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
Right then, don't question the Christian holy book,
Feel free to question the Christian Holy Book all you want. Just
don't do what tw did by inventing some twisted and insulting
version
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
of the story of the immcaculate conception.
Well you tell me then douglas, God created Adam nd Eve...they had two
sons Cain and Abel...Cain through jealousy killed Abel, (if I
remember
Post by WH
my Catechism right), and then the human race began. Explain it will
you. Then there was a rainy season for forty days and nights, not at
the same time of course but a bit later, but Noah took two of every
life form on the earth onto his ark and life survived. Do you think
they are real, (true), stories? Then Jesus...at a later date, fed 5000
people I think it was on five loafs, (loaves?) and two fish....do you
think that is real?
Why are you questioning my faith? Does it threaten you that I believe
it? At some point in my previous response, I stated that you are free
to believe or disbelieve as you choose. No one is forcing you to
believe anything you choose to disbelieve.
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
(notice I didn't spell it xtian which I think is an insult to
Christians),
That's an insult? No, the insult to Christians is what tw did to the
story of the immaculate conception.
No it's not. you have your priorities wrong douglas. Your job, being
the 'Christian' you claim to be is to defend it...Christianity that is.
Or are you Jew?
No, I am Christian.
Post by WH
Anyway...if TW is ignorant, which I don't believe for a minute he is
'cos I've met the guy and actually I know he's not,
I specifically said he's quite intelligent, except when he starts
discussing the topic of religion.
Post by WH
your job is to convince him that he's wrong...if you are a real
Christian...

In that case, I was doing my job.
Post by WH
that goes for the silly Deborah if she's a Christian too.
Your job is not to jump on other religions and compare them to yours.
The only times that might happen are in response to someone else doing
that in reverse, and then I would enter the debate. I rarely (virtually
never) start a new thread.
Post by WH
Obviously religious people believe that they are right and their God is
the only one. But Christianity teaches tolerance and love. AND...the
most important thing is that the world is full of different beliefs.
You and this Deborah seem to me to be getting a kick out of saying that
Mohammad was a paedofile...there are 1.2 billion people in this world
who don't see him like that. You've used your own understanding of what
it says in the Quran based on your own biased ideas.
I don't think I've ever twisted the Quran in quite the way tw was
twisting the New Testament. But if you can find an example where I
have, please let me know.
Post by WH
I could find lots of bullshit in the Bible...but I won't. I
won't hassle you and your beliefs with my own ideas of the Bible.
Thank you. Please ask tw to follow that advice.
Post by WH
Isin't that what religion is all about eh? Tolerance, brotherhood,
don't take the piss out of someone elses religion just because you
think your religion is better...or you yourself are closer to
God...hasn't that idea caused too pain, misery and death during the
history of the world?
Yes, a lot of bad things happened in history. And even in today's world
with that organized group of terrorists led by Osama bin Laden, who, in
the name of their religion, cause pain, misery and death.
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
but you can certainly question the Quran?
If you ever see me doing to the Quran what tw just did to the New
Testament, be sure to let me know.
If I'm not mistaken you agreed that Muhammod was a paedofile! What do
you call that?
You are mistaken. I agreed that Muhammad married, and consummated the
marriage, to a nine year old girl.
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
Christians too, are expected to believe, without question, the
bible...which is, in case you don't know, Christian law!
No kidding. So what's your beef? That Hadith (which is Islamic law)
says Muhammad married a girl, and consummated the marriage, when she
was nine years old?
But you're not Muslim so why do you believe that when real Muslims
don't.
Actually they do.
Post by WH
It's all pie in the sky...just like Jesus feeding 5000 people
with 5 LOAFS,(LOAVES)and two fishes!
I take it on faith that Jesus performed miracles. You are free to
believe otherwise.
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
So she gave her consent did she? Try telling that to any modern day
court and see if you get away with it.
What are you talking about? It's in the text -- she gave her
consent.
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
And she was HAPPY about it!
Hmmm...so what was it with the Muslim girl that Muhammod according to
you 'raped'. Did she complain or what?
Once again, you are mistaken. I have not used the word "rape" at any
point in this discussion. That was tw's (false) argument.
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
I know you don't believe any of it, Tom, but if you're going to
get into this type of discussion, at least get the stories
straight.
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
"Straight" eh? What you mean is get it straight like
a Christian/Jew with a spike up his/her arse would get it.
Believe the freaky
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
Christian/Jew way of it or nothing.
No, you're free to believe or disbelieve the story as you wish. But
if you ever decide to invent some twisted version of a biblical
story,
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
and try to argue it as true on several newsgroups, don't be
surpsied if I point you out for the ignorant fool you will have
made of yourself.
You're twisting the fuckin' Quran you prick! (Sick and tired of hearing
things from uptight shortsighted narrow-minded hypocrites)
Do you have an example of where I have twisted the Quran?
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
And thanks again to Deborah for posting all the relevant
information for Tom's benefit.
"Benefit". This Deborah is obviously a yankie jew, the ones with
spikes up their arses, and hatred in their hearts. Her hatred has
shone
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
through in every post she made. Surprise douglas, you missed that
didn't you? Pure hatred!
Why, for pointing out the way the actual stories read in their
respective testaments? Why is that hatred?
You're a stupid cunt now douglas.
Here we go, you can't answer the question, so you start getting edgy.
Post by WH
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by WH
And she or you can quote all the biblical bollocks you like,
What are you talking about? It is tw who was spewing the bollocks
here. If anyone was spewing hatred, it was tw. Surprise, WH,
you missed that didn't you?
No not at all. I find that pricks never understand when the piss is
being taken out of them.
That certainly applies to you.
Post by WH
You're trying to bullshit Islam and claim that your own 'God' is
the 'right' one.
I have never made that claim. There is no "right" God. There is God.
Post by WH
Well let me tell you something douglas. All religions teach tolerance
as far as I know.
Some societies are more tolerant of multiple religious views than
others. For instance, societies where Sharia law is practiced are not
tolerant of other religious views. What is your opinion of those
societies?
Post by WH
Let's see, if there is a hell and a Heaven, where you end up!
I am comforted by the thought that you'll have no say in the matter.
Post by WH
Now I have to go...
Bye.
Jane
2005-04-21 15:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong. According to the Xian bible, it was with her knowledge
and
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
her consent.
<patient sigh> no, we don't KNOW that for sure.
We KNOW that for sure because that is how the story goes in the
Xian
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
bible, the ONLY source of the story.
<patient sigh> It doesn't tell us whether Gabriel appeared before or
after
Post by tw
conception.
What's with this <patient sigh> stuff? I've been reading your posts in
this thread with a patient sigh; but I was about to run out of patience
when I saw that Deborah had set you straight. Deborah also provided you
with verses from Hadith about the nine year old girl, who was only six
years old when she first became betrothed to Muhammad. And before you
go questioning the Hadith, it is the secondary source of Islamic law
behind the primary source, the Quran. Traditionally, Muslims are
expected to believe and follow both sources as Islamic law.
And I'd like to add one more thing about the virgin Mary and her
immaculate conception: she gave her consent (Luke 1:38), which puts to
rest your ridiculous assertion of "rape." And in Luke 1:42, Mary's
kinswoman Elizabeth exlaims upon greeting Mary, "Blessed are you among
all women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." Did you notice that
Mary is referred to by Elizabeth as a woman? That should put to rest
your assertion that Mary was a child.
I know you don't believe any of it, Tom, but if you're going to get
into this type of discussion, at least get the stories straight.
And thanks again to Deborah for posting all the relevant information
for Tom's benefit.
You must know tw by now, Steven! Deborah Might as well spit in the wind as
think she can convince him no matter how much evidence she posts!

Catholic priests (at least the ones I know) believe Mary was about 13. A
13-year-old girl is usually sexually mature. I have an early French
Canadian ancestor who married a prominent Montreal farmer at the age 12! We
may find it appalling, but the law in New France at that time (17th century)
was that all girls were to be married by 16 or their fathers were to pay a
tax. This ancestor was obviously menstruating, as she gave birth within a
year. (They were anxious to populate the colony). A nine-year-old like
Ayesha is pre-pubescent and the fact that Mohammed wanted to have sex with
her makes him a pedophile.

Jane.
Deborah Sharavi
2005-04-21 16:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane
<patient sigh>It doesn't tell us whether Gabriel appeared before or
after conception.
What's with this <patient sigh>stuff? I've been reading your posts in
this thread with a patient sigh; but I was about to run out of
patience
Post by Jane
when I saw that Deborah had set you straight. Deborah also provided you
with verses from Hadith about the nine year old girl, who was only six
years old when she first became betrothed to Muhammad. And before you
go questioning the Hadith, it is the secondary source of Islamic law
behind the primary source, the Quran. Traditionally, Muslims are
expected to believe and follow both sources as Islamic law.
And I'd like to add one more thing about the virgin Mary and her
immaculate conception: she gave her consent (Luke 1:38), which puts to
rest your ridiculous assertion of "rape." And in Luke 1:42, Mary's
kinswoman Elizabeth exlaims upon greeting Mary, "Blessed are you among
all women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." Did you notice that
Mary is referred to by Elizabeth as a woman? That should put to rest
your assertion that Mary was a child.
I know you don't believe any of it, Tom, but if you're going to get
into this type of discussion, at least get the stories straight.
And thanks again to Deborah for posting all the relevant information
for Tom's benefit.
Very welcome. It's nice to have backing in an area I really don't
consider myself as familiar as I do in other areas.
Post by Jane
You must know tw by now, Steven! Deborah Might as well spit in the wind as
think she can convince him no matter how much evidence she posts!
Catholic priests (at least the ones I know) believe Mary was about 13.
A
Post by Jane
13-year-old girl is usually sexually mature.
Possibly that view stems from the later medieval period, when girls
were given in marriage at earlier ages than in times past.
"Marriage" here implies consummation of same. Note that in ancient
times, the age of betrothal and/or marriage was irrelevant; the
appropriate age of consummation was considered to be in a range from 15
to 18, with 20 years being the Spartan view. There were no laws
governing it, just the general mores of the time and place; fex, Plato
and his supporters heartily approved the high end age of the Spartans
and disapproved the age of 15 as being too young, for purposes of
healthy offspring.
Post by Jane
I have an early French
Canadian ancestor who married a prominent Montreal farmer at the age 12! We
may find it appalling, but the law in New France at that time (17th century)
was that all girls were to be married by 16 or their fathers were to pay a
tax. This ancestor was obviously menstruating, as she gave birth within a
year. (They were anxious to populate the colony).
Yeow! Definitely, something Plato would not have approved.
Post by Jane
A nine-year-old like
Ayesha is pre-pubescent and the fact that Mohammed wanted to have sex with
her makes him a pedophile.
Jane.
Thanks for the insight. One small correction, however. Muhammad
didn't WANT to have sex with her when she was nine; he HAD sex with
her when she was nine. His follower Umar did him one better with the
five year old wife.

Deborah
Jane
2005-04-22 00:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
<patient sigh>It doesn't tell us whether Gabriel appeared before or
after conception.
What's with this <patient sigh>stuff? I've been reading your posts in
this thread with a patient sigh; but I was about to run out of
patience
Post by Jane
when I saw that Deborah had set you straight. Deborah also provided
you
Post by Jane
with verses from Hadith about the nine year old girl, who was only
six
Post by Jane
years old when she first became betrothed to Muhammad. And before you
go questioning the Hadith, it is the secondary source of Islamic law
behind the primary source, the Quran. Traditionally, Muslims are
expected to believe and follow both sources as Islamic law.
And I'd like to add one more thing about the virgin Mary and her
immaculate conception: she gave her consent (Luke 1:38), which puts
to
Post by Jane
rest your ridiculous assertion of "rape." And in Luke 1:42, Mary's
kinswoman Elizabeth exlaims upon greeting Mary, "Blessed are you
among
Post by Jane
all women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." Did you notice
that
Post by Jane
Mary is referred to by Elizabeth as a woman? That should put to rest
your assertion that Mary was a child.
I know you don't believe any of it, Tom, but if you're going to get
into this type of discussion, at least get the stories straight.
And thanks again to Deborah for posting all the relevant information
for Tom's benefit.
Very welcome. It's nice to have backing in an area I really don't
consider myself as familiar as I do in other areas.
Post by Jane
You must know tw by now, Steven! Deborah Might as well spit in the
wind as
Post by Jane
think she can convince him no matter how much evidence she posts!
Catholic priests (at least the ones I know) believe Mary was about 13.
A
Post by Jane
13-year-old girl is usually sexually mature.
Possibly that view stems from the later medieval period, when girls
were given in marriage at earlier ages than in times past.
"Marriage" here implies consummation of same. Note that in ancient
times, the age of betrothal and/or marriage was irrelevant; the
appropriate age of consummation was considered to be in a range from 15
to 18, with 20 years being the Spartan view. There were no laws
governing it, just the general mores of the time and place; fex, Plato
and his supporters heartily approved the high end age of the Spartans
and disapproved the age of 15 as being too young, for purposes of
healthy offspring.
Post by Jane
I have an early French
Canadian ancestor who married a prominent Montreal farmer at the age
12! We
Post by Jane
may find it appalling, but the law in New France at that time (17th
century)
Post by Jane
was that all girls were to be married by 16 or their fathers were to
pay a
Post by Jane
tax. This ancestor was obviously menstruating, as she gave birth
within a
Post by Jane
year. (They were anxious to populate the colony).
Yeow! Definitely, something Plato would not have approved.
Post by Jane
A nine-year-old like
Ayesha is pre-pubescent and the fact that Mohammed wanted to have sex
with
Post by Jane
her makes him a pedophile.
Jane.
Thanks for the insight. One small correction, however. Muhammad
didn't WANT to have sex with her when she was nine; he HAD sex with
her when she was nine. His follower Umar did him one better with the
five year old wife.
Deborah
Good point.

Jane
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-04-22 05:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Thanks for the insight. One small correction, however. Muhammad
didn't WANT to have sex with her when she was nine; he HAD sex with
her when she was nine. His follower Umar did him one better with the
five year old wife.
Deborah
Good point.
Jane
Your "good point" is just more evidence that it rather was common practice
at the time to contract marriages at a very early age, and consumate them
at some point in the future, thus turning moth the alleged "imorality" of
such an act.

You people seem to believe that the world started with your birth. Well,
breaking news, it hadn't. Things were not always the way they are now,
including morality.

Roughly about 100 years ago my great great grand father contracted the
marriage between his daughter, my great grand mother, who was about 4 at
the time, and his future husband, who was about 11 or 12.
This was common practice at the time and especially on their social
stratum.
And this was not Arabia 570, this was Europe 1904.
The bride was presented to the groom when she was 12, and they married 1
year later with my geat grand mother pregnant of 7 months (grantedly this
wasn't common practice, as the priest lied about her age on the marriage
record, stating that she was 16 :P)

Marrying young girls (about 14) was so common here in Portugal that only
very recently, on the mid 90's, the age of consent was pushed up to 16.
And the only reason for this change was the sound complaints made by the
gay associations, as it was 14 for the girls and 16 for the boys, which
according to those associations was unfair. Otherwise getting laid with a
14 old would still be perfectly legal (it still is, on practice).

So what was usually accepted as "moral" 10 years ago is becoming "immoral"
now. And this on just a decade.
How can you pretend to know what was or wasn't moral hundreds of years ago
using as a measure your current morality standarts?
--
"Humanity has many enemies. The worst of them are ignorance, arrogance,
extremism, and violence" - Abbas Kadhim
Jane
2005-04-22 13:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Post by Jane
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Thanks for the insight. One small correction, however. Muhammad
didn't WANT to have sex with her when she was nine; he HAD sex with
her when she was nine. His follower Umar did him one better with the
five year old wife.
Deborah
Good point.
Jane
Your "good point" is just more evidence that it rather was common practice
at the time to contract marriages at a very early age, and consumate them
at some point in the future, thus turning moth the alleged "imorality" of
such an act.
You people seem to believe that the world started with your birth. Well,
breaking news, it hadn't. Things were not always the way they are now,
including morality.
Roughly about 100 years ago my great great grand father contracted the
marriage between his daughter, my great grand mother, who was about 4 at
the time, and his future husband, who was about 11 or 12.
This was common practice at the time and especially on their social
stratum.
And this was not Arabia 570, this was Europe 1904.
The bride was presented to the groom when she was 12, and they married 1
year later with my geat grand mother pregnant of 7 months (grantedly this
wasn't common practice, as the priest lied about her age on the marriage
record, stating that she was 16 :P)
I already posted about an ancestor of mine in 17th century Quebec who was
married at 12 and gave birth within a year. (Apparently it was not a
scandal in Quebec, as they did not falsify the records...and the man was
fairly prominent in Montreal; he has a downtown street named after him to
this day) I am also aware of the practice of arranging marriages between
young children and then marrying them at maturity. However, consummating a
marriage when the girl is nine is a different story.

Jane
Post by Paulo Gomes Jardim
Marrying young girls (about 14) was so common here in Portugal that only
very recently, on the mid 90's, the age of consent was pushed up to 16.
And the only reason for this change was the sound complaints made by the
gay associations, as it was 14 for the girls and 16 for the boys, which
according to those associations was unfair. Otherwise getting laid with a
14 old would still be perfectly legal (it still is, on practice).
So what was usually accepted as "moral" 10 years ago is becoming "immoral"
now. And this on just a decade.
How can you pretend to know what was or wasn't moral hundreds of years ago
using as a measure your current morality standarts?
--
"Humanity has many enemies. The worst of them are ignorance, arrogance,
extremism, and violence" - Abbas Kadhim
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-04-23 01:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane
However, consummating a
marriage when the girl is nine is a different story.
At least as we understand it now on our current vision of morality.

It shall be mentioned that Aysha age is nothing near consensual on the
hadiths.
If it is indeed true that such an act was immoral at the time, and on the
absense of any contemporary condemnation either from Muslim and non Muslim
sources, one should select the more credible versions, that is, the
versions that give a socially acceptable age to Aysha at the time she
married Muhhamad - that would be 17-19 years old.
--
"Humanity has many enemies. The worst of them are ignorance, arrogance,
extremism, and violence" - Abbas Kadhim
Jane
2005-04-22 00:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
<patient sigh>It doesn't tell us whether Gabriel appeared before or
after conception.
What's with this <patient sigh>stuff? I've been reading your posts in
this thread with a patient sigh; but I was about to run out of
patience
Post by Jane
when I saw that Deborah had set you straight. Deborah also provided
you
Post by Jane
with verses from Hadith about the nine year old girl, who was only
six
Post by Jane
years old when she first became betrothed to Muhammad. And before you
go questioning the Hadith, it is the secondary source of Islamic law
behind the primary source, the Quran. Traditionally, Muslims are
expected to believe and follow both sources as Islamic law.
And I'd like to add one more thing about the virgin Mary and her
immaculate conception: she gave her consent (Luke 1:38), which puts
to
Post by Jane
rest your ridiculous assertion of "rape." And in Luke 1:42, Mary's
kinswoman Elizabeth exlaims upon greeting Mary, "Blessed are you
among
Post by Jane
all women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." Did you notice
that
Post by Jane
Mary is referred to by Elizabeth as a woman? That should put to rest
your assertion that Mary was a child.
I know you don't believe any of it, Tom, but if you're going to get
into this type of discussion, at least get the stories straight.
And thanks again to Deborah for posting all the relevant information
for Tom's benefit.
Very welcome. It's nice to have backing in an area I really don't
consider myself as familiar as I do in other areas.
Post by Jane
You must know tw by now, Steven! Deborah Might as well spit in the
wind as
Post by Jane
think she can convince him no matter how much evidence she posts!
Catholic priests (at least the ones I know) believe Mary was about 13.
A
Post by Jane
13-year-old girl is usually sexually mature.
Possibly that view stems from the later medieval period, when girls
were given in marriage at earlier ages than in times past.
"Marriage" here implies consummation of same. Note that in ancient
times, the age of betrothal and/or marriage was irrelevant; the
appropriate age of consummation was considered to be in a range from 15
to 18, with 20 years being the Spartan view. There were no laws
governing it, just the general mores of the time and place; fex, Plato
and his supporters heartily approved the high end age of the Spartans
and disapproved the age of 15 as being too young, for purposes of
healthy offspring.
Post by Jane
I have an early French
Canadian ancestor who married a prominent Montreal farmer at the age
12! We
Post by Jane
may find it appalling, but the law in New France at that time (17th
century)
Post by Jane
was that all girls were to be married by 16 or their fathers were to
pay a
Post by Jane
tax. This ancestor was obviously menstruating, as she gave birth
within a
Post by Jane
year. (They were anxious to populate the colony).
Yeow! Definitely, something Plato would not have approved.
I meant to add that this same ancestor went on to have many children who
lived, but the first two or three (would have to check my records to be
sure) were stillborn (evident in the parish records as stillbirths were
baptized without a name...literally "anonymous"...a child who lived even a
short time was given a name). This gives some credence to Plato's view.

Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
A nine-year-old like
Ayesha is pre-pubescent and the fact that Mohammed wanted to have sex
with
Post by Jane
her makes him a pedophile.
Jane.
Thanks for the insight. One small correction, however. Muhammad
didn't WANT to have sex with her when she was nine; he HAD sex with
her when she was nine. His follower Umar did him one better with the
five year old wife.
Deborah
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-04-23 00:52:27 UTC
Permalink
On 21 Apr 2005 09:48:58 -0700, Deborah Sharavi <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

[..]
Post by Deborah Sharavi
His follower Umar did him one better with the
five year old wife.
And the "five year old" reportedly said:

"I have heard that you [Aysha] want to marry me to Umar. He will give me a
tough life; I am in need of a young man, who loves this world. If you
marry me to Umar then I shall complain before Rasulullah."

Exactly the answer you would be expecting from such a child. :)
--
"Humanity has many enemies. The worst of them are ignorance, arrogance,
extremism, and violence" - Abbas Kadhim
Paulo Gomes Jardim
2005-04-22 04:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane
A nine-year-old like
Ayesha is pre-pubescent and the fact that Mohammed wanted to have sex with
her makes him a pedophile.
You assume Aysha was prebubescent, yet you don't have the least ideia if
she really was.
Cases of 10 yo girls menstruating are not that rare, and I know about a 6
y.o living on a disgraceful neighbourhood near here who got pregnant
(don't know if the baby lived, though).

Today it may seem weird that Mohammed would dare to have sex with a 9 year
old, regardless of she being menstruating or not, but we must have present
that morality DO change with the time.
Less than 300 years ago it was a perfectly nice to the accepted morality
of the much civilized, much enlightened Europe to sell people on the
markets as if they were cattle.

Who are you, Jane, Deborah and all others to call Mohammed a paedophile?
--
"Humanity has many enemies. The worst of them are ignorance, arrogance,
extremism, and violence" - Abbas Kadhim
Steven Douglas
2005-04-22 04:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong. According to the Xian bible, it was with her
knowledge
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
and
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
her consent.
<patient sigh> no, we don't KNOW that for sure.
We KNOW that for sure because that is how the story goes in the
Xian
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
bible, the ONLY source of the story.
<patient sigh> It doesn't tell us whether Gabriel appeared before or
after
Post by tw
conception.
What's with this <patient sigh> stuff? I've been reading your posts in
this thread with a patient sigh; but I was about to run out of patience
when I saw that Deborah had set you straight. Deborah also provided you
with verses from Hadith about the nine year old girl, who was only six
years old when she first became betrothed to Muhammad. And before you
go questioning the Hadith, it is the secondary source of Islamic law
behind the primary source, the Quran. Traditionally, Muslims are
expected to believe and follow both sources as Islamic law.
And I'd like to add one more thing about the virgin Mary and her
immaculate conception: she gave her consent (Luke 1:38), which puts to
rest your ridiculous assertion of "rape." And in Luke 1:42, Mary's
kinswoman Elizabeth exlaims upon greeting Mary, "Blessed are you among
all women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." Did you notice that
Mary is referred to by Elizabeth as a woman? That should put to rest
your assertion that Mary was a child.
I know you don't believe any of it, Tom, but if you're going to get
into this type of discussion, at least get the stories straight.
And thanks again to Deborah for posting all the relevant
information
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
for Tom's benefit.
You must know tw by now, Steven!
Yes I do, but some readers of these other groups might not know him --
though they do know a bit about him now, and some of them must be
thinking he's an ignorant boob. He's not, he's actually quite
intelligent on most topics. But when it comes to religious topics, his
sense of reason seems to abandon him.
Jane
2005-04-22 13:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Wrong. According to the Xian bible, it was with her
knowledge
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
and
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
Post by Tom
Post by d***@hotmail.com
her consent.
<patient sigh> no, we don't KNOW that for sure.
We KNOW that for sure because that is how the story goes in the
Xian
Post by tw
Post by Deborah Sharavi
bible, the ONLY source of the story.
<patient sigh> It doesn't tell us whether Gabriel appeared before
or
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
after
Post by tw
conception.
What's with this <patient sigh> stuff? I've been reading your posts
in
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
this thread with a patient sigh; but I was about to run out of
patience
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
when I saw that Deborah had set you straight. Deborah also provided
you
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
with verses from Hadith about the nine year old girl, who was only
six
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
years old when she first became betrothed to Muhammad. And before
you
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
go questioning the Hadith, it is the secondary source of Islamic
law
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
behind the primary source, the Quran. Traditionally, Muslims are
expected to believe and follow both sources as Islamic law.
And I'd like to add one more thing about the virgin Mary and her
immaculate conception: she gave her consent (Luke 1:38), which puts
to
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
rest your ridiculous assertion of "rape." And in Luke 1:42, Mary's
kinswoman Elizabeth exlaims upon greeting Mary, "Blessed are you
among
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
all women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." Did you notice
that
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
Mary is referred to by Elizabeth as a woman? That should put to
rest
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
your assertion that Mary was a child.
I know you don't believe any of it, Tom, but if you're going to get
into this type of discussion, at least get the stories straight.
And thanks again to Deborah for posting all the relevant
information
Post by Jane
Post by Steven Douglas
for Tom's benefit.
You must know tw by now, Steven!
Yes I do, but some readers of these other groups might not know him --
though they do know a bit about him now, and some of them must be
thinking he's an ignorant boob. He's not, he's actually quite
intelligent on most topics. But when it comes to religious topics, his
sense of reason seems to abandon him.
That is true; he is quite intelligent and well-educated. However, he is as
stubborn as a bull when it comes to debate...I have yet to see him back down
from a viewpoint, no matter how much evidence to the contrary he is shown.

Having said that, he's a likable guy :)!

Jane
z
2005-04-21 17:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by tw
Well, marriable age in those parts at those times was around 12 or
so....
Any source for this or is it just a guess based on age at puberty?
The only thing I can remember is a Talmudic Mishnah
written about 200 years later,stating that 18
is the age (for men) to marry
(Ethics of the Fathers 5:21).
I would imagine he would prefer a girl
somewhat older than 12, wouldn't you?
Zev
Of course, you were luck to survive to age 30.
zev
2005-04-21 21:05:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by z
Post by tw
Well, marriable age in those parts at those times was around 12 or
so....
Any source for this or is it just a guess based on age at puberty?
The only thing I can remember is a Talmudic Mishnah
written about 200 years later,stating that 18
is the age (for men) to marry
(Ethics of the Fathers 5:21).
I would imagine he would prefer a girl
somewhat older than 12, wouldn't you?
Zev
Of course, you were luck to survive to age 30.
That's just a myth.
Take a look at age at death of Romans
and others in ancient times.
Deborah Sharavi
2005-04-12 17:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by tw
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Yadda yadda yadda. Others long before Muhammad the pedophile
Seeing as the christian god, if they are to be believed, raped an unwitting
virgin (Mary) who was well under the age of consent in any civilised
country, do you REALLY want to go down that line of insult?
Why not?

One, the "Xian god", whatever that may be, did not "rape" any
virgin, unwitting or otherwise. According to Xian dogma, the
"unwitting virgin (Mary)" conceived not by any corporeal deity, but
by spirit, and, prior to conception, assented to it, as follows:

Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his
mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together,
she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. Her husband
Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public
disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. But just when he had resolved
to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said,
"Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for
the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."
- Matthew 1.18-20

The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found
favor with God. And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son,
and you will name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the
Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of
his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and
of his kingdom there will be no end." Mary said to the angel, "How can
this be, since I am a virgin?" The angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit
will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;
therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of
God. And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived
a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren.
For nothing will be impossible with God." Then Mary said, "Here am I,
the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word."
Then the angel departed from her.
- Luke 1.30-38

Two, the statement that Mary "was well under the age of consent in
any civilized country" is anachronistic, has no basis in fact, unless
you can establish: a) her age at the time of her spiritual conception,
and b) the "age of consent" in that time and place; and c) what is
meant by "civilized country.

Quite different from a man marrying a girl of six, then consummating
the marriage when she is nine and he is 54.
Post by tw
Post by d***@hotmail.com
proclaimed the imminent end of Jews. They're no longer around. Jews are.
Which I for one am glad about - I'd hate to see any race wiped out due to
what imaginary sky-pixie they choose to warble to. Ignorance and
superstition are far too amusing to be punished by death.
Ignorance and superstition often lead to death, irregardless of any
"punishment".
Post by tw
Post by d***@hotmail.com
Your Quran is a waterered down version of the Jewish bible, made simple
for illiterate idiots.
...so is the jewish bible a watered down version of the christian one
because
Post by tw
it doesn't have a new testament?
You have it bassackward.
Post by tw
Koran, talmud, bible - same shit, different buckets.
Actually not, as you would realize had you bothered to open a bible, a
quran, and the Talmud, and compare.
Post by tw
It's as simple as that.
Only to the simple-minded and ignorant, like yourself.
Post by tw
Oh, and illiterate people aren't
necessarily idiots, bigot.
They aren't exactly giant brains from CalTech either.

Deborah
Dani
2005-04-13 02:10:30 UTC
Permalink
On 10 Apr 2005 21:57:32 -0700, "Daylight" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:

<buh-bye>
Allah however does hate the jews and their history proves it.
Wait a second here - what kind of God is Allah if he *hates*?

I think you would find that normal, everyday Muslims (as opposed to
the extremists) would disagree whole-heartedly with you there.

Being raised Catholic, I simply can't fathom a hateful God.

Dani
Wally Lorne™
2005-04-13 02:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Hi Dani ;-)

Luv having U here !!!!

Welcome to my humble abode -- APN !!!

HOOROO ;-)

UNCLE WALLY (da Hooroo Guru ;-)

======================
Dani
2005-04-13 02:48:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally Lorne™
Hi Dani ;-)
Luv having U here !!!!
Hey Unc.. I Luv that you Luv that I'm here!
And I Luv that you Luv being here..
Post by Wally Lorne™
Welcome to my humble abode -- APN !!!
Addicting, isn't it? APN? I can't believe it's coming up on 4
years that I've been a regular on this group. First newsgroup
I've ever posted to. Oh and I'm also faithful - I only post here.

Well, gotta go nah-night now.. so a *big* HOOROO to you too! .. :)

Neice Dani
Post by Wally Lorne™
HOOROO ;-)
UNCLE WALLY (da Hooroo Guru ;-)
======================
œŸ©ª±Ç¶·¸¹ (Da Hooroo Guru ;-)™
2005-04-13 02:56:31 UTC
Permalink
Ciao Bella !!!!!!

(That's Eye-Talian for "Hooroo" ;-)

=========================
Hans D. Magnusson
2005-04-15 22:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dani
<buh-bye>
Allah however does hate the jews and their history proves it.
Wait a second here - what kind of God is Allah if he *hates*?
I think you would find that normal, everyday Muslims (as opposed to
the extremists) would disagree whole-heartedly with you there.
You are dreaming... I've had pupils (early teenagers) from Kosovo and
Iran who just hated jews. Had they ever met one? My local "kebab-chef"
from Iran also hates jews, even if he has given up his faith; he admits
that he is a victim of tradition and culture.
Post by Dani
Being raised Catholic, I simply can't fathom a hateful God.
Dani
MonsieurStat
2005-04-16 01:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans D. Magnusson
Post by Dani
<buh-bye>
Allah however does hate the jews and their history proves it.
Wait a second here - what kind of God is Allah if he *hates*?
I think you would find that normal, everyday Muslims (as opposed to
the extremists) would disagree whole-heartedly with you there.
You are dreaming... I've had pupils (early teenagers) from Kosovo and
Iran who just hated jews. Had they ever met one? My local "kebab-chef"
from Iran also hates jews, even if he has given up his faith; he admits
that he is a victim of tradition and culture.
They don't hate jews. They might hate Zionists because of their
viciousness. Most decent human beings, including the vast majority of
jews, also feel this way.

Read and learn:

---------------

Iranian Jews oppose Israel

Jews resent Zionist behavior toward Al-Aqsa Mosque: Iranian Jewish MP

Traditional Jews appalled by Connection to Israel

Jewish scholars say, "Anti-Zionism is unrelated to Anti-Semitism."

Jews resent Zionist behavior toward Al-Aqsa Mosque: Iranian Jewish MP


TEHRAN - MP Moris Motemed, who represents the Iranian Jewish community
in the parliament, condemned on Wednesday the behavior of a number of
extremist Zionists who plan to attack the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

"Such behavior is resented by the Jews," Motamed told the open session
of the parliament.

However, the MP expressed regret over the airing of the IRIB TV serials
about Jews, saying such serials spur emigration.

"Insulting Jews and attributing false things to them in TV serials ...
has not only hurt the feelings of the Jewish community but has also, it
can be said with conviction, led to the emigration of a considerable
percentage of the Jewish community," he added.

Motamed said serials such as "Plot" and "The Great Escape" had
misrepresented the Jews and their customs. He criticized the TV for not
introducing Jewish scientists to the nation.

"I noticed the same thing when these serials were broadcast and I think
you are right," Majlis speaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel said.

Referring to the historic message of late Imam Khomeini prior to the
victory of the Islamic Revolution who had said the case of the Jewish
community is different from those of the Zionists, the Jewish MP said
Ayatollah Khamenei said in his message that those Jews who live in Iran
are members of the Iranian nation and Islam treats them as other groups
of the people.

Motamed said the Jews have a 2,700 year-old history in Iran and the
existence of Jewish synagogues in different parts of Iran including
Hamadan, Toiserkan, Shush, Saveh, and Qazvin are a proof of this fact.

He stated that the Jewish community was among the first groups who
positively contributed to the victory of the Islamic Revolution by
participating in demonstrations and performing their national duty.

The only Jewish hospital in the southernmost part of Tehran had always
been giving free services to those injured in the Iraqi imposed war
against Iran, the MP noted.
Post by Hans D. Magnusson
Post by Dani
Being raised Catholic, I simply can't fathom a hateful God.
Dani
Hans D. Magnusson
2005-04-16 13:47:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by MonsieurStat
Post by Hans D. Magnusson
Post by Dani
<buh-bye>
Allah however does hate the jews and their history proves it.
Wait a second here - what kind of God is Allah if he *hates*?
I think you would find that normal, everyday Muslims (as opposed to
the extremists) would disagree whole-heartedly with you there.
You are dreaming... I've had pupils (early teenagers) from Kosovo and
Iran who just hated jews. Had they ever met one? My local "kebab-chef"
from Iran also hates jews, even if he has given up his faith; he
admits that he is a victim of tradition and culture.
They don't hate jews. They might hate Zionists because of their
viciousness. Most decent human beings, including the vast majority of
jews, also feel this way.
Aha? You've met those people I'm talking about? Muslims hate Israel and
the jews. Most people know that.
Post by MonsieurStat
---------------
Iranian Jews oppose Israel
Jews resent Zionist behavior toward Al-Aqsa Mosque: Iranian Jewish MP
Traditional Jews appalled by Connection to Israel
Jewish scholars say, "Anti-Zionism is unrelated to Anti-Semitism."
Jews resent Zionist behavior toward Al-Aqsa Mosque: Iranian Jewish MP
TEHRAN - MP Moris Motemed, who represents the Iranian Jewish community
in the parliament, condemned on Wednesday the behavior of a number of
extremist Zionists who plan to attack the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
"Such behavior is resented by the Jews," Motamed told the open session
of the parliament.
However, the MP expressed regret over the airing of the IRIB TV serials
about Jews, saying such serials spur emigration.
"Insulting Jews and attributing false things to them in TV serials ...
has not only hurt the feelings of the Jewish community but has also, it
can be said with conviction, led to the emigration of a considerable
percentage of the Jewish community," he added.
Motamed said serials such as "Plot" and "The Great Escape" had
misrepresented the Jews and their customs. He criticized the TV for not
introducing Jewish scientists to the nation.
"I noticed the same thing when these serials were broadcast and I think
you are right," Majlis speaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel said.
Referring to the historic message of late Imam Khomeini prior to the
victory of the Islamic Revolution who had said the case of the Jewish
community is different from those of the Zionists, the Jewish MP said
Ayatollah Khamenei said in his message that those Jews who live in Iran
are members of the Iranian nation and Islam treats them as other groups
of the people.
Motamed said the Jews have a 2,700 year-old history in Iran and the
existence of Jewish synagogues in different parts of Iran including
Hamadan, Toiserkan, Shush, Saveh, and Qazvin are a proof of this fact.
He stated that the Jewish community was among the first groups who
positively contributed to the victory of the Islamic Revolution by
participating in demonstrations and performing their national duty.
The only Jewish hospital in the southernmost part of Tehran had always
been giving free services to those injured in the Iraqi imposed war
against Iran, the MP noted.
Post by Hans D. Magnusson
Post by Dani
Being raised Catholic, I simply can't fathom a hateful God.
Dani
MonsieurStat
2005-04-19 00:47:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans D. Magnusson
Post by MonsieurStat
Post by Hans D. Magnusson
Post by Dani
<buh-bye>
Allah however does hate the jews and their history proves it.
Wait a second here - what kind of God is Allah if he *hates*?
I think you would find that normal, everyday Muslims (as opposed to
the extremists) would disagree whole-heartedly with you there.
You are dreaming... I've had pupils (early teenagers) from Kosovo and
Iran who just hated jews. Had they ever met one? My local "kebab-chef"
from Iran also hates jews, even if he has given up his faith; he admits
that he is a victim of tradition and culture.
They don't hate jews. They might hate Zionists because of their
viciousness. Most decent human beings, including the vast majority of
jews, also feel this way.
Aha? You've met those people I'm talking about? Muslims hate Israel and
the jews. Most people know that.
I don't have to know the people. If they are Iranian expatriates, there is
almost zero chance that they hate Jews. The only people who have prejudice
against non Muslims in Iran are Muslim fundamentalists. The vast majority of
those have never set a foot outside of Iran. You just don't know what you
are talking about.
Stat.
Post by Hans D. Magnusson
Post by MonsieurStat
---------------
Iranian Jews oppose Israel
Jews resent Zionist behavior toward Al-Aqsa Mosque: Iranian Jewish MP
Traditional Jews appalled by Connection to Israel
Jewish scholars say, "Anti-Zionism is unrelated to Anti-Semitism."
Jews resent Zionist behavior toward Al-Aqsa Mosque: Iranian Jewish MP
TEHRAN - MP Moris Motemed, who represents the Iranian Jewish community in
the parliament, condemned on Wednesday the behavior of a number of
extremist Zionists who plan to attack the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
"Such behavior is resented by the Jews," Motamed told the open session of
the parliament.
However, the MP expressed regret over the airing of the IRIB TV serials
about Jews, saying such serials spur emigration.
"Insulting Jews and attributing false things to them in TV serials ...
has not only hurt the feelings of the Jewish community but has also, it
can be said with conviction, led to the emigration of a considerable
percentage of the Jewish community," he added.
Motamed said serials such as "Plot" and "The Great Escape" had
misrepresented the Jews and their customs. He criticized the TV for not
introducing Jewish scientists to the nation.
"I noticed the same thing when these serials were broadcast and I think
you are right," Majlis speaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel said.
Referring to the historic message of late Imam Khomeini prior to the
victory of the Islamic Revolution who had said the case of the Jewish
community is different from those of the Zionists, the Jewish MP said
Ayatollah Khamenei said in his message that those Jews who live in Iran
are members of the Iranian nation and Islam treats them as other groups
of the people.
Motamed said the Jews have a 2,700 year-old history in Iran and the
existence of Jewish synagogues in different parts of Iran including
Hamadan, Toiserkan, Shush, Saveh, and Qazvin are a proof of this fact.
He stated that the Jewish community was among the first groups who
positively contributed to the victory of the Islamic Revolution by
participating in demonstrations and performing their national duty.
The only Jewish hospital in the southernmost part of Tehran had always
been giving free services to those injured in the Iraqi imposed war
against Iran, the MP noted.
Post by Hans D. Magnusson
Post by Dani
Being raised Catholic, I simply can't fathom a hateful God.
Dani
WH
2005-04-20 11:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans D. Magnusson
Post by MonsieurStat
They don't hate jews. They might hate Zionists because of their
viciousness. Most decent human beings, including the vast majority of
jews, also feel this way.
Aha? You've met those people I'm talking about? Muslims hate Israel and
the jews. Most people know that.
Thr only people who "know" that magnusson are simple ones. Simple
people who haven't the intelligence to understand. Examples are
yourself, pantyboy and Jane. Must be fantastic to be so blissfully
ignorant.

WH
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...